Countries that are allied to Israel. But I already gave a possible answer above.
I have a question to that. It's not really related to the thread -- but what do you mean by ally? Economic trading partner? Officially military allies? What?
If you are asking for official military alliances, then the only one I know of is the United States, and I'm sure that is the only one Israel has.
As for friends, I could pretty much say 'Europe'.
For the future, unless Israel makes gas chambers why would there be less Arabs?
Because they are leaving.
You say winners should get nothing but tell me, how is Israel different then all the other wars in history winners got lands. Even more, you say Israel cant take land if she wins even when Arabs will if they win. Whats up with that?
I'm looking at it from a practical view, Arabs are taking back what they had, so it's not like their winning anything they don't deserve/new.
Israelis, rather, ... came out of no where. You and I both know it would be no where without international support. I don't mean it in a bad way, nor am I saying 'Israel fails without help'. I'm simply questioning Israel's hopes of expanding 6% into the West Bank with a land they clearly didn't have... 70 years ago?
Also, I can only see the problem worsening. It's not as if Israel doesn't have an interest in the lands.
They've occupied it for like.. 50 years! What's the point in declaring it theirs now? For what it's worth they could pretty much say 'its ours'.
Also, Israel occupied those areas in 1967, in 1973 Israel got nada in return for victory on the face of almost complete destruction.
Sorry failed on the #'s.
those 6% include areas unsettled by Arabs at all.
That's weird, I read that most West Bank settlements are in the living areas of West Bank ppl that left.
For wiki, again, its a bad source and its often filled with stuff worst then crap.
Now that isn't fair. It's a perfectly reliable resource that is often flooded with source makers. Also, I have to prove my thoughts from some where and alot of what we're talking about involves history..
The jurisdiction of the Israeli settlements and their regional councils includes 42% percent of the West Bank, although the actual buildings of the settlements cover just 1% of the West Bank, according to a study released by B'Tselem. Much of this 42% is land that was seized from Palestinian landowners in violation of an Israeli Supreme Court decision, according to the study
That is from Wiki, but wiki is directly using info from another source, the Yesha Council, which is an umbrella organization of west bank county settlements of Israel, so it sounds good. The last sentence, a part of the study, completely denies your claim that this 'strategic land that Israel needs to stay alive + settlements' is unsettled area.
I mean, really, they live in a Desert man. Don't you think that after 3,000 years people would have settled in all the habitable areas possible in the region?
You can't tell that. Without ww1 this area could have stayed ottoman empire, without ww1 for all we know today Israel could have been a japanese colony and the space colonised by communist France.
Israels war of independance was directly because Arabs wanted it all to themselves. People who want it all usually get nothing. And btw, smaller... lol look at Israel's size on the map (if you can find it that is).
... Yes I can.
The Ottoman Empire, by the time of WWI and much before it had given ruling rights to many European Neighbors, it was nearly nonexistant. The whole Japan colony stuff is nonsense. For all I do know, Palestine may have stayed a German mandate until rebellion, but by no means would the zionist movement in Europe had of flourished without WWI and WWII. That just takes a bit of deductive reasoning, you can't just pick apart a cause and effect change and say what you want by giving a 'you don't know that' comment. It's lame.
Yes when the economy is bad and there is war around people tend to want to go someplace better.
Well, duh.
But this is not that there's a kid in Gaza that's like 'oh I should go to EU it sucks here'.
It's because there's someone in Gaza that's like 'oh, I should go to EU because it sucks here and I'm practically being unfairly driven out by occupying militants'.
What you're referring to is pull factors. If some place is better, then of course people will want to go there. But what also drives people out are push factors, such as bad economy and persecution and war. If that is being caused by another nation [for example, Israel], then of course Israel is doing something wrong. It's not right for a country to do wrong things and say 'Well it doesn't matter they'll all end up in EU where it's nice anyway because we'll make it suck for them here'.
For swimming, the level of the athletes doesn't really matter. What matters is that for the first time Israeli athletes were given the option of participating. I'd like to believe that does show something.
I never said the level of athletes matter. Also, I already said this can't be really shown to mean much, because of my example with the tennis tournament. The tournament was nearly shut down as many people didn't play, clearly pushing the UAE to have to accept Israelis, so it's questionable as to whether it's an act towards peace or not. Just what I'm thinking. Who knows.
