Quoting damirc (Reply 50): Not a country. But a territory by this name.

Which is a very important distinction. There never was a Palestinian state. Palestine existed solely under the auspices of others sovereign nations or Empires as a province. It would be like calling California a nation.

So the concept that Israel stole land and replaced on the map an existing country is a fallacy.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): the Zionists pushed the British into allowing the creation of Israel.

Which is fair enough. Glad they managed so. The world since 1800's recognized the need for a national homeland for Jewish peoples.

The territory where Israel sits now has had long historical association for the Jewish people being defined in the Torah and being the home to the Israelite kingdoms. So its location should be not be a surprise.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): I'll say it direct - not one of the offers from the Israeli side was ever fair. The original plan that envisioned the creation of 2 states already took Arab owned lands and transferred them into Israeli hands. Would you honestly accept such a deal if you were a Palestinian? Yes. Hindsight is 20/20, but who would've expected the world to stand by and watch this tragedy to unfold in perpetuity?

Who says negotiations need to be 50/50. Israel negotiates from position of strength. What do the Palestinans have to offer to the deal? Essentially they take the best deal they can get. They should be well versed at bazaar hagling.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): So let me get this straight? Since the Arabs did not agree in these talks, it makes the decision to declare Israel as an independent state a bilaterally approved move - or might it sitll be a unilateral move?

The Arabs made a gambit and refused the UN plan. I suppose they thought they could get 100% of the land to themselves and push the existing Jews into the sea.

Did not work out too well for them now did it?

Subsequently in 1948 and 1949 the powers such as UK and then the UN recognized the State of Israel membership as it essentially turned out to be the same thing as was envisaged originally but refused by the Arabs.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): Neither were you,

You have no clue what my age is. Dont look in the profile.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): To be fair, both sides failed to fulfill their obligations from the Oslo accords.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): Oh, just a few "spoilers" that usually aren't mentioned:

But spoilers or failures don't really matter as the Palestinans never carried through on the agreements.

What is there to comply with when Arafat or Abu Mazen walked away from the deals at hand?

Its like simple contract law. If the contract has not been excecuted, there is no performance or obligations on the other party - Israel in this case.

Quoting damirc (Reply 50): Now define me where the borders of Israel are please, since this is a key issue. Israel at the moment behaves as if it owns the West Bank and Gaza.

The Arabs were dumb enough to fight wars and repeatedly lost. Its Israeli territory as a result, and it better get something good back for willingness to relinquish control.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50): The Arabs were dumb enough to fight wars and repeatedly lost. Its Israeli territory as a result, and it better get something good back for willingness to relinquish control

So you're implying the people there are Israeli citizens? Unless you want the territory without the people which would amount to ethnic cleansing.

We'll see how the Jewish state looks like in 30 years.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 51): So you're implying the people there are Israeli citizens? Unless you want the territory without the people which would amount to ethnic cleansing.

Even the official position of the State of Israel as confirmed by its Supreme Court is that with exception of Jerusalem, the disputed areas such as West Bank, Gaza, Golan are annexed territory, lands seized during warfare just like the spoils of wars prior by other nations.

This is consistent with UN resolutions which recognize the areas as "territories occupied", and that withdrawal from the territories was conditional on a negotiated peace - something rejected by the Arab states since 1967.


Funny thing - if you want to talk about the people. The annexed West Bank territories were Jordanian, so in theory all those people should still be Jordanian, however here is an Arab state which has no interest in its own former residents even.
To this end the Hashemite Kingdom in the 1980s even officially surrendered any claims to the territories and people.

This is eveutually going to spin out of control into something really ugly and unexpected, perhaps as predicted in end t

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50): Quoting damirc (Reply 50): Not a country. But a territory by this name. Which is a very important distinction. There never was a Palestinian state. Palestine existed solely under the auspices of others sovereign nations or Empires as a province. It would be like calling California a nation. So the concept that Israel stole land and replaced on the map an existing country is a fallacy.

