dave

Well, that's part of the point - Israel isn't going anywhere, period. They're going to have to learn to live with each other.

I think the 51% figure is kind of telling, but also very sad. It's indicative of a larger problem.

See, it's my belief that Arafat should lead his people, like Gandhi or MLK Jr., to a peaceful protest of Israeli occupation. Believe it or not, I am against Israeli occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. And I think that the Palestinians would be much closer to reaching this goal if they were non-violent. That would mean Arafat would really need to be a leader instead of just sitting at the top and letting things happen.

Why would this work? Because Israel would have <b>no possible justification</b> to attack Palestinians. They just wouldn't. Their US backing would erode very quickly if they were running tanks over peaceful protestors - especially if they protesters were <b>not</b> calling for "Death to Sharon". "End the Occupation" is a much better slogan, or "Free Palestine".

What has happened, however, is that a Palestinian public has accepted an over-reaction to what really <b>shouldn't</b> have been that big of a deal - Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount. Did he do it to antagonize? Probably. I have no love for Sharon, and, to be quite honest, I think he's an assface. But a visit to the Temple Mount hardly justifies the intifada - it's a holy place for Jews <b>and</b> Muslims - not just the latter.

So now suicide bombers are taking out innocent Israelis every few days or weeks... and some 80% of Palestinians (I may be remembering this statistic incorrectly, if so, my bad) support the suicide bombing as a means to an end. The problem is, this just leads to more violence - and it will <b>only</b> lead to more violence. Israel can easily justify attacking Palestinian militant strongholds now because they can show you pictures of dead 3 year olds.

Then, when Israel responds, they are mad at Israel. Israel is part of the problem, but as I said earlier, <b>they would have no justification for attacking Palestinians without the attacks on Israelis</b>. Suicide bombers and suicide gunmen could <b>easily</b> put an end to the violence by simply calling it off. We know that the converse is not true - when Israel decided not to respond ot suicide bombings, they got bombed even more. Israel is rightly seen as the power in the region - so they cannot justify attacks before they have been attacked. The suicide bombers know this, but they are not looking for peace - not the heads of the groups, anyway. They are looking for the destruction of Israel.

So now we're back to square one. They need to be dealt with. Arafat won't do it. Yes, there is some legitimacy to the claim that it's difficult for him to do so because his police are being killed - but there's also some very real truth to the claim that he is simply unwilling to curb militancy. He just won't do it.

It's sad, but it's true. That's why I support a change in Palestinian leadership - someone that will eradicate the Palestinian extremists and lead them to a peaceful settlement with Israel.

--------------------

Now I'm not contesting it, but I'd just be curious to see the page where you got the 70% statistic. I think that seems a little high, but it wouldn't surprise me either. There's no love lost between the two sides.

You may want to check the "and already millions of Palestinians have been killed" number - that's off by at least an order of magnitude if you're talking about those killed in the intifadas.

Anyway, I have to leave. I could write and write on this for hours, and when we're not at each other's throats, I'm actually eager to. But I need to jet by 2 PM and I have to eat lunch first.

Eager to hear your thoughts.