I guess I should no longer be amazed at this:
| President Bush, summing up meetings with both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, said Thursday that a peace accord will require “painful political concessions” by each. Resolving the status of Jerusalem will be hard, he said, and he called for the end of the “occupation” of Arab land by the Israeli military. |
Israel has made lots of concessions.
What have the Palestinians done?
And that “occupation” business is not good either.
Here’s more from the AP news piece:
| He made a point of using a loaded term “occupation” to describe Israeli control over land that would eventually form the bulk of an independent Palestinian state. That he did so in Jerusalem underscored that he is trying not to seem partial to Israel.
[…] “The point of departure for permanent status negotiations to realize this vision seems clear,” he said. “There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967. The agreement must establish a Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people just as Israel is a homeland for the Jewish people.” |
Is the US still “occupying” any territory taken in war?
I think I need a head-shaking, eye-rolling emoticon here.
I have no idea whose side the book below takes.
