Really? What do you know of what I see as the cause of the present unpleasantness? The voices in your head?
It seems to me we are agreed. The Arabs have never compromised (except for the times they compromised).
I’ve spent a lot of time living in the Arab world and am of the opinion that it is Israel’s actions (backed by the US in many cases) that is the real point of conflict. When people are treated differently because of their ethnicity or religion, they don’t really like that. Nor do people enjoy having their land occupied.
It is a resistance you are fighting. If the tables were turned, you’d be doing the same thing… it is the only logical way to fight what they see as an injustice. Everybody I have spoken to about the issue in Iran, Sudan, the Gulf States etc has told me they would be fine with Israel at it’s 1967 borders. It is not Israel they are fighting, it is Israel’s actions.
Personally, I think both sides are too stubborn to see the other’s viewpoint… but Israel, being vastly more powerful, is the one that can more easily bring change. It’s no wonder the US and Israel are such strong allies - they both think alike.
I’m sure. But, would the Palestinians? That’s the crucial question.
Also: Would the Palestinians be satisfied with a settlement that leaves Israel with its pre-1967 borders, plus what’s now between the Green Line and the Wall, plus East Jerusalem?
And would Israel, conversely, be satisfied with a settlement that leaves it all of the above, but not the West Bank settlements east of the Wall?
I’m pretty sure we will, IF the Israeli public is convinced that Hamas won’t use the Palestinian state as a launching pad for missiles aimed at Tel Aviv. Israeli opinion regarding the settlements, particularly the more extreme “deep” settlements, is ambivalent at best - so long as people believe that the Palestinians will try to kill Israelis no matter what, they’ll stand by them; but as soon as they’re convinced that the settlers are an obstacle to their peace and security, they’ll drop them like a hot potato.
You mean the borders Israel had when an alliance of 9 Arab nations invaded and tried to destroy it?
So what were they fighting that led to the 1967 borders?
Yup, those borders exactly. Times change - for decades now, the most popular rallying cry in the Arab world against Israel hasn’t been the fact of its existence as such, but the occupations of the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and East Jerusalem. (Of course, Gaza is no longer occupied). The problem is that abandoning Jerusalem would be politically impossible, and leaving the WB would create huge security problems. But the actual nation-states that fought Israel in the Arab-Israeli War and the War of Independence - they’d be unlikely to try to “drive Israel to the sea” again.
And led to the formation of the PLO before the '67 war…
Because, as we all know, un-occupying Gaza pacified the anger of the residents there and led to a complete lack of “resistance” type activities, because they no longer had any objections to Israel “as such” …
Oh wait, that didn’t happen at all.
See, the problem with the Arab “street” (not necessarily the Arab nations which can be more - or less - pragmatic) is that the conflict with Israel is, at base, not about concrete territory or other rights at all - it is an ethnic conflict. Always has been. The “rights” issues are tangental - Arabs by and large do not care so much for the rights of Palestinians (the evidence being that they seemingly have no problems with Arab nations violating said rights themselves), so much that these rights are, from their perspective, being violated by Jews.
Thing about ethnic conflicts is that they thrive on “injustices” that are actual, or historical, or even purely imaginary. It is a pipe dream to believe that they would go away based on purely material rightings of existing wrongs, because the category of “existing wrongs” is infinitely expandable.
The Palestinian case is a perfect case in point. Sure, one can argue, Israel left Gaza, but it did not leave the WB, and so ‘resistance’ is still applicable. Very well, so Israel leaves the WB, but not Jeruaslem - same deal. So it leaves Jerusalem, but does not grant the “right of return” - same deal again.
Fact is that there is nothing but nothing, short of agreeing to not exist, that will satisfy each and every person’s concept of adequate redress for past wrongs in an ethnic conflict.
The trick is this: concessions on “rights” have to be met with an improvement in the situation on security, before the Israelis are willing to take them seriously. The situation in Gaza was damaging to the cause of peace, because it went the other way - a concession on “rights” was met with a worsening of the situation. There is, as yet, no proof that the concession lead to the Arab “street” liking Israel more than before - on the contrary, a worsening of the security situation led to armed conflict (in which the Arab "street’ took the side of Hamas) and led Arabs to generally hate Israel more.
The situation really has little to do with the Arab nations. Granted, they are unlikely to attempt to destroy Israel any time soon - but that is mere pragmatism; they are too weak and divided for such an attempt. In short, they do not make the attempt because they like Israel, but because Israel is too strong to tackle and there is really nothing in it for them.
Remember how that worked out? You can be certain the Arabs do. They’re like other peoples, they can learn from their mistakes eventually.
Yes, well, one thing you can say for “ethnic cleansing” is that it does tend to quiet ethnic conflict, eventually. Just a few years ago there were endless atrocities in Iraq – Shi’ites on Sunnis, Sunnis on Shi’ites, Kurds on non-Kurds – but you don’t hear much about that any more, not because anybody has forgiven or forgotten, but because all minorities have been driven out of the neighborhoods where they used to live and fled to more ethnically homogeneous areas. The same thing will happen in Gaza, eventually, now that all the Jews are gone, and it will happen in the WB once the settlements are evacuated and the IDF tropps pull out.
Eventually.
Of course, I admit, cross-border rockets can kill a lot of Israelis between now and eventually.
The problem here (and I mean problem with the theory, not the facts) is that, while the WB may be and Gaza is “ethnically cleansed” of Jews, there is no way on Earth - unless something really fundamentally changes - that Israel will ever, in the foreseeable future, be “ethnically cleansed” of Arabs - thankfully.
While obviously no-one in their right mind would want such “cleansing” to happen, it does create the concern - that there will never be any lack of “issues” for ethnic warriors on the Arab side to fight over: Israel itself will never be “ethnically homogeneous”.
This is one of the reasons I say that pulling back to the 1967 borders will make little difference. The fight will then concentrate on “issues” raised within those borders, same as before.
Is this the best you people got? Times change? The Arab (+ Iran) alliance learned from its mistakes? Israel should be satisfied with essentially the same conditions it was under when it was invaded by literally everyone within 500 miles of its borders?
In fact, the urgency of its situation is WORSE than 1967, because the Palestinians weren’t launching rockets and blowing up buses back then. How in the world can you expect Israel to be anything but paranoid under these conditions? I wouldn’t give a fucking square inch of land to anyone in the region if I were Israel, and I’d tell all of you to go fuck yourselves if you didn’t like it. They’re being downright diplomatic in my opinion, considering the circumstances.
So 1967 was the Good Old Days for Israel? Dude, what color is the sky on your planet?
OK, if Israel is not supposed to be satisfied with its own borders, which borders are you willing to accept? You do not seem to be able to understand. When peace comes, there will be a line on a map between Israel and the neighbors around it. No matter how far you expand Israel, it will still be surrounded by other nations.
It would be better if you made peace with those other nations.
You’re implying Israel would have peace, if only it retreated to the 1967 borders. Do you truly believe that?
No. But when peace comes, it will be when both sides decide they want to live peaceably side by side. Unfortunately, we have two peoples who are certain God is on their side and who both think they are especially immune to suffering. That is not good.
The exact placing of lines on a map is pretty well secondary to people deciding to stop fighting. When all is said and done, Jews will live under Arab government and Arabs will live under Jewish control. The idea of magical lines leading to peace and love is false.
So rather than getting wrapped around the axle about this hill or that one, we need to change our hearts. That is a lot harder to do.
But it is critical for Israel to make peace. The demographic trends are all against the Israelis and problems that are a mere nuisance now will gain nation-breaking power in a very few decades. Israelis born today will wonder why their government did not do more in these years, when it is ‘easy.’
It will only get worse for Israel and there is no time to waste.