Muslim leaders call for international protection force for Palestinians

[observer90210]

Peace in that region ?.....Has everybody gone crazy ?....Much of our global economy depends on the problems in that region ? Where will we sell our arms if they make peace ? How can we justify sanctions against on or another oil producing country under some grotesque excuse that they are meddling in the region (and consequently provoke oil prices to hike)....no definately not, no peace in that place please and the global arms dealers and oil traders will thank you for your understanding !!!!

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, observer90210 said:

global arms dealers and oil traders will thank you for your understanding !!!!

I guess they do thank them it's been a good 70 years.

[Thorgal]

8 hours ago, Morch said:

 

At the time it was conquered by Israel (1967), East Jerusalem (and the West Bank) were already annexed by Jordan. Israel's reasons for its subsequent annexation had more to do with historical and national arguments, less to do with security.

 

The move was never officially OK by the US (hence the issue with Trump's relocation of the Embassy). And, of course, NATO doesn't have anything to do with it - "there by" notwithstanding. Topic isn't about either Russia, nor Crimea - and the arguments cited aren't similar.

 

There was no forced annexation.

Hashemite protectorate of Muslim holy sites started in the 10th century. Inclusive Mekka and Medina in nowadays Saudi-Arabia. But the Hashemites were ousted in 1924 in SA.

A period which changed drastically from a traditional Islam to a more radical Islam.

 

As soon as Jerusalem came in danger for Israeli occupation there were mutual agreements between the Palestinians originating from districts of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem and Hebron with the Jordanian King .

They were never forced to any annexation.

Jordan became independent in 1946 after British consensus. There was never a preemptive plan to conquer Palestine.

No, Jerusalem, as a holy site had to be protected and the west bank joined the east bank of Jordan to realize the protectorate.

2/3 of the population in that time were Palestinians. 1/3 were Jordanians. 

The west bank was only 1/16th of the original Jordanian territory.

The Jordanian parliament had in that time 40 seats and divided equally to Palestinian and Jordanian representatives.

A deal has been made on 1st of December 1948 in Jericho in which Palestinian mayors requested to be connected to Jordan as a protectorate for Jerusalem because they had an army. The Palestinians didn't.

 

Israel did almost the same with the US...see OP...

[buick]

9 hours ago, Morch said:

If the Palestinians were "betrayed", then most of all, they were betrayed by their own inept leaders. They still are.

couldn't agree more.   what would the living conditions for the average palestinian be today if they'd cut a deal ten or twenty years ago ?  their leaders need to focus on improving what they've got left and forget about what they've lost.  they aren't getting it back.  time to move on.  

[Kiwiken]

15 minutes ago, buick said:

couldn't agree more.   what would the living conditions for the average palestinian be today if they'd cut a deal ten or twenty years ago ?  their leaders need to focus on improving what they've got left and forget about what they've lost.  they aren't getting it back.  time to move on.  

If you came and took my Home and dumped me in a Trailer park somewhere i would never give up my Fight to get it back. And I would expect My Descendants to fight for their rights and a Just settlement. Regardless of the ineptness of their Leaders this is what many Palestinians feel. The lack of any progress leads to frustration. Frustration gives rise to anger. Anger leads to violence and the cycle is created. The militants simply feed into this.

[Blue Muton]

19 hours ago, Baerboxer said:

Pity there wasn't an International Protection Force to protect the Armenians who suffered a wicked genocide. Starved, forced marches and women crucified naked. And no there to protect them.

 

Remind us Erdogan, which <deleted> did this act?

Pity there wasn't an International Protection Force to protect the Anglo Saxons and Britons who suffered a wicked genocide. Starved, raped and pillaged. And nobody there to protect them. Bloody Vikings.

 

Pity there wasn't an International Protection Force to protect the Celts who suffered a wicked genocide. Starved, enslaved or murdered. And nobody there to protect them. Bloody Romans.

 

Pity there wasn't an International Protection Force to protect the Andlo Saxons who suffered a wicked genocide. Had their homes destroyed,  subjected to death and plunder. And nobody there to protect them. Bloody Normans.

 

All historical injustices that are as relevant to the current Israeli slaughter and oppression of the Palestinians as Armenia.

[simple1]

1 hour ago, ezzra said:

here are 57 muslim countries in the world and none of them is willing to put their money where their big mouths are <snip>

Incorrect. Just one example...

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/12/gaza-rebuild-international-donors-israel-hamas-qatar

[Somtamnication]

Go a step further and create the same wall around so called "Israel" and keep those murderers inside. Just sayin'.

[Rigby40]

This whole situation seems very convoluted. I don't know how you can even make sense of it without going back hundreds of years. I mean for all I know, this could be that ONE time where muslims were actually legitimate victims instead of victimizing everyone else around them.

[Blue Muton]

43 minutes ago, JimmyTheMook said:

 

Truth hurts ehh ?

 

it's ok you're far enough away not worry about reality.....

Except it's not truth, pure propaganda. If it were true, the palestinian would just have stones, or more likely nothing at all, like those children on the beach.

[Morch]

9 hours ago, Thorgal said:

 

There was no forced annexation.

Hashemite protectorate of Muslim holy sites started in the 10th century. Inclusive Mekka and Medina in nowadays Saudi-Arabia. But the Hashemites were ousted in 1924 in SA.

A period which changed drastically from a traditional Islam to a more radical Islam.

 

As soon as Jerusalem came in danger for Israeli occupation there were mutual agreements between the Palestinians originating from districts of Jenin, Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem and Hebron with the Jordanian King .

They were never forced to any annexation.

Jordan became independent in 1946 after British consensus. There was never a preemptive plan to conquer Palestine.

No, Jerusalem, as a holy site had to be protected and the west bank joined the east bank of Jordan to realize the protectorate.

2/3 of the population in that time were Palestinians. 1/3 were Jordanians. 

The west bank was only 1/16th of the original Jordanian territory.

The Jordanian parliament had in that time 40 seats and divided equally to Palestinian and Jordanian representatives.

A deal has been made on 1st of December 1948 in Jericho in which Palestinian mayors requested to be connected to Jordan as a protectorate for Jerusalem because they had an army. The Palestinians didn't.

 

Israel did almost the same with the US...see OP...

 

There was nothing said about the Jordanian annexation being forced. And alleging it was related to Jerusalem under danger of Israeli occupation is misleading. The Jordanian annexation of the West Bank occurred after the armistice agreements, and by then Jordanian armed forces were in control of both the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

 

As for Jordan's (or rather King Abdullah's) expansionist ambitions at the time, you are at best uninformed. Whether annexing the West Bank and East Jerusalem were planned ahead or not is immaterial.

 

Under Jordanian rule, Jerusalem, "as a holy site", saw remaining Jews expelled, the  Jewish Quarter along with dozens of synagogues razed, headstone from Jewish cemeteries used for construction. And, of course, no free access to worshipers as agreed upon (not, mind, even to Arabs citizens of Israel).

 

It ought to be pointed out that the Jordanian annexation was not widely acknowledged as legal. And to begin with, Jordan was on the verge of being expelled from the Arab League. The general de-facto recognition came later, as reality set it.

 

Considering there's a whole lot of talk in these topics about Palestinian independence, right to self-determination and whatnot, the episode highlighted might indicate that when given the opportunity, Palestinians were quite willing to exchange it with Jordanian citizenship. Not implying this voids their claims, but it does raise some interesting questions.

 

The OP  is not about "Israel did did almost the same with the US". Unless some creative imagination is applied.

 

Edited May 20, 2018 by Morch

[Morch]

7 hours ago, Kiwiken said:

If you came and took my Home and dumped me in a Trailer park somewhere i would never give up my Fight to get it back. And I would expect My Descendants to fight for their rights and a Just settlement. Regardless of the ineptness of their Leaders this is what many Palestinians feel. The lack of any progress leads to frustration. Frustration gives rise to anger. Anger leads to violence and the cycle is created. The militants simply feed into this.

 

The "lack of progress" directly relates to leadership failures.

[roobaa01]

55555 what a joke and political perversion terrorist want protection 555 well here we are ..daesh, al nusra, al queida, hisbollah etc..

muslim terrorist converted to victims by muslim dictators, heads of muslim terror states etc.

 

wbr

roobaa01

[Orton Rd]

They don't need protecting, ALL they have to do is stop the rioting and the hate, go home and behave like civilised people.

[7by7]

4 minutes ago, Orton Rd said:

They don't need protecting, ALL they have to do is stop the rioting and the hate, go home and behave like civilised people.

They want to go home; back to the homes the Israeli government stole from them!

[metisdead]

Offensive posts have been removed. 

[ELVIS123456]

So the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) calls for action against Israel, for protecting its boundaries against invaders who wanted to attack and kill them.

 

I wonder what the Organisation of Jewish Cooperation (OJC) would say on this matter? What about the Organisation of Christian Cooperation (OCC)? Or what about the Organisation of Budhhist Cooperation (OBC)?

 

While these Islamic countries remain nothing more that Religious States, they have no valid say in World Politics, and they will continue to be ignored.

The civilised world seperated State and Religion many years ago, for obvious reasons.

Everything the OIC does and says is done so with regards to their Islamic religious beliefs and desires.

Grain of salt.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Morch]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

They want to go home; back to the homes the Israeli government stole from them!

 

Many of these homes do not exist anymore. Other people live there now, and been living there for the past 70 years. What exactly do you imagine "go home" amounts to or implies, under these circumstances?

 

Considering the animosity, would your learned view be that it is a good idea allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel? A sound proposition which will not result in even greater chaos, mayhem and bloodshed?

 

As for "stole" - the use of loaded terms kinda gives up the game. There was a war. People get displaced in wars. They can't always return, regardless of rights. That's not an endorsement, but a realistic observation.

[Orton Rd]

Just now, 7by7 said:

They want to go home; back to the homes the Israeli government stole from them!

Israel gave them BACK their homes in Gazza and look how that turned out, then they expect them to return the west bank so they can use that as another terrorist launch pad as well. The land is only 'occupied' as a result of Muslim aggression in the first place, unless you think Israel has no right to exist at all.

[Morch]

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

Israel gave them BACK their homes in Gazza and look how that turned out, then they expect them to return the west bank so they can use that as another terrorist launch pad as well. The land is only 'occupied' as a result of Muslim aggression in the first place, unless you think Israel has no right to exist at all.

 

Many, if not most Gazan families originally hail from Israel and the West Bank. Refugees from the 1948 war. For these people, home wasn't the Gaza Strip. So Israel's unilateral disengagement move from the Gaza Strip did not give these people their homes back. For "original" Gazans - perhaps.

 

 

 

[7by7]

On ‎5‎/‎20‎/‎2018 at 11:50 AM, Morch said:

As for "stole" - the use of loaded terms kinda gives up the game. There was a war. People get displaced in wars. They can't always return, regardless of rights. That's not an endorsement, but a realistic observation.

So if the entre Arab world united behind the Palestinians in a war against Israel, and won; then amalgamated the West Bank, Gaza and Israel into one Palestinian state, kicking out the Jewish settlers who immigrated into Israel since 1948 and there descendants allowing only Palestinian Jews to remain: you would be ok with that because Israel lost the war?

 

Yes; people do get displaced by war; they are called refugees. There are a large number of such in Europe, e.g. from Syria, as we speak. Are you saying that once the war in Syria is over those refugees should be forced to remain in Europe and not be allowed home just because they happen to have the same ethnicity or belong to the same religious sect as the losers?

 

Of course,  the Palestinian refugees, and/or their descendants, could return; if allowed to do so by the Israeli government. The same government which has, illegally according to UN resolution 242, given the land once owned by those refugees to Israeli settlers! Something they are still doing by continuing to build these illegal settlements in 2018.

[dexterm]

On 5/19/2018 at 11:13 AM, buick said:

i would suggest the status of jerusalem has already been decided but those on the losing end can't accept what has happened.  some countries/leaders are nice enough to not rub it in the losers face but that isn't helping much.  do the palestinians have a single card left to play in this game ?

>>do the Palestinians have a single card left to play in this game ?

...After 70 years, although the Palestinians don't have permanent peace, neither does Israel. Israel must constantly be looking over its shoulder, sending its teenagers for 3 of their best years to brutalizing military service risking their lives..no way to live, and good reason for a third of non religious Israeli Jews wishing to emigrate.
And of course Israel only has officially recognized borders with 2 out of its 5 neighboring states.

