I used to think that but then i learnt from the Jewish chick in my class. You probably would have been better off with Arafat because you can be opinionated on the personalities, but she kept getting marked down for being too biased in her analysises.walter88 said:it was very dissapointing that i didn't do this topic at school. iwanted to do it but my teacher didn't. it's pretty hard to understand this topic if your not involved, and to understand the conflict u need to understand the people. i would have been good in this topic because i come from the region and i know a lot about it. :burn:
Yup, blame it all on Israel... that's why as soon as the nation of Israel was re-established in the Judean-Samarian region, the Arabs started attacking (with Israel winning). That's why Israel is considered to be the only "free" nation in the Middle East, with Palestinians represented in the Knesset. That's why Israel gives more than US$100 million in aid to the PA per month. That's why Israel is committed to give up her rightful land for "peace". That's why Israel is the second most developed nation in Asia, with people from many nationalities and religions living side by side. Your bias is absolutely stupid and shows your ignorance.Cabrello said:oh dear god...how cld they ask about that war....I really wanted something on foreign influences and all...48 war was a worthless piece of shit, other than the creation of israel i dont think it did anything, especialy given the 'conflict' they wanted us to refer to were 56 and 67 which were started by israel .
56 was fought for england and frances motives
67 is a million times more important in its own right
73 was the only one started by the arabs (not counting 48, Israel are the invaders on Arab land) but more importantly question bookended it at 1967
I spent the entire thing chucking a mel gibson and saying the conflicts were a result of zionist expansionism and pretty much used exclusively arab historians... i have my biases