Abbas wants to offer concessions with Arab cover

Except, Jews have transformed desert into orange groves and microprocessor plants.
Arabs are camel drivers stuck in the 7th century.

A British missionary who lived in Beirut and visited Palestine in 1859 described the southern coastal area as "a very ocean of wheat," and the British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, reported that "the fields would do credit to British farming."(5)

The German geographer Alexander Scholch concluded that between 1856 and 1882 "Palestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countries, such as Egypt and Lebanon, and increasingly exported to Europe. These exports included wheat, barley, dura, maise, sesame, olive oil, soap, oranges, vegetables and cotton. Among the European importers of Palestinian produce were France, England, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Malta."(6)

Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine's Valley of Esdraelon was "a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive."(7) This Palestinian wheat had historically played an important part in international commerce. According to Paul Masson, a French economic historian, "wheat shipments from the Palestinian port of Acre had helped to save southern France from famine on numerous occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."(8)

Agricultural techniques in Palestine, especially in citriculture, were among the most advanced in the world long before the first Zionist settlers came to its shores. In 1856, the American consul in Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, "outlined reasons why orange growers in Florida would find it advantageous to adopt Palestinian techniques of grafting directly onto lemon trees."^ In 1893, the British Consul advised his government of the value of importing "young trees procured from Jaffa" to improve production in Australia and South Africa.(10)

All of this historical evidence from unimpeachable eyewitnesses destroys Israel's contention that it developed Palestine through its colonization. The legend that the Zionists have created, that they made "the desert bloom with roses," is totally without foundation. It is a ploy to gain donations from naive Jews throughout the world and to help extort economic aid from the American Congress. The economic achievements of Israel today are built totally on the capital base of lands, property and possessions usurped from the Palestinian Arabs.

Chapter 2: Encyclopedia of Palestine

Another bogus cut and paste job, doofus?

The Palestine Royal Commission Report presented to the British Cabinet...
The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land [to Jews] and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought. [by Jews]

It is true that the Jews brought in new ideas and new money that was a benefit to the country. This was only part of the prosperity seen by the people. The economy was stagnant under Ottoman rule. Palestine, like the typical 3rd world countries under the rule of outsiders, lived under rules and taxation that inhibited progress. Under the Mandate there was more money and freedom for capital improvements. The Arab part of the economy improved considerably by increasing productivity. Another problem that is common in 3rd world countries is the consolidation of land into the hands of a few. Many Palestinians farmed their ancestral land under the ownership of someone else. Under the Mandate, these farmers were regaining their land leaving the profits in their own hands for reinvestment.

There were many different reasons for the prosperity.
 
A British missionary who lived in Beirut and visited Palestine in 1859 described the southern coastal area as "a very ocean of wheat," and the British Consul in Jerusalem, James Finn, reported that "the fields would do credit to British farming."(5)

The German geographer Alexander Scholch concluded that between 1856 and 1882 "Palestine produced a relatively large agricultural surplus which was marketed in neighboring countries, such as Egypt and Lebanon, and increasingly exported to Europe. These exports included wheat, barley, dura, maise, sesame, olive oil, soap, oranges, vegetables and cotton. Among the European importers of Palestinian produce were France, England, Turkey, Greece, Italy and Malta."(6)

Lawrence Oliphant, who visited Palestine in 1887, wrote that Palestine's Valley of Esdraelon was "a huge green lake of waving wheat, with its village-crowned mounds rising from it like islands; and it presents one of the most striking pictures of luxuriant fertility which it is possible to conceive."(7) This Palestinian wheat had historically played an important part in international commerce. According to Paul Masson, a French economic historian, "wheat shipments from the Palestinian port of Acre had helped to save southern France from famine on numerous occasions in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries."(8)

Agricultural techniques in Palestine, especially in citriculture, were among the most advanced in the world long before the first Zionist settlers came to its shores. In 1856, the American consul in Jerusalem, Henry Gillman, "outlined reasons why orange growers in Florida would find it advantageous to adopt Palestinian techniques of grafting directly onto lemon trees."^ In 1893, the British Consul advised his government of the value of importing "young trees procured from Jaffa" to improve production in Australia and South Africa.(10)

All of this historical evidence from unimpeachable eyewitnesses destroys Israel's contention that it developed Palestine through its colonization. The legend that the Zionists have created, that they made "the desert bloom with roses," is totally without foundation. It is a ploy to gain donations from naive Jews throughout the world and to help extort economic aid from the American Congress. The economic achievements of Israel today are built totally on the capital base of lands, property and possessions usurped from the Palestinian Arabs.

Chapter 2: Encyclopedia of Palestine

Another bogus cut and paste job, doofus?

The Palestine Royal Commission Report presented to the British Cabinet...
The Arab population shows a remarkable increase since 1920, and it has had some share in the increased prosperity of Palestine. Many Arab landowners have benefited from the sale of land [to Jews] and the profitable investment of the purchase money. The fellaheen are better off on the whole than they were in 1920. This Arab progress has been partly due to the import of Jewish capital into Palestine and other factors associated with the growth of the National Home. In particular, the Arabs have benefited from social services which could not have been provided on the existing scale without the revenue obtained from the Jews.

The shortage of land is due less to purchase by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population. The Arab claims that the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamps and uncultivated when it was bought. [by Jews]

It is true that the Jews brought in new ideas and new money that was a benefit to the country. This was only part of the prosperity seen by the people. The economy was stagnant under Ottoman rule. Palestine, like the typical 3rd world countries under the rule of outsiders, lived under rules and taxation that inhibited progress. Under the Mandate there was more money and freedom for capital improvements. The Arab part of the economy improved considerably by increasing productivity. Another problem that is common in 3rd world countries is the consolidation of land into the hands of a few. Many Palestinians farmed their ancestral land under the ownership of someone else. Under the Mandate, these farmers were regaining their land leaving the profits in their own hands for reinvestment.

There were many different reasons for the prosperity.

Wrong, again. Palestine was stagnant as a consequence of the irrigation systems having been destroyed and the land depleted by repeated invasions and, in particular, World War I. Palestine was further destroyed by the Black Plague and malaria. Arabs were still further hampered by poverty, poor farming skills and insufficient resources. Immigrating Jews brought capital and advanced agrarian methods.

Hope Simpson Report to British Cabinet...
The cultivated land in the Hills varies very largely both in depth and quality of the soil. In the valleys there are stretches of fertile land, which will grow sesame as a summer crop. On the hillsides the soil is shallow and infertile, and the extent of land hunger is evident from the fact that every available plot of soil is cultivated, even when it is so small that the plough cannot be employed. There cultivation is carried on with the mattock and the hoe. The harvest of such plots, even in a favourable year, is exceedingly small—in general it seems doubtful whether such cultivation can pay. On the other hand, even the most rocky hillsides support trees, especially olives, and if capital were available, many of the cultivators of these exiguous and infertile plots would be able to gain a livelihood by cultivation of fruit trees and of olives. These cultivators have, However, no capital, and cannot afford to forgo even the meagre crops obtained, for the four or five years which are required before fruit trees render a return. In the case of the olive, the period before a return may be expected is much longer.

There is little irrigation in the hill country. Here and there are springs which afford a supply for the irrigation of a small area, but, taken as a whole, the country is arid and the crops depend on rain. It is possible that a hydrographic survey might disclose further water supplies, and scientific treatment might also improve the yield from existing springs. It is stated that during the War the Engineers of the Army of Occupation were able very largely to increase the supply from springs in certain places.

In the best case, however, it is impossible that the general character of the cultivation in the Hill country can be radically changed, except in so far as fruit can be made to replace grain. Something might be done to improve the soil and to reform agricultural methods, were capital available. The use of manures and provision of better seed would doubtless result in some improvement of the yield. But from the point of view of agriculture, the Hill country will always remain an unsatisfactory proposition.

Jewish improvements: It is a mistake to assume that the Vale of Esdraelon was a wilderness before the arrival of the Jewish settlers and that it is now a paradise. A very large amount of money has been spent by the various Jewish agencies, and great improvements have been made. The work that has been done, especially in the direction of drainage and the introduction of new and improved methods of agriculture is highly valuable. There can be little doubt that in time, the application of capital, science, and labour will result in general success.

