1947 partition?

That's absurd.

"Defensible borders is nonsense" when completely surrounded by enemies?

"Defensible borders is nonsense" when completely surrounded by enemies?

What a sweet little video clip. Love the animations, so professional.

Funny how the Golan Heights are not mentioned. 1100 square km of Syria effectively annexed and under occupation since 1967, and ethnically cleansed of 100,00 people. Also supposedly being occupied as part of Israel's "defensible borders", but in reality a bargaining chip to secure peace with Syria. For once Israeli intransigence and cold feet scotched such a deal in 2000.

Resolution 242 does not state the requirement for "defensible borders", but highlights "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Also to avoid the selective quoting from the resolution one should point out that the Resolution emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called in plain language for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

Your sweet little video highlights mortar fire and SAMs being held back by occupying the West Bank. A more significant threat to Israel in the real world comes from slightly longer range and more deadly weapons now commonnly owned by potential/actual aggresors. So would you suggest that Israel pushes its boundaries beyond the range of all major missile threats? See below for Iran's suite of missiles.

Occupation of the West Bank is probably far more of a security threat to Israel than 1967 or 1947 boundaries. If peace is secured in the Middle East the size and shape of countries is as significant as the Fulda Gap, Parrot's Beak or Monaghan Salient are today.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/isrealis-differ-on-defensible-borders/?_r=0

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qFjXH6L9p0w/Tjt5HqxeUgI/AAAAAAAADbU/K354597LjOA/s320/Iran+Missiles2.jpg

1947 partition?

That's absurd.

As I said 1947 plus some recognition of today's realities on the ground is hardly a stretch for achieving a long term solution and peace for Israel and palestine. See map below:

1947 partition?

That's absurd.

As I said 1947 plus some recognition of today's realities on the ground is hardly a stretch for achieving a long term solution and peace for Israel and palestine. See map below:

The actual starting point is 1967. Not 1947. Getting into talks is hard enough without a ridiculous suggestion like 1947.

1947 partition?

That's absurd.

As I said 1947 plus some recognition of today's realities on the ground is hardly a stretch for achieving a long term solution and peace for Israel and palestine. See map below:

The actual starting point is 1967. Not 1947. Getting into talks is hard enough without a ridiculous suggestion like 1947.

But you know as well as I do that 1967 boundaries have been superseded by events on the ground and that a land swap will be part of any deal, with the likelihood that loss of land in the West Bank to existing Israeli settlements will result in Palestinian gains in the north and south, most likely in some of the designated areas from 1947.

Getting away from the semantics, the key point is that a negotiated 2 state settlement is the only just and thus sustainable solution, but will only be achieved when both sides are prepared to make some concessions.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

You are totally wrong about that. Check out typical opinions of right wing American Christian fundamentalists.

OK, Jingthing, I amend... though I'm a little surprised to find you appealing to such a group for support.

"The only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis, overseas Jews, and right-wing Christian fundamentalists." (I omitted "American" as I guess other RWCF hold similar views)

As against the rest of the world?

Obviously possession of the settlements will be on the negotiating table, if things ever get that far. But the argument of possession hardly applies for post WWII land grabs as it did for 19th Century colonising (which the absorption of California into the US was).

"Defensible borders" is a nonsense in today's asymmetric warfare and boundaries become meaningless squiggles on maps once tensions ate removed.

"Once tensions are removed?" Who would be foolish enough to trade defensible borders for the very remote possibility that after more than 100 years of hate, hostilities and refusal to make peace - no matter how generous the terms - the Arabs would give up their quest to push the Jews into the sea?

You say that a two state solution will only be possible when "both sides are ready to make some concessions." Only one side refuses to make concessions and only one side refuses to make counter offers to Israel's peace plans. Only one side does not want peace and has rejected it time after time. The Palestinians.

The Palestinians have had numerous opportunities to create an independent state, but have repeatedly rejected the offers. In 1937, 1939, 1947, 1979, the Oslo agreement in the 1990s, 2000 and 2008 they said no. From 1948 to 1967, Israel did not control the West Bank. The Palestinians could have demanded an independent state from the Jordanians, but they didn't. The Palestinians have spurned each and every one of of these opportunities.

