Politics

[CoElkHunter]

It looks as though Israel has preempted a softening of support by starting its ground operations

I do believe the genie is now well and truly out of the bottle

The world will divide along the fault lines of cultural, national and strategic interests

Those fissures will be seen within nation states as the great multicultural experiment rapidly unwinds

It will also be seen within NATO
(Erdogen)

This will rapidly depart from a humanitarian issue to a global strategic one

(I suspect that the Palestinians were the sacrificial lambs in a sophisticated strategic play by those nations now being collectively referred to as the ‘new axis of evil’)

Israel is an absolutely vital western ally in the Middle East and wider afield

If it falls, I suspect the west won’t be far behind

Just my views as a layman

I suspect we are in for an ‘interesting’ few weeks as the pieces on the chessboard move - revealing true allegiances and interests

Thoughts?

IMHO, I'm sure Hamas/Iran knew that Israel would conduct a ground invasion of Gaza after the terrorists butchered the people inside Israel. I believe they want a "high" civilian death count inside Gaza in an attempt to turn world opinion against Israel and somehow in their terrorist minds, legitimize Hamas as the protectors and rightful leaders of the Palestinians. As far as Turkey goes, maybe it's time NATO parts way with Turkey as long as Erdogan is in charge. His recent statements went WAY beyond what he needed to say and showed his true colors as an enabler of Hamas' and other terrorist states/actors in their quest to destroy Israel.

 

[Doug3006]

After the most recent attack by Hamas, why would Israel ever support a Palestinian state next door? I believe one of the goals of this attack was to poison the well. Never again will either side agree to a 2 state solution. Now the Palestinians and their supporters can get on with their preferred course of action…..from the river to the sea and all that.

 

[Brent in Az]

Mike Pence suspends campaign for President.
Bad poll numbers, and financial challenges.

 

[Doubleplay]

Misinformed? Maybe.

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

• In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
• In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
• In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
• The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
• The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
• In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
• In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
• In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.

The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?

I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"

I hope you read the piece I posted a link to.
It covers everything without picking a side on the two state issue and it's from a reputable Western source.
Two state solution has nothing to do with being pro or against Israel or with current situation.
It's our long term national policy regardless which party is in power.

 

[Woodcarver]

it would never prevent criminals to obtain guns illegally on the black market, but it would at least took away anti gun argument for strict gun laws, when weapon abused was purchased legally.

This is why none of the rest will ever work.
With the twisted logic of the anti-gun crowd, they will never be happy until there is no private ownership of firearms. They are not interested in getting guns out of the hands of criminals, that is NOT their goal. Most of the guns that have been used in the "mass shootings" were legally obtained.
Several prominent Dems, when asked directly after introducing another anti-gun piece of legislation, "would that have prevented the (last) mass shooting?". Those who answered truthfully said "no".
Our 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting as some like to try to say, it has everything with our (man's) inherent right to defend oneself. More specifically, to also defend ourselves against a government that has become tyrannical. Remember, it was a bunch of armed citizens that kicked a tyrannical government out of this piece of real estate to form a new country a few years back. Every dictator in history has disarmed the populace to become (and try to remain) a dictator.
There is no legislative solution for someone who "snaps". There is no legislative solution to restrict firearms that will actually have any impact on the criminal use of firearms; but every attempt has most assuredly caused a restriction on the law abiding trying to defend themselves.
The red flag laws fly directly in the face of habeas corpus, another fundamental part of our nation; the right of the accused to defend themselves. Seize first, convict later, goes directly against the principal of innocent until proven guilty. We've already seen abuses where these have been passed. If they required an immediate hearing before seizing someone's weapons, I could support them; but not in their current form(s).
Until the laws already in place are truly enforced, truth in sentencing actually becomes a reality, and stopping the criminal use of firearms becomes the real goal, I will fight every attempt to pass another knee jerk, opportunistic restriction on my right to have and use firearms, without having to get permission from the government to do so.

 

[mark-hunter]

@Woodcarver
I understand your views perfectly!

I hope I managed to explain European system, and the problems and concerns we face.

