Discussion
franki68 said:
netanyahu stated in an interview a while back (about july ,in hebrew in one of the papers,as usual not reported in the guardian/independant etc) ,he is not opposed to a 2 state solution,he just thinks it is impossible as to allow the palestinians sovereignty over the west bank as it is impossible for israel from a security viewpoint.History and the geography of the area means that he is unfortunately probably right.
And this is EXACTLY what I have been saying! Mrr T said:
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav
As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Thanks for the succinct reply.As I have repeatedly said, I make no judgement on the rights or wrongs of any of it. I try to put the 'other sides' point of view, that is all.
The Israeli's can never and will never accept a 1 state solution with equal rights and votes for all unless they out number everyone else by a very large margin. Simple fact.
A 2 state solution is most likely the right answer but look what happened the last time they tried that route. Rabin murdered, troops withdrawn only to be for the 2nd Intifada to occur and the PLO replaced by Hamas. I would be very surprised if they went down this route quickly again.
I hope that addressed your questions.
Paraphrasing ever so slightly, it is as I and many others fear:
Israel will only accept or countenance a true peace on its own terms; those terms being to flood the area with Jews (ideally) so that any 1 state solution guarantees them a majority. This can be achieved either by mass (further) immigration which will inevitably lead to the 'requirement' for further housing/settlements or alternatively, simply chuck out the indigenous people?
The second route to peace is similarly achieved by expansion to the point that the Palestinians are a mere inconvenience and no real threat?
Either way, peace will only be achieved by more of the same and 100% on Israel's terms?
I cannot help feel that this will win the war short term against the Palestinians but guarantee a full on and long term war against the whole of the Arab world, including those currently classed as neutral or even friendly to Israel? This will be to the extent that the 'war' in Palestine will be reclassified as a mere 'battle' if that makes sense?
Does Israel and more importantly do the Jews of the world really want this? REALLY?
Glumfotock can I suggest you juts let the thread die while I agree with much you say. The attitude of most of the anti Israeli posters makes it impossible to have any intelligent discussion.
So often in any debate or argument, especially a written one or emotive one, perception becomes more vital than fact - not always a good position to be in.
My absolute first and foremost wish for the region is PEACE!
My personal views are probably off centre (so to speak) but I do honestly try to be level minded (albeit most people in this discussion do have pre conceived ideas!)
And I guess, therein lies the main problem with any discussion on this.
The point I picked up on was slightly clumsy but I have always believed that there was hope for the region if the (slightly more) moderates on both sides pushed for peace. the main stumbling blocks (as I see them in my simple mind) are two major issues:
1) The Palestinians MUST effectively disarm. They must control the exptremists and by definition, they must stop attacking Israel with bombs, mortars or suicide attacks. This is barbaric.
2) Israel simply HAS to stop the land grab and if anything, offer to withdraw from some of the recent settlements (regardless of the fact that some families are now living there) in exchange for 1 above? I am not sure that the comments by Grum (although not his own thoughts and wishes) allow for the second part at all?
Both of these two points are an issue for both the one state and two state solution. My clumsy post was (IMO) confirming what I feared; even Grum's view of what is acceptable to the 'average' Israeli is not conducive to point 2 above.
How on Earth are we ever going to see peace without an olive branch from the powerful and occupying Israelis? Grum's own view of the situation and why both solutions (1 and 2 state) are unpalatable is one that I regrettably believe. That is the premise I have come with and for that, I am guilty of a pre conceived idea.
Unfortunately (in effect) I agree with Grum.
My efforts on here have been to break it down to a simple 'chicken and egg' scenario where there is no 'you first' solution. Israel (as the occupying and pwerful army) simply must make or at least offer some further concessions - or at least withdrawals or suspension of expansion - before they can insist on a complete disarmament of the extremists in the area.
The terrorists are leading the fight from the Palestinian side; without concessions, the general puclic seem to go along with them. If Israel sent an olive branch of some sort, that would surely undermine the majority of the terrorists and the extremists?
Or are we seeing a position whereby the extremists simply won't give in and are driving the agenda in their own direction regardless of what is best for all? Especially in the long run? (That can easily apply to both sides unfortunately)
I am guilty of one thing (and it is not hating Israelis nor Jews) and that is that I feel and truly believe that CONCESSIONS need to be made by the more pwerful side - the Palestinians are never going to win this 'battle' but they may yet win the war unfortunately and that must not be allowed to happen by stealth....
