First, those lands were part of Ottoman Empire. Actually, British used its divide/conquer schemes to incite many tribes within the Empire to rebel, formed independent states by their tribal affiliations, and in the end caused the empire to collapse.
As I have indicated earlier, if there is no U.K. intervention there, due to its over-dominating Muslim population, there is no denying that the only possible countries created there are Muslim countries. That land either belonged to a newly formed Muslim country, or merged with Egypt, or Syria or other neighboring countries.
For the past 200 years, U.K. is the major source for most lingering troubles within the world till now. E.g.
(1) division of India and Pakistan as well as Kashmir; ===> India/Pakistan Conflict
(2) random drawing McMahon line and set up secret Simla Accord between British and Tibet, even though Tibet is part of ROC and ROC did not recognize anything signed between them. ===>India/China conflict
(3) set up Jewish state within mid-east within over-dominating Muslim area on former ottoman empire land. ===>Israel/Muslim conflict
(4) a lot of conflicts within Africa can also trace back to U.K. former divide/conquer scheme as well.
The list can go on and on.
Saying those lands are desert or not livable does not mean you can take over and set up a country. Many countries have such lands. None will allow others to go in to set up a country. Even though it may not be controlled by a country for a little while, it still does not mean outsiders can come in and set up a country. For example, after Qing Empire collapsed, China was effectively controlled by different warlords with many foreign power interventions, e.g. U.K., Japan, Germany, U.S. and etc.
They have different influences in different provinces. Many provinces did not recognize the president and many warlords fought each other. For a little while, the central government did not reach far. Still we would not think it is OK for outsiders, e.g. Japan, to come in China to set up a Manchurian state, even though it lasted a little while during World War II. Some Uighurs also set up a East Turkish State in Xinjiang but quickly got put down by ROC. So you have to consider the history links there within that region.
Of course, you can say Jewish people set up kingdoms and live there two thousand years ago. Well, that link has been broken for two thousand years. It is really a stretch to use that as an excuse to take back the land. If that can be used, the Huns can come back from Europe and claim all of the grassland in Northern China including our Capital Beijing. Actually, the history links between the Huns and Northern China were only broken for about at most 1500 years or less, way less than the broken links between Jewish people and Mid-east.
However, history was side-tracked after U.K.'s intervention and U.S.'s support. Israel was created. I think Jewish people need understand where those Arab's resentments come from. If you still say their resentment comes from nowhere for no reason, you must be blind to the history. As long as Arabs rejection over initial land division and given to Jewish people, that is understandable as well.
However, both sides fought for such a long time and a stable Jewish state has flourished for more than 60 years.
The reality is that both Jewish people, and Muslim people, are there to stay. There is nowhere for Israel to go as well. In reality, it will not go anywhere as well. Well, Israel indeed got the better deal from the history: setting up their own country, grabbing more lands and won all the fights so far. Muslims are on the losing end. The plus for Israel is that it has won all the times so far. The negative is that it faces with billions of hostile Muslims surrounding it for centuries to come.
The fundamental question here is that whether both sides want to continue the historical feud and fight to the last one standing??? Or they can come back to the negotiation table to set up permanent peace. Of course, nowadays those Arabs have a lot of in-fight and only care their own interest in most of cases. So Israel can use divide/conquer scheme to weaker any possible alliance within Muslims. However, the recent mid-east turmoil has already created big headache for Israel. The old dictators were gone and the old peace deals are in danger. If a leader within Muslim world rise to unite them, that will be a disaster-like news to Israel.
Considering the historical importance of Jerusalem and the progress of Mid-east conflicts, 1967 border is the best possibility to strike a peace deal. If both side play the hard-core Jews and hard-core Muslims, you probably will have more miserable lives in the future.
For the geographical location and size of Israel, Israel cannot lose any war. Well, is it possible? Personally, for the short run, definitely possible. For the long run, definitely not. Otherwise, Jewish people would not have lost that link for more than 2000 years.
In addition, what would you do in the case of WMD? A large country is possible to withstand such destruction but a small country won't survive.
As I have indicated earlier, if there is no U.K. intervention there, due to its over-dominating Muslim population, there is no denying that the only possible countries created there are Muslim countries. That land either belonged to a newly formed Muslim country, or merged with Egypt, or Syria or other neighboring countries.
For the past 200 years, U.K. is the major source for most lingering troubles within the world till now. E.g.
(1) division of India and Pakistan as well as Kashmir; ===> India/Pakistan Conflict
(2) random drawing McMahon line and set up secret Simla Accord between British and Tibet, even though Tibet is part of ROC and ROC did not recognize anything signed between them. ===>India/China conflict
(3) set up Jewish state within mid-east within over-dominating Muslim area on former ottoman empire land. ===>Israel/Muslim conflict
(4) a lot of conflicts within Africa can also trace back to U.K. former divide/conquer scheme as well.
The list can go on and on.
Saying those lands are desert or not livable does not mean you can take over and set up a country. Many countries have such lands. None will allow others to go in to set up a country. Even though it may not be controlled by a country for a little while, it still does not mean outsiders can come in and set up a country. For example, after Qing Empire collapsed, China was effectively controlled by different warlords with many foreign power interventions, e.g. U.K., Japan, Germany, U.S. and etc.
They have different influences in different provinces. Many provinces did not recognize the president and many warlords fought each other. For a little while, the central government did not reach far. Still we would not think it is OK for outsiders, e.g. Japan, to come in China to set up a Manchurian state, even though it lasted a little while during World War II. Some Uighurs also set up a East Turkish State in Xinjiang but quickly got put down by ROC. So you have to consider the history links there within that region.
Of course, you can say Jewish people set up kingdoms and live there two thousand years ago. Well, that link has been broken for two thousand years. It is really a stretch to use that as an excuse to take back the land. If that can be used, the Huns can come back from Europe and claim all of the grassland in Northern China including our Capital Beijing. Actually, the history links between the Huns and Northern China were only broken for about at most 1500 years or less, way less than the broken links between Jewish people and Mid-east.
However, history was side-tracked after U.K.'s intervention and U.S.'s support. Israel was created. I think Jewish people need understand where those Arab's resentments come from. If you still say their resentment comes from nowhere for no reason, you must be blind to the history. As long as Arabs rejection over initial land division and given to Jewish people, that is understandable as well.
However, both sides fought for such a long time and a stable Jewish state has flourished for more than 60 years.
The reality is that both Jewish people, and Muslim people, are there to stay. There is nowhere for Israel to go as well. In reality, it will not go anywhere as well. Well, Israel indeed got the better deal from the history: setting up their own country, grabbing more lands and won all the fights so far. Muslims are on the losing end. The plus for Israel is that it has won all the times so far. The negative is that it faces with billions of hostile Muslims surrounding it for centuries to come.
The fundamental question here is that whether both sides want to continue the historical feud and fight to the last one standing??? Or they can come back to the negotiation table to set up permanent peace. Of course, nowadays those Arabs have a lot of in-fight and only care their own interest in most of cases. So Israel can use divide/conquer scheme to weaker any possible alliance within Muslims. However, the recent mid-east turmoil has already created big headache for Israel. The old dictators were gone and the old peace deals are in danger. If a leader within Muslim world rise to unite them, that will be a disaster-like news to Israel.
Considering the historical importance of Jerusalem and the progress of Mid-east conflicts, 1967 border is the best possibility to strike a peace deal. If both side play the hard-core Jews and hard-core Muslims, you probably will have more miserable lives in the future.
For the geographical location and size of Israel, Israel cannot lose any war. Well, is it possible? Personally, for the short run, definitely possible. For the long run, definitely not. Otherwise, Jewish people would not have lost that link for more than 2000 years.
In addition, what would you do in the case of WMD? A large country is possible to withstand such destruction but a small country won't survive.
