That is a very unusual way to interpret the term "implicitly recognises", indeed the statement you quote implicitly doesn't recognise Israel's right to exist!
The point webfusion is making, Darat, is while there can be imlicit recognition that someone
exists, there can be no such thing as implicit recognition that he has a
right to exist.
By the way, there is something completely morally repulsive about the whole bruahahaha here.
If I refused to recognize that you have the right to exist, would you worry? Would you consider it a reasonable demand that you negotiate with me--you give me money or land or your wife, I recognize you have a "right to exist"? Of course not, since your right to exist does not depend on me, and you have it regardless of what I think, and thus I have no right to demand anything in return for such a "recognition".
Same here. Even if the recognition of israel's right to exist was explicit and sincere, why on earth would israel require or demand such a thing? It assumes that israel only has a right to exist on the Arabs' leave. Even if one accepts that whether israel does (or will) exist or not depends on the result of the Arabs' actions, israel's RIGHT to exist is not due to the Arab world's willingness or lack thereof.
The Arab world, giving israel the "right to exist", gives nothing at all that was its to give in the first place. All the more so when the "recognition" is nothing more than an obvious insinsere ploy to get more land for further jew-killing.
