Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"Frank" wrote in message ...

Then why do these folks keep calling themselves Palestinians?

I believe the UN declared a Palestinian refugee to be anyone who had lived
in Palestine for two years or more prior to the Arab attack on the new
state of Israel in 1948 and had lost their homes and livelihood as a
result of
that conflict. Israel absorbed the Jewish refugees. The Arab states
refused to absorb the Arab refugees so they were left in camps in what
would have been the new Arab state in Palestine.

What was all that negotiating borders for?

Which negotiations?


Pick one. Both sides periodically get together and come up with some new
agreement. Then both sides go home and figure out a way to screw it up. The
point is that both sides have acknowledged that each has a claim.



Right, wrong or indifferent there are a lot
of people that feel they have a claim to something there. Even Israel
agrees with that in priniciple.

The Arabs claim all of the land, including the state of Israel.


Not all Arabs, specifically the ones that are interested in peace do not.
Hamas' support dries up as soon as this new state is created and the people
no longer have to pass thru Israeli checkpoints to get to work.




I don't know, but it's my understanding that the people in the camps
and in the disputed areas aren't on either the Jordanian or the Israeli
voting roles.


Well of course they're not on Israeli voting rolls. Why would they be?
They're not citizens of Israel. Those that had property in Israel would
be on Israeli voting rolls if they hadn't abandoned their land.

I don't know if there are any Jordanian voting rolls.


But if there are then these other would be on them? (That's a real question
btw). This discussion started about a question of whether one is a
terrorist or a freedom fighter. To me a large part of that issue can be
clarified by whether or not people in these refugee camps have the right to
vote somewhere.


They consider themselves Palestinians and they, apparently, have
various treaties/accords/agreements to support that notion.


They consider themselves Palestinians because they either lived in the
Palestine region before the war or are descendents of someone that lived
there. They are not citizens of Palestine, there is no nation of
Palestine and there never was one.


But there supposedly is one coming if agreement can be reached, right?



If I am wrong
and they _were_ able to vote for or against Sharon last election then I
will be suprised that they haven't been able to put up numbers that would
infuence the election.


Did you vote in the last Israeli election? If not, why not?


My point/question is that if the Arabs in question are not citizens of
Israel and they are not citizens of Jordan and they have some legitimate
(by agreement) claim on the land then that would support the "freedom
fighter" label.



Israel has agreed to the creation of a Palestinian state, although they
certainly aren't happy about it.


Israel agreed to the creation of an Arab state in Palestine 57 years ago!
That is, the Jews in Palestine agreed to the partition plan that would
have created a second Arab state from the Palestine Mandate.


Has it been that long? You'd think they could've made more progress.

But you seem to be saying that there is a basis for these people to believe
they are Palestinians, unless this second Arab state the Jews agreed to is
to be called something else. In which case they would be
something-else-ians.



Understandable in that no one want's to
give up land. But they are in the driver's seat when it comes to the
peace process and dragging this out just causes too much pain and
suffering on both sides.

The Israelis aren't going anywhere and neither are the Palestinians. The
sooner Israel gives up trying to avoid actually handing over the promised
territory the better.

Arafat was offered over 90% of the "occupied territories" and control of
most of Jerusalem four years ago as a STARTING point in negotiations. He
turned it down. The Arabs aren't interested in peace, they're only
interested in the destruction of Israel.


What Arafat turned down was a Swiss cheese map that didn't have a continuous
border to be found. Kinda like saying Chicago and St. Louis are one country
but everything in between is something else.

You describe it as a starting point. Maybe it was. If so, it strikes me as
not a very good one. To me it looks like a way for Israel to appear to
offer something and then be able say it was the other sides fault for not
taking it. Even though it was a deal they themselves would never agree to
were the situations reversed.

Either way, Israel has shown it is no more interested in peace than the
Arabs. It is definitely in Sharon's interest to keep provoking more
attacks. His power comes from NOT giving up any land. It's a shame groups
like Hamas play right into his hands. But ultimately Israel has more
opportunity to resolve this.

What I find so ironic about this whole mess is that of all the peoples of
the world, Jews should understand what it means to be displaced, occupied,
and otherwise oppressed.

--
Frank....H