The diet of the fellah is poor and monotonous. His staple food is ' pittah,' [cake of unleavened bread] which he hakes every day. A few pittahs, with onions or radishes form his morning and midday meals. A cooked meal, called by him ' tabiach,' is only prepared for him in the evening. It consists of the herb—' -hubza'—flavoured with onions and pepper. When tomatoes are in season he eats tomato salad flavoured with pepper. Pepper and oil are the two condiments. Most of his requirements are provided by his own fields, and he buys but little outside .... The fellah uses very little meat. For entertaining visitors he will kill a sick sheep, or some sick fowls. They also have meat when an ox or a camel falls ill beyond recovery. They then kill the animal and treat the members of the village with a portion of the flesh. . Sometimes with the money which the woman obtains in the market from the sale of fowls, cheese and eggs, she purchases a pair of trotters, a head or so forth, from which she prepares a special treat on returning home."

Origin of orange cultivation.—The cultivation of the orange, in-troduced by the 'Arabs before the commencement of Jewish settle-ment, has developed to a very great extent in consequence of that settlement. There is no doubt that the pitch of perfection to which the technique of plantation and cultivation of the orange and grape-fruit have been brought in Palestine is due to the scientific methods of the Jewish agriculturist.

Future of the orange trade.—It is unsafe to prophesy on the subject of the future of the orange trade. Opinions among experts in Palestine vary. On the whole they are optimistic. The chief orange growers feel little doubt that a crop of ten or twelve million cases will be absorbed by the European market. They realise that the possibility of that absorption will depend in large measure on the method in which the oranges are marketed. At the present time this leaves much to be desired. The Jewish growers are taking steps to ensure by co-operation that the standard of the fruit despatched from their groves is uniform and that grading and packing are satisfactory. It is regrettable that the Arab growers are not yet convinced of the necessity of the adoption of similar measures.
The question of the future of the orange trade is one of very great importance for the development of agricultural Palestine. In the main, it is the development of this particular culture which will justify the belief that the country can support a much larger population than it contains at present. If the market can absorb, within the next ten or twelve years, some 30 million cases of oranges, where to-day ii is absorbing less than 3 million, the 200,000 dunams, which is the minimum area still awaiting de-velopment in the Maritime Plain, will support a population of at least ten thousand families of orange growers, with the ancil-lary population connected with the business, on an area which to-day is supporting probably less than 2,000 families. Should the suitable area prove to be larger than 200,000 dunams, as is reported by the experts recently employed by the Jewish Agency, and whose opinions differ from that of Dr. Strahorn, the addi-tional population supportable will be increased pro tanto.
On the other hand, if development goes on at the present pace, and the market proves unable to digest the enormous increase in supply, not only will disaster overtake the new families who may be settled in the Maritime Plain in the future, but the large population now settled in that region will share in the disaster. It is the path of wisdom to proceed with the policy of orange plantation without undue precipitancy and to await the result of the work of the past four years before embarking on a more ambitious scheme of the same kind.

The condition of the Arab fellah is little if at all superior to what it was under the Turkish regime. No definite policy of agricultural development of the country held by the Arabs has been adopted. The sole agencies which have pursued such a consistent policy have been the Jewish Colonisation Departments, public and private. With this exception agri-cultural progress of any kind has been haphazard and of small extent or value.
Jewish and Arab advantages and disadvantages. The Jewish settlers have had every advantage that capital, science and organization could give them. To these and to the energy of the settlers themselves their remarkable progress is due....The Arab has had none of these advantages and has received practically no help to improve his cultivation or his standard of life.
 
Last edited:
According to Dennis Ross, Arafat walked away from Camp David because in his heart, Arafat was a terrorist and terrorists simply do not make peace.

Whatever the reason, the Forum Dunce was incorrect suggesting Israel doesn't make concessions, as he always is.

He's the Forum Dunce.

