2007-06-26 08:19:26 · 11 answers · asked by harryhornet 1 in Travel ➔ Africa & Middle East ➔ Israel
there is a big mess there that needs to be cleaned up, many dead, many hurt fellings, many betrayals, they need a serious intervention.
2007-06-27 04:27:18 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Actually its not '47 nor '67 but more accurately '49 when the war was ended. And obviously it is not an option. The root of the conflict is not over territory but rather a clash between two cultures and two religions. In contrast to the "moderate" palestinian claim (which is proclaimed only in English but never in arabic to their own people) they would not settle for the '49 borders but they still want all of Israel. If they would have settled for just this they have had 3 opportunities to get their own state at least 3 times before Israel was even founded. But they always chose war instead of compromising and that's why they have lost even more during all these years. Israel has no reason to believe any thing have changed during the last 60 years and she would make a grave mistake if she would give the pallys more territories.
2007-06-26 09:38:42 · answer #2 · answered by Mr Y 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I assume you mean '67 and not '47, in that Israel was yet to exist in 1947. If you mean Israel should withdraw to the UN partition plan, then stop dreaming. That will never happen and should never happen, and no country in the world who's at least somewhat open to both sides opinions demands that (even those pro-Palestinian). The facts on the ground are no unilateral Israeli withdrawal has ever decreased the hostility of the "occupied". Actually, it has only caused it to increase. I will show you two different models: in 1982, after signing a peace deal with Egypt, Israel withdrew from the Sinai. This was done as part of a deal not unilaterally. Result: no armed conflict between Israel and Egypt in the 30 years since, compared to 4 armed conflicts in the 30 years before. Contrasting with that are two examples: the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza and from south Lebananon. Israel withdrew unilaterally from Gaza. Result: Hamas is elected, terrorist attacks (most notably rockets) increases from the Gaza strip, one kidnapped soldier, and Hamas eventually seizes the Gaza strip by force. In 2000 Israel withdrew unilaterally from south Lebanon. Result: Hizbullah takes up positions on the border, terrorist attacks (most notable rockets) increases from south Lebanon, two soldiers kidnapped, and ultimately last years full blown conflict. As you can see, history teaches us that unless the withdrawal is co-ordinated and agreed upon by both sides, things only get worse and peace only gets farther away. Quite obviously then, unilateral withdrawal is not the answer. The answer then must be some peace deal compromise, to which I agree. However, those who would negotiate with Israel are in no situation to do so, as the leadership of the Palestinians is very much in flux right now. Until the Palestinians have a stable and popular leadership, no negotiations can begin.
2007-06-26 08:40:04 · answer #3 · answered by Michael J 5 · 5⤊ 2⤋
Actually, the Israelis were in the UN mandated land for them. The Arab nations then attacked them because they didn't want Israel having any land, and Israel won, That's why Israel now has all of that land. Everyone acts like the Israelis just attacked the Palestinians one night and then formed Israel, it wasn't that way at all. The Palestinians attacked Israel, and Israel is currently attempting to give back that land, but then someone inevitably attacks Israel again, and it's back to square one.
So no, I doubt it would help.
2007-06-26 22:58:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
You mean the 1967 borders don't you? The internationally recognised Israeli borders are the 1949 Armistice line not the original Partition plan borders.
2007-06-27 01:33:13 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
There was a time when the Israelis and Palestinian Arabs lived contentedly together, and that could happen again, but not with (a) the present Israeli leaders and (b) the present policy of Hamas. But pulling back to the 1947 boundaries is not an option for any Israeli leader, now or in the future.
2007-06-26 08:32:36 · answer #6 · answered by artleyb 4 · 0⤊ 4⤋
Um Israel did not exist as a state in 1947... What borders could it pull back to?
Do you mean 1967?
as for pulling back borders we see from Gaza what a "great" idea it is for Israel to pull back from a border with out a peace deal first.
2007-06-26 08:43:25 · answer #7 · answered by Gamla Joe 7 · 6⤊ 0⤋
Correction
You mean Ersatz israel.
Actually, Israel is a misnomer. It should be called zion.
No they will not pull back. Why? Well, since they came to the ME 60 years ago, there has not been ONE day. NOT ONE DAY of peace.
Does that sound like a people who will pull back?
2007-06-26 20:53:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
If you look at the history, you will see that the land was initially stolen by zionist terrorists (King David Hotel). Thos same terrorists are still in power today with the co-operation of nazi supporter Bush.
2007-06-26 17:04:15 · answer #9 · answered by Allen P 1 · 2⤊ 3⤋
correction:
there is no such thing as a palestinian or as you affectionately call a PAL.
There are no land deals. ERETZ ISRAEL. The best is yet to come. Israel will never be defeated.
2007-06-26 19:23:07 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