Bobcat1 – We can go around in circles with questions all day, but I’m not one to take sides on this issue, so don’t expect me to defend either side. What I’m trying to point out is that there are two sides to this story (like many other stories), which I had mentioned in my first post.
I know that most people look at the history of this conflict and perhaps the history of the “Holy Land” in general, and ask themselves questions about Hammas and their actions. The way I look at it, at least in terms of the current situation is how can Hammas get enough votes to run the PNA? What were the conditions that led the Palestinian people to vote Hammas into power?
As an interesting anecdote, Ehud Barrack (current secretary of defence, former PM and former head of the IDF) has said that if he were a Palestinian, he would be a part of the resistance. I know that he would, and all it really takes to come to that conclusion is to view things in a non-biased (different perspective) type of way.
Quote:
What kind of state is the Israeli government willing to give the Palestinian people?
Quote:
|
Isn't that up to the Palestinians themselves, and not Israel?
|
|
In so many words: Not at all.
The Palestinian people are living in a collection of refugee camps and the history of the negotiations shows us that their leaders didn’t receive what they wanted. The Israelis are the “Giving” side in the negotiations, and what they are willing to give is not enough for the Palestinian leaders.
In other words, in any negotiation there are two sides, and the Israelis have to figure out what they are willing to give in order to reach a peaceful resolution. That in itself explains part of the reality of this conflict, the Palestinian people are living in horrible conditions and they want what was lawfully given to them by the UN in 1948. We all know that that’s not going to happen, so what are they going to get? Is it 50%, 70%, 20% - How much is enough? Read about the negotiations (2000-2001) and see where the problematic points were.
Please have a look at the 1967 borders, and then have a look at the 1948 borders. Ask yourself what has really been going on in the last 60 years before you simply consider this a one-sided violent conflict (Hint: In reality there are additional sides, not only the two).