Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 05:27 AM

UN demands Israel scrap barrier

So, will Israel continue to rely on it's lover in the west and continue to defy UN resolutions? Or will this perhaps make them rethink the route of the wall?

Discuss!

Troll · Jul 21, 2004, 05:34 AM

[Putting on his right wing hat]

The UN should put its money where it mouth is and invade countries that continously fail to comply with its resolutions. And if the UN won't do it on its own, then we should do it on their behalf ...

Taliesin · Jul 21, 2004, 05:47 AM

It is interesting to note that most of the workers that build up the wall are palestinians from the occupied areas, strange hmm?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3860657.stm

Taliesin

Taliesin · Jul 21, 2004, 05:52 AM

Another interesting thing to notice is that alongside Israel itself, Micronesia and Australia, another big country voted against the resolution, the USA, eventhough the US claimed officially to be against the wall a few months back, no?

Taliesin

Taliesin · Jul 21, 2004, 05:57 AM

Yet another interesting thing, is that the wall is not only just built upon palestinian land in the westbank, but also that it crosses itself at some crucial points, and by this dividing the westbank into chunks.

Taliesin

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 21, 2004, 06:03 AM

This is the UN General Assembly, of Zionism = Racism fame. I'm sure Israel will be impressed.

Logic · 06:25 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
This is the UN General Assembly, of Zionism = Racism fame. I'm sure Israel will be impressed.

Yup, like I said. Israel's lover in the west will always protect them no matter what.

Want to discuss the Zionism = Racism subject? Start a new thread.

Oh, and I forgot to mention that the UNGA retracted that resolution(wrongly IMO) in 1991.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 21, 2004, 06:27 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Yup, like I said. Israel's lover in the west will always protect them no matter what.

Want to discuss the Zionism = Racism subject? Start a new thread.

The phrase you seem to be looking for is "Jew lover." And if that is directed at me, I'm happy to take the title. However, Israel is perfectly capable of ignoring the UN General Assembly. The UNGA has a long track record of anti-Israeli bias, the Zionism = racism vote is only the most egregious example. Israeil ignored the UNGA then, it will ignore the UNGA now. You do realize that the UNGA has no binding authority, don't you?

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The phrase you seem to be looking for is "Jew lover." And if that is directed at me, I'm happy to take the title. However, Israel is perfectly capable of ignoring the UN General Assembly. The UNGA has a long track record of anti-Israeli bias, the Zionism = racism vote is only the most egregious example. Israeil ignored the UNGA then, it will ignore the UNGA now. You do realize that the UNGA has no binding authority, don't you?

Why do you assume that I meant "Jew lover"? Have I ever shown any dislike for jews? Or has it gotten to the point of critisising Israel = being anti-semite?

The US is nothing more than Israel's lover(some would say slave) and will continue to be that. Hell, even US policy in the M.E. is based on what is best for Israel and not what is best for the US.

Like I said above, the Zionism = racism resolution has already been withdrawn.

So on what basis do you consider this barrier to be legal and on what grounds do you think the US will use it's veto against any UNSC resolution on it?

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 21, 2004, 06:42 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Why do you assume that I meant "Jew lover"? Have I ever shown any dislike for jews? Or has it gotten to the point of critisising Israel = being anti-semite?

The US is nothing more than Israel's lover(some would say slave) and will continue to be that. Hell, even US policy in the M.E. is based on what is best for Israel and not what is best for the US.

Like I said above, the Zionism = racism resolution has already been withdrawn.

So on what basis do you consider this barrier to be legal and on what grounds do you think the US will use it's veto against any UNSC resolution on it?

Yes, your comments over the last few months do leave that impression, as does much of the ;partial commentary on Israel that comes from the European left. And yes, the GA does have a long track record of unfairly and one-sidedly attacking Israel. It has no credibility. Nor does an ex-parte, ultra vires ICJ "Opinion."

I haven't seen the proposed UNSC resolution. I suppose how the US votes will depend on how it is written, what chapter it is under, and whether the US thinks it is wise or reasonable.

However, I personally think the fence is the lest violent means Israel has to protect its citizens. It should be taken down -- as soon as the Palestinians realize that murder isn't the way to peace. So how about directing your anger at them just a little bit? Remember, they deliberately turned their backs on a peace offer. Israel is just reacting.

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Yes, your comments over the last few months do leave that impression, as does much of the ;partial commentary on Israel that comes from the European left. And yes, the GA does have a long track record of unfairly and one-sidedly attacking Israel. It has no credibility. Nor does an ex-parte, ultra vires ICJ "Opinion."

I haven't seen the proposed UNSC resolution. I suppose how the US votes will depend on how it is written, what chapter it is under, and whether the US thinks it is wise or reasonable.

However, I personally think the fence is the lest violent means Israel has to protect its citizens. It should be taken down -- as soon as the Palestinians realize that murder isn't the way to peace. So how about directing your anger at them just a little bit? Remember, they deliberately turned their backs on a peace offer. Israel is just reacting.

A couple of questions:

1. What comments would that be?

2. You realise that the problem with the wall isn't the wall itself but the route of the wall, don't you? Do you have no problem with the route?

3. What peace offer would that be?

eklipse · Jul 21, 2004, 07:01 AM

UN demands Israel scrap barrier

Wait for it.

Troll · Jul 21, 2004, 07:38 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The phrase you seem to be looking for is "Jew lover."

This attitude is the root cause of the problem in the Middle East and it's sad to see people outside the conflict area making the same mistake. Israel is a country not a religion. Criticism of Israel's policies is no more anti-semitic than criticism of France's policies is and certainly less so than critism of the US's policies given that there are more Jews in the US than there are in Israel.

I'm proud to say that I intensely dislike the apartheid government that runs Israel. However, I love the Jewish people. Most of my friends are Jewish, a number of my girlfriends have been Jewish. In fact, a number of my Jewish friends dislike Israel more than I do.

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 07:41 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
This attitude is the root cause of the problem in the Middle East and it's sad to see people outside the conflict area making the same mistake. Israel is a country not a religion.

But what other methods of "defence" for Israel do they have left? This is the only way they can continue to support the apartheid regime in Israel and they will continue to label anyone against Israeli policies an anti-semite because they have nothing else they can use.

macvillage.net · Jul 21, 2004, 08:21 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
You do realize that the UNGA has no binding authority, don't you?

Nor is the UNGA required to keep countries in the UN.

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 09:17 AM

And the US is in great company when it comes to who voted against this resolution: United States, Israel, Australia, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau. Seems like the coalition of the willing is getting smaller by the day. Soon it will only contain such great contributors like Palau and Micronesia.......

Oh, and abstaining where Cameroon, Canada, El Salvador, Nauru, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands, Tonga, Uganda, Uruguay and Vanuatu.

A few there as well from the Coalition of the willing. See a pattern?

The rest of the world voted for this resolution.

Taliesin · Jul 21, 2004, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
And yes, the GA does have a long track record of unfairly and one-sidedly attacking Israel. It has no credibility.

That's interesting, considering that the GA represents the whole world. And it's not only dictatorships that have voted for the resolution, whole Europe, including Great Britain, the US' closest ally voted for it.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, I personally think the fence is the lest violent means Israel has to protect its citizens. It should be taken down -- as soon as the Palestinians realize that murder isn't the way to peace. So how about directing your anger at them just a little bit? Remember, they deliberately turned their backs on a peace offer. Israel is just reacting.

If Israel just wants to react to palestinian violence, which is itself just a reaction to israelic violence, then why doesn't Israel build that wall inside its own territory?

Taliesin

voodoo · Jul 21, 2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by Troll:
Israel is a country not a religion.

This is something conveniently forgotten by many people, mostly Americans. For what reason I'm not going to speculate, but the FACT remains: Israel IS a COUNTRY, not a RELIGION and will be DEALT with ACCORDINGLY by other COUNTRIES. Sovreign countries do not have foregn policies with bodies of religion. Simple, no?

dcolton · Jul 21, 2004, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Why do you assume that I meant "Jew lover"? Have I ever shown any dislike for jews? Or has it gotten to the point of critisising Israel = being anti-semite?

Sort of sucks when someone calls you names and accuses you of something your not simply because you disagree on the issue, huh?

As for the UN Resolution, instead of spouting the same old rhetoric condemning the UN for basic impotence...I will just say that Israel has the right to defend herself and the UN has zero right to try to bully Israel into making Palestinian homicide missions easier.

Logic · Jul 21, 2004, 10:23 AM

Originally posted by dcolton:
As for the UN Resolution, instead of spouting the same old rhetoric condemning the UN for basic impotence...I will just say that Israel has the right to defend herself and the UN has zero right to try to bully Israel into making Palestinian homicide missions easier.

Do you know what the issue at hand is? Do you know what the problem is with the wall?

Or is it just enough that it's Israel that is under fire so that you must come jumping in for Israel's rescue?

dcolton · Jul 21, 2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Do you know what the issue at hand is? Do you know what the problem is with the wall?

Or is it just enough that it's Israel that is under fire so that you must come jumping in for Israel's rescue?

I am fmailiar with the issue, but you are right...the latter holds true at this time and juncture.

cpt kangarooski · Jul 21, 2004, 10:48 AM

Troll--

The UN should put its money where it mouth is and invade countries that continously fail to comply with its resolutions.

Well, as soon as the UN has a military of its own or money enough for one, maybe so.

And if the UN won't do it on its own, then we should do it on their behalf ...

That would be illegal. Signatories to the UN Charter have promised not to attack other countries without specific permission from the UN to begin with. If some country fails to comply with UN resolutions that does not mean that force is authorized to be used against them. Authorizations of force require their own resolution from the Security Council.

If the UN doesn't want to start a war to enforce its resolutions that's a viable position to adopt and should be complied with by UN member states. I mean hell -- lots of potential causes for war go ignored because it's often better to put up with them than to have a war, even though the provocation exists.

Troll · Jul 21, 2004, 11:06 AM

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Nor is the UNGA required to keep countries in the UN.

Yip. Exactly!

Israel is where South Africa was in 1963. The players haven't even changed much. The score was 106:1 against South Africa back then. Abstentions from our good friends Australia and the United States although admittedly France and Britain abstained back then too. I see Israel being excluded from the GA the way South Africa was. Unilateral sanctions are also a possibility.

Troll · Jul 21, 2004, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
Troll--

That would be illegal. Signatories to the UN Charter have promised not to attack other countries without specific permission from the UN to begin with. If some country fails to comply with UN resolutions that does not mean that force is authorized to be used against them. Authorizations of force require their own resolution from the Security Council.

We could have used you around these parts when the conservatives were invoking the UN to invade Iraq.

I of course agree with you. I was merely trying to illustrate to those who thought the US was justified in enforcing resolutions against Iraq given the UN's failure to do it themselves, how bizarre their arguments were then!

cpt kangarooski · Jul 21, 2004, 11:38 AM

Troll--

We could have used you around these parts when the conservatives were invoking the UN to invade Iraq.

I was, and my position's been the same: Regardless of whether or not Iraq violated Security Council resolutions, none of them authorized the use of force as occurred. And further that no matter how much of a threat Iraq may have been, in the absence of current or imminent war, it's probably not bad enough to risk the global instability that comes from unauthorized uses of force; getting the S.C. to authorize force -- which I would not have been totally averse to here -- is what helps ensure that things don't spiral out of control in a WWI-esque manner that would be worse than minor internal crises.

PacHead · Jul 21, 2004, 11:54 AM

Hehe, the UN. File this resolution in the same garbage pile along with the one million other anti-Israel resolutions and condemnations that the UN has come with. They can not do anything about it anyhow.

This topic is closed, as far as I am concerned at least.

Taliesin · Jul 22, 2004, 04:41 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Hehe, the UN. File this resolution in the same garbage pile along with the one million other anti-Israel resolutions and condemnations that the UN has come with. They can not do anything about it anyhow.

No, the UN for now can't do anything about Israel, as long as it has the support of the US in form of a nice veto in the security-council.

But the vote of the UN, which showed that 150 countries in the world think that Israel is acting illegally because they build the wall outside of its own territory, is a tremendous image-victory for the palestinians, which will pay out in increased support(diplomatic as well as financial), first by islamic countries, but also by Europe and more and more of the world for the palestinians..

Additionaly the support for Israel in the world will lessen, less economic deals will be signed, etc.., except off course of the US and Australia.

Taliesin

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 04:59 AM

Originally posted by Taliesin:
But the vote of the UN, which showed that 150 countries in the world think that Israel is acting illegally because they build the wall outside of its own territory, is a tremendous image-victory for the palestinians, which will pay out in increased support(diplomatic as well as financial), first by islamic countries, but also by Europe and more and more of the world for the palestinians..

That would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. The Palestinian Authority sends kids to blow up kids, and nobody sneezes. Israel puts up a fence to stop kids from blowing up their kids, and the world decides to send more money to those blowing up the kids.

I guess you have chosen your side. Pity it is such an immoral choice.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:08 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That would be amusing if it wasn't so sad. The Palestinian Authority sends kids to blow up kids, and nobody sneezes. Israel puts up a fence to stop kids from blowing up their kids, and the world decides to send more money to those blowing up the kids.

I guess you have chosen your side. Pity it is such an immoral choice.

Again, the wall is not the problem. It's the route. Do you understand that?

PacHead · Jul 22, 2004, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Again, the wall is not the problem. It's the route. Do you understand that?

I believe that the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that certain parts of the fence must take a different route, so what is the problem ?

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:18 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I believe that the Israeli Supreme court has ruled that certain parts of the fence must take a different route, so what is the problem ?

That it's more than certain parts that need to take a different route. Almost all of it must be moved outside of Palestinian territory.

PacHead · Jul 22, 2004, 05:29 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
That it's more than certain parts that need to take a different route. Almost all of it must be moved outside of Palestinian territory.

Well, this is where the problem lies. The borders are not defined, and that is an area that is open to negotiations.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Well, this is where the problem lies. The borders are not defined, and that is an area that is open to negotiations.

The borders are actually mostly agreed upon by most of the international community as well as Israel and Palestine.

Just take a look: Here

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Well, this is where the problem lies. The borders are not defined, and that is an area that is open to negotiations.

The "borders" in question are between Israel and -- what, exactly? There is no Palestinian territory that Israel has any reason to respect. Palestine isn't a state, and the Palestinian Authority doesn't respect Israeli territory. If it did, the PA would be attempting to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from crossing over into Israeli territory and murdering Israelis rather than encouraging them. Apparently, those "borders" are only there for the convenience of terrorists.

Secondly, the borders have no legal standing. They are disputed no-man's land. Israel's neighbors are Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Israel's neighbors could include Palestine. The offer is on the table. But first, Palestine will have to start behaving like a state that enforces order to stop its "territory" being used to wage war on its neighbors, rather than encouraging its population to do just that.

PacHead · Jul 22, 2004, 05:45 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
The borders are actually mostly agreed upon by most of the international community as well as Israel and Palestine.

Just take a look: Here

I am curious as to what information the BBC is using for that map. Is that the 1967 borders ? If that is the case, then I disagree that that can be considered realistic.

PacHead · Jul 22, 2004, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The "borders" in question are between Israel and -- what, exactly? There is no Palestinian territory that Israel has any reason to respect. Palestine isn't a state, and the Palestinian Authority doesn't respect Israeli territory. If it did, the PA would be attempting to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from crossing over into Israeli territory and murdering Israelis rather than encouraging them. Apparently, those "borders" are only their for the convenience of terrorists.

Secondly, the borders have no legal standing. They are disputed no-man's land. Israel's neighbors are Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Israel's neighbors could include Palestine. The offer is on the table. But first, Palestine will have to start behaving like a state that enforces order to stop its "territory" being used to wage war on its neighbors, rather than encouraging its population to do just that.

Oh, I agree with you 100%. I find it silly that people keep talking about some 1967 borders, as if the perpetrators of a war that failed will just be able to reset the clock and start all over again, as if nothing happened.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
I am curious as to what information the BBC is using for that map. Is that the 1967 borders ? If that is the case, then I disagree that that can be considered realistic.

IIRC that's the official '67 borders. What's so unrealistic about that?

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The "borders" in question are between Israel and -- what, exactly? There is no Palestinian territory that Israel has any reason to respect. Palestine isn't a state, and the Palestinian Authority doesn't respect Israeli territory. If it did, the PA would be attempting to stop Palestinian suicide bombers from crossing over into Israeli territory and murdering Israelis rather than encouraging them. Apparently, those "borders" are only there for the convenience of terrorists.

Secondly, the borders have no legal standing. They are disputed no-man's land. Israel's neighbors are Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan. Israel's neighbors could include Palestine. The offer is on the table. But first, Palestine will have to start behaving like a state that enforces order to stop its "territory" being used to wage war on its neighbors, rather than encouraging its population to do just that.

The neighbors have dropped all claims to that land. The Palestinians have made the claim for their own country. Israel won't give them Israeli citizenship, so I think it's pretty clear that Palestine is being considered a "state" of it's own.

And of course they will continue to fight the occupation.

Can you share any of your legal opinion on the subject? I'm interested in seeing your opinion on it. As you stay out of most these threads

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by PacHead:
Oh, I agree with you 100%. I find it silly that people keep talking about some 1967 borders, as if the perpetrators of a war that failed will just be able to reset the clock and start all over again, as if nothing happened.

Right. But the 67 borders aren't borders in any legal sense. They are just where each side was at the end of that war. Only Jordan (one of the participants in that war) has given up all claim to the West Bank. So the 67 borders really have no independent significance. Most critically, the Palestinians have never indicated that they consider them just. Meaning, they have never said that they would stop killing Israelis if Israel were within those 1967 borders. So this seems to be something that Israel is supposed to do unilaterally while the PA continues to conduct a no-holds-barred war against their civilian population. I know of no country in the world that would do that. And no other country would be expected to.

I'd be all for a settlement between the parties that leads to real peace. It should, in my mind, include removal of the Israeli settlements. But it also has to include a good faith effort to stop the terror, and an acceptance that Israelis have a right to live in peace. The PA has never tried either of those things. In the absence of that, Israel has the right to self defense. Especially when it can be done non-violently, such as with the fence.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 05:58 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Right. But the 67 borders aren't borders in any legal sense. They are just where each side was at the end of that war. Only Jordan (one of the participants in that war) has given up all claim to the West Bank. So the 67 borders really have no independent significance. Most critically, the Palestinians have never indicated that they consider them just. Meaning, they have never said that they would stop killing Israelis if Isreal were within those 1967 borders. So this seems to be something that Israel is supposed to do unilaterally while the PA continues to conduct a no-holds-barred war against their civilian population. I know of no country in the world that would do that. And no other country would be expected to.

Of course they don't feel it's just. It leaves them with less than 40% of their original land. Would you consider that just? But they've said that if those borders would be respected they would start working for true peace between the countries.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
The neighbors have dropped all claims to that land. The Palestinians have made the claim for their own country. Israel won't give them Israeli citizenship, so I think it's pretty clear that Palestine is being considered a "state" of it's own.

If it is a state, it is an unrecognized one. It is also a failed one. If you make this claim, you have one of two choices. Either the PA is deliberately allowing its territory to be used as a springboard for acts of war against a neighbor. If so, Israel has the right to respond to the aggression, including the right to cross back over the "border." Or, the PA is itself conducting a war against Israel. In which case, the same thing applies. Israel can respond to the invasion.

Or, of course, the PA can claim to be against terror but be unable to stop the terrorists. I think that claim is wearing thin.

SimeyTheLimey · 06:11 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Of course they don't feel it's just. It leaves them with less than 40% of their original land. Would you consider that just? But they've said that if those borders would be respected they would start working for true peace between the countries.

I suppose "their original land" includes all of Israel.

That is the basic problem. Israel is supposed to cease to exist. But beginning with that proposition is hardly the way to peace with a neighbor who is not going away. Maybe one day Palestinians will start dealing with reality. If that ever happens, then maybe there could be peace. But this is exactly why Arafat walked away from a just settlement of the problem, and why he deliberately decided not to have a recognized state. He'd rather chase a fantastic rainbow with exploding children than live in peace with Israel.