That is very true.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 51): We'll see how the Jewish state looks like in 30 years.

All that is happening seems to suggest we are heading for pre-end times chaos as predicted by all religions, Israel will both gain and lose.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 52): To this end the Hashemite Kingdom in the 1980s even officially surrendered any claims to the territories and people.

Did the people consider themselves Jordanian at any stage despite being there?

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 52): Funny thing - if you want to talk about the people. The annexed West Bank territories were Jordanian, so in theory all those people should still be Jordanian, however here is an Arab state which has no interest in its own former residents even. To this end the Hashemite Kingdom in the 1980s even officially surrendered any claims to the territories and people.

Ever heard of black september?

Palestinians became almost overnight two thirds of Jordanian population. They were perceived as foreign, and had claim to a land other than Jordan (even under the British mandate, transjordan and palestine were separate entities).

This cost Jordan a bloody civil war and subsequently another, longer and bloodier one in Lebanon.

The claim that Palestinians are somehow Jordanian (or any other neighboring country) is baseless.

Jordan was formed as an independent "Arab Palestinian" state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" applies. Its nationality code stated categorically that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right unless they are Jews.

After formation in the 1950’s Jordan called its self the government and army of Palestine. As late as the 1970, Jordan even referred to things as “Palestine is Jordan, Jordan is Palestine”. Jordanian foreign policy during the era very much was focused on Palestine and 1/3 of the residents in Trans-Jordan and in later years some say even half of the Kingdom of Jordan population were Palestinians.

Off course the Black September Palestinian revolt in the Kingdom very quickly changed opinions, with Palestinians essential becoming cast aside and viewed as foreign terrorist trying to establish a Palestinian state.
As the King put it Palestinians “become a problem” fearing the PLO would continue to threaten the autonomy of the Kingdom permanently and a independent Palestinian state on the West Bank was not wanted. Palestinians were expelled from large cities forced into the mountains and into refugee camps.

Off course fellow Arabs did not help much with the situation either – the Arab League instead of recognized a sovereign country like Jordan as then legitimate representation of Palestinian people, they recognized the PLO – a terrorist organization.

So its seems the Palestinians burned their bridges with fellow Arabs that was hosting them as well....

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 55): Jordan was formed as an independent "Arab Palestinian" state where a Palestinian Arab "law of return" applies. Its nationality code stated categorically that all Palestinians are entitled to citizenship by right unless they are Jews.

Not even Ben Gurion believed that:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti - Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault ? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”

Trans-Jordan was meant as a Palestinian State.

Under the mandate the Palestine province was to be a Arab Palestinian state with Trans-Jordan compromising about 38,000sq miles and a Jewish state about 8,000 sq miles.

So by 1948 before hostilities broke out about 75% percent of Palestine province - that east of the Jordan River, called Jordan, was independent Palestinian-Arab state containing a majority of Palestinian Arabs in its population.

Yasser Arafat has stated that modern Jordan is Palestine.


It seems to me the Palestinians have much bigger problems - most of it their own doing than simply some land that is annexed by State of Israel at the moment. Simply put they have become one of the worlds most unwanted people.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 51): We'll see how the Jewish state looks like in 30 years.

It will probably look more Arab than Jewish. All the Palestinians have to do is sit back, wait and have more babies. They will eventually get their state.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 50): Which is a very important distinction. There never was a Palestinian state. Palestine existed solely under the auspices of others sovereign nations or Empires as a province. It would be like calling California a nation. So the concept that Israel stole land and replaced on the map an existing country is a fallacy.

Israel did steal private land that did not belong to them, like it or not.

And you have masterfully dodged to answer the question if by your definition Palestine was never a state (let's say I agree) then wouldn't by the same definiton Israel also never have been a state and has zero claim to the space.

We can play around with legalities, but no matter how you turn it - in the end Palestinian land was stolen, they were forcefully moved away (back in '67 some to Jerusalem, which they have been forcefully eject from again in the past few years).