Just recently, in 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered to withdraw from 97 percent of the West Bank and 100 percent of the Gaza Strip. On top of that, he agreed to dismantle 63 settlements. In exchange for the 3 percent annexation of the West Bank, Israel said it would give up territory in the Negev that would increase the size of the Gaza territory by roughly a third. Barak also made concessions on Jerusalem, agreeing that Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem would become the capital of the new state. The Palestinians would maintain control over their holy places and have religious sovereignty over the Temple Mount. The answer was no and no counteroffers were presented.

In 2008, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert extended a peace proposal to Abbas that would have created two nation-states. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn from almost the entire West Bank and partitioned Jerusalem on a demographic basis. Once again, Abbas rejected the offer and presented no counteroffer to consider.

Trade defensible borders for the vague possibility that the Palestinians will cease hostilities, stop the duplicity and - for once - live up to their side of the bargain? Not very likely. It is time for the Palestinians to make some concessions.

"Defensible borders is nonsense" when completely surrounded by enemies?

What a sweet little video clip. Love the animations, so professional.

Funny how the Golan Heights are not mentioned. 1100 square km of Syria effectively annexed and under occupation since 1967, and ethnically cleansed of 100,00 people. Also supposedly being occupied as part of Israel's "defensible borders", but in reality a bargaining chip to secure peace with Syria. For once Israeli intransigence and cold feet scotched such a deal in 2000.

Resolution 242 does not state the requirement for "defensible borders", but highlights "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Also to avoid the selective quoting from the resolution one should point out that the Resolution emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called in plain language for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

Your sweet little video highlights mortar fire and SAMs being held back by occupying the West Bank. A more significant threat to Israel in the real world comes from slightly longer range and more deadly weapons now commonnly owned by potential/actual aggresors. So would you suggest that Israel pushes its boundaries beyond the range of all major missile threats? See below for Iran's suite of missiles.

Occupation of the West Bank is probably far more of a security threat to Israel than 1967 or 1947 boundaries. If peace is secured in the Middle East the size and shape of countries is as significant as the Fulda Gap, Parrot's Beak or Monaghan Salient are today.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/isrealis-differ-on-defensible-borders/?_r=0

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qFjXH6L9p0w/Tjt5HqxeUgI/AAAAAAAADbU/K354597LjOA/s320/Iran+Missiles2.jpg

If you look back at the history of the Arab Israeli wars you should realize the Syrians posed an existential threat to Israel through their presence on the Golan Heights. Israel managed to capture these at great cost and will not give them back lightly. To argue the most serious threat to Israel is long range missiles is frankly not an argument for putting short range ones within range.

Finally, handing back the Golan is a complete non-sequitur seeing as there is no clear authority to hand them back to. Coming to think of it this was always the case with Assad's minority sect only ever being as secure as their ability to repress the majority.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

You are totally wrong about that. Check out typical opinions of right wing American Christian fundamentalists.

OK, Jingthing, I amend... though I'm a little surprised to find you appealing to such a group for support.

"The only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis, overseas Jews, and right-wing Christian fundamentalists." (I omitted "American" as I guess other RWCF hold similar views)

As against the rest of the world?

Obviously possession of the settlements will be on the negotiating table, if things ever get that far. But the argument of possession hardly applies for post WWII land grabs as it did for 19th Century colonising (which the absorption of California into the US was).

Please be careful in the assumptions you make. I have said many times on this forum over the years that the West Bank settlements are illegal. It's bizarre to me why you would assume that just because I corrected you about your false statement that I personally was pro settlement. Also your original statement was loaded and incomplete. Not ALL Israelis think the settlements are legal and I reckon the majority of American Jews think they are illegal. I know you think Israel is toast are think Israel should have never happened. Fine. That's your opinion. But do not assume that just because a person supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, or because they are a Jew, or an Israeli that they automatically support all of the policies of the Israeli government, past, present, or future. Cheers.

The argument that possession is nine points of the law (to correct you a tad, UG) is rubbish, at least in this case.

As far as I can see, the only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis and overseas Jews.

You are totally wrong about that. Check out typical opinions of right wing American Christian fundamentalists.

OK, Jingthing, I amend... though I'm a little surprised to find you appealing to such a group for support.

"The only people who argue that Israeli possession of the settlements is within the law are Israelis, overseas Jews, and right-wing Christian fundamentalists." (I omitted "American" as I guess other RWCF hold similar views)

As against the rest of the world?

Obviously possession of the settlements will be on the negotiating table, if things ever get that far. But the argument of possession hardly applies for post WWII land grabs as it did for 19th Century colonising (which the absorption of California into the US was).

Please be careful in the assumptions you make. I have said many times on this forum over the years that the West Bank settlements are illegal. It's bizarre to me why you would assume that just because I corrected you about your false statement that I personally was pro settlement. Also your original statement was loaded and incomplete. Not ALL Israelis think the settlements are legal and I reckon the majority of American Jews think they are illegal. I know you think Israel is toast are think Israel should have never happened. Fine. That's your opinion. But do not assume that just because a person supports the existence of Israel as a Jewish state, or because they are a Jew, or an Israeli that they automatically support all of the policies of the Israeli government, past, present, or future. Cheers.

Do you see the word ALL in my amended statement, Jingthing? Or even in the original statement?

That is an assumption of yours. It is absurd to think that any relatively large group of people hold homogeneous views about this or almost any other political subject.

As you can see, my original statement was not false, and the fact that you made a correction suggests to me that you in fact are pro settlement. Clearly I too had made an incorrect deduction.

"Defensible borders is nonsense" when completely surrounded by enemies?

What a sweet little video clip. Love the animations, so professional.

Funny how the Golan Heights are not mentioned. 1100 square km of Syria effectively annexed and under occupation since 1967, and ethnically cleansed of 100,00 people. Also supposedly being occupied as part of Israel's "defensible borders", but in reality a bargaining chip to secure peace with Syria. For once Israeli intransigence and cold feet scotched such a deal in 2000.

Resolution 242 does not state the requirement for "defensible borders", but highlights "safe and recognised boundaries free from threats or acts of force". Also to avoid the selective quoting from the resolution one should point out that the Resolution emphasises “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war” and called in plain language for the “withdrawal of Israel armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict.”

Your sweet little video highlights mortar fire and SAMs being held back by occupying the West Bank. A more significant threat to Israel in the real world comes from slightly longer range and more deadly weapons now commonnly owned by potential/actual aggresors. So would you suggest that Israel pushes its boundaries beyond the range of all major missile threats? See below for Iran's suite of missiles.

Occupation of the West Bank is probably far more of a security threat to Israel than 1967 or 1947 boundaries. If peace is secured in the Middle East the size and shape of countries is as significant as the Fulda Gap, Parrot's Beak or Monaghan Salient are today.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/27/isrealis-differ-on-defensible-borders/?_r=0

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-qFjXH6L9p0w/Tjt5HqxeUgI/AAAAAAAADbU/K354597LjOA/s320/Iran+Missiles2.jpg

If you look back at the history of the Arab Israeli wars you should realize the Syrians posed an existential threat to Israel through their presence on the Golan Heights. Israel managed to capture these at great cost and will not give them back lightly. To argue the most serious threat to Israel is long range missiles is frankly not an argument for putting short range ones within range.

Finally, handing back the Golan is a complete non-sequitur seeing as there is no clear authority to hand them back to. Coming to think of it this was always the case with Assad's minority sect only ever being as secure as their ability to repress the majority.

From your extensive military experience pray illuminate us on how possession of the Golan Heights ( a chunk of sovereign Syrian territory) represents an existential threat to Israel.

You have an interesting take on "at great cost". While no death is without a family tragedy, the seizure of the Golan Heights in 1967 was achieved with remarkably few casualties, and as such is still taught as a classic all-arms coup de main operation. Undoubtedly Israel took heavier casualties in 1973 when they were caught on the hop by the Syrian offensive (as were the IDF forces along the Canal), but the counter-offensive was again remarkable for a low IDF casualty rate.

The way that the Golan Heights (1100 square kms of Syrian territory) are perceived is quite clear (notwithstanding their capture at such "great cost"), given their role as a bargaining option on several occasions to try and achieve peace with Syria since 1973. Have a look at the ultimately aborted deal in 2000 for more detail. The comparison with Varosha in Cyprus is uncanny, with a similar mix of military occupation, ethnic cleansing, looting and a degree of wanton destruction, but ultimately a bargaining chip.

