Olmert advocates returning land seized in 1967 to win peace

[zaher]

Olmert advocates returning land seized in 1967 to win peace

Give up Golan Heights, most of West Bank and East Jerusalem, outgoing PM urges


MARK MACKINNON
September 30, 2008



JERUSALEM -- Israel's departing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said that his country will have to withdraw from "almost all" of the land it seized in a 1967 war if it wants to have peace with Syria and the Palestinians.
In an interview published in the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper yesterday, a week after his formal resignation, Mr. Olmert said that Israelis need to make a "supremely difficult" decision about whether or not they really want to have peace with their neighbours. If the answer is yes, he said, Israel will have to withdraw its soldiers and settlers from the Golan Heights and nearly all of the West Bank, including East Jerusalem.


Mr. Olmert said that peace is within reach on both fronts if Israel is willing to accept the necessary sacrifices. He said that he will continue to pursue peace agreements as long as he remains in office and suggested that his presumptive successor, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, will continue on the same path.


"We have an opportunity that is limited in time, in which we can perhaps reach a historic deal in our relations with the Palestinians and another historic step in our relations with Syria. In both cases, the decision we must reach is a decision that we have been refusing to accept for the past four decades," Mr. Olmert said in what the newspaper called a legacy interview.


Continue Reading (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20080930.OLMERT30/TPStory/International)




Good things, but why now not before, why violence before instead of what he is saying now, or is it the bitter truth that Israeli politicians don't try to accept unless they leave their positions.

[LRPV]

Correct me if I am wrong, but under international law, isn't the Golan and West Bank Israeli, as they were captured in a defensive war?

[Alfacentori]

Tell Olmert he's dreaming and to lay off the juice, those lands are israeli and see no benefit in giving them back, especially the Golan Heights, especially to a government who actively supports and arms terrorists who kill Israeli civilians and soldiers.
If he thinks that returning that land is a cure all and the extremists etc will just pack up and go home, 'peace won' he's a bigger fool than I already thought.

Alfa

[Calanen]

Yeah Olmert - after you give Hamas exactly what it wants, it will respect Israel and live in peace.

Hamas hasnt bribed you to say that have they?

[LRPV]

Olmert doesn't take bribes...despite the misperception regarding his indictment...the money was merely part of his superannuation plan....

[ase290406]

Giving land doesn't bring peace, we all saw it in Gaza. Pieces of land aren't going to majestically turn around opinions, that have been dominating the region for the last hundred years.

Peace starts with unconditional mutual recognition and sensation of violence. Any peace, not just the one we in the mid-east are failing to achieve.

Just my opinion.

[Col.O'neill]

Keep your speaking hole closed Olmert, for you have nothing intelligent to say!

[tomahawk6]

The first PM to lose a war with the arabs.What a disgrace !!

[filochard]

Returning sized land is a condition necessary, but NOT sufficiant, for a lasting peace.
That would be a very difficult card to play, a lot of conditions have to be met before, but the Israeli shouldn't reject the idea.

[Krikke.D]

why is it such a bad idea to give back a piece of land they took in a war? (even if international law states they are the rightful owners), it's an act of willingness toward peace, and might bring them something in return.
you'd have to be quite hardheaded to hate Olmert for this, can someone explain the Israeli opposition here ?

[Snoshi]

why is it such a bad idea to give back a piece of land they took in a war? (even if international law states they are the rightful owners), it's an act of willingness toward peace, and might bring them something in return.
you'd have to be quite hardheaded to hate Olmert for this, can someone explain the Israeli opposition here ?

Not it wont... Thats the problem when you negotiate with Arabs.. They want everything but themsvels are not willing to offer anything at all.

[jokuvaan]

I have hard time to believe that Syria would cut all ties to enemies of Israel if they get golan back.

[zad]

Correct me if I am wrong, but under international law, isn't the Golan and West Bank Israeli, as they were captured in a defensive war?
yap, you are wrong, international law doesn´t work that way.

[seraosha]

Olmert is high.

