i am not saying that ivs p isnt two sided, for godness sake im an historian on this issue, what i am saying is that the terror attacks are one sided , there is a difference.
israel is an occypier, however this is not the reason for these terror attacks, these attacks occured before and after the occupation and if there was a palestinian state tomorrow these attacks will still continue simply because of the palestinian leaderships reluctant to clamp down on terrorists.
its simple, israel offered a palestinian state last in 2000, arafat said no and didnt even want to discuss and negiotate.
i would suggest that this sorry state of affairs is down to arafat, if he had said yes baruk wouldnt have fallen from power. sharon would never be pm if arafat had clamped down on terror like he promised.
for goodness sake this man was offered east jersualem, 95-98% of the west bank, the gaza strip plus land swaps so that areas of high jewishj settlement became part of israel in exchange for other parts of land to ensure the palestinians didnt miss out, close economic co-operation and aid was offered plus the return of some though not all refeguees plus the chance to look at compensation for those who lost their homes(even though its the arabs as much as the israelis fault that people lost their homes) and this was turned down because to accept it meant that you had to clamp down on the terrorists and arafat knew that hamas and their little friends would never accept peace with israel.
you could have palestine to pre 1948 border and it still wouldnt matter. the stated position of these groups is the eridcation of all jews from palestine.
these americans werent us troops, there were there on a peace mission.
if the palestinians want to be freedom fighters, fine act like them, target the idf which is occupying your land. but they dont, they attack innocent civilains.
It is amazing what can be accomplised when nobody takes the credit