That would be fine if they stopped. But they continue to take more and more land. Plus, they did give the Sinai back to Egypt, so why not give the West Bank back to the Palestinians?

 

They continue to get attacked from within that land. Basically they run guerilla warfare and are surprised when Israel expands into that area to stop the attacks.

 

I can see giving the West Bank to Palestinians if and only if they achieve peace with the full PLO and universal recognition of the Israeli state within the Arab world. Basically everyone signs on the dotted line or you can forget it. And I'm still not even certain Israel owes them that.

 

The fact remains that they have all of the land they had in Figure 2 had they accepted the UN resolution and not instigated war.

And the Arab world was totally satisfied all those times they had more land.

 

I'm not saying Israel is blameless, but I do believe the majority of that expansion in your images after the UN resolution came about because of Arab aggression against Israel. Is it Israel's fault that those nations declared war on them or mobilized against them?

 

...well Israel wasn't even a proper nation until 1948. It was really just a collection of villages and landowners scattered along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. The Arabs had otherwise ruled over that land for centuries up to that point, and then Israel (with the backing of the League of Nations) just said, "Okay, this isn't yours any more, it's ours."

...well Israel wasn't even a proper nation until 1948. It was really just a collection of villages and landowners scattered along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. The Arabs had otherwise ruled over that land for centuries up to that point, and then Israel (with the backing of the League of Nations) just said, "Okay, this isn't yours any more, it's ours."

 

You could argue that the land belonged to the ancestors of the Israeli's from centuries ago before they were overtaken by the Arabs, but then couldn't you say the same, for example, of the United States' land and the Native Americans, and the land in Northern Ireland and England?

It's that attitude that's going to bring Israel and Iran to war. But maybe that's what neocons want.

 

So I'm guessing you're all for us giving parts of our country back to England then....

So I'm guessing you're all for us giving parts of our country back to England then....

 

A war of independence and a land grab are two different things.

A war of independence and a land grab are two different things.

 

It's not a land grab when the other country is the one that starts the war.

...well Israel wasn't even a proper nation until 1948. It was really just a collection of villages and landowners scattered along the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. The Arabs had otherwise ruled over that land for centuries up to that point, and then Israel (with the backing of the League of Nations) just said, "Okay, this isn't yours any more, it's ours."

 

Pretty sure that the Ottomans ruled it until the end of World War I, then Britain took it over with the Palestinian Mandate. Yes, Arabs lived there that entire time, but I don't know that you can really say they "ruled" the area. When the UN partitioned the area, the Arabs didn't care for what they had, and attacked.

Pretty sure that the Ottomans ruled it until the end of World War I, then Britain took it over with the Palestinian Mandate. Yes, Arabs lived there that entire time, but I don't know that you can really say they "ruled" the area. When the UN partitioned the area, the Arabs didn't care for what they had, and attacked.

 

I think you may be right about the Ottomans actually. Sounds right at least. Regardless, my point was more to say that over the last 2000 years, the "ownership" of that land has changed more than I care to count, and the rightful owners are pretty well impossible to determine on that basis. The problem is, Israel came in as a newly organized country all together and claimed ownership because of their heritage, and that ticked off all the Arabs - including the Palestinians who had the League of Nations gang up on them and hand their land over to Israel. Then when they try to get it back, they lose more of it.

What makes Obama the authority on telling a country what to give up.

 

What if Israel told the US to give TX back to MX, what is Obama going to say.

 

Although I agree, I have to say that in my opinion, W was much worse in this regard.

Although I agree, I have to say that in my opinion, W was much worse in this regard.

 

And that has what to do with this? Was Bush named President last night when I was sleeping?

I dont think either Israel or PLO want peace. It is all about land and a Palestinian State.

I think you may be right about the Ottomans actually. Sounds right at least. Regardless, my point was more to say that over the last 2000 years, the "ownership" of that land has changed more than I care to count, and the rightful owners are pretty well impossible to determine on that basis. The problem is, Israel came in as a newly organized country all together and claimed ownership because of their heritage, and that ticked off all the Arabs - including the Palestinians who had the League of Nations gang up on them and hand their land over to Israel. Then when they try to get it back, they lose more of it.

 

But that's true and not true. Israel did not claim ownership until the end of the British Mandate, and did not declare independence outside the partition. The day following their declaration of independence, they were attacked by Arab armies. What the Jewish community did do prior to that time was flood in via immigration, to the point that they comprised a significant chunk (but not majority) of Palestine's population following WWII.

 

I'm not going to dispute that the UN could be viewed in the wrong for the partition, though in my eyes it was clearly Britain's to decide what to do with since it was their territory, and they chose to allow the UN to administrate it. The fact remains that had the Arab forces never attacked following that partition, they would have had a lot more territory now than they do, and they would have more of a leg to stand on as far as the area they lost.

According to the New York Times web page, Obama said that Netanyahu is not willing to make the big concession to make a deal. At least Netanyahu is willing to stand up for the principles that his country supports.

According to the New York Times web page, Obama said that Netanyahu is not willing to make the big concession to make a deal. At least Netanyahu is willing to stand up for the principles that his country supports.

 

Maybe he will run for President, at least he has guts to stand up to terrorist.

Couldn't help it...you reminded me of Eddie Izzard's stand up bit on WWII and Russia:

 

 

:lol::thumb: