It should absolutely be the '67 borders, by the way. That’s what was agreed to. I’m not buying the “indefensible” shit. The settlers are criminals. Why should they be defended?
Are you Israeli or just have a good sense of geography? 
I think some of the communities there are also tourist spots, no? I wonder how that plays out. Not that Israel will suffer, but I wonder what happens to the communities they’ve built.
Also: Water. That is an issue.
Jordan does that all the time…
Who agreed to what?
Oh god, nevermind. It’s the Dio show.
So?
Israel agreed to the '67 borders.
This is lame,.
Water is a big issue. This whole dispute is about water rights as much as any other issue.
I’m confused. How is a Hamas-PA relationship viable if
?
Anyway, the borders we should be talking about are the Israeli-Egypt ones. It looks like Gazans may be able to access to Israel pretty soon. And then who knows. Many more protestors killed, I’m sure, if they try to walk into Israel after September.
Since we do give Egypt economic aid with no benefit but for security, I hope we pull it if that happens.
Not strictly, and it was many years ago when things were different, and your ridiculous left field and irrational comments are silly.
I am done with your games. Not worth it.
Too bad if things were different. That’s not an excuse for stealing land. Israel agreed to those borders. The settlements are illegal. That’s all there is to it. At least that’s all there SHOULD be to it, but it’s not because Israel has special entitlements that no other country on earth has.
WTF?! Of course Palestine should have an army. We’re talking about an independent country, with a near neighbor with which it will have hostile relations for some time to come (not forever). How could it not have an army?
And how could Israel not want it to? The only way you can have normal military relations with Palestine is if there is one Palestinian Army that does not tolerate competing armies or paramilitary organizations in its territory – something which is, of course, simply a normal feature of a functional state.
That was a framework for peace, but thanks to the intafada, it was a little broken. Besides, the PLO says they aren’t bound by it. It wasn’t set in stone. It’s been dissolved. Besides, Arafat rejected what Rabin offered.
You seem to think that Hamas and the PLO have special entitlements to do whatever they want and Israel should be held accountable for everything. :rolleyes: Get over yourself.
De-militarized. That’s been a known for awhile.
Israel will not tolerate a Palestinian Army. It will not. It should not. It would result in near-immediate war.
Who needs military relations? They have a security force. Some of them are US-trained, actually.
May I add that Japan has a pretty weak “military”? (: We negotiated that.
First, because a lot of them aren’t criminals, under Israeli law, at least. They’re Israeli citizens, successive Israeli governments encouraged them to move to the settlements, and the State of Israel has a duty to protect them. Second, we’re talking some fairly large population centers here. Modi’in Illit has about 46,000 people, Ma’ale Adumim has about 49,000 people, Beitar Illit has about 38,000, and Ariel has about 18,000. That’s about 151,000 people. That number of people really can’t be evacuated. It’s just too many, and the Israeli government isn’t going to abandon them for the Palestinians to kill. Third, why is the Green Line sacrosanct? It’s just where the front between Israel and Jordan was when the ceasefire that ended the War of Independence ended. It was never intended to be a final border, and if it serves the course of peace that the border be redrawn, isn’t it better to have peace and a changed border than no peace and no changed border.
That’s not even getting into the questions of East Jerusalem and the Golan, which are both on the wrong side of the Green Line. There’s no way in hell Israel will give them up.
The Palestinians are entiled to what was agreed to, and the Israelis are accountable for their own actions. Those are not controversial statements. The problem is that the US enables Israel because it is a special snowflake with special rights that no other country has.
I agree Israel will and should keep East Jerusalem. It’s always a bad idea to politically divide a city anyway.
The Golan’s a problem unrelated to the Palestinian problem, not really part of this discussion. (Did Obama mention it?) If any Palestinians live there, I doubt they’re numerous enough to matter. If the WB&Gaza becomes independent Palestine, they can go there, or stay and be good Arab Israeli citizens.
I agree. Ariel even has a university. My dad wanted to buy a house there and retire, but I told him to wait on that. 
East Jerusalem won’t be given up. It’s not even logistical at this point. And we can’t depend on U.N. to be “peacekeeping”. It’s gone. The Arabs still have control over the the Dome and alAsqa and I doubt it will be changed, but there will be no Palestinian capital there.
Sucks, but, hey, that’s what happens after 63 years of war.
Israel has entered no formal binding agreement with Palestinians.
They are criminals under international law. Israeli law is irrelevant and citing it is absurd.
They can be stripped of Israeli citizenship. After that they’re on their own. They’re criminals who made their own beds. They should be given plenty of time and assistance to fuck off back to their own countries. Once the deadline passes. They’re in Palestine. Good luck, assholes. Nobody made them go squat on somebody else’s land. They made a poor life choice. That’s on them.
They made an agreement with the UN, so this is a specious argument.
Cite.
Palestine is a territory and it belongs to no state.
But since you want to play that game, Israel should expel all Arabs that are questionably unloyal to the government and see how they fare on the rough side of the wall. I’m sure many squatted in Jerusalem after the Jordanians ran out the Jews.
And in matters of international law (which is a joke) it is against international law to for a man to be a citizen with no state…er…you know what I mean. You can’t take away citizenship from a national if they have no country to go to.