Mycroft said:
I agree, but what do think of my thought experiment of why it may not be good for Israel or the Palestinians (at the moment) to remove the words? (See post above.)
The palestinian state we all want.
- Thread starter The Fool
- Start date
-
- Tags
- palestinian
I agree, but what do think of my thought experiment of why it may not be good for Israel or the Palestinians (at the moment) to remove the words? (See post above.)
You've convinced me Darat.
What harm could possibly come from a few little words? In fact, as your thought experiment argues, such language might be beneficial. Cathartic even.
So, in the true spirit of Middle East catharsis, I'm proposing that Israel add a clause to its constitution calling for the destruction of any Palestinian state on what is rightfully Jewish land.
What harm could it do, right? Nobody really means Israel should kill the Palestinians. It'll just be a few words in their constitution after all. It's not like a constitution is the fundamental law of the land -- the blueprint of the state -- the source of all governmental authority -- ... Oh wait ...
Nevermind.
What harm could possibly come from a few little words? In fact, as your thought experiment argues, such language might be beneficial. Cathartic even.
So, in the true spirit of Middle East catharsis, I'm proposing that Israel add a clause to its constitution calling for the destruction of any Palestinian state on what is rightfully Jewish land.
What harm could it do, right? Nobody really means Israel should kill the Palestinians. It'll just be a few words in their constitution after all. It's not like a constitution is the fundamental law of the land -- the blueprint of the state -- the source of all governmental authority -- ... Oh wait ...
Nevermind.
Mycroft
High Priest of Ed
- Joined
- Sep 10, 2003
- Messages
- 20,501
Darat said:
I think if the issue is ignored and let go long enough, it will have to be settled through war. Either Israel will end up waging war against the Palestinians, or Palestinians will end up in a civil war.
I think forcing the issue at the negotiation table, even if it brings unrest in the short term, is the lesser evil.
My opinion.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Darat,
Mycroft, shuize and Jocko are far more eloquent than I will ever be. (thanks guys)
In other words you are wrong man. Dead wrong. Words are communication. They impart idea, intent, context. They are the building blocks of all law and philosophy. Why did Moses bother to go up a mountain and carve "Thou shalt not murder" into a rock (among other things) and then say God did it?
It's all about imparting a serious concept in an official manner. Placing weight behind an idea. Right now the idea the PA is officially giving it's weight and authority to is "destroy Israel". So how can Abbas fault any Palestinian anywhere from preaching a sermon or conducting a terrorist operation who's aim is the "liberation of greater Palestine"??
He can't. First he must change the charter. Only then can he seriously go to Hamas, etc and say "cut it out".
Now do I think Hamas will actually cut it out? Nope, I'm not that naïve either. However, Abbas can at least point to the revised charter and say: "Look we're trying in good faith to change the hearts and minds of our people from the top down. It'll take alot of time; but we have alot of time."
That's how it works Darat. It's not perfect or easy. It's a bloody and messy long-term evolutionary process....it starts with weighty words.
-z
Mycroft, shuize and Jocko are far more eloquent than I will ever be. (thanks guys)
In other words you are wrong man. Dead wrong. Words are communication. They impart idea, intent, context. They are the building blocks of all law and philosophy. Why did Moses bother to go up a mountain and carve "Thou shalt not murder" into a rock (among other things) and then say God did it?
It's all about imparting a serious concept in an official manner. Placing weight behind an idea. Right now the idea the PA is officially giving it's weight and authority to is "destroy Israel". So how can Abbas fault any Palestinian anywhere from preaching a sermon or conducting a terrorist operation who's aim is the "liberation of greater Palestine"??
He can't. First he must change the charter. Only then can he seriously go to Hamas, etc and say "cut it out".
Now do I think Hamas will actually cut it out? Nope, I'm not that naïve either. However, Abbas can at least point to the revised charter and say: "Look we're trying in good faith to change the hearts and minds of our people from the top down. It'll take alot of time; but we have alot of time."
That's how it works Darat. It's not perfect or easy. It's a bloody and messy long-term evolutionary process....it starts with weighty words.
-z
shuize said:
I presume you are being sarcastic?
shuize said:
That I do not think would be a good idea, not because it would be any more wrong for the Israelis to seek the genocide of the Palestinians then it is for the Palestinians to seek the genocide of the Israelis just that your suggestion given the current situation could (in my opinion of course) have a significant overall negative effect for the Israelis in that it could increase the risk they currently face without providing them any positive benefits.
Constitutions are only words, without the will to live up to the words they may as well not exist.
Can I ask you why you believe the current Israeli policy of withdrawal from Gazza without negotiation and without prerequisites on the Palestinian population is wrong?
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,544
Re: Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.
Back in 1996 the Palestinian National Council amended the charter by adding the following..
"The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993."
This is the way these sort of documents work rik. Amendments are tacked on to the end and suplementary documents are refered to and introduced...Yes the articles you quote are current and those current articles probably don't mention this bit. Thats quite common among people and groups that need a genocidal Palestinian hoard to backup thier hardline approach.
yes rik...they seem to think they have.rikzilla said:
Back in 1996 the Palestinian National Council amended the charter by adding the following..
"The Palestinian National Charter is hereby amended by canceling the articles that are contrary to the letters exchanged between the PLO and the Government of Israel 9-10 September 1993."
This is the way these sort of documents work rik. Amendments are tacked on to the end and suplementary documents are refered to and introduced...Yes the articles you quote are current and those current articles probably don't mention this bit. Thats quite common among people and groups that need a genocidal Palestinian hoard to backup thier hardline approach.
The Fool`s got this The Palestinian National Charter issue pretty much covered.
I`d just add a couple of points I`ve made before on this matter.
The decision to annull the offending Articles of the Charter satisfied the Perez Government at the time and was taken in the presence of Clinton (Jerusalem Post 13/12/99). Various groups on the right didn't think it went far enough so, in January of 1999, Arafat sent a letter to Clinton specifying which articles of the covenant were nullified. The parts that Arafat specified were "Articles 6-10,15, 19-23, and 30..." and "the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-l8, 25-27 and 29 that are in consistent with the above mentioned commitments..."
The US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Allbright "supported the Palestinian interpretation." (Arabic News 23/1/99)
The PLO officially and on the record rejects all aspects of its Charter which call for Israel's destruction and, in subsequent years, they have made it clear that the Charter is no longer operative. The US also accepted this, as did the Israeli Government.
Not only that, but their actions since have expressly reflected this, including the Camp David negotiations. Both the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the Americans went into Camp David on the assumption that Israel's existence was officially recognized. At Camp David the Palestinians were pressing for a state based on the 1967 borders alongside Israel. They accepted Israel's annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocks and Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem (which were not part of Israel before the Six Day War). Also, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees (New York Times 8/7/01).
As a further point, it should be noted that the Palestinians had effectively junked the Charter long before Oslo. In December 1988, the Palestine National Council accepted the original U.N. partition plan (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181), Israel's right to exist, and U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. With their acceptance they made the Charter effectively irrelevant
(US State Department http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/chron5.htm)
The PLO openly proclaims, the US accepts, and the Israeli Government (by its actions), accepts that those articles of the Charter are defunct. The only groups that hang on to them are right wing Israeli groups, for the obvious reasons.
The Palestinian Charter has been effectively dead for 15 years and, officially, has had no bearing on Palestinian foreign policy for five years. The official negotiating stance of the Palestinians at Camp David was an explicit renuniciation of the offending Articles and neither the Israelis nor the Americans required a further confirmation of this at Camp David.
Perversly of course, this was exactly what some groups in Israel didn`t want and so they babble on claiming that Arafat was unable to declare which Articles were void because he wasn't the full PLO council.
However, herein lies a delicious irony. These are also the same groups who, when it suits them, hold Arafat responsible for everything that went on in the Occupied Territories, from what side of bed you get out of in the morning to the actions of all armed groups, whether they answered to him or not.
This is another dead parrot...it is no more.
I`d just add a couple of points I`ve made before on this matter.
The decision to annull the offending Articles of the Charter satisfied the Perez Government at the time and was taken in the presence of Clinton (Jerusalem Post 13/12/99). Various groups on the right didn't think it went far enough so, in January of 1999, Arafat sent a letter to Clinton specifying which articles of the covenant were nullified. The parts that Arafat specified were "Articles 6-10,15, 19-23, and 30..." and "the parts in Articles 1-5, 11-14, 16-l8, 25-27 and 29 that are in consistent with the above mentioned commitments..."
The US Secretary of State at the time, Madeleine Allbright "supported the Palestinian interpretation." (Arabic News 23/1/99)
The PLO officially and on the record rejects all aspects of its Charter which call for Israel's destruction and, in subsequent years, they have made it clear that the Charter is no longer operative. The US also accepted this, as did the Israeli Government.
Not only that, but their actions since have expressly reflected this, including the Camp David negotiations. Both the Palestinians, the Israelis, and the Americans went into Camp David on the assumption that Israel's existence was officially recognized. At Camp David the Palestinians were pressing for a state based on the 1967 borders alongside Israel. They accepted Israel's annexation of West Bank territory to accommodate settlement blocks and Israeli sovereignty over the Jewish neighbourhoods of East Jerusalem (which were not part of Israel before the Six Day War). Also, while they insisted on recognition of the refugees' right of return, they agreed that it should be implemented in a manner that protected Israel's demographic and security interests by limiting the number of returnees (New York Times 8/7/01).
As a further point, it should be noted that the Palestinians had effectively junked the Charter long before Oslo. In December 1988, the Palestine National Council accepted the original U.N. partition plan (U.N. General Assembly Resolution 181), Israel's right to exist, and U.N. Security Council resolutions 242 and 338. With their acceptance they made the Charter effectively irrelevant
(US State Department http://usinfo.state.gov/regional/nea/summit/chron5.htm)
The PLO openly proclaims, the US accepts, and the Israeli Government (by its actions), accepts that those articles of the Charter are defunct. The only groups that hang on to them are right wing Israeli groups, for the obvious reasons.
The Palestinian Charter has been effectively dead for 15 years and, officially, has had no bearing on Palestinian foreign policy for five years. The official negotiating stance of the Palestinians at Camp David was an explicit renuniciation of the offending Articles and neither the Israelis nor the Americans required a further confirmation of this at Camp David.
Perversly of course, this was exactly what some groups in Israel didn`t want and so they babble on claiming that Arafat was unable to declare which Articles were void because he wasn't the full PLO council.
However, herein lies a delicious irony. These are also the same groups who, when it suits them, hold Arafat responsible for everything that went on in the Occupied Territories, from what side of bed you get out of in the morning to the actions of all armed groups, whether they answered to him or not.
This is another dead parrot...it is no more.
E.J.Armstrong
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2002
- Messages
- 3,806
The Fool,
Apparently it seems the Palestinians can have a Palestinian state but only with a list of conditions that guarantee they can't have a Palestinian state.
As Yosarian says - that's a great catch, that Catch 22.
Apparently it seems the Palestinians can have a Palestinian state but only with a list of conditions that guarantee they can't have a Palestinian state.
As Yosarian says - that's a great catch, that Catch 22.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
We've been over this 100 maybe 200 times. Since the Palestinian National Charter is a written "legal" document, amending it is not simply a matter of declaring a willingness to alter it, (Arafat's often-quoted letter to Clinton), but necessitates actual adoption and implementation of changes to the document.
As Demon posted:
No redrafted Charter has ever emerged, and the PLO executive committee has never ratified said redraft of the Palestinian National Charter. So I am afraid a letter to Clinton by Arafat "promising" the nullification of articles in the Palestinian National Charter does not nullify or alter the Palestinian National Charter without a redrat and a two-thirds vote of the Palestinian National Council.
As Demon posted:
Well that's half the story, the other half is:
- actually redrafting the Palestinian National Charter
- a two-thirds vote of the Palestinian National Council to ratify the redraft.
