|
| quote: | Originally posted by Proximus
Hahaha.. boy, if you want to know the root of all this stuff you need to go way back in history.. |
Do you know the history? If you did, I don't think your opinions would be the same as they are now, and therefore I will conclude you are just trying to look smart.
History: 1993-1998 Negotiations happened with PA, strategy: gradual withdrawl in exchange for peace.
1998-2000: Negotiations happened with PA, strategy: complete withdrawl for complete peace.
2001: Negotiations happened with PA; strategy: (now Sharon) complete withdrawl of less areas then offered in 2000 for complete peace.
2001-2: Negotiations broke down, strategy: give war a chance.
Both these attempts (which was the span of 5 leaders).
You have to remember, the only reason Sharon got in office, was because of his hardliner approach. The Israeli people understood the elimination of Arafat was needed, and a war might prelude or conclude when this happened.
The Israeli people wanted to give war a chance, since peace talks had broken down. Why? Because "then and only then the palestinians really didnt show any interest in negotiation". Don't you think an agreement could have been reached in the 30+ years since occupation?
If Israel would have wanted the land then, or now.. why have they not annexed it?? Why?
| quote: | | because there is no right nor wrong anymore in this story.. its just like a sandbox game.. "you started it" "no you did" "did not" "did too" |
There is still a right and wrong in this story, you just refuse to see it or except it do to the bias of the information from the media you are fed. Who started it? The Arabs (Palestinians) -1948.
And one child in the sandbox has evolved since then to a fullfledged adult, while the other remains in there, wanting to play like a child.
Yoepus
The only thing more accurate than incoming enemy fire is incoming friendly fire.
|