D.

Again, the concept of modern states is fairly recent. No, Palestine was never a "state" but it was a well defined region set by the British. Kind of like the Holy Roman Empire... it doesn't fit the modern day definition of a nation or state, but it was there and no one contests that. What do you define as a state? Something recognized by the UN? Then there weren't any states until the UN was formed. There is a huge definition disconnect going on...

Quoting victrola (Reply 58): It will probably look more Arab than Jewish. All the Palestinians have to do is sit back, wait and have more babies. They will eventually get their state.

Yeah except most all of the Arabs inside Israel are Israeli citizens are first and foremost and have no interest in being part of neighboring Arab nations. They are Israeli’s serving in its armed forces (even at the general level) and high government positions such as cabinet positions in the government. There are multiple mainstream Israeli Arab parties with representation in the Knesset. (the deputy speaker of Knesset is from one of these parties)

Just like how the US has become a melting pot, Israel has a mixed Bedouin, Druze, Christian Israeli Arabs population which makes up about 20% of the population per the latest census.

The folks in annexed territories are separate situation as eventually they will become part of any final settlement agreement.

But it is correct the demographics are shifting, so the Jewish population might indeed continue to decline in percentage, however interestingly with the last census the Jewish population increased while Israeli Arab declined result of growth of migration to Israel by Jewish diaspora and a jump in the Jewish birth-rate especially amongst orthodox community.

Quoting damirc (Reply 59): And you have masterfully dodged to answer the question if by your definition Palestine was never a state (let's say I agree) then wouldn't by the same definiton Israel also never have been a state and has zero claim to the space.

But Israel is a state. Its recognized as such.

Going back to the 1800s, powers have long wanted to establish a nation for the Jewish people. This came in the forefront after WW-I with clear plans in the League of Nations, then the UN. These groups defined where and what a Jewish state would be, and from it came out the State of Israel.

The creation of the State of Israel was not some overnight accident, but the stated intention and with support of world bodies.

Quoting damirc (Reply 59): We can play around with legalities, but no matter how you turn it - in the end Palestinian land was stolen, they were forcefully moved away (back in '67 some to Jerusalem, which they have been forcefully eject from again in the past few years).

Again, there was no nation of Palestine to steal. There was a province, 1 of 29 under 400-year Ottoman Turkish rule which following Allied win in WW-I was to be divided into an larger Arab state, and a smaller Jewish state. Between a few diversions along the way, that is exactly what eventually happened.

Israel has never denied its 1967, 1973, 1980, 1982 land acquisitions. That's why they are termed annexations which are a result of armed conflict - the same way land has been assumed in millenia by empire or nations one after another.
The UN back in 1967 even stated the return of such territories would be conditioned on a negotiated peace by the parties.
Egypt made a deal and got the Sinai back, Jordan made a deal but did not want the West Bank back instead renouncing its claim to the territory and the people, leaving it in the hands of a terrorist organization - which left Israel with quandary of holding this no-mans land essentially.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 61): Yeah except most all of the Arabs inside Israel are Israeli citizens are first and foremost and have no interest in being part of neighboring Arab nations. They are Israeli’s serving in its armed forces (even at the general level) and high government positions such as cabinet positions in the government. There are multiple mainstream Israeli Arab parties with representation in the Knesset. (the deputy speaker of Knesset is from one of these parties)

I remember reading about Israeli discrimination against its Arab citizens on and off over the last few years. so not all is "swell" in the land of multiculturalism, far from it I believe as these articles state.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/adalah-c...reatment-of-arab-minority-1.213048

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3391545,00.html

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 61): Israel has never denied its 1967, 1973, 1980, 1982 land acquisitions.

