Please enlighten me.
Actually, that approach IS history.
So you’re saying that they won’t agree to Obama’s plan because they’ll get their friend Obama to talk Obama down?
How about a one state solution by giving all the Palsestinians Israeli citizenship (after appropriate royalty oaths) and incorporating Palestine into Israel? I suppose its naive but it’ll remove such problems as Jewish settlers in the West Bank. At any rate, Israel should at a minimum keep all of Jerusalem.
What can Obama do, independently from what Congress authorizes? The Israelis also know that Obama will be gone in a few years.
“Loyalty oaths?” You gotta be kidding…
Jews wouldn’t be in a majority after absorbing 4 million Palestinians. I don’t really have a problem with that, but a lot of Israelis want a Jewish state.
Also having 4 million new citizens who are considerably poorer and less educated then the rest of the country is problematic.
I promise never to put bacon on latkahs…
:smack: Of course. That makes total sense now! 
You know, it sounds like a nice idea, but just looking at a map with potential boundaries tells me nothing. My gut reaction is that Israel wouldn’t feel too good about having its capital jutting out in a salient into Arab lands, but I wouldn’t know how they could go about smoothing out the territory around Jerusalem through “mutually agreed swaps” without knowing the lay of the land.
I guess what I’m saying is that I’m glad I don’t have to figure this crap out.
Obama is right, this infighting between the two states will never be resolved until they each have distinct borders and independence from the other.
Israel is simply going to have to bite the bullet and accept an amount of risk by retreating to the 1967 borders. Not like any of the other nations could take them over.
Well, as I remember reading in my History classes, we (the West), came to Palestine, where Jews and Arabs were fighting, as they had been since before the time of Jesus. What we did was we took the side of the Jews, and said to the Palestinians, “The Jews will have a sovereign State, whether you like it or not.” And, of course, they did not like it. Not one bit.
You… don’t know MUCH about HIS-tor-Y, if you think that’s true.
Then your history teacher should have been fired.
I came online to start a thread asking why Biny is upset. Seemed like more-or-less the same plan the Israelis offered a few years ago. I have got to stop reading the Israel National News.
Making peace is a risk. Not making peace is more of a risk.
Why?
Not that I wouldn’t like that to be true, but why must it be true?
Jeepers, The JPost is taking the same hard line. Biny is going to blow another chance.
I’ve mentioned this before in other topics, but one reason is that unless Israel is prepared to have this kind of unending stalemate forever, or outright kill all the Palestinians, then the best thing for them to do to move on from this is to decide that some high risk now is worth it in order to preserve the Jewish state.
I don’t think Israel is going to be destroyed by any of the Muslim and Arab countries, do you? If not, then it is simply dishonest to claim that Israel risks it’s destruction by retreating to these borders. Do so now, risk it, and give the Palestinians at least some way to say they got what they wanted.
Eventually, things will die down to a point where Israel can consider itself safe. That is not going to happen with this constant back and forth.
One thing that the ‘other side’ (I don’t even know what to call it these days :() laments is that Palestine is not contiguous. Well, the Arab settlements pre-48/9 never were. And there’s nothing that says a state can’t be a viable one in that situation, but Gaza and the West Bank really do seem to be a political and cultural entity at this point. Gaza was controlled by Egypt and WB by Jordan for the longest time.
There has been talks of a road…Israel is awfully tiny, so it isn’t unimaginable, except for the whole security thing.
There was no UN Resolution specifically saying that they had a ‘right of return’, and the UN resolutions that do talk about ‘right of return’ do so in a different context and don’t mean the descendents of people who have been absent for up to 65 years (4 million now).
So the main problem seems to be that Obama has 1.) made it a precondition with 2.) Israel’s peace plan now having to be ‘close to’ the 67 borders. Great. He just gave the Palestinians a serious upper hand. There was no mention of 600k Jewish refugees during Israel’s wars (i.e., from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon), which is not surprising. I guess since they received no assistance from the UN and weren’t kept in something akin to tenement housing, no one cares about their ‘right to return’. :dubious:
Land swaps and population swaps were still common after WWII.
Yes, and how is it that Israel is expected to have any kind of defense in 2011 if they cede certain areas? It is more than just some settlement towns; Israel is going to have to get clever here.
A+. Israel sure as shit doesn’t have to apologize for being attacked in 1948. It has never been that a third country decides the freaking terms for peace plan re: a war that another country won.
No president has been that callous as to actually demand preconditions like that. 67 has been alluded to, yes, but Obama is on my permanent shit list.
When will he understand that he is not the PM of Israel?
I’m so sick and tired of finger-pointing at Israel. Gaza was a cesspool that Israelis should’ve never touched. They fixed that one decades a little late, but of course they were lambasted for the unilateral portion of it. West Bank, which is a lot more complicated re: security, territory, and Jerusalem was never intended to be like it is now…but those West Bankers also had mother-fn Jordanian citizenship…and no one puts anything in context. Except for Jerusalem, the WB region was largely meant to be a buffer zone, with early settlements creating defacto borders.
The PLO was formed before the 67 war as a movement to liberate itself from Zionists, not Jordan, i.e., see the destruction of Israel and become its new government.
So when you look at the context, there was no Palestinian movement/collective like there is now. These people were Arabs that were Syrian, Lebanese, and Jordanian…Israel and Palestine weren’t the only things carved out of the old empire. Jordan was part of the Palestine Mandate, too. The only objection was that of a Jewish state. The Arabs in Gaza largely wanted to be part of Egypt (who later rejected that idea) and the ones in the WB wanted to be part of Jordan.
There was Nazi movement in British Palestine (and out of it) during WWII, pogoms against Jews there, violence in the Jewish Quarter, and eventually an increased hatred that appeared beyond repair by 1945. The Jews were the underdogs at first! The antisemitism was not limited to Europe, but it sure lingered in the Arab world and within the double-dealing British ranks. 1947 Cuba: No Place for Jews here: 1939. There are dozens of stories of countries refusing to take Jewish refugees - those fleeing outright persecution and displaced persons (U.S. being one of them) - and it is no wonder those Jews were determined to to put a stop to the persecution once and for all.
I’m not saying that the Palestinian nationalism doesn’t exist, but I am saying that it’s ridiculous to act as though it always existed in context of this 67/refugee BS oh I’m looking at you Mister President Who Thinks He is God.
I put this article in another thread on SD. It’s disquieting and rather sad. Population swaps sound bad today, but that’s essentially what happened with Arab and Jewish refugees in the the Israeli-Arab wars. I would have been against taking away Israeli protection from Arabs in Jerusalem, but now I wonder if Lieberman’s proposal isn’t so far off the mark. 
The Palestinians want no Jew on “their land”, but demand to either 1) have full control of Israel outright or 2) have control over Israel eventually with 4 million people becoming new Israeli citizens.
F that.
The 67 ‘proposal’ by Obama is going to come down to Jerusalem more than anything.
“This stalemate” might be the best option, among a list of bad options, for the Israelis.
Destruction is a pretty high bar to set as the determinant of a policy. But yes, I think from Israel’s standpoint, they could easily be destroyed what with being completely surrounded by hostile regimes with a combined population of about 100x that of Israel. The US might come to its aid 10 years from now, but how about in 50 or 100?
What historical precedent are you citing to back up your claim that “things will die down to a point where Israel can consider itself safe”?
Considering the history, yes. Entirely possible. What happens if Palestinians, Syrians & Lebanese storm Israel? That little frolick of a protest last week will be nothing.
We had troops in Germany and Japan after WWII. We have troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. It’s not entirely new, so I’d expect the IDF to remain in the WB for awhile and then only control its own territory.
When I visited Alaska, I had to go through a checkpoint. I think Canada calls it Immigration & Customs. (: