Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Can I know what?

    It is unacceptable that the Palestinians view killing civilians as an acceptable retaliation to Israel's militaristic intentions.

    i meant can you now...my post has been edited...

    Well how else is someone with no army, no weapons going to defend themselves?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Israel's militaristic intentions.
    That actually kill far more civilians than the Palestinians militants?

    Ah, but of course, lets not worry about that. Let's just make an entirely spurious moral differentiation because it suits our case.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThornsnRoses)
    i meant can you now...my post has been edited...

    Well how else is someone with no army, no weapons going to defend themselves?
    Even th epalestinian authorities accept that these suecide bombings are illegal and they do condemn them. The claim of self defense is nonsense as the suecide bombings do nothelp the palestinians at all. If anything the terrorism has only contributed to break down the peace process. Furthermore, the siecide bombings are not directed towards any Israeli authorities, it is directed towards civilians only. To claim that this would be self defense is nonsense.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    That actually kill far more civilians than the Palestinians militants?

    Ah, but of course, lets not worry about that. Let's just make an entirely spurious moral differentiation because it suits our case.
    Of course, you could argue in addition that the suecide bombings have no purpose whatsoever except killing Israeli civilians, whereas the Israeli incursions actually do target militant palestinians. Furthermroe it is wrong that more civilians are killed in military incursions. This number only arise when you sumarise all incursions and all suecide bombings and is the result of the fact that the terrorist organisations do not manage to perform as many atacks as they try to. Also, the fact that the Israeli government tries to defend their civilians whereas the palestinians use them as human shields alsohas something to do with the number of dead on each side.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llama boy)
    It's completely obvious that with an occupation to resist, there would be no need for resistance.
    .
    Well, its just to bad that the fanatic factions among the palestinian militant groups vows not to stop until they hav thrown the Jews out of the middle east. Your ignorance is remarkable. Everyone knows that the terror woant simply stop because Israel stop military incursions. The idea that the terror is a desperate response from a poor population which knows no other way is utter nonsense. British citizens have participated in suecide bombings. The atacks are religiously motivated and as far as the militant organisation is concerned teh Israely "occupation" is not over until they have killed or thrown every Israely out of the continent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The idea that the terror is a desperate response from a poor population which knows no other way is utter nonsense.
    Since the Israeli army is incredibly powerful and well trained, especially compared with the 'securtiy forces' they have in Palestine, it is the only way for them to get attention without being crushed. I'm not condoning it, but it does seem to be the only thing Israel reacts to.

    The atacks are religiously motivated and as far as the militant organisation is concerned the Israely "occupation" is not over until they have killed or thrown every Israely out of the continent.
    Part of the thing is though that Israel has gone over the area it was supposed to be limited to in the various treaties: the settlements are occupying Palestinean land, and although the extremist groups want Israel completely gone, most want just the land that was supposed to be theirs, going back to the British in the 1940s.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Of course, you could argue in addition that the suicide bombings have no purpose whatsoever except killing Israeli civilians, whereas the Israeli incursions actually do target militant palestinians.
    But they do, they have a purpose of achieving justice and freedom. The Israeli attacks in one sense can be seen as "defence", but ultimately they are in defence of injustice.

    Furthermore it is wrong that more civilians are killed in military incursions. This number only arise when you summarise all incursions and all suicide bombings and is the result of the fact that the terrorist organisations do not manage to perform as many attacks as they try to.
    Well, this is an interesting point. It is worth noting that the Israeli attacks are almost always retaliatory, in as much as Israeli public opinion demand blood in response to an attack on them (and of course the same can be said of Palestinian attacks). Thus, the number of attacks is relational to each other - if there were more suicide bombings, there would be more helicopter gunships attacking downtown Gaza, and hence the proportions would stay largely the same.

    Also, the fact that the Israeli government tries to defend their civilians whereas the palestinians use them as human shields also has something to do with the number of dead on each side.
    I really can't see how Israeli policy can be seen as defending their citizens, whatever the received wisdom. It perpetuates the conflict in exactly the same way the Palestinian attacks do.

