Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I'm saying -- in this context -- that the Palestinians have been offered peace and the opportunity to have their own state several times (most recently when Israel gave them Gaza), and they've responded with intransigence and murder.
Now they're being given another chance.
I repeat: don't you hope they seize it?
Of course they should, but at the same time I don't necessarily blame the Palestinians for not trusting Israel's government any more than I blame Israelis for not trusting the Palestinians... I don't think you can place the blame for the lack of success in the peace talks solely on the shoulders of one group. Neither side has been eager to compromise on some issues.
Of course they should, but at the same time I don't necessarily blame the Palestinians for not trusting Israel's government any more than I blame Israelis for not trusting the Palestinians... I don't think you can place the blame for the lack of success in the peace talks solely on the shoulders of one group. Neither side has been eager to compromise on some issues.
Of course they should, but at the same time I don't necessarily blame the Palestinians for not trusting Israel's government any more than I blame Israelis for not trusting the Palestinians... I don't think you can place the blame for the lack of success in the peace talks solely on the shoulders of one group. Neither side has been eager to compromise on some issues.
What do you make of this following statement reported in an article by Robert Fisk:
Quote:
For more than two years, the Saudis have been offering Israel security and recognition by Arab states in return for a total withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied territories. What was wrong with that? Mr Olmert promised that "negotiations will address all the issues which thus far has been evaded". Yet the phrase "withdrawal isn't even mentioned."
Mostly it helps demonstrate that the situation is far less black/white than some would think.
That's easy to say when one is not surrounded by a billion sworn enemies, whose children are taught to think of jews as apes and pigs. The Israelis don't have a lot of wiggle room,as history shows -- e.g.: would either of you two gentlemen like to review how -- and why -- Israel obtained the so-called "occupied territories"?
way i see it. israel kept its part of the deal, the world community said land for peace.
israel did it gave up gaza. palastine broke a deal. as far as i am concerned israel can take back their land.
Mostly it helps demonstrate that the situation is far less black/white than some would think.
Ultimately it is much easier for me. There is a reason they call it the "occupied territories" and it isn't the Palestinians who are doing the occupying. Any consensus or agreement absolutely must address this otherwise it is much to do about nothing.
As the United States is learning how the toll from occupying another nation wears a nation down like water wears down rock, we will likely end up in a similar situation as Israel is today. Biggest difference though is that we don't have a wealthy uncle nation sending us welfare checks each month to help us pay our bills.
Ultimately it is much easier for me. There is a reason they call it the "occupied territories" and it isn't the Palestinians who are doing the occupying. Any consensus or agreement absolutely must address this otherwise it is much to do about nothing.
As the United States is learning how the toll from occupying another nation wears a nation down like water wears down rock, we will likely end up in a similar situation as Israel is today. Biggest difference though is that we don't have a wealthy uncle nation sending us welfare checks each month to help us pay our bills.
Please address the question I asked above. You are insinuating that Israel came in, unprovoked, and invaded and stole land. You know very well that the Arab countries attached Israel and got their hands cut off. Isael took what she needed to provide a buffer against future attacks (Sinai, Gaza, Golan Heights, West Bank/Judea) -- and RETURNED the largest chunk (Sinai) to Egypt, when the two countries signed a peace treaty. Had Syria, Jordan, and the PA agreed, at one of the (many) opportunities they had to reach a similar rapprochement, to recognize Israel's sovereignty and guarantee her security, there would have been a collective peace a long time ago.
You and fish claim that Israel is intransigent in stubbornly refusing to immediatley cede her security to governments which want to annihilate her. Try putting yourself in her place. Would YOU trust Hamas? How about Hezbollah? Syria? Saudi promises?
What would you like to see the Palestinians cede, aka which of their traditional demands do you believe to be unreasonable and unwise for Israel to follow? What would your ideal "final situation" in the area look like? And how does occupying (and thereby enraging/radicalizing) a neighboring population help Israel's security situation? The type of conquest that the occupation of the territories represents isn't really considered to be legitimate like it was back in the 1800's, with the indigenous population left stateless, with no rights of citizenship in any country. As TnHilltopper mentioned and as seemingly has been demonstrated in Afghanistan with the USSR and Iraq with the US, illegitimate and unpopular occupations tend to foster resistance, which in the Middle East usually comes in the form of terrorism.
What would you like to see the Palestinians cede, aka which of their traditional demands do you believe to be unreasonable and unwise for Israel to follow? What would your ideal "final situation" in the area look like? And how does occupying (and thereby enraging/radicalizing) a neighboring population help Israel's security situation? The type of conquest that the occupation of the territories represents isn't really considered to be legitimate like it was back in the 1800's, with the indigenous population left stateless, with no rights of citizenship in any country. As TnHilltopper mentioned and as seemingly has been demonstrated in Afghanistan with the USSR and Iraq with the US, illegitimate and unpopular occupations tend to foster resistance, which in the Middle East usually comes in the form of terrorism.
The Palestinians are the tools of Iran, Syria, and then othe muslim nations, which use them as proxies to try to destroy Israel.
There was no "conquest" -- there was a counterattack. Be ignorant -- ignore it.
Nice "final solution" taunt. Your ghoulishness is noted.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
