Is everyone still convinced that giving back territory taken in wars of aggression against them, was a wise move?

A Hamas-only government, without Fatah as a moderating force, is sure to throw Mideast peacemaking into turmoil.

'Cause Fatah has done such a stellar job with that there "Mideast peacemaking" deal.

Abbas couldn't turn off the violence, any more than Arafat could - they both just clung to the tiger's tail.

Hopefully, Hamas will prove more intimidating.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 26, 2006 10:17 AM

erp:

Yes.

That territory was ultimately more liability than asset, and Israel is acting wisely to cut her losses.

Security is uncompromised.

In fact, Israel has never been stronger, compared to her neighbors. Only one other Mideast nation could contemplate attacking Iran, much less pull it off, and Pakistan would have to go nuclear, which Israel doesn't have to do.

That puts Israel at the table with the adults, militarily speaking: The U.S., UK, Russia, and for now, France.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 26, 2006 10:27 AM

OK, Michael, what about the Southwest, excluding TX - who won't give up nothing.

Why would Hamas have to be an effecient governing party? The PLO/PA wasn't for decades before getting booted. Moreover, even if Hamas is willing to abide by the ballot box, I would bet a big chunk of change that Hamas will be out of power faster for not attacking Israel than failing to improve the Palestinian economy.

Still, this is a big win for Israel because as was noted in an earlier thread, once the Palestinians have a state Israel will have a much freer hand to respond to the attacks.

AOG:

No they weren't. They lost the first contested referendum on their rule.

erp:

They'll have to give back more or become the Afrikaaners.

This election will become problematical when Iran does get the bomb.

The 3rd of Never.

Sandy P:

The Mexicans want to build us some houses, or watch our kids, or serve us up some vittles, not crush us or blow us up.

We ought to be annexing Mexico, not giving up the Southwest. Everyone would be better off, except the PRI.

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at January 26, 2006 3:38 PM

You're entitled to your opinions, but I still think they were wrong to give back the land. Israel tried to be accommodating and it got them nowhere, they should have ruled by Israeli law right from the start and kicked out the trouble makers.

erp:

Would you rather have the land or a Jewish state? You can't have both.

You mean the 1996 election? Arafat won that for the PLO.

No. Yesterday.

oj. I don't want the land, except as it enhances Israel's sovereignty and safety. How would ruling the occupied territories under Israeli law change Israel from a Jewish state?

However, I need to give this notion some thought because at some point Israel will need to make the decision to move away from being a Jewish state and move toward being a peaceful working democracy with a more diverse population?

It's time for younger people without decades of dug-in attitudes to rise as leaders in all the Middle East. Obviously Hamas can't rule, the violence already started and will continue as long as it's tolerated.

More upsetting times ahead, but in the end, I think it will all work out.

Because Palestinians live there and they'll soon outnumber Jews and they'll vote Palestinians in and Jews out of office.

Damn OJ, I thought you'd never get around to it.