|
Rudey, I'm not so sure that you know what you're talking about. Have you actually read anything about Res 242? Do you know the history behind it? I'm guessing not. Rather than spout off what you've been told, why not actually investigate? I can tell you are pretty intelligent, so why not put that good brain to use??
"Exchanging land for peace." Sounds like "Give them back their land to prevent further problems." The actual language of the resolution states that Israel has no right to land acquired through conflict. Whether or not you view that as a condemnation of the attacks is up to you. But it does say that the land was not theirs to keep. Sort of like when one kid steals another kid's toy. Mom or Dad intervenes and gives it back to who it belongs to. The other kid is pissed, but that's life. Don't take what isn't yours.
The Economist is not a scholarly resource anyways. Unless it is, there is always a chance for misinterpretation, bias, and other journalistic hangups. I did like your citation of Polin. Granted, even scholars have their biases, but at least he disclosed in an intelligent manner.
Oh and I'll have far too much to do in Egypt to do you any favors. My deepest apologies.
|