rrright....

[HershOstropoler]

Well the whole marginalise-Arafat plot was idiotic from the outset. Unless you wanted to create a palestinian leadership quagmire with no one to negotiate... ooops.

Maybe the fence isn't such a bad idea if it follows roughly the 1967 lines. But with the Likud, it won't.

You won't have a strong palestinian leader for a long time, Arafat and Sharon have made sure of that. I'd see unilateral withdrawal as the smallest evil.

[Nubclear]

backwords policies?

what would you have them do? lay down to the terrorists?

Diss: I'm trolling

which are more advanced that both the US of A, and the ****hole that is currently mother Russia )

Maybe Russia, but I wouldn't go as far as to say your country is more socially advanced than the US :

And... Your jingoism is incredibly amusing, AZ. Almost on par with US jingoism, though they do have at least a few accomplishments to be proud of

[lord of the mark]

Ok. SUPPOSE Israel cuts a deal with the Pals. Pre-'67 armistice lines as borders, all settlements dismantled, Pals give up "right of return".

3 years later theres a change in Pal politics, and Pals start firing rockets and missiles into Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

What then? Do you
A. Determine that its Israels fault, since Israels very existence is an act of racist imperialism
B. Rush in to mediate, call for ceasefires, call for Israeli "restraint"
C. Accept (grudginly) Israel return to territories, but warn against "changing the facts on the ground"
D. Determine that Israel was right, support punishing the Pals by changing the borders to make Israel more secure.


My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A. Most of the rest would support B. Pals have no incentive NOT to make a deal, since they can always go back on it with no consequences. Israel has little incentive to make a deal (or at least one as disadvantageous as above), since it buys them NO legitimacy in further conflicts.
The only country whose policy gives Israel any incentive to deal is the US.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Azazel
I realize that it's the way-out-of-proportion TV coverage, but that raises the question, wtf is it that way?

Because you're taking money from a certain someone.

[HershOstropoler]

LOTM:

"My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A."

I don't think so. No matter how much the likudnik lobby hammers along about supposed european racism, most people have a problem with occupation and settlements, not with Israel as such. I think broad support would rather be for C. in that case. D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing.

[Edan]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler

D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing.

Well, larger borders (usually) add security - I assume you would agree with that statement.

There are a number of moves Israel could do to change the borders without ethnic cleansing. They could:

1. Annex the settlements that are next to Israel proper - In other words, annex everything that would have fallen to Israel according to the Clinton plan.

2. Annex parts of the territories where Palestinians don't live (for example parts of the territories next to the river) - this would make any Palestinian state smaller, in the end.

3. Annex all the settlements - this wouldn't be a good idea, since would cut through any future Palestinian state, dividing it up.

[Whaleboy]

Israel should be returned to '67 borders, settlements should be either shut down or incorporated into a new Palestinian state, which should be given equal funding by the USA as Israel, funding which should be reduced to enough to set up that Palestinian state. The USA should stop its arms deals to Israel and others. Israel must stop apartheid-like persecution of Arabs within and without.

The would-be terrorists should be given work in industry set up by the money used to regenerate the Palestinian state.

Peace.

[Pekka]

Whaleboy, That's what Israel could do, sure. But what about terrorists? They don't have to do anything?
So, the message is, if you suicidebomb enough civies, you get victory?

And what about the ideology of some of these terrorist groups, that threatens to drive Israelis to the sea? I don't think they care that much about 67 borders, or any borders.

[HershOstropoler]

Edan:

"Well, larger borders (usually) add security - I assume you would agree with that statement."

No, not in this situation. Under that logic, annexing Gaza would make Israel safer.

"1. Annex the settlements that are next to Israel proper - In other words, annex everything that would have fallen to Israel according to the Clinton plan."

That will happen anyway.

"2. Annex parts of the territories where Palestinians don't live"

Not much land, but make for long borders.

"3. Annex all the settlements"

Would create a very, very long border that is impossible to control.

[Whaleboy]

Whaleboy, That's what Israel could do, sure. But what about terrorists? They don't have to do anything?
So, the message is, if you suicidebomb enough civies, you get victory?

Terrorists wont listen to anyone, so expecting them to do things for peace is something of a misnomer. They are a particularly nasty reaction to a sociological phenomenon caused by Israel and the West.

