Why wont Israel acknowledge UN Resolution 242 & retreat to it's pre 1967 borders and end all the madness?

Question

It's only a 40 year old resolution.

Answer 1

You honestly think that retreating (land for peace) would "end all the madness" when the Arab states surrounding Israel have made it quite clear that their objective is to "push Israel into the sea". Did you even think before you posted this question? Have you read anything at all about the many thousands of years of emnity between these countries and these peoples?
Nothing will bring peace to this region, certainly not the U.N. (which doesn't understand the conflict), and certainly not an uneducated fool on yahoo answers.

Answer 2

The only thing that "would end all the madness" would be for Israel to give up its status as a legitimate country, and for the Zionists to assimilate into Palestine. That is unlikely to happen.

Israel was forced upon the Palestinians by Britain, France, the US, and Baron Rothschild (a Zionist Banker in London) in 1918. Then the Exodus continued after WWII, because No countries would take the Jews, who were unwelcome in Germany and France. They were not welcomed then and are not welcomed now.

Answer 3

Because it is a stupid resolution that asks Israel to give back land it won when it was attacked by it's larger neighbors, who attacked it because it was filled with Jews.
Here is a History lesson that makes it more clear: Israel sit's atop land that is the historical homeland of the Hebrews. They were dispersed from the region by the Romans, leaving the area all but unpopulated. The land passed over time, being held by the Ottoman turks (non-Arabs) and later the British (also non-arabs). Israel was reformed by the League of nations (now called the UN) and by agreement with the then owners (Britain). Part of the confusion about the "Palestinians" comes from the fact that the name comes from the "Philistines" who were not at all Arab, either. Yassir Arafat, leader of the PLO, was Egyptian. The "Palestinian refugees" actually came from Jordan, and there was never a "Palestine". Considering the ridiculous proposition of "giving" Israel to the "Palestinians", it is no wonder the Israelis simply disregarded the idea. It would be like giving half of America to the Mexicans.

Answer 4

And you ask this question thinking everything was OK in 1967. How do you think the borders were expanded? If you look at a map of Israel, pre 1967 war, you will be able to calculate that every square mile of the country would be within range of artillery or rockets posted along the borders.

The Arab Nations allied against Israel made a big mistake when they thought it was time to pick a fight. Israel stole that land fair and square and they are probably going to keep it.

Sometimes, I think that Syria, Jordan, and Egypt are secretly happy that the Israeli's are having to deal with the Palestinians instead of themselves.

Answer 5

because of the fact the Israeli settlers and their supporters in the government do no longer want to offer up the extra land. It would not settle the conflict however. bear in strategies that even while Israel became into plenty smaller it became into persistently attacked via it incredibly is associates and that Hamas' shape demands all of Israel to be wiped out, no longer the section in violation of the 'sixty seven borders.

Answer 6

Israel, as a result of the 1993 Oslo Accords, and subsequent 1995 "Oslo II" agreement, withdrew from about 90% of the West Bank and Gaza strip, which constitute most of the land in dispute. What's more, in July 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Barak offered the Palestinian Authority, led then by Yassir Arafat, a sweeping consession that would have virtually granted the Palestinians statehood in most of the West Bank and Gaza, as well as rights over east Jerusalem (including police juristiction), plus Moslem portions of the Old City of Jerusalem, including its Islamic holy sites. However, the result was Arafat's non-acceptance of this offer (which has been endorsed and encouraged by then U.S. President Clinton), and response with a terror wave that lasted at high intensity for almost 4 years, killing over 1000 Israelis (Jews and Arabs alike), and the effects of which are still evident today in frequent bombing attempts and hightened security arrangements (limitations on movement, etc.). So the answer to your question is that Israel sincerely tried to meet most of the requirements of this resolution, but that it literally blew up in Israel's face. So the question arises as to whether the Palestinian side really wants peace with Israel, or whether attempts at dialog and compromise are a ruse to induce Israel to concessions that lead inevitably to waves of terror. Furthermore, Israel relinquished the entire Sinai to Egypt as a result of the 1979 Camp David Accords, and has (more or less) offered Syria the possibility of reclaiming at least parts of the Golan Heights in exchange for normalizing relations with Israel. No takers on that one. So is it really fair to accuse Israel of non-compliance with Resolution 242? Is any country obligated to commit national suicide in the name of the law?

Answer 7

242 and over 30 other resolutions.
Israel is an outlaw nation which has no regard for international law.

Answer 8

Julie,Julie, Julie... *sigh* I suppose the U.S. should give back Texas, and Caliornia? Why don't you try looking to see who's on the U.N. Security Council (both then and now). And if you REALLY want a tragic laugh, you she see who's on their board overseeing Human Rights Violations...
So, I should come, attack you in your own home and then when you beat me back out into the street, I'd have the right to complain that you took from me and demand you give back? Try going to the kitchen and brewing a pot of coffee. It's REALLY time you wake up.

Answer 9

You believe that's the ticket to peace, huh? If that's the case, how do you explain the wars of 1948 and 1956?

Further, why is it that Israel is the only nation expected to return territory seized from an aggressor enemy in wartime? Who owns Alsace-Lorraine these days? How about the Sudetenland? Gdansk?

Answer 10

the dispute is over interpetation of of 242 which was ratified by 338. the langauge is vague, according to Israels interpetation they have complied.