Israels neighbors won't be satisfied until every last Israeli is run into the sea, or worse.

[kahn267]

great he goes and says someting like that so the Palestinians and Syrians play at it in the next heat up conflict

Just wait for the next war/terror attacks to occur and it will continue with arguement of 67 border talk that cant be achieved with a new PM and is such a sophisticated demand to achieve. All it does is give them an excuse to start it and have a long period of continuation. While at the same time world opinion will be 'well if they listened to Olmert then peace could be achieved but they dont want to have peace"

[ase290406]

Krikke.D (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/member.php?u=53843) you wanted an explanation so I'm quoting myself:

"Giving land doesn't bring peace, we all saw it in Gaza. Pieces of land aren't going to majestically turn around opinions, that have been dominating the region for the last hundred years.

Peace starts with unconditional mutual recognition and sensation of violence. Any peace, not just the one we in the mid-east are failing to achieve.

Just my opinion."

In other words the problem is that the Arabs say give land and then we will recognize your right to exist (which they and the entire Muslim world do not recognize). I give away something solid, and even if they say that they recognize, but do they really? Giving something solid for promises isn't a pretty proposition.

And about taking risks for peace and doing it anyway: We tried that in Gaza in august 2005. 7 mounths later the Palestinians democraticlly chose HAMAS. An organization dedicated to Israels destruction. That's not peace.

[Stainless Steel Rat]

In other words the problem is that the Arabs say give land and then we will recognize your right to exist (which they and the entire Muslim world do not recognize).

Umm, Egypt, Turkey, Jordan have Embassies in Israel? Your point is understood, but I would suggest suitable caution in the use of such 100% words as "entire Muslim world"....

That quibble noted, I think Olmert is incorrect. That border adjustments (by both sides) will be a given, to in effect give up your bargining chip without anything given on the other side (for example, an end to the 'right of return' demand) is not much of a negotiation.

Retired politicians need to stay retired....

Press on.

[RoyB]

Assad already said that in case of peace with Israel, Syria will not cut off its ties with Iran and other enemies of Israel.
This land has been Israeli for quite time now, its not easy give it back now, especially
when we know that we won't gain anything from it.

[kamaz]

a disgraceful man.

the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over in hopes that results will be different.

Gaza, Lebanon, West Bank should all be lessons why the 'land for peace' mantra is a myth.

people who breed their children on hate and murderous fantasies will not suddenly stop their jihad if you give them some land, its like giving a tiny piece of meat to a hungry wolf, when he sees the whole cow standing behind you.

Olmert is a momentous, incredible disgrace.

[Sanat-e-naft]

The first PM to lose a war with the arabs.What a disgrace !!

They didnt lose, ask Snoshi.

[Snoshi]

They didnt lose, ask Snoshi.

Why ask me.. Ask anyone else expect Hezbollah lovers and you will hear that most people agree that no one won the war..

[Mr.Flint]

Good things, but why now not before, why violence before instead of what he is saying now, or is it the bitter truth that Israeli politicians don't try to accept unless they leave their positions.
Said a Lebanese supporter of the "glorious" "resistance"...
Pot calling kettle black, while throwing rocks and living in a glass house.:roll:

[ColinP]

The problem with giving land back in the hope for peace, is it’s a one shot deal, if the other side takes the land and says “screw you, we want more” then you get screwed over twice. Land for peace with Egypt made some sense because the area was to big for Israel to hold and the value of much of it was questionable at the time. Plus Egypt is a long term state who is more likely to honour such agreements as has been the case. Syria has not even been honourable with it’s “ally” Lebanon, why would they be honourable to Israel? Let’s also face the fact that Israel is not going to give up Jerusalem and that fact will stick in the throats of many hardcore Arabs regardless of the other lands it gives back and then of course the mere fact that Israel exist is to much for many of them. Also Israel as a demon is just far to useful for many Muslim countries as a distraction and scapegoat for their domestic populations.

[apadana]

Something has to change . And I actually respect Olmert for openly discussing the possibility of giving back land . The Status quo hasn’t worked for Israel or the Arabs for a long time . Leaders of Israel & Arab nations need to try new approaches because peace in the Middle East is possible and desperately needed . I don’t care what people say but I truly believe Jews and Arabs can coexist in harmony . We have coexisted with Muslims and Arabs for many many years and we can still do it if our leaders are courageous to try new approaches.

[Snoshi]

Something has to change . And I actually respect Olmert for openly discussing the possibility of giving back land . The Status quo hasn’t worked for Israel or the Arabs for a long time . Leaders of Israel & Arab nations need to try new approaches because peace in the Middle East is possible and desperately needed . I don’t care what people say but I truly believe Jews and Arabs can coexist in harmony . We have coexisted with Muslims and Arabs for many many years and we can still do it if our leaders are courageous to try new approaches.

Not true.. A peace deal was signed between Israel and Jordan and Israel and Egypt.. Egypt got back Sinai and for it they stopped supporting Israel's enemies.. Syria on the other hand never promised that, they are telling everyone that even with a peace deal they will have some "cooperation" with Iran and Hezbollah..

[Walker-69]

Well, you need to see the Golan yourself to understand some aspects of the problem. The other side of the lake Tiberias, which used to be part of Syria, it's really good for taking pot shots at anyone on Israel's side.

[filochard]

I don't think Olmert said return seized land right now. Like one said it's a risky move as it's a one shot deal. Pre conditions are to be met and one of the most important are:
- lower the level of hate that mean a change education specially among many Palestinian childrens but Israeli as well: the Israeli have there kind of madrassas too,
- kick the clerics back to there church and force them to STFU as soon as they put one feet out of it. This concern the Muslims as well as the Jews.
Needless to say it's a generation long process so the sooner it start the better that mean the people shouldn't reject the idea.

[timetraveller]

Not it wont... Thats the problem when you negotiate with Arabs.. They want everything but themsvels are not willing to offer anything at all.


Just because they play hardball when it comes to dealing ,It most certainly doesn't mean there not willing to come to an agreement ..


Yet as you have lived in the region all your life , Is there times you often wonder what the future lies ahead ?

Most of all what do you want for your Children .

[gilgoul]

I don't think Olmert said return seized land right now. Like one said it's a risky move as it's a one shot deal. Pre conditions are to be met and one of the most important are:
- lower the level of hate that mean a change education specially among many Palestinian childrens but Israeli as well: the Israeli have there kind of madrassas too,
- kick the clerics back to there church and force them to STFU as soon as they put one feet out of it. This concern the Muslims as well as the Jews.
Needless to say it's a generation long process so the sooner it start the better that mean the people shouldn't reject the idea.

First of all, there is NO comparison between the two education systems.
Young Israelis know more about the so called "Nakba" than their own history.
But I won't develop, the debate has been beaten to death already.
Second, giving away strategically important territory for the sake of "trying" for peace is an equivalent of unconditional surrender, and if there is a thing that we can't afford, it is to surrender if only a square centimeter of territory.
The kind of failed peace the Israeli surrender monkeys try to put together is equivalent to National suicide. I presume most of the "peace activists" of the country just wish to leave for Europe and North America as refugees, forgetting that there won't be any room for them over there.
The political system in Israel is about to crack by itself anyway, so let see what's coming next, and then we'll decide.

[ase290406]

Just because they play hardball when it comes to dealing ,It most certainly doesn't mean there not willing to come to an agreement ..


Yet as you have lived in the region all your life , Is there times you often wonder what the future lies ahead ?

Most of all what do you want for your Children .

Both us and the Arabs want peace for our children, and both of us would have said that 20,30,40 years ago. It changes nothing. Different reasons for this existed over different times.

But today I think it's because there is a slight difference between playing hardball, and coming to negotiate with "an all or nothing" attitude. Which is the Palestinian take on negotiations as far as I can see:

Give all of the land or we will return to "resistance" (terrorism). Here is one reason for the Palestinians not demounting "Islamic Jihad" and company.
To have them as an alternative.

