A timeline of control in the middle east

[themuzicman]

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Pretty cool.

[James Peter]

Yeah. Even at the most conservative estimates 'Israel' has only controlled the 'Holy Land' for maybe 800 of the last 5000 years.

[Darth Executor]

And?

[James Peter]

Makes claims of "But its our land because it was!" look as foolish as they are.

[themuzicman]

Same could be said of Muslims

[Darth Executor]

Same could be said of Muslims

A lot worse could be said of Arabs and Palestinians in particular.

[James Peter]

Yep. So land belongs to whoever is most able to fight for it right? I just don't support having started/escalated the conflict in and around Israel-Palestine by creating and arming Israel so that she could fight for it. Whats done is done now though, although if I were in power I'd certainly move to a more neutral position in the conflict.

[Darth Executor]

Yep. So land belongs to whoever is most able to fight for it right?

This is another way of saying it belongs to Israel. Arabs are (arguably) the worst fighters in the modern world. They're utterly incapable of any mass organization, individual fighters are volatile, unpredictable and undisciplined and since Russia fell their technology has lagged behind (not that it matters, the situation was reversed when Israel was formed and still lost). The only reason why they're still around is because westerners don't believe in utterly destroying an enemy anymore. If this conflict had started even a hundred years ago the conflict would have lasted a few years and within a generation nobody would know what a Palestinian is.

I just don't support having started/escalated the conflict in and around Israel-Palestine by creating and arming Israel so that she could fight for it.

Why? The land Israel got didn't belong to the Arabs seeing how the Turks were in control of it for hundreds of years and lost it to Europe. I think people can do whatever they want with their land, including giving it to the jews. Someone throwing a tantrum isn't a good enough reason to give it up.

Whats done is done now though, although if I were in power I'd certainly move to a more neutral position in the conflict.

I wouldn't, even if I was in your position, simply because arabs have a tendancy to see it as weakness and try to take more. Not only that but if Israel was left alone it would stop playing nice, likely take absolute control of Palestinian territory which would draw every muslim in the region into a huge war with millions of casualties.

[James Peter]

There is a difference between 'more neutral' and 'more isolationist'.

[Darth Executor]

There is a difference between 'more neutral' and 'more isolationist'.

Can you explain what you would do then, because I don't think there is a difference in this case.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

http://www.mapsofwar.com/ind/imperial-history.html

Pretty cool.

Yeah, really cool. You find that on Digg?