Israel rightfully own the West Bank .
I3BrigPvSk
The Viking
Legually or not - why should a "Jewish" state own 3 million not jewish phalastinians?eace:
Don't forget that we want to be a democracy- so we need to keep a larger jewish population to keep ourselves a jewish state.
On the other hand- if we truely and legually own those real estate- shouldn't we as stereotipical jews take rent money from the P pepople? - lol
tank commander rev. idf -(one rank above first seargent )
miki
p.s merqava 3 rules!! (@uck 4)
own is perhaps another term to occupy another place. Why not take rent, but be careful now, I am Swedish so therefore I am anti-semitic according to some one here. It was a while ago I came across an Israeli. I view Israel as a democratic state domestically, internationally.....well.....some mistakes have been made. However, when we read the history of the Jewish people....Hmm Spain, dang christians, huh? The Black Death, 1348, the jewish people were accused to cause the plague, even if they died as the majority of the others. Then the holocaust, of course that one created a fear of a repeat.
btw what is wrong with the Merkava 4?
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I'm not trying to be offensive, but sometimes I think if would just be safest if the Jewish people colonized another planet...
Honestly, I can't understand how much antisentiment you can have to wards another people, or more importantly why people who are not involved choose to hate them as well.
Me personally, leave them alone, and maybe violence would decrease in the are of Israel, just a shot out of a cannon.
Hard thing commenting on this topic, cause no matter what you say, about thirty counter points will be machine gunned at you from the disagreeing parties (and there are allot of them!).
Honestly, I can't understand how much antisentiment you can have to wards another people, or more importantly why people who are not involved choose to hate them as well.
Me personally, leave them alone, and maybe violence would decrease in the are of Israel, just a shot out of a cannon.
Hard thing commenting on this topic, cause no matter what you say, about thirty counter points will be machine gunned at you from the disagreeing parties (and there are allot of them!).
A Can of Man
Je suis aware
Boy did you totally miss the mark... even in your attempt at sarcasm. :sarc:
Yossarian
Forum Resistance Leader
I was not being serious, not anti semetic, I do not hold any grudges or sense of even mildest distaste for Jewish people, anywhere. I wouldnt mind moving to that planet as most likely many of the world's issues would most likely be left behind...
What I meant was, no I do not want them to magically disapear, it was more along the lines of "gee somtimes I wish (for a positive outcome)", it's ridcolous that the situation has been unresolved for so long, and it's very hard to talk about, cause you are literally discussing people's lives.
It's hard explaining that you don't have an intense hatrid of most groups of people in the world, or almost any group for that matter.
But my deepest sympathies go out to those on both sides of the issue who are caught in the middle of the events taking place there, those just trying to make it through their day to day.
But there it is, my other point is proven,at least for me I am iced even before I poked my head out on this one.
Oh and your right I really tripped over myself there...ima get outta here before I stain the thread for everyone else!
What I meant was, no I do not want them to magically disapear, it was more along the lines of "gee somtimes I wish (for a positive outcome)", it's ridcolous that the situation has been unresolved for so long, and it's very hard to talk about, cause you are literally discussing people's lives.
It's hard explaining that you don't have an intense hatrid of most groups of people in the world, or almost any group for that matter.
But my deepest sympathies go out to those on both sides of the issue who are caught in the middle of the events taking place there, those just trying to make it through their day to day.
But there it is, my other point is proven,at least for me I am iced even before I poked my head out on this one.
Oh and your right I really tripped over myself there...ima get outta here before I stain the thread for everyone else!
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Are you kidding me this thread torpedoed itself at post#1 there isn't a lot you could have done to it.
You can't have constructive discussion on something that has no middle ground, the reality is that the Palestinians are not going to negotiate in good faith because they have nothing to negotiate with and Israel wont negotiate in good faith until they are forced to the negotiating table so all we can really do is sit back and wait for one to wipe the out.
Last edited:
SilverAssassin
Active member
"I want to address whether the IDF won the '73 war. By any definition, the IDF were the winners. The Soviet Union saved the Egyptian army by actually planning to send troops to rescue the Egyptian 3rd army which was completely surrounded"
just to short cut the debate
Israel crossed the canal for 4 purposes
1-occupy ismaelia
2- occupy suez
3-force the egyptian third army to surrender
4- advancing on cairo
did israel achieve any of such purposes ?
they were defeated in ismaelia
even after the cease fire they tried to occupy suez but also were defeated and did withdraw , they tried to force the third army to surrender but they failed
The 1973 Arab-Isreali War
AUTHOR Major Steven J. Piccirilli, USMC
CSC 1989
SUBJECT AREA - History
The achievement of President Sadat's strategic
objectives make a good final note. Sadat's basic objective
was to end the state of "No Peace, No War" and to force
negotiations. Kilometer 101, Geneva, and ultimately Camp
David certainly proved this success. The superpowers were
forced to involve themselves in the Middle East on Sadat's
terms, not their own. The war restored Egypt to a position
of primacy among Arab states. The results of the war
permitted Egypt to reopen the Suez Canal and thus regain some
of the economic resources, not to mention the prestige, it
had lost in 1967. Arab pride and confidence had been
restored. The war technically was a stalemate at the point
of the ceasefire, with no clear victory on either side. For
the Arabs and Sadat, that was enough. Their goal was to
prove that the Israelis were not invincible, that they could
be neutralized, that they could be defeated. Clearly, the
Arabs had accomplished that.43
As a final statement, a quote from Dupuy:
If War is the employment of military
force in support of political objectives,
there can be no doubt that in strategic
and political terms the Arab States
and particularly Egypt -- won the War,
even though the military outcome was a
stalemate . 44
{the main reason Israel lost in 1973 was not lack of intelligence, but the fact that they viewed Egypt as "a lifeless corpse without a will". }
Haim Herzog, head of Israeli intelligence, later
just to short cut the debate
Israel crossed the canal for 4 purposes
1-occupy ismaelia
2- occupy suez
3-force the egyptian third army to surrender
4- advancing on cairo
did israel achieve any of such purposes ?
they were defeated in ismaelia
even after the cease fire they tried to occupy suez but also were defeated and did withdraw , they tried to force the third army to surrender but they failed
The 1973 Arab-Isreali War
AUTHOR Major Steven J. Piccirilli, USMC
CSC 1989
SUBJECT AREA - History
The achievement of President Sadat's strategic
objectives make a good final note. Sadat's basic objective
was to end the state of "No Peace, No War" and to force
negotiations. Kilometer 101, Geneva, and ultimately Camp
David certainly proved this success. The superpowers were
forced to involve themselves in the Middle East on Sadat's
terms, not their own. The war restored Egypt to a position
of primacy among Arab states. The results of the war
permitted Egypt to reopen the Suez Canal and thus regain some
of the economic resources, not to mention the prestige, it
had lost in 1967. Arab pride and confidence had been
restored. The war technically was a stalemate at the point
of the ceasefire, with no clear victory on either side. For
the Arabs and Sadat, that was enough. Their goal was to
prove that the Israelis were not invincible, that they could
be neutralized, that they could be defeated. Clearly, the
Arabs had accomplished that.43
As a final statement, a quote from Dupuy:
If War is the employment of military
force in support of political objectives,
there can be no doubt that in strategic
and political terms the Arab States
and particularly Egypt -- won the War,
even though the military outcome was a
stalemate . 44
{the main reason Israel lost in 1973 was not lack of intelligence, but the fact that they viewed Egypt as "a lifeless corpse without a will". }
Haim Herzog, head of Israeli intelligence, later
Last edited:
willsrn2000
Active member
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0rxASx1SxY"]YouTube - Hitler Ryanair Rant[/ame]
I totally support Isreali rights to capture and hold buffers between themselves and hostile neighbors such as Gaza and West Bank especially when they were not the agressors but they dont own the land anymore than Hitler owns Ryan Air.
I totally support Isreali rights to capture and hold buffers between themselves and hostile neighbors such as Gaza and West Bank especially when they were not the agressors but they dont own the land anymore than Hitler owns Ryan Air.
mmarsh
Active member
First of all Gaza and the West bank are not hostile neighbors, they are geographical areas in Palestine. Second of all, Israel withdrew from Gaza 4 years ago, so the point is totally moot. The West Bank still remains illegally occupied by Israel, not even the US government recognizes Israels territorial claims.
Second of all Israeli Palestinian neighbors are hostile because they were forcibly kicked off their land, by the IDF. So I think they have a justifiable reason to be pissed off.
Your views and those of Joseph Stalin have a lot in common. Stalin thought it was OK to have buffer states (aka The Warsaw Pact) in order to protect the USSR from what he considered aggressors as well and he didn't care what Eastern European countries thought about it. He simply crushed any resistance.
Korean Seaboy
Active member
Le't not get a dogfight like previous posts. Let us remind ourselves that we have something called "language" and "manners" to watch
mmarsh
Active member
Not sure that was directed at me or at the posts above me. But in case it was, I said nothing disrespectful. I merely pointed out that the posters view points were once shared by that of the former leader of USSR, which I will happily provide documentation to PROVE that Joseph Stalin organized the Warsaw Pact to buffer against perceived NATO aggression in exactly the same way Willsrn2000 suggests Israel do with the Arabs.
Its not my fault if a posters echoes views from one of the worst monsters of the 20th century, but I certainly will call him out on it.
Last edited:
rattler
Active member
What facts please (replying to the first part of your claim)?
You seem to have problems even to specify what you are talking about: People of Jewish Religion, the Jewish People, or Israelis, or The State Of Israel, etc.? Who is it you are talking about. I know you said "Jewish people", but I know a lot living here in Spain, e.g., so you cannot have meant those, or yes? Seriously, Spaniards owning West Bank? Is it "people" or did you maybe mean "People"? If so, in what expression of community? etc. ...
My commendation:
As you refer to Intl. Law (which one, exactly?), rephrase a bit more specifically, maybe then we can find facts worthy to discuss under the view of this (yet to be specified) law.
Thanks,
Rattler
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
You know I am still stumped as to why these discussions continue, seriously lets think about this a little...
Lets assume for shits and giggles the Palestinians are 100% correct and this can some how be enforced no one is going to pack up 4-5 million Israelis and ship them somewhere else, conversely lets assume the Israeli's are 100% correct and their claims can be enforced there is no way in hell all the Palestinians are going to be moved elsewhere either.
So we are left with 3 options:
1) One side wipes the out (I don't care who as I am sick of both sides), probably not going to happen as eventually someone will step in and stop it and it is probably not going to be overly popular with the worlds muslims/jews (insert losing religion here).
2) They will have to grow up and learn to live together now given that religion is involved I really doubt this will happen especially given that most religions are still fighting wars and carrying grudges from hundreds of years ago, so short of a 10th Christian crusade I don't see this being a viable option either.
3) The West gets sick of spending billions a year for Israel to build settlements and Palestinians to buy the rockets to blow them up leading to sending of more cash to fix the mess both sides seem to enthusiastically make and cuts them all off completely forcing them to a negotiating table.
The whole middle eastern argument is inane because neither side can achieve its goals but wont give up until it does.
Lets assume for shits and giggles the Palestinians are 100% correct and this can some how be enforced no one is going to pack up 4-5 million Israelis and ship them somewhere else, conversely lets assume the Israeli's are 100% correct and their claims can be enforced there is no way in hell all the Palestinians are going to be moved elsewhere either.
So we are left with 3 options:
1) One side wipes the out (I don't care who as I am sick of both sides), probably not going to happen as eventually someone will step in and stop it and it is probably not going to be overly popular with the worlds muslims/jews (insert losing religion here).
2) They will have to grow up and learn to live together now given that religion is involved I really doubt this will happen especially given that most religions are still fighting wars and carrying grudges from hundreds of years ago, so short of a 10th Christian crusade I don't see this being a viable option either.
3) The West gets sick of spending billions a year for Israel to build settlements and Palestinians to buy the rockets to blow them up leading to sending of more cash to fix the mess both sides seem to enthusiastically make and cuts them all off completely forcing them to a negotiating table.
The whole middle eastern argument is inane because neither side can achieve its goals but wont give up until it does.
SilverAssassin
Active member
LeEnfield
Active member
Lets try and work out who has the right to live in the area now called Israel. Over the last five thousand years it has been settled by countless races and the Israel's are just one of these, and you could all most fill the page listing all the different cultures who have settled in this spot of land and all who have left their mark on it.Now for the last thousand years it has been run by the old Ottam Empire and the Jews and Muslims lived side by side. Many of the Jews held high ranking posts in the Old Ottam Empire and where not barred by their religion from holding such positions.
Now that the Jewish people have the upper hand they seem to me to be operating a Secular ban in reverse, the Palestinians are being forced of the the land that has been in their families for hundreds of years and with out payment, to say that they are second class citzens is a understatement.
Now that the Jewish people have the upper hand they seem to me to be operating a Secular ban in reverse, the Palestinians are being forced of the the land that has been in their families for hundreds of years and with out payment, to say that they are second class citzens is a understatement.
senojekips
Active member
Simple,... they keep on keeping on, because there are people out there who assume that if the subject is ignored, everyone is in agreement, or at least have no argument with it.
Ignoring these threads is exactly the same as putting people on ones "banned list", it solves nothing, and if anything just encourages these clowns to keep spouting their drivel and gathering like minded feather heads together.
It would appear that in this thread, the original poster has decided that he has no great support here and has moved on, in which case the answers have achieved an acceptable end..... and of course there is always the very slight chance that you will enlighten a reader/participant as to the truths of the matter.
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Yes but the problem in the region is one of a fixed starting point, there is a mentality that history started with the bible and since there were Jews in the region 3000 years ago then the land is theirs, forget that 4000 years ago there were Canaanites there, 2000 years ago there were Romans, 1000 years ago it was Muslim and 800 years ago the Europeans decided to go play there as well but it took them until 1948 to invade the place properly.
But in the end no matter who you believe owns it the crowd that are there need to learn how to get along or they will all lose, Israel can't win simply because the more they repress the Palestinians the more desperate they will get and the more agitated Israels neighbours will become and to be perfectly frank I doubt that Israel could match Egypt today let alone 20-50 years from now, throw into that Iran, Iraq and Turkey and I suspect Israels future is not great should they earn the ire of the Muslim world.
Currently though Israel is protected by the US and safe from relatively weak Arab governments so they have a window of opportunity to get a working peace in place yet they seem more interested in land grabs than peace at the moment it will be interesting to see how views change as US power wanes.
Personally I think the last great hope for a peaceful solution in the region died with Yitzhak Rabin and given that a few months back King Abdullah II of Jordan said that should the settlement moratorium be ended then he believed war was inevitable it is hard to see a positive future for either Palestinians or Israelis.
http://articles.cnn.com/2010-09-24/...mideast-talks-west-bank-territory?_s=PM:WORLD
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diploma...e-will-drag-u-s-into-new-mideast-war-1.315467
Last edited:
MontyB
All-Blacks Supporter
Found this interesting...
Off the record: Is time running out for peace?
By Paul Danahar
Middle East bureau editor
"It was a total waste of time."
This, a Palestinian assessment of the 18 months of proximity talks run by the US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell.
"Rubbish, nothing, no progress whatsoever," said to me by someone with in-depth knowledge of the process, shortly after the direct talks began to run into the sand last month.
Those talks have been abandoned over the issue of Jewish settlements being built on occupied Palestinian land.
So, the State Department has said, George Mitchell is heading back to the region to start over.
Mr Mitchell privately joked that his role as the special Middle East envoy was his "second retirement". Perhaps this will be his third.
Coercion, not seduction
So after all the noise and bluster and the "wasted" time, has this American administration lost all credibility?
"Absolutely," another senior Palestinian source told me this week. And while they like and respect Mr Mitchell, the Palestinians believe it's going to take someone higher up the food chain to move things on.
"It needs the [full] clout of the United States to tell [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu 'You are going to do this', to show willingness to take measures such as those taken by Mr Bush, the father [George HW Bush]."
It was time for Mr Obama to stop trying to "seduce" the Israeli prime minister.
But many commentators from all sides believe that there is little prospect of a peace deal with the present Israeli coalition.
A senior Israeli politician told me last week: "At the end of the day, the choice is between this coalition and peace. Not 'peace process'. They can live with peace process, they like peace process."
The Palestinians too want Mr Netanyahu to dump the right-wingers and offer the centrist party, Kadima, a role in government.
I was told that the leader of Kadima, Tzipi Livni, once said privately about Mr Netanyahu that she would "join the coalition if only to hold his shaking hand while he signs the peace deal".
But while the leaders of the two main Israeli parties do have occasional talks, they seem a long way from a new coalition.
Laughing and fighting
The peace process has been going on now since October 1991, nearly 20 years.
The issues are not new, the likely look of a final deal is not new, not even the people that are discussing the issues are new.
They all know each other, greet like old friends, crack jokes. Then sit down and argue.
The only things that have changed over the years are the lengths of the sideburns and the width of the trousers. But can it keep going on like this?
The Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon told me earlier this year that peace would only be possible with the next generation of Palestinians.
The problem he said was that "the Arabs are still teaching their kids to deny Israel's right to exist".
Attitudes could not be changed in two years, he said: "If they can do it in five years, OK, but..."
'Now-ish or never'
Palestinians say the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad is about as moderate as Israel is going to get.
Hoping that the next generation of Palestinians, walled off by Israel's concrete barrier, is going to be more benign is, they say, wishful thinking.
A former Israeli cabinet minister told me recently he thought that "time is of the essence" before shifts in Israeli society and the growth in the ultra-Orthodox population changes the dynamics for good.
"We have no other alternative, we need to do it. Ten years from now we are going to see something completely different demographically in Israel.
"It's not only about the state of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state but also the substance of the nature of the Israeli Jewish state.
"What does it mean from a religious perspective, from a national perspective… the Jewish-ness of the state? Without solving this, it's going to make it almost impossible."
The fear that it's "now-ish or never" is also shared by foreign diplomats.
"Jerusalem today is Israel tomorrow," one told me, and the demographics in Jerusalem are already "incredible" with just a small percentage of children being educated in secular state schools.
The growth is coming from the ultra-Orthodox Jewish and Israeli Arab communities - the two ends of the spectrum.
Endangered species
The secular Israeli right are also worried about growing signs of intolerance in Israeli society.
Prime Minister Netanyahu just this week condemned a call by 50 state-funded rabbis for a ban on the renting or sale of property to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish.
The call for peace used to be led by the Israeli left but they have been completely marginalised and are up there on the endangered list with the panda.
If this generation can't reach a deal, will the next one even try?
A peace deal within a year was Mr Obama's ambition. That looks very unlikely now.
A peace deal within this generation of Israeli and Palestinians leaders is still not impossible.
A peace deal with this present coalition, according to many, is.
The Palestinians were "hopeful that this administration had all the good intentions to really take us somewhere".
Mr Obama had made all the right noises about "the linkage of the peace process and settlements" and so "Obama took himself up a high tree and we went with him", I was told by a source.
He then likened the president to an old man watching pretty girls pass by.
"Obama," he said, "He has the desire but he doesn't have the capacity."
This is the second in an occasional series of pieces by the BBC's Middle East bureau editor based on off-the-record briefings by officials and decision-makers in the region.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11959693?print=true
Off the record: Is time running out for peace?
By Paul Danahar
Middle East bureau editor
"It was a total waste of time."
This, a Palestinian assessment of the 18 months of proximity talks run by the US special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell.
"Rubbish, nothing, no progress whatsoever," said to me by someone with in-depth knowledge of the process, shortly after the direct talks began to run into the sand last month.
Those talks have been abandoned over the issue of Jewish settlements being built on occupied Palestinian land.
So, the State Department has said, George Mitchell is heading back to the region to start over.
Mr Mitchell privately joked that his role as the special Middle East envoy was his "second retirement". Perhaps this will be his third.
Coercion, not seduction
So after all the noise and bluster and the "wasted" time, has this American administration lost all credibility?
"Absolutely," another senior Palestinian source told me this week. And while they like and respect Mr Mitchell, the Palestinians believe it's going to take someone higher up the food chain to move things on.
"It needs the [full] clout of the United States to tell [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu 'You are going to do this', to show willingness to take measures such as those taken by Mr Bush, the father [George HW Bush]."
It was time for Mr Obama to stop trying to "seduce" the Israeli prime minister.
But many commentators from all sides believe that there is little prospect of a peace deal with the present Israeli coalition.
A senior Israeli politician told me last week: "At the end of the day, the choice is between this coalition and peace. Not 'peace process'. They can live with peace process, they like peace process."
The Palestinians too want Mr Netanyahu to dump the right-wingers and offer the centrist party, Kadima, a role in government.
I was told that the leader of Kadima, Tzipi Livni, once said privately about Mr Netanyahu that she would "join the coalition if only to hold his shaking hand while he signs the peace deal".
But while the leaders of the two main Israeli parties do have occasional talks, they seem a long way from a new coalition.
Laughing and fighting
The peace process has been going on now since October 1991, nearly 20 years.
The issues are not new, the likely look of a final deal is not new, not even the people that are discussing the issues are new.
They all know each other, greet like old friends, crack jokes. Then sit down and argue.
The only things that have changed over the years are the lengths of the sideburns and the width of the trousers. But can it keep going on like this?
The Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Ya'alon told me earlier this year that peace would only be possible with the next generation of Palestinians.
The problem he said was that "the Arabs are still teaching their kids to deny Israel's right to exist".
Attitudes could not be changed in two years, he said: "If they can do it in five years, OK, but..."
'Now-ish or never'
Palestinians say the leadership of Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad is about as moderate as Israel is going to get.
Hoping that the next generation of Palestinians, walled off by Israel's concrete barrier, is going to be more benign is, they say, wishful thinking.
A former Israeli cabinet minister told me recently he thought that "time is of the essence" before shifts in Israeli society and the growth in the ultra-Orthodox population changes the dynamics for good.
"We have no other alternative, we need to do it. Ten years from now we are going to see something completely different demographically in Israel.
"It's not only about the state of Israel as a democratic and Jewish state but also the substance of the nature of the Israeli Jewish state.
"What does it mean from a religious perspective, from a national perspective… the Jewish-ness of the state? Without solving this, it's going to make it almost impossible."
The fear that it's "now-ish or never" is also shared by foreign diplomats.
"Jerusalem today is Israel tomorrow," one told me, and the demographics in Jerusalem are already "incredible" with just a small percentage of children being educated in secular state schools.
The growth is coming from the ultra-Orthodox Jewish and Israeli Arab communities - the two ends of the spectrum.
Endangered species
The secular Israeli right are also worried about growing signs of intolerance in Israeli society.
Prime Minister Netanyahu just this week condemned a call by 50 state-funded rabbis for a ban on the renting or sale of property to Israeli citizens who are not Jewish.
The call for peace used to be led by the Israeli left but they have been completely marginalised and are up there on the endangered list with the panda.
If this generation can't reach a deal, will the next one even try?
A peace deal within a year was Mr Obama's ambition. That looks very unlikely now.
A peace deal within this generation of Israeli and Palestinians leaders is still not impossible.
A peace deal with this present coalition, according to many, is.
The Palestinians were "hopeful that this administration had all the good intentions to really take us somewhere".
Mr Obama had made all the right noises about "the linkage of the peace process and settlements" and so "Obama took himself up a high tree and we went with him", I was told by a source.
He then likened the president to an old man watching pretty girls pass by.
"Obama," he said, "He has the desire but he doesn't have the capacity."
This is the second in an occasional series of pieces by the BBC's Middle East bureau editor based on off-the-record briefings by officials and decision-makers in the region.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11959693?print=true
Last edited:
SilverAssassin
Active member
"the original poster has decided that he has no great support here and has moved on, in which case the answers have achieved an acceptable end"
Yes , u r right ^.^
Yes , u r right ^.^
IDF_5173
New Member
Hmmm!
With a great chance of being nominated as a Israeli version of Joseph Goebbels, then I would still say this:
Make no mistake. The Palestinians are still fighting to destroy Israel. The primary obstacle to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is neither Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees or the issue of future borders. The conflict has nothing to do with orcupation or security fence, but only with Arab reluctance to accept any Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine, however small the part may be.
Only after Israel in 1967struck back an Arab war of aggression on three fronts and took control of Gaza and West Bank, began the Palestinian Arabs (who was now "Palestinians") to claim these areas. But the price - recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist - was too high.
The Oslo process in the 1990s capsized when Arafat in the summer of 2000 rejected a plan that would have given Palestinians Gaza and almost all of the West Bank as a state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The reasion was that they were not prepared to recognize Jewish claim to parts of Jerusalem or would cede the right to flood Israel with the descendants of Palestinian refugees, which would eventually undermine Israel's Jewish identity. If you believe that the "moderate" leadership under Mahmoud Abbas has turned past intransigence you are wrong.
Also in an interview shown on the TV station Al-Jazeera 27th March 2010 Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator for both Arafat and Abbas, throws yet more light on the "moderate" Fatah's position on the two state solution. According to Erekat Arafat said to Clinton: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come and liberate Jerusalem after 10, 50 or 100 years. Jerusalem will not be other than the capital of the Palestinian state, and there's nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif [the Arabic name for the Temple Mount] except Allah. "(Al-Jazeera, March 27, 2009).
By continuing to refuse to recognize any kind of Jewish connection to what the Jews for a millennia have considered their holiest place, by constantly working against the very core of two-state solution, namely the division of Palestine into both a Jewish and an Arab state , the Palestinian leadership blocks the peaceful solution that the vast majority of Israelis and presumably also the majority of Palestinians crave.
Okay gentleman that was it, now I've said my opinion, so now it is time to get into cover for the incoming artillery fire.
With a great chance of being nominated as a Israeli version of Joseph Goebbels, then I would still say this:
Make no mistake. The Palestinians are still fighting to destroy Israel. The primary obstacle to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is neither Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees or the issue of future borders. The conflict has nothing to do with orcupation or security fence, but only with Arab reluctance to accept any Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine, however small the part may be.
Only after Israel in 1967struck back an Arab war of aggression on three fronts and took control of Gaza and West Bank, began the Palestinian Arabs (who was now "Palestinians") to claim these areas. But the price - recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist - was too high.
The Oslo process in the 1990s capsized when Arafat in the summer of 2000 rejected a plan that would have given Palestinians Gaza and almost all of the West Bank as a state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The reasion was that they were not prepared to recognize Jewish claim to parts of Jerusalem or would cede the right to flood Israel with the descendants of Palestinian refugees, which would eventually undermine Israel's Jewish identity. If you believe that the "moderate" leadership under Mahmoud Abbas has turned past intransigence you are wrong.
Also in an interview shown on the TV station Al-Jazeera 27th March 2010 Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator for both Arafat and Abbas, throws yet more light on the "moderate" Fatah's position on the two state solution. According to Erekat Arafat said to Clinton: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come and liberate Jerusalem after 10, 50 or 100 years. Jerusalem will not be other than the capital of the Palestinian state, and there's nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif [the Arabic name for the Temple Mount] except Allah. "(Al-Jazeera, March 27, 2009).
By continuing to refuse to recognize any kind of Jewish connection to what the Jews for a millennia have considered their holiest place, by constantly working against the very core of two-state solution, namely the division of Palestine into both a Jewish and an Arab state , the Palestinian leadership blocks the peaceful solution that the vast majority of Israelis and presumably also the majority of Palestinians crave.
Okay gentleman that was it, now I've said my opinion, so now it is time to get into cover for the incoming artillery fire.