Hamas

Thats nto why i said they recieved votes... I gave that as an example of them being a real politcal contender and not just a terrorist organisation.

Like their Fatah predecsors.

Their continued attacks on Israel and desire to destroy Israel.

its true that they have been gfiving kids education and providing aid and health assistance, but what they are teaching these kids wont exactly be a good thing, theyre clearly a terrorist organisation with intent to destroy israel.

hamas is backed by iran and formerly by iraq, bad news for israel, the peace process and the middle east as a whole

that to.

You're joking?!?!?!

The Palestinian Authority are responsible for most of the above, where Hamas may do the odd thing - they were elected for their politcal stance and active military/terrorist force.

Who the fuck is claiming Palestine?!?!?!

Israeli's claim Israel! The so called occupation is an offensive occuptain in land obtain after a rival army was crushed.... Israel are one of the few victoring war nations to obtain land in battle and return it in exchange for peace!!!

Are are disputing the legallity of the state of Israel?!?!?!?

I dont know yet, I know Fatah were fucking useless peace was so close on multiple occassions but Arafat and his money grabbing warmongers let it slip through their fingers.

Israel have been trying to make peace with Palestine for 50 years and Fatah fucked it up time and time again... The PLO were just as active as Hamas so who's to say in 10 years time after a lot of diaolgue and a diluted Hamas party that peace wont be reached.

A change was needed. But only time will tell whether Hamas was the right change.

do you?

What about the israels right to exist?

I'm not inteligent enough to contribute to this thread. But in my ideal world I'd take all religion and flush it down the fuckin toilet :evil:

After the 6 day war Israel agreed to comply with UN resolution 242 which ordered Israel to hand back SOME of the land captured in a defensive war in return for peace (this had never been asked before).

The Egyptians and Jordanians complied.... But the Palestinians didn't... Much to the Israeli's suprise the Palestinians rejected the resolution as it countered their belief that Isreal has no right to exist.

Israel has since made countless attempts at peace and each time the Palestinians have thrown it back in their face... There is no illegal occupation.

Iran may be a threat but this has nothing to do with the road to peace in israel.

Israel is a democratic state and although Hamas is an Islamic movement they've proven to be very tolerant of religous parties in the regions they govern.

Oh well at least they have some heart

Funny I have a hard copy - let me type it up:

"[The Security Council] (1) Affirms that fulfillment of Charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle East which should include the application of both of the following principles (i) Withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupired in recent conflict (ii) Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integirty and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live i peace within a secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force"

Note the resolution does not require israel to withdraw "from all the territories", only "from territories", it was relised that some territorial adjustments were required (like those proposed by Israel in 2000)

As for the refugee problem cast your mind back to 2000 and the Camp David talks when Barak presented the generous offer of the return of the Gaza Strip and West Bank to the Palestinians, a Palestinian state with arab Jerusalem as its capital, $30 billion in compensation for the refugees.

As I stated early for 50 years Israel have tried to find a peaceful solution and everytime the Palestinians have rejected their advances.... As accepting the offers would be accepting Israels right to exist.

I copied you the actual resolution.... a little more reliable

*edited*
It doesnt matter how the loony left interpret it - the reality is its a legal occupation - theres a reason the Arabs never asked the ICJ about the legallity of of the occupation

I should really read the posts of my rivals, I saw the bulletins points and assumed it was a bbc summary

Not at all I never bothered to read you post - it has no bearing on what was actually written (as you pointed out the passages are the same).

This isn't a case of semantics the authors of resolution 242 stated that "territories" did NOT mean "all territories," so there can be no other reinterpretation... It means what it means.

And until peace has been negotiated there can't be a legal occupation, when you couple the above with this fact

"the Fourth Geneva Convention, states in its second article that the Convention only applies when the army and the people controlled by the army belong to countries which have signed the Fourth Geneva Convention. Since the Palestinians do not qualify under this definition, the legal term “Occupying Power” does not apply."

You have a very weak case for an illegal occupation

haha great minds

read above I discredited this arguement before you'd posted it

I understand what you're saying, but most of their support is surely coming from their hard-line stance against Israel.

I thought after Arafat popped his clogs at long last (his best contribution to the peace process) and Sharon's withdrawal from Gaza there was at last a chance of a negotiated 2-state settlement, but the Palestinians just don't seem to want it... voting in a party of terrorists who don't even recognize the state of Israel proves that