Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2

[JoelT1]

Photos from another camp posted on Facebook by the PLO Supreme Council for Sport and Youth Affairs showed a large map of "Palestine" that erased Israel painted by girls in the camp:

Posted text: "Pictures from the summer camps of 2017
The Wonderful [Girls] of Palestine [Summer] Camp
Asira Al-Shimaliya - Nablus"
[Facebook page of the PLO Supreme Council for Sport and Youth Affairs, Aug. 7, 2017]

(full article online)

PA summer camps teach terror and Martyrdom-death for kids - PMW Bulletins

Show me an official map of Israel without those phony armistice lines.

Israel in the Old Testament

 

[JoelT1]

Israel in the New Testament

 

[JoelT1]

Palestine does not appear in archaeology. Israel does
Palestine does not appear in the Old Testament. Israel does
Palestine does not appear in the New Testament. Israel does

 

[JoelT1]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

The question as to why they are not laws, is that they do not direct any particular action to be taken; nor do they prohibit any particular action. These two things lea you directly to why the Resolutions are not enforceable.

Neither of these are enforceable Resolutions; and neither are laws.

Come on, Rocco, now you are getting deep into Israeli bullshit territory. UN General Assembly resolutions are non binding but the international laws they reference are binding.

You are just trying to smokescreen the issue.

(COMMENT)

(a) WHAT is the right to self-determination without external interference?

(b) WHAT is the right to national independence and sovereignty?
​

The way you employ these two resolution, promulgated in 1974, is to suggest that someone ---- somehow ---- denied these rights to the Arab Palestinian. But it does not actually make that accusation.

If you examine the UN Resolution A/RES/43/177 Acknowledgement of the Proclamation of the State of Palestine (1988), you will notice that it says:

"Aware of the proclamation of the State of Palestine by the Palestine National Council in line with General Assembly resolution 181 (II) and in exercise of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people,"​

The two resolutions you cite serve to remind the Palestinians that they have options ⇒ that only they can fulfill their rights and expectation. The State of Israel could not then, or at any time Declare Independence for the Arab Palestinians.

Further, Resolution 43/177 assert strongly and publicly that some effort "needs to be made to enable the Palestinian people to exercise their sovereignty over their territory occupied since 1967." This is made difficult by the fact that "the Arab Higher Committee (AHC) of Palestine sent to the United Nations a formal declaration of war (A/AC.21/10) in “self-defense” against any attempt to partition the Holy Land." (See: UNITED NATIONS PALESTINE COMMISSION DAILY NEWS SUMMARY – 10, dated 7 February 1948)

"In a letter to the Secretary-General signed by Isa Nakleh, the committee declared that the Arabs would fight “to the last man” against any force going to Palestine to partition that country,” and charged the United States with having exercised “flagrant interference and pressure” to force votes favoring partition. (Browne; N.Y. Times)"​

(NOTE)
International humanitarian law distinguishes two types of armed conflicts, namely:

• International Armed Conflicts (IAC), opposing two or more States, and

• Non-international Armed Conflicts (NIAC), between governmental forces and non-governmental armed groups, or between such groups only. IHL treaty law also establishes a distinction between non-international armed conflicts in the meaning of common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and non-international armed conflicts falling within the definition provided in Art. 1 of Additional Protocol II.​

In the last 20 years, that Arab Palestinian has made no attempt at a good faith effort in the settle or their disputes by peaceful means in accordance with the Charter.

Most Respectfully,
R

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state. Building and expanding Jewish only settlements in occupied territories is good faith or peaceful means.

I don't think you can say Israel has either. Where the Palestinians have used violence, Israel has used the power of its state.

Indeed, Israel uses peaceful means like airplanes, bombs, missiles, tanks,...

Arabs: Israel embraces a culture of peace Member of Saudi delegation: Israeli society wants peace

Bill Clinton: Hamas fires rockets from hospitals, schools, populated areas Bill Clinton: 'I killed myself to give Palestinians a state'

 

[JoelT1]

Son of Hamas: Hamas wants death

 

[Shusha]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

 

[Shusha]

It was the Palestinians who were attacked.

Look! There's a Jew! I see a Jew! We are under attack!

 

[P F Tinmore]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

 

[Shusha]

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

None of those are pre-conditions. None of those are conditions required to be in place before the start of negotiations. They are assumed starting points from the Israeli side. And poorly presented at that.

 

[JoelT1]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

Jews are the indigenous People of Israel for thousands of years Houses of Ancient Israel

 

[P F Tinmore]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

Jews are the indigenous People of Israel for thousands of years Houses of Ancient Israel

Are you still doing Israeli talking points?

 

[JoelT1]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

Jews are the indigenous People of Israel for thousands of years Houses of Ancient Israel

Are you still doing Israeli talking points?

Harvard Semitic Museum: Houses of Ancient Israel Houses of Ancient Israel

 

[Shusha]

Are you still doing Israeli talking points?

Still rambling on about the same irrelevant, boring stuff. Sigh. Zzzzzzzzzz. (Him, not you).

 

[rylah]

Keep Jerusalem.
Keep settlements.
Keep the Jordan Valley.
Keep everything it has stolen.
Refugees are off the table.
Water is off the table.

*Did Arabs ever had a capital in Jerusalem? I think they built Ramallah 30km away specifically for that.
* We let the Arabs keep their settlement.
*Jordan was given wholly to Arabs, how much is Jordan bigger than Israel?
* Nothing was stolen. War is war, especially sectarian - Palestinian Arabs initiated it.
* Refugees were not off the table - Hamas/PLO version of flooding Israel with millions of Arabs, while at the same time cleansing Palestine of Jews is an illusion You will never be able to sell or realize.
* Water is not off the table. What Palestinians need is reconstruction of infrastructure instead of building tunnels for smuggling weapons and using pipes for rockets. Simple math.

Are slogans Your only solution?

 

[Sixties Fan]

[ The PA, following the Oslo Accords.....NOT ]

At another camp organized by the National Committee for Summer Camps, a drawing of the PA's map of "Palestine" was accompanied by the following text, emphasizing both in pictures and in "data" that there is no State of Israel:

Text next to map: "Palestine
Location: The continent of Asia, eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
Territory: 27,009 square kilometers (the combined size of Israel and the PA areas is roughly 27,000 square kilometers -Ed.)
Borders of Palestine: Lebanon on the north
The Gulf of Aqaba and Egypt on the south
Jordan on the east
The Mediterranean Sea on the west"
[Posted on the Facebook page of the National Committee for Summer Camps, Aug. 2, 2017]

(full article online)

PA summer camps teach terror and Martyrdom-death for kids - PMW Bulletins

 

[P F Tinmore]

[ The PA, following the Oslo Accords.....NOT ]

At another camp organized by the National Committee for Summer Camps, a drawing of the PA's map of "Palestine" was accompanied by the following text, emphasizing both in pictures and in "data" that there is no State of Israel:

Text next to map: "Palestine
Location: The continent of Asia, eastern coast of the Mediterranean Sea
Territory: 27,009 square kilometers (the combined size of Israel and the PA areas is roughly 27,000 square kilometers -Ed.)
Borders of Palestine: Lebanon on the north
The Gulf of Aqaba and Egypt on the south
Jordan on the east
The Mediterranean Sea on the west"
[Posted on the Facebook page of the National Committee for Summer Camps, Aug. 2, 2017]

(full article online)

PA summer camps teach terror and Martyrdom-death for kids - PMW Bulletins

Borders of Palestine: Lebanon on the north
The Gulf of Aqaba and Egypt on the south
Jordan on the east
The Mediterranean Sea on the west"

That is correct. Those are the borders of Palestine according to the 1949 UN Armistice agreements. (That Israel signed.)

 

[Coyote]

It has made SOME.

I listed a bunch of them. I listed enough that it SHOULD have solved the conflict. Did you want to list the steps toward peace that the Palestinians have made?

They did not give them everything they asked for But Olmert' plan might have eventually been negotiated into something acceptable to both sides,

It gave them everything they ask for including Jerusalem and control over ALL the Jewish holy sites (and THAT will never happen again), and an equal amount of territory to swap for areas of significant Jewish habitation, and a temporary demilitarization with an exchange that Israel will protect them in the event of an external attack AND a right of return for more than 10,000 Palestinians.

