No.  They aren't borders.  At least not permanent ones.  Gaza and the West Bank are formed from Ceasefire lines... which essentially means nobody agrees where the actual border lies.  

All those "borders" mean is that's where things are supposed to stay until war is redeclared or they work out official borders.

So really, that's the only real crime of the settlments.  Israel is breaking the ceasefire, though then again so is Hamas... which is why the west desperatly robs hamas of it's official status it should hold as head of the Palestine Government.

That people pick sides between two countries that are mostly full of self destructive assholes is really kind of sad.

Real change won't happen until the Palestinian's democratic wishes are respected.  A good example I think is Hezzbollah.  If you'll note, during the recent skirmish.  They didn't do anything.   Why?  They're essentially the leaders of Lebannon right now.

Right. Legitimacy usually instills a group with a measure of responsibility, because if you are the recognized leader of a place, you have something to lose. Now, of course there are true ideologues in any movement, and doubtlessly are many in Hamas who will actively work for the destruction of Israel in any capacity, but there are more who would be responsible partners in government, if only to save their own skins.

What about Korea then? the "borders" have been as they are along the DMZ for nearly 60 years and yet both countries treat there "borders" as actual borders now.

But, back onto Israel and Palestine, hopefully the recent events will lead to an actual solution, thats been going on for too long as well. 

As for picking sides, tell that to the governments who fully back either state regardless of what goes on.

lol, cause Lebanon has the same influence on the UN as the USA right? the UN is a disgrace as long as the veto exists.

The veto is a brilliant tool, because it helps keep the peace. The only real problem with the veto is that it should probably be expanded to India and maybe Brazil.

lol, what utter bullshit, it's the single biggest barrier to world peace as delegitamises the entire existence of the UN, so long as the superpowers have the veto then their will never be world peace nor any real progress in peace in a lot of regions, it makes the entire idea of a United Nations redundant as it's essentially only allowed to function when the USA/China/Russia/UK allow it to.

I actually meant to make that post longer, but got distracted midway through then later submitted just what i had.

The security council and the veto understands the mistakes of the League of Nations. The problem with the League was that it ended up isolating a few of the major powers, namely Germany and Japan, who felt as though they were being diplomatically bullied and abused by the mainstream powers. World Peace is about making sure that the guys who are capable of launching World War feel that their diplomatic presence is equivalent to their military might, and hence, the veto. While the veto allows things like a lack of action against Syria or Iran or Israel, it also guarantees multipolarity, so long as the acknowledged major powers actually have different interests, and don't just collaborate to dump on the other countries.

The key to peace is balance.

no, it highlights and enhances the mistakes of the league of nations by making the UN even more of a bad joke and even more obviously biased. it allows the bullying cunts of the world to continue being so is what it does, it means that 90% of the world can decide something is wrong and then have one of the cuntnations say "nah, HAHAHAHAHA vetoed" whenever it suits them or their "friends". it's about as balanced as having a football match where one team has all it's players injured and has to field a bunch of people who don't know the rules playing against a team that has all the best players and also bribed the referee.

the key to peace is democracy and equality, the veto makes both impossible and your beloved balance is non existent as a result.

Let's say that 90% was against Russia, or America, or any one of the major powers. If they feel isolated and feel like the rest of the world is determined to railroad their interests into a corner and is out to get them; they'll go to war.

rubbish, they will be forced to comply is what will happen...and if they don't then they will be sanctioned and shit by the UN, that's how it should work...otherwise the UN is pointless...

if 90% of the world votes against you and CAN DO SOMETHING when they do, then you are forced to think about what you are doing rahter than continuing to do it, that would actually mean so much shit being stopped.

isolation from 90% of the rest of the world only happens if you do something majorly wrong that they all agree isn't okay...you deserve to have international law punish you if that's the case.

I assume you are American? I can think of few other types of people so arrogant as to argue in favor of the veto.

what's sad is, I am from the UK, but I actually want a proper UN so I am opposed to the veto, even if it means going against the interests of the UK, because frankly, I think global peace is more important that nationalist arrogance.