Beth Kennedy lives with her family on a farm on the Eastern Shore of Maryland. She is a substitute teacher, who plans to study law.
More from Beth Kennedy
	Dear Palestinian People
	Read up on Palestinian history please Al Blum
	The myth of the Palestinian People Yehezkel Bin-Nun
	The Palestinian's myth Jeff Jacoby

The readers who wrote in obviously know something about which they write, and care just as passionately as I do. As they have taken the time to write thoughtful responses, they now deserve thoughtful answers. Here goes...

First, there was never a State of Palestine, nor a Palestinian nation. True, one of the names for this region over the years has been "Palestine," but that name NEVER referred to a sovereign country. It was strictly a geographical area, like the Mojave Desert.

Through the centuries, many peoples, including Jews, Babylonians, Syrians, Romans, Muslims, Crusaders, Mamalukes, Ottomans, and the English, have all claimed sovereignty over this land. But no people called the "Palestinians" ever ruled that area because they never historically existed.

With amazing irony, someone who claims to be a Palestinian accuses Israel of being "a foreign society in our native land." That same author writes: "learn to live in peace... or... return to wherever they came from," meaning, of course, the Israelis. But, you see, Jews are returning to where they came from. This is the whole point of Zionism. This is also the thinking behind the creation of the Balfour Declaration in 1917. The Jewish people would return to their historical homeland... where they HAD come from.

When Zionists did start returning to the land of Palestine, they encountered "little more than a great sandy waste." None less than Mark Twain referred to the region as a "hopeless, dreary, heartbroken land." It was not until the returning Jews had once again made the land productive through the introduction of modern agricultural techniques, that Arab groups started coming to the area in search of jobs.

So, Israel neither fought a war against a Palestinian State nor occupied its lands. The disputed territories were won by Israel in the various wars she has been in. They should be her lands by right of conquest. She won them from Jordan and Egypt. She did not win them from "Palestine" because the country never existed.

Wars often have been fought over land. The acquisition of land because of war is nothing new. Should America return Texas and New Mexico to the Mexicans? After all, we won them in a war...

Furthermore, the difference between Iraq's invading Kuwait and Israel's now owning land that once belonged to Jordan and Egypt is night-and-day. Iraq, without any provocation, attacked and invaded the sovereign state of Kuwait. Its army then occupied the country, until an international force threw it out. Before the invasion, there was no war. This is reminiscent of Nazi Germany's "blitzkrieg" which threatened to swallow Europe: there was no war until the Nazi's started invading European countries.

Contrast Iraq's unprovoked aggression with the fact that Israel has been through multiple wars with her neighbors. She has won all of those wars. When attacked, she has successfully repulsed her enemies, even pushing them back far enough so that she could claim new territory. These new lands should now be hers by what should be her right of conquest.

That Israel has been willing to negotiate giving back some of her thus won land shows how deeply she does want peace. However, Resolution 242, for example, does not specify that ALL conquered territories should be handed over. Therefore, the Golan Heights, which are strategic to Israel's national security, would not necessarily have to be handed over. In light of the current barrage of terror coming at her, Israel would probably do well to keep the Golan for security reasons.

The Oslo Accords never specified percentages or sizes of territory for further redeployments. They do not even require Israel to withdraw from most of Judea or Samaria. Neither Oslo nor the Interim Agreement restrains the establishment or development of communities in Judea, Samaria, or Gaza. The Note for the Record makes it clear that further redeployments are to be decided by Israel alone, rather than being issues for negotiation with the Palestinians. Thus, there is no legal justification to prevent Israel from building on land that she owns. How is it "colonialism, imperialism, and racism" for Israel to build on her own land?

How much money has the Palestinian Authority squandered on buying arms to use against Israelis? Couldn't Arafat put this money to better use by developing his own people's economy? How much time, energy, and resources- both human, and otherwise - have the Palestinians wasted in waging the Intifada?

So, it's absolutely ludicrous to think that the Palestinians are a "people living in fourth century world conditions for generations against a brutal and wrong-headed occupation" if you mean, by "occupation," the Israelis. Israel is not what's holding them back! Before the Intifada began, the extent of bilateral trade ranged between $2.0-$2.5 billion, and the total number of Palestinians employed in Israel was between 80,000-100,000. Those numbers had been growing until the Intifada interrupted progress.

However, if you're really blaming the terrorists, who have hijacked Palestinian society and now control their institutions, for the shattered economy and poor standard of living, then I'd be inclined to agree with you...

Let's define terrorism: It is the intentional targeting of innocent civilians to either hurt them or kill them. It is random and unpredictable. Its ultimate aim is the destruction of a society.

When a disguised bomber boards a bus and detonates, was it intentional? Yes. Was it terrorism? You bet.

When a disguised gunman opens fire on people eating in a restaurant, was it intentional? Yes. Was it terrorism? You bet.

Ask yourself this: When is the use of terror justified as a military tactic? As a political tactic? As an economic tactic? When it ultimately succeeds in getting what is desired? Does the end justify the means? Should the use of terror be rewarded? What implication does this hold for future conflicts?

Before you consider Northern Ireland a success story, please realize that there have been additional incidents over there in recent months, and that many weapons and munitions are still stored in hidden caches, awaiting the results of further negotiations...

History teaches us that peace is not a process that can be negotiated into place. Rather, it is an outcome that must be won.

Put simply, there will be no peace in the Middle East until Israel wins it.

Views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of israelinsider.

© 2001-2002 Koret Communications Ltd. All rights reserved. Terms of Use.