Yes, and they should be stopped. I find it interesting that you want the Palestinians to stop doing what is wrong but have no problem with the Israelis doing what is wrong (constructing settlements).
It would be idealistic if all of the world's people could accommodate one another and live in an everlasting era of peace, harmony, and prosperity. However, such a situation has never existed. Moreover, given the realities of human nature, such a situation is not likely to exist barring a dramatic change in human nature. Considering the slow nature of evolution, one should not expect such a change in human nature anytime soon.
Within the constraints of the world as it actually is, reciprocity offers perhaps the most effective means of assuring that each party can obtain something that it desires. Reciprocity requires a party to give up something in order to receive it.
The Palestinians need land for a state. Israel needs security. The tradeoff is obvious. If the Palestinians want Israel to limit settlement activity to maximize the amount of land they would receive in a future peace arrangement, they will need to take steps (not words) to enhance Israel's security e.g., begin a credible effort to disarm and dismantle terrorist organizations such as Hamas. Outlawing Hamas and its institutions would offer a constructive first step in that direction.
Israels very creation and existence is all down to the actions of the UN, yet somehow people seem to think the UN is always against Israel. This thinking is completely unsubstantiated by the facts.
If one examines the UN's decisions in the past and its more recent ones, the shift in the UN's decisionmaking is inescapable. If one examines the rhetoric and unbalanced decisions eminating from the UN Human Rights Council and the UN General Assembly, the UN's current course is generally an anti-Israel one.
Bearing in mind that Israel has NEVER halted its settlement programme are we to take it that the above will only apply if the Palestinians 'go first'?
Determining the exact sequence of events is something the two sides will need to agree upon. In my personal opinion, decisions should be as simultaneous as possible. Afterward, substantive acts taken by each party should be as simultaneous as is possible. In effect, promises would be matched by promises, and actions would be matched by actions.
If you will not religiously cleanse the area to maintain a Jewish majority how will you fix this?
As I explained earlier, Israel has never engaged in what can be described as "ethnic cleansing." I have no reason to believe that Israel will engage in ethnic cleansing in the future. I cannot be any more clear than that.
And you are missing the point - immigrants enter a country on that country's terms. They have no right to determine what happens to the country going forward. Can you provide ANY other example of a case where immigrants have entered a country and then forced that country to split up so they can get a land of their own?
First, there was no independent country of Palestine. The land in question had been a part of the Ottoman Empire and then part of the British Empire. It was not a sovereign state and, thus, did not enjoy the authority of a sovereign state. That reality is crucial.
Second, the UN was charged with helping guide the region to sovereign status. In doing so, it was essential that the UN accommodate the needs of the region's two peoples, both of whom shared an equal claim to legitimacy and expression of self-determination.
Of course, needs are not the same thing as maximum demands. They are far narrower in scope and far more basic in nature. Mutual accommodation rules out any approach that would embrace the maximum demands of one people at the expense of the other's needs. Given the situation in the region at the time (rising violence and the irreconcilable nature of the two peoples' demands), partition offered the most feasible means of accommodating the two peoples' needs, even as it fell short of satisfying their maximum demands.
Israel accepted a proposal it found favourable and Arafat rejected the proposal as he found it unreasonable. This is not unusual.
There are many peace agreements which have been put forward by other mediators (Egypt and the Arab league) and accepted by Arafat but these have been rejected by Israel. Does this then mean that Israel has rejected 'historic opportunities for peace'?
He wanted peace. Israel wanted peace on its terms and these terms were unacceptable. It was widely expected that the plan (as put forward) would be rejected by Arafat, I do not understand why you are surprised at this when everybody expected this to be the case.
Which is exactly what I have been saying to you. Israel cannot expect the Palestines to accept any peace plan it puts forward whilst reserving itself the right to refuse any peace plan put to it by the other side.
Ultimately, a viable peace plan will have to accommodate the needs of both Palestinians and Israelis. So long as the Arab side seeks a solution that would, in effect, bring about Israel's demise via demographic transformation, Israel will have no choice but to reject such initiatives. Israel's existence is not and cannot be on the table. That lack of accommodation is the fatal defect in the Arab initiatives and Palestinian position.
The lack of a Palestinian state today is a direct consequence of Palestinian intransigence. The economic hardship, particularly in the Gaza Strip, is a direct consequence of Palestinian failure to dismantle and disarm terrorist organizations such as Hamas and cost of failing to pursue the opportunities made available by Israel's complete disenagement from the Gaza Strip in 2005. Decisions have consequences. The decisionmakers and those who carried out such decisions bear responsibility for the consequences of those decisions.
A compromise is needed but when Israel says that the situation re: the refugees and Jerusalem are off limits how can a compromise be reached?
Israel cannot reasonably be expected to engineer or consent to its own demise. Moreover, in accepting President Clinton's bridging proposal, Israel agreed to give the Palestinians all of East Jerusalem except for the Western Wall (Judaism's holiest site). The Palestinians cannot expect Israel to surrender Judaism's holiest site.
On a seperate point if the Arabs could secure the financial backing of the Arab states would the Israelis accept a compensation package which paid for all the European Jews to move back home?
This analogy has no relevance to the issue of resolving the historic Israeli-Palestinian dispute. Israel is home to its Jewish population. The vast majority of Israel's Jewish residents were born in Israel. Israel, as a sovereign state, also has the right to set its own immigration policy. Its immigrants are legal residents there. Hence, Israel is also home to its immigrant population.
