Israil oversteps the mark

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The strategic threat of giving up the Territories is a non-issue. The threat exists already, and 40-50 miles isn't going to make a difference.

I suggest you study the situation a little more closely, Che. Look at topographical maps. Read about the Israeli radar network and why locations in the West Bank are so vital to it. Consider the possibilities of artillery and short range missiles within range of every major Israeli city. Then tell me that holding the West Bank makes no difference to Israeli security...

The Israeli's cannot let a hostile enemy force occupy the West Bank. If the Palestinians can show that they will live in peace with Israel and not help outside powers to destroy it, then a Palestinian state just might be workable. As long as they continue to call for the destruction of the Jewish state, however, Israel should not abandon the West Bank. To do so would be an invitation for disaster.

Che, the 48 borders are a nonissue. It quite simply isn't going to happen and even the Arabs realize it. You'll notice that they didn't ask for it in thier peace offer.

Actually, I think the Saudi plan calls for Israel to withdraw from all territory captured in 1967. That would put Israel back at its 1948 borders. Along with the demand for a right of return for Palestinians, it would effectively kill Israel. Its value is as a starting point for negotiations, not as a legitimate solution.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Could someone explain to me why the Palestinians have a right to the territory of the West Bank? According to the history I've seen, it was Jordanian territory before the ceeded it to Isreal. Was it even included in the 48 partition?

It wasn't ceded to Israel or that would have made all the residents there Israeli citizens. Jordan simply said it was no longer the owner of those territories. Technically, the West Bank and Gaza belong to no state. No states currently claims them, though Israel claims parts of them. The Palestinians have a right to the land because it's where they have lived for millenia.

And yes, it is small part of the territory that was supposed to be used to create a Palestinian state. The orignal West Bank area was actually a bit larger, but the Israelis gobbled up as much as they could before Iraqi and Jordanian defense stiffened.

[chequita guevara]

You know what, Drake, every coutrny has security issues with geography and its neighbors. Doesn't given them the right to occupy their neighbors. Despite Israel's not wanting a hostile force on their border, legitimately, it isn't up to them. Anyway, once Palestine actually has a state, they'll be much less likely to let something stupid give the Israelis cause to take it away.

Right now, the Palestinians have nothing, no state, no rights, no security. They've got nothing to lose, and so they can continue kamakazi-ing Israel until Israel gets sick of it and comes to terms. And the Palestinians aren't going to stop, until they have something to lose.

Besides, if Israel has "indefensible" borders, what will Palestine have?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Is this relative to the number of dyads in the international system at the time?

This is just in general.

You really aren't going to tell me that war isn't a rare phenomena when I've already read several papers from Democratic Peace theorists taking the criticism seriously, are you?

I am going to tell you that war isn't a rare phenomena . Though I guess that depends on your definition of rare.

I mean, look at the 50 year period from 1900-1950. You had three major power wars (WW2 was actually two different wars... the Asian war, starting in 1933, and the European War, starting in 1939). You had a rising power defeating a great power in 1905 (Russo-Japanese War). You had civil wars (China, Columbia, etc.).

That sounds like a lot of war to me.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
It has always been more than able to defend its borders.

It's getting late and I have a ton of Japanese work to do, so I'm not going to refute all of your points right now. Maybe tomorrow, if Natan doesn't beat me to it.

Anyway, I just want to say this quickly. I spent a few hours this afternoon at the library, reading old magazine articles about the Six Day War and the Yom Kippur War. After doing this, I came away with the distinct impression that Israel's buffer zones in the Golan and Sinai may well have saved them in '73. The Arabs made a good showing for themselves and I don't know if Israel could have held them off if they had launched their attacks from the '48 borders instead of the '67 ones. Just a counterpoint to your belief that Israel has always been able to defend its borders.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
And the Palestinians aren't going to stop, until they have something to lose.

Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

I sincerely hope it doesn't come to that, but I'm not optimistic about the situation anymore.

[chequita guevara]

Your mistake is in believing that there would have been a 1973 war if Israel hadn't been occupying those territories. The Arab states were quite clear in that the war was to recover their lost territories. Sadat had said to the Israels before hand that if the Israelis did not retun their land via peace treaties, the Arabs would be forced to go to war.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Then there will never be peace, unless either the Jews or Palestinians are expelled or killed.

Why not? Eventually the US gave up in its invasion of South Vietnam. Israel eventually gave up it's occupation of Lebanon. Eventually it's people will be sick of the price they pay to hold down the Palestinians. The real question is not will the Israelis leave, but how? Will they try and create a process that heals the wounds or will they keep slapping the Palestinians in the face and humiliating them and engendering even more hatred?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
That would put Israel back at its 1948 borders.

IIRC, the 1948 borders were different from the border Israel held in 1967.

I hate typos.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, the 1948 borders were different from the border Israel held in 1948.

Do you mean that the 1948 borders are different from the borders laid out in the 1947 UN partition plan? Is so, yes they are different...

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
IIRC, the 1948 borders were different from the border Israel held in 1948.

By 1948 borders it is generally meant the post-war borders.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
This is just in general.

Then it is a meaningless assertion without other data to back it up.

I am going to tell you that war isn't a rare phenomena . Though I guess that depends on your definition of rare.

The same definition that you learned in your poli sci class.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Eventually the US gave up in its invasion of South Vietnam. Israel eventually gave up it's occupation of Lebanon.

These aren't very good analogies. America didn't put its security at risk by pulling out of Vietnam. The Israel pullout of Lebanon did pose a security risk, but not enough of one to outweigh the benefits of ending the occupation. Pulling out of the West Bank and leaving a hostile Palestinian state in control would be a huge security risk for Israel, whether you believe it or not. I don't think the Israeli's will do it.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one...

[ravagon]

First things first. The UN was only brought into being in 1947 and under its auspices were drafted the new regulations and articles ruling that territories conquered during wartime could not be legally retained by the victor/occupier. Hence, arguements based upon territories taken before WW2 are, to say the least, tenuous under international law.

Secondly, those territories to be returned are done so at the end of the conflict. In cases such as the "middle east" (and Korea) those conflicts did not end in a peace treaty, ergo did not really end at all. The Arab leaders would not formulate peace treaties with the Israelis on the grounds that they refused Israels right to exist and did not wish to legitimize its status in any way. At the end of the '73 war, Egypt had lost the Sinai and sued for its return by signing the first peace treaty. To this day I don't think any of the other Arab countries have done the same and questions of returning Israeli-occupied territories to these countries aren't really valid.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

This flies in the face of history and elementary logic. If Israel was unable to defend those borders, then Israel would have ceased to exist. Since Israel still exists, it, must, therefore, have been able to defend those borders.

Now you're starting to go around in circles. Israel has defended her borders extremely well. It has done so by not defending the borders themselves but by advancing to take the strategic ground first and fighting on the oppositions land. A point you criticised earlier. You can't have this both ways.

While the IDF is easily the most capable force in the ME (at the very least), at present they simply have no incentive to give up the occupied territories. They need to gain something from such a move - ie: the cessation of terrorist acts against Israelis. At present they have absolutely no reason to believe that would be the case, and pulling out, allowing the creation of a (in their view) hostile Palestinian state, is only going to cede away more of their advantage for no benefit whatsoever.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu

Natan, I actually do think that China should be nuked if it doesn't release tibet.

So, you want to kill a few million people who have precisely nothing to do with the occupation...

Well, gee, that's nice!