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.)
Actually, I did not know you were referring to the route of the security fence. Calm down. There will be plenty of time to change the route of the fence; the first priority of the fence is saving Israeli lives, however you choose to interpret that.
Do you want a one state solution, or what? Because we all know what that means. Israel stops being a Jewish state. And in all likelihood quickly descends to the level of Jordan, Syria, Egypt, etc. And maybe the Jews and Christians would be treated about as well as they are in those countries.
Palestinians have far more than rocks. Look at how their prime minister's lecture was interrupted by AK-47s and later, a huge road bomb attack on his convoy.
Don't try to pull the Israel is orchestarating evil and all offers are only publicitiy stunts. That's BS. Don't put all the onus on Israel. They HAVE tried for peace time and time again. Barak's offer was good. The only real alternative to that is a one state solution, and I mentioned the consequences of that already.
If I were in Israel, my starting position would be for the "Palestinians" to leave, into Jordan, Egypt, Syria, wherever. And I consider that position to be generous. They long ago sacrificed any legitimate claim to anything. When the Arabs established extermination as their goal, they deserved nothing less in return.
"the Palestinians have rocks."
Oh is that what keeps blowing up buses, cafes, discos and pizzarias?