 

The only thing that will give Israel true full international recognition is a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and it must drive Israel mad that Palestinians won't give them that legitimacy until the injustice perpetrated against them is redressed.

[dexterm]

On 5/20/2018 at 5:50 PM, Morch said:

 

Many of these homes do not exist anymore. Other people live there now, and been living there for the past 70 years. What exactly do you imagine "go home" amounts to or implies, under these circumstances?

 

Considering the animosity, would your learned view be that it is a good idea allowing mass migration of Palestinians into Israel? A sound proposition which will not result in even greater chaos, mayhem and bloodshed?

 

As for "stole" - the use of loaded terms kinda gives up the game. There was a war. People get displaced in wars. They can't always return, regardless of rights. That's not an endorsement, but a realistic observation.

Well, build some new Palestinian homes. Israel doesn't seem to have a problem building homes for Jewish immigrants.

Israel's process of dispossession to make room for Jewish immigrants is not just 70 years old; it is still ongoing. Stop demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and grant Palestinians building permits as routinely as they are given to Israeli Jews.

 

Palestinian refugees could gradually and securely with the appropriate checks and balances be reintegrated back into Israel with equal human and civil rights as other Israelis . Those that want to return; some may just want recognition of the injustice of ethnic cleansing with compensation.

 

The only reason they are prevented from returning is the racist insistence that Israel be a predominantly Jewish state with an artificially engineered Jewish majority, through its immigration, marriage, family reunion, and dispossession of Palestinians laws.

[thaibeachlovers]

On ‎5‎/‎19‎/‎2018 at 9:08 AM, Kiwiken said:

I would support an international Force providing both sides would halt armed confrontations. The problems are complex not simply Jew versus Muslim.

The United States cannot be part of such a Force as 70 years have proved its absolute bias for Israel.

The World Body needs to discuss and find ways for settlement of the Israel / Palestinian issue.

The existence of Israel is a fact and cannot be reversed. However the existence of a Palestinian People disenfranchised from their homeland is also a fact.

The Palestinians have a much right to a Capital in Jerusalem as the Israelis.

The solution to the Palestinian state alongside Israel cannot be solved without some involvement in Settlements with Egypt.

The original partition was supposed to be 66% Arab 34% Jewish but history has reversed that partition.

Time for serious discussion and not just a World siding with One side or the Other

Unfortunately, to me it sounds like them pretending to do something for home consumption, as they know that no outside force would be allowed without military force being used against it, and I presume they are not intending to go to war.

If they are serious about helping Palestinians, open the Gaza/ Egypt border and allow them freedom of travel. Sadly, the Egyptians are complicit in the imprisonment of the Gaza population. So much for Arab solidarity.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

>>do the Palestinians have a single card left to play in this game ?

...After 70 years, although the Palestinians don't have permanent peace, neither does Israel. Israel must constantly be looking over its shoulder, sending its teenagers for 3 of their best years to brutalizing military service risking their lives..no way to live, and good reason for a third of non religious Israeli Jews wishing to emigrate.
And of course Israel only has officially recognized borders with 2 out of its 5 neighboring states.

 

The only thing that will give Israel true full international recognition is a peace agreement with the Palestinians, and it must drive Israel mad that Palestinians won't give them that legitimacy until the injustice perpetrated against them is redressed.

 

While the feigned concern for Israel is almost touching, you conveniently dodge the point made - that the Palestinian's lot is worse. It would be refreshing if you could actually address issued raised regarding the Palestinian side, instead of constantly deflecting with variations of "but but but Israel".

 

The same goes for the usual nonsensical twist put on things. Agreed upon borders need two to tango. I'd suggest that three of the five neighbors aren't up for a dance. Don't let facts confuse you, though.

 

As for the rest of your nonsense - the Palestinians themselves do not have to power to "give" any legitimacy to anything. Other than that, Israel is not really shunned or "unrecognized" as you'd wish things to be or have others believe.

 

In fact, instead of addressing the post, you've managed to turn this into yet another inane tit-fot-tat commentary. Your focus being about getting "even", or "winning", this doesn't come as a surprise.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, dexterm said:

Well, build some new Palestinian homes. Israel doesn't seem to have a problem building homes for Jewish immigrants.

