First of all, the settlements are "natural growth" as classified under the Oslo Accords, so they are perfectly legal. Sorry to throw a wrench there into your anti-Israeli ravings. Second of all, they simply swapped one pre-condition for another. Israel doesn't get into the habit of squabbling over pre-conditions, because they simply outright reject them.
The Declaration of Principles signed between Israel and the Palestinians in September 1993 makes hardly any mention of Israeli settlements. In fact, when the term does appear it is only to put off debate on the issue to the permanent status negotiations.
Most analysts agree that the Oslo Accords relegated the settlement issue to the final status negotiations in hopes that the peace process would create a positive momentum of its own before such a delicate issue would have to be handled. Rather than having to immediately dismantle some or all of the Israeli settlements as part of an initial compromise, the Rabin Government hoped that in the wake of the confidence-building interim phase it would be possible to work out a plan of cohabitation, rather than one of total separation.
In the end, after intense diplomatic activity, Arafat agreed to permit extended Israeli military protection to all settlements, settlers and Israelis traveling in the areas of the Palestinian Authority, while Rabin agreed to relax Israel's responsibility over external security (border control) during the Interim phase, and a final arrangement was officially put off to final status negotiations.
Some analysts argue that leaving the settlement issue so wide open has actually led to a deterioration in the situation. Since the signing of the agreement, Palestinians and Israeli settlers have been jockeying to bolster their positions, both on the ground and ideologically, in anticipation of an agreement that will determine the final status of settlements.
So no, sorry to throw a wrench at your ''natural growth'' argument, but the settlement issue was never established at Oslo.
I wouldn't be keen to negotiate with the people who were launching rockets into my country on a daily basis either.
So, when both Fatah and Hamas ask for peace, they are now told ''Halt! We don't want peace anymore because we can't talk to you, because you launched rockets at us, even if you're not now!'' by the peace-loving Israelis!
Splendid logic and thinking!
He doesn't demand the civil war to go on, he demands that he negotiates with Fatah and only Fatah.
By deeming that Fatah and Hamas CANNOT agree to a ceasefire, and by stating that they won't negotiate if they're at peace, he is forcing the Palestinians to choose between fighting their more religious brothers or Israel.
Which is admittedly a very sneaky way to prevent any peace talks from happening.
Because it's true. A person can only sit down for so long before feeling the need to get up. Israel has felt that urge, however they are willing to sit down at any moment.
So now when the Palestinians finally say ''Alright, peace'', Israel says ''No, we waited too long, so now we're going to continue fighting because, heck, I hate waiting!''
Splendid logic again!
If the Pals want to negotiate, WITHOUT pre-conditions, than Israel will sit. We are waiting.
Whilst the Israelis demand their own prerequisites hypocritically? Food for thought.
Fine, how about this, Israel gets wiped off the map, and makes all of you anti-Israel people happy, but they get to take every ounce of technology that they invented with them, and turn the Negev into a desert again. That means no cell phones, no laptops, heck, no practical desktop computers! Have fun being sent back 50 years in medicine, travel, and pretty much everything else that involves technology. But, if Israel is gone, than apparently in the minds of some people it's worth it.
Wait.....did I say that the Jewish people should be wiped out? I did? Gosh, I have amnesia!
Right off the bat,
Martin Cooper, inventor of the cellphone, Jewish yes, but born in America, died an American citizen. Would he have not invented the phone if Israel was not there? Nope.
Ted Hoff, inventor of CPU. Born in America, died there. Without him, there would be no desktop or laptop. Jewish yes, and kudos to him. Would he have not made the laptop without Israel's existence? Nope.
Instead of ending up in an emotional quagmire of bad facts, and a hysterical whine that we would all have been condemned to a backward life, think a little, use a sprinkle of logic.
Oh yes, so immigrating to barren desert where no one wanted to live completely incites the Arabs. Wait, I forgot, they were Jews...
Ever woke up one day from a dream that you were ruler of a nation? Fret not. We can all go to the uninhabited or sparsely populated Sahara desert and claim it from any African nations which currently rule it. Swell right?
Except for the fact that desert is still land, land of a country, land of another people.
So perhaps instead of saying we and the Palestinians were racist, use some logic again.
First of all, that link is what connects every true Jew to Israel by their heart and soul. Second of all, even in the Koran, the Muslims have been told by Allah that Israel belongs to the Jews. Also, Jerusalem isn't even mentioned by name in the Koran. While this doesn't give the Jews the right to take it, you fail to comprehend (or cite code instead of shoddy links) that Israel wouldn't have taken the land unless they were attacked. You fail to comprehend the "Vegas effect." If you roll the dice and lose, don't cry when your money's gone.
Right. So they have a link to the land, which I'm not even disputing. Fair enough.
So. How is this spiritual link to the land, land which they ruled for less than 400 years in the past somehow a more credible reason then the fact that the Palestinians already lived there?
Before we even talk about defensive war, and international law again, halt, let's start from the beginnning.
What right did the Jews, non-native Jews, even have coming over and snatching half a country away? That is something you have ALWAYS shunned, instead falling back upon a shield of ''Palestinians lost land in wars'', when the land was in fact not even the Jews to claim. Chew on that.
A blatant land grab is a blitzkreig. Capturing land in defensive wars is clearing out an enemy position and advancing the front lines.
So somehow, by dumping boatloads of people who have never been in Israel and then claiming it, is not land grab? A blitzkrieg is a land grab, but speed is not a measure in deciding land grabs.
Oh wait. Blitzkrieg means ''lightning war''. So I suppose it's not a land grab after all.