The ISraelis do hold almost all of the cards - USE THEM WISELY!
That is what I have been trying to argue but when I think someone is being disingenuous and avodiing the unpalatable truth (or denying it) then I will keep pushing that argument until it is all out in the open; in my opinion, it is now!
Apologies if you don't agree with me - I don't expect you to but hopefully the above makes my own view and position a little clearer?
franki68 said:
netanyahu stated in an interview a while back (about july ,in hebrew in one of the papers,as usual not reported in the guardian/independant etc) ,he is not opposed to a 2 state solution,he just thinks it is impossible as to allow the palestinians sovereignty over the west bank as it is impossible for israel from a security viewpoint.History and the geography of the area means that he is unfortunately probably right.
How is physical control of the West Bank "on security grounds" any more justifiable than physical control of Jordan, Syria, or Egypt? To clarify - if that is Bibi's reason for occupying the WB couldn't the same rationale be used for occupying Jordan, with its high number of Palestinian refugees? Or Syria? Or Lebanon? Countdown said:
How is physical control of the West Bank "on security grounds" any more justifiable than physical control of Jordan, Syria, or Egypt? To clarify - if that is Bibi's reason for occupying the WB couldn't the same rationale be used for occupying Jordan, with its high number of Palestinian refugees? Or Syria? Or Lebanon?
good god. Slaav said:
Forgive me but I didn't mean to be disingenuous; and I don't think I was but that is another issue....
So often in any debate or argument, especially a written one or emotive one, perception becomes more vital than fact - not always a good position to be in.
My absolute first and foremost wish for the region is PEACE!
My personal views are probably off centre (so to speak) but I do honestly try to be level minded (albeit most people in this discussion do have pre conceived ideas!)
And I guess, therein lies the main problem with any discussion on this.
The point I picked up on was slightly clumsy but I have always believed that there was hope for the region if the (slightly more) moderates on both sides pushed for peace. the main stumbling blocks (as I see them in my simple mind) are two major issues:
1) The Palestinians MUST effectively disarm. They must control the exptremists and by definition, they must stop attacking Israel with bombs, mortars or suicide attacks. This is barbaric.
2) Israel simply HAS to stop the land grab and if anything, offer to withdraw from some of the recent settlements (regardless of the fact that some families are now living there) in exchange for 1 above? I am not sure that the comments by Grum (although not his own thoughts and wishes) allow for the second part at all?
Both of these two points are an issue for both the one state and two state solution. My clumsy post was (IMO) confirming what I feared; even Grum's view of what is acceptable to the 'average' Israeli is not conducive to point 2 above.
How on Earth are we ever going to see peace without an olive branch from the powerful and occupying Israelis? Grum's own view of the situation and why both solutions (1 and 2 state) are unpalatable is one that I regrettably believe. That is the premise I have come with and for that, I am guilty of a pre conceived idea.
Unfortunately (in effect) I agree with Grum.
My efforts on here have been to break it down to a simple 'chicken and egg' scenario where there is no 'you first' solution. Israel (as the occupying and pwerful army) simply must make or at least offer some further concessions - or at least withdrawals or suspension of expansion - before they can insist on a complete disarmament of the extremists in the area.
The terrorists are leading the fight from the Palestinian side; without concessions, the general puclic seem to go along with them. If Israel sent an olive branch of some sort, that would surely undermine the majority of the terrorists and the extremists?
Or are we seeing a position whereby the extremists simply won't give in and are driving the agenda in their own direction regardless of what is best for all? Especially in the long run? (That can easily apply to both sides unfortunately)
I am guilty of one thing (and it is not hating Israelis nor Jews) and that is that I feel and truly believe that CONCESSIONS need to be made by the more pwerful side - the Palestinians are never going to win this 'battle' but they may yet win the war unfortunately and that must not be allowed to happen by stealth....
The ISraelis do hold almost all of the cards - USE THEM WISELY!
That is what I have been trying to argue but when I think someone is being disingenuous and avodiing the unpalatable truth (or denying it) then I will keep pushing that argument until it is all out in the open; in my opinion, it is now!
Apologies if you don't agree with me - I don't expect you to but hopefully the above makes my own view and position a little clearer?
fresh of the press ,this is netanyahu a couple of hours agoSo often in any debate or argument, especially a written one or emotive one, perception becomes more vital than fact - not always a good position to be in.
My absolute first and foremost wish for the region is PEACE!
My personal views are probably off centre (so to speak) but I do honestly try to be level minded (albeit most people in this discussion do have pre conceived ideas!)
And I guess, therein lies the main problem with any discussion on this.
The point I picked up on was slightly clumsy but I have always believed that there was hope for the region if the (slightly more) moderates on both sides pushed for peace. the main stumbling blocks (as I see them in my simple mind) are two major issues:
1) The Palestinians MUST effectively disarm. They must control the exptremists and by definition, they must stop attacking Israel with bombs, mortars or suicide attacks. This is barbaric.
2) Israel simply HAS to stop the land grab and if anything, offer to withdraw from some of the recent settlements (regardless of the fact that some families are now living there) in exchange for 1 above? I am not sure that the comments by Grum (although not his own thoughts and wishes) allow for the second part at all?
Both of these two points are an issue for both the one state and two state solution. My clumsy post was (IMO) confirming what I feared; even Grum's view of what is acceptable to the 'average' Israeli is not conducive to point 2 above.
How on Earth are we ever going to see peace without an olive branch from the powerful and occupying Israelis? Grum's own view of the situation and why both solutions (1 and 2 state) are unpalatable is one that I regrettably believe. That is the premise I have come with and for that, I am guilty of a pre conceived idea.
Unfortunately (in effect) I agree with Grum.
My efforts on here have been to break it down to a simple 'chicken and egg' scenario where there is no 'you first' solution. Israel (as the occupying and pwerful army) simply must make or at least offer some further concessions - or at least withdrawals or suspension of expansion - before they can insist on a complete disarmament of the extremists in the area.
The terrorists are leading the fight from the Palestinian side; without concessions, the general puclic seem to go along with them. If Israel sent an olive branch of some sort, that would surely undermine the majority of the terrorists and the extremists?
Or are we seeing a position whereby the extremists simply won't give in and are driving the agenda in their own direction regardless of what is best for all? Especially in the long run? (That can easily apply to both sides unfortunately)
I am guilty of one thing (and it is not hating Israelis nor Jews) and that is that I feel and truly believe that CONCESSIONS need to be made by the more pwerful side - the Palestinians are never going to win this 'battle' but they may yet win the war unfortunately and that must not be allowed to happen by stealth....
The ISraelis do hold almost all of the cards - USE THEM WISELY!
That is what I have been trying to argue but when I think someone is being disingenuous and avodiing the unpalatable truth (or denying it) then I will keep pushing that argument until it is all out in the open; in my opinion, it is now!
Apologies if you don't agree with me - I don't expect you to but hopefully the above makes my own view and position a little clearer?
'“It is indeed a tragedy that so many of our Palestinian neighbors still repudiate the basic facts of history. They deny the more than three thousand year-old connection between the people of Israel and the Land of Israel,” he said.
Netanyahu bewailed what he said was the Palestinian denial of Israel's right to national self- determination, even as they demand that right for themselves.
“Just last weekend, Palestinian [Authority] President [Mahmoud] Abbas reiterated that he would never recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish people's right to a nation-state,” he said.
What was especially “peculiar” about those comments, Netanyahu added, was that Abbas made them on November 29th, the anniversary of the day 67 years earlier when the UN called for the establishment of a Jewish state.
“Peace cannot be based on such hypocrisy,” he said. “Peace will never be built on distortions of historical truths. Peace demands that the Palestinian leadership finally recognize the nation-state of the Jewish people, and peace demands that they cease all incitement against Israel and the Jewish people.”
Personally there is so much distrust I dont think there is a viable solution,but we can hope.
Apologies for the detailed phasing but it easier to give my views on your many thoughts.
I just wish I was optimistic that there was any chance of a lasting peace.
Slaav said:
Forgive me but I didn't mean to be disingenuous; and I don't think I was but that is another issue....
