Israel didn't want real peace pact

[Realist]

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
Jordan declared the people in the West bank to be citizens. What say did they have? Did they want to be ruled by a Hashemite King?
<quoted text>
Sometime before the 70s (:-)) Jordan lost the West Bank to Israel and the "citizens" who were living there. What happened to their status then?
<quoted text>
I would agree that many of the Palestinians were Jordanian citizens for a period of time. It's Israel's problem because most of these "Jordanian" citizens have never been to Jordan. They live in the West bank under Israeli occupation. There's an easy solution. Israel should give back the land that it captured in 1967 and with it the Palestinians who are living on it. It's Israel's problem because Israel is not willing to withdraw from all the territory and the Palestinians are not willing to accept most of it. Israeli settlements continue to grow and exacerbate the problem. Palestinians continue to violently resist the occupation which exacerbates the problem. For the last 8 years the US has sat on the sidelines and watched while funding the whole mess. That's worked really well.

You do realize that Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan. That the Pal's own leadership express their association with Jordan and their allegiance to the Hashemite Kings.
Zuheir Mohsen (Arabic: &#1586;&#1607;&#16 10;&#1585; &#1605;&#1581;&#15 87;&#1606;, also transcribed Zuhayr Mu&#295;sin or Zahir Muhsein)(b. 1936, d. 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-sponsored as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.
In 1976, Zuheir Mohsen gained notoriety for being the commander of the Arab forces that invaded the Lebanese Christian town of Damour, which resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Christian citizens, known as the Damour massacre.
Zuhair Mohsen is widely known for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'
Why should they get "all" or even any of the disputed lands, other than because Israel wants peace. Their claim, simply because they "occupy" the land is weaker than Israel's, as at Israel has a treaty establishing the border with their neighbor Jordan, which was the last nation to hold the disputed lands.
In my opinion, Israeli security should be the overriding factor in establishing the borders of a Pal state. Settlements, as those that were turned over to Egypt in the Negev, can be turned over and are only an impediment to someone not committed to living peacefully with its neighbors. We have given in to Pal terror and tried to be reasonable and that has brought more demands and more violence, pressure and fear of losing more seems the only lure to negotiations for the Pals.

[Marc]

Realist wrote:

You do realize that Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan. That the Pal's own leadership express their association with Jordan and their allegiance to the Hashemite Kings.
Zuheir Mohsen (b. 1936, d. 1979) was a Palestinian leader of the Syria-sponsored as-Sa'iqa faction of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) between 1971 and 1979.
In 1976, Zuheir Mohsen gained notoriety for being the commander of the Arab forces that invaded the Lebanese Christian town of Damour, which resulted in the massacre of hundreds of Christian citizens, known as the Damour massacre.
Zuhair Mohsen is widely known for having made the following statement in a March 1977 interview with the Dutch newspaper Trouw:
'The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct 'Palestinian people' to oppose Zionism.
For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan.'
Why should they get "all" or even any of the disputed lands, other than because Israel wants peace. Their claim, simply because they "occupy" the land is weaker than Israel's, as at Israel has a treaty establishing the border with their neighbor Jordan, which was the last nation to hold the disputed lands.

You do realize that the quotation that you provided predates the Palestinian acceptance of the two state solution? They have changed their position. Possession is 9/10th of the law :-). Israel realizes this and it is the primary motivation for the settlements. The Israelis are creating facts on the ground to prejudice the outcome of a two state solution in their favor and have no intention of returning land around Jerusalem or any major settlement blocks for that matter. Israel controls the West Bank and could claim this land but it does not want to grant equal rights to the people living on it. That's the bi-national solution that it has never wanted. Instead it has gradually pushed Palestinians out of land it intends to keep with force and built infrastructure for Israeli civilians to colonize the appropriated territory. These facts undercut the legitimate arguments about Israeli security. It's farcical to play the victim while stealing land be force.

