And the Palestinians continue to be held hostage to the political ambitions of the larger Arab world.

I had hoped at one time that they might finally escape that and cease to be someone's pawn, until Clinton invested in the Oslo process and helped throw the chains back around the Palestinian people. Before Oslo brought the terrorists back to Palestine in triumph, a bit of sanity was returning to Palestine and cross-border trade and traffic was beginning to bring prosperity and if not brotherhood then at least tolerance. The Albright took off her shoes and ran to subjegate herself to a murder and beg him to destroy the fragile peace, and the rest is history.

You do know that Jewish (not Israeli) law has a similar prohibition? If somehow conditions in Israel was similarly unpleasant, I have little doubt that the Chief Rabbinate would issue a similar reminder.

It seems that only PA Muslims are forbidden to leave. PA Christians, who used to number almost a third of the Palestinian people, are free to go.

Really! How strange! A religious injunction by a muslim cleric doesn't apply to Christians! Man, are these Arabs and Muslims backwards!

Wouldn't keeping people in force them to face the truth about their situation? I've heard some describe immigration out of (South, Central) America as a safety valve that allows the more self-motivated people to leave, and send back $. Wouldn't the same happen in the Middle East?

I think that there's a fair amount of "blame others" mentality in the Middle East. It may well be the best form of tough love (even if unintentional) if people get to the point of humility and say "we brought this on ourselves, and we've got to change from the inside."

Other societies with similar edicts have faced practical problems in enforcing them, but come up with engineered solutions. Perhaps the mufti can similarly...

...build a wall around Palestine.

"...the blessed lands..."
Involuntary irony is thick as pitch here.

We hereby declare that emigration from the blessed lands is not permitted according to religious law ...

The idea that "Palestine" is "blessed" to Muslims is a late invention. The only thing blessed about it is that there are Jews there that Muslims are enjoined to fight - obligation to Jihad is what their religious law demands.

They call the Israelis conquerers, but conquest is the foundation of their own claim. Lands conquered by Arab Muslims (historically very late comers to the region) must remain forever theirs.

Andrew Lazarus,

Judaism holds that life comes first. You can violate Jewish law to save a life, even as a strictly religious Jew. In my Sunday School classes, they talked about a rabbi who ate pork in front of his starving congregation on Yom Kippur to demonstrate this point.

The Muslims do not have this as a part of their philosophy.

That's why the Chief Rabbi wouldn't say something like that - and why, even if he did, no one would pay much attention.

Ariel, maybe you could argue pikuach nefesh if there were mass starvation in the land. I don't think a few dozen casualties of civil war a week would qualify. Well, maybe for us Reform Jews. The tradition holds that a Jew who lives in Israel may leave temporarily only for business purposes or to find a wife.

I think everyone appears to be missing the main point. The hottest and most unresolvable issue in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict is demographic warfare. By comparison, the open warfare and the guerilla warfare are scarcely important to either sides conflict strategy.

Palestine has the highest birthrate per adult female in the world. It is the single fastest growing population in the world. The gaza strip is now one of the most densely settled regions of the world. It would not be hyperbole to describe the population growth rate in the Holy Lands as explosive.

Without getting into which side started it, both sides are locked in a demographic deathgrip. The Palestinians believe that they can overwhelm the Israeli's with a tide of people. The main reason that a right of return is an impractical resolution to the conflict is that there would be alot more returning than left. This isn't a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's a deliberate attempt to outnumber the enemy and to drown them out, if not on the battlefield, then socially and politically. For thier part, the Israeli's maintain a policy of open imigration for reasons that are equally a mixture of belief and calculation. Since they'd never get free born, educated, modern Israeli women to breed at a rate that matches that of Palestinian women, the only way to keep up with the spiraling Arab population is to keep importing Jews.

This is why it is worth from the Arab perspective a religious pronouncement banning Moslems from leaving Palestine. From the perspective of Arab leadership, these are soldiers leaving thier posts. If the population in Palestine were to stablize, then unemployment would fall, prosperity might insue, infrastructure might catch up, and the general situation of the Palestinians would improve. None of this is desired by the Arab leadership. What is desired is a very large population of angry unemployed young men who can be directed to kill. That these young men might desire a better life than that is intolerable to them.

Andrew,

Two Jews, three opinions. There's a reason they say that about us. And it's why the Chief Rabbi could say whatever he pleased and be sure that almost no one would take it without question. Our whole tradition - the Mishna, Talmud, etc., is all about expounding, expanding, and debating. There's a reason he's not called the Vicar of Judaism, the High Priest, or the Messiah.

celebrim:

I agree with your astute analysis of the ultimate importance of demographics in this mess. However, two small points need to be made, I think, in the interest of fairness.

1) the fact that there are more palestinians wishing to return than left (or, let's just say eligible to return under certain proposals) is not simply the result of calculation but mostly of nature and math. There are 100 million more americans now than in 1947..a 50% increase that occurred without design or calculation. Palestinian intent may account for a larger increase than would otherwise have occured, but without intent the increase would still have happened absent a high death rate.

2) While you may disagree with either their tactics or their definition, I think you have to admit that by their lights the Arab leadership's intention is ultimately to provide a better life than palestinians presently have. They may believe the only way to achieve that is by growing a large crop of angry young men. I thank that is meant to be an instrument toward an end, not an end in itself.

"I think you have to admit that by their lights the Arab leadership's intention is ultimately to provide a better life than palestinians presently have."

Why in God's name do you have to admit that? Arab leaders have used the Palestinians as callously and carelessly as can be imagined. What evidence is there that they have any true interest in the Palestians plight outside of the leverage it buys them at home and abroad? They sure show their concern in an odd way. The Israelis have done more for individual Palestinians than the combined Arab leadership every has, and then some.

I think you have to admit that by their lights the Arab leadership's intention is ultimately to provide a better life than palestinians presently have.

"Arab leadership" couldn't give a damn if every last Palestinian fell through a crack in the earth and splattered in Hell. They have kept them poor and angry for decades, because contented Palestinians are of no use to them.

Glen, of course...I forgot that Arab leaders and Israeli leaders were in cahoots to keep the west bank under military occupation for 40 years in order to keep the people there angry and poor.

mark -

The Kingdom of Jordan annexed the West Bank in 1950, and held it for 17 years. They did not turn it into a Palestinian state. After it was lost to Israel, Palestinians sought refuge in Jordan, from which they were VIOLENTLY expelled in 1970.

That's the typical treatment that Palestinians get from the Arab states. A conspiracy with Israel has nothing to do with it.

After it was lost to Israel, Palestinians sought refuge in Jordan, from which they were VIOLENTLY expelled in 1970.

After attempting an armed coup against the Jordanian government.

Mark #12,

I'm not sure what the relevance is of your comparison between the demographic growth of the US since 1947 and the demographic growth of the Palestinians since 1947. The United States is one of the most attractive places in the world for average people to live, work, raise a family, and build a great future.

The Palestinian territories are some of the least attractive places in the world for average people to live, work, raise a family, and build a great future.

It is only natural that many Palestinians want to leave. Celebrim's point is that the religious edict from the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is an indication of the degree of coercion the Palestinian leadership class is willing to exert to keep their population growing.

You can justifiably argue that this coercive population growth policy is instrumental in their strategy of building a great future for their people by conquering Israel. However, if you're going to argue that, then you should also accept that the only way to resolve the conflict between the two peoples is through total war until one group's population is destroyed/forced to emigrate to another region.

All of which completely undercuts the rationale for Israel to pursue a two-state solution, or trade land for peace, or attempt any other diplomatic solution that assumes that the Palestinians really, actually, no kidding, deep in their heart of hearts, truly, positively, absolutely want long-term peace with Israel.

Mark #12,

BTW, the population growth of the US between 1947 and 2007 has been over 100%, not 50%.

The US population in 1950 was 151,325,798. This implies that the population in 1947 was somewhere between 145,000,000 and 150,000,000. The current US population is estimated to be greater than 300,000,000, so we've doubled our numbers since 1947. (US census data Link ).

Best,
Jim

"Glen, of course...I forgot that Arab leaders and Israeli leaders were in cahoots to keep the west bank under military occupation for 40 years in order to keep the people there angry and poor."

Rather seems that way. The Arabs, Saudis in particular, had Arafat by the short and curlies and had they told him to sign Clinton's peace deal, he would have had to. So who exactly was preventing the 2 state solution?

And forget the West Bank, what about all the Palestinian 'refugee' camps where 3rd and 4th generation Palestinians are kept in virtual ghettos in surrounding nations because it makes for good propaganda? As much as I emphasize with the Lebanese government having to rout out Palestinians refugee camps, THAT is very much a mess of their own making (or at least Syria's).

The bottom line is that for at least the last decade or so, the only nation where Palestinians were'nt living in poverty stricken, armed ghettos is Israel proper. And that includes the Territories when Arafat was running them independently. Why didnt the Saudis come running to Arafat and turn the West Bank into the next Dubai? Hah. What did they send? Architects? Books? Art? or bombs?

Glen, I enjoyed the the shift from active to passive voice. Jordan ANNEXED the West Bank, which then WAS LOST TO Israel.

James Jones, that I underestimated the growth rate of US population between 47 and 07 only strengthens my point, which was less political or ideological than you make it out to be. Increase in population is not the devious tool to conquest that celebrim made it out to be. It happens quite naturally....globally and regionally, except when either death rates or emigration rates are unusuallly high. I'm guessing that Iraq is not growing very quickly these days but most places do increase in population without malevolent intent. People having babies and living longer lives is not necessarily a sign that there is a political movement afoot.

Mark B., Perhaps we have different "bottom lines." why would you expect the Saudis to come running and create a Dubai in the west bank? how much oil does the west bank have anyway? why is it the saudi's role in life to assist the palestinians. If I complain about the treatment the North Koreans receive at the hands of a dictator am I then compelled to come to their finanical aid? Why should lebanon, syria, jordan or egypt be expected to absorb expelled or exiled palenstinians? because they speak the same language? because they live nearby? in order to assist Israel in reducing the threat posed by them? why does the burden shift to other countries?

After attempting an armed coup against the Jordanian government.

Glen, I enjoyed the the shift from active to passive voice.

The 1967 war was the direct result of aggression against Israel by Egypt, Jordan and Syria - including 17 years of terrorist attacks by Palestinians based on Jordanian soil.

A Palestinian state existed - FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME - in 1948, and it would exist today if the Arab nations had not conspired to destroy Israel.

But by all means let us say "Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967" if that gratifies your anti-Israel id.

Glen, I'm not so sure where you find rejoicing or smugness in my beliefs. I merely noted that your language was revealing to me of your thought process.

I don't know whether palestinian's are indigenous or not, or whether that makes a difference. I do know that those living in the west bank and in gaza have lived under military occupation by a foriegn country for 40 years and have no civil or political rights. I find that deplorable.

as to their indigenousness, it seems likely that a reasonably stable stock of people have been living in the area for several millienia and that that stock has had a significant admixture of greek, egyptian, arab and turkish ethnic input over the last 2,000 years or so as various conquerors have come and gone.

No state--in the modern sense--has existed in the area since the 20th century. The territory, as well as all the territory in the immediate neighborhood, was controlled by empires, roman, persion, byzantine, ottoman, egyptian, european. I'm not sure you point about the palestinian state is very relevant.

I'm not anti-Israel (i've lived there and loved it); I'm anti-occupation.

Mark, the Saudis and other regional leaders have poured resources into the Territories. My point is if they were genuinely interested in the wellfare of the Palestinian peope, perhaps those resources wouldnt be in the form of rifles, bombs, and rockets, and would instead be in some positive form that remotely benefitted any Palastinian not named Arafat. Even the supposed charity of hospital building etc was designed to stregthen groups like Hezbollah and funnel money to terror.

So lets not change the subject- forget about what more fellow Arabs might have done. What they HAVE done speaks for itself.

"I do know that those living in the west bank and in gaza have lived under military occupation by a foriegn country for 40 years and have no civil or political rights. I find that deplorable."

Did the 90's never happen? The reason the Israelis stand on such secure moral ground at the moment is that every instance in which theyve attempted to disengage from the occupied territories, the Palestinians have used it as an opportunity to bring death and destruction to Israelis (and all too often each other). And fellow Arab states have done much to spur this behavior.

Palestinians had political and civil rights (still do) that Israel has zero to do with. The fact that they cant excersize them to bring about prosperity.. or even peace, will of course be laid at Israels doorstep as everything always is. Damned if they do damned if they dont. Even if some sort of 'jewish rapture' occurred tomorrow and all the vast wealth (relatively) of Israel fell into Palestinian hands, does anyone truly think that would turn their corrupt, maniac culture to prosperity (let alone peace)? It wouldnt happen. The next scape goat would be chosen. This is a vast failure of culture and we havent helped by enabling it.

