Israel rejects U.S. call for 1967 borders

[samurai]

All foolish insults. No FACTS!

Where is the meat?

Second that.

(for the sake of ambiguity )

[luckizuchinni]

Dr. Krauthammer is way off base here and giving an illogical argument.

Although you are certainly a very intelligent fellow and write some excellent posts. I'm afraid that Dr. Krauthammer pretty much always has you beat.

Instead of just stating that he "has me beat," care to give any reasoning behind your post (oh, not that I am intelligent. I will concede you that point! )

I have not read everything the good doctor has written, but in this article, his argument is both specious and silly. Inferring that unless there is a mutual agreement that somehow Israel will be stuck with the pre 1967 border is patently wrong. Simple logic would indicate that Israel will not just give up on this if the Palestinians would not come to an agreement with them. If there is no agreement, then the existing borders will be maintained. What possible reason would Israel reward Palestinians intransigence with giving them what they want?

I think anyone who could think this would be the case greatly underestimates the Israeli people, and others who have underestimated them have been proven wrong before.

[Ulysses G.]

Actually, I agree with Dr. Krauthammer (as usual). If Obama meant what he said the first time - and I think that he did - the 1967 borders are the starting lines for negotiations and if the Palestinian Arabs would not agree to proposed changes, it would be the Israelis who would be blamed for "obstructing" peace talks.

I know that Obama did change his tune after he saw which way the wind was blowing, but you do not need a weather man to tell you that he changes his mind on "firm" commitments all of the time. IMHO his word means little when it comes to freinds, enemies or allies.

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[siamiam]

Although you are certainly a very intelligent fellow and write some excellent posts. I'm afraid that Dr. Krauthammer pretty much always has you beat.

I've been listening to and watching Charles Krauthammer for years. In reading LZ's posts on this thread, I think LZ is likely Dr. K's equal, at least in the subject we are discussing.

Simple logic would indicate that Israel will not just give up on this if the Palestinians would not come to an agreement with them. If there is no agreement, then the existing borders will be maintained.

If Israel wanted, they could create a Palestinian country unilaterally without consulting anyone. They could do that weather or not the Palestinians, or a faction thereof, recognize the nation of Israel. The Israeli's could wage war on the country of Palestine just as easily as they can on the territory of Palestine. It might even be better for Israel to proceed in that way. As it is now, Israel is viewed by much of the western world as an oppressor. If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'? If a Palestinian country ends up working for both parties, then so much the better. If the Israeli's are truly agreeable to a two country solution, then this seems like a win-win situation for Israel.

Edited May 28, 2011 by siamiam

[siamiam]

The United States has spent an amount of money that approaches 3 trillion dollars, when adjusted for interest, in aid to Israel, other countries effected by the conflict, and prosecuting the war on terror.

A century and a half ago, the United States was able to negotiate the purchase of a 'sliver' of land adjoining the southwestern part of the US border, from Mexico. It is called the Gadsden Purchase. They did this in order to acquire the path necessary for building a transcontinental railway.

Is there an amount of money that Egypt would accept in return for a piece of Sanai land bordering Israel?

[geriatrickid]

The United States has spent an amount of money that approaches 3 trillion dollars, when adjusted for interest, in aid to Israel, other countries effected by the conflict, and prosecuting the war on terror.

A century and a half ago, the United States was able to negotiate the purchase of a 'sliver' of land adjoining the southwestern part of the US border, from Mexico. It is called the Gadsden Purchase. They did this in order to acquire the path necessary for building a transcontinental railway.

Is there an amount of money that Egypt would accept in return for a piece of Sanai land bordering Israel?

Attempting to obtain land from Egypt would create a massive backlash from the locals. The Egyptians negotiated hard to get the land back and they have no reason to give it up again. Egypt is not in any position to sell off lands now anyway.