So often in any debate or argument, especially a written one or emotive one, perception becomes more vital than fact - not always a good position to be in.
No problems I misunderstood your post so will apologise. So often in any debate or argument, especially a written one or emotive one, perception becomes more vital than fact - not always a good position to be in.
Slaav said:
My absolute first and foremost wish for the region is PEACE!
My personal views are probably off centre (so to speak) but I do honestly try to be level minded (albeit most people in this discussion do have pre conceived ideas!)
And I guess, therein lies the main problem with any discussion on this.
I agree 100% about PEACE. Please do not believe the comments from the rabid anti Israeli lobby about me. My views are complex about a very complex situation.My personal views are probably off centre (so to speak) but I do honestly try to be level minded (albeit most people in this discussion do have pre conceived ideas!)
And I guess, therein lies the main problem with any discussion on this.
Slaav said:
The point I picked up on was slightly clumsy but I have always believed that there was hope for the region if the (slightly more) moderates on both sides pushed for peace. the main stumbling blocks (as I see them in my simple mind) are two major issues:
1) The Palestinians MUST effectively disarm. They must control the exptremists and by definition, they must stop attacking Israel with bombs, mortars or suicide attacks. This is barbaric.
2) Israel simply HAS to stop the land grab and if anything, offer to withdraw from some of the recent settlements (regardless of the fact that some families are now living there) in exchange for 1 above? I am not sure that the comments by Grum (although not his own thoughts and wishes) allow for the second part at all?
I agree totally.1) The Palestinians MUST effectively disarm. They must control the exptremists and by definition, they must stop attacking Israel with bombs, mortars or suicide attacks. This is barbaric.
2) Israel simply HAS to stop the land grab and if anything, offer to withdraw from some of the recent settlements (regardless of the fact that some families are now living there) in exchange for 1 above? I am not sure that the comments by Grum (although not his own thoughts and wishes) allow for the second part at all?
Slaav said:
Both of these two points are an issue for both the one state and two state solution. My clumsy post was (IMO) confirming what I feared; even Grum's view of what is acceptable to the 'average' Israeli is not conducive to point 2 above.
I agree. I have no idea about what is acceptable to the average Israeli. My only guess is based on the assumption from history that the middle classed do not want to go to war.So I believe if they saw an opportunity for real peace they would grab it. Slaav said:
How on Earth are we ever going to see peace without an olive branch from the powerful and occupying Israelis? Grum's own view of the situation and why both solutions (1 and 2 state) are unpalatable is one that I regrettably believe. That is the premise I have come with and for that, I am guilty of a pre conceived idea.
I agree, I would like them to stop building settlements in the West Bank, reduce the military presence, start proper educational programs.Slaav said:
My efforts on here have been to break it down to a simple 'chicken and egg' scenario where there is no 'you first' solution. Israel (as the occupying and powerful army) simply must make or at least offer some further concessions - or at least withdrawals or suspension of expansion - before they can insist on a complete disarmament of the extremists in the area.
I agree. However, I think the situation is much more complex in a very complex region. For example the position in Gaza would be much better if the land border with Egypt was open but its not because of the various rivalries between Hama and the current Egyptian dictatorship.Slaav said:
The terrorists are leading the fight from the Palestinian side; without concessions, the general public seem to go along with them. If Israel sent an olive branch of some sort, that would surely undermine the majority of the terrorists and the extremists?
Or are we seeing a position whereby the extremists simply won't give in and are driving the agenda in their own direction regardless of what is best for all? Especially in the long run? (That can easily apply to both sides unfortunately)
I would love to believe that if Israel made concessions then the moderates Palestine might replace the militants. The problem is I see no evidence of many Arab moderates in the middle east. In my view the Muslim religion is in crisis. It must change to adapted to the modern world or continue on its current path to take the modern world back into the old world.Or are we seeing a position whereby the extremists simply won't give in and are driving the agenda in their own direction regardless of what is best for all? Especially in the long run? (That can easily apply to both sides unfortunately)
Slaav said:
I am guilty of one thing (and it is not hating Israelis nor Jews) and that is that I feel and truly believe that CONCESSIONS need to be made by the more powerful side - the Palestinians are never going to win this 'battle' but they may yet win the war unfortunately and that must not be allowed to happen by stealth....
