Whilst

Whilst Palestinian terrorism may have been less before the nineties than after, it was a significant issue before. Why was it that when the Oslo peace process started, Palestinian terrorism against Israelis became much more intense and violent? People may disagree that the final offer was not enough, too generous or whatever they want, but this was the first time Israel had committed to a 2 state solution and represented the first real chance for the Palestinians to have a state of their own. I dont think people realise how big a shift this was regarding the Israeli population and their views regarding the Palestinians. During the 90s, there was virtually no Israeli presence in the main population centeres of the territories and this was only reversed after 2 years of the current intifada, after more than 700 Israeli civilians had been murdered inside Israel.

There are many good reasons why a 2 state solution was not on the table before the 90s - the Palestinians themselves rejecting this was certainly one of them. "Colonialist" policies by Israel regarding the territories is not one. To believe that Israel is colonialist you have to ignore the facts that the sinai was returned to Egypt as part of a peace deal, the geography of the area certainly supports the assertion that the 67 borders were indefensible and would have only meant constant warfare (something that has been avoided since 73 with Egypt, Syria and Jordan) and that the wars of 67 and 73 (started by the Arab states in order to wipe Israel out) resulted in the loss of parts of their land and as such, responsibility for those losses are theirs. Would you think it reasonable for Israel to have immediately returned the land used to attack the country and return her citizens to same situation before the wars with no peace deal in place? The 67 borders were an impossible situation and this surely is obvious by a simple look at the geography of the area and the 67 and 73 wars.

I know that whenever anyone on these forums defends any aspect of Israels policies there is an immediate and hysterical reaction (like the earlier poster - not your comments), but I have already stated that I am fully in favour of a 2 state solution in principle, that the current situation is more harmful to Palestinians than Israelis and that the majority of Israelis share this view. Im just saying that the only impediment to a Palestinian state in the last 15 years or so has been the Palestinians themselves - or at least their leadership. Israel elected a series of governments that were pro 2 states and if Arafat had accepted the terms offered him or if the Palestinians hadnt launched the 2nd Intifada, I see no reason why they would not have a state of their own at this point. I remember Palestinians from Gaza coming to Ashkelon beach on Saturdays during the 90s, Israelis shopping in the West Bank markets, etc... without any problems. This was all ruined by Arafats 2nd intifada and paved the way for Hamas' riso to power. It seems that we agree that this has made a 2 state soluition much more difficult.

I dont really want to get into the usual pro/anti Israel arguament. Whilst im sure we have differing opinions on the history of the situation, my point is simply that the biggest tragedy for Palestinian people is their leaders inability to accept, or their outright rejection of the 2 state principle and the violence that they have now turned inwards once Israel no longer holds any piece of Gaza. If Israel withdrew from the west bank tomorrow, im absolutely sure that the situation would soon be that of Gaza and therefore immesurably worse for them than it is now. Im not in any way saying that this is a consideration for Israel regarding its presence there, but it is relevant when talking about innocent Palestinian civilians caught up in this.