According to Palestenian sources...

So you're saying there is propoganda from the 'other' side? Shocking!

 

Both sides use massive propaganda to gain support for their cause. As we speak, the Israelis and their pro-Israel 'agents' have a solid lead in that department, but the Palestinians have learned quickly and are now doing a much better job at winning the 'propaganda war', which is gaining them support worldwide.

Propaganda is an important tool and both sides are using it extensively.

 

Both sides are bad as eachother. the worst thing here is, it's the innocent who are bound to suffer.

 

the quicker we can get to step#1, the better...

Step#1 is either the complete destruction or deconstruction of Hezbollah...I wish the best for the lebanese people...It is the world's fault that we have allowed Hezbollah to instill itself the way it has had...

 

Israel likes to claim that they were living peaceful until they were attacked the instant they were created. Of course the people would eventually become the govt. of Israel had already occupied several Palestinian villages outside the boundaries set aside for Israeli land.

They like to claim and have many believing that they were attacked in '67 as well, which is also false.

Israel won't tell you that they have had military orders to destroy any Palestinian businesses which could compete economically, until very recently they wouldn't allow Palestinians to drill new water wells. They then used slant drilling to take the water from underneath Palestinian wells. ISrael gave more water to its settlers for washing than Palestinians had to irrigate, cook, clean, and drink.

Israel has spread the word that the PAlestinians turned down Oslo which offered them 95% of what they asked for. That is also false. IT was actually about 70% and it wasn't the land with any resources. Furthermore Israeli propoganda won't tell you that they didn't live up to their end of the agreements and rather than getting rid of settlements they actually increased them.

Just like now the Israelis don't publicize that they didn't live up to their end of the 48 hour period in which their air bombing should have stopped so humanitarian aid could get through. They didn't even wait 24 hours.

They regularly call the abduction of its soldiers a terrorist act. But that act was against a military unit, and not against civilians. The Israeli propoganda does this time and time again.

 

Agreed. hezbollah is a evil entity that has been Surrving on the iranian peoples natural resources. the hezbollah and the mollahs dissapear, the better off the free world will be.

 

Let's give Israel a chance to annihilate Hezbollah.

 

Until the theocracy in iran is in power, terrorist groups like hezbollah will survive. you have to cut the dragons head off. not it's proxies. the mollahs are the source of terrorisim.

 

FB, I have questions on the above...What exact parts of the land had resources? How does it differ from defined territory that is now recognized to be part of Israel? Did Israel have to give up it's territory in addition to the gaza strip and almost all of the golan heights? Why not a counteroffer? If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

If the deal involved a range of 70% to 95% of what was asked for, what disparity of percentage would have brought it closer to 100% and how do you define that? Would the extra land of resources had brought it closer to 100%? what else in the deal? If it's too late, please answer tommarrow...I will do some research as well...Should be fun,...Huh...?

 

First of all the land with Israeli settlements on it aren't defined or recognized as part of Israel, even by Israel itself. Israel doesn't want to do that or they will lose their Jewish majority.

The land has resources such as water which is probably the most valuable commodity there is in the region. You do understand living in the U.S. that land in the desert is going to have different resources than on our fertile plains right? It is like giving the Palestinians all the desert land, and Israel taking all the fertile plains and then spreading the word that the Palestinians don't want peace because they wouldn't accept that deal.

Here is some info on it, collected by the group Jews For Justice.

You can start there and go to the website for more information which dissiminates alot of the propoganda from the truth.

Here is more on the water resources and problems

This one even talks about Oslo would have cemented Israel's control over almost all the water in the territories.

I'm sorry but any treaty that doesn't address these issues isn't realistic and is the true fantasy. It isn't quibbling about a few extra acres of land, it is a matter of survival.

 

Here is more on water and the Oslo accords.

There is a great injustice going on in the occupied territories. The Palestinians are the victims, and the Israelis are the perpetrators.

The fact is that UN resolution 242 calls for Israel to withdraw to its 67 borders. To allow them to keep all the water in the region, not follow that resolution and give the Palestinian a land that can not support them, is a huge injustice, an unrealistic solution, and one that should never be allowed to happen.

 

You make decent points, FB...but why was there at least not a counteroffer?

If the agreement would be accepted simply by according to 1967 borders, then why this was not included in a counteroffer...

I recall Israel's offer included wording which offered negotiation on topics such as resources if the agreement was initially accepted.

Also please answer this: If you say Israel didn't live up to it's end of the agreements, does this make any sense considering there wan't any agreement that was agreed to?

BTW, this is an aspect which supports that "resources" was to be included in negotiation IF the offer was accepted...(from wiki.) Permanent issues such as Jerusalem, refugees, Israeli settlements in the area, security and borders were deliberately excluded from the Accords and left to be decided. The interim self-government was to be granted in phases.

 

FB,

Thanks for bringing up the water issue. I don't think that it's been discussed here previously.

 

There were agreements reached. The overall agreement didn't come to fruition but there were portions that were agreed to.

This talks about specific agreement in the process. It is from one of the selections I posted above.

 

Well the water issue isn't big news, because it isn't really exciting, or spectacular. And both sides don't really discuss it publically very much on news talk shows. So while I think it is extremely important, it almost never gets news coverage.

I think before we can blame one side or another for any land for peace deal that water issue has to be looked at.

But I think it is necessary to address before the land and who owns what can be decided. That is something that underlies almost all of the other problems.

 

Cohen is right though...IMO, I believe this is one of your best points you have recently brought up...

 

you see... the thing is one side is called terrorists and the other is not. a terrorist group by definition is aiming at civilians. the solution for your complain is to call them both terrorists. because it's actually what they both are, although neither of them admit it. one claims to be resistance force, the other says the civilians it kills are only collaterals.