To Sami, 149 - Comment - Israel News | Haaretz Daily Newspaper
  • p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap p.TextOutput { R static java.lang.String p.mt = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; R static java.lang.String p.publicInterfaces = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValued'; R static java.lang.String p.beanClass = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.SingleValuePolicy'; RW java.lang.String value = '0'; R transient java.lang.Object _data = 'com.polopoly.cm.app.policy.NumberInputPolicy'; },ModelStore=com.polopoly.model.ModelStoreInMap
    • Michael
    • 08.05.05 | 02:20 (IDT)

    If you are really one, who has been promoting peace, congratulations. But as outsider and observer, I'll have to comment on few things. 1. Arafat went to Oslo, correct. But what he got, was official recognition of Palestinian Auhority and giving autonoy for palestinians. It was supposed to be something, that would lead to real peace. Peace never came. Do you really believe, that anyone had any reason to really believe in Arafat's will to really achieve peace, when he practically turned over everything that was agreed in Oslo? Do you really think, that there was any realistic chance for peace of any kind, when he simply refused to fulfill his part of agreements? No, there were not. Israel gave up land - and recieved mostly terrorism in exchange. Still, you are accusing that Israel was not ready to give anything. Israel already gave palestinians something they should have considered to be very precious, instead of ruining everything with reasonless hate and terrorism. 2. You are also implying, that governments compete in killing palestinians. That's a huge lie. I have said in the past, that if Israel really wanted to, it could just walk over palestinian territories and simply destroy everything. I mean everything. They have the neccessary firepower to do so, but still, they negotiated. Even if there were no reasonable basis for any negotiations. It's hard to see any justification for that kind of comment. Especially when I remember, that palestinian terrorists have been targeting mostly civilian population and ther only intention has been killing as many jews as possible. 3. Do you really think, that Israel wouldn't give anything for peace? Ehud Barak offered almost everything possible for Israel to give, including part of Jerusalem. Was it enought? I guess not, because Arafat did fire up his "intifada II". I think Arafat practically killed the whole peace process with that decision. Keep in mind, that palestinians are not the only ones, who have rights - Israel and israelis have their rights too, and that is why palestinians wont be able to dictate agreements and try to force Israel to give them everything they want. Let's hope that current palestinian leadership has more reason and common sense not to try something like that. Maybe then there might be some chance for real peace. 4. Prince Abdullah's proposal for peace is actually same old crap with new package. It's almost in every way based on idea, that Israel gives everything palestinians and arabs demand, and maybe then recieves something from someone. It's simply unrealistic and unfair. In real world, things just don't work like that, and arab leaders should understand it, if they are really interested in peace at all. Yes, it will make them to swallow their pride in some degree, but if they are not ready to do so, there will be no peace. 5. Tell me, why Israel should free prisoners, sentenced because of killing israeli citizens? What have the palestinians actually offered in exchange? Well, Israel has released prisoners in the past, but I see it mostly as a huge mistake. That kind of action should only be taken, AFTER there is agreement on peace. Not before, because it only makes things worse. 6. Let's look at the issue as it is. It is reality, that Israel won't give up everything. They don't have any obligation to do so (resolution 242 doesn't demand that kind of action), and it would not be right either. You can weep or swear because of it, but it's reality, and if there is any interest in peace, negotiations and actions should be based on reality. Not blind moaning about "rights" or idealistic nonsense. To have peace means compromise. If there is no will to compromise, there will be no peace, but endless war. I have never seen any real sign of compromise from palestinian side. Someone might think it's something to be proud of. I think it's stupidity. It will only lead to more suffering for all. Nothing else.

    from the article: Does Israel want peace?
    First published 00:00 06.05.05 | Last updated 00:00 06.05.05
Haaretz Headlines
Palestinian Hamas militants march in front of a mock burnt Israeli bus during an anti-Israel rally
Tensions in Gaza are rising as Israel gains edge over Hamas tunnels

Hamas is under pressure twice over, from both the worsening domestic situation in the Strip and the militant organization potentially losing its main threat against Israel.

23:32 03.05.16 | 0 comments
Border police photographed at Qalandiyah shortly after last week's two deadly shootings.
Palestinian father tries to make sense of two offspring killed in Qalandiyah

'Let's say she had a knife even if she had a cannon – why couldn't they shoot her in the legs? And why did they shoot her brother? Why did they kill them both?,' dad of slain 16 and 26 year old says.

06:30 04.05.16 | 0 comments
Amjed Hussain and Nicola Sturgeon at the Scottish National Party's election manifesto launch.
Scottish National Party suspends party activist over anti-Israel Facebook posts

Amjed Hussain reportedly shared Facebook posts claiming the Mossad was responsible for the 9/11 attacks and linking ISIS to Israel.

00:32 04.05.16 | 0 comments
Women's protest in Jerusalem - Michal Fattal - December 23 2011
Controversy rages over Orthodox edict against female singers at memorial ceremonies

Women increasingly told they cannot sing at public events in order not to insult religious sensibilities.

01:02 04.05.16 | 0 comments