Subject | Re: Republicanism still an offence in England? (wasRe: Queen mother (of |
From | AC |
Date | 2002-04-12 19:16 (2002-04-12 19:16) |
Message-ID | <3cb7160b.139525386@news2.randori.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | alt.fan.tolkien |
Follows | paulh |
Followups | paulh (1d, 12h & 16m) |
paulhAn interesting tack. Of course, considering that Palestinian Authority's general position appears to be "Tell the West that we admit Israel has a right to exist" and then continue teaching kids in schools maps of the Middle East sans Israel. Face it, the Palestinian people are being sold up the river by their own leaders, and until they wake up to that fact, they will be lead like sheep to the slaughter. Israel can hardly be expected to simply let their citizens be blown up, or even worse, to make complete pull outs without any real and meaningful guarantee that the Palestinian Authority will deal with Hamas.
On 12 Apr 2002 14:39:35 GMT, mcresq@aol.com (Russ) wrote:paulhFlame of the WestRuss
Well, Egypt and Jordan did, to an extent. But a full recognition of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state must include a repudiation of any Palestinian right of return. This is simple logic, since any significant repatriation would doom Israel's Jewish character in the long run. We'll know the Arabs are serious about peace when they make room for the Palestinians in their own countries and let them out of the refugee prison camps.
If the other Arab states wanted to to give the Palestinians a state they could have any time prior to the 1967 War. Prior to that war, Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip and Jordan controlled the West Bank. I wonder why no one ever asks this question?
Furthermore, Israel rightly took those areas in the 1967 war, since Israel was being *attacked* from there. Isreal is under no obligation to return them in the absence of a settled peace.
So true... Israel was being attacked from there in 1967 so its only right that they can brutalise civilians in that area 35 years later. Might is Right and all..