Note too that the Sinai is in large part DMZ and is the land of the Muzziena. They have had a historical presence in the Sinai and they would object to the loss of their lands even if they are not fully occupying them. Why should the beleagured Bedouins have to give up their lands for anyone? They didn't start the wars and they don't want an influx of more foreigners. I know I sound like a broken record, but the Bedouins and their land rights as well as their individual rights are being neglected in the border dispute. In some cases, the Israelis and the Palestinian arabs are laying claim to Bedouin lands. If people were really that focused on justice, they would recognize that a large part of the west bank claimed by the palestinian arabs belongs to the Bedouins. Both the Israelis and the palestinian arabs should get off of their land.

If you are proposing the Northern Sinai, please think again. It is a cold, barren place. There are mountains and lots of rocks. It may surprise people to know that it gets awfully cold in the region with winter temperatures falling to well below zero (-10C to -20C).

Edited May 28, 2011 by geriatrickid

[siamiam]

The United States has spent an amount of money that approaches 3 trillion dollars, when adjusted for interest, in aid to Israel, other countries effected by the conflict, and prosecuting the war on terror.

A century and a half ago, the United States was able to negotiate the purchase of a 'sliver' of land adjoining the southwestern part of the US border, from Mexico. It is called the Gadsden Purchase. They did this in order to acquire the path necessary for building a transcontinental railway.

Is there an amount of money that Egypt would accept in return for a piece of Sanai land bordering Israel?

Attempting to obtain land from Egypt would create a massive backlash from the locals. The Egyptians negotiated hard to get the land back and they have no reason to give it up again. Egypt is not in any position to sell off lands now anyway.

Note too that the Sinai is in large part DMZ and is the land of the Muzziena. They have had a historical presence in the Sinai and they would object to the loss of their lands even if they are not fully occupying them. Why should the beleagured Bedouins have to give up their lands for anyone? They didn't start the wars and they don't want an influx of more foreigners. I know I sound like a broken record, but the Bedouins and their land rights as well as their individual rights are being neglected in the border dispute. In some cases, the Israelis and the Palestinian arabs are laying claim to Bedouin lands. If people were really that focused on justice, they would recognize that a large part of the west bank claimed by the palestinian arabs belongs to the Bedouins. Both the Israelis and the palestinian arabs should get off of their land.

If you are proposing the Northern Sinai, please think again. It is a cold, barren place. There are mountains and lots of rocks. It may surprise people to know that it gets awfully cold in the region with winter temperatures falling to well below zero (-10C to -20C).

No, not a broken record at all. Quite enlightening actually.

Not a proposal on my part; more like grasping at straws. I realize if there were an easy solution to this conflict, it would have been arrived at a long time ago. I have been to the Sinai and know that how you describe it is accurate, but I am from the Mohave desert of California, so the Sinai seems like a paradise to me.

[Ulysses G.]

If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'?

They would say the same thing that they have said since Israel gave back Gaza and after all the suicide bombers, rockets and mortars: Blame the Jews!

Edited May 28, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Steely Dan]

If Israel wanted, they could create a Palestinian country unilaterally without consulting anyone. They could do that weather or not the Palestinians, or a faction thereof, recognize the nation of Israel. The Israeli's could wage war on the country of Palestine just as easily as they can on the territory of Palestine. It might even be better for Israel to proceed in that way. As it is now, Israel is viewed by much of the western world as an oppressor. If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'? If a Palestinian country ends up working for both parties, then so much the better. If the Israeli's are truly agreeable to a two country solution, then this seems like a win-win situation for Israel.

Israel could unilaterally pull out of land as they did with Gaza only to be met by a hail of missiles and floodgates opening for every wannabe jihaddist to set up camp there. If Israel pulled back from the Jordan river terrorists would flood over from Jordan as sure as night follows day, even if it meant overthrowing the Jordanian regime to facilitate this. The same applies with the Golan, the same applied when Israel pulled out of Northern Lebannon. Remember the word Palestinian is just slight of hand to induce you to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that granting Palestine a state will stop hostilities - other Arabs from around the middle east would flood in aided and abetted by enough local radicals so there is and never has been any choice for Israel other than to maintain defensible borders.

[siamiam]

If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'?

They would say the same thing that they have said since Israel gave back Gaza and after all the suicide bombers, rockets and mortars: Blame the Jews!

"viable country" is the key. Currently, what the Palestinians in Gaza have is not a viable country.

Edited May 29, 2011 by siamiam

[siamiam]

If Israel wanted, they could create a Palestinian country unilaterally without consulting anyone. They could do that weather or not the Palestinians, or a faction thereof, recognize the nation of Israel. The Israeli's could wage war on the country of Palestine just as easily as they can on the territory of Palestine. It might even be better for Israel to proceed in that way. As it is now, Israel is viewed by much of the western world as an oppressor. If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'? If a Palestinian country ends up working for both parties, then so much the better. If the Israeli's are truly agreeable to a two country solution, then this seems like a win-win situation for Israel.

Israel could unilaterally pull out of land as they did with Gaza only to be met by a hail of missiles and floodgates opening for every wannabe jihaddist to set up camp there. If Israel pulled back from the Jordan river terrorists would flood over from Jordan as sure as night follows day, even if it meant overthrowing the Jordanian regime to facilitate this. The same applies with the Golan, the same applied when Israel pulled out of Northern Lebannon. Remember the word Palestinian is just slight of hand to induce you to arrive at the incorrect conclusion that granting Palestine a state will stop hostilities - other Arabs from around the middle east would flood in aided and abetted by enough local radicals so there is and never has been any choice for Israel other than to maintain defensible borders.

I didn't say anything about Israel pulling back from the Jordan River, or any other location. I am not a proponent of the '1967 borders' as being a final point of demarcation between the two countries of a possible two state solution. I never have been. There are so many variables and possibilities for determining final borders that I've never felt I had enough information to state what I think they should be.

What do you think they should be? That is a serious question, I would like to know what you think about it.

[Steely Dan]

My guess is that there is little chance that the "Arab spring" will end in democracy in any country in the region other than Israel - which already has it.

[/b]

Egypt now has a Nazi party again since the ouster of Mubarak, persecution of Coptic Christians has risen alarmingly and the Muslim brotherhood announced their intention to bring in Sharia law. Some democracy! Still this hasn't stopped Obama writing out a cheque for $1 billion to help Egypt's democratic development and a combined $42 billion from the G8 to help democracy throughout the middle east. The lunatics truly have taken over the asylum.

[luckizuchinni]

My guess is that there is little chance that the "Arab spring" will end in democracy in any country in the region other than Israel - which already has it.

[/b]

Egypt now has a Nazi party again since the ouster of Mubarak, persecution of Coptic Christians has risen alarmingly and the Muslim brotherhood announced their intention to bring in Sharia law. Some democracy! Still this hasn't stopped Obama writing out a cheque for $1 billion to help Egypt's democratic development and a combined $42 billion from the G8 to help democracy throughout the middle east. The lunatics truly have taken over the asylum.

This has been my fear since the Arab Spring started.

As an American, it is not PC to stand against any democracy movement, and dictators are bad guys. But Mubarak was an ally, and he did support Israel in many way. Was he corrupt and despotic? Sure, but he served our purposes. Right now, I am sure that many in the West would rather have the Soviets/Russians still in Afghanistan and the Taliban merely being an afterthought.

With a Taliban-type theocracy Arab-Springing up in Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Libya, etc, I don't think that would bode too well for the West.

[Ulysses G.]

At least Mubarak was OUR a--hole!

[Steely Dan]

I didn't say anything about Israel pulling back from the Jordan River, or any other location. I am not a proponent of the '1967 borders' as being a final point of demarcation between the two countries of a possible two state solution. I never have been. There are so many variables and possibilities for determining final borders that I've never felt I had enough information to state what I think they should be.

What do you think they should be? That is a serious question, I would like to know what you think about it.

Actually we are dealing with the question of partitioning a tiny area as it is so there is not much room for manouvre. I posted a video earlier explaining what Israel regard as defensible borders which I agree with. Apart from keeping control of the west bank of the Jordan river and the Golan heights there is also the consideration that going back to pre 67 borders would leave Israel some 9 miles wide at the narrowest point, which means the Country could be easily bisected there so there would have to be parts of the West bank which would need to remain in Israeli control in exchange for land somewhere. Israel nearly lost the 73 war due to the threat of Syria on the Golan, which was eventually captured at great cost so I can't see Israel giving it back or moving from the Jordan unless a large permanent U.N force was stationed there.

My personal view is the land is too small to divide whilst giving Israel defensible borders but if it's going to be tried a large permanent UN/U.S/Nato presence would be needed. Really though instead of throwing all the onus on Israel it has to be asked why Jordan, Syria and Egypt have refused to absorb their ethnically identical brethren into their own comparatively vast Countries? As an aside the arabs in Golan actually rioted in 1920 when detatched from Syria to come under the British mandate area of Palestine, some Palestinian nationalism!

[Ulysses G.]

Don't forget that Jordan was built on the land that was supposed to go to the Palestinian Arabs in the first place.

As Jordan's king said: "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."

Edited May 29, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[luckizuchinni]

Don't forget that Jordan was built on the land that was supposed to go to the Palestinian Arabs in the first place.

As Jordan's king said: "Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan."

Jordan is by far my favorite Arab country for a number of reasons, and I have spent time in the home of a very wealthy Jordanian Palestinian (with beautiful views of the Dead Sea and the Israeli border). Even he admitted that the Jordanian government doesn't want the Palestinians in their territory. THey give lip service to the Palestinian cause but would really rather the whole issue went away.

[siamiam]

I didn't say anything about Israel pulling back from the Jordan River, or any other location. I am not a proponent of the '1967 borders' as being a final point of demarcation between the two countries of a possible two state solution. I never have been. There are so many variables and possibilities for determining final borders that I've never felt I had enough information to state what I think they should be.

What do you think they should be? That is a serious question, I would like to know what you think about it.

Actually we are dealing with the question of partitioning a tiny area as it is so there is not much room for manouvre. I posted a video earlier explaining what Israel regard as defensible borders which I agree with. Apart from keeping control of the west bank of the Jordan river and the Golan heights there is also the consideration that going back to pre 67 borders would leave Israel some 9 miles wide at the narrowest point, which means the Country could be easily bisected there so there would have to be parts of the West bank which would need to remain in Israeli control in exchange for land somewhere. Israel nearly lost the 73 war due to the threat of Syria on the Golan, which was eventually captured at great cost so I can't see Israel giving it back or moving from the Jordan unless a large permanent U.N force was stationed there.

My personal view is the land is too small to divide whilst giving Israel defensible borders but if it's going to be tried a large permanent UN/U.S/Nato presence would be needed. Really though instead of throwing all the onus on Israel it has to be asked why Jordan, Syria and Egypt have refused to absorb their ethnically identical brethren into their own comparatively vast Countries? As an aside the arabs in Golan actually rioted in 1920 when detatched from Syria to come under the British mandate area of Palestine, some Palestinian nationalism!

Interesting post, thanks for taking the time to make it. For myself, all I can comfortably say right now is that I don't feel the total area of a future Palestinian country would need to be any larger than what the combined area of the Palestinian territories are right now. I feel that the total area of these territories is large enough right now to be a viable country, if it were located in an advantageous way. I am unable to view video on my computer, so I can't use the link that you provided earlier. I have been able to look at many maps, showing the various 'lines' of 1947 to the present.

Edited May 29, 2011 by siamiam

[samurai]

If you are proposing the Northern Sinai, please think again. It is a cold, barren place. There are mountains and lots of rocks. It may surprise people to know that it gets awfully cold in the region with winter temperatures falling to well below zero (-10C to -20C).

At what you are hinting here?

Sounds like a climate same as the climate in the region that gave the Ashkenazim their name.

Edited May 29, 2011 by samurai

[geriatrickid]

If the Palestinians were to gain their own viable country and afterwards be stupid enough to make war on Israel, what would the world think then, if Israel were to march in and drive the Palestinians over their distant border forever and say 'case closed'?

They would say the same thing that they have said since Israel gave back Gaza and after all the suicide bombers, rockets and mortars: Blame the Jews!

"viable country" is the key. Currently, what the Palestinians in Gaza have is not a viable country.

Not viable now, but home to some of the region's most beautiful beaches and I dare say some wonderful surf conditions. There is a rather endearing story of Israel Pashowitz and his crazy dad, Doc Pashowitz (they are a surfing legacy) going to the Gaza border to provide surfboards to the surfers that had been cut off because of the border dispute. Gaza has the potential to become one of the most beautiful resort areas if only the locals could think big. Infortunately, having hotels serving alcohol or scantily clad Europeans walking on the beaches isn't in the economic development plans of Hamas. Gaza could also become an important shipping destination with Port facilities if there was a real peace. I genuinely believe that Gaza has the potential to be an economic driver of the Palestinian state if only the religious nuts would <deleted> off. There are alot of Palestinian arabs that have that vision too. All they need is some freedom and peace. Tunisia and Morocco did it with their beach destinations and before their civil insurrections were making alot of money from tourism. Gaza could be Europe's new Phuket.

[Steely Dan]

Gaza could become Europe's new Phuket!

Yes, and if Hamas felt totally redundant they could become the jetski mafia. Though I fear this is just a pipedream as the Mossad remote controlled shark would kill the punters.

[Wallaby]

Gaza could become Europe's new Phuket!

Yes, and if Hamas felt totally redundant they could become the jetski mafia. Though I fear this is just a pipedream as the Mossad remote controlled shark would kill the punters.

Could we get a couple of them for Phuket and Pattaya?

[Exsexyman]

President Barack Hussein Obama the Capitulator will go down in history with Neville Chamberlain the appeaser of fascist Germany.

Put him out with the rubbish in 2012!

Just come onto this thread. Lets address the elephant in the room Ulysses. There is a black man in the white house, get over it! Barack HUSSAIN Obama? What point are are you trying to make? You sound like your hero Glenn Beck. "Put him out with the rubbish' That remark says far more about you than it does about Barack Obama. Shame on you. Any opinion you have on this topic is rendered irrelevant now that we all know where you are coming from. Indeed.

[Ulysses G.]

Lets address the elephant in the room Ulysses. There is a black man in the white house, get over it!

Don't be silly man. My feelings about the great Capitulator have nothing to do with him being part black and actually I made the mistake of voting for the guy, so that nonsense just does not fly. Why do your ilk always try to cry racism for no reason instead of addressing the facts?

He has ignored the will of the American people since being elected and lied about what he was going to do to get to the White House in the first place. Bin the Bozo in 2012!

Edited May 30, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[Ulysses G.]

Israel is a democracy and people have many opinions including the armed forces and people in the government.

Meir Dagan is welcome to his opinion, just like any other citizen, but that does not mean that he is right.

[Wallaby]

Up-Country, you could have Jesus himself saying those things but some will continue to keep their head in the sand.

[up-country_sinclair]

You're probably right, Wallaby.

But Netanyahu's actions are so recklessly dangerous we can only hope for someone in Israel to take control of the situation.

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Pretty much every democracy has former government officials who do not agree with government policy. Everyone has an opinion. That is why they are called democracies.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.

[up-country_sinclair]

So just to clarify, your position is that newspaper columnist Krauthhammer has "the situation pegged", but the former head of Mossad merely has an opinion.

edit for spelling

Edited June 5, 2011 by up-country_sinclair

[Ulysses G.]

Yes and there are plenty of Israel officials and military leaders that agree with Dr. Krauthhammer's opinion too.

Edited June 5, 2011 by Ulysses G.