Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IDF_5173 Hmmm!
With a great chance of being nominated as a Israeli version of Joseph Goebbels, then I would still say this:
Make no mistake. The Palestinians are still fighting to destroy Israel. The primary obstacle to a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians is neither Jewish settlements, Palestinian refugees or the issue of future borders. The conflict has nothing to do with orcupation or security fence, but only with Arab reluctance to accept any Jewish sovereignty in any part of Palestine, however small the part may be.
Only after Israel in 1967struck back an Arab war of aggression on three fronts and took control of Gaza and West Bank, began the Palestinian Arabs (who was now "Palestinians") to claim these areas. But the price - recognition of the Jewish state's right to exist - was too high.
The Oslo process in the 1990s capsized when Arafat in the summer of 2000 rejected a plan that would have given Palestinians Gaza and almost all of the West Bank as a state with East Jerusalem as its capital. The reasion was that they were not prepared to recognize Jewish claim to parts of Jerusalem or would cede the right to flood Israel with the descendants of Palestinian refugees, which would eventually undermine Israel's Jewish identity. If you believe that the "moderate" leadership under Mahmoud Abbas has turned past intransigence you are wrong.
Also in an interview shown on the TV station Al-Jazeera 27th March 2010 Saeb Erekat, Palestinian chief negotiator for both Arafat and Abbas, throws yet more light on the "moderate" Fatah's position on the two state solution. According to Erekat Arafat said to Clinton: "I will not be a traitor. Someone will come and liberate Jerusalem after 10, 50 or 100 years. Jerusalem will not be other than the capital of the Palestinian state, and there's nothing underneath or above the Haram Al-Sharif [the Arabic name for the Temple Mount] except Allah. "(Al-Jazeera, March 27, 2009).
By continuing to refuse to recognize any kind of Jewish connection to what the Jews for a millennia have considered their holiest place, by constantly working against the very core of two-state solution, namely the division of Palestine into both a Jewish and an Arab state , the Palestinian leadership blocks the peaceful solution that the vast majority of Israelis and presumably also the majority of Palestinians crave.
Okay gentleman that was it, now I've said my opinion, so now it is time to get into cover for the incoming artillery fire. |
The problem with your argument is that it is one sided, lets be realistic the area has been "holiest" place for Christendom for over a millennium as well but I am pretty certain there would be an outcry if a 10th Crusade rolled through the doors to claim it back, the fact is that that particular bit of dirt has been fought over and claimed by countless nations and empires in the last 4000 years.
Anyway rather than go through the whole repetitive counter argument I will ask just one question, if the roles were reversed what would you do.
Lets say Egypt (lets not get into the whole Canaanite thing) decided to take back its long lost province and in doing so decided that all the Israelis could have a couple of motley unproductive bits of dirt (say the west bank or gaza strip) would you:
A) Say well it was Egyptian land lets just suck it up make the most of our dirt.
B) Fight back?