Peace in the middle east would still be elusive, we agree on that. Israel may want to exist in peace but they certainly aren't going about it the right way: there is no military, strategic or financial benefit from creating and growing illegal settlements in the West Bank, part of the Palestine nation-in-waiting. They are imposing their will on Palestinians in this regard. The partition wall is another prime example: unnecessarily cutting into and annexing more Palestinian land, often cutting farms in half just out of spite. Your argument holds for the Syrian Golan Heights because Israel would argue that that is strategically necessary for defence reasons. Holding the Lebanese Shebaa Farms area illegally seems coutner-productive though as it seems to be of little defensive benefit and stoked the flames of the most recent Israeli-Lebanese spat. The Israelis could certainly remove a lot of the barriers that they themselves have placed in the way of their peaceful co-existence with others (that's not to say that the arabs have plenty of barriers up themselves) and a lot of the excuses used by anti-Israel militias.lowing wrote:
Ok so even if the extreme were to happen, the elimination of the Israeli state. Peace in the ME would still be elusive. So it seems pretty ridiculous to say Israel is the aggressors and the source for conflict in that region. Which is heard a lot in this forum. My humble opinion is, Israel simply wants to exist in peace, they have no desire to impose their will on any other nation. They are only guilty of not taking any shit from any other nation.
PS Kudos on a relatively civil discourse.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-11-11 10:49:19)