Israel's process of dispossession to make room for Jewish immigrants is not just 70 years old; it is still ongoing. Stop demolishing Palestinian homes in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and grant Palestinians building permits as routinely as they are given to Israeli Jews.

 

Palestinian refugees could gradually and securely with the appropriate checks and balances be reintegrated back into Israel with equal human and civil rights as other Israelis . Those that want to return; some may just want recognition of the injustice of ethnic cleansing with compensation.

 

The only reason they are prevented from returning is the racist insistence that Israel be a predominantly Jewish state with an artificially engineered Jewish majority, through its immigration, marriage, family reunion, and dispossession of Palestinians laws.

 

More deflections and nonsense. It is considered good form to address points raised, rather than constantly going for the same old spins. You ought to try it once.

 

The populist "just go home" bit doesn't begin to touch on relevant issues, nor does it aptly describe or address relations between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

In reality - there are no such "homes" to go back to. 70 years is a long time. Things changed. There is no way of undoing that in the populist manner advocated without things getting even worse. Whether one sees this as unjust or not is irrelevant to prevailing conditions and consequences. That you gloss over any uncomfortable, realistic issues making this impossible, does not change facts and reality. It simply highlights the populist nature of your diatribes.

 

In essence, what you advocate is an enforced (from Israel's point of view) mass migration of a predominantly hostile population, which does not seek to integrate with Israeli society. That you see this as either reasonable or positive, neither makes it so, not conveys a sense of balance. Considering Europe's recent experience - on a smaller scale and with less bad blood involved, hard to see how anything good will come out of it.

 

Subscribing to your notions of multiculturalism, especially when these are out of touch with prevailing reality, is not a requirement countries and societies have to accept. There is no such imperative, even if you pretend otherwise.

 

As pointed out on a parallel topic the often touted "two wrong don't make a right" slogan used in your rants, is not actually principled, but applied to one side only. That you do not recognize Israel and Israelis as having a whole lot of rights (if any) in these matters, is again, an extreme position.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Unfortunately, to me it sounds like them pretending to do something for home consumption, as they know that no outside force would be allowed without military force being used against it, and I presume they are not intending to go to war.

If they are serious about helping Palestinians, open the Gaza/ Egypt border and allow them freedom of travel. Sadly, the Egyptians are complicit in the imprisonment of the Gaza population. So much for Arab solidarity.

 

If Arab/Muslim's countries supposed "solidarity" with the Palestinian had amounted to much, they could have done a whole lot more over the years. For example, allowing residence/citizenship status, not using the Palestinians as a platform to quell domestic issues, and navigating things toward a peaceful resolution. If these are too fantastic for some, at least they could stop selling oil or cut the various economic and military issues they cooperate on with Israel.

 

Of course, your "analysis" doesn't make any mention of how Hamas agenda, policies and actions contribute to Egypt maintaining the blockade. Such distinction between Palestinian factions are often dropped by some posters, whenever it suits.

[canthai55]

On 5/18/2018 at 7:08 PM, Kiwiken said:

I would support an international Force providing both sides would halt armed confrontations.

I would support an Int'l Force that would attack any side breaking the peace. Israel fires on protestors - send in a JDAM. Rocket attack against Israel - repeat. Soon put an end to this.

Great hopes were evident when the UN was formed. They would be the force that would do this world wide.

But the big guns with the veto's squashed this - repeal those veto's and the world has a chance of obtaining peace - and some measure of justice.

[Morch]

2 hours ago, canthai55 said:

I would support an Int'l Force that would attack any side breaking the peace. Israel fires on protestors - send in a JDAM. Rocket attack against Israel - repeat. Soon put an end to this.

Great hopes were evident when the UN was formed. They would be the force that would do this world wide.

But the big guns with the veto's squashed this - repeal those veto's and the world has a chance of obtaining peace - and some measure of justice.

 

The UNSC veto system is flawed, no argument. On the other hand, it's pretty much what holds the show together, imperfect as it is. Consider a system without the veto system - how would decisions be made or upheld? Each country having an equal vote would simply strengthen voting blocs and petty politics. Stronger countries would feel even less compelled to heed UN resolutions, and the UN's ability to enforce them would be severely diminished.

