A war with who? The Arab league has had a standing proposal for almost a decade now. Israel withdraws to some version of the 1967 borders and ALL Arab League states (including Saudi Arabia which was the country that made the initial proposal) will recognize Israel and establish full diplomatic relations. The hysteria of the big mean Arabs that want to wipe out Israel is simply absurd at this point. Every country has more or less accepted Israel (outside of the crazy man in Iran but that's separate discussion) The security paranoia to justify an unstable situation has to stop. Even Hamas came out as part of the reconciliation and said that they no longer oppose the inherent existence of Israel. Wait what? Clinton said the exact same thing when he was president. (and he said it on much stronger terms than Obama) Also why would Muslims all of a sudden start desecrating things as a result of this. Also if you're referring to the Taliban blowing up Buddha statues, they're the freaking Taliban. The palestinians arent anything like them. Not to mention there are a lot of Christians in the West Bank. The capital of the Palestinian territories is Ramallah which (you might know) is a Christian city. Christians still make up a large number there. West Bank towns like Bethlehem and Jericho still have large numbers of Christians yet there are zero reports of any infighting between Palestinian Christians and Muslims. It's sad to think that if this dispute didnt exist the Palestinians would probably be our biggest ally among the Arab communities. They more closely resemble what we want out of the Arab world than any other country.
This is so silly. We are talking the 21st century. 8 miles; 8smmiles, 50 miles whatever. Israel's security is based on nukes and backing of the world's superpowers You have been had by one of the older Israeli excuses to not try for peace.
As an aside I doubt Obama will really push Israel to do anything. I'll believe it when I see it. Why would he all of a sudden be so terribly gutsy? I suspect the story was leaked to actually pressure Obama before Netanyahu's visit. Obama does nothing without substantial elite approval and I don't see the elite going to bat for the 1967 borders against Israel's wishes.
Yet in your very next post you write: So what is? If Israel goes back to their 1967 borders they will be destroyed and Muslims will desecrate the Wailing Wall or that Israel's actually can defend itself no matter what size because it can unleash nuclear hell on its opponents? Those are mutually exclusive positions. Anyway before you decide to join the JDL consider in Obama's speech he also mentioned mutually agreed upon land swaps. If Obama's rhetoric is actually fulfilled, unlikely, any agreement will likely not follow exactly the 1967 borders.
wouldnt this be similar for another country telling us we should go back to our 1700's borders? or we need to give up Texas? Im sure the Dems would be happy if that happened though
That would make sense if Israel actually annexed the West Bank and Gaza. Instead they officially claim that neither are actually part of Israel but are only occupied. That would imply that the entirety of the Palestinian territories (using the 67 borders) are not part of Israel but are only occupied by Israel. Its akin to us occupying Mexico after the Mexican War and the Mexicans demand the border return to how it was before since we were just occupying it militarily and not annexing it. Basically the Israelis need to put up or shut up on this issue. Either annex the West Bank and Gaza (like they did with the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem) or dont complain when someone asks the borders go back to 1967 because you dont actually claim the land you are occupying. I mean in India they hold a similarly controversial piece of land in kashmir but at least they annexed the province and gave them full citizenship and rights. The Israelis should either do the same or give it up.
This. I find it funny that they occupy an area that isn't theres and then claim they need a "buffer zone" to protect from attacks. Hm. So if we just start building houses on the Mexico side of the border, slowly start pushin troops to that side to protect our settlers and then call it a "buffer zone" to prevent illegal immigration and possible attacks from mexican gangs, that must be totally okay according to the Israel handbook. However for anything to work, Palestine needs to get its act together, cut the terrorist attacks out, present a viable model for economic stability and stop disrupting Israeli events here in America with yelling at speakers and delegates; that doesn't do anything but make them look unruly and ignorant. It's the old, "act like an adult, be treated like an adult" theory. I don't think Obama's speech does much except calm the flames and promise "change" with no real plan for it. Same old same old. Will be interesting to see tomorrow's meeting with Netanyahu though.
Yes a bit half joking. But a lot of nations/countries around the world occupy land that they fought and took over from another group of people. It's what happens in war. Israels case is just a bit more recent.
I don't think annexing will solve the violence problem. It will probably worsen it. Agree though the best chance of piece is for Israel to give up that piece of land and move back to 1967 borders. But that is probably not going to happen.
No I agree. Annexation isnt an option. I only said that to point out a flaw in your analogy. Your analogy only works in a world where Israel actually annexes the Palestinian territories. As for moving to the 1967 borders, it'll take a seachange in Israeli politics to make that even remotely feasible. The Israeli left has been decimated politically. Labor is on the verge of being permanently wiped out despite being the founding party of Israel and Kadima is a ragtag coalition of people who's only common trait is that they aren't Likud. Even people I met in Israel that are very critical of the government feel there is no major party that represents them.
Since 2000 - Children Killed - 124 Israelis. 1452 Palestinians Civilians Killed - 731 Israelis. 3,535 - 4,226 Palestinians http://www.ifamericansknew.org/ http://rememberthesechildren.org/remember2000.html
I agree with Basso Not a snowballs chance, but it does at least show audacity. At this point in history, the US is best served by letting the pendulum of policy swing a little away from Israel, toward The Arab World. It just makes sense to capitalize on the momentum of the Arab freedom movement and influence their future in line with our interest. Sure, Israel isn't going to do much but we are going to call them on it a little bit now.
1967 borders is a term of art meaning the pre-war borders. They are already well within the post war borders. In the Six Day War they captured large areas of land reaching well into Egypt for example. Going back to the post Six Day War borders would totally eliminate Gaza and the West Bank, give the Sinai back to Israel, and transfer large areas of Lebanon, Syria, and Jordan to Israel. The pink areas of this map are areas that Israel captured in the Six Day War and have since returned to the countries from which they captured them or ceded to the Palestinians. On the other hand, the ratio of civilians killed to militants killed is skewed far in the other direction. Israel is just going to come out a lot better in terms of casualties by virtue of having a modern military. The same comparison you made here could also be made with the US and Afghanistan. The raw numbers are going to show more Afghani civilians and children killed than American civilians and children killed because the American military is simply able to kill a lot more people overall than al Qaeda. Al Qaeda are still going to be viewed as the "bad guys" (at least by most in America if not in other countries) because they intentionally target civilians, while the civilian deaths caused by the US are an unfortunate collateral result of waging war against an enemy that hides among the populace. The IDF faces the same difficulty.
