On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 21, 2011 12:31 pm

..is a non-starter. Instead of encouraging the peace process, it will reverse it, get more negative points with the Israelis and the Jewish voters in the U.S.

Simply because it also implicitly means giving up East Jerusalem.

The brownie points that Obama gets from the Arabs will be short lived as Obama will not be able to deliver on the proposal.

by charvaka Sat May 21, 2011 12:42 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:..is a non-starter. Instead of encouraging the peace process, it will reverse it, get more negative points with the Israelis and the Jewish voters in the U.S.

Simply because it also implicitly means giving up East Jerusalem.

The brownie points that Obama gets from the Arabs will be short lived as Obama will not be able to deliver on the proposal.

Fatah was at one time ready to talk about exchanges of territory if 1967 borders don't work. Any plan has to compensate the Palestinians for any 1967 territory that they don't get back. That compensation can be monetary or in the form of other land. Short of that, there is nothing stopping extremist Israelis (and there are many of them in that country's government, including its PM) from wanting to create a moth-eaten Palestine with large swathes of territory annexed by Israel through its settlements. Like they did in Gaza, they need to pull back settlements and get the hell out.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 21, 2011 1:43 pm

The Islamis accept only one deal: Whatever is mine and whatever is yours is also mine.

ANY kind of deal will only be temporary until another tinpot dictator cites a flaw in the deal to restart the agitation.

Even if all the occupied land is returned the Hamas and others will revert to demand all the land of Israel and to drive the jews into the ocean.

by artood2 Sat May 21, 2011 2:13 pm

Wikileaks showed Palestine negotiators made big concessions, Israel accepted and came back with more demands. There are no saints in this conflict.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 21, 2011 2:28 pm

Of course not... Any country that has been attacked by all the neighboring countries simultaneously in a coordinated manner has more to think about its safety.

It is well established that all and any deal the Muslims make are always an intermediate step towards their ultimate goal of annihilating the enemy completely. Be it palestine or kashmir. Not even my holy Vibhuti is powerful enough to cure them of this disease.

Since Israel never demanded that Arabs hand over Jordon or Syria or any of their land. So your equating Israel and Palestinians is not correct.

by charvaka Sat May 21, 2011 2:44 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Since Israel never demanded that Arabs hand over Jordon or Syria or any of their land. So your equating Israel and Palestinians is not correct.

Israel forcibly occupied and took over land that does not belong to them. A hundred years ago, there wasn't a Jewish nation in Palestine. Just because some stoned dude said God promised them that land doesn't mean millions of Palestinians are stripped of their right to live on the land of their ancestors.

Like R2D2 said, there are no saints in this conflict. The original claim to land that wasn't theirs came from the Israelis. They unilaterally declared independence, and ethnically cleansed their territory of Palestinians. Those are facts of history.

Wars have consequences, and the Palestinians need to realize that. They can't get all of historical Palestine back; Israelis have been living there for generations now and that land now belongs to them. But the Israelis can't expect to eat into large chunks of pre-1967 Palestine -- that is death through a thousand cuts for the Palestinian state.

by Kris Sat May 21, 2011 3:39 pm

This is going to be a mexican standoff at best. Obama is looking at it from the abstract and the pre 1967 scenario makes sense, provided everyone lives happily aver after. Of course, that is a fairly tale in the middle east and this is not going to be the end of the demands from the arab quarter. Israel is operating in the context of this ground reality. The issue of land is also emotionally potent among segments of the jewish population. If there is a way forward (and this is only a slightly more plausible scenario) it may lie on some monetary compensation to the palestinians, with a quid pro quo being a peace brokered with a buy in from key arab states. Assuming such a peace can be worked out, how will it be sustained? Ergo, this is just another kashmir..

Incidentally, the claim to the land based on some fairy tale is of course absurd, but we are so far into this conflict that at this point it is academic.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 21, 2011 6:13 pm

charvaka wrote:
Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
Since Israel never demanded that Arabs hand over Jordon or Syria or any of their land. So your equating Israel and Palestinians is not correct.
Israel forcibly occupied and took over land that does not belong to them. A hundred years ago, there wasn't a Jewish nation in Palestine.

Wars have consequences, and the Palestinians need to realize that. They can't get all of historical Palestine back; Israelis have been living there for generations now and that land now belongs to them. But the Israelis can't expect to eat into large chunks of pre-1967 Palestine -- that is death through a thousand cuts for the Palestinian state.

The isrealis did not start the war. There were arrogant and overconfident, waged a war aganst iSrael and lost their lands. Sorry. They need to pay the price.

60 yrs ago there was no israel... 1600 years ago, there were no muslim land. they were all jews, nomads, and may be even hindus, and they lived in the same land. Glad iSrael has a land of their own. Otherwise the Muslims and Christians would have made the jews into yet another Parsi or a Bahai community perseculted by everyone.

The loss of Golan, west bank, and East Jerusalem is due to the mistake of the arab leaders of Syria Jordon and the rest. They need to live with that instead of whining about returning them. Only India did a stupid thing of stopping the war when winning it. Wrong to expect the whole world to be suckers like India - especially, the musalman countries.

by charvaka Sat May 21, 2011 9:21 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:They need to pay the price.

They HAVE paid the price. For 35 years they have lived under foreign occupation. Compare that to the price Germany and Japan paid for their unilateral aggression (and the Holocaust) in WWII -- both countries were occupied for less than 10 years. Even East Germany was occupied by Soviet forces for about the same time as Palestine has been under occupation. Germany and Japan both lost territory they once held, the the core lands of their nation were returned to them.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:60 yrs ago there was no israel... 1600 years ago, there were no muslim land.

One crucial difference is that 60 years ago, there was a United Nations Organization and such a thing as international law, which Israel violates with its prolonged occupation of Palestine; 1,600 years ago there wasn't either.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:The loss of Golan, west bank, and East Jerusalem is due to the mistake of the arab leaders of Syria Jordon and the rest.

Correct. You should add Sinai to the list. And the model followed in Sinai is something that will work for the rest of the Arab world. I can understand Israel's annexation of some portions of Golan heights, given their strategic significance and the vulnerability to Israeli towns to cross-border fire from Golan. Even in that case, some compensation should be provided.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sat May 21, 2011 9:43 pm

There is a different. Despite the return of Sinai, egyptians overwhelmingly hate israelis and could not wait to get rid of Israel - proper. They are not doing so due to the past defeats, US largesse, and hopes of getting the rest of the Arab land.

Can you or anyone ever guarantee the Syrian and independent Palestinian arabs will live in peace with the Israel? nope. What to do with the 18% Israeli palestinians living in proper israel ? the palestinian state will demand free access to their brethren. It will be another Indian muslim/pakistani muslim type story. Glad Israel is acting much smarter than India.

If the UN can carve out an Israel out of the British Palestine, it can very easily create a Palestine out of the Syrian and Jordanian land. After all Jordan has some 30% palestinian population.

You can trust in idealism and Palestinians (or muslims in general) are peace loving and stick agreements and respect other people. Much of the rest of the world does not.

Any compensation or land allocation should come from Syria and Jordon as they are the ones who egged the paleistinians to get out of israel in 1948 so that the arab countries can drive away the israelis into the mediter ocean and give all the land to their palestinian brothers.

Syria and Jordan failed miserably and better pay up.

by artood2 Sun May 22, 2011 3:58 am

Palestinians conceded more than what Obama is saying right now but Israel kept coming back asking for more. They have an upper hand and basically do not want to move forward. Obama's call may force them to consider Palestinian concessions and force their hand a bit. There is a lot of posturing going on here. Obama is basically asking Israel to start talking. I do not think they will agree to pre-war borders but this kind of gives a lower ground to start from.

Syria and Jordan have paid for their misadventures. The whole purpose of the talks is to attain peace. There will never be peace without some concessions from Israel.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 22, 2011 1:20 pm

Palestinians lost their land due to their stupidity, aggression, and hatred. So they deserve NOTHING. Whatever Israel offered is more than it should ever dream of. Anything else, they should demand the Syrians and Jordanians to provide them as a compensation for misleading them.

>> The whole purpose of the talks is to attain peace. There will never be peace without some concessions from Israel.

There will be and can be no peace with the Palestinians as their ultimate goal is destruction of Israel. So Israel should stand its ground and offer nothing else, and wait for the arabs to reach a consensus before sitting across the table with them.

by artood2 Sun May 22, 2011 2:22 pm

Israel had peace treaty with Egypt/Jordan and they have worked out well so far. There is nothing to say that it can not happen with Palestine as well. Palestine has paid the price for the war. Germany/Japan/Italy did not keep on paying the price for their war efforts. At some point of time the war stops and you move on.

by Kris Sun May 22, 2011 3:05 pm

Peace treaties are unfortunately not cast in stone. One of netanyahu's worries about egypt has been how recent developments are going to pan out. Power vacuums in the middle east tend to get filled with fundamentalist islamists which pretty much will unwind any gains made via peace treaties.
Israel's fears are well grounded and it its stubborn stances need to be viewed in that context. I agree this is a mexican standoff position and is going to be a perennial problem. Unfortunately, this is one issue that is not going to go away

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 22, 2011 6:45 pm

artood2 wrote:Israel had peace treaty with Egypt/Jordan and they have worked out well so far. There is nothing to say that it can not happen with Palestine as well. Palestine has paid the price for the war. Germany/Japan/Italy did not keep on paying the price for their war efforts. At some point of time the war stops and you move on.

You keep bringing Germany/Japan/Italy...

Do you see ANYTHING common between them or any claim of unity historically. Did they have any bigger power to back them or use them as a proxy.

Palenstine issue is different. They are the smallest entity and cannot do anything without the help of its backers Syria, Jordon, Saudi. They all swear in the name of Allah and islam and Ummah. Any conflict with one is treated as a conflict with the entire 1 Billion Islam and Ummah inviting everyone into the fray.

Sorry...there is no alternative but to deny even an inch to the Palestinians. Since Syria et al. consider them as part of their Ummah, they should also take care of their own Ummah in their own homes.

Time to disengage with the palestinians and give them the Chinese treatment.

by artood2 Sun May 22, 2011 8:48 pm

This is the first time I am talking of the axis powers. Your holiness is surely smoking the holy stuff! Guess I should take some of that powder you call vibhuti Very Happy

The axis powers still have the technological might which is greater than all the mideast countries combined. The peace with those countries was long lasting because of two things: the demonstration of nuclear power and a reconstruction process without the notion of humiliation. If Palestine is so guided by other powers, why did Jordan or Egypt have a peace treaty with Israel? The truth is that Palestine can barely survive let alone threaten Israel. Israel has all the strength to enforce a favorable treaty right now while making a few concessions. The oneness of Islamic world is a myth, else Iraq would be a very peaceful place right now.

by artood2 Sun May 22, 2011 8:51 pm

Kris wrote:Peace treaties are unfortunately not cast in stone. One of netanyahu's worries about egypt has been how recent developments are going to pan out. Power vacuums in the middle east tend to get filled with fundamentalist islamists which pretty much will unwind any gains made via peace treaties.
Israel's fears are well grounded and it its stubborn stances need to be viewed in that context. I agree this is a mexican standoff position and is going to be a perennial problem. Unfortunately, this is one issue that is not going to go away

I agree that peace treaty are not cast in stone but these treaties have survived for long time and are definitely worth pursuing. The Arab spring is not over yet and we do not know which way the winds will blow.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Sun May 22, 2011 9:16 pm

Palestinians have become the prostitutes for the various Islamic pimps - the syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Iranians.

Israel can only make deal with the Palestinians as dictated by these pimps. They all have a selfish interest and agenda in denying the Palestinians self-determination - much more than the Israelis.

by Kris Mon May 23, 2011 1:22 am

artood2 wrote:
Kris wrote:Peace treaties are unfortunately not cast in stone. One of netanyahu's worries about egypt has been how recent developments are going to pan out. Power vacuums in the middle east tend to get filled with fundamentalist islamists which pretty much will unwind any gains made via peace treaties.
Israel's fears are well grounded and it its stubborn stances need to be viewed in that context. I agree this is a mexican standoff position and is going to be a perennial problem. Unfortunately, this is one issue that is not going to go away

I agree that peace treaty are not cast in stone but these treaties have survived for long time and are definitely worth pursuing. The Arab spring is not over yet and we do not know which way the winds will blow.

>>> The longevity of the theories can be cited as proof of viability if they had been executed by societies with a history of orderly transition of power and successive governments honoring existing treaties. If fundamentalists take over, this will go for a toss. I am not optimistic about this prospect. Netanyahu rightly cited the example of lebanon where things went awry. Israel has too much riding on this to be wrong and hence (presumably) the hard stance.

by artood2 Mon May 23, 2011 2:01 am

In that case it is just the case of wanting peace or not. It is not a question of what to concede.

by Kris Mon May 23, 2011 3:36 am

artood2 wrote:In that case it is just the case of wanting peace or not. It is not a question of what to concede.

>>>> More like the "peace" potentially being a mirage.....

by artood2 Mon May 23, 2011 3:40 am

If they are able to support a regime there they can have a chance. The next wars will be fought over water.

by charvaka Tue May 24, 2011 1:10 am

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
You keep bringing Germany/Japan/Italy...

Do you see ANYTHING common between them or any claim of unity historically. Did they have any bigger power to back them or use them as a proxy.

Palenstine issue is different. They are the smallest entity and cannot do anything without the help of its backers Syria, Jordon, Saudi. They all swear in the name of Allah and islam and Ummah. Any conflict with one is treated as a conflict with the entire 1 Billion Islam and Ummah inviting everyone into the fray.

Sorry...there is no alternative but to deny even an inch to the Palestinians. Since Syria et al. consider them as part of their Ummah, they should also take care of their own Ummah in their own homes.

Time to disengage with the palestinians and give them the Chinese treatment.

This is rich! First, you argue that the Arabs have to pay a price for going to war stupidly and losing that war. Sure, and they have paid the price. And when R2D2 and I point out that the price the Palestinians paid is more than that paid by other countries in similar cases in modern times, you change your argument altogether.

If the Palestinians are weak now to make peace by themselves (without needing the backing of Jordan, Syria, Egypt and the Saudis), they were weak back in 1967 and 1973. The aggressors were Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Israel is punishing the Palestinians instead of punishing those countries. By punishing the Palestinians, it is pushing them more and more into the arms of those other Arab countries. Fifteen years ago, Hamas was a marginal force; it became the force it is today thanks to the bungling of the 1993 peace process. If Israelis complain now about Hamas, they also need to recognize that they contributed to the rise of that organization.

by charvaka Tue May 24, 2011 1:15 am

Kris wrote:Peace treaties are unfortunately not cast in stone. One of netanyahu's worries about egypt has been how recent developments are going to pan out. Power vacuums in the middle east tend to get filled with fundamentalist islamists which pretty much will unwind any gains made via peace treaties.
Israel's fears are well grounded and it its stubborn stances need to be viewed in that context. I agree this is a mexican standoff position and is going to be a perennial problem. Unfortunately, this is one issue that is not going to go away

It is in Israel's interest to leave the Palestinian mess to the Palestinians, and get the hell out. It need not return to 1967 borders; it just needs to negotiate swaps / compensation that will give it borders that are more easily defensible. Unless Israel settles this now, it will have its own demographic problem -- it already has a sizable Muslim population, and that fraction is growing faster than its Jewish population. Immigration of diaspora Jews masked that problem for a long time, but that has pretty much run its course.

Peace treaties won't ensure Israel's future security. But occupation doesn't either. A combination of more defensible borders and vigilant defense would be better than the constant state of war the country has been at since at least the Second Intifada.

by Kris Tue May 24, 2011 2:43 am

The palestine question is a tough one from the israeli perspective in that any peace worked out will be tentative (de facto) under current conditions. To get israel to move off the dime on this one, the west needs to prevail on its friends like the saudis (!) to guarantee that the peace will hold. The quid pro quo will be an independent palestinian state, which can be apportioned in such a way that israel has defensible borders. I made a post on this in the old CH way back when, but am not able to retrieve it now.

All that being said, this is a problem I am not optimistic about, since there are too many players with vested interests in keeping the game going.

by Marathadi-Saamiyaar Tue May 24, 2011 7:05 am

charvaka wrote:
Israel's fears are well grounded and it its stubborn stances need to be viewed in that context. I agree this is a mexican standoff position and is going to be a perennial problem. it already has a sizable Muslim population, and that fraction is growing faster than its Jewish population. Immigration of diaspora Jews masked that problem for a long time, but that has pretty much run its course.

Peace treaties won't ensure Israel's future security.

Agree.. But going by the history, the Arabs may not be united, but sure they unite when it comes to hating a non-muslim. Your idea that by makign peace with the Palestinians, they will be liberated feom the other arabs is wrong. When Israel and Egypt made peace, there was US (only at the table. Sadat dumped the Soviets overnight and accepted peace. Egypt had defeated Israelis in the 73 war and proved that Israel HAD to isolate Egypt to prevent a future disaster.

In the case of the palestinians - the table will be occupied by Israel, Iran, Syria, Jordan (directly or through their surrogates in Palestine). Tell me how palestinians will be allowed to make REAL peace with the Israelis - even if they want to?

by charvaka Tue May 24, 2011 2:21 pm

Kris wrote:All that being said, this is a problem I am not optimistic about, since there are too many players with vested interests in keeping the game going.

Yeah, there are more powerful players that benefit from the status quo than benefit from a resolution. Millions of Palestinians are hostage of that power game.

One of the developments that is certainly worrisome to the US, Saudi and Israel at the same time is the rise of Iran. That country is getting more and more involved. Perhaps that will increase the incentives for peace for all powerful parties.

by charvaka Tue May 24, 2011 2:28 pm

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
In the case of the palestinians - the table will be occupied by Israel, Iran, Syria, Jordan (directly or through their surrogates in Palestine). Tell me how palestinians will be allowed to make REAL peace with the Israelis - even if they want to?

Israel can easily make peace with Syria and Jordan. It doesn't need to negotiate with Iran on Palestine. (At least not yet; leave the problem festering for 10 years, and Iran will be totally embroiled in it.) For Syria, all it needs is hand back some portion of Golan Heights, swap some low-lying land for the higher elevations, perhaps offer money in exchange for land. If Israel offers that, Syria won't hold back from a deal just to ensure a right-of-return or Jerusalem-as-capital-for-Palestine. Syria will do what is in its national interest, not what's best for Palestine. Jordan is more complicated because of the refugee problem and other historical reasons (the fact that Jordan was running the West Bank until 1967, etc.) But Jordan of all Arab countries has been willing to negotiate peace with Israel; it needs Israel's help in resolving the problem so that Palestinians don't end up creating disturbances in Jordan.

The simple answer is that Israel CAN practice divide and rule. Make peace with Syria and Jordan separately. In parallel, talk to the Palestinians. That way, you don't hold everything hostage to the status of Jerusalem.

by Kris Tue May 24, 2011 10:22 pm

charvaka wrote:
Kris wrote:All that being said, this is a problem I am not optimistic about, since there are too many players with vested interests in keeping the game going.
Yeah, there are more powerful players that benefit from the status quo than benefit from a resolution. Millions of Palestinians are hostage of that power game.

One of the developments that is certainly worrisome to the US, Saudi and Israel at the same time is the rise of Iran. That country is getting more and more involved. Perhaps that will increase the incentives for peace for all powerful parties.

>>> The co-opting of saudi arabia into the calculus that I suggested was actually based on this. Iran's sniffing around is making the saudis uncomfortable. This can be leveraged with them to play ball on the palestine issue. Yeah, the average palestinian is caught up in this whole mess with no way out. I have worked with some and known some. We tend to think of them as a monolith, which does them a huge disfavor. As an example, a girl I knew was from a palestinian christian background and was pretty much told by her family that marriage to her muslim boyfriend was out of the question. That boyfriend was a friend of mine and was a francophile algerian. If anything, it would have made more sense if the family had objected to a western boyfiriend.

by Sponsored content

On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border

Re: On calls for Israel to go back to the 67 Border