Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that’s the 'before that… '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and… Well you know where I’m going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they’ve been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they’re both wrong and they’re both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they’re undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
Why should one side accept peace before the other?
It’s not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can’t get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you’ll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of
their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).
Well I largely agree, except for one very important part and that’s the 'before that… '. Why should one side accept peace before the other?
The ultrazionists have always been proven right and emboldened by their counterparts. The Arab Nationalists could not accept the borders in '48, so they attacked, which resulted in them losing territory. They could not accept the borders that resulted from that war, so they built up their strength and they attacked again, which resulted in them losing more territory. So they built up strength again and… Well you know where I’m going with this.
And keep in mind that meanwhile, even though ceasefire deals existed on paper, Arab nationalist and islamic extremists made sure to keep the fire burning with deadly terror attacks agains Israeli and jewish targets around the world.
As such is the nature of a religious conflict: they always want to be Numba One. They cannot accept losing any of their divine priviliges.
So they’ve been battling it out over Palestine for more than a century, and they’re both wrong and they’re both never going to give up. And when either breaks a border ceasefire again (such as Hamas and Hezbollah last year) , they’re undermining the credibility of a two-state solution
It’s not about accepting peace. One side (Zionists) are unwilling to entertain the very idea of an equal and just peace. You can’t get anywhere with that. The Palestinian side has always been open to that idea, but without the oppressor deciding to consider the idea of not oppressing you’ll never get anywhere. What, exactly, do you suggest Palestinians do here that will get them a state with real sovereignty?
That has always been what ceasefires mean in this conflict, for both sides. You certainly don’t see Israel not building settlements or not bombing Gaza or any of the other examples of their colonialist aggression during ceasefires. This is irrespective of how faithfully the Palestinian side adheres to the ceasefire (see: 2008 and 2013 ceasefires).