They gave it back in concession for hopes of peace from their hate-filled neighbors, and to get some support from the anti-Semitic UN and EU, if possible.
2006-06-08 05:55:53
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Local Arabs, were not just kicked out they were displaced or IDP (internally displaced persons) in that region and some were displaced so far they were no longer internal. The "Israeli's" were originally also Palestinians and that is what they had originally called the place and themselves. Although it is a Greek word. Land is one during wars and people die. This is a sad reality. Living in a constant state of war is no place to grow up. we are fortunate that we do not face this in our own communities. However, for peace to happen or a chance of it, why not make some concessions. Understand that not all Jews agree with the actions of the Israeli government just like not all Americans agree with the actions of the US government. Also biblical references to "Israel" most often refer to a people, not a place. I understand the current state of Israel has a responsibility to it's citizens Jews, Christians and Arabs alike (yes there are Israeli Arabs) to protect it's citizens. But it doesn't reserve the right to oppress other people to that end. I would work for peace. You should also be aware if you are not already, that Jews and Arabs lived together in communities peacefully for a long time, it wasn't until the late 1800's when things started becoming difficult. They worked together. Teh two state solution was also propose long ago and refused because it was all or nothing that was wanted by the Arab peoples (or their leaders at least), but the british mandate really screwed them over and also didn't permit their sovereignty.
The only answer is to live as one.
In the famous words of Ziggy Marley ... I Ieave you with this...wonderful song "Shalom Salaam"...
2006-06-09 13:43:53
·
answer #2
·
answered by tharedhead ((debajo del ombú)) 5
·
0⤊
1⤋
ok, israel took the land in a conflict, because of the fact they have been attacked. So shouldn';t the palestinians would desire to make peace, FIRST, then get the land back. this is the way it has worked in another conflict in historic previous. The dropping area makes peace, then the triumphing area withdraws thier forces and provides the land back. 2. So why will the palestinians no longer make peace < first ? 3. israel compelled all settlers to circulate away Gaza and withdrew the IDF from Gaza, the end result ? assaults against israel from gaza greater 780% over the subsequent 3 years. So giving land back to the palestinians has led to extra assaults, not extra peace. 4. And thats the great situation, the arabs choose the land back, yet are no longer prepared to make peace with israel, to get it back.
2016-09-28 04:51:15
·
answer #3
·
answered by ? 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
We're talking about Judea/Samaria (aka the West Bank) and Gaza here. Judea/Samaria was controlled by Jordan before the Six Day War, and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.
Is Israel to give these lands back to Jordan and Egypt, after those countries used the areas as launching pads to destroy Israel?
Beyond the strategic need for Israel to keep control of the highlands of Judea, remember that this is the heart of the Jewish homeland. When Arabs controlled the area, they did not allow Jews access to the Jewish holy sites, such as the tomb of the Patriarchs in Hebron.
It would be a dangerous mistake for Israel to give these lands over to Arab control.
By the way, UN Resolution 242 does NOT call for Israel to give the disputed territories to Arab control. See: http://www.fuelfortruth.org
2006-06-11 15:28:06
·
answer #4
·
answered by mo mosh 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
I'll tell you why, and this is interesting. Because the United Nations said so! UN Resolutions 242 and 331 mandate that they return the Palestinain Occupied Territories! But are they complying? Oh, no! Because we have their back.
What, you say? A member country of the United Nations not complying with their Resolutions for nearly 40 years and there are no repercussions? Yes, that's true, sir.
However, when it comes to Iraq, our rationale for the pre-emptive attack was that they weren't complying with UN Resolutions. Lol. Utter hypocrisy.
And what War has been won and the winner gives the land back? Heck, just about all of them - think about it.
2006-06-08 05:53:43
·
answer #5
·
answered by rmcgee20002 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
israel won the war in 73 BUT in exchange for a peace treaty with egypt gave the saini to them. egypt has been peacefull with israel ever since. the 6 day war came long after the re-creation of the jewish state. and... israel was well under way to its creation BEFORE ww2 or 1948, infact was in 1917 the balfour declaration stated that jews would get the jewish lands back. Arab/muslims were occupiers and had no rights there. The rest of the mideast is for arab/muslims. Deal with it muslims, jews only have 1 country on land that is jewish since before islam ever began, you muslims have 57 nations.
Just as a side note, one poster stated the UN resolutions to "return" the "palestinian" occupied areas? Return to whom? those same areas were "occupied" by egypt and jordan.. there was never a nation, state, or country called palestine. perhaps jordan and egypt can take those areas back?
2006-06-08 06:42:38
·
answer #6
·
answered by midrash40 4
·
3⤊
0⤋
They made a deal....Land for Peace....They gave back the land but never got the Peace.......
2006-06-08 05:59:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's not their land.
So by your thought process all of eastern Europe should belong to Russia.
GB should still own India.
and Japan should be the 51st state.
2006-06-08 05:53:33
·
answer #8
·
answered by mymadsky 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
It is just the right thing to do. Thats all.
2006-06-08 05:51:55
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