It seems to me, that if they did, they would forfeit the claim to what used to be Palestine land. Should that really be a requirement for negotiations to start?
It seems a bit one sided way to start. Bush, argues however that Israel shouldn't have to negotiate with a nation that doesn't accept their existence.
Who, then is at the right and who is at the wrong?
2006-09-22 03:42:47 · 8 answers · asked by dane 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I believe the creation of the state of Israel has caused 1,000 more problems than it solved. Israel was destroyed by the Romans in 70 A.D. There is no Israel. No one should be able to force people to live with someone they don't like or disagree with. I believe Palestinians have a valid argument. However, I also believe the neighboring countries of Jordan, Syria and Egypt has offered no help to Palestinians and in fact have done more harm than good by not offering some land to these outcasts.
2006-09-22 03:50:18 · answer #1 · answered by Gene Rocks! 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Legally,logically,fairly and historically Israel in its present form is an illgitimate entity living on the suffering of others.Furthermore Israel doesnt recognize the democrtaically elected government of Palestine.It is totally unfair to insist that the Palestinians give up everything before they are able to just sit on the table to talk.
2006-09-22 04:03:58 · answer #2 · answered by incredible22 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
You are correct. If Palestinians agree to Israel's "right to exist" they are not really just agreeing to their right to exist, but recognizing that the land stolen from them is freely theirs and that they clam no right to what is theirs. If someone stole your land, home and killed some of your family members, would you sign something stating that it was alright and now you recognize the murderers as the rightful owners? Most wouldn't, and the Palestinians shouldn't be expected to.
2006-09-22 03:48:07 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Palestine's were there before the Jews bush is an idiot and of course he would say that money money money it's a rich mans world
2006-09-22 03:47:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
Obviously they should not have to negotiate with the people who stole their land.
2006-09-22 03:46:23 · answer #5 · answered by brainstorm 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes. I agree with President Bush!
2006-09-22 03:44:45 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Because until they recognize that there is no hope for a 2 homeland solution.
2006-09-22 03:44:31 · answer #7 · answered by Liz Q 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes... until they concede that, there is no point in talking.
2006-09-22 03:44:14 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