 

As for some sort of UN army - what country would submit to such a world army (and, in effect, world government), and what would be the motivation to contribute to such a body?

[Morch]

On 5/23/2018 at 11:39 PM, 7by7 said:

So if the entre Arab world united behind the Palestinians in a war against Israel, and won; then amalgamated the West Bank, Gaza and Israel into one Palestinian state, kicking out the Jewish settlers who immigrated into Israel since 1948 and there descendants allowing only Palestinian Jews to remain: you would be ok with that because Israel lost the war?

 

Yes; people do get displaced by war; they are called refugees. There are a large number of such in Europe, e.g. from Syria, as we speak. Are you saying that once the war in Syria is over those refugees should be forced to remain in Europe and not be allowed home just because they happen to have the same ethnicity or belong to the same religious sect as the losers?

 

Of course,  the Palestinian refugees, and/or their descendants, could return; if allowed to do so by the Israeli government. The same government which has, illegally according to UN resolution 242, given the land once owned by those refugees to Israeli settlers! Something they are still doing by continuing to build these illegal settlements in 2018.

 

 

That would be you doing the usual hatchet job on my post, then going for the spin by implying things which weren't part of it. And now to address the nonsense post itself....

 

Your Hypothetical  scenario does not apply. Some examples of major differences:

 

(1) - the hypothetical conquest scenario does not correspond to reality. By and large, the International community criticism applies to Israel's occupation of territories conquered post-1967 and activities carried therein, but not with regard to what is considered to be Israel proper. In your scenario suggested, there is no such differentiation.

 

(2) - Israel did not "kick out" all the Palestinians back in 1948 (if it did, the large Arab minority wouldn't be around) and it did not "kick out" the Palestinians from territories conquered in 1967. I fail to see how the distinction imagined in your hypothetical scenario applies. Additionally, doubtful the fate of Israelis under such condition would be "kicked out", more like butchered or subjugated. Unlike the Palestinians, Israelis would have no easily accessible escape (hence the "throw to the sea" boasts of old).

 

(3) - The hypothetical scenario references "one Palestinian state". There is no such equivalent. Israel did not annex all of the territories conquered. 

 

If Israel was to lose a war, which would see the West Bank and the Gaza Strip passing over to Palestinian hands, then I don't think I'd have a whole lot of issues with Israelis being "kicked out" from those territories. If this was applied to Israel proper? I wouldn't be "ok with that" as far as human tragedy goes. In terms of my political point of view, though - it would depend on whether an internationally acceptable resolution was at hand, and how sides react to it. Accordingly, I do not consider addressing the Palestinian grievances as unrelated to the decades which passed or to options rejected. Choices made (such as embracing staunch rejectionism) bear consequences, and accountability. 

 

People displaced by war may be called refugees. But as a rule, there is no passing over of refugee status from one generation to the next. The Palestinians represent the only case where such a paradigm is applied. And before expected nonsense, this is not a direct testimony of their plight, but the product of politics. While, under certain conditions, a solution could have been reached involving the original refugees, adding the next generations makes things nigh impossible.

 

The Palestinians are pretty much the only group of refugees having a dedicated UN agency (UNRWA). Most efforts regarding other groups of refugees deal with rehabilitation, placement, solving issues and improving conditions. In the Palestinians' case, due to both the "hereditary status" bit, and Arab countries mostly refusing residence/citizenship for political reasons - such efforts are largely futile or non-existent.

 

Your usual dishonest "are you saying" nonsense notwithstanding, there wasn't anything said implying the BS suggested regarding Syrian refugees in Europe. The bogus conditions and formulations you dream up do not even apply either to reality or your made up scenarios.

 

As to "of course..." and the rest - do tell. Other  than in your populist and simplistic statements how does it relate to existing conditions? Where exactly would the Palestinians of Gaza return to? Their villages are no longer there. Should Israelis be displaced to accommodate the returnees? Doubt this could be presented (never mind accepted) as just - other than if one holds extreme positions. Other than there not being an imperative to embrace multiculturalism, what would be the added value of increasing friction between hostile societies? And that you constantly conflate between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, or lump separate issues to one is not indicative of an informed view.