Realist wrote:

In my opinion, Israeli security should be the overriding factor in establishing the borders of a Pal state.Settlements, as those that were turned over to Egypt in the Negev, can be turned over and are only an impediment to someone not committed to living peacefully with its neighbors. We have given in to Pal terror and tried to be reasonable and that has brought more demands and more violence, pressure and fear of losing more seems the only lure to negotiations for the Pals.

Israel's civilian settlements create security problems they don't solve them. They are a legitimate Palestinian grievance and an excuse for violent resistance. By forcibly appropriating territory from Palestinians Israel has made the situation gray. Is an attack against settlers in Ariel a "terrorist" attack against Israel or legitimate resistance against illegal land seizure?

If Israel had prohibited civilian settlement in occupied territory in accordance with their treaty obligations they would have a much more powerful argument that they are the victims.

[Realist]

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
You do realize that the quotation that you provided predates the Palestinian acceptance of the two state solution? They have changed their position. Possession is 9/10th of the law :-). Israel realizes this and it is the primary motivation for the settlements. The Israelis are creating facts on the ground to prejudice the outcome of a two state solution in their favor and have no intention of returning land around Jerusalem or any major settlement blocks for that matter. Israel controls the West Bank and could claim this land but it does not want to grant equal rights to the people living on it. That's the bi-national solution that it has never wanted. Instead it has gradually pushed Palestinians out of land it intends to keep with force and built infrastructure for Israeli civilians to colonize the appropriated territory. These facts undercut the legitimate arguments about Israeli security. It's farcical to play the victim while stealing land be force.
<quoted text>
Israel's civilian settlements create security problems they don't solve them. They are a legitimate Palestinian grievance and an excuse for violent resistance. By forcibly appropriating territory from Palestinians Israel has made the situation gray. Is an attack against settlers in Ariel a "terrorist" attack against Israel or legitimate resistance against illegal land seizure?
If Israel had prohibited civilian settlement in occupied territory in accordance with their treaty obligations they would have a much more powerful argument that they are the victims.

You call it "stealing land" they would call it securing their borders.

Just because they lost their previous war and have a new strategy neither eliminates their historic ties nor validates their current position.

I agree they will never accept repatriation (to their ancestral and admitted homeland - now know as Jordan), but I also do not believe they will ever accept Israel, if they were willing the would have, at a minimum, revised their charter, as promised as a PRECONDITION to negotiations 15 years ago (when they "accepted a 2 state solution - supposedly).

If keeping the land was Israel's only strategy, why have they dismantled any settlements (and they have removed many), withdrawn form 93% of the territories and made several reasonable proposals? However, do not Jews have a right to live in the territories? They, for the most part, are not supporters of Israel's government, claim they are simply returning to their ancestral homes and are willing to live under other than Israeli control (Palestinian? maybe, I don't know). Why should they be any obstacle to anything. Really, the fact is settlements can be removed (as in the past - see Egypt and the removal of Israeli settlements in the Negev), but the killings and attacks can not be reversed. The Palestinian actions are not designed to create an atmosphere where Israel, the nation who has repeatedly been attacked, can feel that negotiations are in their interest. Everyone calls for Israel to act to build Arab confidence, I think the other way is much more appropriate.

[Joe DeCaro]

Marc wrote:

... There's an easy solution. Israel should give back the land that it captured in 1967 and with it the Palestinians who are living on it. It's Israel's problem because Israel is not willing to withdraw from all the territory and the Palestinians are not willing to accept most of it. Israeli settlements continue to grow and exacerbate the problem. Palestinians continue to violently resist the occupation which exacerbates the problem. For the last 8 years the US has sat on the sidelines and watched while funding the whole mess. That's worked really well.

No argument w/your last point, but there's an easier solution to many unpeaceful West Bank residents; repatriate the Jordanians, aka Palestinians, back to their king, since they were previously subjects of the Hussein family, even if they didn't like him.

[Marc]

Realist wrote:

You call it "stealing land" they would call it securing their borders.