Mortars, SAMs and short range missiles present no existential threat to Israel. Medium to long rage missiles do and thus defensible borders need to be extended 200kms, 400kms or 2000kms from Israel's current boundaries? How about the entire Middle East is occupied by the IDF to achieve such "defensible boundaries"? As previously noted the only way that Israel will ever have secure boundaries is to come to a settlement with its neighbours and the Palestinians. Israel has enjoyed largely secure borders with Jordan since 1994 and with Egypt since 1979 when the respective peace treaties were arrived at with 2 of its neighbours. The long running sore of the West Bank is probably a greater security threat to Israel than a possible strategic plus.

As previously noted the only way that Israel will ever have secure boundaries is to come to a settlement with its neighbours and the Palestinians.

That would only be true if the Palestinians would agree to sign a peace treaty in the first place - which they have refused repeatedly - and not turn the land into an armed camp used to wage further war on Israel. If you look at what the terrorist group Hamas - the democratically elected leaders of Gaza - have done, a realistic settlement does not look promising.

Left-wing American and Israeli groups such as J-Street and Americans for Peace Now relentlessly proclaim the necessity of a "two-state solution," while endlessly castigating Jewish settlers as "obstacles to peace." But with a Palestinian/Hamas state on Israel's eastern and western borders, Hezbollah to the north in Lebanon, and Iran looming ever more menacingly to the east just beyond an increasingly unstable Jordan, Israel's security would be in dire jeopardy.

Given these grim realities, now on full display in Gaza, "Land for Peace" is nothing but a recipe for the annihilation of Israel.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/land_for_peace_-_or_war.html#ixzz2aLzadTmg

As previously noted the only way that Israel will ever have secure boundaries is to come to a settlement with its neighbours and the Palestinians.

That would only be true if the Palestinians would agree to sign a peace treaty in the first place - which they have refused repeatedly - and not turn the land into an armed camp used to wage further war on Israel. If you look at what the terrorist group Hamas - the democratically elected leaders of Gaza - have done, a realistic settlement does not look promising.

Left-wing American and Israeli groups such as J-Street and Americans for Peace Now relentlessly proclaim the necessity of a "two-state solution," while endlessly castigating Jewish settlers as "obstacles to peace." But with a Palestinian/Hamas state on Israel's eastern and western borders, Hezbollah to the north in Lebanon, and Iran looming ever more menacingly to the east just beyond an increasingly unstable Jordan, Israel's security would be in dire jeopardy.

Given these grim realities, now on full display in Gaza, "Land for Peace" is nothing but a recipe for the annihilation of Israel.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/11/land_for_peace_-_or_war.html#ixzz2aLzadTmg

.

And a long-term, sustainable solution instead of a 2 state option is.......?

The current armed standoff with potential foes, whose ability to present real existential threats to Israel continues apace?

Perhaps if we wait till the middle of the century the Haridim might represent the majority of Israel's electorate and fundamentalism overtakes Israel from within?

I don't know the answer and neither do you. The Israelis will have to work that out. However, insisting on doing something that could be akin to committing suicide, just because it is the fashionable solution, is not necessarily the answer either.

This morning it has been announced that talks are to start between the parties, to discuss talks about talks.

It may not be much, but it is a small step for mankind.

Now let's see who eventually sabotages the process.

The settlements are illegal, and only the most arab-hating of Jewry would say otherwise. Every time a Palestinian family is removed from their home, 4-5 more "enemies of Israel" are born. People will then say "they have already been brainwashed since they were kids to hate Israel". That is true to a degree, but simply being told "Israel is evil" isn't enough for a Palestinian youth to want to give his life to kill Israelis. It would take first-hand experience. I pray for the day Israel realizes the seeds of hate that are sown through the settlements.

Well, peace talks are happening NOW and if all goes according to plan they are scheduled to go on for many months.

While it's foolish to overly optimistic, there is a spark of hope for peace once again.

Obviously, settlements are a huge part of the talks.

People will then say "they have already been brainwashed since they were kids to hate Israel". That is true to a degree, but simply being told "Israel is evil" isn't enough for a Palestinian youth to want to give his life to kill Israelis.

Baloney. Religious hatred was enough to start murdering civilians long before the founding of Isreal, when all the Jews wanted was to live on land that they had bought legally. The Arabs started the violence in the first place - long before there were any disputed settlements - and the Arabs have refused to make peace for over a century.

