This is getting quite offtopic, but if Palestinians weren't going to accept the Olmert Peace plan (map visible here: http://www.passia.org/maps/view/78 ) then there's nothing they would accept.
Olmert made multiple peace offer, historic ones. I linked to the one I meant. Wikipedia does not have an individual article on the one I linked, instead it's just summarized in the page on Olmert.
And there have been many other plans proposed by Israel - around 20 or so.
Palestinians rejected every single plan.
The Olmert one and the one Arafat rejected are especially notable because they gave Palestinians virtually everything they wanted. They still rejected them.
There's a reason Israel gave up on ever achieving peace - if they were going to reject those plans, there's nothing left to offer.
> But hey, let's geek out a bit more on the surveillance/civilian murdering technology!
You realize if they had better border monitoring technology, Hamas would never have succeeded in their terrorist attack, and then the retaliation we're seeing would never have occurred, right? It literally would have saved the lives of thousands of civilians on both sides.
Not trying to find an excuse here, but most plans for peace were suggested at inopportune times and there always were factions that tried to inflame violence to make people discard the suggestions. A leader cannot just accept it with a broad backing, he might be inhibited politically.
That is why it is of utmost importance that peace processes are repeated until successful.
This is getting quite offtopic, but if Palestinians weren't going to accept the Olmert Peace plan (map visible here: http://www.passia.org/maps/view/78 ) then there's nothing they would accept.
I'm sure it's a bit more complicated than that. But hey, let's geek out a bit more on the surveillance/civilian murdering technology!
Edit: just read the Wikipedia article about the plan. It, indeed, is more complicated than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realignment_plan
Wrong plan.
Olmert made multiple peace offer, historic ones. I linked to the one I meant. Wikipedia does not have an individual article on the one I linked, instead it's just summarized in the page on Olmert.
And there have been many other plans proposed by Israel - around 20 or so.
Palestinians rejected every single plan.
The Olmert one and the one Arafat rejected are especially notable because they gave Palestinians virtually everything they wanted. They still rejected them.
There's a reason Israel gave up on ever achieving peace - if they were going to reject those plans, there's nothing left to offer.
3 replies →
> But hey, let's geek out a bit more on the surveillance/civilian murdering technology!
You realize if they had better border monitoring technology, Hamas would never have succeeded in their terrorist attack, and then the retaliation we're seeing would never have occurred, right? It literally would have saved the lives of thousands of civilians on both sides.
1 reply →
Not trying to find an excuse here, but most plans for peace were suggested at inopportune times and there always were factions that tried to inflame violence to make people discard the suggestions. A leader cannot just accept it with a broad backing, he might be inhibited politically.
That is why it is of utmost importance that peace processes are repeated until successful.
I meant "cannot accept it without broad support"