If you want peace, do what I said, and take measures to ensure you never again piss people off to the extent that they feel they need to blow themselves up in cafes and nightclubs.

As I have said a thousand times before, we do not succumb to the ideologies and the demands of these groups, their obviously absurd political aspirations, we take the measures necessary for them to stop. It would seem to be a pretty damn logical course of action to me, but then, I merely want peace. However, I am not a democratically elected leader whose popularity may depend on being "strong" in the face of this terrorism, leading his people to a mighty and valiant victory, perpetuating a war and indirectly causing more bloodshed of his own people, and directly causing the blood shed of the Palestinians. No, I want peace.

I have to go to a philosophy class, so I wont be able to respond until about 10pm GMT.. adios for now

[Pekka]

I think you're correct, that we can't expect terrorists to do anything for peace.

I disagree, that they'd stop if Israel would do those things. That would please lots of Palestinian people for sure, but the terrorists wants to kill Israelis and destroy their country, no matter what the borders are if they have anything to do with 67 borders. They hate Israelis and think they should be driven to sea. I fail to see how they'll be any more peaceful. They might celebrate for one day and then continue. 'Now we have the 67 borders, come on let's go for the whole nine yards and destroy them all' is what I see them thinking.

And I see the worrying trend of suicidebombing becoming even more popular around the world. After all, it makes countries do what they want.

[Az]

Because you're taking money from a certain someone.

How on earth does this have to do with anything?

Well the whole marginalise-Arafat plot was idiotic from the outset. Unless you wanted to create a palestinian leadership quagmire with no one to negotiate... ooops.

Nah. Noone on our side besides the very fringe is ready to deal with arafat.

Maybe the fence isn't such a bad idea if it follows roughly the 1967 lines. But with the Likud, it won't.

For the palestinians to get a fair deal, sure. For Israel to get more, I don't think so. The fence has the same defensive value no matter where it passes. Oh, and Israel can easily bite off a chunk of land without taking areas with palestinians: the whole Jordan valley has overwhelming jewish majority, and can easily be annexed. I wouldn't do it, and in case of a peace deal with the palestinians it won't be accepted, but we ain't talking peace deal, lately, are we?

You won't have a strong palestinian leader for a long time, Arafat and Sharon have made sure of that. I'd see unilateral withdrawal as the smallest evil.

Unilateral withdrawal to what lines? As I said, the defensive value of those walls will be the same, no matter where those walls will be, and the attacks will persist, no matter where those walls are.

Oh, and larger borders WILL add security in some areas. Don't give me the Gaza Strip bull, since this ain't the area.

Now give Israel a good cold geo-political reason to build that wall fairly: you won't find one. Support for more moral actions? If there is anything to be learned from the last half a century of the world's nations' relations to Israel, is that it never had anything to do with morality, and fairness. Countries support us only when it suits their interests.

[HershOstropoler]

"Nah. Noone on our side besides the very fringe is ready to deal with arafat."

I'd say a fringe representing about 20-30 % of the electorate. About correct?

"Oh, and Israel can easily bite off a chunk of land without taking areas with palestinians: the whole Jordan valley has overwhelming jewish majority"

Overwhelming? Depends on how you draw the border. Though what's the point of the exercise?

"As I said, the defensive value of those walls will be the same, no matter where those walls will be, and the attacks will persist, no matter where those walls are."

Ehm... it depends on how many palestinians you have inside the walls.

"Oh, and larger borders WILL add security in some areas. Don't give me the Gaza Strip bull, since this ain't the area."

In some areas - so you shouldn't endorse the bull that I responded to, that "larger borders" per se work that way. It depends what areas you include, some of the settlements around Jerusalem are pretty interwtined with palestinian areas, for example.

"If there is anything to be learned from the last half a century of the world's nations' relations to Israel, is that it never had anything to do with morality, and fairness. Countries support us only when it suits their interests."

Now cry me an ocean. How often does that happen in international relations?

So what is the point of gobbling up much of the westbank? On 1967 borders, there is a chance for peace. If you annex half of the westbank, there will never be peace. And consider one thing: how many wars can the arabs afford to lose against Israel? 10? 30? 100?

How many wars can Israel afford to lose against the Arabs?

[Kuciwalker]

How many wars can Israel afford to lose against the Arabs?

In any all-out war, Israel is going to win.

[HershOstropoler]

Now, yes. In 10 years, yes. In 50 years, who knows.