US recognizes Jerusalem as Israel's capital

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
Sharon experienced a stroke before the 2006 Palestinian elections, though. Still, his stroke came less than a month before these elections--so it probably didn't make much of a difference. Thus, your point here appears to be valid.
My piont is the PA is depednat on the Israelis both economically and just able to move around and do things in the west, but also political popularity they have to be seen to be delivering. Without real positive progress in the peace process fact son the ground in the west bank, the PA just starts to look as collaboratist stooges. When almost all the palestinain economy is PA Administration, and Aid, everything comes down to who you know, ability to manipulate an navigate the bureaucracy, it's not goo din many ways for too much of the ecnomy to be directly government administered and supported, and it's way past that point. HAMAS has quite an easy job on the propaganda front, PA/FATAH are collaborationist stooges, scare don't real democracy, and corrupt to boot.

Oslo had serve problems, it was not a great framwwork for all sorts of reasons. But the PA badly needed some big runs on the board early to make some real headway in the populalr support, trust , hope stakes. And really they needed the Isrealis to give some real concessions, to get the credit to be able to function. The PA was just so weak form the start it needed some nurture and from the Israelis, before it was really capable of making any real progress of it's own, and in the oppositional/conflict paradigm that just wasn't coming.


'
 
Likes: Futurist

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
16,915
SoCal
My piont is the PA is depednat on the Israelis both economically and just able to move around and do things in the west, but also political popularity they have to be seen to be delivering. Without real positive progress in the peace process fact son the ground in the west bank, the PA just starts to look as collaboratist stooges. When almost all the palestinain economy is PA Administration, and Aid, everything comes down to who you know, ability to manipulate an navigate the bureaucracy, it's not goo din many ways for too much of the ecnomy to be directly government administered and supported, and it's way past that point. HAMAS has quite an easy job on the propaganda front, PA/FATAH are collaborationist stooges, scare don't real democracy, and corrupt to boot.

Oslo had serve problems, it was not a great framwwork for all sorts of reasons. But the PA badly needed some big runs on the board early to make some real headway in the populalr support, trust , hope stakes. And really they needed the Isrealis to give some real concessions, to get the credit to be able to function. The PA was just so weak form the start it needed some nurture and from the Israelis, before it was really capable of making any real progress of it's own, and in the oppositional/conflict paradigm that just wasn't coming.
Makes sense. Personally, I think that it was hard for Israelis to accept further concessions when the Palestinians were unwilling and/or unable to do their job in dealing with terrorism. Israelis saw that the amount of terrorism in Israel significant increased after the beginning of the peace process and they wondered why exactly they should be making further concessions when Israelis were getting killed by Palestinian terrorists.

BTW, do you think that a peace deal would have been signed had Tzipi Livni managed to become Israeli Prime Minister in 2008 or 2009?
 
Dec 2011
2,119
So nobody had any weapons? All those molotov cocktails and bombs thrown, caught on video, were magic done by rogue Hogwart students...
I did not say that that nobody had weapons! But the great majority of the people who were shot did not. The UN investigation pointed to over 400 people shot without justification.

I ask you to indicate to me video evidence of bombs thrown (over the fence from Gaza in 2018) or molotov cocktails, so we can assess how many there were.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,899
Korea
Hamas was elected before Netanyahu's recent reign of power, though. 2006 is three years before 2009.
And the Israeli disengagement from Gaza occurred in 2005. Israel dismantled its settlements in that region, forcing thousands of Jews to relocate. All else being equal, it ought to have been seen as a massive gesture of good will. Instead, it was followed not too long afterwards by the election of Hamas, and we even see people trying to frame it as part of the justification for electing Hamas by taking a quotation from a long and fairly nuanced interview and trying to twist it into malice instead of into an expression of fairly realistic concern and political pragmatism. The idea that if only the Israelis had conceded more, then suddenly things would be better in some undescribed way, seems like a suspicious notion. Doubly so if this description of a rejected peace offer is actually true.

If one looks at the present, Israel seems to have learned its lesson from that affair. Israel made a gigantic concession at real cost to its own country and citizenry, and while it bought some time from the international community (as Mr. Weisglass suggested it might), it did not produce any long-term improvement in return for the pain. One can hardly be surprised, then, that Israel has decided to resolve this matter on its own terms. Concessions don't work in circumstances like this; when the stronger party concedes to the weaker party, the weaker party is simply incentivized to ask for more. Doubly so when the only meaningful thing the weaker party has to offer (a cessation to hostilities) is revocable at any time, for any reason, without any way for the stronger party to prevent it.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
And the Israeli disengagement from Gaza occurred in 2005. Israel dismantled its settlements in that region, forcing thousands of Jews to relocate. All else being equal, it ought to have been seen as a massive gesture of good will.
Except as the same time Israeli was taking land in the northern west bank. More land more settlers. It was not a withdrawal but a redeployment.,
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,899
Korea
Except as the same time Israeli was taking land in the northern west bank. More land more settlers. It was not a withdrawal but a redeployment.,
Except since it would have continued taking that land anyway, removing 8,000 settlers is still removing 8,000 settlers; still a net change in favor of Palestine over what would have been the case absent the disengagement. It is a concession no matter how you view it, one that came at the cost of both the country and its citizenry.

No need to tell me again that you disagree. I already know, just as Israel already knows that its opponents disagree, and will disagree again should it make any other similar concessions. That's part of why it's unlikely to bother doing so again.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
8,676
Except since it would have continued taking that land anyway, removing 8,000 settlers is still removing 8,000 settlers; still a net change in favor of Palestine over what would have been the case absent the disengagement. It is a concession no matter how you view it, one that came at the cost of both the country and its citizenry.
if more land is taken and more settlers settled and teh net land occupied and settler goes up,. It's harldy any sort of concession at all. If I had mback 100 acres but take 200 elsewhere describing it as a CONESSEON or a WiITHDRAWAL is just a LIE.