Prime Minister Ariel Sharon

Something tells me if there was an easy answer to the Israel/Palestine problem, it would have been done by now. Let's face it, we are all just armchair politicians who haven't really got a clue what is going on, only what the news people want to tell us.

We won't be seeing you in Madame Fortuna's caravan at the Town Moor then, eh?

Which comes with the advantage of detatched perspective, and circumvents beaurocratic and ideological obstacles.

everyone knows best.

Too much big guy

It is a mistake to think that because Israel have American backing and a comprehensive military force that they are in the controling position.

By saying this you are saying the blame lies on Israels shoulders and in order for them to move forward Israel need to back down, this isn't the case at all.

Who had control in algeria in the aglierian-franco clashes, the french or the algerian freedom fighters? although the freedom fighters were the underdogs - they were in the position of control and the french forces were actualy on the defensive!

Israel is a similar situation - although it would appear they are in a position of control, their aggressive nature is actually aggresive defence. Now it may seem barbaric to you and me to in effect create ghetto's, assisnate hamas leaders, shoot on sight, etc. But the alternative is the very same happening to them... If they back down the arabs attack!

The only way this will ever sort itself, is if both sides move forward.

the guilt lies just as heavily on the palestinians as it does on the Israeli's.

p.s. don't think this is just a case of israel v palestine, this is Israel v the arab world... As history has proven again and again, when israel show weakness it isn't the PLO that attacks its lybia and other arab nations who have powerful and influencial military forces.

Not to mention extremely limited information and the goings on of two peoples condensed into two-minute news segments. And I think most of us do have idealogical obstacles.

The Israelis really could have saved their rockets. Looked like the bloke was gonna pop his clogs any minute anyway.

lol ignore them that was fucking great answer!

100% true... first time i've agreed with you for a while! Israel has to show strength or the surrounding arab nations will not hesitate in attacking, despite the peace treaty with israel and egypt... this has been proved before with the arab-israeli wars of 48, 56, 67 and 73. The Jews do deserve a homeland, the manner in which it was created was wrong to say the least because the problem of the palestinians will not go away easily. I disagree with sharons strong arm tactics, he is fiercly pro-israel military man and was against the creation of a palestinian state, that is a reason why the roadmap to peace was doomed from the start.

he was elected in retalition to Palestinian aggression - talk about a vicious circle

Israel and its modern M1A2 tanks have time and time again, most noticably the Yom Kippur war, demonstrated the ability to absolutely cane arab forces in a conflict. Also, if an arab state explicitly invaded Israel, I have no doubt American troops would respond.

I do agree that the Palestinian and Arab authorities are just as much to blame as the Israeli authorities on a day to day basis in terms of tit for tat; if they are directly responsible for coordinating the terrorist attacks, then they are more so.

I was looking at it from the perspective of the people, not the leaderships involved.

If, say, millions of Russians decided to settle in the UK, facilitated by the support of a foreign superpower, and then the Russians proceeded to oust the British, I would be suitably disgruntled, and inclined to take action myself.

Yes, I realise that Jews are persecuted in a unique way different from other forms of racism, and that they needed security, but why did this have to be with the methodology of an invasion rather than a settlement and integration?

I think that the way things are now, neither side can back down, so I will restate, they should be mediated by an impartial external force, and I see no better candidate than the UN.

Exactly... previous leaders such as netanyahu and rabin had different stratagies and policies that were possibly not as "confrontatioal" as sharon's... infact he is nicknamed "the bulldozer"! I may be wrong but I think rabin was assassinated by a jewish militant unhappy with a continued thawing of relationships with egypt. I think an egyptian leader (anwar) was also assassinated by one of his own after the peace treaty. This indicates any steps towards peace will still be met with fierce and deadly opposition. Maybe sharon has some things sussed (rightly or wrongly) about the affairs in the region.

They never went in and invaded to quote Jamal Husseini:

The Jewish people have always been on the defensive, we were running from Hitler, now we're running from the Arabs... I agree on the UN issue they really did fuck up the intergration of the two people... But that is all in the past and its the future we should look at.

I think a Mediation force wouldn't last two seconds, there is too much conflicting interests within the UN, the middle eastern problem could pull apart an already unstable organisation.

The only solution is for Palestine and Israel to move forward, this can be done I just think the current leaders aren't the people to do it.. when you compare them to ghandi, mandela, etc. they don't seem the political leaders to impliment such change and loyalty... maybe arafat had it within his powers a few years ago - but not anymore.

The middle east needs leadership - not mediation.

in agreement again

lol well we haven't much chance of disagreeing on this subject as im fiercly pro-israel

Maybe the Arab nations fired the first shots, but proto-Israel laid the seeds for the conflict by acting like an invading force, ie not integrating, and assuming a right to occupy Palestine. As I have said, yes the jews needed somewhere and yes they went through terrible genocide ( although 4 times more ethnic Russians died at Hitler's hands than Jews, they were casualties of war and not victims of premeditated murder ), two wrongs don't make a right, as they say.

Strong leadership will, in my opinion, polarize the situation even more.

Look at the early Kibbutz in Israel - it seems clear to me that the entrenched positions of the leaders on both sides has led to a war of attrition, when it is clear peace is possible.

the russians chose to go to war, the jews didn't chose to be gassed... HUGE difference.

Strong leadership doesn't mean aggressive leadership, you can have passive aggresive leadership like ghandi, semi-passive like mandela, etc. But without strong directional leadership there will always be conflict and leadership struggles within the communities as there is no set direction for the masses to follow... Just look at when the IRA split.

Strong leadership is a must if this is to move forward... UN mediation is nothing without strong leadership... It merely obstructs the conflict... it doesn't solve it.

With regards the difference between the deaths of Russians and Jews, I alluded to it in my previous post, and I agree. However, Hitler invaded Russia - the Russians did not choose to wage war. The differentiation in my mind is that the intent behind the killing of Russians could be justified by strategic goals, including simply wearing down the russian economy by attrition, whereas the Holocaust was without a shred of possible justification.

I still hold the line that strong leadership will lead to further entrenchment and nationalism,and will not solve the conflict, but your point about fragmentation is valid and well taken.

It is apparent that any path will be very difficult to follow, due either to the reasons I have given, or those you have.

Communist revolution in both states, anyone?

lol but that would break western perception of jews and arabs being hook nosed greedy money hoarders