Israel/Palestine

scroll narrative on the left side that is convenient and covers the major event periods like Oslo, The Intifadas, Camp David etc. as separate periods spanning a range of years. As I said they have some language that is not any part of what I'm talking about but they have the maps well presented with the narrative periods. Sometimes factual and useful source material comes from places with a bias or objectionable viewpoint or phrasing. I point this out ahead of time when using that material for a factual reference so that a reader of my post would know ahead of time if they may not wish to see the potentially objectionable words and can be forewarned. I also note that content as not being a part of or reason why I am using the particular source material so that people don't think I'm endorsing or accepting something I'm not.

I would draw an analogy to William F Buckley Jr. and some of his completely reprehensible views and positions. While I could not abide much of what Buckley was about, if you listened to his show "Firing Line" and his debates/interviews with various guests of wide diversity on the political/social/historical/academic spectrum I could nonetheless come away from his program with some new factual references to historical events in foreign affairs etc. I would note the references and then investigate further and increase my base of knowledge about the events and be better able to formulate a position/conclusion about a policy proposal or better understand or agree/disagree with someone else's position/conclusion.

Would it be nice if the maps/narrative I'm referencing weren't from a site with objectionable language and references? Of course but these are a good basic reference in concise form broken down by phases of policy/agreements and in a scrolling format. So I take some of the OK from the "bad" and make the caveats ahead of time. It is only proper if I'm using source material from another site or publication that I provide the link to the originators for proper attribution. It also cuts down on having people not understand where a quote, picture, map etc. comes from and between the caveats and whatever stated purpose/narrative I've given for a post it should help the reader to understand that the material is for reference/information and is not for endorsing the entirety of a link or an organization.

As I said previously, my point in working on that future post is not to endorse or try to persuade anybody one way or the other about the concept of the "2 State Solution". It is to show graphically and with brief narrative the changes on the ground mainly in the West Bank and Jerusalem during each "phase" discussed and when viewed it should be informative to people who may be thinking that a "withdrawal" from the West Bank could be mainly a matter of withdrawing troops and dismantling a few settlements. If "withdrawal" is or becomes a part of a solution then people would be wise to understand from seeing things visually that this would not be anything like the Gaza withdrawal. A West Bank "withdrawal" would be a much more complicated and extensive matter and we're talking about negotiations of a far greater complexity than say a ceasefire or aid supply routes.