Saudi Arabia and the Sunni world in general doesn't really like Iran if you noticed. Its the historic sunni-shia thing.
This is true. I guess the real question remains is whether Saudis value Iran more or Israel. That still doesn't help the fact as to if Israel's making it any better for the world.
Also, as for the N. Vs. South in Yemen -- You do know that's already happened, right? And that the country reunited in the past? This 'War' you're talking about isn't all that extreme or happening. It's actually listed on the net as a civil conflict.
Georgia, Mexico, Canada, Serbia, Holland, Germany, Greece, Bulgaria, India, etc.
These friends are downright obvious! Though I know these countries don't have military defense alliances with Israel, your list is just as normal as the rest of the world.
If you didn't know, the US is 'friends' with all of these countries along with many more, so do countries such as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, etc.
The idea behind me saying Israel isn't friendly was me actually referring to the fact that they draw enemies [questioning as to why America supports them]. In a world of 150+ countries, it's easy to find buddies.
Also, why didn't the Muslim world hate USSR after assisting Israel so much during its first days (yes they did hate USSR but not like USA, and again there was Afghanistan involved).
This is because in the 30's, The USSR was not the falling-apart fail empire it was post 60's and 70's. They outplayed the USA on the foreign scale, and were not seen as people who were imposing their will upon the Muslim World.
1) The USSR recognized Israel because Stalin felt the Jews would pick a socialist government that would help kill British influence, and even gave weapons in the 1948 war.
2) After the Suez crisis, they gave a bunch of armor to Syria and Egypt, as you've already mentioned, and also threatened to attack Israel in the '56 Sinai campaign and the '73 war, but never lived up to it.
3) The Afghan war was in the 80's.
So what I can see from this is that your timetables are a little off, and your understanding of the cold war. It was always US vs USSR. That being said...
At first, USSR saw a Zionist state as a close ally against the British. Following that, they saw it's direct love for the West, so the USSR helped out the Muslim world well into the 70's, ending Egypt's reliance on Western armaments. In the Afghan war in the 80's, the USSR was practically hated everywhere, which is obvious considering many Muslim nations funded militant groups [along with the US], giving way to the Taliban, and later leading to Soviet Defeat and their demise 10 years later. Hope that helps.
Britain lied both to Jews and Arabs about the land
If memory serves right, they lied a lot more to Arabs. Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, nearly all of these countries became Mandates after WWI after giving support against the Ottoman Empire in hopes of self determination. Losing it made them even more hostile to the new Jewish state. I guess it doesn't matter that much, but it still is quite an unfair process.
For Hamas, you refuse to belive Gaza is so radical.
No, I'm speaking out of situation. Bush is a rich oil owning guy from TX, and he's a Republican. Of course he was thinking democracy would solve all the problems because the Gazans would pick a nice guy to give up the fight. But really, Gazans have no international support, are practically landlocked, and probably want to leave. So why not pick the only actual force in the country?
Now, you'd wonder why I don't think that's not a radical idea.
This is because democracies work in governments, where you elect people to make laws and leads.
Not sure if you've noticed, but Palestinians have no place to govern.
For CNN and BBC you really made me rofl. I mean really? Did you ever compare them to other medias?
Umm, Yes. CNN and BBC are respected media organisations for a reason. Me saying 'Fox News and MSNBC' should have made you rotfl. Fox would have been saying the best stuff in the world and MSNBC would have been hating on Israel all day.
They both like to eliminate a line of bias, just because they refuse to call suicide bombers terrorists [Which I've only heard like, once myself, the word terrorist is used many times. No idea where you're pulling that from the way you say it is like they do it all the time]. Furthermore, CNN focuses it's media much more on Hamas and Palestinian actions in terms of airtime much more than Israel's reactions. It's pro-Israeli, I'd say, even if only by a little.
As for BBC, I do not watch it, but I've never yet to see anything that shows they outstandingly do not like Israel.
Lastly, why would the UK not be Israel's allies? The way you put it made it look like the two hate each other or something.
If that is the case, then Israel is showing that not only can it not fix ties in the Middle East, it is doing stuff to make it lose old friends, which doesn't really help your argument in the first place.