LOL LOL LOL is that what you call them, "land acquisitions"   

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 61): Going back to the 1800s, powers have long wanted to establish a nation for the Jewish people. This came in the forefront after WW-I with clear plans in the League of Nations, then the UN. These groups defined where and what a Jewish state would be, and from it came out the State of Israel. The creation of the State of Israel was not some overnight accident, but the stated intention and with support of world bodies.

Too bad there were people living there already, it's not like they settled them in an unhabitated island.

Removing people from somewhere to settle other people is called ethnic cleansing, the Nazis did it, apartheid South Africa did it, the Serbs, Albanians, etc. did it.

Also because the Arabs did not declare their own state, perhaps due to unfairness in division of lands, does not mean that Israel take over everything and make the entire area their state with definted borders.

I don't think any "power" wanted a Jewish state established. It was Zionists - and not even all Zionists - and the Zionist movement by no means had majority support among Jews outside Palestine. However some pro-Zionist Jews had a lot of money at a time when some "powers" were very short of it in WWI. But even there, deep divisions were to be found.

From Wiki:
Some Rothschilds were supporters of Zionism, while other members of the family opposed the creation of the Jewish state. Some believed it would encourage anti-Semites to question the existing national identities of assimilated Jews around the rest of the world.[20] In 1917 Walter Rothschild, 2nd Baron Rothschild was the addressee of the Balfour Declaration to the Zionist Federation,[26] which committed the British government to the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people. Later, Lord Victor Rothschild was against granting asylum or even help to Jewish refugees during the Holocaust.

History by and large is not all that kind to the cases currently being made out for Israeli policies.

Quoting JJJ (Reply 63): Too bad there were people living there already, it's not like they settled them in an unhabitated island. Removing people from somewhere to settle other people is called ethnic cleansing, the Nazis did it, apartheid South Africa did it, the Serbs, Albanians, etc. did it

But nobody removed them...They where not required to move in any deal. They moved because of the Arab lead wars to eliminate the new state of Israel.

Quoting 777way (Reply 64): Also because the Arabs did not declare their own state, perhaps due to unfairness in division of lands,

Yes they did..It is called Jordan.

Quoting 777way (Reply 64): does not mean that Israel take over everything and make the entire area their state with definted borders.

They did not. The Arab invasions cost the Arabs land with their inability to defeat Israel in the wars they started.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 66): But nobody removed them...They where not required to move in any deal. They moved because of the Arab lead wars to eliminate the new state of Israel.

Sure?

Even though it was later removed from Yitzak Rabin's memoirs, they clearly state that Ben-Gurion ordered expulsion of Arabs from several towns (most notably Lydda/Lod and Ramla).

"Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion."

Quoting windy95 (Reply 66): Quoting 777way (Reply 64): Also because the Arabs did not declare their own state, perhaps due to unfairness in division of lands, Yes they did..It is called Jordan.

No, Palestine was to be divided into Arab and Jewish states after being seprated from Transjordan.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 61): Yeah except most all of the Arabs inside Israel are Israeli citizens are first and foremost and have no interest in being part of neighboring Arab nations

They are second class citizens in Israel and really have no stake in a Jewish state. They won't be part of a neighboring Arab nation. The settlements are making any 2 state solution a practical imposibility. Therefore we will most likely see a single state from the Mediterranean to the Jordan river. The Israeli Arabs along with the Arabs in the occupied territories will all be inhabitants of this single state along with the Jews. It is not certain whether this state will have a Jewish or an Arab majority. Long term demographic predictions are difficult to make.

Do you really think all of these Arabs will accept their status as second class citizens in a "Jewish state"?

Quoting JJJ (Reply 67): Sure? Even though it was later removed from Yitzak Rabin's memoirs, they clearly state that Ben-Gurion ordered expulsion of Arabs from several towns (most notably Lydda/Lod and Ramla). "Driving out' is a term with a harsh ring. Psychologically, this was one of the most difficult actions we undertook. The population of Lod did not leave willingly. There was no way of avoiding the use of force and warning shots in order to make the inhabitants march the 10 to 15 miles to the point where they met up with the legion."

Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Iraqi and Saudi troops invaded Palestine subsequent to the British withdrawal and the declaration of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948. This action by ben-Gurion was taken on July 12 and 13, 1948, after the Arab invasion. No Arab invasion, no refugee problem..Sorry the refugess where not created by the Israelis.

Quote: "The fact that there are these refugees is the direct consequence of the act of the Arab states in opposing partition and the Jewish state. The Arab states agree upon this policy unanimously and they must share in the solution of the problem." – Emile Ghoury, secretary of the Palestinian Arab Higher Committee, in an interview with the Beirut Telegraph Sept. 6, 1948 "The Arab state which had encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies, have failed to keep their promise to help these refugees." – The Jordanian daily newspaper Falastin, Feb. 19, 1949 "Who brought the Palestinians to Lebanon as refugees, suffering now from the malign attitude of newspapers and communal leaders, who have neither honor nor conscience? Who brought them over in dire straits and penniless, after they lost their honor? The Arab states, and Lebanon amongst them, did it." – The Beirut Muslim weekly Kul-Shay, Aug. 19, 1951 "The 15th May, 1948, arrived ... On that day the mufti of Jerusalem appealed to the Arabs of Palestine to leave the country, because the Arab armies were about to enter and fight in their stead." – The Cairo daily Akhbar el Yom, Oct. 12, 1963 "For the flight and fall of the other villages it is our leaders who are responsible because of their dissemination of rumors exaggerating Jewish crimes and describing them as atrocities in order to inflame the Arabs ... By spreading rumors of Jewish atrocities, killings of women and children etc., they instilled fear and terror in the hearts of the Arabs in Palestine, until they fled leaving their homes and properties to the enemy." – The Jordanian daily newspaper Al Urdun, April 9, 1953 "Of the 62,000 Arabs who formerly lived in Haifa not more than 5,000 or 6,000 remained. Various factors influenced their decision to seek safety in flight. There is but little doubt that the most potent of the factors were the announcements made over the air by the Higher Arab Executive, urging the Arabs to leave... it was clearly intimated that those Arabs who remained in Haifa and accepted Jewish protection would be regarded as renegades." The Economist, a frequent critic of the Zionists, reported on October 2, 1948: "The mass evacuation, prompted partly by fear, partly by orders of Arab leaders, left the Arab quarter of Haifa a ghost city. By withdrawing Arab workers their leaders hoped to paralyze Haifa." Time's report of the battle for Haifa (May 3, 1948) instructions of the Arab Higher Committee, ordered women, children and the elderly in various parts of Jerusalem to leave their homes: "Any opposition to this order...is an obstacle to the holy war...and will hamper the operations of the fighters in these districts" (Middle Eastern Studies, January 1986). The Arab National Committee in Jerusalem, following the March 8, 1948, "We will smash the country with our guns and obliterate every place the Jews seek shelter in. The Arabs should conduct their wives and children to safe areas until the fighting has died down." Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Said , wrote in his book, The Arabs: "This wholesale exodus was due partly to the belief of the Arabs, encouraged by the boastings of an unrealistic Arabic press and the irresponsible utterances of some of the Arab leaders that it could be only a matter of weeks before the Jews were defeated by the armies of the Arab States and the Palestinian Arabs enabled to re¬enter and retake possession of their country." The Secretary of the Arab League Office in London, Edward Atiyah In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948¬49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave: Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return. "The refugees were confident their absence would not last long, and that they would return within a week or two," Monsignor George Hakim, a Greek Orthodox Catholic Bishop of Galilee told the Beirut newspaper, Sada al¬Janub (August 16, 1948). "Their leaders had promised them that the Arab Armies would crush the 'Zionist gangs' very quickly and that there was no need for panic or fear of a long exile." On April 3, 1949, the Near East Broadcasting Station (Cyprus) said: "It must not be forgotten that the Arab Higher Committee encouraged the refugees' flight from their homes in Jaffa, Haifa and Jerusalem." "The Arab States encouraged the Palestine Arabs to leave their homes temporarily in order to be out of the way of the Arab invasion armies," according to the Jordanian newspaper Filastin (February 19, 1949). One refugee quoted in the Jordan newspaper, Ad Difaa (September 6, 1954), said: "The Arab government told us: Get out so that we can get in. So we got out, but they did not get in." "The Secretary-General of the Arab League, Azzam Pasha, assured the Arab peoples that the occupation of Palestine and Tel Aviv would be as simple as a military promenade," said Habib Issa in the New York Lebanese paper, Al Hoda (June 8, 1951). "He pointed out that they were already on the frontiers and that all the millions the Jews had spent on land and economic development would be easy booty, for it would be a simple matter to throw Jews into the Mediterranean....Brotherly advice was given to the Arabs of Palestine to leave their land, homes and property and to stay temporarily in neighboring fraternal states, lest the guns of the invading Arab armies mow them down." Even Jordan's King Abdullah, writing in his memoirs, blamed Palestinian leaders for the refugee problem: "The tragedy of the Palestinians was that most of their leaders had paralyzed them with false and unsubstantiated promises that they were not alone; that 80 million Arabs and 400 million Muslims would instantly and miraculously come to their rescue."

