| |
On the other end of this Palestinian equation, a truce is being mentioned from time to time, once to be a ten-year truce, and sometimes twenty-year one.
Quarrels are arising over the situation stating that this is the alternative for the failure of the first option.
Despite the fact that there are no essential differences, in principle, between the two equation ends, yet the contradiction that is supposed to be of no importance becomes so significantly clear and was used to serve the discriminative solution.
It is no doubt that the so called “alternative” stating on the possibility to maintain a 20-year truce lacks in fact a clear strategic view to solve the conflict in a way that guarantees the return of refugees. What does 20 year truce mean?
Doesn’t that mean refugees will thus wait for another 20-year until the power scale changes?
But what if the power scale remains the same?
In addition to this issue of the two-state, some cultured people from the left wing, here I want to call them “the neoliberal left”, have involved themselves in defending this solution as being the only one available at this stage, and that raising of the single-state solution as a threatening will be a scarecrow not for Israelis only but also for us the original people of the country.
The unprecedented events took place in Gaza Strip shall once and forever put an end for the so called (peace talks).
|
|
