@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.