Howqever, I will say that your reasons are rationalizations. The primary reasons for wanting that land is a sense of entitlement with a religious source.
& they've stated a willingness to give it up contingent on border changes accounting for new demographics and security concerns. Again, Palestinian attacks are the reason they took it over and now occupy it. Palestine deserved to lose the land they were initially given & now have an opportunity to gain some of it back by agreeing to peace.
Originally Posted by One Brow
Do you acknowledge Israel has helped create, and its policies continue to exacerbate, the conflict?
Isn't that what politics almost always does?
Originally Posted by billyshelby
I'm not down on Hayward. But my opinion is both Burks and Bledsoe will be better players than he is if they're not already. It's that simple.
Originally Posted by Zulu
I Garan"DAMN"te Burks will be better than Victor!!
Once there was a great empire and many slaves were obedient to the king. Then a man organized the slaves and left the kingdom with them, claim a land to their own, found a couple of cities. Another great empire came by force and conquered their land. They were homeless again, scattered around the world in the process. They learned that the economy is everything, so they sticked to the trade. They grew economically and became a force which cannot be conquered: pot of gold. Many diffrent people conquered their land and lived, they only had an idea when they would "buy" their land again. So when they think the time is right, they directed the biggest empires which became victorious from a world war, with their financial power to conquer their land for them. Many of the people come to their forefather's land, and since then, they are trying to kick out the people who live there for centuries after they left.
everybody loves money. joo s just need to shoot it in the vein.