In what way is this unfair, uneven or lacking? What more could they possibly want or ask for? Seriously? What else could Israel GIVE that wouldn't be an invitation to Israel's destruction?

A Palestine state would not have free access to its own international borders and that would leave its economy and ability to conduct trade up to the whims of Israel.

Whims? You mean whims like preventing the importation of weapons that will be used indiscriminately against innocent Israeli civilians? Whims? Seriously? If Gaze or an eventual Palestine want peace and prosperity they have to ACT with peace and prosperity. That means a gradual release of security precautions happens AFTER a set amount of time with NO security or peace problems. International law suggests one year free from attacks is a good starting point.

You make it sound as if Israel is an altruistic force for good.

Really? Do you think any of my comments are not factual? If so, name the untruth. I didn't claim any altruism. I literally just made a list of all the things Israel has actually DONE.

For example the much proclaimed unilateral withdrawal from Gaza. What is unsaid was Gaza was Ann expensive and politically divisive albatross around Israel's neck. The decision was based on an economic calculus that determined the cost of protecting a few Jews in Gaza simply wasn't worth it any more.

All true. So? Israel withdrew. Israel effectively granted complete control over Gaza to the Arab Palestinians. And yet STILL everyone whines that Israel was in the wrong or that Israel hasn't done enough? Really?

I disagree it is only an excuse. Maybe that is so in the eyes of the Israelis but to the Palestinians it represents the gradual confiscation of the area they hope to have as a future state.

No, it actually doesn't.

1. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is not "Palestinian land".
2. It doesn't confiscate anything because there have been no new settlements in more than 20 years.
3. It doesn't confiscate anything because the presence of Jews does not preclude sovereignty by Arab Palestine.
4. It doesn't confiscate anything because the negotiations haven't happened yet and many outcomes are possible.
5. It doesn't confiscate anything because it is fully in keeping with the treaty signed by the Palestinian representative.
6. It doesn't confiscate anything because it involves only a tiny fraction of the Arab Palestinian people.

There is a gulf of mistrust of motivations layered in as well. What you call an excuse is seen as proof of israel's real intentions.

Really? People talk alot about Israel's "real" intentions (which are almost always in direct contradiction to her actions). See the Jewish REAL intentions is considered some sort of evil idea which is sneaky and underhanded. Something inherently wrong or evil. What do you think Israel's REAL intentions are?

By the way ... Israel has also insisted on preconditions.

List them and I will respond.

I will try and respond at more length but I'm short on time. So for the moment, a couple of things:

Could Olmert have delivered something that would undoubted be unpalatable to the bulk of the Israeli politic?

Secondly...I said from the Palestinian view, put yourselves in their shoes. They certainly see it as their land taken in a war and never returned. Who's view is right? A lot of arguments for both sides there and most of these issues don't involve facts but deep emotional ties to the same bit of land.

 

[Coyote]

• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

I think there is a hint there.

Why can't the Jews have sovereignty too?

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

• Palestine Liberation Organization (Founded 1964) •

Until 1993, the only promoted option was armed struggle. From the signing of the Oslo Accords, negotiation and diplomacy became the only official policy. I​

From that point, until the Oslo Accords, the Arab Palestinians rejected any peace agreements.

The PLO offered a peace agreement in the early 70s where there would be one secular state with equal rights for all people including the Jews.

Israel rejected the offer because they wanted to pig the place for themselves.

(COMMENT)

A lot of people say that, but the Arab Palestinians (the PLO Specifically) did not offer forth a peace acceeptance, treaty or agreement between 1964 and the Oslo Accords (1993).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Who Are The Palestinians? Part 2
※→ P F Tinmore, et al,

Yes, generally speaking, the meaning of "Palestine" does present Problems.

• For the Arabs, the essential point of principle is to resist to the last the establishment of Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine.

I think there is a hint there.

(COMMENT)

Both the PLO (by the Palestine National Charter) and the Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) (by the Covenant) consider the entire landscape, formerly the territory subject to the Mandate of Palestine, is exclusively Arab.

• Article 2, Palestine National Charter:
Palestine, with the boundaries it had during the British Mandate, is an indivisible territorial unit.​

Most Respectfully,
R