badgenome on 11 October 2011
| Mr Khan said: It's reasonably important to assert that no historical claim has eminence over any other historical claim. All you have are a state and a state-like body, one of which needs territorial integrity to survive (e.g. get the settlers out), and which deserves its right to self-determination as much as the Israelis did. The Israelis took exceptional measures to make sure that their state had territorial integrity, the least the Palestinians deserve is a peaceful process to achieve the same (e.g. get the settlers out). Israel has to move first because of their relative positions, and because presenting the olive branch is the only way to get rid of Hamas short of total extirpation of the Gaza Strip And cash settlements for current market value on the property that Palestinian refugees were forced off of in lieu of a right of return |
The problem with that is, if one side's idea of peace is simply a hudna (so, 10 years max) and the price of that phony peace is that Israel quits all of its settlements and gives all "refugees" the right of return (meaning Israel is demographically no longer Jewish, so the whole thing becomes moot anyway), there really can be no peace. And this has been the moderate Palestinian position.