Giving all of the land includes many of the holiest places for Jews, but who cares... It's not like there are 1 milliard Jews around many of whom are controlling major oil pipelines...

[timetraveller]

Both us and the Arabs want peace for our children, and both of us would have said that 20,30,40 years ago. It changes nothing. Different reasons for this existed over different times.

But today I think it's because there is a slight difference between playing hardball, and coming to negotiate with "an all or nothing" attitude. Which is the Palestinian take on negotiations as far as I can see:

Give all of the land or we will return to "resistance" (terrorism). Here is one reason for the Palestinians not demounting "Islamic Jihad" and company.
To have them as an alternative.

Giving all of the land includes many of the holiest places for Jews, but who cares... It's not like there are 1 milliard Jews around many of whom are controlling major oil pipelines...


If you both want peace then something has to give ... you both have to come to an agreement ... at some point in this lifetime !!!

[Sanat-e-naft]

Question for some of the Israeli members. Is the two state solution a problem for Israel? What about halting settlements? Just wondering what the positions are in Israel.

[Snoshi]

Question for some of the Israeli members. Is the two state solution a problem for Israel? What about halting settlements? Just wondering what the positions are in Israel.

Aslong there is Hamas in power in Gaza, no peace deal should be signed..

[Sanat-e-naft]

Aslong there is Hamas in power in Gaza, no peace deal should be signed..


But they won the election right? Should they hold another election where we get to pick who wins? What is the best course of action?

[TR1]

The first PM to lose a war with the arabs.What a disgrace !!
lol, blaming the loss entirely on him are we....

[Snoshi]

But they won the election right? Should they hold another election where we get to pick who wins? What is the best course of action?

So what? They are advocating Israel's destruction and they are by far most powerful Palestinians party with the strongest military and who will probably conquer West Bank as soon as IDF leaves.

[Sanat-e-naft]

So what? They are advocating Israel's destruction and they are by far most powerful Palestinians party with the strongest military and who will probably conquer West Bank as soon as IDF leaves.


So my question is, what is the answer? A continued "occupation" of the West Bank? If Hamas will just take over with popular support as soon as Israel leaves.... then how does peace ever happen as long as we want to pick their leaders...

[Snoshi]

So my question is, what is the answer? A continued "occupation" of the West Bank? If Hamas will just take over with popular support as soon as Israel leaves.... then how does peace ever happen as long as we want to pick their leaders...

I dont care if Palestinians want to see Hamas elected or not.. Thats not the point.. The point is that there can be no "peace" deal as long as Hamas who is a terrorist organisation that is commited to destruction of Israel is by far the strongest force in the Palestinians community.

[Walker-69]

How can you have dialogue with a party that is not rational at all? The Palestinians see the "right or return" as their holy right. But the palestinian civil war made that claim look ridiculous. How can a people demand that their civil war be extended to to other peoples' backyards? And then, the endless cycle of revenge... if they can't forgive their own people, it is not possible that they would live in peace with the Jews. Of course they need to get revenge for everything at some point.

Now I usually don't want to brag about my own country but hey look, we were in war at some point (39-45) and we lost a lot of territory to Russia. We even had a port at the Arctic Ocean at one point, but no more. Of course the refugees in our midst are scarred for life, but Finland has never made demands like the Palestinians. Instead, for long periods of time, the Soviet Union and then Russia have been our most important trading partners.

Finland accommodated the refugees and then moved on to "business as usual" with the Soviet Union. I personally have no animosity towards Russian people or the country of Russia, and I would like to visit that country more often, just don't have too much money right now. Yes there are those in our midst who hate Russians but I am not one of them.

Finland is not paradise on earth but it is a well organized society with a functional economy. Finland is also a high-tech country a bit like some other small high-tech countries like Israel, Taiwan, South Korea etc. We - or rather, my parents' generation - could have spent their lives sipping tea and planning attacks into Russia and piling up bombs but for some strange reason they did not do that. They paid huge war reparations and then they got on with re-building the country. My generation is not like them, we are not very hard workers any more.

I was not tought in school that "Karelia is part of Finland eternally" and other B.S. like that. We sang a song in primary school that I didn't really understand back then, but I do now:

Jo Karjalan kunnailla lehtii puu,
jo Karjalan koivikot tuuhettuu.
Käki kukkuu siellä ja kevät on,
vie sinne mun kaihoni pohjaton.

It's about Karelia, the song is sung with deep sadness, and it tells about the longing back to Karelia - a longing which is never to be fulfilled.

You can keep wanting, and keep victimising yourself, blaming others and so on, but just don't expect any respect. I would not like to see the "right or return" discussed -no, mentioned- on this forum, because it insults my intelligence.

This was not an opinion of my country and their green-leftist-liberal leaders (fvck them), my president and her cronies side with Israel's enemies but I do not, this was my personal opinion so if someone takes beef with what I wrote don't blame the general population here, it is just me.

[Walker-69]

Snoshi, when the next big war breaks out, can I come over and ---actually I think it is better to moderate this myself before the mods get me suspended. Apologies

[Ariha]

Question for some of the Israeli members. Is the two state solution a problem for Israel? What about halting settlements? Just wondering what the positions are in Israel.

The two state solution, is not a solution it is just a lie. There is one state: the state of Israel and external interests want to impose a non-state composed by a non-people/nation. And the state to be invented is not a peaceful one but one bent to the destruction of Israel.

Settlement activity must be immediately halted, and all the inmigrant arab settlers immediately deported.

[John1980]

Correct me if I am wrong, but under international law, isn't the Golan and West Bank Israeli, as they were captured in a defensive war?
1967 war started with Israeli surprice attack, not unlike Pearl Harbor on Arab air forces and this is the war in which Israel took over Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and Golan. I dont see how it was "defensive", given the fact that it was Israel that struck first. But at any rate it would be nice to see a peace in Israel in our life times, but sadly i dont see it happening with prevailing Israeli and Palestinian attitudes, people being too hung up on their korans, bibles, gods and biblical rights.

[Mr.Flint]

1967 war started with Israeli surprice attack, not unlike Pearl Harbor on Arab air forces and this is the war in which Israel took over Sinai, Gaza, West Bank and Golan. I dont see how it was "defensive", given the fact that it was Israel that struck first. But at any rate it would be nice to see a peace in Israel in our life times, but sadly i dont see it happening with prevailing Israeli and Palestinian attitudes, people being too hung up on their korans, bibles, gods and biblical rights.
Learn history first then post.

The closure of Straits of Tiran by Egypt, was a legitimate enough casus belli, and there were others, that make the 1967 war a purely defensive one.

[timetraveller]

I dont care if Palestinians want to see Hamas elected or not.. Thats not the point.. The point is that there can be no "peace" deal as long as Hamas who is a terrorist organisation that is commited to destruction of Israel is by far the strongest force in the Palestinians community.

I can see why you don't recognise Hamas .. You have to learn to accept them .. But that shouldn't cloud your judgement on them all ..
Remember it's the minority that gives the rest a bad name ..

Also when you look at Sein fein's MP Martin McGuiness a frmr IRA Brigade Cmder of Derry [ londonderry ] and on the Army council , Even though the peace continues you still find evidence of Repiblican Support and websites who's members that continually voice support of there actions .

And Sean Kelly another IRA elected MP .. who bombing of the Shankill butcher shop left many dead and injured .

Yet for the price of peace there is those who shall never see justice ..because the price of peace is too great to lose


the situation may differ from your region but the result was peace .

[ColinP]

If the Palestinians really want peace, let them give up the culture of death and work to the future, other than a small gas field off of Gaza, they have no real resources other than their people. If they put down their guns and rockets and focused on making Gaza the Singapore/Hong Kong of the Mediterranean, by educating their people focusing on building wealth and influence then within a generation the Israeli’s would be tripping over themselves to do business with them and then the Pals would be able to bargain from strength. There are many well educated Pals around the world who have a lot to offer if it was safe and sane to go back. The rest of the world would help a lot if they saw the Palestinians trying to help themselves. Every rocket into Israel is another bleeding cut into the Pals future. They need to turn their back on Israel for the next 5-10 years and focus on rebuilding and education. Then begin limited trade with Israel to rebuild trust and see what happens next.
As for Syria, I would not trust that government with a lollipop, much less peace.

[filochard]

First of all, there is NO comparison between the two education systems.
Young Israelis know more about the so called "Nakba" than their own history.
But I won't develop, the debate has been beaten to death already.
Second, giving away strategically important territory for the sake of "trying" for peace is an equivalent of unconditional surrender, and if there is a thing that we can't afford, it is to surrender if only a square centimeter of territory.
The kind of failed peace the Israeli surrender monkeys try to put together is equivalent to National suicide. I presume most of the "peace activists" of the country just wish to leave for Europe and North America as refugees, forgetting that there won't be any room for them over there.
The political system in Israel is about to crack by itself anyway, so let see what's coming next, and then we'll decide.

You missed my point. I said a lasting peace requires a change on both side else leaving territory is comiting suicide I agree.
Now you say that the Israeli are ready. Fine though I doubt it: accepting the principle of leaving the territory is part of the conditions for a lasting and fair peace. At least that would give hope, something badly needed for the Palestinians. I agree that they probably have more work to do on themselves than the Israeli though.

[RoyB]

Hamas is the ruling authority in Gaza, they're goal is the the destruction of Israel, and you want us to accept them? they are the minority?
As long as Hamas is in power, there will be no peace.

[filochard]

Hamas is the ruling authority in Gaza, they're goal is the the destruction of Israel, and you want us to accept them? they are the minority?
As long as Hamas is in power, there will be no peace.

sure.
but saying "the Arabs are savages, the land is God gift to us anyway: it's written in the bible" is one thing, saying "we want a fair peace and wish to live there in good intelligence with our neighbors and are ready to return the seized land when the obvious conditions for this peace will be met" is something else.

[RoyB]

Riiiiiiiiight, when did anyone here said it? and if so, his representing all of the Israelis opinions?
As for the second "" sentence, I guess its more like the opinions of the Israelis, the rational ones at least.

[filochard]

Riiiiiiiiight, when did anyone here said it? and if so, his representing all of the Israelis opinions?


Of course I was caricaturing but don't tell me Israel don't have it's fair share of religious extremists as well.
Why do you continue colonization in the fist place ?



As for the second "" sentence, I guess its more like the opinions of the Israelis, the rational ones at least.

fine, I believe it with no sarcasm. It's just that it's a all or nothing thing: you can't have a fair official policy and at the same time let a bunch of extremists continue to humiliate and provocate the Palestinians notably by installing new colony and practicing the "fait accomplit" policy. That just show the Palestinians that being moderate is the best way to get fvcked.

[domokun]

Giving back occupied territories for peace?

Sounds nice, but peace requires desire for it from both sides of conflict. Palestinians, rest of Arabs and Israelis, to bit lesser degree than Arabs, lack political will to do compromises needed for it.

Hamas and Hezzbollah?

Both have to be eliminated. But not by Israel, Palestinians and Lebanese themselves have to deal with 'em. If Israel does it, they will just form 2.0 versions of those terrorist scum organizations. Both Hamas and Hezzbollah can reform themselves into just political movements, at least in theory, but they lack will to change that, in predictable future. Hate for Israel and Jews is their core motivation and only real political message.

Two state solution?

Isn't exactly optimal solution for lasting peace. The possible Palestine in current plans won't be really be an independent state, it will be too small to be anything but puppet/buffer state for it's neighbors.

One state solution?

Right now it's just an idealistic dream. If Palestinians drop out demand for extermination of all Jews from their agenda this could be possible. As an idea it's in my opinion best possible solution. I don't believe in idea of country with one pure ethnic/religious group. Palestinian refugee problem has to solved in some way, but unlearning hate won't happen fast. To be feasible one state solution needs proper safeguards ensure existence of Jews, second holocaust isn't exactly acceptable for anyone besides terrorists. For "historical right" for land, I think that claims from both Israelis and Palestinians are legitimate, it's homeland for both groups of people. This just isn't realistic possibility in near future.

Golan heights?

Giving them back to Syria is needed for peace. But that requires that Syria will stop training and supporting terrorism. Currently Israel can obliterate anything that Syria can deploy there.

Jerusalem?

Splitting it isn't possible.

Past wars?

Six day war was an pre-emptive strike. Yom Kippur war was sneak attack by arabs and it was ended before there was military result by diplomatic pressure by USA and Soviets. After that neighbors of Israel have known over Israels nuclear armament and that has prevented all conventional wars since that.

[filochard]

If I were the Israeli, I wouldn't give anything unless the Palestinian got a free and secular school system with rational teatching for at leats two generations.
I would give the example and close the Jewish madrassas for a start.
Education is the key, all the rest is just putting plaster on a wooden leg.

[gilgoul]

If I were the Israeli, I wouldn't give anything unless the Palestinian got a free and secular school system with rational teatching for at leats two generations.
I would give the example and close the Jewish madrassas for a start.
Education is the key, all the rest is just putting plaster on a wooden leg.


THERE ISN'T SUCH A THING AS A "JEWISH MADRASSA", the term used is way too problematic, since it creates a subcontious comparison with the muslim Madrassah system, that is itself very much subject to prejudice (all madrassahs aren't terrorist factories)

in Israel, the education system is separated in State religious and secular education, and a autonomous and officially state sanctioned non zionist Haredi education system.

Not that the system is in anyway perfect, but comparing it with the type of education practiced in the arab world is slanderous.
Actually, the secular schools, wich are schooling the majority of young israelis and the majority of Israelis who are active in Israeli societies; are more concerned with the "palestinian plight" than jewish history and zionist education, to the point that the so called "Naqba" is now taught in school.

[NimDod]

I would give the example and close the Jewish madrassas for a start.

why? a madrassa is a place where religion is being thought?
what's the problem with a religious school system, as long as no one is preaching for terror / jihad?

[NimDod]

are more concerned with the "palestinian plight" than jewish history and zionist education, to the point that the so called "Naqba" is now taught in school.

I think youre exaggerating a bit.
and if Im not mistaken, they took the "Naqba" entry out of the program already.

[Mr.Flint]

Of course I was caricaturing but don't tell me Israel don't have it's fair share of religious extremists as well.
Why do you continue colonization in the fist place ?



fine, I believe it with no sarcasm. It's just that it's a all or nothing thing: you can't have a fair official policy and at the same time let a bunch of extremists continue to humiliate and provocate the Palestinians notably by installing new colony and practicing the "fait accomplit" policy. That just show the Palestinians that being moderate is the best way to get fvcked.
You still toil that ridiculous ISM line of moral equivalence.
a) the vast majority of "settlers" are not even religious. plenty are either just not zionists, or radical leftists. I used to live in what we considered a Jerusalem neighbourhood, and wankers like you call settlement. My next door neighbour was a secular anarchist, the door after - a radical Peace Now activist.
b) humiliate and provocate? And what do we call an every morning 5am calls for prayer through loudspeakers? is that not humiliation and provocation? and what about Qassams? are those too justified? i can bring plenty examples you know.
You fail to understand one simple thing - the vast majority of those "poor" "humiliated" Palis are nothing but squatters, whose lives are miserable due to their own actions.

[timetraveller]

I've often wonder'd what are the views of the Holocaust Survivours ... saved by Oskar Schindler and other Survivours ..

[LRPV]

lol, blaming the loss entirely on him are we....

Whilst harsh, there is some merit to the claim. Olmert stated it was to be a brief incursion, it escalated into a war but Olmert refused to declare it a war. Therefore he ham-strung the IDF as wartime battle plans could not be employed.