The PA (Palestinian Authorty) and the Fatah movement were started BEFORE the war of 1967. I think they were started in either '62 or '63 bubt I am not sure.
They were planning to take PALESTINE back, before any Israeli even set foot in the West Bank, which was then Jordan.
And the wall is a lifesaver. If you think there are less attempted attacks now, think again. Its remained pretty constant (on the plus side it hasnt gone up, the wall has made it go slightly down) but FAR LESS get through. On a more personal note, several relatives of mine owe their lives to that wall.
Furthermore, Barak was willing to give up all of what the Palestinians are asking for now, or were asking for at Oslo. Why didn't they take it then? They rejected his offer and started the second intifada shortly afterwards.
I can see where you're coming from, though. Its a messy conflict. But, just like in Taiwan vs. China, I'd rather give my suppport (tentatively and conditionally) to the proven democracy. There are Muslims in the Knesset. How many Jews in the PA? How many Jews in Jordan/Syria/insert any other Muslim country except for Iran here? At the same time, I don't wholly approve of all Israel's tactics (the assassinations, for example, are very effective, but very morally questionable to me). However, Israel has at least bargained in good faith at numerous points throughout its history with the palestinians, even though I agree they aren't exactly doing so now. The palestinians have never done it even once (look what came out of Oslo, for example).
Still, though, its a nasty conflict. I really hope both sides find peace.
Early 60's yes. But you didn't see the concentrated attacks until the 80's.
"And the wall is a lifesaver."
Of course. And Israel has every right to build it, as high as they want.
It's the route of the wall to which I was referring. I think you knew that -- interesting you ignored that and chose to defend the wall itself.
"Furthermore, Barak was willing to give up all of what the Palestinians are asking for now, or were asking for at Oslo. Why didn't they take it then?"
Because their "state" would look like Indonesia without the water -- swiss cheese comes to mind.
"However, Israel has at least bargained in good faith ..."
Hell, they look overly generous, don't they? Then again, they can afford to do so, in that they took over the bulk of what was to be the Palestinian State in the 1948 war. Then they took more in the '67 war. They've got the guns, tanks, and planes -- the Palestinians have rocks.
NOW, Israel sits down with that as their starting point and insist on a 50-50 give and take. And if the proposal is 53-47, why it's front page news as Israel's willingness to "make an extra effort". (as if the Knesset would ever accept 53-47, or as if the Israeli leader making such an offer would not be assassinated.)