Alot of their ancestors where moving in to the area at the same time that the Jewish ancestors where moving in.
And then the Jews left.
I'm talking about the 19th and early 20th centuries. Not ancient Israel. A lot of the Jews stayed.
Tim, a few thousand; just as there were a few thousands Christians. The vast majority were Arab and/or Muslim.
So what you are saying is that the spoils belong to the strongest even if the weakest happened to be there first.
No, but I am saying the strongest are not normally going to end up with the short end of the stick or with anything that increases their possible danger. I am saying that being stronger gives you an advantage. I also would say that both sides have a claim on the land, I'm not sure I agree with you implication that the claim of the Palestinians is stronger.
The Palestinians had the greater claim because they lived there continuously....not in Europe or Africa or N. America like the Zionists but in Palestine. I am not sure why that's difficult to understand.
That's the plan and you're falling right into it. They sent 300k settlers into the WB just so they could make such an argument.
Its reality. No state is going to want to give up any hope of secure borders or allow almost all of its territory to be in artillery range of a hostile power if it can avoid it. To get any solution a lot of those 300k settlers are going to have to be pushed in to moving, but the densest settlements in the most strategic areas are probably not going away. Israel isn't trying to take the west bank, it already took in in 1967, they are trying to give it up because its too much of a hassle, however they are not going to want to have their country be less then 10 miles across.
Then Israel misrepresented the situation. At first, the WB was going to go back to the Palestinians intact. Then over time, things changed.
Palestine is supposed to be a separate and independent state from Israel. The Israelis don't really
want that......they want more control that that.......and its bs. I may be nervous about Canada but I don't
have the right to enter Canada with my army whenever I want nor should Israel have that right but they
want it. Again, its bs.
If Israel is attacked it has the right under international law to respond to the attacks. We didn't have any agreement with the Taliban to let us put our army in their country but that didn't stop us when we where attacked.
That sure is stretching the law......I think they were referring to an invading army.
only way Israel would ever agree to give up the right to hunt down terrorists in the West Bank and Gaza is if the terrorists from these places are no longer a threat. If Canada trained and armed terrorists and then sent them down to attack American targets at some point the 10th mountain division would probably head north from Ft. Drum... If Canada had been a US possession from decades but terrorists from Canada demanded independence we probably would not give it to them while we where still being attacked, and that's with the enormous territory the US has. If our country was 10 or so miles wide then we would be even less likely to give up control.
And you don't think the Canadians would fight back? Israel invaded the WB and took it in its war with Syria and Egypt. Not surprising........the Palestinians see the Israelis as an invading army. And typically, invading armies are often subject to attacks by insurgents both in the occupied territory and at home. Again, not surprising......its a fact of war.
Imagine that bin Laden had some grievance against the US that you accepted as legitimate. Does that mean that after 9/11 we should have set down and negotiated with him instead of destroying his infrastructure in Afghanistan. I don't think so.
There is little, if anything, analogous between bin Laden and the Palestinians. bin Laden sees himself as a world revolutionary. The Palestinians want their independence.
Throughout human history, when the aspirations and freedoms of a society are denied, that society
usually will revolt. The longer it is kept in check, the more frustration that builds and the more violent the
revolt.
I'm not sure "freedoms" is a good word in this context. They would not have much freedom under Arafat or any of his likely successors.
How do you know that? As far as I know, Arafat was elected to his position. Of course, I am not sure of the quality of those elections.
History has shown that you usually can't negotiate with people who say give us exactly what we want or we will start killing. Often you just have to kill them, or kill enough of them to make them act more reasonably. I hope it doesn't come to that because it could take a lot of Palestinian deaths.
The have the most developed infrastructure because they developed this infrastructure.
BS. The Israelis may have improved upon the infrastructure but originally Haifa and Jaffa were Arab ports.
And they where greatly expanded and developed by Israel. Tel Aviv was pretty much created by the Jewish settlers. Most of the development in Israel sans west bank and gaza was done by the Jews.
This is silly......which is better; having a good port already built, and then improving upon it, or building one from scratch?
"That what does Israel get by talking to Arafat?"
Not control over the Hamas, that's for sure.
If the violence will continue during the negotiations and with almost any possible result from the negotiations then Israel has no incentive to negotiate.
Then, most likely the suicide bombings will continue. Each side wants the other to act better first. That's why blood feuds are hard to resolve.
Sheik Ammin... He says when the occupied territories are no longer occupied and Palestine is a free state, then and only then will the suicide bombers stop.
He is on record as considering the occupied territory to be all of Israel/Palestine.
Not surprising......but when he spoke on tv, he said WB and Gaza.
ted
Enter symbols or keywords for search:
QuotesStock TalkChartsNewsPeople Symbol Lookup
Subject Titles Only Full Text Go to Top
Terms of Use
Got a comment, question or suggestion? Contact Silicon Investor. |