Securing borders with civilians is an interesting approach :-). They are EXPANDING not SECURING their borders.

Realist wrote:

Just because they lost their previous war and have a new strategy neither eliminates their historic ties nor validates their current position.

Who lost "their previous war?" What historic ties? They are still living on their land, at least the parts off which Israel has not forced them.

Realist wrote:

I agree they will never accept repatriation (to their ancestral and admitted homeland - now know as Jordan), but I also do not believe they will ever accept Israel, if they were willing the would have, at a minimum, revised their charter, as promised as a PRECONDITION to negotiations 15 years ago (when they "accepted a 2 state solution - supposedly).

The homeland of the Palestinians is Jordan? I guess if Israel is going to return the West Bank to Jordon that might be true for some. For many Palestinians their "homeland" or place of birth is in Israel proper. Are they Jordanian as well? How about the Palestinians in Lebanon? If an official revision of the PA charter is so important why doesn't Israel make it a major issue? Sharon accepted their revision as is if I remember correctly.

Realist wrote:

If keeping the land was Israel's only strategy, why have they dismantled any settlements (and they have removed many), withdrawn form 93% of the territories and made several reasonable proposals?

Keeping the land is a goal not a strategy. Israel's efforts to dismantle settlements have resulted in an almost twofold increase in settler population since 1993. Does that seem like progress to you?

You may feel their proposals are reasonable. The Palestinians do not. They expect negotiations to start with the Green Line. If Israel wants more they should have to give up territory of equal quality and importance to the Palestinians. They are asking the Palestinians to compromise and believe they can dictate the terms. It hasn't worked and will not work.

Realist wrote:

However, do not Jews have a right to live in the territories? They, for the most part, are not supporters of Israel's government, claim they are simply returning to their ancestral homes and are willing to live under other than Israeli control (Palestinian? maybe, I don't know). Why should they be any obstacle to anything. Really, the fact is settlements can be removed (as in the past - see Egypt and the removal of Israeli settlements in the Negev), but the killings and attacks can not be reversed. The Palestinian actions are not designed to create an atmosphere where Israel, the nation who has repeatedly been attacked, can feel that negotiations are in their interest. Everyone calls for Israel to act to build Arab confidence, I think the other way is much more appropriate.

You're funny. Shouldn't the Palestinians have a right to live anywhere in the territories? Many of them are not supporters of Palestinian government, claim they are simply returning to their ancestral homes and are willing to live under Israeli control. Why not open up immigration for Palestinian refugees? LMFAO.

Obviously Palestinians and Israelis have some bitter feelings towards each other. Allowing radical Israeli settlers to live under IDF protection in Hebron is equivalent to letting a Hamas affiliated Palestinians move into Tel Aviv with police protection. It's provocative to the extreme and results in violence and hostility. Settlers don't want to live under Palestinian rule. They want to drive the Palestinians off their land.

[Joe DeCaro]

Marc wrote:

Jordan declared the people in the West bank to be citizens. What say did they have? Did they want to be ruled by a Hashemite King?

"... In 1950 Jordan formally annexed the West Bank; the move was recognized only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan. For the next 17 years the West Bank was governed as part of Jordan, and Palestinians were granted full citizenship. Relations between Jordanians and West Bank Palestinians, however, remained strained."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006.© 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So the Pals were granted Jordanian citizenship, whether they liked it or not, but the Arab world said nothing.

But let the Israelis re-take the West bank, and it's holy hell.

This is nothing more than a double-standard.

[Marc]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
"... In 1950 Jordan formally annexed the West Bank; the move was recognized only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan. For the next 17 years the West Bank was governed as part of Jordan, and Palestinians were granted full citizenship. Relations between Jordanians and West Bank Palestinians, however, remained strained."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006.© 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
So the Pals were granted Jordanian citizenship, whether they liked it or not, but the Arab world said nothing.
But let the Israelis re-take the West bank, and it's holy hell.
This is nothing more than a double-standard.

