Tom Toles for April 29, 2011

Maybe the Crusaders got it right. Burn all the books & kill anyone who’s ever read them. As long as anyone remembers the history of the Middle East, it’s an obstacle to peace.

“As long as they hate their enemies more than they love their children.”

forget about us, they can’t even get along with themselves!

Sooky Rottweiler says; Almost as hopeless as my humans’ family. That’s why she ditched them.

Is it possible for the rest of the World to ditch two countries?

The obstacle to peace is that bringing Hamas and Fatah together only means that now there is a stronger group to not recognize Israel’s right to exist. It’s difficult to negotiate with someone who thinks you shouldn’t exist, and is willing to kill themselves to make that happen.

^ Agree. Hamas and Fatah are an obstacle to peace in all forms.

you and your side will kick-off. me and my side will defend that piece of wood at the other end of the field. you’ll defend that piece of wood at this end of the field…

war - what is it good for ? absolutely NOTHING !!!!!!!!!!!!

How long can Israel last before the rest of the world starts to treat it like they did South Africa in the 1980s?

Abraham should have offed BOTH his kids.

“It’s difficult to negotiate with someone who thinks you shouldn’t exist, and is willing to kill themselves to make that happen.”

Is that really the case, however? Khaled Meshaal, one of the Hamas chiefs, already said Hamas can recognize Israel’s right to exist and legitimacy - within 1967 borders (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124899975954495435.html). In fact, he isn’t the only one - but again, with the clarification that they want Israel within the same borders (http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249568,00.html). As in, excluding the West Bank and Gaza - regions in which there are quite a few heavily armed and defended settlements the Arabs are, for some reason, less than happy about.

Here’s the killer, really - the 1967 borders are the ones most states around the world recognize as Israel’s legitimate territory. Most Israeli politicians, naturally, disagree… So it IS a bit less clear than “Hamas and Fatah are an obstacle to peace in all forms.”

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3249568,00.html

^ With the exception of Jerusalem, I have no problem with the 1967 borders. And Arafat had the offer and turned it down. Since Israel has completely withdrawn from Gaza I assume you are referring to the West Bank territory, which if you you go back to the 1967 borders would revert to Jordan. Jordan by the way doesn’t want that territory (Israel tried to give back during peace negotiations). Just like Egypt wouldn’t take back Gaza. The Arab states don’t want to have to deal with the Palestinians either and prefer to keep them as an Israel problem.

AFAIK, the Camp David deal involved the Palestinians getting most of the West Bank, but not all. I don’t think any deal so far has involved Israel giving them control of all the land - including the settlements erected there since 1967. For all the talk of him turning it down also iirc negotiations were still going on in 2001.

It’s probably the single hardest issue in the entire mess. By now I don’t know if the Israeli politicians are able to do relinquish control over the entire West Bank, even if they did promise it. Likewise, I doubt any Palestinian politician would have enough authority with the various groups there to guarantee peace while the settlement enclaves remain, even if he wanted to.

As the toon states, it’s just status quo.