The Israelis do hold almost all of the cards - USE THEM WISELY!
I agree. I am no unqualified defender of Israel. I have posted many time about their mad electoral system which guarantees power to the mad minority. The Israelis do hold almost all of the cards - USE THEM WISELY!
Slaav said:
That is what I have been trying to argue but when I think someone is being disingenuous and avoiding the unpalatable truth (or denying it) then I will keep pushing that argument until it is all out in the open; in my opinion, it is now!
Apologies if you don't agree with me - I don't expect you to but hopefully the above makes my own view and position a little clearer?
I think we agree on more than we disagree on.Apologies if you don't agree with me - I don't expect you to but hopefully the above makes my own view and position a little clearer?
I just wish I was optimistic that there was any chance of a lasting peace.
Abbas quote from an interview with with Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he cannot ask Egypt to stop its operation to demolish houses and create a buffer zone in Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, because he is fully aware of Egyptian security needs.
He doesn't see Israel as having the same need for security? How strange!
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he cannot ask Egypt to stop its operation to demolish houses and create a buffer zone in Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, because he is fully aware of Egyptian security needs.
He doesn't see Israel as having the same need for security? How strange!
Well apparently IF you are a brother Arab then it is fine to knock down Palestinian homes, bulldoze land flat and build fences for your "security needs". But IF you happen to be a Jew then it is not. Further more it called a "war of genocide perpetrated against the Palestinian people, a war waged by the racist occupying State" by the same man!
What a surprise!
And cue accusation of me being racist and/or anti Muslim!
What a surprise!
And cue accusation of me being racist and/or anti Muslim!
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
And cue accusation of me being racist and/or anti Muslim!
Back in your hole!Is Abbass being a hypocrite really a surprise to you? I'm not surprised at all!
He can hardly accuse the Egyptians of racism, anyway!
Grumfutock said:
Abbas quote from an interview with with Egyptian newspaper Al-Akhbar:
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he cannot ask Egypt to stop its operation to demolish houses and create a buffer zone in Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, because he is fully aware of Egyptian security needs.
He doesn't see Israel as having the same need for security? How strange!
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas says he cannot ask Egypt to stop its operation to demolish houses and create a buffer zone in Rafah, on the Egyptian side of the border with Gaza, because he is fully aware of Egyptian security needs.
He doesn't see Israel as having the same need for security? How strange!
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
Slaav said:
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
It is on the Egyptian side. The buffer zone will be 500m in and a length of 13km, however a lot of the residents there are refugees from Gaza.Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
It is on the Egyptian side. The buffer zone will be 500m in and a length of 13km, however a lot of the residents there are refugees from Gaza.Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
It is on the Egyptian side. The buffer zone will be 500m in and a length of 13km, however a lot of the residents there are refugees from Gaza.Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Why not if he can accuse the Israeli's of it then surely he can do the same to the Egyptians?
You're forgetting that Palestinians and Egyptians are the same race. Ergo, Abbass can't accuse Egypt of racism when/if it attacks Palestinians. I can be racist to a Frenchman, Scotsman or even a Liverpudlian! Just because all 3 might be white and European means nothing.
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
It is on the Egyptian side. The buffer zone will be 500m in and a length of 13km, however a lot of the residents there are refugees from Gaza.Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
Seizing land beyond their own border, displacing the indigenous population and building illegal Egyptian settlements would be comparable really? Although your overall point is possibly fair and worth bringing up!
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
Grumfutock said:
Slaav said:
A genuine question (not necessarily for you Grum but anyone really re this statement):
Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
It is on the Egyptian side. The buffer zone will be 500m in and a length of 13km, however a lot of the residents there are refugees from Gaza.Does this mean that Egypt has demolished homes and built a buffer zone on THEIR OWN side of the border? Or have they snatched land and built it on the other side of the border? And if the former, I asusme that there are Palestinians straddling the border so still being displaced? (My guess is that yes, Palestinians are being discplaced having already fled the troubles once?)
Apologies that I GENUINELY don't know the answer but I feel assured that at least two or three on here do.
Seizing land beyond their own border, displacing the indigenous population and building illegal Egyptian settlements would be comparable really? Although your overall point is possibly fair and worth bringing up!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff