News of resumed peace talks have hit the headlines -- on September 1st, international leaders will break bread and on September 2nd, ostensibly well-rested and full-bellied, they will resume direct peace negotiations. Sadly, the photo opportunity will provide little more than the occasion for spectators to juxtapose this photo alongside similar ones over a span of nearly two decades. While this may make for a lovely Sunday afternoon activity with our children as we instill in them their first lesson in distinction versus difference, it can only signal worsening conditions for the Palestinians whose livelihoods deteriorate in the cold and ominous shadows of diplomatic overtures.
The peace process's inability to shift from a paradigm of conflict management to one of remedial measures is structurally rooted. In content, Oslo failed to deal with final status issues, did not affirm the primacy of international law, and did not establish any type of accountability mechanisms. Structurally, its overdependence on the U.S. as a broker, whose systemic provision of impunity to Israel in the UN Security Council as well as its own domestic chambers, demonstrates its unwillingness to exert pressure on Israel.
Moreover, the Palestinians lack negotiating leverage save for their moral authority as a landless people fighting for their freedom and self-determination. However, since the initiation of the peace process which created false parity between the Israeli state and the Palestinian people, and especially since the death of former PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat, whose charisma and legacy managed to maintain national Palestinian unity and evoke third world solidarity, even this moral high ground has been slowly eviscerated leaving Palestinian negotiators with little more than fading pens, weathered maps, and tattered Security Council resolutions.
Under conditions of mounting systematic violence and racism, the Palestinian Authority should step away from the negotiating table and return to their Palestinian base which includes rapprochement with Hamas and its supporters as well as an unwavering commitment to end the blockade of Gaza. Its unwillingness, or inability, to represent the will of its people makes the PA part of the problem rather than the solution among Palestinians in the OPTs and throughout the global diaspora. If there is half a reason why the PA is engaging in this process aside from its desperate hold onto power and its attendant succumbing to U.S. pressure, it has not been articulated in any compelling way.
With neither the authority of international law, the strength of enforcement mechanisms, nor popular legitimacy, Oslo is quicksand for the Palestinians: the more they tread, the deeper they sink politically and the quicker Israel confiscates Palestinian lands under the guise of a peace process. What diplomats have failed to account for, is that unlike their Palestinian counterparts, Israelis benefit from the status quo of negotiation deadlock.
While Oslo tabled the most difficult issues to final status negotiations, Israel's "facts on the ground" have rendered the negotiations increasingly irrelevant. Consider that between the signing of the Declaration of Principles in 1993 and the resumption of the latest round of peace talks in 2010, Israel has not left a final status issue unhampered. A grotesque case in point is the proliferation of settlements throughout the West Bank. During the first seven years of Oslo (1993-2000), arguably when good faith was at its peak, Israel's settler population increased by 42 percent, more than the seven years immediately preceding or following Oslo.
Today, Israel continues these policies in the shadows of buoyant proclamations in Washington. The Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs in the OPTs reports that in 2010, Israel has displaced 1100 Palestinians from their homes, including 400 children and 2/3 of said activity has occurred in July alone. This is to say nothing of the ongoing illegal blockade of Gaza, the economic and social paralysis of its inhabitants since the close of Operation Cast Lead in 2009, and the U.S. Administration's wayward decision to exclude Hamas all together from the renewed process.
Like President Obama, President Bush also attempted to relaunch peace talks in 2007. Ten months after the venerated resuscitation in Annapolis, Robert Serry, the Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process and Personal Representative of the UN Secretary-General, reported to the Security Council that Palestinians had been responsive to the peace process and had made "real strides in the implementation of its security plan," while Israelis continued to expand settlements, had failed to reopen Palestinian institutions in East Jerusalem, and had allowed settler violence against Palestinians to intensify without sanction.
Even the most casual observer cannot help but note that stagnant negotiations and an enduring status quo has benefited Israelis and harmed Palestinians. A more nuanced commentator may argue that Israel has suffered tremendously because its failure to establish a two-state solution has transformed the one state solution, wherein Jews no longer constitute a majority and where Palestinians will be unequivocally engaged in a struggle against Apartheid, from a dismissive vision among radicals to a realistic political scenario. Evidently, however, such theoretical injury has neither induced Israeli compliance with previous peace agreements nor deterred them from breaking nearly every withdrawal deadline in accordance with Prime Minister Rabin's declaration that "there are no sacred deadlines."
Notwithstanding the dire need for the implementation of well-established principles, in a State Department press conference on August 20th, Senator George Mitchell described the impasse as one rooted in societal differences that the U.S., as primary peace broker, plans to treat "with patience, perseverance, and determination." He goes on to dismiss criticisms of Israeli intransigence in the face of US pressure to halt settlement expansion as cursory explaining that had negotiators quit in the face of obstacles there would never have been no peace in South Africa or Bosnia for example.
Yet what Mitchell fails to note is that in South Africa, civil society and states alike applied pressure on the Apartheid regime to conform with international law through boycott, divestment, and sanctions. Also, before a peace agreement was achieved in Bosnia, Serbian aggression was brought to a grounding halt as a result of US-led NATO bombing and a UN Security Council embargo. Yet in the case of the Palestinian-Israel conflict, human rights proponents are asked to channel positive energy so that the conflict miraculously transcends the power imbalance inflicting the negotiations. What the peace process needs is the application of meaningful pressure on the stronger party -- not a room full of warm fuzzy good feelings.
This point is not lost on Palestinians or on an international civil society sincerely invested in a viable peace with justice. Accordingly, in 2005, 170 Palestinian organizations issued a call to the global solidarity movement to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel until it complied with international law. The BDS movement works to apply the much-needed pressure upon Israel as well as rehabilitate the Palestinians' high ground as a people struggling for its self-determination. To date, the movement has been much more successful in Europe where unconditional commitment to Israel at the expense of long-term national interests and human rights principles is not embedded in its political establishment. However, even in the U.S. the movement has made significant strides and managed to permeate mainstream discourse. In all likelihood, these renewed talks will either fizzle without fanfare or be declared successful to the detriment of Palestinian rights. Either way, ordinary citizens will continue to spearhead the BDS movement and apply the political pressure upon Israel that government leaders, world superpowers, and international multilateral organizations have failed to exert.
Follow Noura Erakat on Twitter: www.twitter.com/4noura
How to bolster the coming Mideast peace talks
Hamas: Palestinians will gain nothing from direct peace talks with Israel
News Analysis: Palestinians doubt direct talks with Israel would succeed
Erekat: Renewed settlement construction will kill peace talks
Palestinian leader 'to drop objection to direct Israeli peace talks within days'
British foreign secretary upbeat on new Mideast peace talks, calls for compromises
Analysis: Obama seeks elusive prize _ Mideast deal
Thousands brave heat to celebrate Israel in downtown Dallas
Settlement freeze dispute threatens direct Israeli-Palestinian peace talks
How much fighting could there have been in 1880 the Jewish population was 5% that of the Arabs? The numbers are in percentage when taken in comparison of Jews to Arabs translates to: 1800 = 3%, 1880 = 5%, 1915 = 15%, 1931 = 21%, 1947 = 48%, The Christians were not mentioned in the chart. Going by the numbers alone, I would conclude the rising violence between Jews and Arabs would correlate with the rising percentage of Jews(migrating Zionists) into Palestine.
"Demographics in Palestine[2] year Jews Arabs
1800 6,700 268,000
1880 24,000 525,000
1915 87,500 590,000
1931 174,000 837,000
1947 630,000 1,310,000 "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_and_Palestinian_Arab_attitudes_before_1948
There are documented statements from Zionists leaders claiming their intentions regarding Israel; those stated intentions correlate with the ownership of property having been transfered from Palestinian into Israeli hands. Lets get real with the arguments and leave out the rhetoric.
http://i.imgur.com/FIEMO.jpg
There is a peace deal on the table - see the PLO web-site for details.
The Palestinians have rejected its framework (and minor 2% deviations) and have not made a counter offer.
Since they won't accept the basic premise - Jewish homeland - the sole reason for the creation of the Jewish state by the UN amongst the many dictatorial regimes around it (also created by the "great powers" I might add) - the rest is rhetoric, anecdote, propaganda, and a big waste of time.
If they accept it today all the suffering you mention will stop, the settlers will be expelled, the Gaza blockade will end, Rachael Corry and the 9 dead Turks will enter the pantheon of martyrs this conflict has produced, the world will line up to make it happen and the rest will be history - disputed until the end of time.
If they don't both sides will suffer.
Do you agree that the Palestinians accept the parameters of this deal (give or take a few % to be negotiated)? Yes or no? If not, then the last 18 years of "negotiations" will have been for naught, Israel will avoid a one-state solution (aka Balkans, Kyrgyzstan, Kashmir) by keeping West-Bank Palestinians from getting Israeli citizenship and we can all get popcorn and wait for the next war/intifada/nuclear holocaust to unfold.
I was not aware that the UN created the "Jewish State," Both sides rejected the UN partition proposal. As I understand it Israel was a "self declaration" made in 1948. I wonder if you could clarify your statement? If the Palestinians had made the self declaration of Palestine, before the Jews had declared Israel, why would or would not that have been valid?
Also from the quote above, "(also created by the "great powers" I might add)" What gave the great powers the authority to create Israel? It appears to be nothing more than an arbitrary decision at best, and also appears that they went along with it rather than created it. There is evidence of Jewish lobbying the U.S., well in advance of the self declaration, in order to get support. Israel was not created by the major powers from what I have seen, it was self declared with no discussion among the Arab Palestinians who's families were there and owned the land, before the Zionist movement began.
The partition plan included a homeland for the Jews - self-determination for Jews was its sole purpose. I think you understand what I mean, no?
"What gave the great powers the authority to create Israel? "
The "great powers" have created nations throughout history but in the 20th century most of the Arab countries as well as the partition plan. What gave them the right? I can't answer that.
"Jewish lobbying the U.S."
Way before that - see Balfour declaration as just 1 example.
"no discussion among the Arab Palestinians "
Well there's some injustice there but just in the last century that injustice includes most dictatorship, minority-ruled Arab countries, the Balkans, India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, etc.
The Jews were in no position to "steal the land" up until easily the 1930s and the Palestinians were never self-ruling, and there weren't that many people living in the area RELATIVE to its current population so its not terribly surprising that it was able to come about. Note that after the 1947-49 war the Palestinians were still not self-ruling under Egypt and Jordan that had no intentions in that direction. I think its great if they're finally self-ruling anytime soon and hopefully in a EU-like economic zone with the Jewish state.
They lost all "moral authority" when they rejected a state back in 1948 and elected instead to wage an illegal war of terror with the goal of the destruction of a sovereign nation and all its people.
There would be NO issue had the arabs been able to accept a small non muslim nation in the middle east.
The declaration of the State of Israel was itself an act of aggression equivalent to invading Palestine, especially as the partition plan was weighted very heavily in the Zionists' favour.
"illegal war of terror" - Irgun and the Stern Gang.
"with the goal of the destruction of a sovereign nation and all its people." Where is the evidence that this was a widely held view? We have David Ben Gurion's reference to a Palestinian call to drive all Jews into the sea, but where did he learn about this? Surely if a Palestinian of any influence had said such a thing it would have appeared in a newspaper? It's a lie. It's one of the first lies of a nation built from beginning to end on lies. In Israel everyone joins the army where they learn to be racist thug, and then some enter public life where they learn to be relentless liars.
1. The UN decided on two states and voted on it.
2. Thus the Israeli declaration of Independence was not "unilaterally"
"The declaration of the State of Israel was itself an act of aggression equivalent to invading Palestine" - This statement can be true only from the antisemitic perspective that does not recognizes the Jews right for self determination, nor the UN resolution to create Israel.
Regarding the danger that awaited the Jews in Palestine, not only they were in danger (and this is why more than 800 Jews, mostly civilians, were murdered between the UN vote and the deceleration of Independence, but also all the Jews in the Arab World, as Arab politicians openly stated, and delivered in the following years creating the Jewish refugee problem: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/07/recognition_for_the_silent_jew.html
"In Israel everyone joins the army where they learn to be racist thug, and then some enter public life where they learn to be relentless liars. " - flagged for this slander.
You state that the Palestinians "rejected a state" -- I have YET to hear anyone tell me HOW they did this -- since they had NO government, nor was there a plebiscite seeking the Palestinians' view on the matter.
Everyone keeps forgetting that in a colonial imperialist system, the native population is NEVER -- NEVER (do I have to repeat the word again) ASKED for their approval or disapproval of ANYTHING.
They ARE TOLD (and no talking back) what will happen to them.
That is the way it works, and it is the way it has ALWAYS worked (particularly since the Europeans and Americans began the system)
Do you think the Vietnamese were ASKED whether they wanted THEIR country cut into two? Of course not. The Americans (Eisenhower Administration) DECIDED to do this because they KNEW Ho Chi Minh would win a national election.
Likewise, the Palestinians were NEVER asked about one state, two states, or whether Jordan and Egypt would take what was leftover.
And as for "illegal war of terror" -- just what do you think the Irgun and Lehi were doing during this period, holding picnics?
Don't you realize that THEY were conducting an "illegal war of terror" -- and a far more effective one at that?
Also, the issue HERE, NOW, is the RIGHTS of the Palestinians. And those rights are UNALIENABLE -- they don't come from the UN, from ISRAEL, from the European powers, they come from NATURE -- and they DON'T have to
I wish I could write that succinctly (and I know Lonely God does also :) (that was meant humorously).
Let's hope for the best.
Let me see? Israel has the land, the guns and the power. What have the palestinians got left to conceed
"It will also show the world, naturally, what concessions the Palestinians are willing to make. If at all."
Everything has been taken from the Palestinians. They have almost nothing left to give. On the other hand we have Bibi's sickening boast that he went to Oslo with the intention of undermining it and that he never intended to make any but the most trivial concessions.
Israel's policy—it's philosophy in fact—is that it will never negotiate except from a position of overwhelming military and political dominance by which it can simply dictate terms. No agreement that comes out of such a process can be considered fair.
The Israelis also have a right to self-determination. Remember that if you get what you want (a one-state solution) and the jewish minority starts to fight for their right for self-determination.
And if Israel wishes to keep this land, then write a Constitution which guarantees equal rights for ALL now. The reason that isn't happening is that the settler movement is taking every opportunity of the advantage they hold over the Palestinians, to seize their land and homes (look at what is happenning in East Jerusalem).
If this ends up being a single state, what I see happenning is many Israelis leaving the country. All that will be left will be the right wing idealogues, and they will face an even worse population disparity.
In a future peace agreement these settlements should be evacuated. But it will be very difficult, even a violent small civil war. It will be a huge effort and the economic, political and cultural remifications are enormous. A government with a peace agreement in hand might make it happen, but no government will be able to do so only for the Palestinians to agree to negotiate their so called right of return to Israel. It simply won't happen.
Despite the usual bashing of Israel here in HP for not being democratic - it is. This is why one should be very very naive to think a government, especially Netanyahu's will be able to do such a thing. They are dependent upon coalition, public opinion, popular agreement and so on. None of these will support such a move just to achieve negotiations.
But here is a counter offer: If the Palestinians truly want peace alongside Israel, they should declare today, before the negotiations, that the have no claims to the state of Israel itself, in its future borders they will agree upon in the negotiations. Therefore they agree to settle the refugee problem outside Israel itself, with compensations, not immigration. I am confident that in such a case a peace agreement is doable within one month. Unfortunately, no one here seriously think the Palestinians should make concessions or build
you need not worry about a single state. It will never happen.
Yes, and the serbian aggressors were rewarded for their aggression with 51% of the land, while representing only 33% of the population. Shall we use this as our template in Israel and Palestine, Ms Erakat?
Any examination of the demographics in Palestine 1948 will show indisputably that Arabs constituted two-thirds of the population. Jews a minority of one third. Yet the UN partition plan allocated over 50% of the land to the Jewish state.
It should also be noted while publicly supporting the general assembly resolution 181 carried in November of 1947. The Jewish agency was carrying out a policy of capturing land allocated to the Arabs.
“Before the end of the mandate and, therefore before any possible intervention by Arab states, the Jews, taking advantage of their superior military preparation and organization, had occupied...most of the Arab cities in Palestine before May 15, 1948.
Tiberias was occupied on April 19, 1948,
Haifa on April 22,
Jaffa on April 28,
the Arab quarters in the New City of Jerusalem on April 30,
Beisan on May 8,
Safad on May 10 and Acre on May 14, 1948...
