That’s because there aren’t any (the treaty with Egypt excepted). You were wrong.
I am not an expert at all the negotiations that had taken place (who is?) but it was at least my impression from news reports that there was a treaty signed which had a widespread expectation that Israel was at a minimum to stop the settlements, which were a major if not the primary sticking point at a point in time (before the assassination of one of the Israeli leaders).
See my last answer, fiction.
Things seemed to go downhill once the settlement-making resumed. One can say that the treaty was broken by terrorism but at least it was my impression that the particular terrorism at the time was not state-sponsored (or Arafat-sponsored, or whatever).
Amazing. You acknowledge there was no treaty, then blame Israel for violating a non-existant treaty. The biggest settlement Arafat wants to get rid of is Tel Aviv. Hamas says they can go back to Eastern Europe where they came from.
I thought there was a general concensus on halting further settlements. At some point the progress ceased, leading to (ok--- my impression) more settlements, and then cascading, anarchy within the ranks of the Palestinian police.
Been there, done that.
The common expectation as I recall was the ceasing of new settlements. But the more general principle was a common expectation as I recall of the restoration of rights for all citizens. Don't have that? Forget peace.
The only “right” arab citizens of Israel are missing is the obligation to serve in the IDF. Lots enlist anyway. They own property, businesses, vote, and have representation in the Knesset.
Need restoration of rights as a prelude, or else you don't have squat.
What rights? Been there.
If the Israeli government is in power, only the Israeli government is in place to provide that. If they don't want to, then fine-- CUT OFF FUNDING. Why are we funding them anyway?
Because it was important to American foreign policy not the have the armies of Egypt and Syria destroyed in 1967 and 1973. They’re our friends. It was also important to America to see Israel leave Lebanon, as a favor to Syria.
I do not perceive that. I think there have been families waiting since 1947 for compensation for their homes taken at that time by the Israelis.
That was dealt with in 1953-54. They can sue, they can’t blow up civilians. It’s not nice.
I am referring to the accords in which the Palestinians were granted their own police (whatever it was named; sorry). My hope was that that could have continued. It seems as if it was undermined by belligerents within both camps.
It was undermined by the fact that they were terrorists, killing Israelis and Palestinians. No one disputes that.
Which means something happened after 1945. For 5 points, what could be the something that happened? If anything this proves that Arabs have the capability not to be inherently anti-Jew, as many have asserted.
Sure did, they threw all the Jew *astards out of their countries and confiscated their property. You’re right, shows me they’re not Jewhaters.
There is the slight matter of curfews, lack of trials, checkpoints, property confiscation without compensation, and so on. Yes, the Palestinians are alive. No, the Israeli government has not guaranteed common human rights. Defund them.
Nonsense. Before Arafat and Oslo emerged on the scene they had the highest standard of living in the Arab world. Rather than developing democratic political institutions they embraced Arafat and the destruction of Israel as their goal.
And what about Washington's warning of entangling alliances? Apparently that does *not* sound OK to you.
I won’t resond yet. Clearly you’ve never read Washington’s address. Go and read it. Read about the insulation our oceans provide us (gone by Monroe’s time, thus the doctrine). Particularly read his comments about America’s obligation to honor current commitments. Washington would clearly have taken Israel’s side.
As the Israelis did to the Arabs who were living in Palestine. I don't condone either action. Do you?
Nonsense. Before Arafat and Oslo emerged on the scene they had the highest standard of living in the Arab world.
The Palestinian reached parity with the non-Palestinian Israeli? Why continue to bring the non-Arab world into it? We might compare some US citizens with Mexican standard of living, as proof that everything is OK. But it's not relevant. What's relevant is parity within the jurisdiction. I don't see you claiming that-- just sliding around it, not very well.
I won’t resond yet. Clearly you’ve never read Washington’s address. Go and read it. Read about the insulation our oceans provide us (gone by Monroe’s time, thus the doctrine). Particularly read his comments about America’s obligation to honor current commitments. Washington would clearly have taken Israel’s side.
Whoa there! We were stark neutral for the first 125 years (minus forays like 1898). So what did the first 125 years worth of presidents know that you apparently missed from the policy? It is nice that we have friends. I am not saying don't have friends. I am just saying don't have entangling alliances, just as Washington says, and how presidents after him interpreted it for the first 125 years. Apparently you have problems not just with me and my interpretation, but with US history in general. Good luck!