03-11-2003, 05:40 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2003, 05:53 PM by Occhidiangela.)
You will have noticed that Saudi Arabia and Israel have NOT reached a mutually acceptable agreement. Not every offer is acceptable, that is what the word negotiations refer to. Merely to have made an offer. regardless of its merits, does not constitute a valid basis for an agreement. It takes two to tango.
Egypt and Israel have indeed reached a mutually acceptable arrangement. I wonder if Israel and Syria ever will.
The Palestinians are not morally in the right, they are combatants. They are also the saps of other Arabs, and have been for years. A policy of non-violent engagement, and indeed, a number of progressive moves by their leader, have not been supported by follow through action that raises the confidence of Israelis. Check to newspaper for about the last 20 years. At almost any excuse, a tantrum is thrown and a bomb goes off. You will note that the more liberal Prime Ministers, who trusted in the good faith of the Palestinians, have shown that their trust was ill earned.
West Bank. Occupied in 1967 for the simple reason of national survival. Look at a map and try to understand how that works. The continued settlement is certainly a serious obstacle to appeasement of radical Palestinians. When I was last in Jerusalem, I noted how armed patrols were everywhere. Gee, I wonder why?
Until such time as the UN decrees that Israel is not a legitimate nationstate, it is the Paletsinians who are in the wrong to use violence to achieve their ends. They are trying to effect change, and are unwilling to use the sanctioned methods to do so. Time and again, when negotiations move forward, someone decides that 'it aint enough' and sets off a bomb. What a great way to build confidence in the other side that you are bargaining in good faith.
Yet you consider that being morally correct? Welcome to the real world. History moves forward.
Edit: "Foreign INvader?"
LOL. Let's see, 1948, Israel attacked. 1956 Israel attacked 1967, Israel preemptive strike versus Arab Mobilization 1973? Israel attacked.
You see a pattern here? Who is invading whom.
Meanwhile, since 1973, a series of steps have been implemented that increases Palestinians goals of self determination, but you see, THEY don't want to be team players. They don't want to be part of an effective modern nation, they want to be part of their own nationstate, one that has little to no hope for economic viability beyong handouts from wealthy Arab states. Sound like . . . Haiti.
"Waaaaaaaah, I want it now!"
Thanks for playing.
Egypt and Israel have indeed reached a mutually acceptable arrangement. I wonder if Israel and Syria ever will.
The Palestinians are not morally in the right, they are combatants. They are also the saps of other Arabs, and have been for years. A policy of non-violent engagement, and indeed, a number of progressive moves by their leader, have not been supported by follow through action that raises the confidence of Israelis. Check to newspaper for about the last 20 years. At almost any excuse, a tantrum is thrown and a bomb goes off. You will note that the more liberal Prime Ministers, who trusted in the good faith of the Palestinians, have shown that their trust was ill earned.
West Bank. Occupied in 1967 for the simple reason of national survival. Look at a map and try to understand how that works. The continued settlement is certainly a serious obstacle to appeasement of radical Palestinians. When I was last in Jerusalem, I noted how armed patrols were everywhere. Gee, I wonder why?
Until such time as the UN decrees that Israel is not a legitimate nationstate, it is the Paletsinians who are in the wrong to use violence to achieve their ends. They are trying to effect change, and are unwilling to use the sanctioned methods to do so. Time and again, when negotiations move forward, someone decides that 'it aint enough' and sets off a bomb. What a great way to build confidence in the other side that you are bargaining in good faith.
Yet you consider that being morally correct? Welcome to the real world. History moves forward.
Edit: "Foreign INvader?"
LOL. Let's see, 1948, Israel attacked. 1956 Israel attacked 1967, Israel preemptive strike versus Arab Mobilization 1973? Israel attacked.
You see a pattern here? Who is invading whom.
Meanwhile, since 1973, a series of steps have been implemented that increases Palestinians goals of self determination, but you see, THEY don't want to be team players. They don't want to be part of an effective modern nation, they want to be part of their own nationstate, one that has little to no hope for economic viability beyong handouts from wealthy Arab states. Sound like . . . Haiti.
"Waaaaaaaah, I want it now!"
Thanks for playing.
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete