I'm not cynical, I believe Netanyahu believes in peace, but not at any cost.
Israel does not have a problem with Arabs, there are many Arabic people already living in Israel, and they have Israeli citizenship.

Israel's problem, as with much of the rest of the world, is the threat from radical Islam.

Israel was created as a Jewish state and should continue to be a Jewish state. Anything less would make the name of Israel, meaningless.

I think Netanyahu's demand over Israel being a Jewish state is to A: Force the Palestinians to admit to anti-semitism if they choose to continue fighting, this is aimed particularly at Hamas. And B: Counters any Palestinian demands to be recognised as an Islamic state. There are probably other ways he could have expressed this, but it's Palestine's fault there's a hardliner in power.

I also fully agree with his demands for Palestine to be demilitarised and that is a condition that must be adopted if there is to be any peace.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

I also fully agree with his demands for Palestine to be demilitarised and that is a condition that must be adopted if there is to be any peace.

Why should any demilitarisation be unilateral? The Palestinian people, who have lived in the region for far longer than the Israelis have, and who had much of their historic lands taken away from them in 1947, have just as much right to be a state and to be able to defend their borders against the kind of land-grabbing incursions that Israel undertakes, as anyone else.

Originally Posted by Midas

Why should any demilitarisation be unilateral? The Palestinian people, who have lived in the region for far longer than the Israelis have, and who had much of their historic lands taken away from them in 1947, have just as much right to be a state and to be able to defend their borders against the kind of land-grabbing incursions that Israel undertakes, as anyone else.

Because peace or no peace, any Palestine is going to be filled with radical anti-Israel groups, and any future Palestinian Authority is unlikely to be able to deal with them without, you guessed it, Israeli support. So one way to limit the capabilities of these groups is to demilitarize the territories. Will it stop all weapons? No. Will it severely decrease the capabilities of terror groups that threaten the peace deal? Yes.

Furthermore Israel isn't going to make any land grabs, it has no need to and would be counter-productive to it in restarting the war.

Also the Palestinians are not the original inhabitants, the Judeans were, and they have survived both through the Jews who moved away into Europe and back, as well as the Jews who remained in various forms throughout history. But this is irrelevant as I don't believe any group can claim ownership based on how long their race has been there.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Because peace or no peace, any Palestine is going to be filled with radical anti-Israel groups, and any future Palestinian Authority is unlikely to be able to deal with them without, you guessed it, Israeli support. So one way to limit the capabilities of these groups is to demilitarize the territories. Will it stop all weapons? No. Will it severely decrease the capabilities of terror groups that threaten the peace deal? Yes.

Is it any wonder that the Palestinian people are so anti Israel? After all, it was largely their historic lands which were divided up to form the State of Israel and it's been largely their territory which has suffered the numerous invasions and blockades, with the attendant inhuman treatment meted out by the Israeli forces, that's given rise to organisations like Hamas.

Furthermore Israel isn't going to make any land grabs, it has no need to and would be counter-productive to it in restarting the war.

If only! I do believe we've heard this promise from Israel before, only to be broken - several times.

Also the Palestinians are not the original inhabitants, the Judeans were, and they have survived both through the Jews who moved away into Europe and back, as well as the Jews who remained in various forms throughout history. But this is irrelevant as I don't believe any group can claim ownership based on how long their race has been there.

If any people have continuously inhabited a region I'd say that gives them a pretty good claim! I agree that the Jews did inhabit the region a couple of thousand years or more ago, before the original Judea and Israel were invaded and the majority of the inhabitants dispersed. However the Palestinian people and their descendants have been in continuous occupation for the same period of time. On that basis alone I'd say they had a far better legal and moral right to occupation.

Originally Posted by Midas

Is it any wonder that the Palestinian people are so anti Israel? After all, it was largely their historic lands which were divided up to form the State of Israel and it's been largely their territory which has suffered the numerous invasions and blockades, with the attendant inhuman treatment meted out by the Israeli forces, that's given rise to organisations like Hamas.

Invasions they would never have suffered if they hadn't continuously tried to destroy Israel. Israel's security situation is intolerable, and the Palestinian Authority could not or wasn't willing to act against the terrorists, so the only way for Israel to defend itself was to take control of Palestine. Hamas and groups like it are the reason the peace process has failed.

Originally Posted by DCFGS3

Invasions they would never have suffered if they hadn't continuously tried to destroy Israel. Israel's security situation is intolerable, and the Palestinian Authority could not or wasn't willing to act against the terrorists, so the only way for Israel to defend itself was to take control of Palestine. Hamas and groups like it are the reason the peace process has failed.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this, but groups like Hamas wouldn't have gained power if the Palestinian people felt any confidence that Fatah were actually doing something to stop the continued Israeli attacks. Hamas was the result of Israeli oppression, not the cause of it.

Originally Posted by Midas

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this

Probably, but the voice in my head is screaming "TEAR HIM TO PIECES!"

but groups like Hamas wouldn't have gained power if the Palestinian people felt any confidence that Fatah were actually doing something to stop the continued Israeli attacks. Hamas was the result of Israeli oppression, not the cause of it.

Hamas seems to have come from Islamist groups who were unhappy with Fatah's secularism (it is partially supported by the Muslim Brotherhood and is viewed as an offshoot of it), but its origins no doubt come from the secular anti-Israel groups like Fatah and the PLO. Such anti-Israel groups have always existed, and have always used terror to achieve their goals, hence antagonising Israel and causing the conflict.