Logical Middle East Borders

I agree that Israel was poorly planned out, but I think that those issues have been put to rest by the success that the Israeli state has made in the years that it has existed. Not to mention that any land dispossession that may have occurred was not without precedent.

Furthermore, none of this justifies the ongoing Arab terrorism against the Israeli state.
 

Keenir

Banned
I agree that Israel was poorly planned out, but I think that those issues have been put to rest by the success that the Israeli state has made in the years that it has existed. Not to mention that any land dispossession that may have occurred was not without precedent.

Furthermore, none of this justifies the ongoing Arab terrorism against the Israeli state.

What about Irish terrorism against the British state? isn't it the same thing?

ps: this gives me an idea...
 
I agree that Israel was poorly planned out, but I think that those issues have been put to rest by the success that the Israeli state has made in the years that it has existed. Not to mention that any land dispossession that may have occurred was not without precedent.

Furthermore, none of this justifies the ongoing Arab terrorism against the Israeli state.

How does 'success' put to rest those issues?
 
Palestine isn't really all that desolate - and Argentina certainly is not.

Yes, but all of the other options were poor and desolate places. So was Palestine, actually.
Nobody would let the Jews found a national sanctuary in a desireable location, of course.
That's why they needed Palestine to make it work. The Jews would only give up their lives and go work in low-class jobs in some arid, foreign land if there was enough spiritualism and mysticism involved.
Since there was nothing truly attractive in the Zionist dream (except for Jews who were really persecuted like the Russians and later the Poles and Germans), the zionists invoked a religious concept to attract the masses.






You're saying this as-if the evil "Elders of Zion" Jews openly manipulated the new British law in-order to screw-up the Muslims.
The fact was, they just did what they could. 90% of the Jews who bought lands in Palestine didn't even live there. They heard that the lands are up to sell by the British crown, so they bought 'em.
They didn't know anything about previous Ottoman law, or about the Palestinians who lived there!
 
How do you define "success"? Israel wouldn't exist if not for massive military and economic aid from the US. That sounds more like an "undead" state to me.

I agree that Israel was poorly planned out, but I think that those issues have been put to rest by the success that the Israeli state has made in the years that it has existed. Not to mention that any land dispossession that may have occurred was not without precedent.

Furthermore, none of this justifies the ongoing Arab terrorism against the Israeli state.
 
How do you define "success"? Israel wouldn't exist if not for massive military and economic aid from the US. That sounds more like an "undead" state to me.

"Success" as in repelling adversaries continually since independence.

I'm not sure that the USSR would have done so well in Eastern Europe of the early Cold War were it not for U.S. miltary and economic support during the Second World War.
 
"Success" as in repelling adversaries continually since independence.

I'm not sure that the USSR would have done so well in Eastern Europe of the early Cold War were it not for U.S. miltary and economic support during the Second World War.

That was help from an ally. Israel has been kept alive only with US aid.
 
I don't think Abdul has said anything which needs such an emotional response, I should add.


Empror Mike, Abdul beat me to it but Patagonia is certainly much better off than Israel, at least in agricultural terms and since Israel doesn't have much in the way of minerals either how badly could Patagonia compare in that sense? On the other hand, that was part of an established nation and had been since the early 19th Century.

Arguably Argentina would have been a poor choice also because it displayed a greater tendency than most of Latin America as a melting pot of sorts and assimilation was not the Zionist point.



The Sandman, actually Eilat apparently did not have a population of relevance, being little more than a border outpost in 1948. It's positon on the international borders with Jordan and Egypt and access to the Red Sea gave it potential importance not achieved by that time.



Abdul, your point about how the European powers carved up the region and left any Syrians with claims in Israel on the wrong side of the imperial borders is a new one and one worth looking into. The precise degree to which that played a role after 1918 is unclear to me but may have been important.

I might note that in 1947 the Jews owned 7% of the land in British Palestine, partially due to British blocking of land sales, the Arabs owned 12% and 81% had no clear owner whatsoever, partially due to reasons Abdul gives and partially because much land was not worth owning. The Negev Desert primarily. Which went to Israel because the Jews behaved intelligently as regards the UN Commission and offered sensible proposals regarding that nearly uninhabited piece of land whereas the Mufti, leader of the Palestinians by default and by murdering any possible rivals, refused to make the slightest effort towards the UN. The Jews did not own the Negev. No one did. Also Beersheeba was outside the area assigned to the Jews in 1947.

Israel would certainly exist without US aid which did not begin seriously until after 1967. Which was also after Israel became a secret nuclear power. Whether there was a connection or not...

Since the Cold War ended I might note that US relations with Israel hit their low point shortly after Netanyahu actually proposed ENDING US aid to Israel.

Which made no sense to me. If a nation doesn't need your tax dollars, I say you don't need to send them those tax dollars. Instead Clinton sought to replace Netanyahu(who I don't like) with someone more inclined to take US tax dollars.:confused:
 
Does anyone know why the southern border of Turkey is where it is? Look at a map and see if you can figure it out - much of the flat region was more connected with Syria in the Ottoman period, and was administratively in the province of Aleppo - but there is a good reason for why it is where it is...
 

ninebucks

Banned
Does anyone know why the southern border of Turkey is where it is? Look at a map and see if you can figure it out - much of the flat region was more connected with Syria in the Ottoman period, and was administratively in the province of Aleppo - but there is a good reason for why it is where it is...

Are you refering to the Turkish territory surrounding Antakya (Antioch)? As an educated guess I would say that it is an area of some nautical importance.

Or are you refering to the fact that the Turkish border is some hundred or so miles south of the mountain range that would logically make up its border? Well, I suppose that having that mountain range there would act as a second border defence against any possible Syrian invasion (although I don't know whether that would have been considered a threat).

Although I am pretty much just stabbing blindly into the dark here.
 
Are you refering to the Turkish territory surrounding Antakya (Antioch)? As an educated guess I would say that it is an area of some nautical importance.

Or are you refering to the fact that the Turkish border is some hundred or so miles south of the mountain range that would logically make up its border? Well, I suppose that having that mountain range there would act as a second border defence against any possible Syrian invasion (although I don't know whether that would have been considered a threat).

Although I am pretty much just stabbing blindly into the dark here.

I mean the part about the 100 miles south of the mountain range thing. There's a very specific reason...
 

Leo Caesius

Banned
Does anyone know why the southern border of Turkey is where it is? Look at a map and see if you can figure it out - much of the flat region was more connected with Syria in the Ottoman period, and was administratively in the province of Aleppo - but there is a good reason for why it is where it is...
I thought it was because the people of Kahramanmaraş, Gaziantep, and Şanlıurfa managed to keep the French from occupying the region?

Does this have anything to do with the old Orient Express, which ran for a stretch more or less just north of the modern border, between Aleppo and Mosul?
 
I thought it was because the people of Kahramanmara?, Gaziantep, and ?anl?urfa managed to keep the French from occupying the region?

Does this have anything to do with the old Orient Express, which ran for a stretch more or less just north of the modern border, between Aleppo and Mosul?

Yes, it's because of the Baghdad Railway, which the Ottomans had just built - the border was placed just south of it, the Turks arguing they paid for it, they should get it.
 
Let's not forget that the border between Turkey and Syria underwent another adjustment at the beginning of WWII, specifically the area including Antioch.
 
Top