 

[Wheels]

 

[Woodcarver]

@Woodcarver
I understand your views perfectly!

I hope I managed to explain European system, and the problems and concerns we face.

You did, and I have sympathy for those of you who are suffering that stupidity. It is why it is so important to those of us here in the US to fight and prevent those kind of restrictions being foisted upon us. Watching the Aussies, Canadians, and Brits succumbing to the seizures and restrictions in the past couple decades has been painful to see. Can't let it happen in the US.

 

[Wheels]

 

[geoff rath]

I see some reasonable comments earlier, and I understand uncompromising attitude of the pro 2/a side .
So, what I think is that majority of mass shooters have either mental illness history, or a record of supremacist racist ideas posted on various social networks, third category of abusers are obviously various criminal profiles.

Simple psychological medical check that can be made in half an hour can vet out lunatics.
Good criminal record check, can vet the other two kinds.

If the line has to be drawn, it has to be done very carefully.

I will try to explain European system.
It is not good or perfect and is very restrictive - pain in the ass for legal gun owners, but in the same time it is not too bad. Explation follows.

AR15 as measuring stick, of the quality of the law:
Apart from USA, the question that I always ask myself, is the measuring stick of ar15.
If a country allows private ownership of ar15, then the laws of the country are at least acceptable in all reality.

(How many countries in the world allows ownership of ar15 or similar rifle? Not many)
Those countries are mainly: USA and most of EU countries. And few probably in South America, maybe even less in Africa. in Far east I am not aware of any country allowing ar15 type of guns.
So, this is maybe 10-15% of all the countries in the world
In most EU countries AR15 is legally obtainable.
Based on this, and since I am not yet moving to Arizona, Texas or Alaska (top states for gun owners as per guns and ammo magazine), i must say - most of EU gun laws or at least laws in my country I will say they acceptable trying to be realistic (conditional legal ownership of ar15). The worst countries for gun owners in Europe are probably Netherlands and UK (forget about ar15 there), best countries are now probably Austria and Czech Republic. Others are in between.

EU system and ar15:
So, European system has three levels to pass licensing, for all types of firearms

1. Reason to buy/own.
This means one of the following reasons that has to be adequately proven: 1) collection, 2) hunting, 3) sport shooting and 4) not in all EU countries self defense, with very limited CCW options.

Self defense is the hardest to prove, and if legally possible, this is mostly for active or retired LEO, active army personnel and vets, politicians, and persons in risky professions handling cash money and similar.

Generally speaking my opinion is that this part of licensing process can be removed. If person wants to buy any firearm for the reason of any kind, why would he not buy?

This issue of having a "reason" to buy, brings problem to heirs, who do not have sport shooting or hunting license and need to inherit the guns from diseased. Usually they cannot inherit if they dont produce some evidence of their gun-needing status. And they will have limited time to sort out their papers, or sell guns while they are in police custody. Police will hold their guns in custody for about 6 months.
usually they will loose, 6 months is too short..

2. Medical check.
Yes it can vet out lunatics.

But the problem is that medical requirements grow without reason. (I wonder who is making these???)

For example, diabetes, eye sight, hearing etc.... all together in my country total 18 diagnosis, without psychological diagnosis, as they are separate. (and to me all these 18 DG's they are irrelevant for the purpose intended)
So medical check can/should be restricted to psychological diagnosis, exclusively.

If medical check is not passed, then authorities confiscate guns, or not give permit to buy.
This means, if a person and elderly gun owner has serious case of diabetes later in life, they will threat him as criminal and confiscate his property. (like diabetes is not problem enough?)

Each EU country handles details of confiscation differently.
In my country, after guns are confiscated for this reason the owner has the right to sell them within 6 months, otherwise he can disable them or give them to government without compensation. During this period of 6 months, guns are in police custody
Selling large collection of guns in 6 months period is impossible, or high value guns to sell will be near to impossible to sell for true value.

