Israel captured all that and more during the Six Days War. The Sinai and the Golan Heights were the bulk of the territory (more than 90% of the land area) but the West Bank and Gaza were also captured. The Sinai was ceeded to Egypt as part of a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel. The Golan Heights were attacked by Syria during the Yom Kippur war, taken briefly, and then recaptured by Israel. A small piece of territory was returned to Jordan, also as part of a peace agreement. Gaza was captured from Egypt, and the peace treaty with Egypt did not require the return of Gaza, making that territory under Israeli control. The West Bank was captured from Jordan, and the peace treaty with Jordan did not require the return of the West Bank, making that territory under Israeli control. The Golan Heights was captured from Syria. The resolution of the conflict between Isreal and Syria is a bit more muddled, basically they are at war right now, though neither side is really taking action against the other. Israel is firmly in control of the Golan Heights though, and most would consider that a part of Israel. Given all that, unless there was some great uprising of the Indian tribes about 10 years ago that I never heard about, your characterization of events is not exactly right. At best, you are hanging onto some sort of technicality. After the peace treaties between Jordan and Egypt with Israel but prior to 1988, no state claimed ownership of the West Bank or Gaza besides Israel. In 1988, Palestine declared independence, despite having no sovereign territory. The Palestinians did not even have limited self-rule in the West Bank and Gaza until 1994. According to wikipedia, neither the US nor the UN recognize the State of Palestine to this day, so I am confused as to who you think the West Bank and Gaza have belonged to these past 38 years or so.
Briefly occupying land taken because Israel attacked some nations in a pre-emptive war isn't the same as it being theirs. Furthemore when nations take territory in a time of war it is against the law per the GEneva conventions to remove the entire native population. Israel has signed the Geneva conventions and are bound by to follow those regulations. Those lands are currently occupied. You are correct there isn't a state of Palestine currently. However they do have autonomous control of regions under the governing body of the Palestinian Authority. Israel had control in a military manner of those territories but at no point were they part of Israel. That was never part of Israel's recognized boundries. Nor would they ever want them to be unless they moved out all of the original Palestinian residents. If they did then the Jewish people would be a minority in the stae of Israel. They don't want that, and it would ruin the idea of a jewish homeland. Currrently Israel is forcing the Palestinians to undergo conditions similar or worse than those suffered by Black South Africans under Apartheid. Many of the regulations are in no way related to security for Israelis but are instead two sets of laws based only on a person's nationality. That is wrong. In 1948 Palestinians were granted a state. They refused, but the time has come for them to have their own state.
uh don't you think the other Arab countries might have something to say about that? For instance how would you feel if someother powerful country decided that the solution to the Isreal / Palestinian conflict would be to move all Israelis to the US. But heck it worked for us to uproot the Cherokee and the rest of the Native Americans onto Rezs and it worked for Stalin to move all of the Chechans to Siberia, Kruschev's mistake was obviously letting them back, lets get into the moving people business. There's a name for what you're proposing. Its called "Ethinic Cleansing."
If I was President these would be my priorities. 1. The war on terror. I don't agree with how the war on terror has been pursued but I would still pursue it mainly through increased intelligence and diplomacy to foster more international cooperation. 2. Stopping WMD proliferation. I would primarily pursue this through more aggressive actions on securing the former Soviet Union's loose WMD infrastructure and personel. 3. Reducing dependence on fossil fuels. At this time I would primarily pursue it through greater conservation measures. 4. Getting greater fiscal responsibility both at the governmental and individual level.
Those Arab countries didn't have any problems with deporting their native Jews off to Israel, I don't see why they should have a problem getting some Arabs back, especially given 30+ years to acclimate to the idea of moving populations. Since they all confiscated the wealth of those they displaced, they don't really have a leg to stand on anyway. You're right, that did work out pretty well, since this is the most successful country in the history of the world. The Israelis don't even have to kill the Palestinians with muskets and smallpox, just send them packing, with some measure of compensation to get them started in their new homes. Yes it is. Is that better or worse than the Apartheid system that FB was talking about. It isn't like I am suggesting genocide. The Palestinians had a choice in 1948, and they chose not to have a country of their own, living next to the Israelis. Instead, they wanted the whole enchilada, and they got together with five of their big, bad buddies to try and take it. It didn't work out the way they wanted, and ever since they have been paying the price. IMO it is time to move on and just shack up with all of those who took up with them back in the day. It isn't like the nations of Egypt, Jordan, Syria, et al could not absorb the Palestinian people. As far back as there have been nations, the borders of countries were drawn through conquest. Pretty much every country that stands against Israel having those territories was once a conquering nation. For some reason, only one of the countries doesn't get to keep the spoils.
SM; Two questions. If your idea makes so much sense to you then why is even Sharon pulling out of occupied territories? Second. Why would you if you were the US president make this a US job to relocate Palestinians instead of leaving it up to Israel or the Arab states?
Israel could have kept the land via their conquest but Israel chose not to. It isn't others deciding that they couldn't make those lands part of Israel, it was ISrael itself. They decided not to make it part of Israel for reasons we already mentioned.
1. Sharon has caved to international pressure. As you said, moving population is ethnic cleansing and is not very popular. Israel has pretty much one ally in the world; the United States. The Palestinians have all of the Arab nations, Europe, Russia, and China, at the very least. 2. Probably for the same reason that I support military intervention in Iraq and other locales, because I am more concerned about doing what I think should be done than I am about whose job it should be or who's toes might get stepped on. Everyone else was allowed to ethnically cleanse the area after taking over. Of course the Israelis don't want to hand over control of their country to the people that keep attacking them. The Europeans that came to the United States did not want to live under the rule of the indiginous people, they took the land and killed, enslaved, or moved the people living there. The same thing has happened throughout history. For some reason, that is okay for America to do, and for Europe, and even for all of the Arab nations that kicked out the Jews, but for Israel it is unthinkable. If the Jews decide to have their own country then they are the Little Satan and Nazis, and whatever else people choose to call them.
The Arabs lived in relative peace with the Jews for centuries. They didn't kick them out. In fact in some of the counties in the middle east there are still Jewish populations. It wasn't ok for anyone to kick out native populations. It was done, but that didn't make it ok. What the Europeans did the Native population in our country was one of the darkest periods in our nation's history not something that should be modeled around the world. The idea that somebody born in New York can move to ISrael and move out someone who has lived there for all their lives and their ancestors have been there for several years. That doesn't sound like a just or equitible solution to any problem in the occupied territories.
I think you are mistaken. In many Arab countries, large numbers of Jews were expelled and had their property seized.
I guess it depends on what point you are talking about. There are currently Jews living in more than one middle eastern country. There are numbers aren't large there but they do live there. Because other countries kicked the Jewish people out doesn't make it right to remove a group who wasn't alive at the time.
I am talking about recent history, not during the Roman Empire or something. That is probably enough about Israel out of me for this thread. Sorry sydmill for the derailment.
Ok, I think you said it well when you said agree to disagree. Honestly that doesn't bother me at all. I don't feel like anyone has to win or lose these things, and you have been totally civil in your disagreement. I enjoyed the discussion.
I think there is something to that but there also is the factor that its almost impossible to peacebably control 1.2 million Palestians while trying to protect a few thousand settlers. There are almost 2 million Palestinians and they aren't just going to politiely pack up and move up there things. Possibly so but how does your solution help out anyone except for Israeli settlers? How are you going to convince Arab countries to peacably accetp 2 million refugees? How are you going to convince 2 million Palestinians to move peaceably? If you think Arabs hate us now because we politically and economically support Israel think about how they're going to feel when we start forcibly ethnically cleansing Palestinians. Your solution will not bring peace to Israel, Arab states or to us but will just embitter people further. Its a solution with only one interest group. Israeli Settlers. First off no one other than the most extreme groups are saying anything about handing over control of Israel to anyone but Israelis. Nearly everyone even the Israelis are advocating a two state solution. Not aparthied where one group lives as second class citizens but two states where the residents of each state have full citizenship rights to their own states. Second No one is saying it was right to ethnically cleanse people. Especially in an age where local conflicts have far ranging repercussions elsewhere. Just because we Americans ethnically cleansed out native Americans or that Russians did the same to Chechens and so on doesn't justify or mean that its right. Honestly do you get the impression that most civilized people are saying that ethnically cleansing under any circumstances is OK?
Yes that would be part of fighting the war on terror the problem is identifying the root causes. That's a much longer term project that IMO from a US standpoint involves a major overhaul of US foreign policy. In the meantime though we still have very immediate threats like Al Qaeda out there.
1. Abolish the Federal Reserve (no more debt) and the Income Tax (IRS) 2. Get the U.N. out of the U.S. and the U.S. out of the U.N. (given them no $) 3. Alternative Energy Plan to save the Nation. That's more than 3, but that is the only way we might survive the next 20 yrs. The Federal Reserve allows global bankers* to control our politics and enslave us through debt. The IRS collects the interest payments for the filthy rich elite bankers. The U.N. has one agenda- make every nation a slave to a global govt. controlled by same bankers (IMF, World Bank). And if we don't get smart about energy nothing else will matter in 20 yrs. *(Not all the rich super elite of the world are bankers, but bankers are the means by which they control economies and governments) Since none of the above is going to happen- I go to plan B 1. Make it illegal to own any guns in the U.S. 2. Abolish the Constitution and implant data chips into every American (if you're going to make them slaves treat them like slaves). 3. Institute a flat tax of 50% on income and consumption to pay tribute to our global masters. That should save us some time and effort. I just don't like politics
