Lets put it another way, somebody steals your car you don't want to negotiate to get it back. What happens if somebody steals your very valuable car of which there is only one of a kind in the entire world and they say if you want your one of a kind car back then we want something else out of you in exchange. You can say its illegal what they are doing but what means more to you getting back the car or saying I don't believe that morrally I should be forced to negotiate the return of my car? Israel has something the palestinians want, Israel is not willing to give it away free of charge so what is in the palestinian best interest (1) say we are entitled to this and negotiation negates our rights (2) We want this but playing tough won't get us anything so better to compromise and negotiate ? The palestinians complain about things like settlements etc but if they were negotiating then they could could do a deal with Israel in exchange for a settlement freeze then there will be no more settlements going up. If the palestinians want a state they need to accept they won't get everything they want so better to sit down negotiate with Israel unconditionally and try hammer out a deal that both sides hate but both sides can grudgingly accept. The palestinians should remember mistakes made in history. In 1917 the Balfour Declaration which the Jews loved and arabs hated was not even going to create a Jewish state, just a Jewish homeland and at that time zionism was in its infancy and had not yet developed into a full on ideological movement. For a time Faisal of Mecca even thought it was a good idea because the zionist could help arab peasant farmers introduce new technologies ( the zionist farmers were using modern farming tequniques at the time whilst arab methods hadn't changed in centuries ). The locals though rejected Balfour so it never happened. Even up until the mid 30s when fighting between Jews & arabs intensified most the zionists wanted Balfour and it was only the hardliners who wanted a specifically Jewish state but in the end because of arabs being unwilling to compromise the hardliners won and it killed Balfour. In 1947 the UN proposed 2 states approximately the same size and Jews on the arabs side of the border would have ended up citizens of the arab state and arabs in Israel would have become Israeli citizens. Arabs rejected partition so we had a war and when the war ended the ceasefire lines left Israel with 78% of Palestine ( includes at least 50% of the land the UN allocated to the arabs in 1947 ) he arabs got nothing. The land Israel captured in 1967 is just the remaining 22% of Palestine which Israel didn't capture in 1948/49. If the arabs had accepted partition there would have never been any refugee situation created and the arabs in Israel today would be a powerful force, we may have even had at least 1 arab PM by now but instead they have very little real political power and we have only ever had 1 arab in the cabinet and he was a minister without portfolio, far cry from being a PM.In 1999 Barak offered Arafat 95% of Judea & Samaria and agreed to divide Jerusalem something no PM had ever offered before. Even Rabin & Peres considered Jerusalem to be a red line but without even asking permission from the Knesset Barak offered it but Arafat refused. Its been 14years since Barak made that offer and the palestinians are now further from statehood than they were before oslo was signed, the PA is broke, Gaza has become a separate entity. If Abbas is smart he will negotiate unconditionally and realise better to have something than nothing even if its not everything you wanted.
Report: Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) to back Iran deal (Haaretz)