I'll look at the wiki link. But even if that were the case, what other nation is asked to make it's concessions BEFORE negotiations?
Oslo wasn't a bad deal at all. How could 98 percent of what they wanted be a bad deal? The fact that his "people" didn't want it should tell you something. Rabin died for his willingness to make that deal. Whether it was a perfect deal from either perspective...it wasn't... but I've always been told that any good resolution leaves both parties a little ticked off.
Blame? Maybe... I certainly didn't agree with some of the things Sharon did when he was in charge. But if you look at the percentages of pals who want a two-state solution and who are willing to make peace, you'll find that isn't what they want. Did the PA ever remove it's goal of the destruction of Israel from its charter?
and, no, they weren't "always there"... they were mostly bedouin. and they were part of transjordan. like is said, i'm not at the border of belarus demanding my ancestral property back... my family was always there.
No, those were not concessions before negotiations, that was part of the original deal.
I think what you are missing the point re Oslo, it doesn't matter whether it was 98 or 100 percent, the Israelis were never going to agree to the deal anyway. It reads like the right of return and East Jerusalem were put in there on purpose because they knew the Pals wold not accept it for those two reasons alone....
That is untrue Jillian with regard to them being Bedouin...they have had villages their villages there for centuries.
The Belurus analogy is being disingenuous because both you and I know that the reason the Jewish people were offered Israel was because it was their ancestral homeland before the diaspora, so you could trace your ancestors back there. Ditto the Pals and Palestine (the name came from the Philistines, who as you know, have been there since Adam, too).
Let's not forget that the Jews and Arabs are the same people separated by a religion....they are both Sematic...
Last edited: