Israeli Pre-1967 Borders

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Merkava_4, May 22, 2011.

  1. Merkava_4 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2010
    Location:
    California
    #1
    Benjamin Netanyahu told president Barak Obama that the pre 1967 borders were indefensible; something to do with the 9 mile wide area. Why is that? If you have a strip of land 9 miles wide with the ocean on one side and another country's land on the other side, why is that indefensible? I'm not being sarcastic; I really don't know. :confused:

    PBS News Hour

    [​IMG]
     
  2. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #2
    It's because Israelis are currently occupying that space. I'f pulled back to the 1967 borders, the israelis in the stretch of land that would be taken away would not be defensible.

    Btw- I think Netanyahu is doing a good job standing his ground. A Palestinian nation run by Hamas and other thugs should not be given the Israeli land. However, I do think that Israel should stop expanding for the time being. With all the tension in the Middle East, it isn't wise to pour gas on the fire.

    I also don't support Obama's ludicrous position in any such way. He has NO right to tell Israel what to do with their land. And I'm tired of Obama favoring Islamic states that are at best, frenemies with the US, instead of standing behind Israel, a long time friend of the US and its allies.
     
  3. Eraserhead, May 22, 2011
    Last edited: May 22, 2011

    Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #3
    There's no way the rest of the world will possibly accept anything other than Israel retreating to its 1967 borders.

    The reason is that supporting Israel unconditionally makes the world a less safe place for Americans, and probably Europeans too. A solution to the conflict needs to be found and that involves compromise.

    If the Israelis have to deal with the Indians and the Chinese on this matter, and an increasingly less pro-Israel Europe they won't get anywhere near as good a deal as even this one.
     
  4. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #4
    I'd support the stopping off Israeli expansion and giving back any land not yet inhabited or developed, anything other than that, I don't agree with.
     
  5. Heilage macrumors 68030

    Heilage

    Joined:
    May 1, 2009
    #5
    The problem is that Israel thinks it's unacceptable that the Palestinians are there. And the Palestinians think it's unacceptable that Israel is there.

    And with everyone acting like a giant *******, we have a problem and people dying for no reason.
     
  6. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #6
    This is yet another reason why the only reasonable, sensible and just solution is to have a unitary, secular state.
     
  7. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #7
    Islamic middle eastern countries do not believe in secular states- especially a unified state with Jews. No- a unified state would only create more havoc. And since Israelis will be an overwhelming minority amongst the Muslims from all other countries, it'd be easy to see who would act in the new countries "best interest" through "elections."
     
  8. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #8
    Really? Have you ever been to Lebanon or Turkey?
    (a) What is an "overwhelming minority"? :confused:
    (b) Which "other countries"? :confused:
     
  9. BigBeast macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    #9
    I'm sorry, I could have been more specific. My fault.

    Lebanon actually isn't a secular state where religion and matters of state are separated. They are still very related.

    Turkey is secular, however, it should be noted that 99% of the country is Muslim. (http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/3432.htm) Just in case you'd like a reference of where I got that number.

    I said Israel would become an overwhelming minority (a strong but very small populace with the same beliefs) because as you know, the countries surrounding Israel are primarily Muslim.
     
  10. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #10
    Lebanon is one of only two countries that are officially multiconfessional (the other is India), with 18 religions represented in Parliament but no state religion.
    The religious preferences of countries which would share borders with a unitary state would have no bearing on the elections in Israel. The constitution could easily have guarantees for minorities, as in Lebanon.
     
  11. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #11
    Lebanon has been a disaster as a modern state....if one were looking for an example of what should be avoided, then Lebanon is one
     
  12. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #12
    Probably due to interference by outside powers.
     
  13. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #13
    Like Hezbollah with its army which has usurped the authority of the constitutional state?

    edit; or maybe you were referring to Syria's decades long occupation of Lebanon?
     
  14. NT1440 macrumors G4

    NT1440

    Joined:
    May 18, 2008
    Location:
    Hartford, CT
    #14
    And yet the functions of the state are amazingly secular, more-so than some other well known "secular nations". Imagine that, a religious population understanding and supporting a state not run by religion. Gee whiz.

    Sorry, what was the point you were trying to make again?
     
  15. neko girl macrumors 6502a

    neko girl

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
    #15
    As American tech is entirely responsible for the existence of the State of Israel, I think our Commander in Chief has every right to exert his opinion on where its borders should be.

    Get used to it.
     
  16. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #16
    Yes, and due in no small part to Jewish-Americans.
     
  17. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #17
    Yes, and I'm sure the US, Israel and Iran have interfered as well, to a greater or lesser extent.
     
  18. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #18
    you're going to leave out the French and the UK?
     
  19. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #19
    France, certainly. I'm not sure why the UK would be involved.
     
  20. Macky-Mac macrumors 68030

    Macky-Mac

    Joined:
    May 18, 2004
    #20
    The Uk and the French connived to divvy up the Ottoman territories. It's quite likely there wouldn't be a state of Lebanon otherwise...certainly they (you :p ) were involved in "interference by outside powers"
     
  21. Rodimus Prime macrumors G4

    Rodimus Prime

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2006
    #21
    Seeing as your orginal question has yet to be answered I will try. Reason why is because at 9 miles an enemy could cut the country in two very quickly and easily. As in minutes making it impossible to respond in time and very difficult to reconnect the 2 sides. Israel knows that the chance of them being attacked is very high society defense is very important.
     
  22. mrkramer macrumors 603

    mrkramer

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere
    #22
    First of all, since when is it Israeli land? The Jews where kicked out by the Romans almost 2000 years ago after they threw out the people who lived there before a few thousand years earlier who I'm pretty sure are more closely related to the modern palestenians than Israelis. The palestinians owned the land, and there are still people alive, who got kicked out of their homes by the creation of Israel.

    Also considering that the only reason Israel exists is the military support the US gives them Obama has every right to tell their government what to do.
     
  23. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #23
    Ideally a secular single state. Given realpolitik, no way that will happen and a two state system seems inevitable. The current situation is deplorable and is only breeding hatred, resentment and violence. Bennie has not made the situation any better. I think he was a poor choice for the people of Israel.
     
  24. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #24
    Of course they did, but I was talking about Lebanon, not Palestine and Transjordan.
     
  25. Burnsey macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2007
    Location:
    Canada
    #25
    The simple fact is that Israel occupies 60% of the West Bank, which means if there were to be a Palestinian state, be it run either by Hamas or Jesus himself, Israel would have to withdraw from those areas, kicking out the religiously entitled and illegal settlers and dismantling their racist settlements. Israel does not want a Palestinian state, no matter how democratic or peaceful. This is because they do not want to withdraw from these areas. There will never be a Palestinian state for just this reason, everything else the Israeli government spews out is excuses.

    Through continued settlement expansion Israel's actions have shown that it does not recognize a Palestinian state's right to exist, which is one reason why some Palestinians do not recognize Israel's right to exist. The only solution at this point is a single state solution, the two state one is a waste of time.
     

Share This Page