Mark B., You are quite right and it brings me back to my original point that while you may disagree with their tactics and desires, from their point of view, by arming the palestinians, they are trying to help them right what they believe to be a wrong. I believe their position would be that rather than accept and give in to the occupation they should help the palestinians to resist it...and that only when the occupation has ended will palestinians be able to live freely and chose for themselves how they want to live.

Mark B., clearly my #28 was in response to your #26, not your #27. Our comments crossed in the mail.

Mark B., to address now #27, your stance presumes the palestinians ought to have accepted the Israeli compromise offered. But from their point of view, the compromise was insufficient and was rightly rejected. Neither Israel nor Palestine has moral ground here. That is irrelevant. It is a struggle between two self-defined groups over territory. Either they will find a mutally agreeable compromise to the difficult situation or they will keep fighting until one wins and the other surrenders (or, more likely, becomes extinct).

Just what civil and political rights do palestian residents of the west bank currently enjoy? that's a serious question. I really don't know. They have no effectual parliment or executive than can operate independently of or contrary to the will of the elected Israeli gov't, which, as far as I know, they have no vote in.

They can be arrested without warrant or cause---so far as I understand--and held indefinately without trial. My understanding is that Israeli Military Law is the ultimate authority within the west bank at this point.

mark -

The Palestinians have been living in refugee camps for 60 years, not 40, but you seem interested in this fact only insofar as you can blame Israel for it.

Israel and the West have given huge amounts of material assistance to the Palestinians, and Palestinians living in Israel have more civil rights than the vast majority of people in Arab states.

The Arab states have brutalized and dispossessed Palestinians, while the Palestinians' so-called friends in the West have said nothing, and their charity towards Palestinians consists of guns, explosives, and a merciless ideology of hatred and war.

But you want to credit them with good intentions. Go ahead. What that worth compared to reality?

Where is the problem here?

Help the Palestinian authorities in their efforts. Build a 50-foot high concrete wall aound the entire West Bank, and leave one one heavily guarded checkpoint.

Let anyone out who is prepared to say "Mohammed is an evil false prophet and he and all who follow him will burn eternally in hell." Let nobody in at all. And no goods of any sort either.

If they leave, is there a right of return?

Mark #22,

You're missing, or misinterpreting, a couple of points I made about your earlier post:

1) Using rapid US population growth to explain rapid Palestinian population growth is an apples and oranges comparison. (Or better yet, an apples and horse dung comparison). The US is a highly attractive place to be born in or emigrate to. The Palestinian territories are highly un-attractive places to be born in or emigrate to. Strong population growth in a highly attractive place is normal human behavior. Strong population growth in a highly un-attractive place is not. There must be other explanations for it.

2) The fatwa forbidding long-term emigration by the leading Palestinian mufti (Islamic religious leader) is an example of another explanation for high population growth in a hostile land -- religious coercion. This edict minimizes population losses through emigration.

As you said about population growth, "It happens quite naturally....globally and regionally, except when either death rates or emigration rates are unusuallly high."

3) The fatwa forbidding emigration is an overt example of the Palestinian Muslim leadership's long-term hostile intent toward the State of Israel. Celebrim correctly interprets the fatwa as an effort to ensure ultimate demographic superiority for the conflict with Israel.

Any nation or group that consciously adopts a demographic victory strategy is overtly declaring long-term hostility toward the target of that strategy. The baby of today will not be ready for combat training for 17-20 years. You don't plan that far ahead unless you seriously expect to fight your target a generation or more in the future.

The crazyman idea for peace in the middle east.

Allow all palestinians to immagrate to Iraq.
They should be allowed quick easy access to Iraqi citizenship.

Safeguards should be put in place to have those Palestinians who wish to be involved in fighting are ONLY in Iraqi government approved organizations.

This solves the palestinian problem in, Lebanon, the west bank, gaza and others and provides a large partially trained fighting force for the iraqi government.

James Jones, I have a couple of problems with your reasoning. First this fatwa, which you say is evidence of population growth by design, was issued quite recently from what I gather and was in response to the current civil war. Therefor it could not have been even partly responsible for the growth of the palestinian population over the last 40 years.

secondly, although it is somewhat counterintuitive I grant you, the attractiveness of a place doesn't seem to have much effect on the growth of population. do you think china or india are attractive places to live? poor people have much higher birth rates in general than more well-to-do people.

As far as emigration goes, most palestinians HAVE emigrated. I think this whole discussion accepts as palestinians those in west bank, gaza, but also syria, iraq (if any are still there) lebanon,jordan, etc. The whole premise here is connected to the alleged right of return, i.e. those outside of palestine...and it is the demographics of those who already emigrated that is of concern.

but, in some important sense you are right, i imagine the palestinians understand that time is on their side, and that much like the europeans did with indians in north and south america, will simply overwhelm them with numbers in the end and that...as they say...will pretty much be that.

Just looking at some demographic data, I see the following fertility rates per woman:

Gaza Strip
(1996) = 7.79
(2007) = 5.64
(2025) = 3.51

Israel
(1996) = 2.75
(2007) = 2.38
(2025) = 2.01

West Bank
(1996) = 5.20
(2007) = 4.17
(2025) = 2.71

U.S. Census Bureau, International Data Base

Population is dependent upon fertility rates, mortality rates and immigration. Immigration could become the key issue in the near future.

"Mark B., to address now #27, your stance presumes the palestinians ought to have accepted the Israeli compromise offered. But from their point of view, the compromise was insufficient and was rightly rejected."

And so they have suffered the consequences. Thats what happens when you reject a peace deal, particularly one considered fair by most outside observers. And what was the counteroffer? Intifada.

"Either they will find a mutally agreeable compromise to the difficult situation or they will keep fighting until one wins and the other surrenders (or, more likely, becomes extinct)."

If we are really working off a purely utility based analysis, we should be advocating the Israelis pushing the Palestinians completely out of the Territories and declaring them forever disposessed. And then building a huge wall around the nation and obliterating anyone that is a platform for something coming over it. That would in the long term create less bloodshed than the status quo.

