An opportunity for what? Surely you can't be serious? Is there no end to this endless partisan rhetoric? And shades of Goebbels's propaganda?

Bush made it abundantly clear that there was a road map and nothing other than a two state solution was on the table! Since then there have been countless (illegal settlement) breaches of an agreement not worth the paper it is written on!

Why? for one purpose and one purpose only!? To ensure Jews outnumber Arab voters in Nethanyahu's gerrymander!?
Alan B.

Hi Alan,

I'm not sure that there can be any other current remedy but a two-state solution. Are you proposing a one-state, or three-state, solution ?

So the question is: how to bring it about ? First, of course, Palestinians have to drop the demand, rhetorical is it may seem, to push all Jews into the sea. And if any Israeli concessions, such as the one a decade ago, to withdraw from Gaza, are offered, taken and then used against Israel, then one can only take it for granted that Israel will keep building new settlements.

Cheers,

Joe

Peace is where the opposing parties come together and mutually agree on conditions to end their conflict. One side cannot impose peace on another. Until Israel and the USA comprehend that, the occupation will continue. The longer it takes Israel to enter peace negotiations in good faith, the closer it gets to signing its own death warrant.

#Alan B

You state:
"Bush made it abundantly clear that there was a road map and nothing other than a two state solution was on the table! Since then there have been countless (illegal settlement) breaches of an agreement not worth the paper it is written on!"

Not quite.

1. Bush made it clear that the two-state solution contained in his 2003 Quartet endorsed Roadmap would be the only two-state solution that would be implemented.
"First, the United States remains committed to my vision and to its implementation as described in the roadmap. The United States will do its utmost to prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan."

2. Bush further acknowledged that in light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, that it was unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations would be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.

3. Bush's above commitments were endorsed by the Congress by 502 votes to 12

On what basis do you claim that a written agreement made by the President of the United States and overwhelmingly endorsed by the Congress is "not worth the paper it is written on"?

What breaches of this agreement do you allege occurred?

#Anti-Colonial

You state:

"The longer it takes Israel to enter peace negotiations in good faith, the closer it gets to signing its own death warrant."

Israel offered to cede its claims in more than 90% of the West Bank in 2000/1 and 2008 but the PLO rejected such offers because it wanted 100%.

Israel completely disengaged from Gaza and four settlements in the West Bank in 2005.

As thanks Israel has received thousands of rockets fired indiscrimately into Israeli population centers and tunnels built into Israel by Hamas ever since.

The Gazan and West Bank Arabs have been denied free elections and any say in what they want and who they want to lead them since 2005

The PLO and Hamas continue to call for Israel to be wiped off the face of the map.

It is the PLO and Hamas that have been slowly signing their own death warrants for the last 24 years since the Oslo Accords promised the Palestinian Arabs their own State - in addition to Jordan - for the first time ever in recorded history.

These so-called leaders - like those that preceded them in 1922, 1937, 1947, 1948, and between 1948 to 1967 have refused to accept the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine.

You can lead horses to water but you cannot make them drink.

"These so-called leaders - like those that preceded them in 1922, 1937, 1947, 1948, and between 1948 to 1967 have refused to accept the right of the Jewish people to reconstitute the Jewish National Home in former Palestine."

David let's talk history.

When did the Zionist movement take off? The late 1800's.

Why did it take off? Because the Jewish people across Europe were being discriminated against, persecuted and even slaughtered by Christian nations across Europe.

What was its aims? To use ancient history as an excuse to create a new state of Israel as a Jewish homeland for the Jewish people.

What happened during the Ottoman period? The Zionists paid for land and settled in the region. Pre-Zionism the Palestinian Jewish population was less that 5%, by 1922 when the British carried out a census it was 11%. With the Ottomans in control there was no talk of a Jewish state, only talk of Jews settling in their ancestral homes. Consequently there was no serious problem with the people that were native to that region. That all changed with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire.

So tell me David where in the world in the twentieth century has any leader given up a large percentage of the land of their people to a minority group, the majority of whom are recent immigrants? Tell me where in North America, where in Europe, where in Oceania? Then you can tell me what gives the Jewish people the right to reconstitute an ANCIENT nation by dispossessing the native inhabitants of their right to a forge a new nation as was happening throughout Eastern Europe. Then tell me why this land grab by the Zionists is not the same as the rampant colonial racism that so many European nations inflicted on people across the world.

These so-called leaders did what any real leader would have done in their position. They fought for the land of their people. Don't take my word for it because every Israeli leader from Ben-Gurion to Rabat have said they would do the same if they were Palestinian.