Ensured mutual destruction doesn’t assure survival. The Soviets had it, and their vile culture is gone. It’s a last ditch option which is of no benefit to Israel. They won’t use it, other than in response to their destruction and a renewed Diaspora, a loss for everyone.The Soviets were a sick nation to their core, so being safe from any external enemy wasn't enough to save them. Israel itself is a healthy nation that is not built upon internal contradiction and does not require force to maintain its social order. It only needs to protect itself from external threats. Its own bad elements threaten others, and rarely threaten Israelis.
I would oppose a mutual-defense treaty tying the US to Israel. A fair and equitable deal has to be accepted by both sides. If the Palestinians accept a deal, no guarantor is needed. If it’s a ploy, as Oslo, we don’t need Americans defending Israel against future terrorism. Israel doesn’t need us either.An Israel which could make that fair and equitable deal, I could support in such a way. It's a last ditch defense, to make any radicals who might wish to attack Israel not even think of doing so. Much like the nukes.
The problem is that none of the offers made by Israel have been remotely fair. Each resembles the old South African "homelands" more than anything else. The demands of the squatter camps for exclusive access road and water preferences (up to 85%) make it absolutely impossible that this Palestinian state would ever be more than an economic (and thereby political) vassal of Israel. A fair settlement would require either removing them (as was done in the Sinai)or integrating them without preference into the Palestinian state. The latter is infeasible because of the political-religious nature of the "settlement" movement. Unfortunately, that movement has enough power to put either side of Israel's tight political balance into the permanent minority.
As a strategic partner, IMO we don’t need a treaty, I can’t visualize a major power conflict Israel wouldn’t support us in, if we let them (the real issue)The basis of Israel's legitimacy as a state is the 1947 Partition of the former British Mandate of Palestine. That Mandate also decreed that the West Bank would be Arab. Israel actually gained more land than that mandate in the 1949 cease fire. Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank, which it has since renounced...but renounced in favor of a Palestinian state in the region. They reject the idea of Israeli sovereignty over the area.There are other options he doesn't mention, such as a decisive military move to capture and annex a large chunk of the West Bank, resettle the population as needed. Thus far, Israel hasn't the will for that.
She doesn't have any desire to be treated as South Africa was in the 80s or Serbia in the early 90s, that's why. No nation on Earth would support such an action. Israel would be justified in her actions. It would be a permanent solution. In the long run it would give the Palestinians a future. I suspect America and most of the world would accept it. IMO, there’s no real sympathy for the Palestinians anywhere, that’s why they’ve been cannon fodder for so lont. It’s in keeping with international law. No one claims that territory. It would be soon forgotten.
However, you could be right. I think most factions in the Israeli government, including Sharon, would agree with you on this, not me.I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small, and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down.
"in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."It's a different world now than when Reagan said those words. Israel and Jordan are close friends with a mutual defense agreement. These are the only nations that the West Bank touches. Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that. Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.Ronald Reagan
-Eric
Too late. They don't have any choice in the matter except what they are allowed by the Israelis and the USA.
I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small,
Good for him. They've proved that word isn't worth monkey snot.
...and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down.
As Prime Minister, he can set his own policy just like Bush can reverse Clinton.
Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that.
Bwahahaha! They don't have an army - just 50,000 policemen and various militias.
Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.
Just like they're doing now?
I think you are deranged to seriously suggest this nonsense.
I agree. I was addressing the nuclear option, though perhaps not the best analogy. It’s existence didn’t save the Soviets. Their culture was corrupt. It won’t save Israel (or the US) from external threats because, for cultural reasons, it won’t be used. It’s nice to have, but it’s only a “protection” when Israel’s enemies (or ours) have either an overwhelming advantage on the ground, or a serious offensive nuclear (or chemical) threat themselves. It’s as useful to Israel as a deterrent as it is to the US.
An Israel which could make that fair and equitable deal, I could support in such a way. It's a last ditch defense, to make any radicals who might wish to attack Israel not even think of doing so. Much like the nukes.
I disagree, I don’t want to see US troops committed, they’re not needed. I admit, a defense treaty would do little harm, I wouldn’t be writing my congressman if you got your way.
The problem is that none of the offers made by Israel have been remotely fair. Each resembles the old South African "homelands" more than anything else. The demands of the squatter camps for exclusive access road and water preferences (up to 85%) make it absolutely impossible that this Palestinian state would ever be more than an economic (and thereby political) vassal of Israel. A fair settlement would require either removing them (as was done in the Sinai)or integrating them without preference into the Palestinian state. The latter is infeasible because of the political-religious nature of the "settlement" movement. Unfortunately, that movement has enough power to put either side of Israel's tight political balance into the permanent minority.
Please keep in the back of your mind that the Palestinians, despite numerous promises, have yet to take even the first tiny step (the procedure is clear in their charter) to recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The settlements are legal. The concept that Jews living in a Palestinian State is an impossibility is corrupt at it’s face. They are Israel’s only negotiating point (and she gave them up in the Sinai).
I believe Dennis Ross (I’ve posted the link elsewhere on the thread). Israel offered a state with NO access road grids. Palestinian control (after 7 Years of the Jordan River corridor. Though not stated, forcible removal of settlers from the new Palestinian state (an actual war crime) would have been a given. The barrier to peace did not come from Israel.
The basis of Israel's legitimacy as a state is the 1947 Partition of the former British Mandate of Palestine. That Mandate also decreed that the West Bank would be Arab. Israel actually gained more land than that mandate in the 1949 cease fire. Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank, which it has since renounced...but renounced in favor of a Palestinian state in the region. They reject the idea of Israeli sovereignty over the area.
Sovereignty was rejected in 47. It was rejected by Jordan. I’m never heard that they rejected it in favor of a “Palestinian State”, it would be irrelevant anyway. Jordan had years to establish a state there, right up to their treaty with Israel. They weren’t particularly interested.
I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small, and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down…It's a different world now than when Reagan said those words. Israel and Jordan are close friends with a mutual defense agreement. These are the only nations that the West Bank touches. Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that. Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.
Sharon really isn’t the issue, his positions aren’t unique, if anything he galvanizes opposition.
You’re right, Palestine doesn’t need an army, they’ve agreed to that, and yet their “security forces”, armed and trained by Israel and the US, are essentially combatants. Whatever entity is created there must be demilitarized or you’re simply setting the stage for the next conflict.
I don’t want to get into a drawn out tactical discussion on the borders, but recognizing that any new neighboring “state” will be a hostile one, Israel is at least entitled to borders which would preclude a crude ground attack (or one from those Iraqi tanks invited in). More important, one that would negate 1950s technology artillery, without the necessity of using the force Israel has available against a “sovereign” nation.