Of course thats assuming justice and fairness have no place at the table, which i gather we both think it should. Palestinians cant win against Israel, can't even compete. It is only Israel forbearance that prevents their destruction. Generally the losing or weaker side is expected to make more compromises in any deal- and yet the only deal the Palestinians have ever agreed to is one in which the Israeli State must cease to exist (right of return). This is the definition of negotiating in bad faith- the only deal you will cut is the death of your competitor.

"They have no effectual parliment or executive than can operate independently of or contrary to the will of the elected Israeli gov't, which, as far as I know, they have no vote in."

Effectual is a loaded word. They have a parliment and executive elected by the people and directly in opposition to the will of Israel in every single way. The ruling party is Israel's most tenacious foe. That they are innefectual... well who is in the streets killing each other today? Hamas and Fatah. What does Israel have to do with that?

Does Israel kill or capture Hamas leaders with blood on their hands? Of course, because they are war criminals and violaters of both International Law and Israel's soveriegn right to self defense. If Mexico's army began shelling New Mexico we would do the same.

And again- you are ignoring the 90s when Arafat ran a completely independant state and then went to war with Israel, which is the proximal cause of where we stand today.

"My understanding is that Israeli Military Law is the ultimate authority within the west bank at this point."

Israeli military Law is the ultimate authority on any battlefield they are drawn to in self defense. Before the latest Intifada they had no writ or presense in Gaza or the West Bank.

None of this debate makes a lick of sense if you fail to recognize that the Palestinians ran an independent state free of Israeli incursion for several years. They then rejected a permanent peace treaty by reigniting war with Israel. And now you say they have no voice because Israel is holding a sword to their throats. You may be right, but who's to blame for it?

Mark B.,

I feel very misunderstood here. All I have been offering is what I assume is the point of view of (most) Palistinians. They are not my views. It really doesn't matter in the least who I (or you, for that matter) blame, think started it, is at fault, etc. You may believe that palestinians should have compromised, but since it wasn't your decision, it isn't of terribly great import what you think. I repeat myself: in my opinion the two sides need to find a compromise or one other will eventually anihilate the other. I'm not claiming that is a particuarly profound thought. But one consequence of it is that desire to be "right" is going to have to be let go of and some understanding of each sides greivences will have to be achieved. Otherwise it will be extermination of one side.

I think you distort the state of affairs within the west bank during the 90s. It was not an independant or soveirgn state, it was under real control of Israel, as it continues to be.

From their point of view---the only one that matters---they rejected a peace offer that was insufficient. The Israelis and the Palestinians both have the same choice here. Make further compromise and find a solution or keep fighting. If one side prefers to be "right" and not compromise to the point where the other can accept, then the choice has been made: keep fighting.

The question is: do they want peace or do they want to be "right." The question is equally valid on both sides.

P.D. it was my understanding that the issue here was the rate of increase of population of palestinians OUTSIDE west bank & gaza. celebrim's initial claim as I understood it was the there is an increase in the # of palestinians seeking the right of return and that increase was the result of plan. I was saying I thought an increase in population was more of a natural consequence of decreasing mortality rates than of any organized plan. I do think demographics will eventually decide the outcome of the mess in the ME. But I regard this as a naturall occuring fact that one side will take advantage of rather than the result of an organized and executed plan.

P. D. Shaw #37,

Sometimes a chart is worth several thousand words! Israel needs to crush the Palestinians in the next generation or their strategic situation will become untenable. There just aren't enough Jews left outside of Israel to make up for the difference in birth rates.

As a couple of great historians once wrote:

"Peoples with low fertility will be periodically chastised by peoples with high fertility."

Will and Ariel Durant
The Lessons of History

All of this is exacerbated by Israel's small territorial size which provides limited space for additional industry, agriculture, and housing. It also provides no strategic depth and only a tactical buffer for Israeli population centers.

Absolute ruthlessness is a necessity from time to time in the competition between nations and peoples. Israel still has time to re-learn this lesson and apply it. But the time remaining shrinks with every year.

mark, I think there are two threads here. I was back at the original one pertaining to emigration from the West Bank.

As to the Palestinians in the refugee camps, I think we would first have to assess the degree of corruption in the numbers. I won't go into this in detail, but based upon the incentives to be counted a refugee and the corruption in the U.N. and the Middle East, any discussion of this in my view would first have to address the reliability of the numbers.

My second observation is the relationship between birth rates and female literacy. I think this is a more crucial factor than poverty. Most women are not literate in Arab countries. This page indicates that refugee literacy rates are about the same as in the Palestinian territories. It gives the female literacy rates as 57% in the West Bank, 69% in Gaza. It also says that Christian literacy rates in these areas are higher than Muslim literacy rates (78% to 69% overall). IMO this reflects cultural distinctions that have at least a partial religious component and are subject to some influence from religious leaders.

The numbers are dropping though. Female literacy is increasing at the same time that population projections are decreasing.

"I think you distort the state of affairs within the west bank during the 90s. It was not an independant or soveirgn state, it was under real control of Israel, as it continues to be."

I would suggest the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. I guess in the sense that Israel could swoop in and flip the apple cart any time they felt like it that is the case. But nothing on the table is ever going to change that state of affairs for any two state solution short of arming the Palestinians with nuclear weapons. And by that definition Luxumburg has no independence or sovereignty because Belgium could sweep them up at any given moment.

"From their point of view---the only one that matters---they rejected a peace offer that was insufficient."

I'm sorry Mark, i really am having trouble processing what you are trying to say. I think you mean their pov is all that matters because they have to accept or reject the deal, and not in a moral or universal sense. Either way i disagree- Saudi Arabia could turn off the spigot in an instant and force the Palestinians to accept a deal. The US could do the same to Israel. So ultimately perception does matter to a nontrivial extent.

But moreover i am having trouble 'getting' your bigger picture. You seem to be dismissing the actions of the Palestinians as practically a force of nature- ie we cant control it so we might as well forget it. But you don't seem to hold the Israelis to the same standard. Or maybe thats not it. Can you reiterate what you are saying about the big picture? Or is it just that this is a quagmire that is really past arguing over?

James Jones: You read those numbers slightly different than me. In the West Bank, population is dropping below the replacement level if a significant number of Palestinians begin leaving. I think this is a significant concern for them regardless of how they compare with Israel.

from mark#40,

Here are a couple of quotes from PLO/PLA leader Yasser Arafat that indicate a long-term strategy for the conquest of Israel. One of them specifically cites high Palestinian demographic growth as an instrumental part of the strategy:

"We plan to eliminate the state of Israel and establish a purely Palestinian state. We will make life unbearable for Jews by psychological warfare and population explosion. We Palestinians will take over everything, including all of Jerusalem."