There is a political science essay that appeared a few years ago called "Give War a Chance." The thesis was that you can't force peace when people haven't gotten war out of their systems and haven't come to the realization that they can't get what they want by killing. It particularly applied to intractible situations like civil wars, and territorial disputes. Until Palestinians come to that point, I don't see them accepting Israel. And until they do, I don't see there being a peace. But I don't see any reason to encourage their bloody fantasy.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
If it is a state, it is an unrecognized one. It is also a failed one. If you make this claim, you have one of two choices. Either the PA is deliberately allowing its territory to be used as a springboard for acts of war against a neighbor. If so, Israel has the right to respond to the aggression, including the right to cross back over the "border." Or, the PA is itself conducting a war against Israel. In which case, the same thing applies. Israel can respond to the invasion.

Or, of course, the PA can claim to be against terror but be unable to stop the terrorists. I think that claim is wearing thin.

Well, I'm not sure how it works about becoming a recognized state. But 2/3 of the world recognise The State of Palestine. IMO that should be enough to get acceptance in the international community.

And you are right, Palestine must do something about the suicide bombers. Unfortunately they are lead by a corrupt government that cares more about itself than it's 8.5 million subjects. But why do you think that is wearing thin? I believe some want to fight "terrorism"("" because of different definitions of terrorism in this case) but are unable to because of several reasons. Do you got any more argument for why it's wearing thin?

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I suppose "their original land" includes all of Israel.

Well it does. You can just take a quick look at the CIA factbook numbers on Israeli citizens. Only 20% of Israeli Jews are born in Israel. DO you think the Israel is the "original" land of the 60% of imported Jews into Israel?

That is the basic problem. Israel is supposed to cease to exist. But beginning with that proposition is hardly the way to peace with a neighbor who is not going away. Maybe one day Palestinians will start dealing with reality. If that ever happens, then maybe there could be peace. But this is exactly why Arafat walked away from a just settlement of the problem, and why he deliberately decided not to have a recognized state. He'd rather chase a fantastic rainbow with exploding children than live in peace with Israel.

No one except Hamas et al has claimed that. The PA has already stated that they could accept a two state solution with the '69 borders as an absolute minimum. And what just settlement are you talking about here?

There is a political science essay that appeared a few years ago called "Give War a Chance." The thesis was that you can't force peace when people haven't gotten war out of their systems and haven't come to the realization that they can't get what they want by killing. It particularly applied to intractible situations like civil wars, and territorial disputes. Until Palestinians come to that point, I don't see them accepting Israel. And until they do, I don't see there being a peace. But I don't see any reason to encourage their bloody fantasy.

This is all very true but IMO it applies more to Israel than the Palestinians.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 06:29 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Well, I'm not sure how it works about becoming a recognized state. But 2/3 of the world recognise The State of Palestine.

Nobody recognizes Palestine as a state.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 06:31 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
This is all very true but IMO it applies more to Israel than the Palestinians.

Where were you when Barak and Arafat were negotiating? Arafat was offered peace, he walked away. That was his call, not Israel's.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 06:33 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Nobody recognizes Palestine as a state.

Sorry, but IIRC about 2/3 of the world does. I'm at work now so I don't have the bookmarks I need, but when I get home I'll try to find it.

Logic · Jul 22, 2004, 06:37 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Where were you when Barak and Arafat were negotiating? Arafat was offered peace, he walked away. That was his call, not Israel's.

You mean this "generous" offer?

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 06:41 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
Sorry, but IIRC about 2/3 of the world does. I'm at work now so I don't have the bookmarks I need, but when I get home I'll try to find it.

I'm afraid you are wrong about that. The PA is recognized as having some representative standing, but Palestine as such isn't recognized by anyone as a state.

SimeyTheLimey · Jul 22, 2004, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Logic:
You mean this "generous" offer?

You obviously pick your sources. It's true that the 1948 offer was better. But the Palestinians rejected those too. They are going to keep running into this problem until they finally realize that Israel has a right to exist and that war isn't going to change that.