What the hell are you talking about? My point was that the Arab point of view -- the anguish of displacement, which certainly DID occur -- needs to be acknowledged and appreciated as valid, because it certainly is; not conveniently tossed in the "terrorism" basket. My understanding is that when Israel was designated as a country in 1946 (?) (based on the decisions made after the 1940/45 war, which in turn was based on the promises made at the Balfour convention in the 1930's - have I got that correct anyone ?) there were Arabs living in the area amongst the Jews, as had been the situation for centuries. Your "understanding" (and I use term loosely) is need of serious overhaul. The war happened in 1948-49 and you're confusing it with the Six Day War of 1967. To say "there were Arabs living in the area amongst the Jews" is quite creative, to put it nicely. But it gives the impression that the Jews had always been there, in the same numbers, which is patently not true. By 1914, there were only about 90,000 Jews in the whole of Palestine. Further immigration swelled this number to about 100,000 in 1925 and 240,000 by 1933. The Arabs had a problem such massive immigration even back then. But they couldn't really do much about it because British policy supported it -- the Balfour Declaration that you mention. What you neglected to mention, however, was that it was formed by Jewish Zionist influence, NOT in consultation with what the ARABS -- you know, the actual inhabitants of the land -- wanted. 800,000 Arabs were displaced by the 1948 war, and Israel grabbed more land than it was promised in the UN resolution that created Israel. So yeah, I think the Arabs rightly have a case for being somewhat ticked off, don't you?
The presence of 750,000 Jews in 1947 does not "clearly indicate" that they had lived there for "centuries". What kind of BS reasoning is that! Jewish population 1914: 90,000. So what 750,000 Jews in 1947 "clearly indicates" is mass immigration (and/or SKY high birth rates).
Freealways, this is the kind of one-sided BS I am talking about. If it's a Jew denouncing Hitlerism, we're expected to be compassionate and understanding (and rightly so); and, of course, the vast majority of us are. But if it's an Arab bemoaning his people's fate in Palestine, it's "vitriolic hatred". (I just used Hitler example to make a point, I certainly don't want to give the impression that the displacement of the Arabs is as comparable a tragedy as the Holocaust.)
The U.S. said they were leaving Saudi Arabia, not good enough for al Qaeda. Now they have the wrath of most of the world against them. Next, the liberal freak-fringe and/or MF's will say the U.S. set off these bombs as an excuse of some sort. After all, we fired a rocket at the Pentagon, right?
What the heck are you talking about? If you read my post you'd understand that the point I was making was that Arafat was saying enouraging things in English about the talks and then when addressing the Palestinians and Arab press he would say something in the anti-Israeli vein. Go on believing Arafat genuinely wants nothing less than the cessation of the Israeli state if you want.
O.K., both sides (i.e. Palestinians and Israelis) have made some terrible mistakes in judgement in the past so can they NOW be brought together to live side by side, in peace, and economically co-operating ? The questions which arise in me are : 1.Is this possible in a peaceful manner ? (Can the extremists on both sides be controlled ? ). 2. Will the present situation continue ? 3. Will Israel get so exasperated that there will be an all out fight until there is only one side left standing ? 4. Is Candletrader's solution the only way i.e. weed out the terrorists and thence make peace with whoever is left ? freealways
You cannot take a man who is angry inside and legislate peace. If we have to force peace on people, how can they feel peaceful inside?
O.K., both sides (i.e. Palestinians and Israelis) have made some terrible mistakes in judgement in the past so can they NOW be brought together to live side by side, in peace, and economically co-operating ? Hmm, just what terrible mistakes in judgement did the Palestinians make in "the past"? Mistakes like believing the British authorities who told them that upon expelling the Ottomans they would create a Palestinian state? Mistakes like not reacting sooner, and more forcefully to Zionism? Yeah, there are usually two sides to a story, but I just fail to see how the Palestinians can in any way be held accountable for what happened in "the past"; they've been robbed at every turn. 1.Is this possible in a peaceful manner ? (Can the extremists on both sides be controlled ? ). Extremists like Sharon? Who knows.. Peace probably is achievable, if hardline Israelis start accepting some responsibility for the situation being as it is. 2. Will the present situation continue ? From the Palestinian perspective, probably. As long as Israel refuses to hand back the occupied territories, refuses to allow the refugees to return, continues to support illegal settlers (on the occupied territories), continues to pretend it has some right to East Jerusalem, when, in fact, it has no legal right to neither West nor East, then, yeah, the present situation probably will continue. 3. Will Israel get so exasperated that there will be an all out fight until there is only one side left standing ? LOL. You mean the way Palestinians have been "exasperated" for the past half a century? 4. Is Candletrader's solution the only way i.e. weed out the terrorists and thence make peace with whoever is left ? Get a clue.
What mistakes did they make? That you continue to take one side, and not see that both sides are to blame is just pure bias. Ok, suicide bombings are not a mistake. You make them out to be innocent victims, which is nonsense.