I pretty much agree with Dave. Not all his examples are valid, but yeah, it’s a stretch I think to say that Israel would be the first country to give back land that they didn’t “have” to, in the absence of war.
I don’t know, that comment actually gives me the impression like there’s this Israeli arrogance, like they are being “bigger” than any country ever has in their peace talks that isn’t wholly justified. I would even say that this kind of unjustified pride hinders the peace talks. But what do I know. Nothing.
But, I think what Darlene is relaying is correct also, the sentiment that Palestinians don’t really want peace. So why bother giving up anything – they’ll want more and won’t be satisfied. Because peace isn’t really what they want.
I don’t know – it seems a lot to me like in 1938, when Neville Chamberlain essentially gave up the Sudetenland to Hitler for the sake of peace. It was a policy of appeasement, but it was totally wrong – Hitler wouldn’t be satisfied by just that. My feeling is that it’s similar – Palestinians won’t be satisfied with any compromise. And so, I don’t know, it just sucks.
And again, I know nothing, but I thought the issue was more historical than religious. You know, Palestinians just want to have the whole land because they feel they have a historical claim to it. As does Israel. But I guess Israel’s claim is based on religion. Anyway, they both feel like they have a claim to the land, so no one will really leave, so it just sucks.