only overt fatal physical violence usually attracts attention and protest. That's the problem with the world. As long as you keep people in submission without kiling them you're not violent. When those people, deprived of their possessions and dignity by the all-encompassing yet non-fatal state machine, offer physical resistance, they're accused of violence. But the injustice of such accusation is too obvious for too many, and so the "non-violently" oppressed underdogs receive broad sympathy. That's why "neutrals" don't protest violence against terrorism. That's the explanation. If you think the liberal Europeans, generally pro-Palestinian, have another reason for this "bias", you're a conspiracy specialist.

compensated by Dana Olmert, the PM's daughter, demonstrating against her daddy's actions. She deserves my applause. Has a daughter of King Abdullah of Arabia demonstrated against the Wahhabi terrorism against the Shias? Not sure. Maybe the offspring of Mubarak protest against daddy's chokehold on Gaza?

seems like Abbas' presidential term is off this month. If Hamas' actions were an electoral campaign, they've succeeded. In a fair election, Hamas probably beats Fatah. But election there will be not, so Abbie is gonna be kind of dictator, officially. Not to worry, thoough.

not in this case. World will never recognize Israel's annexations.



an unprovoked one would be if Palestinians travelled to Vilna, Lithuania, in 1912 and burned a synagogue, or killed Theodor Herzl in Vienna. SInce the Balfour Declaration of 1917, there can be no unprovoked attacks on Israel. Unless the conflict is settled by the sides.

it takes one Hamas man to stay alive after Israeli withdrawal and one Qassam to land in Israel to create a feeling of Israel's defeat. So if Israel intends to leave Gaza once resistance is put down, it may already consider itself defeated. If it intends to stay for long, things are unpredictable. The only thing I can guarantee is, no matter what's going on in Gaza, Arabs will continue to kill each other in Iraq.

i suggest they retreat precisely to their legal lawful recognized borders. I believe Israel can get peace in return for that. Israel might eventually get peace without giving up Palestinian land, who knows.

if people lose their right to live in peace when their leaders deny that right to others, then... the only thing we need for a comprehensive justification of 9/11 is to show how US leaders denied someone the right to live in peace. That will be an easy shot. Living by the law you yourself proclaimed?

sounds cool coming from a Fatah-man.

vs.




probably but the British. Does that change the paradigm? Can he go back kicking Portuguese and Polish immigrants out because his great-great-smth-fathers were there? Btw, Ottomans did not remove Jews from Palestine. Neither did the Arabs. Muslims have nothing to do with the de-Judification of Judea.



more like 2 thousands years. Where your pedigree comes from? Say England. Are you native to Germany because Saxons came from Saxony? Will you conquer Bavarians and Schwabs living in Saxony because you are "native" to that land?

 

believe it or not, that's not outright impossibe. Peace not always implies civil liberties. If somewhere in 1988 I were attacked on my way to school by  foreign freedom-lovers, i'd consider peace was taken from me, even though USSR was a crappy entity.

Cedar Pride, well done.  Some would rather bypass those "nuances" on their way to the pre-defined "truth".

"country" can connote "region"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/country


by that time the "Palestinians" were the Palestinians. You see, Zionism created two nations, but only one state.


Israel itself only recently came to accept the idea (in case of Likud, for external audiences, it seems). One thing obviously is that Israel has clung to the lands outside of its borders. Even Taba-2001, the pinnacle of Israel's "concessions", didn't provide for an acceptable border. Let me return your question thusly: "Why not decide once and for all to renounce all territories outside of Israel's border, helping in that way Palestinians to choose peace?"

Another thing is the sacred cow of Palestinian nationalism, - refugees. I don't believe, though, that refugees have ever derailed the negotiations. Peace talks always stopped at the territorial matters.

Third thing is the Syrian, and now Iranian, manipulation of the rejectionists. And that comes back to the main thing, - Israel's refusal to give back the land (for this particular purpose, the Golans).

That was bizarre, wasn’t it? People normally welcome hordes of alien immigrants overtly professing to take over the country. “Hi! We’d like to take you over! Do you mind?” – “Nooo !!! Feel yourself home! We love the idea of becoming a minority on our soil! Any help you need – let us know!”

The UN-proposed division of Palestine gave the Jews large areas with Arab majorities. Only in parts of the coastal plains and “pockets” in Beisan Jews had majority. British census of 1946 put Jewish population of the Negev at “LESS THAN ONE PERCENT”. Yet the Negev was somehow deemed Jewish enough to be generously granted to the Jewish State by the UN. Anti-Arabic bias?


wasn't Oslo result of the Intifada?

i was talking about pre-invasion leadership. Neither Vietnam in the 60s nor Iraq in 2003 "denied others the right to live in peace". And yet Americans came and killed a good number of civilians. 

what would be an examplary livepath for a Palestinian in Gaza? Study hard, preach non-violence, never abandon hope of getting out... Plan expenses, don't get married too soon (preferably never), save money for rent, try to get a job...Look with optimism across the wall into Israel where your grandfather used to have a house and a tract of land, throw out that keys from the house in Deir Yassin, Beer Sheba or smth. Live and let live. La vita e bella.