    Even th Palestinian authorities accept that these suicide bombings are illegal and they do condemn them. The claim of self defence is nonsense as the suicide bombings do not help the palestinians at all.
    The Israeli attacks can't exactly been seen as helping their cause either. Self defence can only be defined as if someone is attacking you, you attack them back in whatever way you can. The Palestinians are being attacked by Israel, hence they hit back at Israel.

    I do wonder if modern Zionists consider the French Resistance in WW2, or pilots who bombed German cities to be "terrorists" in the same way.

    If anything the terrorism has only contributed to break down the peace process. Furthermore, the suicide bombings are not directed towards any Israeli authorities, it is directed towards civilians only. To claim that this would be self defence is nonsense.
    See the above.

    Well, its just to bad that the fanatic factions among the palestinian militant groups vows not to stop until they hav thrown the Jews out of the middle east. Your ignorance is remarkable.
    lol, this coming from the person who has sidestepped just about every point and question put to him on this thread.

    Of course, there are a minority on both sides who want to see the other side utterly banished. HOWEVER, come a settlement, these people will have the relevance of, for example, the Real IRA. "Terrorism" never succeeds without widespread latent support. Without that (and with a just settlement that support will evaporate), they may believe what they want, but they will be irrelevant and powerless. Mainstream Hamas, Islamic Jihad, DFLP, PFLP are all more than ready to accept a just settlement.

    Everyone knows that the terror wont simply stop because Israel stop military incursions.
    "Everyone knows"? That's a very very poor attempt at a justification.

    I don't recall saying that it would, either. I said that a withdrawal (with a simultaneous Palestinian ceasefire) coupled with progress towards a just permanent solution, would.

    The idea that the terror is a desperate response from a poor population which knows no other way is utter nonsense. British citizens have participated in suicide bombings.
    "Utter nonsense"? As with above, that's just a wild unsupported assertion. I've visited Palestine, and can confirm the population is entirely desperate. I'm not sure how two British citizens participating in resistance disproves the general rule. Suicide bombings are used because there is no other way. If you think there is another way the Palestinians could resist the occupation, by all means post it here.

    The attacks are religiously motivated
    lol, have you told this to the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (DFLP) or Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), both secular Marxist groups?

    The situation with the other groups is more complex. Islamic Jihad, especially, has a strong religious element. However, their leadership has shown itself amenable to something approaching a just solution. More to the point, though, is the point I mentioned earlier about support for the militants. Even if elements of IJ wanted to carry on with their attacks, they would get virtually nil support from a Palestinian population so desperate for peace and justice.


    and as far as the militant organisation is concerned the Israely "occupation" is not over until they have killed or thrown every Israely out of the continent.
    This wild piece of propaganda has been answered, I think, at least 3 times before in this thread.

    So, tell me Jon, if this is the case, why have there been several complete ceasefires in recent years? Why do the leader of these groups openly state they will accept less than 30% of historic Palestine as a settlement? You can't, and won't, answer those questions because what you're saying has no relevant basis; it is simply vicious propaganda.

    I'm getting vaguely tired of this thread now, to be frank. I'll only respond again if you give straight answers to the following questions (which I've already asked several times).

    1) Do you believe the rights of Palestinians and Israelis should be given equal consideration?
    2) Would you support a secular one state solution that gives equal rights to all?
    3) If not, why not?

    See, the thing is, I've been to Palestine and talked to a fair few people there. I find your reciting of repugnant propaganda to be hugely inaccurate and racist. I do sometimes wonder what the Israeli right feel they are going to achieve in the long term with this. Without giving a just settlement, do they expect to keep the Palestinians under lock and key with a gun forever? I fear the answer to that question is no, and I find the implication very worrying indeed.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Right, so what do you have to say to that video that has been released by Hamas then?!

    Muslims thinks it's right to kill Jews, in Israel! Even the British are doing it now to support the Palestinians! So any European can just come into Israel, blow themselves up and think they're doing good for their religion. Well it's not right. Killing is not good for anything especially to innocent people. The situation is getting worse and worse, and maybe just maybe, if they bothered to stop killing people then Israel might give back some of their OWN land!

    I really don't know how ANY of you can even dare to defend the Palestinians, especially this time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemgems89)
    Right, so what do you have to say to that video that has been released by Hamas then?!
    What about it? It's horrible, but I don't believe it disproves a single thing that I have said, if that is what you are implying.

    Muslims thinks it's right to kill Jews, in Israel! Even the British are doing it now to support the Palestinians! So any European can just come into Israel, blow themselves up and think they're doing good for their religion. Well it's not right. Killing is not good for anything especially to innocent people.
    Of course it's not right; but then neither is the killing done by the IDF. These things are not black and white.

    The situation is getting worse and worse, and maybe just maybe, if they bothered to stop killing people then Israel might give back some of their OWN land!
    It is easy to take that position either way (ie, if only the other side would surrender completely we could reach a settlement). In truth, the only way a settlement is going to be reached is through simultaneous withdrawal / ceasefire.


    I really don't know how ANY of you can even dare to defend the Palestinians, especially this time.
    Yes, it's all terribly simple, isn't it? Muslims bad. Palestinians bad. Israelis good. Come on.

    Look, this thread is obviously going no where. If you reply again, please answer me just this. A hypothetical situation. A strong Palestinian state, backed up by nuclear weapons supplied by the United States of Arabia oppresses a Jewish minority in the Middle East. There is a brutal occupation, Jewish children killed everyday, normal life impossible. Palestinian soldiers bulldoze and defaecate on holy Jewish sites. Jewish babies die being born at check points. There is no means of traditional resistance. There is absolutely no sign of a solution that gives justice to the Jewish people.

    What do you do?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Well, its just to bad that the fanatic factions among the palestinian militant groups vows not to stop until they hav thrown the Jews out of the middle east.
    That is not true, they want 2 states, with israel and palestine, they don't want israel occupying the illegal terroteries, I think the fanatical fractions are only a very small minority, like the BNP in England (but smaller). Israel is not doing anything to calm the middle east situation either, that stupid fence will create an apartheid society.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Your ignorance is remarkable. Everyone knows that the terror woant simply stop because Israel stop military incursions. The idea that the terror is a desperate response from a poor population which knows no other way is utter nonsense. British citizens have participated in suecide bombings. The atacks are religiously motivated and as far as the militant organisation is concerned teh Israely "occupation" is not over until they have killed or thrown every Israely out of the continent.
    Of course it's a desperate response from the population, there homes are been taken, people are been killed (in the palestinian areas more people die), the Americans are doing **** all and the peace process is at a standstill, cos America, the only country in the world who can do anything, does not want to get mixed up in the tricky middle east politics (and would like to have an unstable region so that they could make lots of money selling weapons). It is unsurprising that in this situation people are taking things into their own hands.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pearly)
    That is not true, they want 2 states, with israel and palestine, they don't want israel occupying the illegal terroteries, I think the fanatical fractions are only a very small minority, like the BNP in England (but smaller). Israel is not doing anything to calm the middle east situation either, that stupid fence will create an apartheid society.
    The problem is that these militant groups ( Hamaz, teh al-aqsua brigades and Islamic Jihad) all view the whole off Israel as illegaly occupied territories, at least this is what they publicly state on their websites. Furthermore, they have quite an extensive support. Specially Hamaz has a large support, much because they do help with humanitarian Issues within the palestinian territories. Also, these atacks started BEFORE Sharon launched the reoccupation of west bank areas. Furthermore, Arafat could have accepted a peace deal which would have given them their own state, 95% of all the land they requested as well as economical compensation and the right to use eastern Jerusalem as the capitall. Still, arafat refused and responded by encouraging the intifada which have recently caused the death of some 900 Israelis and more than 2000 palestinians. As for fence, how does it create an apartheid society? All aras residing inside Israel are granted citizenship in Israel. The apartheid state is the palestinian authorities which refuse to hold fair elections among their population, assasinate any politicaly uncomfortable persons as "Israeli spies" and who prohibit free media broadcasts. If I were the Israeli government I would not recognise a palestinian government unless it was democratic and allowed freedom of speach. Neither should the UN nor Europe. If Arafat is to keep on insisting that he is the legitimate representative of the palestinian people, he must allow the palestinians to decide themselves whether they want to agree or disagree with him. Til this date, that has not been the case during his entire ruling. Also, as Arafat keeps on condemming acts of terror, then why have they done nothing to prevent it? They have not even tried to prevent any atacks on Israeli civilians even though they have had the possibility to do so. It is pure hipochracy when Arafat condemns atacks executed by the factions of his own organisation. at the same time as they encourage them in the palestinian media.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jonatan)
    Also, as Arafat keeps on condemming acts of terror, then why have they done nothing to prevent it? They have not even tried to prevent any atacks on Israeli civilians even though they have had the possibility to do so. It is pure hipochracy when Arafat condemns atacks executed by the factions of his own organisation. at the same time as they encourage them in the palestinian media.
    Yes, Arafat is a horrible leader. He used to be the head of a terrorist organisation, and in general he has done nothing to help the Palestineans and everything to hurt the Israelis. But even when Isralis had a a chance to work with a different leader, they completely ruined it, and he ended up discredited because he had no support from either side.

    Part of the reason that the Palestinean security forces can't prevent attacks is because they don't have the resources to. They can't do anything, and because of that people go looking for reassurance in all the wrong places, like Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyr's Brigade. But both sides have done many, many things wrong.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    The problem is that these militant groups ( Hamaz, teh al-aqsua brigades and Islamic Jihad) all view the whole off Israel as illegaly occupied territories, at least this is what they publicly state on their websites. Furthermore, they have quite an extensive support. Specially Hamaz has a large support, much because they do help with humanitarian Issues within the palestinian territories. Also, these atacks started BEFORE Sharon launched the reoccupation of west bank areas. Furthermore, Arafat could have accepted a peace deal which would have given them their own state, 95% of all the land they requested as well as economical compensation and the right to use eastern Jerusalem as the capitall. Still, arafat refused and responded by encouraging the intifada which have recently caused the death of some 900 Israelis and more than 2000 palestinians.
    Arafat had very good reasons to refuse, if you look past the western media propoganda (ie, that Arafat rejected peace), you will know that the deal for Arafat was far worse than what the Israelis would be getting:
    - At camp david, the US and Israel refused to negotiate on the Palestinian's right of return to their homeland (UN resol.194), it is part of the Universal Human Rights thing, but Israel chooses to ignore that part.
    Anyway, as the majority of palestinians are refugees, for the conflict to end in the long term, these group of people have to become neutralised
    -Jerusalum is the 3rd holyist city in Islam, to relinquish some the most holyist places just to regain gaza strip etc (which was illegally occupied in the first place) would have been out of the question for the Palestinian people as well as Arafat.
    -The palestinian areas would be cut up from east to west and north to south, with israeli soldiers guarding each border, this would have been unacceptable to any country, because of military and economic problems.
    Overall, Arafat couldn't accept the deal, and it was insulting that this heavily biased for Israel deal was given in the 1st place. Had arafat accepted his people would have rebelled. As for overthrowing Arafat, the Palestinian people/terrorist groups see him as the leader, if the US or the western world "give them" another leader, it is highly unlikely that they would follow him.

    (Original post by Jonatan)
    As for fence, how does it create an apartheid society? All aras residing inside Israel are granted citizenship in Israel. The apartheid state is the palestinian authorities which refuse to hold fair elections among their population, assasinate any politicaly uncomfortable persons as "Israeli spies" and who prohibit free media broadcasts. If I were the Israeli government I would not recognise a palestinian government unless it was democratic and allowed freedom of speach. Neither should the UN nor Europe. If Arafat is to keep on insisting that he is the legitimate representative of the palestinian people, he must allow the palestinians to decide themselves whether they want to agree or disagree with him. Til this date, that has not been the case during his entire ruling. Also, as Arafat keeps on condemming acts of terror, then why have they done nothing to prevent it? They have not even tried to prevent any atacks on Israeli civilians even though they have had the possibility to do so. It is pure hipochracy when Arafat condemns atacks executed by the factions of his own organisation. at the same time as they encourage them in the palestinian media.
    A free and democratic state?!?Firstly, Palestine isn't even a country with citizens, so it would be very difficult to hold elections. Secondly, the palestinian people see Arafat as the leaders, and he has united the different fractions of palestinians. But saying that, no he hasn't prevented the terrorist attacks, but how can he prevent it?The people who perpetrate the attacks are madmen, who are not just willing to kill others but also THEMSELVES, how can you stop these people?

    Arafat is a moderate, if as you say they start having elections, god knows what sort of religious fanatic you'd get.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pearly)
    Arafat had very good reasons to refuse, if you look past the western media propoganda (ie, that Arafat rejected peace), you will know that the deal for Arafat was far worse than what the Israelis would be getting:
    - At camp david, the US and Israel refused to negotiate on the Palestinian's right of return to their homeland (UN resol.194), it is part of the Universal Human Rights thing, but Israel chooses to ignore that part.
    Anyway, as the majority of palestinians are refugees, for the conflict to end in the long term, these group of people have to become neutralised
    -Jerusalum is the 3rd holyist city in Islam, to relinquish some the most holyist places just to regain gaza strip etc (which was illegally occupied in the first place) would have been out of the question for the Palestinian people as well as Arafat.
    -The palestinian areas would be cut up from east to west and north to south, with israeli soldiers guarding each border, this would have been unacceptable to any country, because of military and economic problems.
    Overall, Arafat couldn't accept the deal, and it was insulting that this heavily biased for Israel deal was given in the 1st place. Had arafat accepted his people would have rebelled. As for overthrowing Arafat, the Palestinian people/terrorist groups see him as the leader, if the US or the western world "give them" another leader, it is highly unlikely that they would follow him.


    A free and democratic state?!?Firstly, Palestine isn't even a country with citizens, so it would be very difficult to hold elections. Secondly, the palestinian people see Arafat as the leaders, and he has united the different fractions of palestinians. But saying that, no he hasn't prevented the terrorist attacks, but how can he prevent it?The people who perpetrate the attacks are madmen, who are not just willing to kill others but also THEMSELVES, how can you stop these people?

    Arafat is a moderate, if as you say they start having elections, god knows what sort of religious fanatic you'd get.
    Pearly. Regarding teh right to return. The palestinian authorities has given refugee status to 5 million people. Thsi includes people which are not normally considdered refugees under the geneva convention. Basicly everyone who has any ties whatsoever to the real refugees are considered refugees as well. In addition , if you are serious about peace you should understand why giving 5 million palestinians which have been subject to PLO's propaganda for 60 years Israely citizenship would cause chaos. If anything such an act would result in civil war in Israel.

    A for Jeruslaem Barakk offered a SHARED city. eaning both Israels Jewish population and teh palestinian muslims would have access to the holy sites. This is no more than fair since the city was even accourding to the partitiation plan of 1948 intended to be a city which belonged to both sides. Barrak wanted to draw borders within the city giving eastern Jeruslaem (the part which is mainly arab quarters ) to the palestinians.

    As for Israely soldier on palestinian grounds this was a setup which was going to be temporary for some time until the palestinian authorities could handle the terrorists themselves. But of course, if you prefer an anarchy (which Arafat does as it is an excuse for his failures)....

    The sum of it was that the palestinians would have gotn more than anyone would have ever expected. If you want to be formal about rights , you may want to considder the right to anex areas occupied when defending yourself against an invasion. I know this is not fair, and that the 67 war is disputed, but this is exactly why you have to find a working compromise. Israel has no possibility to increase its population by 50% so demanding it is simply saying no to a peace treaty.

