IvP (split from Arafat thread)

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-11 04:07pm

BS, show something other than Palestinian propeganda that paints Arafat in any sort of positive light.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 04:14pm

The worst thing about Arafat was his embezzlement of funds from the Palestinian people, assuming that charge is true. However, his rejection of the Oslo Accords was simply him reflecting the will of his people. If he accepted those terms he would have lost his capacity to govern and then shortly afterwards, his life.

The terms were not reasonable, and have been spin-doctored beyond belief. Palestine was asked to give up 5% more of its land after all that they've already lost, and this was spin-doctored into "Palestine was offered 95% of its demands". Palestine would not have control over its own water supply, would not be allowed to have an independent military, would not be allowed exclusive control over its own airspace, would not be able to disallow Israeli forces moving into their territory if they felt it was necessary, and would not have control over its own border security, and this was spin-doctored into "sovereignty". And the "Right of Return" was simply a brick-wall negotiating point, not even permitted on the table at all. I'm not joking at all when I say that Arafat probably would have been killed by his own people if he agreed to those terms.

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-11 04:19pm

Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Arafat was his embezzlement of funds from the Palestinian people, assuming that charge is true. However, his rejection of the Oslo Accords was simply him reflecting the will of his people. If he accepted those terms he would have lost his capacity to govern and then shortly afterwards, his life.

More so than the ordered systematic terrorism of the Israli civilian population?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 04:44pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Arafat was his embezzlement of funds from the Palestinian people, assuming that charge is true. However, his rejection of the Oslo Accords was simply him reflecting the will of his people. If he accepted those terms he would have lost his capacity to govern and then shortly afterwards, his life.
More so than the ordered systematic terrorism of the Israli civilian population?

If you honestly think the Palestinians would just shut up and happily take their treatment in the Occupied Territories if not for Evil Arafat, you live in a fantasy world.

Pop quiz: you're in a land which is slowly being eaten away by a local overlord which keeps putting settlements into your territory, bulldozing your homes, evicting your citizens for their growing "living space", and driving you into an ever-shrinking piece of land. You have no military, and cannot face their overwhelming military superiority on anything resembling equal terms. You have tried going to the UN, but have been blocked every time by the US. You have tried appealing to the international community, without succcess. You have tried the negotiating table, but you have nothing to negotiate with, and the other party knows it. You have tried getting other nations in the region to help, but they are unwilling or unable. What do you do?

The Cleric · Post by **The Cleric** » 2004-11-11 04:48pm

Darth Wong wrote:
StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:The worst thing about Arafat was his embezzlement of funds from the Palestinian people, assuming that charge is true. However, his rejection of the Oslo Accords was simply him reflecting the will of his people. If he accepted those terms he would have lost his capacity to govern and then shortly afterwards, his life.
More so than the ordered systematic terrorism of the Israli civilian population?
If you honestly think the Palestinians would just shut up and happily take their treatment in the Occupied Territories if not for Evil Arafat, you live in a fantasy world.

Pop quiz: you're in a land which is slowly being eaten away by a local overlord which keeps putting settlements into your territory, bulldozing your homes, evicting your citizens for their growing "living space", and driving you into an ever-shrinking piece of land. You have no military, and cannot face their overwhelming military superiority on anything resembling equal terms. You have tried going to the UN, but have been blocked every time by the US. You have tried appealing to the international community, without succcess. You have tried the negotiating table, but you have nothing to negotiate with, and the other party knows it. You have tried getting other nations in the region to help, but they are unwilling or unable. What do you do?

Is that supposed to be an excuse? "They'd do it anyway"?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 05:00pm

StormtrooperOfDeath wrote:Is that supposed to be an excuse? "They'd do it anyway"?

Is that supposed to be an answer to my pop quiz? It's bad and I don't have to give a shit how oppressed they are, they should just shut the fuck up and take it?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-11-11 05:02pm

If you honestly think the Palestinians would just shut up and happily take their treatment in the Occupied Territories if not for Evil Arafat, you live in a fantasy world.

Either that or in the timeframe from 1949 - 1967.

you're in a land which is slowly being eaten away by a local overlord which keeps putting settlements into your territory, bulldozing your homes, evicting your citizens for their growing "living space", and driving you into an ever-shrinking piece of land.

I'm sorry, I somwhere missed the mass expulsions, do you have any hard numbers for this?

