Sorry Timber, but it doesn't seem to be the inference given by the above quote. You say specifically that if Palestinians carry out attacks (as in anyone who happens to be a Palestinian, whether or not they have state authority) then Isreal would have the right to respond militarily. Maybe this is just poor wording, but this paragraph seems to be at odds with what you actually meant according to your last post. Please clarify...

<font color = lightgreen>A Palestinian state would serve only to give Palestinian terrorists a safe place in which to hide. Naturally, Israel would have to "defend themselves" from "military actions" taken by its new neighbor. In short, it would solve nothing.
Quite frankly, both sides have been acting like violent children for so long that neither of them deserve anything except for the rest of the world to wash their hands and walk away.

Like the ancient Gordian Knot, solutions to this particular problem do exist. Now all we need is a counterpart for Alexander the Great to implement such a solution. (since when do I subscribe to wishful thinking? :rolleyes: )</font>

Well, obviously I was unclear. I did say:
In this case I was speaking of our hypothetical Palestinian state when I said "Palestinians" and "it." Of course you cannot ascribe every individual's action to his or her government. However, if the government harbors, supports, or (quite possibly) is simply complicit to terrorists in its borders, Israel might be justified in viewing an attack as an act of war or at least going after the terrorists within the country's borders. That's what the US did with Afghanistan, and the world supported the action.

I put the "quite possibly" caveat in because I don't know how far down the line of culpability one would be able to go and still be able to justify linking the government to the actions of its nationals and terrorists in its borders. If our hypothetical Palestinian state were led by Yassir Arafat, would his level of complicity be enough to tie him to any terrorist acts? I don't know, but I think the view is generally held that he has a lot of ties to terrorist groups and doesn't try to reign them in very much at all.

Anyway, sorry for being unclear.

Yes, I understand where you are coming from however you have to understand the problems I had with your original wording. In fact its possibly quite telling that you assumed when you said "Palestinians" everyone would know you meant the state and people as a whole, as opposed to the exact definition of just "someone from Palestine". Lets make this clear - the terrorist attacks being carried out at present are not carried out by the majority of people, or with their consent. I see no reason why if a state were formed it would be complicit in terrorism or harbour terrorists. Your, admittedly unfortunate as opposed to deliberate, assumption that Palestinians engaging in terrorist activities have the support of the state in some manner is a little disturbing.

So basically what I'm trying to say is that the wording you used is a little Freudian for my liking. Like it or not we keep making the connection between Palestinian terrorists and Palestinians as a whole.

Oh, and on the Arafat question Isreal has a nice little card up their sleeves to deal with him, or not as is in fact the case. Their line on any Palestinian leader has always been that they won't consider them available to do business with if he has links to terrorism. I.e. if Arafat actually could control the terrorists then he is not the kind of person they would want to be dealing with. And of course, if he can't control the terrorists then whats the point of dealing with him anyway! They've used both lines on him at one stage or another, which is laughable really. The Isreali state has basically avoided seriously dealing with Palestinian leaders for quite some time using this Catch 22 tactic.

Well, your post made me realize that I actually don't know how much the palestinians support their terrorist members. So, I went and did a bit of research. Looking for Palestinians against terror turned up little evidence, though I thought I heard about a group in Palestine dedicated to opposing terror. However, research regarding Palestinian support for terror turned up something interesting.
and
Now, I also found information indicating the President Bush has said only a small minority of Palestinians support terror. If memory serves me correctly, this may have come from his 2003 State of the Union, but I'm not certain. I'd like to know what he based the statement on. I would think it unlikely that a majority of Palestinians would support terror, but the information my brief searching turned up indicated that is in fact the case. Feel free to correct me if you have better information.

[ 02-26-2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Sorry not to have replied to this for so long, its been a bit of a busy week - mostly due to politics actually. So far since Monday I've been on a picket of the Isreali embassy (in support of the refuseniks), a debate on working class representation in politics, a carnival against student fees, a meeting to discuss autonomous Marxism with a contact of mine (just don't ask... because I don't know either...), and finally the Stop the War Coalition national conference. The disturbing thing is that thats a pretty normal week for me. Anyway, thats all completely off topic, I just felt like ranting for a while.

To respond to your surveys I should first point out that they are both the same survey, or at least appear to be so. Just reported by two different newspapers. If anything that in fact damages the impact of the survey in question as they report it in such drastically different manners that its hard to see exactly what the survey is proving at the end of the day. I find it hard to believe that the fact that 85% of Palestinians support a mutual ceasefire means that "Jew hatred" is at fever pitch, as the second article seems to claim. Their most damaging stat appears to be that a slight majority of Palestinians say terror attacks have helped their position, something which I would even agree with - but that doesn't necessarily mean I support those attacks. The American use of the Atom bomb almost certainly furthered America's goal of ending WW2, but that doesn't mean I support it!

I'm sorry I don't have any actual figures to counter with, but it seems fairly obvious to me that even if the fundamentalists are in the majority then terror tactics are not the best way forward - thats whats put the fundamentalists in the majority in the first place! Or at least, thats my take on it. If someone were to have to blink first then I'd say it would have to be the Isreali's, simply as they have a state structure and army and as a result it would be much harder for the Palestinians to try anything unilateral. Obviously a simultaneaous solution woiuld be best, but I'm presenting a logical extention of my own views onto a next best scenario.

Err, thats all a bit garbled... sorry.

If it is the same poll, it is the poll taken in 2 different years, Barry. 2002 and 2003.

How does one so busy attending political rallies find time to work or study? Don't burn out on the politics bandwagon. Take a break -- the world will still need fixing when you get back, I assure you. ;)

[ 03-01-2004, 11:58 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Well, if its two different polls then the fact that they are only taken a year apart but come to such radically different conclusions doesn't do my confidence in their methods any good I'm afraid. A year may be a long time in politics but its unlikely that core beliefs and feelings will have so radically changed in that kinf of time frame.

As for the work load, well, what really amazes me is that I still find time to post here!

I plan on taking a whopping huge break over the summer, as I'll be back in sleepy Surrey where politics is just different shades of conservative. Until then I'll just keep plugging away I suppose...