    As for Arafats role as a leader, it is perfectly possible to hold elections as a self controlled government. That you do not name yourself as a country doesnt change ****. It has been done other places and Arafat managed to draw forward an election (even though it was not a very free and just one) in order to be recognised as the palestinians legitimate leader. As for preventing terrorists from atacking it is probably not possible to prevent all of them, but you can crack down on the activities. Not being able to stop every one of them , and ignoring the fact that they run schools where the kids are exposed to antiisraeli propaganda is not the same thing. Furthermore, if the PA claims not to be able to controll the terrorists is it then so strange that the Israelis are constructing a fence to prevent the atacks? Come one, what you are saying is basicly that because the PA is not willing to / able to stop these atacks Israel should just sit by and watch their citizens getting blown to pieces. Get real! No country would accept that. Not Israel, not teh Arab countries, not teh European ones and not Britain.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jonatan)
    Pearly. Regarding teh right to return. The palestinian authorities has given refugee status to 5 million people. Thsi includes people which are not normally considdered refugees under the geneva convention. Basicly everyone who has any ties whatsoever to the real refugees are considered refugees as well. In addition , if you are serious about peace you should understand why giving 5 million palestinians which have been subject to PLO's propaganda for 60 years Israely citizenship would cause chaos. If anything such an act would result in civil war in Israel.
    What do you mean PLO propoganda? They don't need propoganda, they've got facts.
    1)That Israel receive the MOST us aid of any country in the world, even though it is a developed country.
    2)It uses most of the money to by US weapons, to destroy palestinian occupied areas and assassinate important PLO officials
    3)It is occupying ILLEGALLY large areas of Palestinian settlement!
    As for the citizenship issue, if you deny the Palestinians citizenship you are denying them a basic human right! That Everyone has the right to return to their home country. Israel is disobeying this resolution, it is broke international law, maybe we should invade them like we did Iraq. Or Is it okay for Israel to break these universal laws as it is an ally of America. Anyway, I doubt introducing a citizenship would make the region any more chaotic than it is now. The reason israel didn't want the citizenship probably had nothing to do with civil war(I mean the two groups live practically alongside each other now), they were afraid the country might end up with a palestinian majority


    (Original post by Jonatan)
    A for Jeruslaem Barakk offered a SHARED city. eaning both Israels Jewish population and teh palestinian muslims would have access to the holy sites. This is no more than fair since the city was even accourding to the partitiation plan of 1948 intended to be a city which belonged to both sides. Barrak wanted to draw borders within the city giving eastern Jeruslaem (the part which is mainly arab quarters ) to the palestinians.
    Yeah, that was certainly well publizised, but Barak never offered East Jerusalum(though many consider it to be a part of the West band)
    What he did offer was the West Bank. and that, 9% of which would be annexed by Israel, and this is the ridiculous part. What he proposed was the in return for the 9% of the land annexed by israel, Arafat would get 1%of the land the sized of the west bank, in israel terrortery. Site unspecified. Now, you can do the maths 9 to 1, its hardly a good fair settlement.

    [/quote]
    As for Israely soldier on palestinian grounds this was a setup which was going to be temporary for some time until the palestinian authorities could handle the terrorists themselves. But of course, if you prefer an anarchy (which Arafat does as it is an excuse for his failures)....

    The sum of it was that the palestinians would have gotn more than anyone would have ever expected. If you want to be formal about rights , you may want to considder the right to anex areas occupied when defending yourself against an invasion. I know this is not fair, and that the 67 war is disputed, but this is exactly why you have to find a working compromise. Israel has no possibility to increase its population by 50% so demanding it is simply saying no to a peace treaty.

    As for Arafats role as a leader, it is perfectly possible to hold elections as a self controlled government. That you do not name yourself as a country doesnt change ****. It has been done other places and Arafat managed to draw forward an election (even though it was not a very free and just one) in order to be recognised as the palestinians legitimate leader. As for preventing terrorists from atacking it is probably not possible to prevent all of them, but you can crack down on the activities. Not being able to stop every one of them , and ignoring the fact that they run schools where the kids are exposed to antiisraeli propaganda is not the same thing. Furthermore, if the PA claims not to be able to controll the terrorists is it then so strange that the Israelis are constructing a fence to prevent the atacks? Come one, what you are saying is basicly that because the PA is not willing to / able to stop these atacks Israel should just sit by and watch their citizens getting blown to pieces. Get real! No country would accept that. Not Israel, not teh Arab countries, not teh European ones and not Britain.[/QUOTE]
    What do you mean to hold elections as a self controlled government? Do you mean that the candidates should be chosen by US and Israel? I'm sure the Palestinians would not dispute the results at all.
    Arafat is the only person that the palestinian recognise as their leader, like it or not, therefore he is the only person that the west can negotiate with.
    As for the fence "controlling" those attacks. Yeah it is perfectly okay to put it on the Israeli areas (though it is remenicent of the berlin wall), but parts of the fence touches on Palestinian settlement, which really makes the fence ineffective as a defence against the Palestinians. So really that is not the true purpose of the fence, which is make permenant the illegal settlements of Israel
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.