No redrafted Charter has ever emerged, and the PLO executive committee has never ratified said redraft of the Palestinian National Charter. So I am afraid a letter to Clinton by Arafat "promising" the nullification of articles in the Palestinian National Charter does not nullify or alter the Palestinian National Charter without a redrat and a two-thirds vote of the Palestinian National Council.
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
New Palestine
By this coming Friday, the Palestinian Authority will have de-facto and de-jure control of 100% of Gaza. The Jewish homes will have been bulldozed to the ground by the IDF D-9's, and the PA already has issued a decree regarding the control of lands previously held by Israel.
In January 2006, there will be new elections to the Palestinian Parliament, and HAMAS (a political and religious/social organization with a military component) is expected to do well and gain a high degree of representation.
Anyone who seriously assumes that the Palestinians have abandoned their quest for implementing each and every chapter and verse of the Palestinian National Charter (or the HAMAS Charter, a far more virulent document) is deluded.
That is the future of the New Palestinian State, and it is plain as the nose on your face.
By this coming Friday, the Palestinian Authority will have de-facto and de-jure control of 100% of Gaza. The Jewish homes will have been bulldozed to the ground by the IDF D-9's, and the PA already has issued a decree regarding the control of lands previously held by Israel.
In January 2006, there will be new elections to the Palestinian Parliament, and HAMAS (a political and religious/social organization with a military component) is expected to do well and gain a high degree of representation.
Anyone who seriously assumes that the Palestinians have abandoned their quest for implementing each and every chapter and verse of the Palestinian National Charter (or the HAMAS Charter, a far more virulent document) is deluded.
- "This retreat does not mean the end of our battle, but it is the beginning," said a spokesman for the Hamas military wing, who identified himself only by his nom-de-geurre, Abu Obaideh.
"Our battle with the (Israeli) enemy is long and will continue," Abu Obaideh said, addressing a group of some 40 armed and masked Hamas members who had gathered in a square in central Gaza City.
That is the future of the New Palestinian State, and it is plain as the nose on your face.
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
Re: New Palestine
[edited to add]
webfusion said:
In case anyone missed it Hamas "resists" by sending men, women and children to detonate themselves with malice aforethought in high-density civilian areas inside Israel as Hamas militants launch mortars and Qassam rockets indiscriminately at civilians inside Israel.
[edited to add]
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The palestinian state we all want.
Ahhh...well that clears it all up then. There is just one troubling thing Fool; where's the asterisk??
You know, the little asterisk which directs you to the pertinent fine print. AFAIK there is no mention of any alteration of the charter in the charter. Shouldn't we see something like:
You know, even the patently deceptive ads of used car lots can't run their bullsh*t without legal disclaimers and fine print! So are you and Demon basically telling us all here that the Palestinian Authority; a body intent on becoming the basis for a soverein nation and legitimate leader of the Palestinian people actually has less integrity than the average "buy-here-pay-here" sales-creep?
Wow,...that's reassuring! I'm under-whelmed.
-z
The Fool said:
Ahhh...well that clears it all up then. There is just one troubling thing Fool; where's the asterisk??
You know, the little asterisk which directs you to the pertinent fine print. AFAIK there is no mention of any alteration of the charter in the charter. Shouldn't we see something like:
You know, even the patently deceptive ads of used car lots can't run their bullsh*t without legal disclaimers and fine print! So are you and Demon basically telling us all here that the Palestinian Authority; a body intent on becoming the basis for a soverein nation and legitimate leader of the Palestinian people actually has less integrity than the average "buy-here-pay-here" sales-creep?
Wow,...that's reassuring! I'm under-whelmed.
-z
webfusion
Philosopher
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 9,795
ZN, you have already made prior mention that HAMAS is resisting the PA itself, and the mere fact that the PA allows forty or so people to gather with their weapons in the public square, and doesn't try to arrest them for breach of peace (at the least) shows the extent of the inability of the Palestinians to 'think different' (to borrow a clever phrase from Apple Corp.)
"Our arms removed the Zionist enemy and therefore we will not abandon our weapons and we will not hand them over to anybody," said the Hamas spokesman. He said the issue "was not up for discussion."