"Since we cannot defeat Israel in war; we do this in stages. We take any and every territory that we can of Palestine, and establish sovereignty there, and we use it as a springboard to take more. When the time comes, we can get the Arab nations to join us for the final blow against Israel."

BrainyQuotes.com

I've also seen references to this statement or something very similar by Arafat:

"Our greatest weapon --- the wombs of Palestinian women."

I couldn't find an official source for that one so it may be an urban legend. However, it would definitely be in the spirit of the first quote.

This one sums up Arafat's long-term strategy very concisely:

"Peace for us means the destruction of Israel. We are preparing for an all-out war, a war which will last for generations."

Also from BrainyQuotes.com

Mark B.

My point, however poorly stated, was this: It is the Palestinian's (or to the extent that your scenario is true, the Saudi's) that need to be convinced of the "rightness" or moral justness of the Israeli position, not me. But I am guessing that, given their point of view, they are not going to be persuaded. SO, when two people like you and me are discussing the matter, I'm trying to present an overview of the situation from all points of view and come up with a realistic appraisal of the situation and an intellegent discussion about what can and cannot be done by the world's leadership to improve it. I'm not really interested in blaming Arafat (who is dead) or the Israeli's, or get into a discussion about who started what or who is to blame for what.

If I try to present the Palestinian point of view more in a spot like WoC than the Israeli, it is simply because the discussion here is awfully one-sided and IT DOESN"T MATTER WHO IS RIGHT OR WHO IS WRONG unless you think you are able to persaude the Palestinian's tht they are in the wrong and I am damn sure you cannot do such a thing.

My opinion is that, given the demographic reality, the Israelis sooner or later are going to have to admit some of the Palestian claims or risk being right but gone. Many of the Palestinian claims have more legitimacy than is generally recognized in this room. But in the end, as a practical matter, might makes right and some day the Palestinians will be more mighty than the Israelis....or so I fear. As I said earlier, I have lived in Isreal and have a genuine fondness for the country.

PD Shaw #44,

I agree that the combination of a lower projected birthrate, in 2025, and very substantial emigration rates over the next 20 years could derail the Palestinian's long-term strategy.

Isn't that the point of the fatwa forbidding Muslim emigration from the "Blessed Lands" by the leading Palestinian mufti?

Emigration policy isn't something that the Koran or the Hadiths address. (Well, other than the death-bed wish of Muhammad that all Jews and Christians be expelled from the Land of the Two Cities).

The Grand Mufti is part of the Palestinian leadership and he is supporting the objectives of the political and military leaders. His fatwa adds strong religious pressure to any political or social pressure that is already being exerted to curb Palestinian emigration. In addition, his stature as the leading Muslic cleric gives his teachings the force of religious law --- a law that can be enforced by any Muslim or the local PLA/Hamas authorities.

Thanks Mark, that helps. The only issue I take with it is that it can be taken two ways- either Israel should do everything in its power to strike a deal while they still can, or Israel should strike while strong and establish the most powerful base possible.

I happen to have a lot of empathy for the Palestinians in general, I agree they have legitimate grievances. However we have a bigger issue here than either the suffering of the Palestinians or the security of Israel- its how we as a nation and leader of the international community deal with groups that are intentionally recalcitrent and use it as both a weapon and a shield.

The point you make speaks to this- the Palestinian leadership doesnt need to make a deal, which is probably why they refuse to make a deal. Of course they take what is offered and costs them nothing, but only to strengthen their position.

So I ask the same question i ask those who advocate the general principle of negotiating with Iran and Syria- what are we willing to offer that would cause them to verifiably and permanently change their behavior?

There is one school of thought that diplomacy is its own reward- and striking bargains that essentially bribe nasty people and require nothing of them is a good way to build to a real breakthrough. Nothing in my experience indicates this will either work or not backfire terribly.

The other school of thought is simply not to play that game and go about your business, and if that means at some point your interests conflict enough to go to war, well so be it. It was extremely likely anyways, so why hand your you enemy resources and confidence in the meantime?

The bottom line is the civilized nations have many times over offered the Palestinians outs to back down from the brink and indeed resources to take a run at a progressive society. Those dreams always end at the end of Hamas and Jihadi bombs and bullets. Until that ends there is really little we can do for them, and only the Palestinians can make it end.

I go back to my example of every Israeli jew suddenly disappearing from the face of the earth. Does anyone really think handing Palestinians all those resources would end in a society of peace and prosperity? Is there anything in that culture and worldview that leads us to that conclusion? On the contrary, we would at best see another Egypt or Jordan. More likely we'd see another Iraq. That in itself tell us there is something terribly disfunctional at work, and it should certainly tell us that we are stark raving mad to build up a prosperous endgame as a goal for negotiation. How can Israel create something in the Palestinians that at this point in their development they have no ability to create in themselves?

"celebrim's initial claim as I understood it was the there is an increase in the # of palestinians seeking the right of return and that increase was the result of plan. I was saying I thought an increase in population was more of a natural consequence of decreasing mortality rates than of any organized plan."

May I suggest that you believe this not because of any evidence that you may have, but rather solely because it feels as if it should be true. I suggest this because if you had researched this in even the slightest degree before spouting off, you would have realized that your feelings are incorrect. I know the 'truthiness' of believing that this is just a natural consequence of the improved living conditions of the Palestinians post 1947 is strong, but may I suggest facts and reason are a far better guide to the truth.

Someone mentioned that the population of the US had about doubled since 1947, and you thought that this was evidence of the naturalness of population growth in Palestine. It might be if in fact the population growth in Palestine was only a doubling or even only in line with the population growth of other third world countries post 1947. But its not. It is in fact the fastest population growth of anywhere in the world since that time. The population of the descendents of Arab Palestinians since 1947 has not doubled or even tripled, but increased 12 fold. If the USA population had grew so fast, there would be nearly 2 billion of us - not even counting the immigrants since that time. There are six times as many Palestians living in the occupied terroritories alone than there were in the whole of British controlled Palestine.

And this is no accident. James in #45 has already provided several quotes with regard to the fact that the population growth has been a very deliberate strategy. If you had cared to, you could have found those sorts of quotes yourself. But you didn't care to. The facts I was presenting contridicted your pre-concieved narrative, and your gut told you to reject them.

I encourage you to look up things like the 'Law for the Encouragement of Marriage' and the social pressure put on women in Nazi germany if you want to find parallels to the social pressure being put on Palestinian women. It's not as if demographic warfare is unknown.

celebrim, in the future, before you start trying to personalize these discussions in a sophamoric--and unsuccessful-- effort to score points, you might want to take more care by simply re-reading the comments. There you will discover a) I was the "someone" who suggested the US population had doubled over a similar period and b) I suggested that while design might account for increased popluation over natural expectations, a signficant amount of increase could be expected without design and that you should not attribute all of it to design.

You can see this for yourself in #12 that was addressed to you. It reads, in part: "There are 100 million more americans now than in 1947..a 50% increase that occurred without design or calculation. Palestinian intent may account for a larger increase than would otherwise have occured, but without intent the increase would still have happened absent a high death rate."

There's nothing "truthiness" about the belief that if more people are born than die the population will increase.

If you go back and re-read my #12, you will see that, after praising your insight, I sought to make two points in the interest of fairness. One point was in reference to this statement by you: "The main reason that a right of return is an impractical resolution to the conflict is that there would be alot more returning than left. This isn't a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's a deliberate attempt to outnumber the enemy and to drown them out, if not on the battlefield, then socially and politically."

The reason I think clarification is called for here is that without it, one could easily come to the conclusion that you find the mere fact of Palestinians' doing what comes naturally to be a threat in an of itself. Whereas I contend that an increase in population is a constant, natural, world-wide phenonoman. that's why there are more people now than there were before and that it is a mistake to start finding evil intent under every stone.

I'm sorry you feel that expressing opinions in comments on WofC is "spouting off." I can only note that If you are right about that then you must spend a pretty penny on tissues or laundry.

mark: I read your #12, and your #22 and all the rest of your comments.

My point remains. Despite your 'praising my insights', you must not have believed that I held my opinions for good and well considered reasons. Nor did you hold me in enough respect to bother researching this issue before spouting off that I was 'unfairly finding evil intent under every rock', etc.

The points you made 'in the interest of fairness', are not fair and they are not correct. Both of your main points in your original responce to me are wildly inaccurate and betray a certain naivite which indicates you've never bothered to research this question despite the strongness of your opinions on it. But you choose to make those points in your ignorance, in what you call 'in the interest of fairness'. How can you know what is fair if you don't know what the facts are? I'm not in the least bit interested in fairness if it bears no resemblence to the truth. Sometimes, the truth is pretty harsh.

I am not responsible for the sort of conclusions that come easily to you in the absence of facts. I am not responsible for the fact that you choice to answer first, rather than educating yourself and then answering. I am not responsible for your agenda - whatever it is.

You seem woefully uneducated about the history of the Palestinian people. Now, with civil war in Gaza and the permenent second-class non-citizens of Lebanon in revolt, is a good time to correct that and maybe get beyond your simplistic narrative.

My opinion is that, given the demographic reality, the Israelis sooner or later are going to have to admit some of the Palestian claims or risk being right but gone. Many of the Palestinian claims have more legitimacy than is generally recognized in this room. But in the end, as a practical matter, might makes right and some day the Palestinians will be more mighty than the Israelis ...

It makes no difference whether Palestinians have any legitimate claims or not. By your argument, the only possible settlement is one that Palestinians will accept, and their leaders and Arab sponsors will not accept anything less than the destruction of Israel from the Jordan to the sea. So it is quite useless, by your own reasoning, to expect Israel to negotiate any settlement, unless the Palestinians can be held to that settlement with an iron hand. In other words, Israel will make all the concessions and not even get peace in return.

It will take a lot more than warm bodies to make the Palestinians "mighty". Insofar as the PA can be called a state, it is a pauper state that could not exist without generous foreign charity. Western nations provide the payrolls for their workers, and the PA skims as much as they want off the top by using imaginative exchange rates. It is a welter of corruption, division, oppression, inhumanity, and violence, and it is a measure of the warped political perspective of our times that such a place is thought worthy of further empowerment.

If the Palestinians had any friends that really cared about Palestinians, they would support their right to get as far away from Hamas and the PA as possible.

celebrim, I think I have to disagree with you, though I do think that demographic warfare is an implicit element of Islamic law and an express part of the post-67 strategy.

First, the extreme fertility rates since 1947
are also evidence that the base numbers are not accurate. With respect to refugees for example:

Assuming that the UN number of 726,000 is the correct figure in 1948, it would mean that by 1950 there were 126% of the original numbers cited by the UN. No matter what fantastic values are assumed for Palestinian fertility rates, this increase is impossible. No population increases at the rate of 12% per annum. ... It is almost certain that refugee figures reflect a constant accretion of fake duplicate ration cards and of persons who "although not displaced, are destitute."

Even the number of Palestinians today is suspect because of the politicization of the demographic battle:

The researchers reported that the 2004 Palestinian-Arab population was closer to 2.4 million than to the 3.8 million reported by Palestinian Authority (PA) officials. . . . The million-and-a-half person gap occurred because the PA numbers are based on Palestine Bureau of Statistics (PBS) 1997 projections, not on actual population counts.

American-Israel Demographic Research Group

What's the best way to meet a production quota in a socialist state? With a pencil and eraser.

Those researchers estimate current Palestinian fertility rates at 3.89 which is partly the result of including older women who averaged 8-10 children earlier in life. They peg the change to rapid urbanization in the last 15 years.

Secondly, while I understand the NAZI breeding programs, I am not aware of any similar programs in the Palestinian territories. I doubt the Israelis would allow it and I believe the P.A. would be too corrupt to implement it.

OTOH I do disagree with mark that there is not evil intent here. James Jones' quotes (#45) reflect this. The myth of the super-fertile Arab is a bar to a peace deal. If the Palestinians are destined to ultimately win demographically, then there is no reason for compromise. There is no reason to release the refugees from their camps.

I am skeptical of the P.A.'s capability to accomplish anything.

celebrim, I have neither agenda nor narrative. I am simply suggesting the that the increase in population over time among palestinians is not wholly the result of malevolent intent. Populations of other peoples increase over time on a fairly regular basis. It's simple math and simple biology.

Just because you beleive that you hold your opinions for good and well considered reasons is no reason for others to accept them as correct and not subject to dispute. After all, this is a discussion site on the internet. I don't know if you have noticed this before but frequently in these comments different people put forth different ideas and then other people sometimes disagree with those opinions. They usually manage to do so without calling people names or claim that they are woefully uneducated or "spouting off" for having done so.

Let me explain more clearly why I don't believe your claim that the increase in population among palestinians is "not coincidence" but "a deliberate attempt." When a man and a woman have sex, they will sometimes conceive a child. That brings one more person into the world and increases the population. If more people are born over a given time span than die, the population continues to increase. For example, if that man and woman have more than two children, as my parents did, and those children also have children before the death of that first man and woman and this pattern is generally consistent over the range of the whole population in question, that popluation will increase quickly.

Since the desire to have sex and produce children is not limited to the Palestinian people, but a fairly universal characteristic of the human race, I think it is safe to conclude that some part of the increase in the palestinian population is no more the result malevolent intent than is the increase in population anywhere else...the earth, for instance. As I said, some of the increase may be attributible to public policy, but, to be fair, certainly not all of it.

PD's #s seem to show a decrease in the rate of increase recently, at least among Palestinians living in gaza and west bank. If those numbers are correct and there is policy, it seems to be having less effect than it once did.

PD, please note that my claim is NOT that there is no intent. Only that it would account for only a portion of the increase...some of it is natural.

mark:

"I am simply suggesting the that the increase in population over time among palestinians is not wholly the result of malevolent intent."

Then you have been reduced to not having much to say. I certainly don't claim that the increase in population over time is wholly the result of malevolent intent. I did claim that the extremely high birth rates, which are if the most common numbers are to be believed, extremely unusual at a minimum and and possibly even singular are certainly the result of design. Claiming that there would have been some natural increase in the population anyway doesn't contridict my claim or say much of anything useful. Of course, assuming the quality of thier life improved, there would have been some increase in the natural birth rate just as we've seen elsewhere in the developing world. But I think I made it quite clear that this was not merely ordinary population growth I was speaking of.

And, of course, that is to say nothing of the irony of the extremely high birth rates in what some like to describe as the worst misery and living conditions on the planet. I would direct anyone to compare the demographic explosion in Palestine to say the population changes in the Southern Sudan or anywhere else in Africa for that matter, if they believe that the Israeli's are practicing 'genocide'.

I would also like to point you to PD Shaw's fine post as an example of doing what you are claiming to do, but not. I did not say that my opinions were above reproach or criticism. I said that you were not giving me the respect as a writer that you claim to be giving, so you should hardly be surprised that I don't respond to you in a respectful way either. I'm perfectly willing to accept disagreement, in fact I'm even desirous of it, provide such disagreement is based on some facts and not some feelings as to what constitutes 'fairness'.

PD Shaw: I admit that with contridicting information, I don't know entirely what set of numbers to believe. It's certainly possible that the Arabs, both within and without Palestine are lying about the number of 'refugees'. And what you outline there agrees with some things I was told by an Israeli friend of mine, whose opinions on many things I strongly credit, but which I kept a certain skeptical note on certain things touching political opinions.

I would point out that whether they have achieved the birth rates that they are commonly credited with or not actually makes little difference when judging their intent. A persons intention isn't judged by whether they succeed, but whether they want to succeed. So whether they are lying about thier population to encourage graft or to intimidate or to bolster thier perception of importance, or whether they've actually achieved the populations they are generally credited with is of relatively small importance when it comes to determining whether they are intending to practice demographic warfare.

Further, even if they've only hit the smaller numbers, that's still a very fast growth rate (if more in line with other third world countries in the same time period).

Likewise, whether they are making deliberately making reconcilation harder by having larger families or whether thier ranks are being bolstered by immigrants (as is cited as a possibility between '47 and '50) who falsely claim 'refugee' status (which under international law they aren't entitled to at this point anyway), the effect on the possibility of peace is the same.

As for the breeding program, you yourself mentioned the demographic warfare inherent in Arab/Islamic law and culture, so stating that you weren't aware of any official legal or governmental program very much dodges the point. They don't need an official program of this nature because of the status and role Islam not only encourages in women but legally requires of them, the cultural value placed on children, and the many social pressures being placed on the palestinians to breed to support the cause (as the quotes by James Jones show). In such a situation, you don't need a special law promoting marriage and childbirth, because it is more or less socially required of any marriagable women anyway and they have very little power to refuse such pressures.

I've very little knowledge of the drift of social custom in Palestine, but I would hypothesize that if I'm correct then Palestinian TV under the guise of promoting 'traditional values' would be encouraging things like polygamy, arranged marriages, large families, encouraging girls to marry young, and so forth. But that's the sort of thing that doesn't filter up to English news sources.

celebrim, here is your statement, that caused me to step into this discussion:

"The main reason that a right of return is an impractical resolution to the conflict is that there would be alot more returning than left. This isn't a coincidence by any stretch of the imagination. It's a deliberate attempt to outnumber the enemy and to drown them out.."

This was my response: "Palestinian intent may account for a larger increase than would otherwise have occured, but without intent the increase would still have happened absent a high death rate."

Here's what you now claim:" I certainly don't claim that the increase in population over time is wholly the result of malevolent intent."

So it would seem that we agree on this point after all and your statement to me, "May I suggest that you believe this not because of any evidence that you may have, but rather solely because it feels as if it should be true." was unwarranted. Now you can unwad your panties and feel a little more comfortable.

You wrote: "Claiming that there would have been some natural increase in the population anyway doesn't contridict my claim ..." If you take another look at my original comment, #12, you will see that I never set out to contradict your claim but rather to improve it by pointing out that not ALL the increase was the result of intent, while admiting that some may very well be. My reason for doing so was to give at least a few palestinians a little room to go about the business of being human without being accused of using every act of procreation as a weapon. Too often, in these discussions, people, however unconsciously, attempt to dehumanize, if not outright demonize, the palestinians. This seems to make it easier to claim they should take what ever they are offered and be grateful for it. Now, I am not saying that is what you were up to. But I did think it worth pointing out that not all the increase in population was attributable to design, which your original statement seemed to suggest.

Mark#60 -- Thank you for finally stating your true purpose in this debate:

"My reason for doing so was to give at least a few palestinians a little room to go about the business of being human without being accused of using every act of procreation as a weapon. Too often, in these discussions, people, however unconsciously, attempt to dehumanize, if not outright demonize, the palestinians. This seems to make it easier to claim they should take what ever they are offered and be grateful for it."

