All of this American thought regarding the "settlements" (really "Jewish towns")somehow being a barrier to "peace" with the Palestinians is really based on a false premise. Why is it that anyone still believes that even if the Palestinians were to be handed over a turn key state, complete with infrastructure, economy, housing etc, all paid for by someone else, that the Palestinians wouldn't continue to attack Israel,(and in this scenario, from a soveriegn base)? The Palestinian rejection of Oslo and election of Hamas was a rejection of the "land for peace" formula. How about, FIRST five years of peace, and THEN discussions of "land for peace"? If they can't live in peace for five years now, why would anyone believe that they'd live in peace with a state?
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Russian warplane did barrel rolls over U.S. military plane, CNN reports (Reuters)
from the article: Top U.S. official: We won't accept partial settlement freeze
Palestinian flag banned from Eurovision Song Contest
Flag policy for the song competition lists political entities whose flags won't be accepted at the contest, also including Nagorno-Karabakh, Crimea and ISIS.19:18 29.04.16 | 0 comments