In contrast, the Palestine Arabs did not seize any of the territories reserved for the Jewish state under the partition resolution.” British author, Henry Cattan, “Palestine, The Arabs and Israel.”
Making Israel the Agressor
BTW-
UN General Assembly resolution 181 partitioning Palestine is invalid.
Only the U.N. Security Council can create Legally binding resolutions. The General Assembly cannot. The UN Security Council never endorsed this general assembly resolution.
I have faved this comment, but I have already fanned you -- unfortunately I cannot do that twice.
I have often quoted your posts -- always attributed of course.
You are like the cool voice of reason in what can be heated discussions.
It is also demonstrates the usual confusion between "aggressor" and "winner". The Arabs started the 1948 war. They were the aggressors, but they also lost.
This is also the time to remember that no US city was even under Axis attack while the US conquered both Germany, Italy and Japan...
1. Both the Israeli government and the Palestinian government benefit from deadlock. The Israelis can build settlements and the Palestinians can milk their "oppressed victim" status without doing anything to stop it.
2. Negotiations always take place during a power imbalance. If the two sides are totally balanced militarily, why should they negotiate? The I/P conflict is the only conflict in the world where the stronger party is waiting at the table for the weaker party to deign to talk to them.
2) As I mentioned below, the ONLY place where the Palestinans have leverage is the negotiation table. Sure, there is a military imbalance. But why is there a "power imbalance" in negotiations? Actually, your understanding of "negotiations" is a US dictate that Israel would have to swallow (of course, you would object strenuously on such a dictate being imposed on the Palestinians!).
Your bias and duplicity are evident in your last paragraph, which claims that anti-Israel sanctions are "non-violent". Of course, when sanctions are imposed against Iran (not to mention Gaza!), you call them aggression and "collective punishment". Rather hypocritical, don't you think?
In conclusion, what you advocate is coercion (applied only to the Israeli side, of course). How about the Palestinians try bona-fide negotiations, for a change?
In short, Netanyahu's ploy is plain and simply. Let the Palestinians be responsible for the inevitable failure of the peace talks while Israel continues to establish facts on the ground. As you said, in the absence of an international mechanism of accountability, Israel will manage to get away from its failure to comply with countless UN Security Council resolutions.
This so-called fear of Palestinian
Peace will take painful compromises and certain risks by both sides. Unfortunately, with the absence of any degree of personal relationship between the 2 leaders, each of whom is not particularly skilled a t people relationships, the outlook is not optimistic.
But I like humor as well -- faved and fanned (I almost typed flagged -- I think I am getting tired).
You basically call on the Palestinian Authority NOT to negotiate. In your opinion, it is better for the Palestinians to perpetuate the conflict, not negotiate its end. Among the “reasons” you mention the Palestinians’ lack of “leverage”, which you take to be axiomatic. In reality, the negotiating table is the ONLY place where the Palestinians have leverage. They certainly will not have the upper hand in a conflict.
An additional “reason” (“pretext” would be a more appropriate term) why Palestinians should not negotiate is “the settlements”. And how is NOT NEGOTIATING going to stop “the settlements”?
There is a reason why a peace agreement is yet to emerge between the Palestinians and Israel. It is because people like you (along with most Palestinian leaders so far) have sought to resolve their (real, as well as imaginary) grievances through confrontation and conflict, not honest negotiations. Of course, conflict begets more conflict and confrontation begets antagonism and resentment. Had the Palestinians freed themselves from such ill advice, their state would currently be celebrating its 10th anniversary.
Sorry but I don't agree with you here.
Let's assume that there are negotiations and the result is a Palestinian state.
It would be in the interest of EVERYONE to ensure that that state survives and is a viable one.
A FAILED state would be a disaster, and not just for the Palestinians (Just imagine al qaeda, who tends to be attracted to these failed states, setting up shop in a devastated Palestine, with a government too weakened to fight them off. Can you see the nightmare for the region?)
That is why there would have to be a massive undertaking (call it a Marshall Plan for Palestine) to repair infrastructure, create a climate where investors will feel it is safe to invest, and to ensure that the Palestinian economy does well, and Palestinians quality of life improves dramatically.
