Will Israel ever pull back to 1967 borders?

Plagiarius said:
What might be fair to say is that this recent spate of attacks by both sides will set the peace process back substantially especially regarding the radicalisation of war-torn Palestinians, some of whom have lost all their members of their family. It is circumstances such as these which spawn the next generation of suicide bombers and militants. Thus even if Israel do pull back to it's 1967 borders, would this really stop individuals with hatred for Israel and all jews (that is the extent) carrying out attacks on Israeli civilians etc?
Click to expand...
Well how many Jewish suicide bombers are operating in Germany? How many German suicide bombers are operating in London? How many Japanese suicide bombers are operating in New York?
 
The Jews don't need suicide bombers. We have tanks, F-16s, battleships, and nuclear weapons.
 
kallsop said:
How far would Hamas rockets be able to reach inside Israel from the 1967 border? I really doubt that's a solution that makes sense for Israel, unless they are way more masochistic than most. More like a step towards the "final solution".
Click to expand...

Ahhh...the old "Auschwitz Borders" scam.

Its amazing how one of the most advanced and powerful armies on Earth..is soo very afraid of a rag tag army that can only fire makeshift missiles out of mortars....which kill someone once every 100 strikes.

Security my butt. Right-wing Israelis wants more land cause its their "Promised land".

:mad:
 
The following is taken from a good article I read on Saturday.

Israeli officials stress this point – while overlooking the fact that much the same could be said of their own political scene. More to the point, any viable peace agreement would compel Israel to evacuate most of the 280,000 Jewish settlers in the West Bank, and some of the 180,000 in East Jerusalem. A large core of religious settlers would not go quietly. When Israel left Gaza in 2005, withdrawing a mere 8,000 settlers, it took 45,000 police and cost $2.5 billion. Removing most of the West Bank settlements would be a mammoth undertaking, requiring immense cost and effort.

In this case, the blame for the obstacle to peace rests firmly with Israel. For decades, the government has fecklessly increased the number of West Bank settlers, making its own task in the event of a peace settlement steadily harder. When Barak made his offer, there were 190,000. Today, there are 90,000 more. The illegal settlement of land that Israel may be required to give up is wholly counter-productive. But undoing this folly would require political leadership of a truly Churchillian kind.
Click to expand...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...East-problem---and-hed-be-foolish-to-try.html

A return to 1967 borders whilst desirable is not practical. I believe that the Camp David talks in 2000 talked about a land swap whereby Israel kept the larger settlements in the West Bank in exchange for land in Israel. I'm not sure about the question of East and West Jerusalem and how that would be affected by 1967 borders but I doubt that anything other than a sharing of Jerusalem would be acceptable to the Israelis. Both parties really missed a chance in 2000 to get some form of settlement that could have been built upon for a sustainable peace. Also remember that the "right of return" for Palestinians was an enormous sticking point with Arafat wanting approximately 700,000 Palestinians being compensated and allowed to return to Israeli. It's not just about the 1967 borders although that is a good starting point.
 
parky76 said:
Ahhh...the old "Auschwitz Borders" scam.

Its amazing how one of the most advanced and powerful armies on Earth..is soo very afraid of a rag tag army that can only fire makeshift missiles out of mortars....which kill someone once every 100 strikes.

Security my butt. Right-wing Israelis wants more land cause its their "Promised land".

:mad:
Click to expand...

This is true. The Zionist Movement want the Promised Land. It wants to get rid of the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aksa mosgue and cleanse Jerusalem of Islam.

It wants to get rid of the Palestinians from this land. this is the long term agenda.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
 
Tin Foil Timothy said:
This is true. The Zionist Movement want the Promised Land. It wants to get rid of the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aksa mosgue and cleanse Jerusalem of Islam.

It wants to get rid of the Palestinians from this land. this is the long term agenda.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is fooling themselves.
Click to expand...
If that is the long term goal what is the time frame for completion? We're at 60 years and counting.
 
