discussing it means compromising.well, the roadmap specified nothing, only said it was a topic for discussion. And we are discussing it. And after discussing it, my answer is no, that is ridiculous, and even were it not ridiculous very very few Palestinians are genuine refugees entitled to anything.
as the studies of Said show it's absolutely clear that the palestinian economy didn't have a real chance to devellop during oslo, the palestinian economy lacked real external borders and roads controlled by the palestinians. But still during the 90's the economy improved considerably compared to the earlier decades. the pa HAS education, infrastructure etc. perhaps not enough but it existed untill israel literally swept it away with bulldozers and tanks... not exactly the brightest move...note that Arafat caused their war. Note also that you are the typical marxist in this - assume economic progress based on other exmaples that may or may not be relevant.
They have no independent judiciary. their executive branch is corrupted to the core. the have no infrastructure, no education (other than terrorist education and brainwashed hatred), no civil society, no free press, no free markets, a ridiculously corrupted economic regime, and, to top it all off, no one within the PA, especially Arafat, has shown any inclination to treat any of these things as a priority. And don't blame this on Israel, they showed just as little inclination when they had control under Oslo.
actually syrian and iranian living standards are MUCH higher than palestinian ones. of course it could be better but compared to most of their neighbours iran and syria did well.Economic growth does not happen in a vacuum. It takes very particualr circumstances for it to be facilitated. The palestininas are about as far on the development chart as the Syrians or the Iranians, who, if you didn't know, have never really done such a good job at fostering ANY economic progress.
that's simply not true, just look at the indications of the undp. Arab countries generally improved quite a lot since the 50's, but serious problems remain. Some countries are almost up to Western level such as Tunisia or lebanon (without oil)And they did not really do 'a lot' better as you said. they did marginally better, but they were seriously hurt by a decrease in investment from the colonial power (especially the UK) and were sriously hampered by corruption and faulty economic policy. And they are still wallowing in their own poverty, unless they found enough oil to make this a little better for a little while.
nevertheless communist or socialist-oriented economies in the thirth world did generally better than capitalist liberal ones...It never ceases to amaze me that those who are so vociforous on the left about promoting socialist economic ideology have so slight a grasp on the actual realities of markets and economics. Just assume all will be good in the future and leave it at that? Seems a lot like the utopian ideologies that have cost millions of lives and been economic catastrophes in the past hundred years (marxism, naziism) and will continue to do so in the future (Islamism Wahhabiism et al).
but it's a serious byproduct, some palestinians are near to starving, and it doesn't proove to be a very efficient measure, on the contrary it has been used in the past as a punishment.you do not seem to get it, so I will lay it out in small words. Closures started because Palestinians would not stop sending terrorists to slaughter Israeli civilians. The purpose of closures is not to intentionally harm civilians but to prevent terrorists from killing Israelis. The fact that civilians are harmed (again in the economic sense rather than in terms of real harm to their physical integrity, which should be a proper conception of terrorism for any reasonable person) is a byproduct, but it was not the intent.
yes it did (if you are interested in this subject i can provide you with quite some information and titles ) . The relevance is that your theory can be applied on your allies as well as your ennemies. i have a difficult time imagining you condemning the terrorist policy of the US!I don't know, but if the United States purposely targeted civilians (for death or seriousn bodily harm) for political purposes, then yes, the US did engage in terrorism. What relevance does this have to the current discussion, though?
a palestinian state would offer israel numerous advantages, the most important one an end to the terror, and a peace-deal as signed with egypt or jordan, which prooved to be very succesfull.worse for whom? For Israelis, I think, the potential that a palestinian state with full control over its borders and without any constraints as to their munitions, armaments or tactics would be far worse than the state of affairs today is very real, and that you cannot even recognize this only reinforces the impression I get from you that you really do not understand Israelis at all, and certainly do not understand their mentality in acting the way they do. But we understand your position very clearly, and reject it because it will not work and will only risk more harm to Israel. How many times must Israel stick its neck out so that the world community can try another 'peace' plan?
do you have any links to sustain this claim?yes I can prove that the PA was in systematic and complete violation of the Oslo agreement, but not now as I lack sources at the moment. But the fatc that Arafat had over 10,000 more 'police' than he was supposed to and the fact that he smuggled in terrorists in his car THE FIRST TIME he entered the Palestinian territory, are a couple of good examples. there are, undoubtedly, scores more, and if we include all the broken promises he made to Arab leaders as head of the PLO (like he will not try to subvert their regimes, he would not use their land as a launching pad for Palestinian terrorism against israelis) material violations would surely count in the hundreds.
it's a perfectly logical question, since sharon raise to power more israeli civilians died. i think it would be reasonable to think that there's some kind of connection... (after all the man promised to bring peace!)didn't I make it very clear that I did not want to see this sort of stupid argument? I'm pretty sure I did.
the only thing changing was the israeli policy...Again, just because X+Y people died today while only X dies yesterday, it does not follow that the strategic choices of the political actor were bad ones. you fail to follow the most important rule for this sort of this: KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE CONSTANT. Unless you can account for other factors in your model or effectively keep them the same, you cannot just look at the conclusion today and the conclusion yesterday and say the startegy must have been a bad one.
nope, the kind of terrorism used by hamas and co. doesn't need much ramping up. They have scores of candidates and material can be easily made or acquired. they can attack whenever they have the opportunity and want to.Lets complicate the model a little bit. Say that there is a ramp-up period for terrorism (a reaosnable assumption as it takes time and resources to train and deploy terorrists). now if the former leader followed the peace track and ignored a ramp-up to terrorism, does it not follow that, all else the same, terorirst attacks will be higher in the future than back then?
the pa strategy changed when the israeli started to target the pa (still under barak), it changed even more since Sharon excluded all negotiations.Lets also look at the strtegic decisions of the other side, as, while there is almost certainly an interaction effect between Israeli and PA actions, the other side's actions can directly impact on the bottom line figure that is at issue (i.e. casualty figures). So, the PA strategy changed about the same time as they launched their little war, though almost surely before-hand based on the logistics involved in starting such an operation.
operation defensive shield only had very temporarily results, and the only reason why there were a few less attacks during the last months was the hudna. sharon was also responsible for ending this hudna, perhaps barak would have respected this cease-fire.this is BEFORE Sharon took office, so the proper comparrison must be what would have happened if Sharon had not been elected and the Palestininas continued with their strategy compared to what actually did happen under Sharon. And the numbers seem quite clear. before Defensive Shield Israeli casualty figures were FAR HIGHER than they have been AT ANY POINT SINCE, and there is no reason to believe that absent such a response these figures would have declined by themselves.