It would be a double standard if the Israelis granted full citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank as the Jordanians did. It's hardly a double standard while Israel occupied the land, denies the inhabitants basic rights and forcibly appropriates their land. Think about it...

[rezasantorini]

The region did not have a separate existence until 1948–9, when it was defined by the Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan. The name "West Bank" was apparently first used by Jordanians at the time of their annexation of the region, and has become the most common name used in English and related languages. The term literally means 'the West bank of the river Jordan'; the Kingdom of Jordan being on the 'East bank' of this same River Jordan.

Jordan soon began shelling targets in west Jerusalem, Netanya, and the outskirts of Tel Aviv.[7] Despite this, Israel sent a message promising not to initiate any action against Jordan if it stayed out of the war. Hussein replied that it was too late, "the die was cast

On June 6 Dayan encircled the city, but, fearing damage to holy places and having to fight in built-up areas, he ordered his troops not to go in. However, upon hearing that the U.N. was about to declare a ceasefire, he changed his mind, and without cabinet clearance, decided to take the city.[10] After fierce fighting with Jordanian troops in and around the Jerusalem area, Israel captured the Old City on June 7.

No specific decision had been made to capture any other territories controlled by Jordan. After the Old City was captured, Dayan told his troops to dig in to hold it. When an armored brigade commander entered the West Bank on his own initiative, and stated that he could see Jericho, Dayan ordered him back. However, when intelligence reports indicated that Hussein had withdrawn his forces across the Jordan river, Dayan ordered his troops to capture the West Bank.[11] Over the next two days, the IDF swiftly captured the rest of the West Bank and blew up the Abdullah and Hussein Bridges over the Jordan, thereby severing the West Bank from the East.[12] According to Narkis:

First, the Israeli government had no intention of capturing the West Bank. On the contrary, it was opposed to it. Second, there was not any provocation on the part of the IDF. Third, the rein was only loosened when a real threat to Jerusalem's security emerged. This is truly how things happened on June 5, although it is difficult to believe. The end result was something that no one had planned.[13]

Look it up in Wikipedia...

[rezasantorini]

The Arab League's Khartoum conference in September declared continuing belligerency and was seen as a rejection of negotiation. In November, 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 was unanimously adopted, calling for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles:" "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[14] The text specifically did not refer to the PLO or to any Palestinian representative because none was recognized at that time.

In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."

That's how we got to where we are now..

What did Jordan want...it wanted to sign the Peace treaty with Israel..Pals as they are now called did not ...

[rezasantorini]

Marc, your compassion for the Pal, the so=called Pals is marvelous, but so biased as it only considers them..as if they were a totally different people from the rest of the world. They aren't.
They like all the people of the world
are part of a whole. They were first part of the Ottoman Empire. It broke up. Then some were Jordanian or Egyptians or Israeli. They wanted something different. Why should Israelis pay the price...because they are NOT Muslim. Or maybe because they are Jews and you think Jews are evil or bad or you believe the Nazi's or those that fought with the Nazi's or those that speak against them.
I know I can't say anti-Semites as that is bad to think like that. It is unfair to think like that. It is biased to think like that.
But, it is okay to say Jews are bad and evil and they all 15 million of them are evil and are planning to take out the billions and billions of non-Jews. Muslims, Christians or whatever... this is fact and you seem to document it. But Muslims are peace loving and have done nothing to scare the Israelis...or Jews or even my Christian family.

[Marc]

rezasantorini wrote:

The region did not have a separate existence...

I know the history of the conflict. You continue to focus on the actions of Arab governments as an excuse for Israeli treatment of Palestinian people. Regardless of what the Jordanian government did I don't see how that makes it acceptable for Israel to forcibly evict Palestinians from land to make way for Israeli settlements. The basis given for the evictions is security but it's purpose is obviously land theft. Were Palestinians evicted from the land where Ariel was built for security or to make way for Israeli settlements? If it really was for security why put civilians there? Isn't that intentionally putting civilians in harms way?

[Marc]

rezasantorini wrote:

The Arab League's Khartoum conference in September declared continuing belligerency and was seen as a rejection of negotiation. In November, 1967, UN Security Council Resolution 242 was unanimously adopted, calling for "the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East" to be achieved by "the application of both the following principles:" "Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" (see semantic dispute) and: "Termination of all claims or states of belligerency" and respect for the right of every state in the area to live in peace within secure and recognised boundaries. Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Lebanon entered into consultations with the UN Special representative over the implementation of 242.[14] The text specifically did not refer to the PLO or to any Palestinian representative because none was recognized at that time.
In 1988, Jordan ceded its claims to the West Bank to the Palestine Liberation Organization, as "the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people."
That's how we got to where we are now..
What did Jordan want...it wanted to sign the Peace treaty with Israel..Pals as they are now called did not ...

There was a big push for regional peace in the late 80's that included changes to the Palestinian struggle. The PA/PLO recognized Israel's right to exist and came to an agreement in principle with Israel that a Palestinian state should be created in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. Since that agreement Israel has dramatically expanded its settlement activities in a blatant land grab and to prejudice the outcome of the negotiations and to ensure that there is never a Palestinian state as originally envisioned. That's how it seems to me. Tell me where I'm wrong.

[Marc]

rezasantorini wrote:

Marc, your compassion for the Pal, the so=called Pals is marvelous, but so biased as it only considers them..as if they were a totally different people from the rest of the world. They aren't.

What are you talking about? I only consider the Palestinians? That I think they're "a totally different people?" What's the basis for these claims?

rezasantorini wrote:

They like all the people of the world are part of a whole. They were first part of the Ottoman Empire. It broke up. Then some were Jordanian or Egyptians or Israeli. They wanted something different. Why should Israelis pay the price...because they are NOT Muslim. Or maybe because they are Jews and you think Jews are evil or bad or you believe the Nazi's or those that fought with the Nazi's or those that speak against them.

I think they are Israel's problem because Israel was created on their land. They were there. They're still there or in refugee camps on Israel's borders. How's that biased? Should it be America's problem? Why? I have never posting anything that would imply that Jews are evil or bad. I've never posted anything in support of Nazi Germany. Where did you come up with this drivel?

rezasantorini wrote:

I know I can't say anti-Semites as that is bad to think like that. It is unfair to think like that. It is biased to think like that.

You can say whatever you like. If you apply labels without justification you are slandering me. What's the basis for your claim?

rezasantorini wrote:

But, it is okay to say Jews are bad and evil and they all 15 million of them are evil and are planning to take out the billions and billions of non-Jews. Muslims, Christians or whatever... this is fact and you seem to document it. But Muslims are peace loving and have done nothing to scare the Israelis...or Jews or even my Christian family.

I have never said that "Jews are bad and evil." I have never said that "Muslims are peace loving." If you can't get off your high horse and actually respond to what I say than stop posting.

[Joe DeCaro]

Marc wrote:

<quoted text>
It would be a double standard if the Israelis granted full citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank as the Jordanians did. It's hardly a double standard while Israel occupied the land, denies the inhabitants basic rights and forcibly appropriates their land. Think about it...

I have, and you deliberately disregarded what I said, but “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”- Aldous Huxley

[Marc]

Joe DeCaro wrote:

<quoted text>
I have, and you deliberately disregarded what I said, but “Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”- Aldous Huxley

As you said. The fact that Israel has not granted citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank is a substantive difference. Do you disagree? Would you argue that living under military occupation is the same as being a citizen? It is obvious that Israel wants the land and not the people. That's the difference between Israeli and Jordanian actions and why your assertion of a double standard is flawed.

[melodylane]

Meanwhile the Jews have made a home for the Jews kicked out of Muslim lands and they have also made a home for Jews kicked out of Europe. And these people have accepted these homes and helped build Israel. They have not declared war on Muslims ..

Israel has not granted citizenship to these people because they want to get rid of Israel and are not willing to live in peace with them...they weren't willing to live in Peace as part of Jordan. They want control of the Jewish holy places and do not want to guarantee peace for Jews. That is why your ideas are flawed. Israel is a country NOW. Why didn't they demand Jordan be called Palestine...why didn't they fight Jordan and Britain..why just fight the Jews. Why did they take part in the destruction of Jewish history in East Jerusalem...and they did, I saw it.

[melodylane]

It was the Pals who threatened my parents...it was the Pals who took over Manger square and encouraged
damage to the Christian sites...it was the Pals that urinated on the Western Wall and defecated in the Churches...I saw it. Tellme I lie...and I will just tell you you are a fool...I saw it. I lived it.

It is the Pals that took over our home and business.

[Joe DeCaro]

Marc wrote:

As you said. The fact that Israel has not granted citizenship to the Palestinians in the West Bank is a substantive difference. Do you disagree?

This isn't the case I presented and that's not what I said; this is what I posted: do you disagree?

"... In 1950 Jordan formally annexed the West Bank; the move was recognized only by the United Kingdom and Pakistan. For the next 17 years the West Bank was governed as part of Jordan, and Palestinians were granted full citizenship. Relations between Jordanians and West Bank Palestinians, however, remained strained."
Microsoft ® Encarta ® 2006.© 1993-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

So the Pals were granted Jordanian citizenship, whether they liked it or not, but the Arab world said nothing.

But let the Israelis re-take the West bank, and it's holy hell.

This is nothing more than a double-standard.

Marc wrote:

...Would you argue that living under military occupation is the same as being a citizen?

I disagree w/your original premise: you can't "occupy" your own land! When Israel took back Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, it was taking back what was her's historically.
Even a "Bible as lit" course would agree w/that.

[Marc]

melodylane wrote:

Meanwhile the Jews have made a home for the Jews kicked out of Muslim lands and they have also made a home for Jews kicked out of Europe. And these people have accepted these homes and helped build Israel. They have not declared war on Muslims ..

As I've said many times it is wonderful that Israel chose to resettle Jews. If Israel wants to make peace it will have to give back land and help resettle Palestinians as well.

melodylane wrote:

Israel has not granted citizenship to these people because they want to get rid of Israel and are not willing to live in peace with them...

They would argue that they have never been given the opportunity to live in peace. How can they live in peace with an Israel that is forcibly taking land from them for use by Israelis?

melodylane wrote:

they weren't willing to live in Peace as part of Jordan. They want control of the Jewish holy places and do not want to guarantee peace for Jews. That is why your ideas are flawed.

I think that would undermine the argument that they are "Jordanian" which I have heard many times. They want control of 22% of their land. They've accepted Israel's claim to the other 78%.

melodylane wrote:

Israel is a country NOW. Why didn't they demand Jordan be called Palestine...why didn't they fight Jordan and Britain..why just fight the Jews. Why did they take part in the destruction of Jewish history in East Jerusalem...and they did, I saw it.

Let's cut to the chase. There are millions of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. There are millions more in refugee camps in the region. Israel and the Palestinians have agreed that a two state solution is preferred by both sides. Israeli settlement activity prejudices these peace negotiations and is a legitimate reason for Palestinian resistance. That's why the Israelis have been asked to stop settlement construction and the Palestinians have been asked to stop violence. Neither side has which would indicate that neither side wants peace.

[Marc]

melodylane wrote:

It was the Pals who threatened my parents...it was the Pals who took over Manger square and encouraged damage to the Christian sites...it was the Pals that urinated on the Western Wall and defecated in the Churches...I saw it. Tellme I lie...and I will just tell you you are a fool...I saw it. I lived it.
It is the Pals that took over our home and business.

I would have no way of knowing if you were lying or not and regardless I know that at least some of the actions you describe are well documented. So what's your proposal for a just resolution to this conflict between Israel and the Palestinians? How is Israel demonstrating that it wants a "real peace pact?"