True that! True That!!! Jordan occupied what was left of Palestine! People called Israel Colonializers? Look at those Jordanians!!! Out of nowhere the Hevjaz Monarchy of Norther Saudi Arabia come and get 80% of Ottoman Palestine (Which is Transjordan) Israel wanted the 20% and it got firmly rejected...then when the conflict was in West Palestine, they as well came and annexxed land...only for 19 years, when Israel beat them! Either way, the Palestinian Issue was not relevant for the Jordanians and there rule was brutal! The Palestinains are simply taking advantage over what they have......So they throw rocks...they demonstrate...they blow themselves up!! Why hasn't 1 Palestinian blown himself up between 67 and 93 when Israel occupied it? or between 1948 and 1967 when Jordan did? Why only after 1993? Cause the 'OCCUPATION' Got worse?!?! Yet...there GDP per Capita got better, in some cases better than other Arab nations?
Let's see if I can understand this. The Palestinians are frustrated due to the oppressive conditions they have suffered at the hands of the Israelis. And let's just focus on the time the Israelis have controlled the West Bank & Gaza, from '67 on. You would think that the Israelis, being the racist colonizers that they are, would have been as equally oppressive toward the Palestinians in '67 or '77 or '87 as they are in '04. So therefore, the seething response to this oppression would have resulted in startling acts of resistance and violence all during this time. As Kappa stated, why has the occupation taken off after '93 (and much more so after 2000)? Has there been a monumental characterological shift in the Israeli populace and army, making them much more and oppressive and racist in 2004 than in, say, 1992? Hmm, couldn't have anything to do with the Palestinians shift in philosophy and tactics, based on their OWN calculations? nah.
I'll explain you why. If Israel annexes the occupied territory there's the little problem that Israel would have to give israeli citizenship to the palestinians (many millions). I am guessing you wouldn't like an apartheid approach. Then it would be fun to see the election results. Another option is the famous "transfer" ie an ethnic cleansing. This is discussed in israel with even a minister (and various right wing parties) campaigning for it. That's why the policy has been to steal land and resources slowly (settlements policy) with israeli government pretending not to be actively involved (but anyone knows it is a government policy) and making it absolutely jewish only. But all this has been hurted by the fact that the antisemite rest of the world denied any israeli territorial claim regarding the occupied territories (multiple UN resolutions). UN has repeatedly stated that the settlements policy is illegal, a violation of the geneva convention ie a crime. Little discussion would be needed in this precise subject (settlements policy) if some ppl weren't blinded by partisanship.
So the West Bank, full of Palestinians, was Israel's to 'give'? And you're blaming the Jordanians for renouncing interest in favour of the people who actually live there? Amazing. As for security concerns, it seems that the Palestinians have far more of those given the complete disparity in military strength.
All too true. And until the US has the guts to stand up to Israel and demand a halt to settlements, there will be no peace - ever. Bush was asked this specific question at the press conference with Blair on Friday and conspicuously avoided answering it - so much for the US being an "honest" broker.
I thought the settlement policy was wrong from day 1. You'd have to interview Israeli government officials to find out their reasoning on this, but I suppose they believe it will give them some bargaining chips in a land for peace deal. Nevertheless, if all the Israelis ever intended to do was expand their territory and expel all the Palestinians, they would never have made the peace offer (imperfect as it might be) in 2000. The real movers and shakers in Israel understand that land for peace is an eventuality, forget about what the settler movement thinks. They know that the U.S. would tolerate no less.
Nah. The Palestinians have been resisting Israel's occupation pretty consistently since '67. First through terrorism against Israeli interests around the world, secondly through the 'peaceful' Intifada of the later '80's, early '90's and now a far more violent Intifada after the failure of the Oslo process.
Sorry, you've got it backwards. There will be no peace until the Palestinians accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish nation. When that day comes, the settlements will be readily dismantled and land will be exchanged for peace.
So why does the US tolerate less by failing to apply pressure to get Israel to halt further building on the West Bank?
I don't think so. The number of incidents committed worldwide against Israeli interests up until the 90's is rather small. The "violent Intifada," as you call it, was a cold, cynical and calculated decision by the Palestinians after Arafat rejected Barak's offer, having little to do with actual conditions on the ground.
And the only way to get Palestinians (or rather, the vast majority) to accept the existence of Israel is for that Israel to stop building on the West Bank. Why would Palestinians accept a country that was slowly building on what it considers it's land? All the settlement policy does is encourage people not to accept Israel. The key to any rapprochement is for Israel to pursue polcies that the vast majority of Palestinians can live with. The settlement policy has the reverse effect.
We never Annexxed it or NATIONALISED it like Jordan did. If Jordan didn't go to the 1967 war, they would have still had The West Bank and could do whatever they want with it. Your claim is that you are trying to justify a country that goes COunter with your rights and liberties. Jordan did something bad, and they got ignored over it... Infact, Ignorants like yourself as well as the UN who has a strong Islamic Lobby that would persue any Resolution that deems necessary forgets that it was the same body that Cut up what was left of west Palestine into a jewish-Arab states. The same arabs that ignored it, refused it and 'protest' it are the same ones that attacked it, meaning both attacking the new jewish state, the promised Arab state, annexxing it, occupying it, ruining any chance of the arab state...... and later.....using it as a fortress... The same arabs who did this are the same ones who pass pathetic resolutions!!! Israel does not nationalise the West Bank! And we have been in the negotiating table with both Jordan and the PA for a comprehensive settlement to deal this issue. Whether it be 100% return or 9% return, is all based on negotiation and a settlement deal as pertained in the 1991 Madrid Conference.. Don't be an Idiot Sardinia and try to take things out of proportion to satisfy your Jihadist needs
Were u born yesterday? They renounced in 1988! They had nationalised it (meaning annexxed it, meaning occupied it) from 1948 to 1967. In that spam of years, they had a rule of fist in the West Bank, and not one person talked about making a 'provisional' palestinian state. The rights for a Jordanian in Jordan compared to one in the West Bank was much difference...... From 1967 to 1988, they had wanted to finalize a deal for the west bank in which Israel will get a security buffer and compensation for what jordanians did in 1948; which was force Jewish inhabitants of what NOW the west bank into exile: where they found refuge in Israel in 1948. Those are the towns such as Hebron, Jericho, Nablus and Bethlehem! It was in the 1980's that the Jordanians and the Israelis talked about a final idea. Then when the Palestinian uprsiing took place, in 1987, they backed off and decided have no intrest over it..... Possibly because if Israel hands them the WB, they would be the caretakers of the Intifhada!!!
Even before Israel 'occupied' the West Bank, they refuse to recognize Israel! Whats the point of now? Did u ever see a clip of Meet the Press that was done in 1964.. 3 years before the 6 day war? King Hussien made a visit to the U.S.. He used the term to define israel as "AGGRESSORS" "ZIONISTS" "ANIMALS" "OCCUPIERS" Even when we didn't have an inch of the West Bank and Gaza. Do you see which mother FOOKERS we deal with now?
IMHO it is naive to think that "land for peace" is the real motive for the settlements policy. Any new settlement in the world has had one motive... to colonize, to gain new territories. Nothing happens if the new territory is desert while if the territory has already its population it doesn't really work to bring peace to the land. btw If Israel proposes land for peace (in the 67 borders without any annexion) an agreement would be very likely. Surely many palestinians wouldn't be happy but hey look the reactions amongst israeli right wing at the prospect of leaving the Gaza strip. There were voices talking about threats against sharon. And let's remember what happened to Rabin. Assassination that came after months of demonization coming from Likud and other right wing parties. Add to this the fact that Israel talks about "disputed territories" and you'll have a set of evidences that paints the "land for peace" hypotesys regarding settlements policies as mostly an embellishment for foreign public opinions. My opinion is that territorial claims only fuel the conflict. This is valid both for israelis and for palestinians, of course.
The more you discuss the more you have problems in reading comprehension which is really odd, Kappa. Usually it works the opposite way. An inexplicable phenomenon. I tell you orange you answer apple.
Or regain old territories, as the case may be. I happen to think the settlements outside of the Jerusalem region are idiotic, but the "settlers" are NOT colonizers. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=colony
Thank God Europeans (most) don't think like this regarding "their" lands. Please, let me explain this: when you get your ass kicked in a war, you do not get to get your way on what happens to that land--no matter who lives on that land. From my ethnic group, Hungarian, they divided Hungary up, taking 2/3 of it's land, giving it to its neighbors. Hungary was on Germany's side in that war, so too bad for us, we lost, thems the breaks. Palestinians should thank Israel for allowing them to stay post-67. By the way, Arafats personal fortune now believed to be in excess of $20 BILLION--while his people live in squalor. What a guy!
I said BEEFORE!!!!!! Do you have a reading problem Sardinia? And Arafat recognized Israel in 1988, but never formerly.... To this date, he doesn't....perhaps when he speaks English to CNN or 60 minutes he does, but in Arabic to Al Jazeera, he doesn't!!!
Yes, let's bury our head in he sand because a dead King said something forty years ago. Otoh, why not address today's situation: a military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip and settlement building that guarantees Palestinians won't accept Israel.