If there was no invasion then there would of been no "disaster" or refugees. Forty years of continuing the action to destroy Israel has only compounded matters. But everyone wants Israel to sacfrifice.

What is it that Israel wants, that it will relax, stop the settlements and have a Palestinian nation as a neighbour? could it be that Israel might secretly be funding even the supposedly anti-Israel elements to help maintain the situation as is, in the bargain they keep building settlements, as a sacrifice a few of their people are killed, for which they can attack Gaza and destroy the place killing treble or quadruple the number as revenge.

The world mainly western will keep pitying them, but the trend seems to be losing appeal for some of them, they will keep postponing Palestine issue after painting this sorry picture to the US who wil keep vetoing and distancing itself from any accociation that welcomes Palestine, BTW has Israel stopped funding UNESCO? or do US and others have to face the shame alone? while Israel stays in a favourable position in this.

Quoting windy95 (Reply 70): If there was no invasion then there would of been no "disaster" or refugees. Forty years of continuing the action to destroy Israel has only compounded matters. But everyone wants Israel to sacfrifice.

If there was no zionism, there wouldn't have been either. How far back do you want to go?

There's enough blame to be thrown on all parts, there's been blackmail, terrorism and awful deeds on both sides, and just saying "but the others are worse" won't solve anything.

Quoting 777way (Reply 71): What is it that Israel wants, that it will relax, stop the settlements and have a Palestinian nation as a neighbour? could it be that Israel might secretly be funding even the supposedly anti-Israel elements to help maintain the situation as is, in the bargain they keep building settlements, as a sacrifice a few of their people are killed, for which they can attack Gaza and destroy the place killing treble or quadruple the number as revenge.

You may well have a point !

Modus Operandi

I have had long held suspicions that this is the case, or at least be highly likely anyway.

The Israelis know full well, that the more land they slowly steal from the Palestinians, the harder it will be, if not impossible, to reverse.

I think, at the end of the day, we can safely say that it is not really in Israels interest to live in peace, at least not until they have achieved what they want, namely more and more land.

Oh, and lets not forget water, that's something else there are after, but is proving to be a little more tricky to get !

[Edited 2011-11-03 14:26:24]

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 73): The Israelis know full well, that the more land they slowly steal from the Palestinians, the harder it will be, if not impossible, to reverse.

Then why did they give back Sinai and the Golan Heights?

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 74): Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 73): The Israelis know full well, that the more land they slowly steal from the Palestinians, the harder it will be, if not impossible, to reverse. Then why did they give back Sinai and the Golan Heights?

