| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1749) | 9/1/2002 12:59:40 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | Aside from Pomerianians and ethnic cleansing of Baltic Germans and
Prussians in Poland, there was also Ethinc cleansing in then Czechoslovakia
(Now Czech Republic) and other areas of Eastern Europe. ( I imagine the
german popualtion of East Prussia that became part of what is now Russian
Federation territory also experienced Ethnic Cleansing. However as the
German populations of Eastern Europe were open and active sympathizers with
the NAZI regime it is not suprising there was not alot of sympathy for
their plight at the time
ku.edu |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1749) | 9/1/2002 1:09:06 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | | If Palestinians would recognise Israel's national interests (like Jordanians have) I suppose that would be the end of the conflict...If Palestinians are going to insist on All or Nothing deal..or dictate the terms of the deal than War is reasonable solution at some point and not really avoidable...Not sure why borders would need to be exactly the same as before 1967....Surely if Arabs were to win, they would not voluntarily return to 1967 borders, would they? |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1754) | 9/1/2002 2:02:57 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | and countries should not be allowed to gain territory by military force>>
You live on the Moon? What country (USA) including did not establish its final frontiers by force?
The territorial Dispute however is with not a country-There was never a Palestinian State, but about establishing a country-(a potentially very hostile country) that must take into account Israel's interests (really prerequisite to even considering this possibility)
elbalero.gob.mx
The union of Texas with the United States of America and the ambition of that country to take control of Mexican territory, led to the war with the United States of America. Although the Nueces River marked the border with Texas, after joining the United States of America, the Texans claimed that their border stretched down as far as the Bravo or Grande River which lay further south. Mexico protested, but the Texans occupied the land between the two rivers. There were conflicts between Mexicans and U.S. citizens, and the United States of America used this as an excuse to declare war on Mexico. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1755) | 9/1/2002 2:21:35 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | U.N. Security Council Resolution 242
November 22, 1967
Following the June '67, Six-Day War, the situation in the Middle East was discussed by the UN General Assembly, which referred the issue to the Security Council. After lengthy discussion, a final draft for a Security Council resolution was presented by the British Ambassador, Lord Caradon, on November 22, 1967. It was adopted on the same day.
This resolution, numbered 242, established provisions and principles which, it was hoped, would lead to a solution of the conflict. Resolution 242 was to become the cornerstone of Middle East diplomatic efforts in the coming decades.
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle East,
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all Member States in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with Article 2 of the Charter,
Affirms that the fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both the following principles:
Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
mfa.gov.il
1. Every State in Area did not include Palestine and has no mention of Palestine (nor there was any mention of Palestinian State prior to 1967
2. Within Secure and Recognisable boundaries
That is the crux of the resolution to the conflict....Now your (Arab) opinion that if Israel goes back to 1967 borders, that would guarantee Israel's security can not be taken seriously....Surely Palestinian State must prove that this will be the case beforehand, not after. And some territory can't be returned, but exchanged |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1755) | 9/1/2002 2:37:33 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | Changes in Population
Every change of territory has resulted in alterations in the ethnic structure of the area's population. Between the change of power in 1920 and 1924, the territory of Transylvania lost about 197,000 Hungarians, including those who left voluntarily, were expelled, or escaped.45 At the same time a large number of Romanians migrated to Transylvania from the Regat, among them officials, merchants, soldiers, and peasants. By 1922 approximately 25,000 had left Romania, 93 percent of them from Transylvania.46
hungary.com |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| To: goldsnow who wrote (1757) | 9/1/2002 2:44:21 PM | | From: Thomas M. | | | | Now your (Arab) opinion that if Israel goes back to 1967 borders, that would guarantee Israel's security can not be taken seriously.
Right. How could anyone take that seriously? The last time Israel had the 1967 borders was ... Surprise ... 1967! What happened in 1967? Israel launched an assault on its Arab neighbors and crushed their armies. Clearly, for Israel to accept these borders would be tantamount to suicide. The only worse fate I could think of for Jews would be to move back to the oppression they face in Palm Beach, Florida.
Tom |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2) |
|
| To: Thomas M. who wrote (1760) | 9/1/2002 2:49:36 PM | | From: goldsnow | | | | Well you may take this seriously but Hamas does not
mfa.gov.il
In addition, Dahlan admitted that, "There was a mistake regarding Hamas. Hamas was discriminated against. We do not apologize for this. We acted as we were supposed to act. We made more mistakes against Hamas, but I emphasize that this was not a hostile position. The presence of Hamas in Palestinian territory is is very important for the building of the Palestinian homeland. The homeland does not belong to Fatah alone. Hamas also had many victims on the road to establishing the homeland. |
| | World Affairs Discussion | Political Discussion ForumsShare | RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read |
|
| |
