Now, I couldn't read the article you mentioned you read 1.5-2.5 monts ago, since there was a fee to view articles older than 1 week. But in the two articles I read, I found no statements at all regarding which side started the current wave of violence and no statements regarding what people are the most permanent population in Israel.
Quark, are you familiar with the Mitchell report? In October last year, after the outbread of the current violence, your president stated:
"The United States will develop with the Israelis and Palestinians, as well as in consultation with the United States Secretary General, a committee of fact-finding on the events of the past several weeks and how to prevent their recurrence".
This is the Mitchell commitee, and Israeli and Palestinians have agreed to the report the committee developed.
I suggest you read the entire report here:
[url="http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/mitchell.htm"]The Mitchell Report[/url]
Draw you own conclusions. The report says that US and Palestinians officials urged Barak to prohibit Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount since this would be provocative to the Palestinians. Barak declined, and Sharon went, together with over 1000 police officers.
The next day a large number of unarmed Palestinians demonstrated at the same place, and a large force of Israeli police clashed with the demonstrants. The police killed 4 and injured 200 with rubber-coated bullets. 14 policemen were injured.
The report concludes that the Sharon visit did not cause the Al-Aqsa Intifada, but that the visit was poorly timed and the provocative effect should have been foreseen.
More serious, according to the report, was that the Israeli police used lethal means agains the demonstrants.
However, the report concludes that the reasons for the current string of violence was divergent expectations of the result from the 1991 and 1993 negotiations. The PLO expected Israel to withdraw from Gaza and the West bank within 5 years. Instead, the Israeli settlements has increased with 70%. The Israeli are aware of the promise they made in 1993, that they would conceed regarding the settlements, but only in an overall solution that includes no terrorist attacks, and they point out that security is their main focus.
Of course many Palestinians are angry about the Palestinian terrorist attacks, just like many Israeli are angry about the Israeli military force stopping medical staff or the police killing unarmed citizens!Originally posted by Quark:
<STRONG>For the last time, Israel did not start this string of violence. The P.L.A did. That's Arafat's organization, at once terroristic, once peaceful, now terroristic again. They kill innocent Israelis, then hide behind innocent Palestinians. I read an article where many people of Palestine are angry because of the terrorists in their midsts. The terrorists take popshots at Israel, then hide behind thier 'fellow mans'' farmland - thus getting it and it's residents destroyed while they still live to kill another day.</STRONG>
The Palestinians and Israeli agree that dissappointment in the development of the 1993 negotiations and mutual mistrust was the cause of the current violence. In this perspective, it seems strange to me that you persist that the Palestinians started it?
</STRONG><STRONG>
Last time I checked, the Jewish population was the most permanent population in what is now Israel. All land that they took (after what was established through a treaty after WW2) was land taken in a war that someone else started.
Where did you find this information? It wasn't in the articles you linked to. Neither could I find any support for this at any of the history sites, news sites or antropology sites I've checked. (Other than one extreme pro-israeli site that also called Palestinians names I can't write in a public forum).
You actually confuse me here. The area we now call Israel has had settlers since 9000 BC. Around 3000 BC the Canaanites arrived to the area. The Canaanites were a Semite people, from the same area as both Jews as Palestinians are. Both Jews and Palestines are Semite people, their languages are closely related and they both count Abraham as their patriarch. I don't understand what you mean by permanent population.
Or are you referring to modern history, after the British Mandate? If so, I'm surprised you view the Anglo-French-Israeli attack at Egypt in 1957 as a war that "somebody else" started. The French and the Brits wanted control over the Suez area, Israel joined them, and occupied the Sinai desert. Also, I'm surprised you view the six days war in 1967, when Israel won the Gaza strip, Golan heights and West bank from Egypt and Jordan, as a war "somebody else started". Please clarify? I could post a more detalied account of the history of Israel/Palestine if you wish.
</STRONG><STRONG>If the palestinians knew what peace talks meant, they wouldn't have been stupid enough to start the current string of violence by throwing rocks at armed soldiers.
Again, whatever your personal opinion is in the Israel/Palestine question, this comment still bothers me. Please edit your post. I also recommend some in depth reading about the issue, try
[url="http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/in_depth/middle_east/2000/mideast_peace_process/default.stm"]The BBC[/url]
I always read and watch news produced in different countries, since this provides a better source of information. All media are biased to some extent, but the BBC are the ones I've find the least biased.
