Israel is such a tiny country. Yet,they made it even smaller for themselves. By giving away those Gaza and West bank spots to the Palestinians. Then they were thanked with Katyusha rocket attacks by the Palestinian Hezbolah.
2006-12-08 22:21:35 · 10 answers · asked by sandwreckoner 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Did any of you notice that after the Palestinians got what they wanted. They were immidiately given weapons from Egyptian allies in the west bank. Then,the Palestinians started attacking Israeli civilians. The Jews gave them what they wanted and the Palestinians backstabbed them. As for the land grabs from the 6th day war etc. I think you're refering to desert that the occasional bedouin walked across rarely. It was undeveloped with a very low population density and let's not forget who was attacked in the first place by 3 nations at once. They won the battles fare and square. They never started the attacks. So,it belongs to them now. I agree with Corneleus O. Mordent, Israel is not ignored by the media. Otherwise we wouldn't be debating this here. None of us would know anything about them if it was such a cover up as you claim.
2006-12-10 18:00:01 · update #1
No, the Israeli government gave the land back because the costs of defending such a small number of settlers from attack and as a gesture of goodwill(whether actual goodwill or just PR, who knows)
For the rest of you anti-semites. Where's the sense of balance? Jews and Palestinian Arabs have legitimate historical claims to the land. The Arabs lost the wars, and lost control of the land. It may be unethical, but not unnatural. If the Arab states had won, would they let the Israeli state keeps its original borders?
Almost every culture and people existing today took the land they're on by beating someone else before them. Whether Whites in the US, Arabs in N. Africa, Palestinian Arabs from Phoenicians, Jews, and others or Norman French and others from the Celts in the UK. It's an unfortunate but very natural process. To the victor go the spoils.
2006-12-09 00:50:59 · answer #1 · answered by Cornelius O 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
It is not even theirs to give away...And no it was not a mistake,it was some justice for the Palestinians...Gaza belongs to the Palestinians...and don't worry about Israel being a small country...they gave away Gaza but they build many more illegal settlements in West Bank...Israel should withdraw to the borders they had before 1967...
And Hezbollah has nothing to do with Palestinians...They are a Lebanese resistance movement that fighted from 1982 to 2000 to free Southern Lebanon from Israeli occupation...
2006-12-09 20:31:29 · answer #2 · answered by Tinkerbell05 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
They did not "give away" land to the Palestinians, because they stole it from the Palestinians in the first place! Building settlements in a foreign country is illegal under international law - how would the government of Germany react if French citizens started founding a new city in Germany, and calling it part of France? Then again anything Israel does is absolutely fine, bombing civilians, starting illegal wars, using phosphorus weapons, imprisoning an entire population - it's all fine; because it's Israel. Any other country and there would be outrage, but because Israel is the US's best buddy, and a huge trading partner for many other countries, everything they do is completely ignored.
2006-12-08 22:39:55 · answer #3 · answered by Mordent 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Your query isn't particularly framed within the right authorized language however I fully grasp what you imply. But its a bit of like asking what proper does Britain ought to withdraw from Iraq proper now. I bet you would say its the proper to not have anymore British squaddies killed looking to maintain the peace amongst an ungrateful humans. In Palestine Jewish terrorists have been killing British squaddies and in no way brain that that they had simply liberated the Bergen-Belsen attention camp. The British electorate have been already in poor health and worn out of all of the killing from WWII, the League of Nations which had given Britain the mandate to occupy Palestine not even existed, and Britain used to be losing its specific colonies opening with India and Pakistan besides. I imply, you would ask what proper did Britain ought to supply away the Indian sub-continent. After all, they're at every others throats ever considering Gandhi used to be assassinated and now the terrorism there's main to nuclear sabre-damn. It does not take a genius to peer in which its all going to turn out to be. But in charge Britain for any person else's lack of information and stupidity and failure to reside peacefully? I can not see it, particularly.
2016-09-03 09:46:57 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It makes me wonder if some time in the future, Israel would/will have to make a huge choice to either stay in the region, or literally move its entire people and culture away. Where I dunno...realistically, if that were to ever happen, probly the states would have to host it. And if it meant either that, or eradication of a people. I would support moving them to within the US borders. Monumental..I know, but really...if it came to worse getting far worse, what choice could they have. Or Where else?
They have to keep their guns pointed at the ready...they are hated for their willingness to bend over backwards to help solve the crisis...but hated anyway.
Hezbollaugh will not go away. Ever.
2006-12-09 00:41:36 · answer #5 · answered by Diadem 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
OK. Within a very short time after Israel was formed, the surrounding counties attacked it to destroy it. Israel was able to defend itself and even gained some land out of that. (1960's)
It did give that land back. Their enemy's have found a new way to get the land from Israel now....no bloodshed (or allot less)...in the court of Public opinion.
Israel needs to hold on to it's property or it will nickel and dime itself to death.
2006-12-08 22:27:33 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Wouldn't it be cheaper and easier for Israel to pick up and move all of their sacred rocks and such to Nevada? It's still desert and the locals are friendlier and they could take weekend trips to Vegas. It sounds like a winner to me.
2006-12-08 22:27:28 · answer #7 · answered by togetheradecade 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Giving away land ... or returning land to its owner.
Katyusha is a small answer to the daily mass killing of the palestinian.
Violence will continue till both palestinians and Israelis conclude to a just and comprehensive peace.
2006-12-08 22:44:43 · answer #8 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
With No other option u r forced to make so called huge mistake.
2006-12-08 22:39:59 · answer #9 · answered by macman 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
perhaps if they gave back the rest of the land they have occupied there would not be any rocket attacks
2006-12-08 22:25:47 · answer #10 · answered by Nemesis 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