• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

So we still talk about how Arab countries don't want peace with Israel....

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,823
0
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?
It is a statement of fact.

Originally posted by: AndrewR
Here's a quote from Wiki: "In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel."

Try again.
How about you try accepting the fact that "Israeli-Syrian teensions" mentioned in that quote is a reference to Israel openly threaten to invade Syria, and Egypt's massing of forces and restrictions on shipping were undertaken along with diplomatic attempts to prevent that conflict which Israel ignored in favor of bombing Egpyt.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.
Hardly.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48...
It is called a compromise.
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
or '73 borders?
And what changes the Palestinian's boarders do you think happened '73?
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.
It seems the glass you are wearing have BS smeared all over them.
What are the Arabs comprimising on?
There have been four major conflicts. Israel controlled more land every time to create a buffer against the false peace that was previously agreed to.

The Arabs (as a group) have not kept their peace promises. What should Israel think - allow a knife at her belly in exchange for another peace promise.
Hamas has never stopped throwing at them even though Palestinians implied that land would be exchanged for peace.

 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,547
0
76
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.

period.
 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.

period.
So Israel is the only nation in the history of the world that does not care to expand their borders?
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,034
1
61
It is really just insane that these two populations, totaling a mere 10-12 million people, receive so much attention from the rest of the world. I mean, how much war, fighting, and aggression has been caused all over the planet just because of this little mess in the Middle East? How many resources, how much money, how much policy is effected by this small region? Am I the only one who thinks this is bizarre, that people should take a few steps back and see this conflict for what it really is?
 

fallout man

Golden Member
Nov 20, 2007
1,799
0
0
Israel will forever be comfrotable with a state of war, as long as they are able to suck my tax-dollars from Lady Liberty's teet.

The Israelis don't proportionately suffer the carnage and injustice they dole out to the people they keep in a modern day concentration camp. Save for a few sane voices within Israel, most of that country is perfectly happy with the situation, and the rest of world eats it up like the tastiest cake.
 

RightIsWrong

Diamond Member
Apr 29, 2005
5,650
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
It is really just insane that these two populations, totaling a mere 10-12 million people, receive so much attention from the rest of the world. I mean, how much war, fighting, and aggression has been caused all over the planet just because of this little mess in the Middle East? How many resources, how much money, how much policy is effected by this small region? Am I the only one who thinks this is bizarre, that people should take a few steps back and see this conflict for what it really is?
No. You are definitely not the only one that sees this.

The problem is religion. And I mean all religions too. Not just Judaism or Islam or Christianity. But all of them. The Jews want their holy land. The Palestinians want their holy land. The Muslims want to stand up for the Palestinians because then they get unfettered access to their holy lands. And the Christians want to keep their holy lands in the hands of the Jews because they are afraid of the evil Muslims and what they might do to their holy land.

If people could just pull their heads out of the arse of whatever little feel good fairy tale cult that they proclaim to be a part of and realize that the only sect that counts is the human race sect, we would be able to get along with our lives and just deal with the greedy bastards trying to grab power at any cost instead of being pitted against each other in these perpetuated, choreographed squabbles designed to keep us looking right while the powerful few run an end around the left.
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.

period.
So Israel is the only nation in the history of the world that does not care to expand their borders?
Is Switzerland an expansionist nation?
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
What are the Arabs comprimising on?
There have been four major conflicts. Israel controlled more land every time to create a buffer against the false peace that was previously agreed to.

The Arabs (as a group) have not kept their peace promises. What should Israel think - allow a knife at her belly in exchange for another peace promise.
Hamas has never stopped throwing at them even though Palestinians implied that land would be exchanged for peace.
With this current plan:

1) Existence of Israel and full economic and political normalization
2) Allowing Israel to keep 78% of the land
3) The Right of Return (that plan stated that a just solution needs to be found...it did not explicitly state that the right of return must be honored)

If you actually speak to any of the older Palestinians, especially those who remember those early days, you'll see that it is such an emotional event that to simply say "what the are arabs compromising on" as if there is no compromise is such a callous and empty statement.

You say Arabs (as a group) have not kept peace promises. Israel hasn't either. Every statement of removing settlements is followed with flashy pictures of foreful removal of boonies, which massive construction projects are quietly approved on the other hand. The 90s saw a doubling of settlements.

