hamas founder on cnn

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: sandorski
... Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? If not, why should Palestinians recognize Israels?

If Israel did not tactictly acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to exists they woudl have destroyed the PLO and the "camps" a long time ago. Probably ater the '73 conflict.

The UN Mandates stated two seperate states; it was the Arab nations and then Palestinian leadership(s) that want it all.

Sharon basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority from 2000-2004. As for the refugee camps, Israel would be an unambiguous pariah if their history of attacks on the camps were any worse.

The UN makes all kinds of resolutions. You don't get the option of picking/choosing. The UN also calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders so arguably it doesn't really matter if other Arab nations want it all OR Israel wants more than 1967.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: tommywishbone
I like the guy. And remember, no matter what he does, he is correct in his actions, because he was elected via the democratic process. All hail whateverhisnameis!

So would you say that no matter what George W Bush does he is also correct becuase--he was elected via the democratic process.?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: sandorski
... Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? If not, why should Palestinians recognize Israels?

If Israel did not tactictly acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to exists they woudl have destroyed the PLO and the "camps" a long time ago. Probably ater the '73 conflict.

The UN Mandates stated two seperate states; it was the Arab nations and then Palestinian leadership(s) that want it all.

Sharon basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority from 2000-2004. As for the refugee camps, Israel would be an unambiguous pariah if their history of attacks on the camps were any worse.

The UN makes all kinds of resolutions. You don't get the option of picking/choosing. The UN also calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders so arguably it doesn't really matter if other Arab nations want it all OR Israel wants more than 1967.

I was not talking about the Un resolutions that were politically motiviated since the hostilites errupted.

The original Palastine Manadate that the British were supposed to oversee had two seperate states authorized. It was the Arab countries that rejected that situation.

Israel has expanded their borders as a result of attacks on them by their neighbors to act as a buffer/early tripwire zone.

I am sure that if the Arab nations had not generated hostilities in 73; Israel may have been content with the pre-67 borders. However from Israel's viewpoint; those boders were a serious weakness for her to defend herself; The 73 conflict proved her rigfht.

 

[Kerouactivist]

The further along this conflict goes the more obvious the problem becomes more clear.....
Religion
If it were kept to self it wouldn't be a problem but, much like here in america, extremist fundamentalism is starting to dominate...

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: sandorski
... Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? If not, why should Palestinians recognize Israels?

If Israel did not tactictly acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to exists they woudl have destroyed the PLO and the "camps" a long time ago. Probably ater the '73 conflict.

The UN Mandates stated two seperate states; it was the Arab nations and then Palestinian leadership(s) that want it all.

Sharon basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority from 2000-2004. As for the refugee camps, Israel would be an unambiguous pariah if their history of attacks on the camps were any worse.

The UN makes all kinds of resolutions. You don't get the option of picking/choosing. The UN also calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders so arguably it doesn't really matter if other Arab nations want it all OR Israel wants more than 1967.

I was not talking about the Un resolutions that were politically motiviated since the hostilites errupted.

The original Palastine Manadate that the British were supposed to oversee had two seperate states authorized. It was the Arab countries that rejected that situation.

Israel has expanded their borders as a result of attacks on them by their neighbors to act as a buffer/early tripwire zone.

I am sure that if the Arab nations had not generated hostilities in 73; Israel may have been content with the pre-67 borders. However from Israel's viewpoint; those boders were a serious weakness for her to defend herself; The 73 conflict proved her rigfht.

Uh, when are UN resolutions NOT politically motivated? Israel has expanded their borders b/c they have better weapons than the opposition.

If you believe your last paragraph then you know absolutely nothing about the various Zionist movements, Likud, or the history of settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: sandorski
... Does Israel recognize Palestine's right to exist? If not, why should Palestinians recognize Israels?

If Israel did not tactictly acknowledge the right of the Palestinians to exists they woudl have destroyed the PLO and the "camps" a long time ago. Probably ater the '73 conflict.

The UN Mandates stated two seperate states; it was the Arab nations and then Palestinian leadership(s) that want it all.

Sharon basically destroyed the Palestinian Authority from 2000-2004. As for the refugee camps, Israel would be an unambiguous pariah if their history of attacks on the camps were any worse.

The UN makes all kinds of resolutions. You don't get the option of picking/choosing. The UN also calls for Israel to return to its 1967 borders so arguably it doesn't really matter if other Arab nations want it all OR Israel wants more than 1967.

I was not talking about the Un resolutions that were politically motiviated since the hostilites errupted.

The original Palastine Manadate that the British were supposed to oversee had two seperate states authorized. It was the Arab countries that rejected that situation.

Israel has expanded their borders as a result of attacks on them by their neighbors to act as a buffer/early tripwire zone.

I am sure that if the Arab nations had not generated hostilities in 73; Israel may have been content with the pre-67 borders. However from Israel's viewpoint; those boders were a serious weakness for her to defend herself; The 73 conflict proved her rigfht.

Uh, when are UN resolutions NOT politically motivated? Israel has expanded their borders b/c they have better weapons than the opposition.

If you believe your last paragraph then you know absolutely nothing about the various Zionist movements, Likud, or the history of settlement in the West Bank and Gaza.

Comment about the Un resolutions was intended to delineate between theoriginal Mandate and the anti-Israel resolutions that condemed them but ignored the Arab actions.

I believe that all of Israel's expansions until '73 were as a result of annexing (for a better word) the land that was captured in conflicts with Egypt, Trans-Jodran, Syria and Lebanon.

Had they not been able to control the West Bank and it was under peaceful Jordanian control any expansion would have been by financial purchases rather than military.

Jeruselm would have been a thorn that could have been worked out with cooperation.

 

[chcarnage]

Originally posted by: bthorny
The further along this conflict goes the more obvious the problem becomes more clear.....
Religion
If it were kept to self it wouldn't be a problem but, much like here in america, extremist fundamentalism is starting to dominate...

Sometimes religion is just one part of the equation. In the early eighties Israel considered the islamistic Hamas a religious antidote to the nationalistic PLO... Not to say there are no people with strong religious motives, but there are persons with other interests among and behind them and the liberation and independence of Palestine is a plausible interest in this case.