I'm usually not 1 to make such extended responses, but having been unable to get back to Js on a couple of other occasions, I felt compelled to tackle this with a little more detail, and hopefully clarity, as I think a confusion is developing between what I've been referencing as Israel's middle east antagonists vs simply what countries border Israel.
I get chastised because I referenced Israel as practically surrounded by enemies that wish to cease it to exist, while only 2 of them, you even conceding that 1 is "murky") are the reasons I was supposedly debunked?
How many neighbors does Israel have in your world Sirs?
Since I at no time was specific to "borders", it would include the 4 you're referring to, along with Iraq, Iran (I know, their Persian, but still openly hostile, as their President has made painfully clear), Saudi Arabia, and would also include as Arab nations not supportive of Israel, Yemen & Oman. When I referenced Israel's middle east neighbors "practically" surrounding them, I should have made it more clear that it was the Arab Middle East countries in the region (as well as Iran), NOT, just those that simply border Israel.
By the way, the Bush administration spent nearly $200 million in Jordan helping the Government there fight terrorism. So, I think you underestimate the efforts that Jordan has put into place.
As I said, 1 country doesn't refute the vast majority of the rest
As I've said, you're lying about the scenario under which Israel lives. They are no longer surrounded by belligerent neighbors.
Yes, they are, as Henny has even conceded that Egypt is merely "murky" in what assistance it provides at stemming attacks against Israel, despite having a "treaty". 1+ country doesn't offset the other 8 countries in the region. 1 country, as much as you and Miss Henny are trying to state they do, to help Israel, doesn't offset the vast majority of others who are actively hostile, if not condemning the very presence of Israel, with pledges to see them cease to exist.
The threat to Israel is likely permanent, since you can trace the conflict back thousands of years. Israel was allowed to relocate back to it's original area by the UN after Hitler's extermination attempt, and the Arab countries almost immediately took action against Israel. The fact that Israel now has a superior military, extended lands to defend itself, and a nuclear deterrent, is largely what's keeping them in existence currently. Probably taking out Iraq's growing nuclear threat in '81 extended their existence considerably. Point being, the threat is still just as valid as it was in the late 40's, only that they've managed to provide themselves a fairly good defensive position at this time.
The main issues since 1973 have all been in Lebanon and many problems there have been of Israel's own creation (a region from where we should be able to learn a lot about how not to occupy a territory). Israel has basically fought in Lebanon, in some form, since 1978. To say that Lebanon (one of Israel's 4 neighbors) is a belligerent neighbor is wholly unfair.
Actually, the main issues are what caused Israel to have to go into Lebanon. IIRC, had Israel been left alone, Israel would have never entered Lebanon. Lebanon may technically not be as "belligerent" as many other nearby nations, but the fact Syria and other terrorists USE Lebanon as launching points for attacks against Israel, kinda is the point I'm referring to, and not unfair in the least
Israel and Syria enter and leave at will. Hopefully one day the two will leave Lebanon alone and allow them to establish peace treaties with both nations and rebuild a real nation again.
Somehow you keep skipping right over the part that causes Israel to "enter at will". Would you care to please keep that in the forefront of this discussion?
That leaves Syria, the last of the four.
No, only the last of the 4 that simply border Israel, but definitely not the last bad guy in this debacle
Syria has a relatively small border with Israel and the nastiest reputation. They were the last nation to actively engage Israel in combat during the 1982 war with Lebanon. Between the two countries they have all but ravaged Lebanon. We could debate on Syria's role. Are they as bad as has been said, or are they the bogeymen of the Middle East?
So, not the tact is to minimize Syria, almost to the point that it's really just an irrelevant blip. And note the effort to pull Israel back into this, and imply some equal "ravaging" to Lebanon, completely ignoring what Israel was doing in Lebanon vs what Syria & Hezbollah were doing in Lebanon.
So, one out of four neighbors are possibly hostile? Though Syria is certainly not moving their tanks to the border any time soon. (By the way Lebanon is not an Arab nation, neither is Iran.)
Actually, no, as far as the border nations, we have 1 that's "murky" in it's efforts to curb terrorist attacks on Israel, 1 that's openly hostile, and uses another frequently to launch attacks from, leaving basically 1 that we can actually point to, as it relates to those nations that simply border Israel, as actually trying to curb the violence and attacks on Israel
What i don't see ANYONE doing Miss Henny, much less Jordan and Egypt is publically condemn folks like Hamas, publically pledge to help stop such attacks by folks like Hamas, provide logistical and intelligence assistance in taking out Terrorist cells and leaders.
As an aside, should they?
Boy, isn't that an eye opening response. and here is probably why such great effort and rationalizations are done to both minimize the threat and attacks on Israel, while magnifying Israel as something along the lines of the next Hitler-like Germany, complete with ethnic cleansing and mass killings of Palestinians, minus of course the actual ethnic cleansing and and mass killings
How would Palestinians stop the policies that you even claim to believe are unjust otherwise? Do you suggest they just let Israel bowl them over, take their land, bulldoze their neighborhoods, force them into privation? Seriously, if you were a Palestinian and just had your home bulldozed and been moved to the West Bank - where you've never lived - what would you do?
Move. Then again, my other Arab "neighbors" have immigration policies even stricter than that of Israel. Most bascially won't let me become citizens of their countries. Imagine that
I am absolutely convinced that if ALL attacks on Israel were to cease, and that all the surrounding Arab Governments would acknowledge Israel's right to exist right where it is, and pledge to go after any terrorist cells that took some pot shots at Israel, Israel would never bulldoze another Palestinian home. They could even go back to their '47 borders
LOL Sorry, it is just that now I see how you view this issue. I don't mean to belittle your opinion at all. I wonder if some Americans said the same thing about the Native American population back in the day...
Not sure what A has to do with B, nor why you'd even laugh at the notion that if Israel had been left alone in '48-'07, we wouldn't be having this debate
What they can't do is to allow the Palestinians to become a governing part of Israel, for the simple reason that if that were to occur, the majority of Palestinians could, over time, simply vote out all the Israeli elements of Israel ---> Israel ceases to exist.
That's a unionist argument in Northern Ireland. That was a nationalist argument in South Africa. That was a White Citizens Council argument in the Old South. That was a fascist argument in Germany.
See? Now Israel, in order to survive is Fascist Germany, minus of course the actual extermination camps. Sorry Js, the right of return is a non-starter at this point. I'm open to other options however
Separate Palestinian and Israeli lands, completely sovereign unto themselves, with their own governments, immigration polices, economy, etc.
That would be nice except that Israel, just as South Africa and Southern Rhodesia did, keep the best land and most development for themselves and place the Palestinians in shantytowns, forcing them to work in Israel.
Perhaps had Israel not been attacked since '48, and hadn't had to procure more lands in their defense, and perhaps if other Arab nations would openly and publically condemn terrorist attacks on Israel (something i noticed you didn't really seem to address), and even took active steps to stop said attacks, and perhaps if these same nations would publically broadcast Israels right to exist right where it is, then Israel might have some legitimate reasons to rethink some of their foreign policy positions, as it relates to the Palestinians.
And I'd have a legitimate reason to condemn them if they didn't