There is no knife at the belly of Israel. It is Israel with the knife and it has cut open the belly of the Palestinians so many times while convincing people that it is purely defensive.

edit:
wtf i replied to like 10 others in this thread as well!1!! Gah...I hate it when this shit happens
 

DarkThinker

Platinum Member
Mar 17, 2007
2,823
0
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
It is really just insane that these two populations, totaling a mere 10-12 million people, receive so much attention from the rest of the world. I mean, how much war, fighting, and aggression has been caused all over the planet just because of this little mess in the Middle East? How many resources, how much money, how much policy is effected by this small region? Am I the only one who thinks this is bizarre, that people should take a few steps back and see this conflict for what it really is?
That area of the world is but an arena, a single arena in what amounts to be a `World Cup` of politics.
The fight is on such a bigger magnitude we all know that, it's so big it's hard to envision without witnessing (which I hope we never do, but we will at some point from how things are...)

Another example but more on a micro level, Lebanon for instance. Lebanon is about 1682 square miles smaller than Connecticut, yet it has about 30+ countries competing in Soccer tournaments over there. And by Soccer I mean the political Soccer, where each group sponsors it's own team to score the goals in that arena.

Same applies to Palestine, the West have their pawns represented in Israel and other groups that are scattered across the Arabian peninsula and North Africa, and the so called `Axis of Evil` has it's own collection of pawns as well. It's a parasitic relationship. Pawns are used to reach ends, and themselves benefit too with money and political support. But when someone benefits, usually someone has to lose and those are your ole betrayed unarmed, unorganized harmless citizens which have to deal with the burdens thrown upon them by their controlled leaders.

Had our government wished it so, the whole conflict would end the day the US cleans it's hands from all of that area. But with oil at steak,and the threat of a rise of a pan-middle eastern force, it's a much safer bet to keep the Arab world distracted with Israel for now. Israel knows that very well and themselves have their own post US-support plans at the ready.

This whole conflict without super powers would end in no time, we keep it alive, we want it so!

 

Aimster

Lifer
Jan 5, 2003
16,129
2
0
Originally posted by: bbdub333
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.

period.
So Israel is the only nation in the history of the world that does not care to expand their borders?
Is Switzerland an expansionist nation?
I'm sure their history has conquest in it
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?
It is a statement of fact.
You need a history lesson:
In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion to allow for a free Suez Canal), to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel
The Arab states were preparing for an invasion of Israel so the Israeli's attacked first.

The Israelis actually captured plans of the invasion from the Jordanians.
 

Exterous

Super Moderator
Jun 20, 2006
18,991
1,892
126
So...maybe someone can help me understand the situation since this is how I see it:

Israel was attacked several times. They defeated the attackers and took some of their land. Now the attackers want it back? If you ask me they should have thought about that before attacking - its their own damn fault
 

bbdub333

Senior member
Aug 21, 2007
686
0
0
Originally posted by: Exterous
So...maybe someone can help me understand the situation since this is how I see it:

Israel was attacked several times. They defeated the attackers and took some of their land. Now the attackers want it back? If you ask me they should have thought about that before attacking - its their own damn fault
You don't understand... they're... Jewish...!
 

pinktank

Senior member
Feb 1, 2005
482
0
76
more like groups attacked them, they attacked the whole shebang, 24 hour curfewed bordeirng zones, controlled water sources and basically owned the thing all together with extreme military technology before starting to settle in and make them the oppressed. It started with Israel wanted recognition, which they gained quite a while ago but once the beast was loose with arm dealers patting it's back along the way and it's inclusion in the US middle east plan, it kinda went out of control
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
...

Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: DarkThinker
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: palehorse74
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Israel's goal continues to be that same process of expansion, but that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, as the final boarder agreements necessary to ending this conflict would inherently put an end to Israeli expansion
Israel's "expansion"?! You're joking, right?

Describing Israel as expansionist is downright absurd.
Israel's expansionism is a reality, denying that reality it is absurd.

http://buntnessel.files.wordpr.../slowmogenocidebmp.jpg
Palehorse, you are beyond joking...you are shitting all over this GTFO
Anyone who believes that Israel is driven by "expansionist" ideals, or has expansionist goals, is a complete idiot.

period.
You are obviously conflused. The quotes from Moshe Dayan I presented above clearly explains the Zionist goal, notably:

For the hundred years of the Return to Zion we are working for two things: the building of the land and the building of the people ? That is a process of expansion, of more Jews and more settlements ... That is a process that has not reached the end
Until Israel stops promoting Jewish immigration and building settlements in conquered territory, their goal cannot be defined as anything but expansion.