3. Criminal background check.
Whatever they do, is reasonable, no issue there.

So, in my view removing the condition "reason to own" would not affect anything in safety.
But having medical requirements thick as medical encyclopedia is true risk for gun owners. We all get older, and none of us is getting healthier. So risk of loosing the guns and property is there with such regulations.

Having REASONABLE medical check, based on psychological evaluation + criminal background check could raise security a bit.
But- Just a bit.

it would never prevent criminals to obtain guns illegally on the black market, but it would at least took away anti gun argument for strict gun laws, when weapon abused was purchased legally.

I'll hark back to home (Australia) where individual states have responsibility. The Port Arthur massacre "killed" any chance of civilian ownership of ARs/SKS'/ etc. The alleged perpetrator had several ARs, which allegedly had once been surrenders/seizure in another state and sold via those states' Police services into Tasmania. West Australia has gone hard on possession of long range/capable rifles (338 Lap) etc, AND limited the total number of firearms owned severely. Queensland has a s l o w processing system, supposedly due to a lack of suitably trained bureaucraps to handle the applications. Sourcing suitable pistol powders is like finding the golden fleece, none produced here in Oz any more ... and so it goes...

 

[geoff rath]

You did, and I have sympathy for those of you who are suffering that stupidity. It is why it is so important to those of us here in the US to fight and prevent those kind of restrictions being foisted upon us. Watching the Aussies, Canadians, and Brits succumbing to the seizures and restrictions in the past couple decades has been painful to see. Can't let it happen in the US.

Self defence in Oz does not exist in any legal sense. Our major issue at present ( apart from drug dealers killing each other, with the occasional "wrong person targeted", and tobacco impoerters burning each others' businesses out, is primarily juveniles stealing, hooning in, and wrecking cars, often involving armed breakins to obtain keys. For example, should some of them come over my fence, get past the blue-heeler cross, and through the locked doors to get my car keys (it's a 20+ year/old) manual Honda, I am advised to give them up, by Police, and the judiciary. should one of them trip over my garden hose and break a leg, I could be sued... How come? Because Australia is a signatory to the U N convention of rights of the child. Stupidity rules... Enuf of my diatribe...

 

[Woodcarver]

Self defence in Oz does not exist in any legal sense. Our major issue at present ( apart from drug dealers killing each other, with the occasional "wrong person targeted", and tobacco impoerters burning each others' businesses out, is primarily juveniles stealing, hooning in, and wrecking cars, often involving armed breakins to obtain keys. For example, should some of them come over my fence, get past the blue-heeler cross, and through the locked doors to get my car keys (it's a 20+ year/old) manual Honda, I am advised to give them up, by Police, and the judiciary. should one of them trip over my garden hose and break a leg, I could be sued... How come? Because Australia is a signatory to the U N convention of rights of the child. Stupidity rules... Enuf of my diatribe...

Yeah, that's a really asinine policy/law. The bureaucrats that write those laws never want to recognize the reality that the POS trying to steal your car/jewelry/?? might intend to do you harm in the process.
Unfortunately, Australia lacks a 2nd Amendment, and the only recourse is to try and change your lawmakers.

 

[Woodcarver]

Btw, drug dealers killing drug dealers falls into the Good Riddance file in my book. Having an innocent killed is truly tragic, but your laws don't allow them to defend themselves, and the criminals, by definition, don't care when an unintended victim gets in the way.

 

[Ridge Runner]

[

View attachment 566425

Sad , but true.

 

[mark-hunter]

Watching the Aussies, Canadians, and Brits succumbing to the seizures and restrictions in the past couple decades has been painful to see. Can't let it happen in the US.

Keep it up!

Anyway let me tell you few positive anecdotes that came up with recent gun law changes in my country.
Old gun law was passed in 2012.
New gun law was passed in 2018.

As per EU legal practice, every bill has to be made public before sending to parliament for debate.
There is govt web site, where any interested individual or organization can make the comments and proposals for changes.

As per gun law 2012, for example, all rifles that "resemble assault rifles", where banned. This means Benelli R1 can be registered, ar 15 cannot. SKS or Dragunov could be registered, but ak47 could not.
Of course there was no definition of what is "assaault rifle".

