The leader of Lebanon wants to go back to the 1949 boundaries designated for Israel. The Arab countries didn't really accept those boundaries then what's different today?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060830/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_lebanon
Considering the forces massed on Israel's border when the Six Day War I can understand Israel being preemptive in that one. And when Israel was attacked in the 30 Day War the Arab forces lost again. Israel by right of conquest could be even larger than it is today. They have given back ground already. And are willing to give more back. But look at the 1949 boundaries. For strategic reasons why should they agree to go back to those boundaries? What reason would be good enough to even consider going back to the 1949 boundaries?
2006-08-30 02:16:39 · 2 answers · asked by namsaev 6 in News & Events ➔ Current Events
"Right" of conquest is inherently wrong, there is no right in conquest only force. The borders of 1949 were sanctioned by UN, while rest of the occupied territories have their sanction in the 'force of conquest'.
2006-08-30 04:13:41 · answer #1 · answered by Rustic 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a P.R. move by the Arabs. Neutrals around the world wouldn't accept the destruction of Israel.
2006-08-30 02:22:37 · answer #2 · answered by wmp55 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