Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Israel shouldn't have allowed their people to live there, and its suggested to have a "land swap" so that Palestine can keep strategic areas that are important to them, and Israel can keep some of the settlements.
Yes, attacked by its neighbors 40 years ago. Israel was taken from the Palestinian people just 20 years before that.
Again it is illogical to tell people that they can't live wherever they choose in their own country.
Although the 1973 war was the last time Israel was attacked by another country, there have been many attacks by Palestinian terrorists since then including quite recently.
Again it is illogical to tell people that they can't live wherever they choose in their own country.
Although the 1973 war was the last time Israel was attacked by another country, there have been many attacks by Palestinian terrorists since then including quite recently.
Why? We tell people they can't live in national parks?
And they are attacked because Palestine still doesn't have a country
That whole "indefensible" argument is ridiculous. Its doesn't matter if Israel is the size of Maryland with the West Bank and Golan Heights or the size of New Jersey without them, its still a tiny state. A few extra miles one way or the other doesn't matter to a rocket.
Indefensible means that it would be impossible to defend the settlements which were built on occupied territory.
Indefensible means that it would be impossible to defend the settlements which were built on occupied territory.
For example, the city of Tiberias which was part of Israel (and is not on occupied territory) was subject to missile/rocket attacks before 1967 simply because it is geographically lower than the hills that were on the Syrian side of the border prior to 1967. So your statement is not valid.
For example, the city of Tiberias which was part of Israel (and is not on occupied territory) was subject to missile/rocket attacks before 1967 simply because it is geographically lower than the hills that were on the Syrian side of the border prior to 1967. So your statement is not valid.
No, my statement explains what they meant by their comment about 'indefensible'. They were talking about the settlements. Any part of Israel can be attacked with missiles. Saddam lobbed Scuds at them and they don't even have a border with Israel.
No, conversion to Judaism is another way to gain citizenship. Jews of many different races live in Israel. Upon it's founding in 1948 Jews from Europe, Russia, the Middle East, and elsewhere immigrated. And let's not forget about the rapidly growing Arab Muslim minority in Israel.
Also, many countries link citizenship with ethnicity. Off the top of my head I know many European countries will let you apply for citizenship if you can demonstrate at least 1/4 of your grandparents are/were citizens.
Both sides have committed wrongs in this struggle, so there are plenty valid points to be made without fabricating something new. By the way, I believe the neither the US nor any other country, IGO, NGO, whatever has the right to tell Israel to shrink it's size. It's their business and I personally support them. Not even bringing religion into it, Israel is the most successful Middle Eastern country by far. How many more Nobel Prize winners has Israel produced than the entire Arab world? Israel should be a role model to its neighbors, not a pariah. I think Israeli existence and safety should be supported but we shouldn't turn a blind eye to the Palestinians. Judging from the multiple wars launched by the Arabs (some before 1967) and the current terrorism/rocket launches, appeasement is a fool's game. So, other than just ceding land, how can we fix the problem? Massive Israeli and Arab investment into the Gaza strip, elevating their standard of living. But, no business would take this risk currently. Too many bombs!
The fact that Israel is the "most successful Middle Eastern country by far" wouldn't have anything to do with 3.3 billion dollars annually in aid from the US, would it??
Without the US, Israel would have serious problems. If God wants them to have the land, then let HIM take care of it. The US doesn't need to be involved.
Israel is supposed to be from the jordan river to the sea. So actually Israel needs to take the rest of their land from the arab trouble makers that was kicked out of the other middle east nations. There is no excuse to reconnize a palistenian state as they don't exist anyway, just a bunch of hoodlims breeding suicide bombers. Now who has the courage to stand up for Israel's right to what is their God given land?
The American Indians are also supposed to have all their land back, too: from New England all the way to the California coast.
It doesn't matter. All you need is Israel to act in good faith to the point where the Europeans will see the Palestinians as the uncooperative party and opt not to recognize them. Obama is simply trying to give them a way to do that. That will preserve the status quo. If Israel doesn't or cannot do that the s*** hits the fan for them. The main issue is this is bigger then Israel, Palestine and the US. Simple as that.
Well, PA already said they will not recognize Israel. I guess it is a mission accomplished.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
