Who do these two think they are? Who is Bush to speak on behalf of the Palestinians, and to dictate terms to them? What happened to international law and basic principles of human rights. Tonight I am ashamed to be an American. I cant beleive this is happening. I'm pretty sure now that I will be voting for Kerry, though I don't really like him either.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3627001.stm

Where are you EU, UN, Russia. I hope you will speak up about this...

This is very consistent with two political principles of the US:

1. We do whatever we please.
2. We support Israel like a mother supports her child.

I found the following quote interesting:

"He (Bush) said the "realities on the ground and in the region have changed greatly" and should be reflected in any final peace deal."

What does this mean? That now that the US military is in the region things just got worse for all muslims there?

__________________

I don't understand, when did Bush "speak on behalf of the Palestinians and... dictate terms to them"? What international law is being broached, what basic principles of human rights?

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...040413-20.html

here is the transcript of last nights stuff... I can't find the realies quote in there.

@ Phunkie I agree with your assesmet but if Bush wants to truly do anything against the international terror, he stays the @_$*^@_#(^% out of other countries business as all he does is create new enemies....

__________________
_____________________________________________

The realities quote in the original text was the following:

"In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centres, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities."

__________________

For real, thats why we shouldnt vote for Bush.

Im muslim and I fear Bush, one day he might go Berzerk and kill every muslim in the United States, And he does care about Israel, I dont know why.....hasnt the Passion of the Christ teached him anything? They are supposed to be the "Chosen people" and stuff but I just dont get it. I mean life for the muslims in the middle east is getting worser and worser. As it says in my religon, when Saudi Arabia's holy city of mecca will be captured, Judgement day will come upon us. And let me tell you this much, from the looks of it, it doesnt look very far.

I don´t get it! You are acting as if you expected something diferent from Bush...
There is no way Bush would ever turn his back on his biggest fan! And the same applies to Sharon.
Besides, you should ask another question aswell. If Bush backed down to please his Israeli friend, what did Bush ask of Sharon, that Sharon delivered?
Think about it. I just hope Bush didn´t ask Sharon for israeli troops to go to Iraq, because that would be the start of WWIII. But then again, Bush is getting desperate, isn´t he?
If he wants to have a fighting chance at the november elections, he has to get Iraq under control, and that just "ain´t" gonna happen in the current status quo...
Well, one thing is certain. we have now learned just what Bush thinks of the peace process, haven´t we? He cares as much about it as he does about a turd floating in the toillete.
:indeed:

__________________
"Quincitilius Varus, give me back my legions!"
Emperor Augustus of Rome.

He spoke on behalf of Palestinians when he declared that the right of return was no longer an option. Also, by giving Israel the 6 big settlement blocks he is setting conditions that should be negotiated between the Palestinians and Israelis themselves.

I think the acquisition of territory by force is illegal under international law, (I'll have to look further into this...) It also violates the principle of UN SC resolution 242 which states:
http://www.unitedjerusalem.com/DECLA...esolutions.asp

As for basic principles of human rights, the right of refugees to return to live on their land is enshrined in article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Im running out of computer time now, but here is some more information on the issue:

http://www.badil.org/Publications/Briefs/Brief8.pdf

There is also a good essay on yesterday's developments here:The End of the Road

He said that? He said, "The Palestinians do not want all the land they lost in war returned to them"? I read the entire article three times and didn't see anything in there about Bush saying something and the Palestinians being held to it. Can you point that out for me?
I didn't read anything about Bush giving Israel anything. Can you point that out to me too, please? I read about Israel deciding to give back some land they rightfully won by war, but I didn't read anything about Bush giving away land.
I think you're right. So, had Israel been over-run by Muslims in 1967 I'm sure you would've been real vocal in getting them their lost land back, right? Course, it's not really their land either, it belongs to the Ottomans. Since losing land through war is "illegal" we should return the land to the Ottomans. But wait, I'm sure they're not the orginal owners. Does anyone know who the original owners of Israel are so we can get their land back to them?

You're American? If the Spanish come asking for their land back, remember that you have to give it up, okay? If the British want the Eastern Seaboard I'm sure we'll have a few displaced people. Of course, several Native American tribes have been asking for their land back for many years. I'm sure you support their right to reclaim their land. I wonder where we'll all live once we give all this land back?

The Palestinians took a gamble, tried to wipe out the Jews, lost the war and lost some land. They should be grateful for any sliver of it they get back.
Can you point to me where Bush forbade refugees from returning to live in "their" land.

__________________
In this country, we don't need reasons to make things legal; we need reasons to make things illegal. - Startup

fatboyshare:

Im not sure Im following what youre trying to say here? Here:

PM Qurei:If what you mean by this is "being held to it"(Bush's statement), then no, I doubt the Palestinians will feel this way.

Again, Bush isn't literally giving away Palestinian land (it is not his to give away) But his statement implies that he has no problem with Israel taking over large chunks of the West Bank:

Do you really think that this is going to encourage Sharon to negotiate these parcels with the Palestinians?

Whats wrong with giving the land to the people that actually live there? The Ottomans, like the Romans before them and the British after, ruled the land, but for the most part, didn't live there.

Again, Im not sure if I follow what you are trying to say. Are you being very literal here? I originally said that he was "dictating terms". Maybe I should have said that he was attempting to do so. Here is where Bush "forbade" refugees from returning to live in "their" land: