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.
As TnHilltopper mentioned and as seemingly has been demonstrated in Afghanistan with the USSR and Iraq with the US, illegitimate and unpopular occupations tend to foster resistance, which in the Middle East usually comes in the form of terrorism.
And the return to the pre 1967 borders would do nothing to negate that same outcome.
The Palestinians are the tools of Iran, Syria, and then othe muslim nations, which use them as proxies to try to destroy Israel.
There was no "conquest" -- there was a counterattack. Be ignorant -- ignore it.
Nice "final solution" taunt. Your ghoulishness is noted.
^^^ Wasn't intentional, although I thought about how they looked similar after typing it. Thank you for not answering the question and instead resorting to further hatred and hyperbole. Counterattacks that involve taking land and half-enslaving the residents register as "conquest" in my book, whether provoked by other governments or not... is it the fault of the people currently living in Palestine that some Muslim nations went to war with Israel 3-4 decades ago? Do we "punish the children for the sins of the father?"
^^^ Wasn't intentional, although I thought about how they looked similar after typing it. Thank you for not answering the question and instead resorting to further hatred and hyperbole. Counterattacks that involve taking land and half-enslaving the residents register as "conquest" in my book, whether provoked by other governments or not... is it the fault of the people currently living in Palestine that some Muslim nations went to war with Israel 3-4 decades ago? Do we "punish the children for the sins of the father?"
You asked a question? I thought it was just a springboard to more rhetoric.
The Palestinians can reject violence, echew Hamas and Hezbolah, and bargain in good faith, of course. They've had penty of decades to do that. But still they call jews pigs and apes and train their children to kill. Speaking of punishing children.
And the return to the pre 1967 borders would do nothing to negate that same outcome.
It would at least drastically reduce support for it. Support for terrorism isn't an "endemic Muslim" thing, as most polls show... support in Palestine for terrorism is significantly higher than in surveyed nations with Islamic governments... it seemingly follows that conditions, and not just ideology, form much of the basis for the support of attacks.
It would at least drastically reduce support for it. Support for terrorism isn't an "endemic Muslim" thing, as most polls show... support in Palestine for terrorism is significantly higher than in surveyed nations with Islamic governments... it seemingly follows that conditions, and not just ideology, form much of the basis for the support of attacks.
A partially supported obliteration isn't much different than a fully supported obliteration. It wouldn't negate the actions from being attempted (maybe even successful).
It would at least drastically reduce support for it. Support for terrorism isn't an "endemic Muslim" thing, as most polls show... support in Palestine for terrorism is significantly higher than in surveyed nations with Islamic governments... it seemingly follows that conditions, and not just ideology, form much of the basis for the support of attacks.
It would also permit Syria to lob shells into Tel Aviv from the Golan Heights, and Hamas to shower Israel with katushkas from three directions.
You asked a question? I thought it was just a springboard to more rhetoric.
The Palestinians can reject violence, echew Hamas and Hezbolah, and bargain in good faith, of course. They've had penty of decades to do that. But still they call jews pigs and apes and train their children to kill. Speaking of punishing children.
It would probably be easier for Israel to call on Palestinians to reject Hamas if Israel had done the same a few decades ago, according to one of thine fellow right wingers:
And the return to the pre 1967 borders would do nothing to negate that same outcome.
I would think it would remove the argument used by the Palestinians. Their main issue is that they are occupied, so to remove the occupation then removes the primary issue for the conflict. I'm not saying this will stop the conflict, it will however showcase Israel taking the high road approach, as the current direction does not seem to be working well. Islam makes a huge point of showcasing Israels culpability and the lopsided nature of the conflict so without it, their excuse for much of the strife in the greater Middle East would no longer exist.
It was like the whole denying Ahmadinejad visiting ground zero of 9-11. While it plays well in our press to showcase what all the world knows, that the guy is a loud mouth idiot, but it removes his ability to go home and say, "Fellow Iranians, you see, we offered assistance and condolences, and they refuse us". It isn't that we weren't justified for not allowing him, it just irks me that we seem to examine issues no deeper than a fluffy press release instead of an examination of greater depth that will likely have long term advantage.
It would also permit Syria to lob shells into Tel Aviv from the Golan Heights, and Hamas to shower Israel with katushkas from three directions.
You really don't know much about this, do you?
Not too much. Probably not that much less than you, though. Obviously any agreement would require security measures + the possibility of retalitory action in the result of continued violence if Israel kept its side of the agreement but the Palestinians didn't, or vice versa.
I would think it would remove the argument used by the Palestinians. Their main issue is that they are occupied, so to remove the occupation then removes the primary issue for the conflict. I'm not saying this will stop the conflict, it will however showcase Israel taking the high road approach, as the current direction does not seem to be working well. Islam makes a huge point of showcasing Israels culpability and the lopsided nature of the conflict so without it, their excuse for much of the strife in the greater Middle East would no longer exist.
It was like the whole denying Ahmadinejad visiting ground zero of 9-11. While it plays well in our press to showcase what all the world knows, that the guy is a loud mouth idiot, but it removes his ability to go home and say, "Fellow Iranians, you see, we offered assistance and condolences, and they refuse us". It isn't that we weren't justified for not allowing him, it just irks me that we seem to examine issues no deeper than a fluffy press release instead of an examination of greater depth that will likely have long term advantage.
Where we see it differently is that I think it just moves the discussion to questioning the founding of Israel, and did that displace the Palestinians. Just like in my views of China and Taiwan, or Russia and the Ukraine or Georgia, I don't see what ground is gained in compromise.
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.