Last edited:
Sunstealer said:
The following is taken from a good article I read on Saturday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...East-problem---and-hed-be-foolish-to-try.html

A return to 1967 borders whilst desirable is not practical. I believe that the Camp David talks in 2000 talked about a land swap whereby Israel kept the larger settlements in the West Bank in exchange for land in Israel. I'm not sure about the question of East and West Jerusalem and how that would be affected by 1967 borders but I doubt that anything other than a sharing of Jerusalem would be acceptable to the Israelis. Both parties really missed a chance in 2000 to get some form of settlement that could have been built upon for a sustainable peace. Also remember that the "right of return" for Palestinians was an enormous sticking point with Arafat wanting approximately 700,000 Palestinians being compensated and allowed to return to Israeli. It's not just about the 1967 borders although that is a good starting point.
Click to expand...

thanks for the link, it is an interesting article.
I wonder if there are any political conflicts quite so intractable as that of Israel-Palestine. I suppose the Kashmir question must come close, good old imperial Britain and its postcolonial legacy :)
 
parky76 said:
The Jews don't need suicide bombers. We have tanks, F-16s, battleships, and nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...
No, Israel does not have battleships.


That's a battleship. Not even the US has those anymore.

Israel does have some corvettes, however. Saar class, for example.
800px-Saar_5.jpg


Not sure if they have these Corvettes, however. :p
ChevroletCorvette.jpg


DR
 
Last edited:
Parky76 said:
They could have said the same thing about Egypt in 1979.

The Arab League, which includes Syria, offered full peace for full withdrawal (minor adjustments allowed).

Israelis and right-wing Zionists need to stop reaching for excuses to not make peace.
Click to expand...
so now Syria is the peace seeker and Israel is the aggressor?
You mention the Golan hights without mentioning Syria losing it in a war while trying to destroy Israel?

Edited by Cleon: 

Personal attacks removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
parky76 said:
Yes. The Golan Heights are very problematic. There are pretty mountains and ski slopes and green hills. Israelis love the Golan Heights.

This is a problem.........but not for people who want peace.
Click to expand...
Security. You do not give up the high ground.
 
yairhol said:
so now Syria is the peace seeker and Israel is the aggressor?
You mention the Golan hights without mentioning Syria losing it in a war while trying to destroy Israel?
Click to expand...

Edited by Cleon: 
Personal attack removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
parky76 said:
Israel has nuclear weapons and satellite imagery. They no longer need the high ground.
Click to expand...
Parky:

1. Nukes aren't one size fits all answer. Nukes do not answer the tactical, conventional matter of terrain and defensible terrain. The US and USSR figured this out in the fifties and sixties, which is the sort of learning that led to the arms limitations talks, SALT and START, of the seventies and eighties.

2. Satellites do nothing for simple ground operations by themselves, they are support equiment for people on ground, on and in the sea, and in the air. They do not replace infantry, nor ground maneuver formations. Satellites don't hold ground. Hell, nor do Apaches, as General Schwarzkopf found out to his chagrin (Safwan IIRC) after four days of battle.

Please take your Rumsfeld style silver bullet silliness and park it.
 
Last edited:
geni said:
There are some very large settlements so no but something close could probably be sorted out with regards to the west bank. Golan heights and syria are more problematical.
Click to expand...


And then there's that little chunk of real estate called Jerusalem that seems to be important to some people.
 
The real question is: Does a Jewish state in Palestine have a right to exist?

A Jewish state in Palestine existed for a thousand years until A.D. 135. If it was ok then...why isn't it ok now?
 
parky76 said:
You want Parky..to park it? :D
Click to expand...
There's a nice spot at the back of the parking garage where that silver bullet style thinking belongs. Might want to jack up the car and disconnect the Rummy battery as well. For an idea of how badly nukes suit certain situations, you can google up the Cold War era nuclear mortar that the US Army developed. In a nutshell, the crew was likely to fire a round that put them at significant risk. See also nuclear depth bombs dropped by maritime helicopters, a similarly dicey application of e=mc2 in its weaponized versions.

I made a promise to work harder on the "friendly and lively way" principle. You will hopefully not be the only beneficiary of that. ;)

DR
 
Meadmaker said:
And then there's that little chunk of real estate called Jerusalem that seems to be important to some people.
Click to expand...
If ever there was a place in need of a massive earthquake ... maybe a geological reboot is in order.

:duck:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom