13
   

Israel Under Attack: Does Anyone Care?

 
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 01:21 pm
The Pals have basically spat on every agreement between the parties. This is especially true relative to the Oslo Accords. See http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Archive/Peace+Process/1996/MAJOR%20PLO%20VIOLATIONS%20OF%20THE%20OSLO%20ACCORDS%20-%2025-Oct-
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 02:49 pm
@Advocate,
You would spit too, if your land is confiscated without any legal rights to your own property. The settlements continue to expand into Pals lands.

Something you are blind to, and will never acknowledge.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 03:39 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:

You are pretty careless with your facts. For instance, Israel was never designed to be "an exclusively Jewish homeland. The Pals in its borders were essentially begged to stay and become citizens. And, indeed, there are over a million Pals living in Israel. There are also a multitude of other non-Jews living in peace within the borders.

You say that the, after the '67 war, Israel decided on certain permanent borders that included the WB and Gaza. This is false -- Israel has begged the Pals to come to a reasonable agreement that would lead to a Pal state. However, among other deal breakers, the Pals insist on a right of return to Israel of all Pals, not just those who abandoned Israel in 1948 to assist the invading Arab armies in destroying Israel. Such a provision would destroy the Jewish nation.


Not nearly as careless as you are with yours. The Zionists were, and still are, very clear that Israel would be and remain a Jewish state. That means others, like the 900,000 or so Palestinaian citizens of Israel don't have the same rights as do Jewish citizens. They also actively sought a separate state, primarily for Jewish settlers, right from the start, well before WWII.

My statements about Israel's announcement, soon after the 1967 war, that Israel would permanently fortfy and control the heights on the west side of the Jordan Valley, thereby permanently cutting the West Bank off from Jordan, or any access to the world, except through Israel, was entirely accurate.

Did the Palestinians who "abandoned Palestine in 1948" do so to enable the Arab army to destroy Israel or in fear of the Zionist military forces? I believe the answer includes both motives. This was, after all, the home of these people and their ancestors for over a thousand years. Israel has been oppressing the Christian, Moslem and Druze populations of Palestine since its birth. I have seen this first hand on several trips to Israel, one just a few months ago.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:18 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
Reapeating yourself doesn't make your arguments any less fictive.


That's OK. Since all I did was tell the truth, there is no need to make my arguments less fictive. Reality just sort of takes care of itself without any help from me.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:20 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You would spit too, if your land is confiscated without any legal rights to your own property. The settlements continue to expand into Pals lands.


Nonsense. Almost all of that settlement construction is not being done on "Pal lands". Rather, it is west of the Separation Fence, on land that now belongs to Israel.

And those agreements that you justify the Palestinians spitting on would have given the Palestinians the very land that you are whining about if the Palestinians had only been willing to make peace.
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:23 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
My statements about Israel's announcement, soon after the 1967 war, that Israel would permanently fortfy and control the heights on the west side of the Jordan Valley, thereby permanently cutting the West Bank off from Jordan, or any access to the world, except through Israel, was entirely accurate.


Maybe so, but it is still wrong to refuse to acknowledge the Oslo Accords, and how they would have allowed the Palestinians to have their own state based on 1967 borders if the Palestinians had only been willing to make peace.

Refusing to acknowledge that truth is especially counterproductive if you would like Israel to try negotiating in the future, since they are not likely to take any such requests seriously if they see everyone actively denying the truth of their previous negotiations.

Although at this point negotiations are a lost cause regardless. The UN's recognition of the Palestinians outside the constraints of the Oslo Accords has has ended any possibility of negotiations ever being resumed.

The only thing left to do now is finish building the Separation Fence so it can become Israel's new border.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:30 pm
@oralloy,
From mondoweiss.net.

Quote:
By demolishing homes, Israel is demolishing hope / Khaled Diab
Haaretz 3 Dec -- While the world’s attention is turned to Gaza, the UN, and Jerusalem-area settlements, stealthier military maneuvers in the West Bank are pushing Palestinians off their land. If the recent joint U.S.-Israel military exercises actually took place in the Jordan Valley, then Washington is complicit in torpedoing the two-state solution ... Under international law, Israel has no right to designate any part of the West Bank as a military zone because this, like settlement building, is not permitted on occupied land, despite the inventive efforts of government-appointed Israeli legal experts to argue away the existence of the occupation and frame it as little more than a Palestinian preoccupation. link to www.haaretz.com


Your ignorance of international laws only proves your criminal element of stealing land from others.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 05:51 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Here's another article on Jewish settlements.

Quote:
EU's Ashton calls on Israel to reverse settlement plans
BETHLEHEM (Ma‘an) 3 Dec -- The foreign policy chief of the European Union on Sunday called on Israel not to follow through with new plans to increase settlement building ... EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was "extremely worried by the prospects of settlement expansion on such a scale." "The reaction of the international community to any such decision is likely also to be influenced by the extent to which such expansion may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel."
link to www.maannews.net
georgeob1
 
  0  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 07:29 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
My statements about Israel's announcement, soon after the 1967 war, that Israel would permanently fortfy and control the heights on the west side of the Jordan Valley, thereby permanently cutting the West Bank off from Jordan, or any access to the world, except through Israel, was entirely accurate.


Maybe so, but it is still wrong to refuse to acknowledge the Oslo Accords, and how they would have allowed the Palestinians to have their own state based on 1967 borders if the Palestinians had only been willing to make peace.
What does, "based on the 1967 borders" really mean?? Israel had already announced its intent of permanently controlling the border regions of the West bank, thereby cutting it off from the rest of the world: the Oslo Accord dodn't change that at all. Israel had already expropriated most of Jerusalem and about 20% of the territory of the Westbank (notwithstanding the property rights of Palestinain residents) for settlements, usually for radical Zionists. The Oslo Accord made no provision for the reversal of these actions, which Israel affirmed were irreversable. Just how wrong was it, in view of continuing additional Israeli settlement activity and roadblocks which prevented otherwise lawful Palestianian exonomic activity, for them to give up on the Oslo Accord?

oralloy wrote:

Refusing to acknowledge that truth is especially counterproductive if you would like Israel to try negotiating in the future, since they are not likely to take any such requests seriously if they see everyone actively denying the truth of their previous negotiations.
Well the Zionist settlers who in 1946- 1948 took over a portion of Palestine and who, after 1967, systematically ruled the West Bank for decades without acknowledging ANY political rights of the existing population , and who continue even now seizing Palestinian property in the West Bank , also grossly failed to acknowledge the truth of human rights of the Christian and Moslem Palestinian population of the land they seized.

oralloy wrote:

Although at this point negotiations are a lost cause regardless. The UN's recognition of the Palestinians outside the constraints of the Oslo Accords has has ended any possibility of negotiations ever being resumed.

The only thing left to do now is finish building the Separation Fence so it can become Israel's new border.
I suggest you read some history about Northern Ireland for the past 300 years. It is a very analogous situation to the one in Palestine. Irish resistence continued for three centuries and the occupiers, finally exhausted and devoid of sympathetic allies, gave up and ended their oppression. They too were faced with a hostile oppressed population with a birth rate greater than their own and could finally see the writing clearly on the wall.

After 1967, Israel could have announced its intent to keep the West Bank entire and to treat the population as citizens of a greater Israel with full political rights, Had they done so they would have had to face the difficult consequences of a state with roughly equal populations with different cultural outlooks. That would have been difficult, but it is a challenge many other nations in the world have coped with quite well. Israel didn't do it precisely because they wanted the land, but not its people, and chose continued oppression instead -- a highly ironic choice for them in particular.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  2  
Reply Tue 12 Feb, 2013 07:47 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Probably because he is a Jew, right CI?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:16 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
EU's Ashton calls on Israel to reverse settlement plans
BETHLEHEM (Ma‘an) 3 Dec -- The foreign policy chief of the European Union on Sunday called on Israel not to follow through with new plans to increase settlement building ... EU High Representative Catherine Ashton said she was "extremely worried by the prospects of settlement expansion on such a scale." "The reaction of the international community to any such decision is likely also to be influenced by the extent to which such expansion may represent a strategic step undermining the prospects of a contiguous and viable Palestine with Jerusalem as the shared capital of both it and Israel."
link to www.maannews.net


If the EU wanted 1967 borders and a shared Jerusalem, they shouldn't have killed the Oslo Accords, because the Oslo Accords were the only way that was ever going to happen.

As for their reaction as their dream of 1967 borders slowly slips away, all they are going to do about it is whine helplessly.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 01:28 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
What does, "based on the 1967 borders" really mean??


It means that Israel would have returned to the borders they held before the 1967 war, except for some minor land swaps where both sides agreed to trade some land.



georgeob1 wrote:
Israel had already announced its intent of permanently controlling the border regions of the West bank, thereby cutting it off from the rest of the world: the Oslo Accord dodn't change that at all.


Before the Palestinians torpedoed negotiations with all their violence, they had already been offered all of the border regions of the West Bank.



georgeob1 wrote:
Israel had already expropriated most of Jerusalem and about 20% of the territory of the Westbank (notwithstanding the property rights of Palestinain residents) for settlements, usually for radical Zionists. The Oslo Accord made no provision for the reversal of these actions, which Israel affirmed were irreversable.


