FLBear5630 said:
Porteroso said:
Saying Israel never started anything is pure fantasy. All you have to do is glance at recent history to understand why both sides hate each other.
Dumb people always want to reduce the world into right and wrong, black and white. In this conflict there is nobody without fault. And quite honestly the British giving Israel the land was pretty botched. Most of the current conflict comes from forcibly removing an entire people from land they held sacred. Of course people were fighting over the land millenia ago too.
I wonder how many Americans realize Israel still allows Muslims with machine guns to control parts of Jerusalem in recognition that they have a right to their sacred places too.
The Arabs attack in 67 and 73 caused the botching. The Brits pretty much gave Israel won and tool land. Now they are mad that Israel didn't just give it back? If they didn't attack, these lands would never be Israels. The Arabs have made this much worse than what was done in 48.
Mad? No
Feel that Israel made a strategic mistake? Yes
They can't keep and hold millions of Palestinians under military occupation forever....most people who analyze the situation can clearly see that.
Israel whipped butt in 67 and 73 and its makes some sense that they would compensate themselves with some...key word some....Palestinian land. For instance East Jerusalem. Have a divided holy city was probably always gonna be a mistake anyway. And perhaps taken in some outlying areas around Jerusalem up into the West Bank.
"Israel captured East Jerusalem from Jordan during the 1967 Six-Day War and subsequently effectively annexed it into Jerusalem, together with additional surrounding territory. One of Israel's Basic Laws, the 1980 Jerusalem Law, refers to Jerusalem as the country's undivided capital."
But it was simply poor long term planning, a violation of international law, and a fools errand to try and militarily occupy the rest of the West Bank forever.
Ariel Sharon himself said that the long term occupation was a liability for Israel and something that simple could not achieve indefinitely even if they wanted to do so.
[Mr. Sharon endorsed a view Israel's left-wing has argued for years:
Being in the Occupied Territories was more of a security liability than an asset. And, for the first time ever, Sharon said in 2003 that he wanted to end the occupation."It is not possible to continue holding 3-1/2 million people under occupation," he told Likud members in May 2003. "You may not like the word, but what's happening is occupation. This is a terrible thing for Israel, for the Palestinians, and for the Israeli economy."]