Arctish
Centimillionaire
You're asking what my point is, I ask you what your point is! You are saying then that both sides have a right to the disputed land.
Yes, I am saying that. I am also saying the reason both sides claim that part of the world as their ancestral homeland is because both sides are descended from the same ancestors. And the reason Zionists had to force Palestinians out of their homes is because, contrary to Golda Meir's catchy slogan, there was no "land without a people" in the area around Jerusalem for at least 4,000 years, and in the areas with a good water supply it was more like 10,000 years.
Then why do you want to see one side be a victim to a genocide?
I don't. I want to see both sides come to terms with each other and go back to the quiet, boring, uneventful relations they had for centuries before this current round of bloodshed and bigotry. And speaking of bigotry:
And if it did happen, what makes you think it will lead to peace there when there would still be open warfare between Sunni and Shite? The problem is right there in the koran. The Jew hatred started while the paedophile prophet Muhammad was still alive. The Jews loved life and would do anything to have life while the islamics loved death, they couldn't understand that life meant more than to die in the name of allah to the Jews and xtians and other infidels.
I get it that you hate Islam. And there are plenty of reasons to abhor violent Islamists. But when you paint every Palestinian with that broad brush of yours, and accuse each and every one of desiring nothing less than the death of all Jews worldwide, your posts become just as anti-Semitic as a neo-Nazi rant about how evil Jews are, and how they have a secret cabal that runs the world. And that's where you lose all credibility.
Palestinians are as varied a group as any other. Some are peaceable, some are not. Some are devout, some are secular. Accusing them of sharing some kind of Jew-hating hive mind is racism and bigotry at its ugliest.
At Camp David accord under the Clinton administration , the then Israeli pm Barak offered the Yassar Arafat 95% of his demands including Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital, and all of Judea, Samaria. It wasn't Barak who walked away from that offer, it was Arafat, who repaid that offer upon his return started an infidata that was responsible for thousands of deaths on both sides. Palestinians could've had their state years ago had they so chosen. But The famous "Verse of the sword"[Sura 9:5] considered the final word on Jihad instructs muslims to attack and kill non-muslims and also enjoin war against unbelievers.
About Camp David, did you read Robert Malley's article Camp David: The Tragedy Of Errors? I know I've linked to it many times, but so far it doesn't seem like you have. He was a participant and first hand witness to events, and he wrote a pretty good article about why it's a mistake to buy into the overly simplistic claim that Barak made a generous offer and that Arafat simply walked away:
Robert Malley article said:In accounts of what happened at the July 2000 Camp David summit and the following months of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, we often hear about Ehud Barak’s unprecedented offer and Yasser Arafat’s uncompromising no. Israel is said to have made a historic, generous proposal, which the Palestinians, once again seizing the opportunity to miss an opportunity, turned down. In short, the failure to reach a final agreement is attributed, without notable dissent, to Yasser Arafat.
As orthodoxies go, this is a dangerous one. For it has larger ripple effects. Broader conclusions take hold. That there is no peace partner is one. That there is no possible end to the conflict with Arafat is another.
For a process of such complexity, the diagnosis is remarkably shallow. It ignores history, the dynamics of the negotiations, and the relationships among the three parties. In so doing, it fails to capture why what so many viewed as a generous Israeli offer, the Palestinians viewed as neither generous, nor Israeli, nor, indeed, as an offer. Worse, it acts as a harmful constraint on American policy by offering up a single, convenient culprit—Arafat—rather than a more nuanced and realistic analysis.
Each side came to Camp David with very different perspectives, which led, in turn, to highly divergent approaches to the talks.
If you really, truly want to discuss Camp David, I'm willing to discuss it with you. But we should probably start a new thread.