It's not quite that black and white.

Early Zionists also did some hard core things but then again when you consider that the biggest leader of the Palestinians in the WW2 era, the Grand Mufti moved to Berlin and promoted genocide of European Jews with Hitler, you have to see that beefs are justified on both sides.

I also think there is racism on both sides with some factions being more extremely racist, but my opinion is that objectively the racism is more severe and more widespread on the Palestinian side.

Now racism is not unusual in war situations. For example, anyone can look at American WW2 racist war propaganda about the Japanese. In today's era, Japan and the USA are extremely close friends, so that kind of war fueled racism can be overcome.

Can both sides EVER move beyond the ugly past and present?

Got me!

Early Zionists also did some hard core things but then again when you consider that the biggest leader of the Palestinians in the WW2 era, the Grand Mufti moved to Berlin and promoted genocide of European Jews with Hitler, you have to see that beefs are justified on both sides.

It was pretty black and white in the beginning. Arabs started large-scale riots against the Jews as early as 1920 in Jerusalem and in 1921 in Jaffa. In 1929, a series of violent anti-Jewish riots were initiated by the Arab leadership. The riots resulted in massive Jewish casualties in Hebron and Safed, and the evacuation of Jews from Hebron and Gaza.

The Arabs often targeted the Jews whose families had lived there for many centuries as they were not as inclined to fight back as the European Jews. The murders resulted in the establishment of Jewish paramilitary force of Haganah who "did some hard core things" in retaliation. They had enough.

In any case, both sides have very good reasons to not trust and even hate each other. Not easy to fix.

I agree with that, but I tire of the false argument that the Jews are equally responsible for what happened to start the whole debacle in the first place.

I agree with that, but I tire of the false argument that the Jews are equally responsible for what happened to start the whole debacle in the first place.

I understand your point but I'm more of the view that doesn't really MATTER anymore.

It matters on the level that some like to claim that the Jews brought all this on themselves and that if they were nice guys, everything would be just peachy. If they had not fought back, there would be no Israel and millions more Jews would be dead.

Here is an article analyzing the motives and tactics of Israel boycotters in general. To sum it up, brownshirts using debatable at best human rights activism to sanitize their racism by proxy.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4006/israel_boycotters_a_kabbalistic_mission

There will always be Jew haters. They don't need rational reasons now, and they never did. That's one of the important reasons most Jews feel better having a strong Israel and want it to continue to exist and be strong.

While there are extremely poor families, villages and towns in the area there will be biased views and finger pointing.

At one time it was sufficient for the Arab farmers to have olive trees, date palms and a well. They could trade their products, grow sufficient for their needs and - to a great extent - survive and be content.

Then came the consumer revolution of the last 150 years, and when this caught up with the Middle East the farming / nomadic life was insufficient for people who wanted light at night, easy ways of cooking, faster transport, entertainment and all the other things that have improved out of all imagining in that time.

What may bring peace, but without which there will never be peace, is, quite simply, prosperity.

If, for instance, Saudi Arabia was to negotiate with all concerned parties (Jordan, Israel, Palestine - maybe Egypt) to construct a pipeline and loading facilities for oil / gas / refined products within the Gaza Strip (assuming there are adequate approaches and berthing available) then there may be a start to some prosperity. Downstream manufacturing in both Gaza and Israel would also help. Desalination and irrigation of the West Bank area may improve farming prospects. There must be much investment over the entire region and a raising of living standards. Peace will probably survive under such conditions, but who is willing to put in that initial, very heavy, investment?

No prosperity = no peace. Very simple statement, very true statement.

Well, peace talks are happening NOW and if all goes according to plan they are scheduled to go on for many months.

While it's foolish to overly optimistic, there is a spark of hope for peace once again.

Obviously, settlements are a huge part of the talks.

I'm afraid the so called peace talks are riddled with flaws, not to mention the major one of Kerry organizing them. I guess the only reason Israel didn't tell him to get lost was a mistaken view that Obama would take military action against Iran if need be.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/4011/the_five_flaws_of_kerry_s_mideast_peace_process

If Kerry fails, he'll join the club. Talking is better than not talking. With no talking there is NO hope. With talking, there is at least a tiny chance.