From media reports, July 15th (just one month ago, we really have collective short memories) ---
"By all means", but wouldn't that also mean in the center of Gaza City, where a group of thugs/terrorists parade their rockets and RPG's in full view?
There is no 'possible shift in policy'. There is nothing to indicate the Palestinian State trying to emerge will be less than a huge terrorist base, which at some point, may require a US Marines invasion to quash.
"Our arms removed the Zionist enemy and therefore we will not abandon our weapons and we will not hand them over to anybody," said the Hamas spokesman. He said the issue "was not up for discussion."
From media reports, July 15th (just one month ago, we really have collective short memories) ---
- The Gaza clashes between HAMAS and the PA forces erupted after Palestinian security forces raided a neighbourhood, searching for militants suspected of firing rockets. Militants later torched a police station and set a police armoured personnel carrier and three jeeps afire...
Israel and the United States have called on Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas to crack down on the militants, who killed six Israelis this week – five in a terror bombing in Netanya and one in a rocket attack near Gaza.
The tough Palestinian police action in Gaza on Friday suggested a possible shift in policy for Mr. Abbas, who has been reluctant in the past to confront the militants. Palestinian security chief Nasser Yousef said Friday that his forces will “not hesitate†to restore law and order, and he ordered rocket attacks to be stopped by all means.
"By all means", but wouldn't that also mean in the center of Gaza City, where a group of thugs/terrorists parade their rockets and RPG's in full view?
There is no 'possible shift in policy'. There is nothing to indicate the Palestinian State trying to emerge will be less than a huge terrorist base, which at some point, may require a US Marines invasion to quash.
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
zenith-nadir said:
Right, and every radical sermon on PA tv exhorting the faithful to destroy Israel, every PA school teaching it's students to revere murderers as "martyrs", every calculated incitement of the population to jihad is traceable right back to that official charter. No one is researching the history of past negotiations. They're looking at the charter and the charter tells them in unambiguous language what the correct and official policy is: Destroy Israel!
Nobody's reading footnotes and fine-print...and even if they were they'd have quite a job finding it without even the courtesy of a little goddamned asterisk!
Is that the best you guys can do? Sheesh!
-z
zenith-nadir
Illuminator
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 4,482
And therein lies the rub. If the Palestinian Authority IS the Palestinian Authority then paramilitary terror groups flaunting their weapons in public and continuing to threaten Israel IS a threat to the authority of the Palestinian Authority. If the Palestinian Authority cannot control - and doesn't have authority over - it''s own citizens then what kind of a leadership will that make in a new Palestinian state?webfusion said:
You can't have paramilitary terror groups dictating foreign policy as the PA is negotiating peace. Sorry, it just can't work that way - as proven over the past 12 years.
rikzilla said:
I do not disagree that words can be very powerful and that they are powerful tools
But I think you may misunderstood what my argument (or rather opinion) is about the words having to be removed now.
rikzilla said:
I again agree with you 100% so it must be that I've not communicated my opinion very well - let me try again.
(I've read some of the discussion after your post and it seems as if there is some argument whether the "destroy Israel" is current or not, but I'll finish this part of the discussion with assuming it is still current.)
My opinion is about the situation as it currently stands and any practical policies or actions that the Israeli’s can take given the current situation.
Let me explain how I view what that current situation is.
At the moment the Israeli population, whether a baby in her cot to a 90 year old great-grandfather in the street are at a very real level of risk of being a victim (either directly or indirectly) of some of the must ruthless and barbaric terrorism of modern times. We know most (even if supported, funded and even orchestrated from elsewhere) of those acts are carried out by Palestinians. We also know the PA does not have the control (for whatever reasons) to stop these attacks.
What I am maintaining is that if today the "destroy Israel" was dropped it would make absolutely no difference to the safety of the Israelis tomorrow. (As I've said above I have an opinion that it could in fact increase the risk for the Israeli population by causing even more - if that's possible - unrest in the Palestinian population).
Therefore since there isn't an immediate benefit for the Israeli population why make "mere" words a sticking point and why allow (by refusing to remove them) the Palestinian’s to control or heavily influence Israeli policy?
(And I agree those words at some time have to removed if there is eve meant to be a "lasting" peace between the two populations.)
rikzilla
Ninja wave: Atomic fire-breath ninja
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2001
- Messages
- 5,009
Well Darat,
The way I see it there has been, and continues to be, official sanction from the PA for terrorism. I know Abbas has made moderate noises and has pledged to do what he can to stop these attacks....and yet the words of the charter loom over him.
How can he mean what he says,...how can he possess power to curtail terrorism if he either has not the will or the power to change the charter itself?
I fully understand that the PA will have a very serious debate on their hands in getting the leadership there to come together and rewrite the charter; but it would be an interesting debate to watch. If the PA fails and Hamas et al argue successfully to have the charter stand then we know we're dealing with an Abbas government that may mean well, but does not really represent the will of the people.
At that point the PA could hold a referendum and perhaps the PA will end up being led by the Hamas faction. That's okay too...it's democracy. If the Palestinians truly believe that they must destroy Israel then at least the Israelis could get on with fighting a hot war with an enemy they can clearly identify...ie; the Palestinian people.
But if perhaps there is a chance Abbas could win the day; get the incitement out of their founding document; they could then get the incitement off the airwaves and out of the schools without appearing to be hypocritical.
I have no idea whether or not such a re-write would have any real short or long term impact on the rate of terrorism. But it looks like a perfectly do-able action which would overtly show the world that the Palestinian leaders are acting in good faith and really trying to do the right thing even if they are too weak to do much else.
I don't see the harm in them beginning the debate process. At the l,east when all is said and done the Israeli's would know a little better where they stand with the Palestinian people. (as if they haven't gotten the clue already that is)
-z
The way I see it there has been, and continues to be, official sanction from the PA for terrorism. I know Abbas has made moderate noises and has pledged to do what he can to stop these attacks....and yet the words of the charter loom over him.
How can he mean what he says,...how can he possess power to curtail terrorism if he either has not the will or the power to change the charter itself?
I fully understand that the PA will have a very serious debate on their hands in getting the leadership there to come together and rewrite the charter; but it would be an interesting debate to watch. If the PA fails and Hamas et al argue successfully to have the charter stand then we know we're dealing with an Abbas government that may mean well, but does not really represent the will of the people.
At that point the PA could hold a referendum and perhaps the PA will end up being led by the Hamas faction. That's okay too...it's democracy. If the Palestinians truly believe that they must destroy Israel then at least the Israelis could get on with fighting a hot war with an enemy they can clearly identify...ie; the Palestinian people.
But if perhaps there is a chance Abbas could win the day; get the incitement out of their founding document; they could then get the incitement off the airwaves and out of the schools without appearing to be hypocritical.
I have no idea whether or not such a re-write would have any real short or long term impact on the rate of terrorism. But it looks like a perfectly do-able action which would overtly show the world that the Palestinian leaders are acting in good faith and really trying to do the right thing even if they are too weak to do much else.
I don't see the harm in them beginning the debate process. At the l,east when all is said and done the Israeli's would know a little better where they stand with the Palestinian people. (as if they haven't gotten the clue already that is)
-z
The Fool
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2002
- Messages
- 16,544
Hi guys...just checking in on the thread. Are we all still very much in favour of a palestinians state? well,. at least as much as its possible to be in favour of something you don't want to see happen?
A question I have for those that still have conditions....who judges when your conditions are met? For example....no longer wanting to "wipe out" israel. If I choose to believe this is still the case is there anything any palestinian can possibly do to change my mind? Who is going to proclaim that the conditions are met?
Basically all the people here who want to place unmeasurable unfulfillable conditions may like to explain how these conditions are not, effectively, a simple no...
after all, I have been assured we all want a Palestinian state...don't we???
A question I have for those that still have conditions....who judges when your conditions are met? For example....no longer wanting to "wipe out" israel. If I choose to believe this is still the case is there anything any palestinian can possibly do to change my mind? Who is going to proclaim that the conditions are met?
Basically all the people here who want to place unmeasurable unfulfillable conditions may like to explain how these conditions are not, effectively, a simple no...
after all, I have been assured we all want a Palestinian state...don't we???