It is more water than area of land, but AFAIK, they have definitely NOT given back Golan Heights, partly for military reasons but more because it controls headwaters. Water again.

Aside from Arabs having lesser rights inside Israel, Gaza and any W Bank state would get the worst of fag ends of the waters.

One state solution and free votes for all. Hope Israel wants to be governed every now and again by Hamas!!! Should be OK, because Israel had quite a bit to do with founding Hamas. Careful what you sow!!!

You would think that would be an incentive to make sure there was a Palestinian state.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 74): Then why did they give back Sinai and the Golan Heights?

Not sure that they have have they ?

Quoting Baroque (Reply 75): It is more water than area of land, but AFAIK, they have definitely NOT given back Golan Heights, partly for military reasons but more because it controls headwaters. Water again.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 75): You would think that would be an incentive to make sure there was a Palestinian state.

Incentives work in mysterious ways Baroque......

They are unfolding already, Spring anyone !

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 74): Then why did they give back Sinai and the Golan Heights?

They haven't.

The Sinai is a barren area, so Israel was happy to just keep Eilat, but the Golan heights are an important water source so haven't been returned.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 75): NOT given back

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 76): Not sure that they have have they ?

Quoting JJJ (Reply 77): They haven't.

I obviously am calling what I'm thinking of the wrong name. I'm talking about this

They definitely don't have the Sinai Penn, is that different than just "Sinai?" And I was wrong about the Golan Heights, I meant the area is Lebanon and Syria around it, I though the Golan Heights were given up too

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78): They definitely don't have the Sinai Penn, is that different than just "Sinai?"

Which happens to be mostly desert.

They're happy to hold water-rich Golan heights, of course (in the meantime depriving Syria of much needed irrigation water).

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 78): They definitely don't have the Sinai Penn, is that different than just "Sinai?"

There is a set of maps from the BBC at
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/h...ians/maps/html/british_control.stm
There is a better one around from the same source with more detail, but I cannot find it. That has more detail about the Golan Heights.

The Sinai does have a lot of sand, it also had a small oilfield that Israel produced (aka stole) for a number of years before the Carter negotiated deal, and I seem to remember a coal deposit nearby in the Sinai, so not just sand. There are probably other resources there but there does not seem to be much about them.

There is a CIA map of the G Hts in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golan_Heights

Quoting Baroque (Reply 80): had a small oilfield that Israel produced (aka stole)

And how come no one bothered to drill for oil before? Once they see that the Israelis have made something of what once was nothing they are more interested in the area.

Sinai was Egyptian occupied by Israel the Egyptians didnt lose it because it was useless and start begging for Israel to give it back after seeing Oil and Coal, it had to be given back even if it served no purpose and was uninhabitable, like mountain ranges or house sized useless Islands that cant accomodate anything but are part of territorial disputes.

Quoting jfk69 (Reply 81): Quoting Baroque (Reply 80): had a small oilfield that Israel produced (aka stole) And how come no one bothered to drill for oil before? Once they see that the Israelis have made something of what once was nothing they are more interested in the area.

Oh really. Why am I not surprised at that remark? The main oilfield is at Abu Rudeis and was discovered BEFORE the Israeli invavsion. I think that the Israelis did find one additional smaller field after the invasion, but Abu Rudeis was producing before the invasion.

As a matter of record, the person who taught me geology, Dr Douglas Arthur Robson, spent most of WWII exploring for oil either side of the Gulf of Suez.

Gasoline prices 4 times as high as in US, but there's no gasoline shortage because Israel controls Abu-Rudeis oil wells in Sinai; wells captured during 1967 war. Many people now worried about losing Abu-Rudeis wells in 2nd disengagement deal. [Geologist Moshe SHAFRIR - says Abu-Rudeis wells supply 65% Israel's oil needs.] Without oil fields, Israel would undoubtedly become more dependent on US.
http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/art.php?aid=86547

See it is easy to find.