Arafat walked away from Barak/Clinton's offer for the same reason Abbas had refused to respond to Olmert's offer: because what they were after was never an Arab state living in peace next to Israel but the destruction of the state of Israel. This is why no offer from Israel that would allow the Jewish state of Israel to live in peace will be acceptable to the Arabs anytime in the foreseeable future. Perhaps Abbas and Fayyad might want to agree to a peaceful two state solution, but after four generations of promising the Arabs in the territories a victory over the Jews that will turn Israel into an Arab state, no Arab politician who tries to deliver anything less will survive for very long.

In addition, Israel would control the Palestinian state's water resources, borders and customs. Palestinians said this was not an offer of peace but a demand for complete surrender. They said they were not offered a state but a "prison camp".

Palestinians also resented that their ties to Jerusalem, the historical center of Palestine, were ignored. Palestinians were further offended that Israel demanded that Palestinians give up some 15% of the West Bank, which was also the best and most fertile land, in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert that is essentially unusable.

Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? What is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? Where is Camp David 2000 Summ

If Arafat had believed these things were true, they were reasons to stay in negotiations and offer detailed counter proposals, not to walk away from the talks and promote riots and suicide attacks that would drive away thousands of Palestinians who had returned from abroad to invest in the anticipated new state of Palestine, cause foreign investors, many of them Arabs, to withdraw billions of dollars of private investment capital that would have built a modern infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza and force the IDF to reoccupy areas A and B and build the fence in order to stop the suicide attacks, with the result that the previously thriving Palestinian economy would grind to a halt and the PA would cease to have any effective control in either the West Bank or Gaza. Only an idiot, a madman or some one who never intended to live in peace with a Jewish state of Israel would have walked away from those talks and turned to violence at that point.

That said, polls at the time showed that neither the Israelis nor the Arabs would have accepted the Barak/Clinton offer, which meant that if a peaceful two state solution were truly the goal, much more negotiating along with robust efforts to sell some sort of compromise peaceful two state solution to both Israelis and Arabs would have to be pursued, probably over an extended period of time. When Arafat, instead, left the talks and turned to violence, it marked the abandonment in principle of a peaceful two state solution by the PA.

When Abbas came to power, many wished to believe he would embrace the two state solution Arafat had turned his back on, but when Olmert made detailed proposals aimed at accommodating most of the objections the Arabs had claimed to have to the Barak/Clinton offer, Abbas made speeches lambasting Israeli intransigence, but steadfastly refused to offer detailed counter proposals, indicating that Abbas, for whatever reasons, like Arafat, had no intention of pursuing a peaceful two state solution with Israel.

Arab objections were never to the details of this or that Israeli proposal but to the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel, and that is why Arafat walked away from the talks when most of the world thought peace was at hand and why Abbas never responded to Olmert's detailed proposals.
 
Gee, all that and they still had a surplus of food for export and that was increasing under the Mandate.
 
Arafat walked away from Barak/Clinton's offer for the same reason Abbas had refused to respond to Olmert's offer: because what they were after was never an Arab state living in peace next to Israel but the destruction of the state of Israel. This is why no offer from Israel that would allow the Jewish state of Israel to live in peace will be acceptable to the Arabs anytime in the foreseeable future. Perhaps Abbas and Fayyad might want to agree to a peaceful two state solution, but after four generations of promising the Arabs in the territories a victory over the Jews that will turn Israel into an Arab state, no Arab politician who tries to deliver anything less will survive for very long.

In addition, Israel would control the Palestinian state's water resources, borders and customs. Palestinians said this was not an offer of peace but a demand for complete surrender. They said they were not offered a state but a "prison camp".

Palestinians also resented that their ties to Jerusalem, the historical center of Palestine, were ignored. Palestinians were further offended that Israel demanded that Palestinians give up some 15% of the West Bank, which was also the best and most fertile land, in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert that is essentially unusable.

Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? What is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? Where is Camp David 2000 Summ

If Arafat had believed these things were true, they were reasons to stay in negotiations and offer detailed counter proposals, not to walk away from the talks and promote riots and suicide attacks that would drive away thousands of Palestinians who had returned from abroad to invest in the anticipated new state of Palestine, cause foreign investors, many of them Arabs, to withdraw billions of dollars of private investment capital that would have built a modern infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza and force the IDF to reoccupy areas A and B and build the fence in order to stop the suicide attacks, with the result that the previously thriving Palestinian economy would grind to a halt and the PA would cease to have any effective control in either the West Bank or Gaza. Only an idiot, a madman or some one who never intended to live in peace with a Jewish state of Israel would have walked away from those talks and turned to violence at that point.

That said, polls at the time showed that neither the Israelis nor the Arabs would have accepted the Barak/Clinton offer, which meant that if a peaceful two state solution were truly the goal, much more negotiating along with robust efforts to sell some sort of compromise peaceful two state solution to both Israelis and Arabs would have to be pursued, probably over an extended period of time. When Arafat, instead, left the talks and turned to violence, it marked the abandonment in principle of a peaceful two state solution by the PA.

When Abbas came to power, many wished to believe he would embrace the two state solution Arafat had turned his back on, but when Olmert made detailed proposals aimed at accommodating most of the objections the Arabs had claimed to have to the Barak/Clinton offer, Abbas made speeches lambasting Israeli intransigence, but steadfastly refused to offer detailed counter proposals, indicating that Abbas, for whatever reasons, like Arafat, had no intention of pursuing a peaceful two state solution with Israel.

Arab objections were never to the details of this or that Israeli proposal but to the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel, and that is why Arafat walked away from the talks when most of the world thought peace was at hand and why Abbas never responded to Olmert's detailed proposals.

No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.
 
In addition, Israel would control the Palestinian state's water resources, borders and customs. Palestinians said this was not an offer of peace but a demand for complete surrender. They said they were not offered a state but a "prison camp".

Palestinians also resented that their ties to Jerusalem, the historical center of Palestine, were ignored. Palestinians were further offended that Israel demanded that Palestinians give up some 15% of the West Bank, which was also the best and most fertile land, in exchange for a much smaller swathe of land in the Negev desert that is essentially unusable.

Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel - Discussion and Encyclopedia Article. Who is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? What is Camp David 2000 Summit between Palestinians and Israel? Where is Camp David 2000 Summ

If Arafat had believed these things were true, they were reasons to stay in negotiations and offer detailed counter proposals, not to walk away from the talks and promote riots and suicide attacks that would drive away thousands of Palestinians who had returned from abroad to invest in the anticipated new state of Palestine, cause foreign investors, many of them Arabs, to withdraw billions of dollars of private investment capital that would have built a modern infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza and force the IDF to reoccupy areas A and B and build the fence in order to stop the suicide attacks, with the result that the previously thriving Palestinian economy would grind to a halt and the PA would cease to have any effective control in either the West Bank or Gaza. Only an idiot, a madman or some one who never intended to live in peace with a Jewish state of Israel would have walked away from those talks and turned to violence at that point.

That said, polls at the time showed that neither the Israelis nor the Arabs would have accepted the Barak/Clinton offer, which meant that if a peaceful two state solution were truly the goal, much more negotiating along with robust efforts to sell some sort of compromise peaceful two state solution to both Israelis and Arabs would have to be pursued, probably over an extended period of time. When Arafat, instead, left the talks and turned to violence, it marked the abandonment in principle of a peaceful two state solution by the PA.

When Abbas came to power, many wished to believe he would embrace the two state solution Arafat had turned his back on, but when Olmert made detailed proposals aimed at accommodating most of the objections the Arabs had claimed to have to the Barak/Clinton offer, Abbas made speeches lambasting Israeli intransigence, but steadfastly refused to offer detailed counter proposals, indicating that Abbas, for whatever reasons, like Arafat, had no intention of pursuing a peaceful two state solution with Israel.

Arab objections were never to the details of this or that Israeli proposal but to the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel, and that is why Arafat walked away from the talks when most of the world thought peace was at hand and why Abbas never responded to Olmert's detailed proposals.

No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.

The "clunker" the Arabs, be they Hamas or Fatah or whatever, object to is the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel, so no matter what Israel offers, if that offer includes the continued existence of a Jewish state of Israel the Arabs will continue to find it unacceptable. That is why Arafat walked away from the Barak/Clinton offer when most of the world thought that peace was just around the corner and why Abbas refused to respond to Olmert's offer.
 
No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.

What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.
 
No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.

What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.

It is true that Israel completely destroyed the Gaza economy when it left.
 
No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.

What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.

Under the Oslo Accords, the PA agreed to recognize the state of Israel and to be committed to peaceful coexistence with it, so when the PA allowed Hamas members who were openly committed to the violent overthrow of the state of Israel to run for office, it nullified the Oslo Accords, so Israel no longer has any treaty obligations it must observe with regard to the PA, and since under PA law, both the President and the legislature had to run for reelection on Jan. 24, and neither did, no one in Gaza or the West Bank in the PA legally holds office under Palestinian law; so Hamas rules in Gaza by no other authority than force of arms supplied by Iran and Syria and Fatah rules in the West Bank by no other authority than force of arms supplied by the US and Israel is bound only by its own laws in deciding what steps it must take to provide for its own security.
 
No matter what fluff they promote as a good deal all "agreements" have the same clunkers. The Palestinians must surrender and disarm. They must allow Israel to surround them with its military. Israel will control who and what can enter or leave their so called state. No Jerusalem. Nothing for refugees.

Israel would never accept that but they expect the Palestinians to fall in line with a deal like that.

What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.

Under the Oslo Accords, the PA agreed to recognize the state of Israel and to be committed to peaceful coexistence with it, so when the PA allowed Hamas members who were openly committed to the violent overthrow of the state of Israel to run for office, it nullified the Oslo Accords, so Israel no longer has any treaty obligations it must observe with regard to the PA, and since under PA law, both the President and the legislature had to run for reelection on Jan. 24, and neither did, no one in Gaza or the West Bank in the PA legally holds office under Palestinian law; so Hamas rules in Gaza by no other authority than force of arms supplied by Iran and Syria and Fatah rules in the West Bank by no other authority than force of arms supplied by the US and Israel is bound only by its own laws in deciding what steps it must take to provide for its own security.

It is true. Oslo is dead. It was stillborn.

The US is keeping the Palestinians from holding elections.
 
What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.

Under the Oslo Accords, the PA agreed to recognize the state of Israel and to be committed to peaceful coexistence with it, so when the PA allowed Hamas members who were openly committed to the violent overthrow of the state of Israel to run for office, it nullified the Oslo Accords, so Israel no longer has any treaty obligations it must observe with regard to the PA, and since under PA law, both the President and the legislature had to run for reelection on Jan. 24, and neither did, no one in Gaza or the West Bank in the PA legally holds office under Palestinian law; so Hamas rules in Gaza by no other authority than force of arms supplied by Iran and Syria and Fatah rules in the West Bank by no other authority than force of arms supplied by the US and Israel is bound only by its own laws in deciding what steps it must take to provide for its own security.

It is true. Oslo is dead. It was stillborn.

The US is keeping the Palestinians from holding elections.

So, control over the West Bank and Gaza reverts back to Israel, right, Forum Dunce?

Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas, Forum Dunce? Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election, Forum Dunce?
 
What are you promoting, ignorance? The Oslo Accords permit an IDF presence inside and outside the West Bank. In fact, the only thing keeping the WB from going up in flames from the onslaught of Hamas and other terrorist groups, is Israeli security. Israeli security is permitting the WB to achieve the economic prosperity that is in place now.

Fatah and Hamas preclude any Pallie from leaving without permission even if for a medical emergency. Not surprisingly, even Pallies want Israel to control Gaza...
In one town, Gazans yearn for previous Israeli presence / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

You're the Forum Dunce.

Under the Oslo Accords, the PA agreed to recognize the state of Israel and to be committed to peaceful coexistence with it, so when the PA allowed Hamas members who were openly committed to the violent overthrow of the state of Israel to run for office, it nullified the Oslo Accords, so Israel no longer has any treaty obligations it must observe with regard to the PA, and since under PA law, both the President and the legislature had to run for reelection on Jan. 24, and neither did, no one in Gaza or the West Bank in the PA legally holds office under Palestinian law; so Hamas rules in Gaza by no other authority than force of arms supplied by Iran and Syria and Fatah rules in the West Bank by no other authority than force of arms supplied by the US and Israel is bound only by its own laws in deciding what steps it must take to provide for its own security.

It is true. Oslo is dead. It was stillborn.

The US is keeping the Palestinians from holding elections.

The US, the EU, the UN, certainly the Arab nations, etc., are all indifferent to whether elections are held or the government(s) of the Arabs in the territories are legal or legitimate, and there is no evidence that the Arabs there care much about it, themselves, or believe anything good can come from it.

It may well be that the last opportunity for democratic government among the Arabs in the territories was lost in the late 1980's when the US and Europeans nixed the Israeli idea to gradually turn the civil administration of the territories over to the Arabs there by first holding local elections and then broader election until the entire government apparatus was in the hands of the Arabs who lived there, allowing democratic institutions and political leaders to arise indigenously from this process instead of imposing the Tunisian terrorists and foreign ideas about government on the people.
 
Under the Oslo Accords, the PA agreed to recognize the state of Israel and to be committed to peaceful coexistence with it, so when the PA allowed Hamas members who were openly committed to the violent overthrow of the state of Israel to run for office, it nullified the Oslo Accords, so Israel no longer has any treaty obligations it must observe with regard to the PA, and since under PA law, both the President and the legislature had to run for reelection on Jan. 24, and neither did, no one in Gaza or the West Bank in the PA legally holds office under Palestinian law; so Hamas rules in Gaza by no other authority than force of arms supplied by Iran and Syria and Fatah rules in the West Bank by no other authority than force of arms supplied by the US and Israel is bound only by its own laws in deciding what steps it must take to provide for its own security.

It is true. Oslo is dead. It was stillborn.

The US is keeping the Palestinians from holding elections.

So, control over the West Bank and Gaza reverts back to Israel, right, Forum Dunce?

Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas, Forum Dunce? Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election, Forum Dunce?

"Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas" No.

"Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election" Yes he did.

Abbas should have called for presidential elections before his term expired on Jan. 9, 2009 but he did not.
 
It is true. Oslo is dead. It was stillborn.

The US is keeping the Palestinians from holding elections.

So, control over the West Bank and Gaza reverts back to Israel, right, Forum Dunce?

Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas, Forum Dunce? Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election, Forum Dunce?

"Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas" No.

"Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election" Yes he did.

Abbas should have called for presidential elections before his term expired on Jan. 9, 2009 but he did not.

You expect democracy among Pallies? Nowhere in the Arab Muslim Middle East, except Israel, does democracy exist. Islam is an inherently fascist ideology. You need a serious education.
 
So, control over the West Bank and Gaza reverts back to Israel, right, Forum Dunce?

Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas, Forum Dunce? Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election, Forum Dunce?

"Did the US keep Pallies from electing Hamas" No.

"Didn't Jimmy Carter oversee the election" Yes he did.

Abbas should have called for presidential elections before his term expired on Jan. 9, 2009 but he did not.

You expect democracy among Pallies? Nowhere in the Arab Muslim Middle East, except Israel, does democracy exist. Islam is an inherently fascist ideology. You need a serious education.

Palestine had the model democracy when it had the unity government. The president was Fatah. The PM was Hamas. The cabinet included Hamas, Fatah, Third Way, and Palestinian Initiative members. All were appointed by the president and then approved by the parliament as specified in their constitution. The majority of parliament was Hamas, (including many women and one Christian elected on the Hamas ticket) Fatah, and about five other parties and independents.

The first thing they did was to call for a complete halt to all violence.

And all this was the most honest and open election they have ever seen according to international observers.
 
Palestine had the model democracy when it had the unity government. The president was Fatah. The PM was Hamas. The cabinet included Hamas, Fatah, Third Way, and Palestinian Initiative members. All were appointed by the president and then approved by the parliament as specified in their constitution. The majority of parliament was Hamas, (including many women and one Christian elected on the Hamas ticket) Fatah, and about five other parties and independents.

The first thing they did was to call for a complete halt to all violence.

And all this was the most honest and open election they have ever seen according to international observers.

Except, there is no country called Palestine, just Arab-occupied sovereign Israeli territory, which does not recognize basic freedoms, human rights and civil liberties. Thus, not a democracy.

You see, Forum Dunce, mere elections does not constitute democracy. The Nazi Party, too, was elected into office.

Sadly, your posts are incoherent gibberish, which is why nobody understands what the fuck you're saying.
 
Palestine had the model democracy when it had the unity government. The president was Fatah. The PM was Hamas. The cabinet included Hamas, Fatah, Third Way, and Palestinian Initiative members. All were appointed by the president and then approved by the parliament as specified in their constitution. The majority of parliament was Hamas, (including many women and one Christian elected on the Hamas ticket) Fatah, and about five other parties and independents.

The first thing they did was to call for a complete halt to all violence.

And all this was the most honest and open election they have ever seen according to international observers.

Except, there is no country called Palestine, just Arab-occupied sovereign Israeli territory, which does not recognize basic freedoms, human rights and civil liberties. Thus, not a democracy.

You see, Forum Dunce, mere elections does not constitute democracy. The Nazi Party, too, was elected into office.

Sadly, your posts are incoherent gibberish, which is why nobody understands what the fuck you're saying.

Just because a country is occupied does not mean it ceases to exist. Did India cease to exist when it was occupied by Britain?
 
Palestine had the model democracy when it had the unity government. The president was Fatah. The PM was Hamas. The cabinet included Hamas, Fatah, Third Way, and Palestinian Initiative members. All were appointed by the president and then approved by the parliament as specified in their constitution. The majority of parliament was Hamas, (including many women and one Christian elected on the Hamas ticket) Fatah, and about five other parties and independents.

The first thing they did was to call for a complete halt to all violence.

And all this was the most honest and open election they have ever seen according to international observers.

Except, there is no country called Palestine, just Arab-occupied sovereign Israeli territory, which does not recognize basic freedoms, human rights and civil liberties. Thus, not a democracy.

You see, Forum Dunce, mere elections does not constitute democracy. The Nazi Party, too, was elected into office.

Sadly, your posts are incoherent gibberish, which is why nobody understands what the fuck you're saying.

Just because a country is occupied does not mean it ceases to exist. Did India cease to exist when it was occupied by Britain?

Forum Dunce has a mental disability, thus, when informed Palestine is not a country, the Forum Dunce goes blank.

Forum Dunce also does not know what occupation is. Forum Dunce does not realize the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign states and, thus, cannot be occupied.

Forum Dunce does not comprehend Israel has legitimate claims on the West Bank and Gaza.

Forum Dunce does not comprehend the Pallies rejected sovereignty in 1947 when they rejected the UN Partition Plan.

This is why you're the Forum Dunce.
 
Except, there is no country called Palestine, just Arab-occupied sovereign Israeli territory, which does not recognize basic freedoms, human rights and civil liberties. Thus, not a democracy.

You see, Forum Dunce, mere elections does not constitute democracy. The Nazi Party, too, was elected into office.

Sadly, your posts are incoherent gibberish, which is why nobody understands what the fuck you're saying.

Just because a country is occupied does not mean it ceases to exist. Did India cease to exist when it was occupied by Britain?

Forum Dunce has a mental disability, thus, when informed Palestine is not a country, the Forum Dunce goes blank.

Forum Dunce also does not know what occupation is. Forum Dunce does not realize the West Bank and Gaza are not sovereign states and, thus, cannot be occupied.

Forum Dunce does not comprehend Israel has legitimate claims on the West Bank and Gaza.

Forum Dunce does not comprehend the Pallies rejected sovereignty in 1947 when they rejected the UN Partition Plan.

This is why you're the Forum Dunce.

Israel has no legitimate claim to any of Palestine.
 

Forum List

Back
Top