There was also requirement for 5 year medical check in the law as of 2012.

Then came the bill of the gun law in 2018:

From IPSC and dynamic shooting community was growing pressure to allow ar15 (and ak47) semi autos to be legalized. From everybody from shooting community there was growing pressure for medical check to be relaxed, especially from hunting community as hunters in average are older generation.
(How long to make new medical check frequency? 10years? 25 years?)

On the end it turned like this:
Semi autos passed fairly painless, the clause "resemble assault rifle" was removed.

Medical requirement was somewhat more challenging debate.
So, the ministry of interior (ministry of police, providing first draft of law) suggested medical check to be valid till the age of 65, and then renewed every 5 years.

We, in the shooting community were thrilled! Yes, age 65! Fantastic! It sounds like for ever!

But unexpectedly the representatives of the party of pensioners, which have few reps in parliament, kicked in in the debate, and said:
This is unacceptable!
With this requirement, you are legalizing de facto and de iure, discrimination of elderly citizens!

The comment has been recognized, and medical check requirement was defined "until health condition changes".
This means a person makes first medical check before buying first gun, and medical fitness report is valid till he gets seriously ill.
There is obligation to define your family doctor when applying for gun license

The health condition requirements are subject of different legal act (not the gun law). Defining 18+ different diagnosis. Old legal act since early 2000's.

But the "Change of health status" clause started the temporary gun grab.

So, only professional medicine doctor can decide if someone is fit to have gun or not.
This is not decision of family doctor.

Professional medicine doctors give fitness report for all professions (police, welders, divers, construction workers, pilots, astronauts, teachers, etc and so also for gun owners),.

But, probably due to some internal communication in ministry of health, family doctors who control health on entire population (and who are not specialist in professional medicine) were instructed to inform police when individual health condition changes.

This resulted that in some provinces when somebody catched the flu or scratched the toe, next day police would come and confiscate the guns, after being reported by his family doctor for change in health condition.

That persons was then send to non-routine medical check (in proffesional medicine office) to prove if he is fit to own the gun, or not.
In first 5-6 months there was a havoc of temporary gun grab in several provinces, with hundreds medical based gun confiscation made.

Newspapers reported official number of temporary gun confiscations, I calculated that by that time the total amount of non routine medical checks went as high as 200.000 EUR (based on average price of medical fitness check), not small money in local communities.

But in law 2018, there was "catch 22", which family doctors, somehow omitted. (Ups!)
This stopped gun grab within 3 months!

Who pays the medical fitness check bills?

So, it defined that if a person who had his guns confiscated is later proven fit to own the gun on non routine medical check, his guns will be returned, and medical expenses for this medical check will be refunded back by government (actually from the budget of ministry of interior - police).

If person is proven unfit, expenses are on him, guns remain in police custody, and he has 6 months to sell the guns, give them to govt without compensation, or keep the guns disabled by authorized gunsmith.

So, what happened next, 95% of first medical based confiscations were proven wrong, 95% of gun owners got positive medical fitness reports, and guns were given back to rightful owner.

Then - refund bills started pouring in, (thousands of euros), and suddenly the medical gun grab just stopped.

What a surprise!

What I suppose that happened is, there should had been some correspondence and exchange between two ministries (Ministry of health and ministry of interior), and family doctors were instructed and educated to be very very cautions not to report wrong diagnosis for individual.

Now is peace and quiet on medical front.
No more gun grabs.

The situation lasted maybe for 6 months after implementation of new law as of Novemebr 2018. Ended by spring of 2019. With happy ending.

And semi autos ar15s and ak47, are routinely registered (non related to medical issues, just more lax gun laws)
People are buying them for sport shooting and hunting.

Now, from shooting and hunting community there is more pressure to relax the gun laws more.
Silencers/suppressors are still illegal, but there is growing pressure to legalize them as well.... Public sentiment on this is positive.

Local politicians and opposition parties call on occasion for more relaxation of gun laws, with latest immigration crises, so we will see how it goes.
EU commission, is quiet about this matter - before (aftermath of paris attacks) it was very loud to ban guns and semi autos. Now EC is quiet.

Lead ammunition in EU is still under close scrutiny, still subject to debate.

Will see how it goes..

 

[Woodcarver]

Keep it up!

Anyway let me tell you few positive anecdotes that came up with recent gun law changes in my country.
Old gun law was passed in 2012.
New gun law was passed in 2018.

As per EU legal practice, every bill has to be made public before sending to parliament for debate.
There is govt web site, where any interested individual or organization can make the comments and proposals for changes.

As per gun law 2012, for example, all rifles that "resemble assault rifles", where banned. This means Benelli R1 can be registered, ar 15 cannot. SKS or Dragunov could be registered, but ak47 could not.
Of course there was no definition of what is "assaault rifle".

There was also requirement for 5 year medical check in the law as of 2012.

Then came the bill of the gun law in 2018:

From IPSC and dynamic shooting community was growing pressure to allow ar15 (and ak47) semi autos to be legalized. From everybody from shooting community there was growing pressure for medical check to be relaxed, especially from hunting community as hunters in average are older generation.
(How long to make new medical check frequency? 10years? 25 years?)

On the end it turned like this:
Semi autos passed fairly painless, the clause "resemble assault rifle" was removed.

Medical requirement was somewhat more challenging debate.
So, the ministry of interior (ministry of police, providing first draft of law) suggested medical check to be valid till the age of 65, and then renewed every 5 years.

We, in the shooting community were thrilled! Yes, age 65! Fantastic! It sounds like for ever!

But unexpectedly the representatives of the party of pensioners, which have few reps in parliament, kicked in in the debate, and said:
This is unacceptable!
With this requirement, you are legalizing de facto and de iure, discrimination of elderly citizens!

The comment has been recognized, and medical check requirement was defined "until health condition changes".
This means a person makes first medical check before buying first gun, and medical fitness report is valid till he gets seriously ill.
There is obligation to define your family doctor when applying for gun license

The health condition requirements are subject of different legal act (not the gun law). Defining 18+ different diagnosis. Old legal act since early 2000's.

But the "Change of health status" clause started the temporary gun grab.

So, only professional medicine doctor can decide if someone is fit to have gun or not.
This is not decision of family doctor.

Professional medicine doctors give fitness report for all professions (police, welders, divers, construction workers, pilots, astronauts, teachers, etc and so also for gun owners),.

But, probably due to some internal communication in ministry of health, family doctors who control health on entire population (and who are not specialist in professional medicine) were instructed to inform police when individual health condition changes.

This resulted that in some provinces when somebody catched the flu or scratched the toe, next day police would come and confiscate the guns, after being reported by his family doctor for change in health condition.

That persons was then send to non-routine medical check (in proffesional medicine office) to prove if he is fit to own the gun, or not.
In first 5-6 months there was a havoc of temporary gun grab in several provinces, with hundreds medical based gun confiscation made.

Newspapers reported official number of temporary gun confiscations, I calculated that by that time the total amount of non routine medical checks went as high as 200.000 EUR (based on average price of medical fitness check), not small money in local communities.

But in law 2018, there was "catch 22", which family doctors, somehow omitted. (Ups!)
This stopped gun grab within 3 months!

Who pays the medical fitness check bills?

So, it defined that if a person who had his guns confiscated is later proven fit to own the gun on non routine medical check, his guns will be returned, and medical expenses for this medical check will be refunded back by government (actually from the budget of ministry of interior - police).

If person is proven unfit, expenses are on him, guns remain in police custody, and he has 6 months to sell the guns, give them to govt without compensation, or keep the guns disabled by authorized gunsmith.

So, what happened next, 95% of first medical based confiscations were proven wrong, 95% of gun owners got positive medical fitness reports, and guns were given back to rightful owner.

Then - refund bills started pouring in, (thousands of euros), and suddenly the medical gun grab just stopped.

What a surprise!

What I suppose that happened is, there should had been some correspondence and exchange between two ministries (Ministry of health and ministry of interior), and family doctors were instructed and educated to be very very cautions not to report wrong diagnosis for individual.

Now is peace and quiet on medical front.
No more gun grabs.

The situation lasted maybe for 6 months after implementation of new law as of Novemebr 2018. Ended by spring of 2019. With happy ending.

And semi autos ar15s and ak47, are routinely registered (non related to medical issues, just more lax gun laws)
People are buying them for sport shooting and hunting.

Now, from shooting and hunting community there is more pressure to relax the gun laws more.
Silencers/suppressors are still illegal, but there is growing pressure to legalize them as well.... Public sentiment on this is positive.

Local politicians and opposition parties call on occasion for more relaxation of gun laws, with latest immigration crises, so we will see how it goes.
EU commission, is quiet about this matter - before (aftermath of paris attacks) it was very loud to ban guns and semi autos. Now EC is quiet.

Lead ammunition in EU is still under close scrutiny, still subject to debate.

Will see how it goes..

Those are indeed positive changes. Hope your country can continue to move in the right direction.

 

[Kevin Peacocke]

Misinformed? Maybe.

The Palestinians have actually had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers:

• In 1937, the Peel Commission proposed the partition of Palestine and the creation of an Arab state.
• In 1939, the British White Paper proposed the creation of a unitary Arab state.
• In 1947, the UN would have created an even larger Arab state as part of its partition plan.
• The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace negotiations offered the Palestinians autonomy, which would almost certainly have led to full independence.
• The Oslo agreements of the 1990s laid out a path for Palestinian independence, but the process was derailed by terrorism.
• In 2000, Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to create a Palestinian state in all of Gaza and 97 percent of the West Bank.
• In 2008, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered to withdraw from almost the entire West Bank and partition Jerusalem on a demographic basis.
• In addition 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians. On the contrary whilst Jordan was in control Arafat said there was no longer a claim as it was no longer part of Palestine. Once it was back in Israeli hands it miraculously became disputed land again! This is one of many reasons Jews and Israelis are cynical.

The Palestinians have spurned each of these opportunities. A variety of reasons have been given for why the Palestinians have in Abba Eban’s words, “never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity.” Historian Benny Morris has suggested that the Palestinians have religious, historical, and practical reasons for opposing an agreement with Israel. He says that “Arafat and his generation cannot give up the vision of the greater land of Israel for the Arabs. [This is true because] this is a holy land, Dar al-Islam [the world of Islam]. It was once in the hands of the Muslims, and it is inconceivable [to them] that infidels like us [the Israelis] would receive it.”

The Palestinians also believe that time is on their side. “They feel that demographics will defeat the Jews in one hundred or two hundred years, just like the Crusaders.” The Palestinians, Morris says, also hope the Arabs will acquire nuclear weapons in the future that will allow them to defeat Israel.

In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. In addition, he agreed to dismantle 63 isolated settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third.

Barak also made previously unthinkable concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have “religious sovereignty” over the Temple Mount.

According to U.S. peace negotiator Dennis Ross, Israel offered to create a Palestinian state that was contiguous, and not a series of cantons. Even in the case of the Gaza Strip, which must be physically separate from the West Bank unless Israel were to be cut into non-contiguous pieces, a solution was devised whereby an overland highway would connect the two parts of the Palestinian state without any Israeli checkpoints or interference. The proposal also addressed the Palestinian refugee issue, guaranteeing them the right of return to the Palestinian state and reparations from a $30 billion fund that would be collected from international donors to compensate them.

“In his last conversation with President Clinton, Arafat told the President that he was “a great man.” Clinton responded, “The hell I am. I’m a colossal failure, and you made me one.”

Arafat was asked to agree to Israeli sovereignty over the parts of the Western Wall religiously significant to Jews (i.e., not the entire Temple Mount), and three early warning stations in the Jordan Valley, which Israel would withdraw from after six years. Most important, however, Arafat was expected to agree that the conflict with Israel was over at the end of the negotiations. This was the true deal breaker. Arafat was not willing to end the conflict. “For him to end the conflict is to end himself,” said Ross.

The prevailing view of the Camp David/White House negotiations—that Israel offered generous concessions, and that Yasser Arafat rejected them to pursue the war that began in September 2000—was acknowledged for more than a year. To counter the perception that Arafat was the obstacle to peace, the Palestinians and their supporters then began to suggest a variety of excuses for why Arafat failed to say “yes” to a proposal that would have established a Palestinian state. The truth is that if the Palestinians were dissatisfied with any part of the Israeli proposal, all they had to do was offer a counterproposal. They never did.

Anyone that is against Israel should satisfy themselves as why this may have been?

I believe, when it comes to the Palestinians, as David Crosby has it: "They Want It All"

Thank you for the clarity @Hogpatrol. Isreal WILL take Hamas out, they have no choice. Then the Palestinians will have a chance to choose a sensible path once more. But will they?

 

[VertigoBE]

I see some reasonable comments earlier, and I understand uncompromising attitude of the pro 2/a side .
So, what I think is that majority of mass shooters have either mental illness history, or a record of supremacist racist ideas posted on various social networks, third category of abusers are obviously various criminal profiles.

Simple psychological medical check that can be made in half an hour can vet out lunatics.
Good criminal record check, can vet the other two kinds.

If the line has to be drawn, it has to be done very carefully.

I will try to explain European system.
It is not good or perfect and is very restrictive - pain in the ass for legal gun owners, but in the same time it is not too bad. Explation follows.

AR15 as measuring stick, of the quality of the law:
Apart from USA, the question that I always ask myself, is the measuring stick of ar15.
If a country allows private ownership of ar15, then the laws of the country are at least acceptable in all reality.

(How many countries in the world allows ownership of ar15 or similar rifle? Not many)
Those countries are mainly: USA and most of EU countries. And few probably in South America, maybe even less in Africa. in Far east I am not aware of any country allowing ar15 type of guns.
So, this is maybe 10-15% of all the countries in the world
In most EU countries AR15 is legally obtainable.
Based on this, and since I am not yet moving to Arizona, Texas or Alaska (top states for gun owners as per guns and ammo magazine), i must say - most of EU gun laws or at least laws in my country I will say they acceptable trying to be realistic (conditional legal ownership of ar15). The worst countries for gun owners in Europe are probably Netherlands and UK (forget about ar15 there), best countries are now probably Austria and Czech Republic. Others are in between.

EU system and ar15:
So, European system has three levels to pass licensing, for all types of firearms

1. Reason to buy/own.
This means one of the following reasons that has to be adequately proven: 1) collection, 2) hunting, 3) sport shooting and 4) not in all EU countries self defense, with very limited CCW options.

Self defense is the hardest to prove, and if legally possible, this is mostly for active or retired LEO, active army personnel and vets, politicians, and persons in risky professions handling cash money and similar.

Generally speaking my opinion is that this part of licensing process can be removed. If person wants to buy any firearm for the reason of any kind, why would he not buy?

This issue of having a "reason" to buy, brings problem to heirs, who do not have sport shooting or hunting license and need to inherit the guns from diseased. Usually they cannot inherit if they dont produce some evidence of their gun-needing status. And they will have limited time to sort out their papers, or sell guns while they are in police custody. Police will hold their guns in custody for about 6 months.
usually they will loose, 6 months is too short..

2. Medical check.
Yes it can vet out lunatics.

But the problem is that medical requirements grow without reason. (I wonder who is making these???)

For example, diabetes, eye sight, hearing etc.... all together in my country total 18 diagnosis, without psychological diagnosis, as they are separate. (and to me all these 18 DG's they are irrelevant for the purpose intended)
So medical check can/should be restricted to psychological diagnosis, exclusively.

If medical check is not passed, then authorities confiscate guns, or not give permit to buy.
This means, if a person and elderly gun owner has serious case of diabetes later in life, they will threat him as criminal and confiscate his property. (like diabetes is not problem enough?)

Each EU country handles details of confiscation differently.
In my country, after guns are confiscated for this reason the owner has the right to sell them within 6 months, otherwise he can disable them or give them to government without compensation. During this period of 6 months, guns are in police custody
Selling large collection of guns in 6 months period is impossible, or high value guns to sell will be near to impossible to sell for true value.

3. Criminal background check.
Whatever they do, is reasonable, no issue there.

So, in my view removing the condition "reason to own" would not affect anything in safety.
But having medical requirements thick as medical encyclopedia is true risk for gun owners. We all get older, and none of us is getting healthier. So risk of loosing the guns and property is there with such regulations.

Having REASONABLE medical check, based on psychological evaluation + criminal background check could raise security a bit.
But- Just a bit.

it would never prevent criminals to obtain guns illegally on the black market, but it would at least took away anti gun argument for strict gun laws, when weapon abused was purchased legally.

This was excellent!

In fact, by removing the obligation to provide a reason for owning a firearm, anyone can apply for the license, as long as they can demonstrate psychological fitness. So in case of inheritance, there would be no pressure on the next of kin to quickly sell the collection.

 

[mark-hunter]

Those are indeed positive changes. Hope your country can continue to move in the right direction.

There are two limiting factors.

1. EC (European commission) non elected body issuing legal directives on national legislation for member states. Directive is not mandatory to follow, but gives directions in legislative matters which then member countries try to follow. (or not follow, with protest of Brussels - example Czech republic made CCW right for self defense in national constitution, smart move of Czechs because constitution is above the law, and Eu should not temper with member states national constitutions )

2. National strategy on small arms: There is legal document, approved by parliament, and published in national gazette 2009: "National strategy and action plan of control of small and light arms"

The purpose and objective of the document of national strategy on small arms is following:

Please take note of bolded parts. (Warning, text may cause heart attack on honest pro 2/a American, read with caution. )

OC1 – Reducing the amount of weapons available for illegal activities;

OC2 – Reducing the number of accidents caused by the use of weapons and ammunition;

OC3 – Reducing the visible presence of weapons in the community, and the fight against the culture of weapons;

OC4 – Raising public awareness of the problem of a large number of small arms;

OC5 – Implementation of activities aimed at suppressing illegal arms trade;

OC6 – More effective implementation of international measures to prevent, fight against and eradicate illegal trade in small arms and light weapons;

OC7 – Establishment of a more effective information system;

OC8 – Taking appropriate measures to prevent violations of the arms embargo of the United Nations Security Council, the European Union and other embargoes arising from the international obligations of the Republic of Croatia;

OC9 – Improvement of legal regulations that will establish standards and procedures related to the storage, management and security of weapons in the possession of the police and the Armed Forces of the Republic of Croatia;

OC10 – Continuation of activities of intensified destruction of small and light weapons and ammunition designated for destruction;

OC11 - Cooperation with other countries and international and regional organizations to develop and strengthen partnerships in order to exchange information and combat organized crime.

 

[mark-hunter]

In fact, by removing the obligation to provide a reason for owning a firearm, anyone can apply for the license, as long as they can demonstrate psychological fitness. So in case of inheritance, there would be no pressure on the next of kin to quickly sell the collection.

Exactly, except, it is not yet removed.
However, there is more and more public official voices to remove it. I have no idea about the outcome in the future.

in old laws , there was an option to keep guns for the reason of the memory of the diseased.
This was annulated around 2008, or 2009, under EU directive.
this caused hundreds of guns to be confiscated.

My grandfather guns, inherited by uncle (non shooter, non hunter) have been confiscated in that way.
We were late in response and had to disable the guns with gunsmith, despite the fact that I have all licenses. Just because we were late. So, this is how we at least kept them disabled as memory to old man,

people dont know the law. So they lose the guns in this way.

But in this situation, a heir can apply for license for gun collection and will keep the guns.
Collection license is issued routinely if medical check and criminal records are cleared.

Limitation of license, holder of collectors license is not allowed to have ammunition or shoot guns on the ranges.
But will keep the guns. (and keep the value of the guns)

LATER EDIT.
But removing the reason to own - this would be also in conflict with national strategy as defined above. Point OC3.