You have tried going to the UN, but have been blocked every time by the US. You have tried appealing to the international community, without succcess. You have tried the negotiating table, but you have nothing to negotiate with, and the other party knows it. You have tried getting other nations in the region to help, but they are unwilling or unable.

So of course the civilised response is to start killing civillians because a politician visit the most holy site in his religion?

Tell me Mike, what conditions are negotiable to the Palestinians? You've already ruled out right of return, you've already come down against territorial concessions ... exactly where do you think there is room for negotiation rather than Israeli capitulation? Maybe you think offering not to publically call for all the Jews to be pushed into the seas is a concession and negotiating point, but I sure as hell don't.

Frankly the green line is BS, where the Arab armies stopped getting their asses kicked doesn't represent some sacrosanct border over which Israel shall not pass. Right of return, I'm sorry but it happened 55 years ago, the statute of limitations for armed robbery doesn't run that long. Certainly this idioacy that everyone who claims to have resided in Israel proper and their descendants are eligeble for return is ludicrious. Frankly the Jews emigrating from Arab states more than offsets the Arabs emigrating from Arab states, call it a de facto population swap and be done with it.

Maybe the Palestinians can't find a better leader than Arafat (and he did FAR more than embezzle billions, he founded the terrorist organization Fatah in in 1957 and began terrorist activity long before Israel went into either the West Bank or Gaza), if so then no solution is possible at present and the best interim measure is Sharon's wall. But let me guess you don't like that option either.

The Kernel · Post by **The Kernel** » 2004-11-11 05:06pm

I find it quite amusing that the same people who were horrified that anyone would badmouth the sociopath Ronald Reagan in HIS death thread are now chanting "Ding Dong the witch is dead!" is this one, despite being able to link far more death to the good ole' Gipper.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 05:17pm

tharkûn wrote:
If you honestly think the Palestinians would just shut up and happily take their treatment in the Occupied Territories if not for Evil Arafat, you live in a fantasy world.
Either that or in the timeframe from 1949 - 1967.

Yes. And look at how much they gained at the negotiating table during that period ... oh wait a minute ...

you're in a land which is slowly being eaten away by a local overlord which keeps putting settlements into your territory, bulldozing your homes, evicting your citizens for their growing "living space", and driving you into an ever-shrinking piece of land.
I'm sorry, I somwhere missed the mass expulsions, do you have any hard numbers for this?

Oh of course, the "Right of Return" is being fought over fictional people. And when thousands of homes are bulldozed to make way for Greater Israel's piecemeal expansion, nobody was actually living in them. The people screaming about their homes must be CGI.

You have tried going to the UN, but have been blocked every time by the US. You have tried appealing to the international community, without succcess. You have tried the negotiating table, but you have nothing to negotiate with, and the other party knows it. You have tried getting other nations in the region to help, but they are unwilling or unable.
So of course the civilised response is to start killing civillians because a politician visit the most holy site in his religion?

I never said it was civilized. I said that it's understandable.

Tell me Mike, what conditions are negotiable to the Palestinians? You've already ruled out right of return, you've already come down against territorial concessions ... exactly where do you think there is room for negotiation rather than Israeli capitulation? Maybe you think offering not to publically call for all the Jews to be pushed into the seas is a concession and negotiating point, but I sure as hell don't.

Ah yes, nice false dilemma between "pushed into the sea" and "having military control over Palestine, control over its water, and even more of their land" as per the Oslo Accords that you vilify them for rejecting.

Frankly the green line is BS, where the Arab armies stopped getting their asses kicked doesn't represent some sacrosanct border over which Israel shall not pass. Right of return, I'm sorry but it happened 55 years ago, the statute of limitations for armed robbery doesn't run that long. Certainly this idioacy that everyone who claims to have resided in Israel proper and their descendants are eligeble for return is ludicrious. Frankly the Jews emigrating from Arab states more than offsets the Arabs emigrating from Arab states, call it a de facto population swap and be done with it.

Red herring. What do other "Arab states" have to do with Palestine, apart from race?

Maybe the Palestinians can't find a better leader than Arafat (and he did FAR more than embezzle billions, he founded the terrorist organization Fatah in in 1957 and began terrorist activity long before Israel went into either the West Bank or Gaza), if so then no solution is possible at present and the best interim measure is Sharon's wall. But let me guess you don't like that option either.

You mean the wall that's being built (as expected) inside Palestinian territory as yet another form of piecemeal expansion?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-11-11 05:25pm

Yes. And look at how much they gained at the negotiating table during that period ... oh wait a minute ...

Funny how nobody, the Palestinians included, gave a damn either.

Oh of course, the "Right of Return" is being fought over fictional people.

The right of return is being fought over people who listened to asshats like the Mullah of Jerusalem and left Israel in advance of the impending Arab armies that tried to push the Jews into the sea.

And when thousands of homes are bulldozed to make way for Greater Israel's piecemeal expansion, nobody was actually living in them. The people screaming about their homes must be CGI.

Thousands expelled to make way for expansion, is that it? I trust you have some evidence of this claim.

Ah yes, nice false dilemma between "pushed into the sea" and "having military control over Palestine, control over its water, and even more of their land" as per the Oslo Accords that you vilify them for rejecting.

I'm sorry you must have missed this:

Tell me Mike, what conditions are negotiable to the Palestinians?

I assume military control, water rights; like territorial concessions and right of return, are non-negotiable, so exactly what actual negotiation do you expect to have happen?

Red herring. What do other "Arab states" have to do with Palestine, apart from race?

The fact that said Arab states formally annexed Palestine. Really I fail to see the difference between Palestinian right of return and Smyrnan right of return, except that the Greeks and Turks displaced got a rawer deal than the displaced Palestinians. It happened, it was 55 years ago, it is time to move on.

You mean the wall that's being built (as expected) inside Palestinian territory as yet another form of piecemeal expansion?

No I mean the wall that is requiring the the evacuation of Palestinian territory and is a form of peicemeal retraction.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 05:35pm

tharkûn wrote:Funny how nobody, the Palestinians included, gave a damn either.

Oh of course, they were all happy in their refugee camps. I see.

Oh of course, the "Right of Return" is being fought over fictional people.
The right of return is being fought over people who listened to asshats like the Mullah of Jerusalem and left Israel in advance of the impending Arab armies that tried to push the Jews into the sea.

Yes, because massacres and Israeli terrorism had nothing to do with it.

And when thousands of homes are bulldozed to make way for Greater Israel's piecemeal expansion, nobody was actually living in them. The people screaming about their homes must be CGI.
Thousands expelled to make way for expansion, is that it? I trust you have some evidence of this claim.

OK, let's see if you can follow this logic: thousands of homes bulldozed. People were living in those homes, correct? What part of this logic do you not recognize?

Ah yes, nice false dilemma between "pushed into the sea" and "having military control over Palestine, control over its water, and even more of their land" as per the Oslo Accords that you vilify them for rejecting.
I'm sorry you must have missed this:

Tell me Mike, what conditions are negotiable to the Palestinians?

We'll never know, since Israel has not offered them any kind of viable statehood deal, and seemingly never will. How the fuck should I know what they will accept? We know what they will not accept, and you pretend that this is the most anyone could ever possibly offer them, which is bullshit.

I assume military control, water rights; like territorial concessions and right of return, are non-negotiable, so exactly what actual negotiation do you expect to have happen?

Control over your own territory and its resources is a prerequisite of statehood. By refusing to grant these to the Palestinians, they are refusing to offer them statehood.

Red herring. What do other "Arab states" have to do with Palestine, apart from race?
The fact that said Arab states formally annexed Palestine.

A claim they obviously failed to make good on, so it's still a red herring.

Really I fail to see the difference between Palestinian right of return and Smyrnan right of return, except that the Greeks and Turks displaced got a rawer deal than the displaced Palestinians. It happened, it was 55 years ago, it is time to move on.

This in defense of the same state which invokes the Holocaust every time its interests are threatened, and whose territorial claim on the land in the first place stemmed from a 3000 year old religious text.

You mean the wall that's being built (as expected) inside Palestinian territory as yet another form of piecemeal expansion?
No I mean the wall that is requiring the the evacuation of Palestinian territory and is a form of peicemeal retraction.

Retraction from what? Is Israel not gaining land out of the construction of this wall?

tharkûn · Post by **tharkûn** » 2004-11-11 06:11pm

Oh of course, they were all happy in their refugee camps. I see.

They were too cursing the Jews to give a damn that the Jordanians or the Egyptians were confining them to hellholes.

Yes, because massacres and Israeli terrorism had nothing to do with it.

If you want to play that game then I suggest you find an example of Jewish terrorism that predates bloody passover. Most of the atrocities were vastly distorted, say by asshats like the Mullah of Jerusalem, take for instance Deir Yassin. You had an actual military battle where Arab fighters were invested in the village and the Israeli attackers took 30-40% casualties taking the village. Former members of the Palestinian Broadcasting services have admitting to distorting and fabricating atrocities to encourage Arabs to leave.

OK, let's see if you can follow this logic: thousands of homes bulldozed. People were living in those homes, correct? What part of this logic do you not recognize?

Thousands of homes bulldozed: might be true, might not be all that high.

Even after you get around to actually posting some evidence of your claim and we establish an estimate you then can post some evidence that it is being done to 'evict your citizens for living space'.

A claim they obviously failed to make good on, so it's still a red herring.

BS. On April 24, 1950 the West Bank was annexed by a joint resolution of the House of Deputies and the House of Notables in Jordan. It was incorparted into Jordan and functions commisserate to annexation were performed in the period from 1950 to 1967. Citizens residing in the west bank were made naturalized citizens of Jordan. For seventeen years they made good on it; they only renounced their claims to the territory in 1994.

Nobody gave a rat's ass that Jordan and Egypt annexed "Palestine", not the UN, not Europe, not the Palestinians themselves. I fail to see ANY evidence that the annexation "failed to make good"; perhaps you have some you could provide?

This in defense of the same state which invokes the Holocaust every time its interests are threatened, and whose territorial claim on the land in the first place stemmed from a 3000 year old religious text.

You obviously have never heard of Shinui have you?

Retraction from what? Is Israel not gaining land out of the construction of this wall?

Expansion from what? Israel is not acquiring any territory de jure either by building the wall or not building the wall. The world still doesn't recognize the formal annexation of Jerusalem by Israel; in a legal sense Israel neither gains nor loses land by building this wall.

By ground control Israel is giving up land, a huge swath of settlements built helter skelter by extremist settlers are being dismantled, the amount of ground inside Palestinian actively controlled by the IDF is being diminished. This is the point of the wall, to get the hell out of as many idiotic settlements as the government can push through Knesset and build a barrier around everything else so troops don't have to be on the ground throughout Gaza and the West Bank.

The settlements actually are better positioned to grab land than the wall, certain of the settlers have grandious dreams of encircling 'unihabited' land and claiming all that lies between settlements for a greater Israel. If Israel wanted land it would keep the settlements and screw the wall; if Israel wants a lessoning of violence it would take the wall and screw the settlements.

Control over your own territory and its resources is a prerequisite of statehood. By refusing to grant these to the Palestinians, they are refusing to offer them statehood.

I see, so what about Gauntanamo? How about the pre-Carter Panama Canal Zone? Maybe I should cite Andorra pre 1993, or Lebannon with Syria, hell how about the entire damn Warsaw Pact? There is ample historical precedent of statehood without control of your own territory and its resources.

So again I ask, what exactly is there to negotiate over? All you have done thus far is state non-negotiable things Israel must grant, fine, but don't call that negotation. Demanding that every single one of your demands be met is not negotiation.

MKSheppard · Post by **MKSheppard** » 2004-11-11 06:12pm

Darth Wong wrote:Oh of course, they were all happy in their refugee camps. I see.

Refugee camps that have multi-story structures. Hmm...Strangest refugee
camps I've ever seen

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-11 06:43pm

What is this "right of return" that you guys keep tossing around?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 06:46pm

tharkûn wrote:They were too cursing the Jews to give a damn that the Jordanians or the Egyptians were confining them to hellholes.

Ah yes, it's not the Israelis' fault because the refugee camps built by others to house them after their expulsion weren't good enough, right?

If you want to play that game then I suggest you find an example of Jewish terrorism that predates bloody passover. Most of the atrocities were vastly distorted, say by asshats like the Mullah of Jerusalem, take for instance Deir Yassin. You had an actual military battle where Arab fighters were invested in the village and the Israeli attackers took 30-40% casualties taking the village. Former members of the Palestinian Broadcasting services have admitting to distorting and fabricating atrocities to encourage Arabs to leave.

July 2, 1946. The Irgun under the command of Menachem Begin bombs the King David Hotel in Jerusalem in retaliation for British interference with Zionist political organizations, killing 91 people. As for Deir Yassin, even the Israelis admit that a lot of women and children were killed, but they give various justifications for it and say that it was not a methodical massacre. That's always their story.

Thousands of homes bulldozed: might be true, might not be all that high.

Even after you get around to actually posting some evidence of your claim and we establish an estimate you then can post some evidence that it is being done to 'evict your citizens for living space'.

Don't be a sophistic jackass. Israel does not deny these settlements and bulldozings, we've seen them on TV, etc. You're acting as though it's all fictional.

A claim they obviously failed to make good on, so it's still a red herring.
BS. On April 24, 1950 the West Bank was annexed by a joint resolution of the House of Deputies and the House of Notables in Jordan. It was incorparted into Jordan and functions commisserate to annexation were performed in the period from 1950 to 1967. Citizens residing in the west bank were made naturalized citizens of Jordan. For seventeen years they made good on it; they only renounced their claims to the territory in 1994.

And this refutes the point ... how? The point remains: the conduct of "Arab nations" in the region is a red-herring. They once annexed part of the territory, they could not hold it.

Nobody gave a rat's ass that Jordan and Egypt annexed "Palestine", not the UN, not Europe, not the Palestinians themselves. I fail to see ANY evidence that the annexation "failed to make good"; perhaps you have some you could provide?

Who occupies the Occupied Territories? Oops, it's not Egypt or Jordan, is it?

This in defense of the same state which invokes the Holocaust every time its interests are threatened, and whose territorial claim on the land in the first place stemmed from a 3000 year old religious text.
You obviously have never heard of Shinui have you?

Wow, there are some liberals in Israel. I guess that changes everything

Retraction from what? Is Israel not gaining land out of the construction of this wall?
Expansion from what? Israel is not acquiring any territory de jure either by building the wall or not building the wall. The world still doesn't recognize the formal annexation of Jerusalem by Israel; in a legal sense Israel neither gains nor loses land by building this wall.

How very legalistic of you. *golf clap*

By ground control Israel is giving up land, a huge swath of settlements built helter skelter by extremist settlers are being dismantled, the amount of ground inside Palestinian actively controlled by the IDF is being diminished. This is the point of the wall, to get the hell out of as many idiotic settlements as the government can push through Knesset and build a barrier around everything else so troops don't have to be on the ground throughout Gaza and the West Bank.

In other words, it's a consolidation maneuver. It doesn't change the fact that Israel is getting more land out of the deal unless you consider 100% of the existing settlement land to be legitimate rather than illegal.

The settlements actually are better positioned to grab land than the wall, certain of the settlers have grandious dreams of encircling 'unihabited' land and claiming all that lies between settlements for a greater Israel. If Israel wanted land it would keep the settlements and screw the wall; if Israel wants a lessoning of violence it would take the wall and screw the settlements.

Israel wants land, but they're tired of the fighting necessary to get it. Like it or not, without the threat of terrorism, they would continue to do these things, and that was the whole point I was making. You are using their concessions to the threat of terrorism as proof that the Palestinians would be getting the same concessions if they had just asked nicely, which is beyond ridiculous.

Control over your own territory and its resources is a prerequisite of statehood. By refusing to grant these to the Palestinians, they are refusing to offer them statehood.
I see, so what about Gauntanamo? How about the pre-Carter Panama Canal Zone? Maybe I should cite Andorra pre 1993, or Lebannon with Syria, hell how about the entire damn Warsaw Pact? There is ample historical precedent of statehood without control of your own territory and its resources.

If you must use the Warsaw Pact or Cuba as a template to argue that Israel's terms for Palestine qualify as fair terms, that makes my point for me.

So again I ask, what exactly is there to negotiate over? All you have done thus far is state non-negotiable things Israel must grant, fine, but don't call that negotation. Demanding that every single one of your demands be met is not negotiation.

It is when the demands are reasonable. Sovereignty is a reasonable demand, particulately when the other side is giving you a shadow of sovereignty and then running around selling it to the press as "sovereignty" anyway.

HemlockGrey · Post by **HemlockGrey** » 2004-11-11 09:54pm

Here is a nice list of massacres committed by Arab, Jewish irregular, and Israeli forces during the 1948 war.

Post by **Beowulf** » 2004-11-11 10:06pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:What is this "right of return" that you guys keep tossing around?

The right of Palestinians who voluntarily left Israel to return.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-11 10:09pm

Beowulf wrote: The right of Palestinians who voluntarily left Israel to return.

Darth Wong was kind enough to explain it to me via PM. Looks like the Palestinians are getting a bum deal in that regard. Of course their lands have been seized so I'm not exactly sure what they'll be returning to. And why would you want to return to a place where your reviled and treated as a second class citizen?

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 10:10pm

Beowulf wrote:
Cpl Kendall wrote:What is this "right of return" that you guys keep tossing around?
The right of Palestinians who voluntarily left Israel to return.

War refugee-ism is a rather special form of "voluntarily". Even if the Israelis were completely correct about Deir Yassin and their assertion that it was all collateral damage and a few over-eager soldiers rather than a deliberate massacre, what's the difference? The potential for being killed is still a damned good reason to get the hell out of Dodge, and doesn't exactly qualify as the kind of benign exodus you seem to be implying.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-11 10:12pm

Darth Wong wrote: War refugee-ism is a rather special form of "voluntarily".

So they were forced out than?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-11 10:13pm

Actually, the main bone of contention right now probably is the aquifer system. IIRC, under the boundaries of the initital UN mandate, Israel would not have sufficient water to maintain its population. However, their current borders don't give the Palestinians sufficient water to survive independently as a sovreign nation. In order for both nations to survive, they'll have to share an aquifer, and neither side trusts the other enough to do that.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2004-11-11 10:14pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:War refugee-ism is a rather special form of "voluntarily".
So they were forced out than?

Sort of. They ran to get away from the violence. You can call it Israeli massacres, or you can call it collateral damage of the war, but whichever side of the story you buy, the point remains that Arabs were getting killed in the violence and so they fled. This is spin-doctored into "they left of their own accord", but I would argue that when you flee for fear of your life, that's a special case.

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-11 10:18pm

Darth Wong wrote: Sort of. They ran to get away from the violence. You can call it Israeli massacres, or you can call it collateral damage of the war, but whichever side of the story you buy, the point remains that Arabs were getting killed in the violence and so they fled. This is spin-doctored into "they left of their own accord", but I would argue that when you flee for fear of your life, that's a special case.

Well they did leave on their own accord, but if my people were dying in droves around me, I'd get the fuck out too. This just shows that there's no easy road to peace for either parties. And their both equally guilty of contributing to the troubles.

The Dark wrote: Actually, the main bone of contention right now probably is the aquifer system. IIRC, under the boundaries of the initital UN mandate, Israel would not have sufficient water to maintain its population. However, their current borders don't give the Palestinians sufficient water to survive independently as a sovreign nation. In order for both nations to survive, they'll have to share an aquifer, and neither side trusts the other enough to do that.

Why doesn't Israeli simply build some desalination plants on the Med, and let the Palestinains have the rest of it?

The Dark · Post by **The Dark** » 2004-11-11 10:33pm

Cpl Kendall wrote:
The Dark wrote: Actually, the main bone of contention right now probably is the aquifer system. IIRC, under the boundaries of the initital UN mandate, Israel would not have sufficient water to maintain its population. However, their current borders don't give the Palestinians sufficient water to survive independently as a sovreign nation. In order for both nations to survive, they'll have to share an aquifer, and neither side trusts the other enough to do that.
Why doesn't Israeli simply build some desalination plants on the Med, and let the Palestinains have the rest of it?

I'm not 100% sure, but I'd imagine the fact that the Israeli coastline sucks (it's rocky and cliff-y) and that desal plants are relatively expensive and vulnerable would be some reasons why they'd be reluctant. I'll ask my Political Science professor what he knows about it tomorrow (assuming I have time in class...we're discussing Macchiavelli).

Aaron · Post by **Aaron** » 2004-11-11 10:42pm

The Dark wrote:

Why doesn't Israeli simply build some desalination plants on the Med, and let the Palestinains have the rest of it?
I'm not 100% sure, but I'd imagine the fact that the Israeli coastline sucks (it's rocky and cliff-y) and that desal plants are relatively expensive and vulnerable would be some reasons why they'd be reluctant. I'll ask my Political Science professor what he knows about it tomorrow (assuming I have time in class...we're discussing Macchiavelli).

I'm sure that it's got something to do with the fact that the Israeli's simply don't want to help the Palestinians.