"and you admitted that Netanyahu reneged"
Israeli leaders come and go with practically each election, unlike PA leaders. Netanyahu made for a difficult negotiator, but Barak was more conciliatory and was in power in spring of 1999 ahead of PA terror tactics wich began in earnest in late 2000. Perhaps, Netanyahu was a "realist" and was not fooled by the PA's lack of effort in meeting certain conditions set out by Oslo. Barak was willing to let PA lapses go in an effort to come to some peaceful resolution. For all your griping about Netanyahu, he wasn't around when Clinton and Barak were trying to negotiate a resolution with Arafat. What they had on table was unprecedented and will likely never be offered again. If the PA was truly interested in finding a peace with Israel they would have jumped at the 2000 deal. It makes no sense to say that the Clinton/Barak bid for peace was scuttled by a previous Israeli Prime Minister.
It will be offered again.
"I am hardly defending terrorism"
Come on, sure you are. You say abhorrent behavior is understandable considering the situation Israelis put Palestinians in.
I said that I understood it but I never once condoned it.
My own family, and others that I know come from war torn and oppressed conditions, but even at the worst of times, things the Palestinian terrorists do, ie blowing the brains out children in car seats, using mentally disabled people as bombs or exploding bombs in cafes, would have been unthinkable.
Why do you consider the killing done by the Palestinians to be worse than the killing down by the Israelis?
"I don't say that violence is justifiable.......I am saying its inevitable given Israel's posture."
You do argue for its justification, because what Israel had done up to 2000, for all its faults with coming to terms with Oslo did not justify PA terror.
The only thing I argue for is complete US neutrality. Frankly, I could care less if the Israelis and the Palestinians blow themselves to smithereens. Neither people are all that nice.
Besides, both sides solemnly agreed to forego the use of terror and the military to achieve their ends. It was the PA that walked from the table, not Israel. It was Israel that was abiding to a large with Oslo. Whereas the PA did what? No one who defends the PA's terror tactics seems to know how far along the PA went following the path Oslo set out for both sides to follow. This list for Israel meeting conditions is a long one. And for the PA?
If you ignore that the Israelis, esp. the Likud, play at peace then there can be no mutual understanding.
You know Israelis, sure you do.
Do you have any idea how much the above makes you sound like an idiot? Whether I know or don't know any Israelis is not germane to this conversation. I am speaking from an American perspective, not an Israeli or Palestinian one.
From what perspective are you speaking? |