That will take investment and money.
So the PA would BENEFIT from SUCCESSFUL negotiations, not be hurt by them.
As it is now, the PA BARELY have the confidence of their own people, who view them as little better than collaborators (they are even afraid to hold elections.)
But if the negotiations produce a fair but pragmatic result, the PA will HUGELY benefit.
The key here for the PA isn't to keep the Palestinians suffering -- that would only benefit Hamas. The key for the PA's very survival is to bring IMPROVEMENT in the Palestinians lives.
There is a comment that repeatedly surfaces about how much land the Palestinians are being asked to give up to have a peace treaty. The UN resolution of 1947 is part of the existing baseline. It is bad faith to count that land area as land that the Palestinians are giving up. The symetry of that argument -- that there should be no Israel at all -- is the discredited Greater Israel vion of sea to river, or even both banks of the river.
Both sides agree on the 1949 line as the relevant baseline for calculating gains and losses. Both sides appear to agree on the principle of modification of that line with equal land compensation. East Jerusalem is excluded from that agreement. The Geneva Plan divides it along existing ethnic neighborhood lines. I don't see any other viable alternative.
BTW, is your symbol supposed to be "cain" / "yes", as in Yes for Peace. I hope so.
Under article 25 of the U.N. Charter only Security Council resolutions have the force of law and are legally binding. General assembly resolutions are advisory and declaratory. You will all note that there is no corresponding Security Council resolutions adopting resolution 181 of the general assembly.
"Cambridge Professor Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, Judge ad hoc of the International Court of Justice, a renowned expert on international law and editor of one of the 'bibles' of international law, Oppenheim's International Law, clarified that from a legal standpoint, the 1947 UN Partition Resolution had no legislative character to vest territorial rights in either Jews or Arabs. In a monograph relating to one of the most complex aspects of the territorial issue, the status of Jerusalem, Judge, Sir Lauterpacht wrote that any binding force the Partition Plan would have had to arise from the principle pacta sunt servanda, that is, from agreement of the parties at variance to the proposed plan.
Therefore to suggest that "The UN resolution of 1947 is part of the existing baseline." Is wrong in Fact and Law.
I agree with you that it seems that the citizenry of the world is taking up the call to liberate the Palestinians, as for all these years the Israelis themselves have so transparently rigged the process of negoitations with their Israeli Lobbies, Neocons, and other supporters. Israel and her Lobbies have bought and/or are blackmailing our politicians - liberation of Palestinians will come from themselves and the citizens of the world
//Either way, ordinary citizens will continue to spearhead the BDS movement and apply the political pressure upon Israel that government leaders, world superpowers, and international multilateral organizations have failed to exert.//
Go FreeGaza, Go BDS! First Gaza, then EJ and the West Bank
But the facts laid out in this article are all too real. What comes to mind for me are the words President Kennedy used when addressing the nation on the issue of Civil Rights:
"We are confronted primarily with a moral issue. It is as old as the Scriptures and is as clear as the American Constitution.
The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?"
Now while the issues are not exactly the same, the basic question is.
Would YOU be willing to change places with a Palestinian? Would you be willing to have your children treated as the children of Gaza?
Once you answer such a question, then you will see the sense of this article.
43 years of occupation is enough. It is destroying BOTH societies.
Are you serious, JWC? That is not by any measure the "basic question" of this conflict. Not by a long shot. It might be the basic question to people like you, who can only see victims and victimizers. But that isn't it.
The question is not, "do you feel sorry for the Palestinians?" Because most everyone involved with these discussions feels sorry for them.
But just because we feel sorry for them does NOT make them RIGHT. And it does not make the terrorist groups who operate with the support of the people any less genocidal or any less dangerous.
For a smart individual I find that your miscategorization of this issue and intentional misrepresentation of this discussion revolting.
You people need to stop and think and try to be just a bit more realistic and fair minded. People have a right to live in peace. Governments are entitled to protect their citizens from hostilities and acts of barbarism. The Palestinians have been guilty of this for over 60 years. If they wanted peace, they'd stop the hostilities ON THEIR OWN, and not be forced to do so via a separation wall and road blocks.
The Palestinians have no interest in peace, what they want is the demise of Israel.
Well it isn't happening.