SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   PoliticsWorld Affairs Discussion


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: Thomas M. who wrote (1749)9/1/2002 1:09:06 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
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?

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: goldsnow who wrote (1753)9/1/2002 1:43:55 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959
 
Not sure why borders would need to be exactly the same as before 1967...

Because Israel started that war, and countries should not be allowed to gain territory by military force.

Tom

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: goldsnow who wrote (1751)9/1/2002 1:52:55 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959
 
Good analogy. Israel's attempt to grab the West Bank is very much like Hitler's attempt to grab Czechoslovakia in 1938.

Tom

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (1754)9/1/2002 2:02:57 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
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.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (1755)9/1/2002 2:21:35 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
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

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (1755)9/1/2002 2:37:33 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
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

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: goldsnow who wrote (1756)9/1/2002 2:39:47 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959
 
There was never a Palestinian State

And there was never an Israeli state.

Tom

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: goldsnow who wrote (1757)9/1/2002 2:44:21 PM
From: Thomas M.
   of 3959
 
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

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)


To: Thomas M. who wrote (1760)9/1/2002 2:49:36 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
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.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Thomas M. who wrote (1760)9/1/2002 2:58:26 PM
From: goldsnow
   of 3959
 
Article Thirteen PEACEFUL SOLUTIONS (PEACE) INITIATIVES AND INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES

(Peace) Initiatives, the so-called peaceful solutions, and the international conferences to resolve the Palestinian problem, are all contrary to the beliefs of the Islamic Resistance Movement. For renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion; the nationalism of the Islamic Resistance Movement is part of this faith, the movement educates it members to adhere to its principles and to raise the banner of Allah over their homeland as they fight their Jihad: "Allah is the all-powerful, but most people are not aware."

From time to time a clamouring is voiced, to hold an International Conference in search for a solution to the problem. Some accept the idea, others reject it, for one reason or another, demanding the implementation of this or that conditions, as a prerequisite for agreeing to convene the Conference or for participating in it. But the Islamic Resistance Movement, which is aware of the (prospective) parties to this conference, and of their past and present positions towards the problems of the Muslims, does not believe that those conference are capable of responding to demands, or of restoring rights or doing justice to the oppressed.

Those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the nonbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam. Since when did Unbelievers do justice to Believers?

"And the Jews will not be pleased with thee, nor with Christians, till thou follow their creed. 'Say: Lo! the guidance of Allah (himself) is the Guidance. And if you should follow their desires after the knowledge which has come unto thee, then you would have from Allah no protecting friend nor helper."
Sura 2 (the Cow) verse 120.
There is no solution to the Palestinian problem except by Jihad. The initiative, proposals and International Conferences are but a waste of time, an exercise in futility. The Palestinian people are too noble to have their future, their right and their destiny submitted to a vain game...

cdn-friends-icej.ca

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)
Previous 10 Next 10