Before the Palestinians torpedoed negotiations with all their violence, they had already been offered 97% of the West bank, and East Jerusalem as their capital.



georgeob1 wrote:
Just how wrong was it, in view of continuing additional Israeli settlement activity and roadblocks which prevented otherwise lawful Palestianian exonomic activity, for them to give up on the Oslo Accord?


The Palestinians were 100% wrong, especially since the only reason those actions actually continued was because the Palestinians were not at the negotiating table bargaining for an end to them.



georgeob1 wrote:
I suggest you read some history about Northern Ireland for the past 300 years. It is a very analogous situation to the one in Palestine. Irish resistence continued for three centuries and the occupiers, finally exhausted and devoid of sympathetic allies, gave up and ended their oppression. They too were faced with a hostile oppressed population with a birth rate greater than their own and could finally see the writing clearly on the wall.


The difference there is, the Irish were willing to make peace with the UK.

Israel offered to make peace, just like the UK did. The trouble is, the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

Now Israel has moved into a situation that is beyond where the UK was. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Israel is going to unilaterally draw their own border.

The Palestinian birthrate is of no relevance, as most Palestinians will remain outside the new Israeli border. The only Palestinians who live on land that Israel is going to annex are the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.



georgeob1 wrote:
After 1967, Israel could have announced its intent to keep the West Bank entire and to treat the population as citizens of a greater Israel with full political rights, Had they done so they would have had to face the difficult consequences of a state with roughly equal populations with different cultural outlooks. That would have been difficult, but it is a challenge many other nations in the world have coped with quite well. Israel didn't do it precisely because they wanted the land, but not its people, and chose continued oppression instead -- a highly ironic choice for them in particular.


Israel's offer to negotiate was not continued oppression.

Israel's unilaterally drawing their own border may not give the Palestinians the borders they desire, but that is not exactly oppression. If the Palestinians ever decide to make peace, they will be allowed to form their own country on whatever land Israel has not annexed.
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 04:13 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
What does, "based on the 1967 borders" really mean??

It means that Israel would have returned to the borders they held before the 1967 war, except for some minor land swaps where both sides agreed to trade some land.
That was the Israeli propaganda, but the truth was very different. Israel never agreed to give up the west side of the Jordan Valley (and control of the only water assets) and the heights to the West overlooking the valley. This and the land around Lake Tiberius (Gallilee) and the Lebanese border zone, constitutes about 15% of the West Bank. By the time of the Oslo negotiations other existing Israeli settlements comprised another 10% or so of the West Bank. Even in the Clinton-Barak negotiations Isreal did a similar deception announcing that they were prepared to give Arafat "95% of the West Bank" wnen in fact the agreement stated that the Israelis were willing to give up 95% of the area of the West Bank that they considered negotiable. On the map it consisted of about half of the total - about where the wall is now.

oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Israel had already announced its intent of permanently controlling the border regions of the West bank, thereby cutting it off from the rest of the world: the Oslo Accord dodn't change that at all.

Before the Palestinians torpedoed negotiations with all their violence, they had already been offered all of the border regions of the West Bank.


You are dead wrong. Israel NEVER agreed to give up the border territories or the area around Jerusalem
oralloy wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
I suggest you read some history about Northern Ireland for the past 300 years. It is a very analogous situation to the one in Palestine. Irish resistence continued for three centuries and the occupiers, finally exhausted and devoid of sympathetic allies, gave up and ended their oppression. They too were faced with a hostile oppressed population with a birth rate greater than their own and could finally see the writing clearly on the wall.

The difference there is, the Irish were willing to make peace with the UK.
You clearly don't understand the history of Northern Ireland or the analogy with the situation in Palestine. Three parties distinct parties in both stories; (1) The Scottish Calvinists implanted and given the land by the British, and displacing the Native, Catholic population(17th century); (2) The native Irish survivors, then an oppressed minority; (3) The British who had long since lost real interest in Northern Ireland, but who were still responsible for it.

The analogy with the Palestinian conflict involves ; (1) the European Jews who settled, seized the land and created Israel; (2) The displaced Palestinians,; and (3) the USA and the Western European states that were, initially, at least supporters of Israel, but whose self interests have since diverged from it.

The conflict in Northern Ireland continued for over 300 years before it was resolved. That happened only when (1) the Catholic Irish population grew to exceed that of the Ulster Scots, who dominated the land and treated the Irish as second class citizens; (2) The UK grew weary of and embarrassed by the worsening oppression of the Scottish Protestants and their paranoid resistence to reform and political equality. (3) The most radical of the Irish, seeing an advantage, rose up and embarked on a campaign of murder, bombings, and civil resistence which exhausted British patience and endurance . Finally they forced the Protestant minority to release exclusive control of the government and make peace with their neighbors.

oralloy wrote:

Israel offered to make peace, just like the UK did. The trouble is, the Palestinians refuse to make peace.

Now Israel has moved into a situation that is beyond where the UK was. Instead of negotiating with the Palestinians, Israel is going to unilaterally draw their own border.

The Palestinian birthrate is of no relevance, as most Palestinians will remain outside the new Israeli border. The only Palestinians who live on land that Israel is going to annex are the Palestinians living in East Jerusalem.
Israel's negotiations are all scamms. Their propaganda and their actions diverge a great deal. Their strategy is to prolongue the process for as long as possible and to slowly, steadily make life bad enough for the Palestinians so that as many of possible of them would leave, and to gradually replace them with Israeli settlers - a process that continues today.

Unfortunately for the Israelis The rising the Palestinian population is rising fast, and the oppression continues to unite and inflame them. This is already a serious threat to Israel. Meanwhile Israel itself is very rapidly becoming a despised oppressor in Europe and increasingly the United States. Now, more isolated than ever, Israel has lost its Clod War leverage and their situation is getting worse, not better.


oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:09 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:
That was the Israeli propaganda, but the truth was very different.


No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank, 100% of Gaza, and let the Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital.

And had negotiations not been torpedoed by a wave of Palestinian violence, that 97% very likely could have become 100%.



georgeob1 wrote:
Israel never agreed to give up the west side of the Jordan Valley (and control of the only water assets) and the heights to the West overlooking the valley.


Yes they did.



georgeob1 wrote:
Even in the Clinton-Barak negotiations Isreal did a similar deception announcing that they were prepared to give Arafat "95% of the West Bank" wnen in fact the agreement stated that the Israelis were willing to give up 95% of the area of the West Bank that they considered negotiable. On the map it consisted of about half of the total - about where the wall is now.


The course of the Separation Fence allows the Palestinians to keep 90% of the West Bank. That is quite different from "half".

The Israeli offer did look somewhat similar, but it was quite a bit different in character. It allowed the Palestinians to keep 94% of the West Bank. And then it transferred territory to the Palestinians equal to 3% of the West Bank. The end result was equal to 97% of the West Bank.

The Separation Fence is simply going to carve off 10% of the West Bank for Israel, and not compensate the Palestinians with any land swaps.



georgeob1 wrote:
You are dead wrong. Israel NEVER agreed to give up the border territories or the area around Jerusalem


They offered the border territories.

Some of the areas around Jerusalem they did want to keep, but they offered to let the Palestinians have East Jerusalem as their capital.



georgeob1 wrote:
You clearly don't understand the history of Northern Ireland or the analogy with the situation in Palestine.


I understand enough of the history. And I understand the analogy.

The analogy fails because the Irish were actually willing to make peace. Palestinians refuse to make peace.



georgeob1 wrote:
Three parties distinct parties in both stories; (1) The Scottish Calvinists implanted and given the land by the British, and displacing the Native, Catholic population(17th century); (2) The native Irish survivors, then an oppressed minority; (3) The British who had long since lost real interest in Northern Ireland, but who were still responsible for it.

The analogy with the Palestinian conflict involves ; (1) the European Jews who settled, seized the land and created Israel; (2) The displaced Palestinians,; and (3) the USA and the Western European states that were, initially, at least supporters of Israel, but whose self interests have since diverged from it.


The US has not diverged from Israel.



georgeob1 wrote:
The conflict in Northern Ireland continued for over 300 years before it was resolved. That happened only when (1) the Catholic Irish population grew to exceed that of the Ulster Scots, who dominated the land and treated the Irish as second class citizens; (2) The UK grew weary of and embarrassed by the worsening oppression of the Scottish Protestants and their paranoid resistence to reform and political equality. (3) The most radical of the Irish, seeing an advantage, rose up and embarked on a campaign of murder, bombings, and civil resistence which exhausted British patience and endurance . Finally they forced the Protestant minority to release exclusive control of the government and make peace with their neighbors.


But then the Irish were willing to make peace.

The Palestinians got Israel to the same point, and then the Palestinians refused to make peace.

Now Israel has progressed beyond that point, and is simply going to forcibly separate themselves from the Palestinians unilaterally.

Part of that will involve Israel unilaterally drawing their own borders with the Palestinians.



georgeob1 wrote:
Israel's negotiations are all scamms.


No they aren't. And by denying the truth of Israel's negotiation efforts, you justify Israel drawing their borders unilaterally.



georgeob1 wrote:
Their propaganda and their actions diverge a great deal.


It was not propaganda that Israel offered the Palestinians 100% of Gaza, 97% of the West Bank in one contiguous block, and East Jerusalem as their capital.



georgeob1 wrote:
Their strategy is to prolongue the process for as long as possible and to slowly, steadily make life bad enough for the Palestinians so that as many of possible of them would leave, and to gradually replace them with Israeli settlers - a process that continues today.


Likud's strategy, maybe.

Likud isn't Israel. The only reason Israeli voters keep electing Likud is because they keep seeing the Palestinians try to murder them, and keep seeing people make outrageous false statements about Israel's past peace efforts.



georgeob1 wrote:
Unfortunately for the Israelis The rising the Palestinian population is rising fast, and the oppression continues to unite and inflame them. This is already a serious threat to Israel.


The Palestinians are hardly being oppressed. Whatever suffering they experience is due only to their refusal to make peace.

And they are hardly a threat. They are outside Israel's new border, and they are prevented from crossing that border by the Separation Fence.



georgeob1 wrote:
Meanwhile Israel itself is very rapidly becoming a despised oppressor in Europe and increasingly the United States. Now, more isolated than ever, Israel has lost its Cold War leverage and their situation is getting worse, not better.


Europe does seem to be infested with anti-Semites, but the US continues to be a steadfast ally of Israel, and that is not going to change.
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 10:55 am
@oralloy,
You wrote,
Quote:

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,


Have you ever heard the term "action speaks louder than words?" I doubt it.

Another, "words are cheap."
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 02:46 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:

You wrote,
Quote:

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,


Have you ever heard the term "action speaks louder than words?" I doubt it.

Another, "words are cheap."


Israel agreed to give up 97 percent of the WB in the context of an agreement. As you well know, the Pals ran, not walked, away from the agreement. They will agree to nothing short of something leading to the demise of Israel.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:02 pm
@Advocate,
Why did they "WALK AWAY?"
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  2  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 03:07 pm
@Advocate,
You have a blind eyes (brain as well) against anything that proves you wrong.

You parrot what sounds good on the surface, but once anyone bothers to dig into the issues, we find something completely different.

Try this, http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Palestine-Remembered/Story416.html

Here's the crux of that offer,
Quote:
. It's worth taking a note that it's the Palestinian people who owned and operated 93% of Palestine's land as of 1948, click here for a breakdown of Palestinian vs. Zionist land ownership as of 1946. In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.


You're a joke with no brains.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:50 pm
@Advocate,
Advocate wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
You wrote,
Quote:

No, the truth is that Israel agreed to give up 97% of the West Bank,


Have you ever heard the term "action speaks louder than words?" I doubt it.

Another, "words are cheap."


Israel agreed to give up 97 percent of the WB in the context of an agreement. As you well know, the Pals ran, not walked, away from the agreement. They will agree to nothing short of something leading to the demise of Israel.


It wasn't so much that they walked away; it was that the Palestinians responded to the prospects of peace by engaging in a massive massacre of Israeli civilians.

Eventually the Israeli voters had enough of being massacred, and they booted the pro-negotiation Labor government out of power and put Ariel Sharon in place as their leader.

Labor has not been back in power ever since. Though I suspect that once the hardliners have finished reducing the threat posed by the Palestinian menace, the Israeli voters will return to Labor.

The Israeli voters also would have returned to Labor had they seen that people were finally willing to make peace with them. But that path is closed now. Negotiations are over for good.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Wed 13 Feb, 2013 07:54 pm
@cicerone imposter,
cicerone imposter wrote:
You're a joke with no brains.


CI, you are one of the stupidest people to ever post on the internet (which is really saying something considering some of the freaks who post on the internet).

How about you stop falsely accusing people of your own stupidity?



Quote:
In a nutshell, Arafat was presented with "a take it or leave it deal" either Palestinians had to give up their claims to most of East Jerusalem and forfeit their Right of Return, and in return Palestinians would "gain" a non-contiguous state on parts of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or the whole Clinton-Barak offer had to be rejected outright; which he did.


The offer presented to Arafat would have given the Palestinians: East Jerusalem as their capital, 100% of Gaza, and 97% of the West Bank, with the West Bank in one contiguous block.

And the problem was not so much that Arafat did not take that specific deal. The problem was his huge massacre of innocent civilians, which led to Israel's pro-negotiation government being toppled.

Had there not been a huge massacre of Israeli civilians, Ehud Barak would have stayed in power. And then if Arafat did not agree with that specific deal, both sides could have continued to negotiate.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.62 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 07:33:04