It's okay to be a Palestinian apologist here. It's even okay to be a pro-Palestinian partisan and advocate the destruction of Israel, sweeping the Jews into the sea, and unifying all of Palestine under the holy green Islamic banner of Hamas.

But be honest about it.

There is a mountain of evidence supporting the argument that the long-term intention of the Palestinian Muslim population is the destruction of Israel. There are differences over the strategies and tactics that should be used to achieve this goal but there is no significant opposition to the goal itself.

The fatwa forbidding Palestinian Muslim emigration by the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem is just one more boulder to add to that mountain of evidence of hostile long-term intent.

And you eventually admitted that, yes, there really is substantial evidence supporting the argument that the Palestinians are and have been encouraging the accelerated growth of their population as part of a demographic warfare strategy. But, But, you argue, "it's not 100% of the reason for their very rapid population growth over the last 50 years!"

None of us arguing the other side of this debate ever said it was.

None of us ever suggested that Palestinians dislike heterosexual sex. None of us ever suggested that Palestinians dislike having children.

What Celebrim, and Glen Wishard, and PD Shaw, and I and others are arguing is:

1) That the Palestinians have deliberately encouraged a substantially higher reproductive rate than most other poor populations, and;

2) That the Palestinians are now deliberately using the fatwa forbidding emigration to keep as much of their expanded population as possible in the West Bank and Gaza, and;

3) That this fatwa is yet more evidence of a long-term geo-political strategy to defeat the State of Israel through demographic superiority.

All of which you finally ended up mostly agreeing with --- after a host of quibbles, and obfuscations, and minor re-calibrations.

And all of which you could have skipped if you had just cut to the chase and said:

"Yes, it's true that the fatwa is more evidence that the Palestinians really do want to eventually destroy Israel. However, the Israelis should not act on this evidence of hostile intent and destroy the Palestinians first. No, the Israeli's must use only the absolute minimum of force against the Palestinians until their very survival is at stake. Even then, they should only use the minimum force necessary to restore the status quo antebellum."

"Israel can never use its full power without restraint to achieve total victory over the Palestinians. This is completely immoral for a Western power that is fighting a non-Western power. It is doubly immoral for a Western nation that is fighting a weaker non-Western nation."

"It doesn't matter how inhuman the Palestinians are in their attacks on Israeli civilians. It doesn't matter how demonic the Palestinians are in their treatment of captured Israeli soldiers. The Palestinians have the right to fight without restraints or limits because they are non-Western and they are the weaker combatant."

"We must always remember that any Western nation is guilty by definition because it belongs to the most advanced civilization on the planet. It is only fair and just that Western nations restrain themselves when fighting weaker, non-Western opponents. Israel must understand that the Palestinians feel oppressed by Israeli power and success. Every drop of Israeli blood that Palestinians shed helps Israeli's to expiate their guilt for being Western and powerful and successful."

The reason you didn’t write something like what I wrote, above, is that open acknowledgement of long-term Palestinian intent to destroy Israel might help expose the “will-o-the-wisp” of peace through interminable negotiations, and withdrawal, and financial aid to the Palestinians for the deception that it is. Israel might actually decide to compete for victory instead of fighting just hard enough to not lose or to lose very slowly.

Then the Palestinians might learn the cold, hard truth of history that all nations have the right to compete for existence and even victory over others, but no nation has the right to victory, or even existence.

That would be bad enough for a Palestinian partisan. A worse result for you would be that Israel would discover the rewards of total victory. However, the worst result of all for you would be that the West as a whole re-discovers that it has the right to compete for victory with its full power, that it has the right to fight without restraints, and that it is not responsible for the continued existence of its enemies.

For then our victory over militant Islam and its state supporters will be certain.

James Jones, thank you for explaning to me what I really think as I had been labouring under the apparently false impression that all I had been trying to do was inject a small measure of humanity into the discusion. I'll know better next time. I'm sure you are right that every single Palestinian is a dog bent of the destruction of blessed Israel, which can do no wrong, and therefore deserves immediate death. I will try not to ever again deviate from that line of thinking.

one question though, what is the source of a nation's right to compete for existence and (okay, 2 questions) doesn't the right to compete for existence imply the right to existence itself (if for no other reason than that in order to compete for existence it must first exist?) Perhaps you meant all peoples have a right to try to build a nation, but there is no guarantee they will be successful. But again, what is the source of this right?

You guys are obviously welcome to debate this issue all you like. I would simply suggest that there is an element of navel gazing involved. Right of Return is a dead issue- always will be.

Right of return to Israel is dead. As it must be. Palestinians would obviously be welcome to return to the West Bank and Gaza once they become independent in a two state scenario. But right of return to Israel is a poison pill, pure and simple.

No matter what the greivances of the Palestinians are, it is a fundamental tenant of any negotiation that no side can be expected to accept a deal resulting in its own certain destruction. I know, this seems like an obvious point, but apparently it isnt that obvious.

Israel may be expected (and in fact has offered) to recompensate displaced Palestinians monetarilly. Those are the kind of negotiations that can be discussed in good faith. But forget about a return to Israel. Its a bad faith argument. When the 'solution' being dwelt upon involves virtual genocide, making it a complete nonstarter for now and forever, you know its a smokescreen and a waste of time.

Just my opinion.

Mark B., I completely agree. I'm not sure than anyone is arguing otherwise. At least I haven't heard of anyone arguing in favor of Right of Return to Israel around here. I think that, overall, I am pretty much in synch with your opinions with a few minor differences as far as what I would do if I were world king.

If there is a difference of opinion between you and me I think it comes down to my believing the burden or responsibility should be shifted a little more towards the Israeli side than you would place it, in order for it to be in the middle. Where the burden of responsibility is placed is important when trying to work out a compromise. I can understand that from the Palestinian point of view all offers so far have been seen to be short of acceptibility. Whether or not rejection was wise, given all the facts, is another matter. It may have been wiser for them to have accepted an unfair offer than to fight for a fairer one. On the other hand, given the drift now towards Hamas, it may prove to have been unwise of the Israelis not to have offered a little bit more.

I go back to what I said earlier. The question for both sides is: do you want a little bit of peace or do you want to be right. For a little bit of peace, each side is going to have to surrender something precious. Otherwise it's war for the next generation. Just my opinion, which, I am the first to admit has no bearing on the matter.