Sure there is a muddled approach from Israel and the US agree. One the one hand Israel is try to secure themselves and survive, on the other it must use restraint and politics to appease international opinion to some degree. Politicss about compromise and can be messy hence the stance on Fatah and Hamas.

Like I said at the Oslo peace accords Israel offered Arafat 95% and he didn't make a counter offer. Every unilateral ceasefire that Israel does is hijacked by bombings, rocket attacks, kidnappings. Hezzbollah and Hamas don't want peace, they need conflict to perpetuate their political power.

 

Hold on Tone. You yourself have justified the treatment of the Palestinians by Israel, by your comment on the expulsion of the 800,000 Jews from the rest of the Arab World.

Come on now! Not only is that hypocritical, but a slight insult to not only my intelligence but everyone reading this thread! Stop doing that now.

Yes, the war was stated by the Arabs, in reaction to having Israel dumped on them, so the forced creation of Israel is what started it.

Be nice if you could answer a few of my questions please? If you have time of course?

Asif

 

Sure, Arafat had that opportunity, but wouldn't recognise Israel. Ultimately he paid the price, as have the Palestinians.

Israel normaly has a unilateral ceasefire because they are getting whooped by Hezzbollah. How many times have they broken a ceasefire?

If the blame game is played in this fashion there will never be peace.

The settlers in and around Jeruslalem need to go too.

 

Hmm, would you take the same line with the Turks in northern Cyprus?

 

They broke the ceasefire because Hezzbollah raided into Israel and kidnapped/stole the dead bodies of IDF people.

If that is not a needless provocative action what is? How is Hezzbollah doing that going to help peace? The answer is they want conflict.

 

That is not what I meant but the reality is it makes a better case for the size of Israel under the partition plans.

 

That's a separate issue, stop diverting the thread.

 

If that's part of a UN Resolution, then yes, of course.

Why do you ask? Because I am 'allied' to the Turks because they are Muslim? Well, I am not.

I am always on the side of right.

 

Tony why do you keep talking complete crap about the oslo peace accord ? Arrafat signed it but no solution to Jerusalem was ever in the olso accord.
Israel reneged on their side of the peace accord by continuing expansion into the west bank and refusing to withdraw from the occupied territory this is a stone cold fact so why are you spouting blatant lies blaming the PLO when they held their part of the bargain.

 

Actually it is more to do with it being part of the Ottoman empire; the current decendants being same the bunch that inhabit Palestine. But the Greeks were there first. Much like the majority of current inhabitants of Jerusalem were most certainly not there first....they are nearly all immigrants at some point in time, be it Muslim or Jew.

Which brings me to question that don't the people whose founding people that originated to Jerusalem or ancient Israel have just as much right to settle there?


One important thing to note is during the Ottoman regime, Jews were allowed to settle in Jerusalem. However the question of the persecution is open to debate (as always throughout the world - its even noted in Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice notably, yes, Bill Shakespeare was a racist LOL ).

 

Sorry I meant the Camp David summit which was an attempt to reach a final agreement on a two state solution.

The Oslo agreement was just an interim agreement before the supposed final agreement anyway. It never said for Israel to totally withdraw from the west bank, nor to stop settlements although according to wiki they increased but at a lower level. Jerusalem was to be decided at a later stage also.

Anyway the attacks against Israel intensified after the agreement which os one reason it was derailed.

 

They were already settled there and no one has said that they don't have a right to live there, or anywhere else. Let's assume they have a gold plated case for resettling there, does that give them the right to act in the way that they do?

To oppress and persecute? IMO, no.

However, I think it is a difficult question. Should all non native American Indians get out of North America? (Anyway they weren't there first, apparently it was the French, during the last Ice age!)

Should Aborigines claim back their land in Australia and kick out the non Aborigines? Would that be ok?

For Jews, or anyone, to say they have a God given right to a piece of land, or anything else, dating back 2,000 years or so, doesn't sound appropriate for this day and age. Made easier by the serious attempt at genocide against the Jews in the 20th century of course.

In terms of persecution of the Jews, I have stated previously, many times, how it annoys me that 'Anti-Semitism' is attributed to Arabs, when it was not...

Anyway.