- May 26, 2005
- Tend do walk the 40 meters from my bed to lecture.
Nothing? They no longer face the PLO as a threat, and that was all they could realisticly hope for. Lets not forget that Israel did it's job undermining Arafat in the 90s, shall we.Let's stop "overglobalizing" this view. As many have said, all journeys start with a single step.
Israel has taken far more than a single step in the past decade. What have they gotten for all these steps? Nothing.
When the checkpoints and settlements continued, this was a torn in the side of the Palestinian people. To say that the Palestinian people got a good deal would be a grose overexageration.
The problem for the last decade or so has been that the Palestinians haven't gotten their freedom, and they must have freedom.
It's become a matter of principles. First Israel needs to ratify the resolutions they've broken, they need to accept a completely independent Palestinian state, and they need to remove all their settlers. The settlements are per definition a war crime.Why should any further claims of "all we need is XYZ" be considered at all honest.
Let me pose this question. What would the entire Middle East lose by accepting UN Resolution 242 and publicly endorsing Israel's right to exist? Egypt did, of course, but they are reviled by other Arab nations for having done so.
That is because in reality, apart from the formal state of the Palestinians, which hasn't made much difference, Israel has not done much.Instead, what we get are interview after interview where there's always some conditional step that keeps that from happening, which sounds much more like the intention is to leave the door open for the destruction of Israel.
They've done some things, but really, would any other nationality accept the offerings Israel has made? No.
The reason you can't apply the same logic is that one should not compare Israel to Hamas. They wouldn't like it themselves, so hey.For those comments on "Egypt didn't really want to attack, etc., and Israel just should have held off" again, let me ask this: why is the same standard -- placing oneself in danger of being wiped out -- not being applied in Gaza today against Hamas? In other words, stop the attacks, destroy all the weapons, end all the violence, and simply trust in Israel to do the right thing over time? After all, the circumstances are far different -- The chances of Gaza being wiped out are far smaller than the chances of Egypt invading with 100,000 troops in 1967.
Who has the best possibilities to stop violence, Hamas or Israel? Hamas can't but Israel could. Stop violence, stop the checkpoints, stop the settlements and stop all discrimination, formal and otherwise, and the extremist would lose popular support.
What this war is doing, is to poor petrol on the bonfire lit by the extremist, to think otherwise is quite naive.
There is no recognition of an independent Palestinian state.There is a recognition.
Further then that there is an acceptence to retreat from the West Bank.
The issue at hand is that Israel has a complete dominance of the Palestinian terretories. Arafat only had the power he needed as long as Israel granted it to him. This undermined his authority, and it undermined the complete peace process.
Which is only one reason why there's a need for a new election. And again, the war is not making that more likely.But, there is no palestinian leadership.
You have Mahamod Abas and Salam Fiad (Fatah) at the West Bank and Ismail Hania (Hamas) at Gaza. They are divided, they oppose eachother on many topics including this one.
You can't have two palestinian countries under two leadership.
It needs to happen faster. Let's not forget that the settlements are illegal and a torn in the side of the people of Palestine. It's a key issue, and there is no time for waiting.The settlers issue is being taking care of. Like i said before, there are plans to retreat and to take the settlers back to the "Green Line".
But, they don't want to. Almost every evacuation is ended in violence.
We did leave Gaza, and we will leave the West Bank but in the right time.
I do however recongize that it's a brave step to take, it's not a popular choice, but it's one that can not be ignored. It must happen, as quickly as possible.
It's true that Hamas is extremist. There are of course a couple of unproportionally powerful small extremist parties in Israel, but that's nothing to compare, I agree on that point.You can't compare Israel to Hamas. Hamas is running by a religious ideology which deny our existents, and forming an fanatic country that all other religions are secound grade ones. Yes, Hamas was elected by the palestinain population, and yes we cry for it but thats their decision and they have to deal with it.
But, and this is a point of interest, Hamas didn't go to the elections with the intention of 'pushing the jews on the sea', they did it with a reform programe, which to a large extent has been carried out.
I won't call them good, cause they're not. But it is important to keep a rational and factual view of them.
Make no mistake, I don't like them. But they were democraticly elected.
Correct.Hamas said no the the peace agreement that was suggested. he don't want to recognize us, he wants the entire land. It's hard to talk to them because they "live" on this fighiting if the fighting stops then hamas will have nothing.
The ongoing action in Gaza is a double edged sword. No state can accept terrorism, and Hamas has commited acts of terrorism with their Qassam rockets.
But in protecting their people, Israel is making things worse. They are making sure that the extremist do not lose popular support, but gain it.
It happened with Hezbollah, and it will happen with Hamas.
That's the sad truth.