Also, while we are on the subject of the Golan, here is a bit from an old article with more quotes from Moshe Dayan:

...

Minister Farouk Charaa addressed a core cause of more than 1,000 armed clashes between Israel and Syria in 1948-67: the Israeli contention that the Syrians, sitting on the Golan Heights, repeatedly shelled Israel`s farms and settlements below in the Galilee and its water projects in the Huleh valley. This shelling--in the common Israeli and American view--is what gave Israel its rationale for capturing the Golan Heights in the 1967 war. The disposition of this land is what the current peace talks are about.

Except, to cite Moshe Dayan, it didn`t happen just that way. In 1976 Dayan gave an extraordinary interview to Israeli journalist Rami Tal but embargoed it. He died in 1981. Only on April 27, 1997, did his daughter Yael, a Labor parliamentarian, release it. It was not new news in Israel, but it made a stir. It made practically no stir in this country; I missed it at the time.

Said Dayan: `I made a mistake in allowing the [Israeli] conquest of the Golan Heights. As defense minister I should have stopped it because the Syrians were not threatening us at the time.` The attack proceeded, he went on, not because Israel was threatened but because of pressure from land-hungry farmers and army commanders in northern Israel. `Of course [war with Syria] was not necessary. You can say the Syrians are bastards and attack when you want. But this is not policy. You don`t open aggression against an enemy because he`s a bastard but because he`s a threat.`

About those shellings: Syria shelled and otherwise emanated cold hostility. But, Dayan told his interviewer, `at least 80 percent` of two decades of border clashes were initiated by Israel. `We would send a tractor to plow some [disputed] area . . . and we knew in advance that the Syrians would start to shoot. If they didn`t shoot, we would tell the tractor to advance further, until in the end the Syrians would get annoyed and shoot. And then we would use artillery and later the air force also, and that`s how it was.`

...
That was expansionism then, and Israel continuing to restrict Palestinians from yet more land and builds more settlements and roads for their own populations in the West Bank is that same goal of expansionism being pursued to this day. And again, that goal can only be pursued as long as the conflict continues, making Israel ideologically opposed to peace.
 

kylebisme

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2000
9,396
0
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?
It is a statement of fact.
You need a history lesson:
In May 1967, Egypt expelled the United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) from the Sinai Peninsula, which had been stationed there since 1957 (following the 1956 Sinai invasion to allow for a free Suez Canal), to provide a peace-keeping buffer zone. In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel
The Arab states were preparing for an invasion of Israel so the Israeli's attacked first.

The Israelis actually captured plans of the invasion from the Jordanians.
No, I don't need any lesson on the what you quoted, but it would be nice if you could manage to keep up with the conversation. You are selectively quoting from the same Wiki article AndrewR did and I responded to above. Again, Israel openly threatened to invade Syria, and Egypt's massing of forces and restrictions on shipping were undertaken along with diplomatic attempts to prevent that conflict which Israel ignored in favor of bombing Egpyt.

 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,493
1
0
The right of return isn't as big a deal as most make it out to be. My grandparents lost their home and farms in 1948 in this village: http://www.palestineremembered.com/Jerusalem/Sar'a/index.html

Now they're no longer farmers and their children are professors, physicians, accountants, and carpenters. Even if the right of return were given to them, I don't doubt they'd shun it for what they have now.
 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,493
1
0
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
What natural resources? Seriously, let's some see some data. The security advantages are obvious so there's no need to back up my statement (I can research it if you really want), but this is the first time I've heard anything about natural resources.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?

Here's a quote from Wiki: "In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel."

Try again.
Golan Heights has water.
Israel needs water
Bingo! I love how so many people ignore that. Israel's in a shit situation when it comes to water; the Jordan River is as wide as a dinner table now, I remember in the early 90s it flood so bad that the bridge for the border crossing was nearly submerged. Now Israel's working on desalinization plants. People really forget a lot of the natural resource issues.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Negotiating with a foe means sitting down and talking with him ? not setting up preconditions before even approaching the table. Israel has, for decades, excused its behavior with the fabrication that it?s willing to bargain, but can?t because of the intractable nature of its opponents. The Israeli government knows that its big, stumblebum geopolitical bodyguard will back up any play it makes; there?s no need to negotiate with anyone.

Far from being America?s proxy in the Middle East, Israel uses American money and military power as a surrogate truncheon in the Arab world. Our domestic Israeli lobby would never, ever let our brave little ally ? and their own fetish ? to be pushed around by the United States. Any American politician suggests doing so at the risk of his own career.

Of course, this fairy tale becomes a convenient fiction when Israel hurls an entire country against the wall, as it did with Lebanon in 2006, to salve its frustration at rare battlefield fiascos. Yeah? it?s America?s fault; that whopper plays exclusively in this country, suckers that we are. In truth, we serve, not reap; the United States benefits nothing from its joined-at-the-hip relationship with Israel.

"Average" Israelis want out of this useless impasse because they are the ones who must live, every day, its unnerving, corrosive reality.

 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
Originally posted by: mrSHEiK124
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: Aimster
Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Syria can bomb Israel right now without the Golan Heights.

Golan Heights is not kept for security purposes. Natural resources more like it.
What natural resources? Seriously, let's some see some data. The security advantages are obvious so there's no need to back up my statement (I can research it if you really want), but this is the first time I've heard anything about natural resources.

Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Also note that the war in 1967 didn't start with Arabs attacking Israel, but rather Israel bombing Egypt.
Ok, seriously, that's your position regarding the Six Day War?

Here's a quote from Wiki: "In reaction to Israeli-Syrian tensions, Egypt amassed 1000 tanks and 100,000 soldiers on the border, closed the Straits of Tiran to all ships flying Israeli flags or carrying strategic materials, and called for unified Arab action against Israel."

Try again.
Golan Heights has water.
Israel needs water
Bingo! I love how so many people ignore that. Israel's in a shit situation when it comes to water; the Jordan River is as wide as a dinner table now, I remember in the early 90s it flood so bad that the bridge for the border crossing was nearly submerged. Now Israel's working on desalinization plants. People really forget a lot of the natural resource issues.
Water isn't just Golan, its also West Bank.
 

orangat

Golden Member
Jun 7, 2004
1,579
0
0
Originally posted by: Common Courtesy
Originally posted by: orangat
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
.........
Yet the Palestinian standarad of living is greater on the West Bank than any other Palestinians areas in other Arab countries. And the improvement percentage have been greater in the past 60 years than most Arab populations with the exception of the oil royalty.

What have the Arabs countries done to improve the Palestinian standard of living?
Remember that all this happen in spite of not because of Israeli occupation. And don't forget the international community under the UN has done alot to help the Palestinians with social services as well.

If the living standards were as high as Europe, do you think the military occupation of Israel should be condoned?

Originally posted by: AndrewR
So, Israel gives up the Golan Heights, from which the Syrians bombed Israeli cities to great effect? Why am I not surprised that the "solution" is not palatable to the Israelis but acceptable to the Arabs?

"Hey, you give up everything you've gained to ensure your security, and we'll keep all of it. Sound good? Then we'll discuss how much more you have to give up."
Its a weak argument considering the Arabs (and nearly the rest of the world) have continually voted in UN every year to go back to 1967 borders which is a great improvement over the original 1948 borders for Israel.

Israel has a huge powerful military that can take on all of its neighbours at once. Beating Syria up like rag doll is no problem. The US estimated and told Israel that it would take 10-14 days max to whoop all of its neighbours in 1967 and it took them 6 days.
The only reason why the Arabs want to go back to the '67 borders is that that is the only conflict that they can even claim to be the injured party.

Why do not the Arabs insist on the '48 or '73 borders? Out of concern for Israel - remove the rose colored glasses.
Why not 1948 borders? That would be ideal but Palestinians want to present a more politically feasible and practical solution which is to concede more land by asking for only the 1967 borders. Nearly every country in the world except for 2 (US/Israel) acknowlege this.

The 1967 borders is the international consensus to solve the issue for a Palestinian state. Every year for decades until today nearly every country in the world votes to adopt a UN resolution to call on Israel to return to 1967 borders. The only countries which oppose are the US, Israel and small countries like Micronesia.. The US and Israel were also the only who voted against against resolutions against South African apartheid until it ended. You should remove your zionist tinted glasses.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY