And we're supposed to "talk" to these folks

[domer]

Now that you've mentioned it, whatever loose-associated link I've made between you and anti-Semitism I now reindorse in clear and unequivocal terms: your myopic righteousness, which can be identified as Catholic-born or -nurtured, exists in a historical vacuum, which denies the far more important reasons one with your adopted heritage should care about Israel's fate.

[_JS]

Now that you've mentioned it, whatever loose-associated link I've made between you and anti-Semitism I now reindorse in clear and unequivocal terms: your myopic righteousness, which can be identified as Catholic-born or -nurtured, exists in a historical vacuum, which denies the far more important reasons one with your adopted heritage should care about Israel's fate.

Nice. You never provided evidence the first time, I don't suppose you will this time.

Not supporting apartheid policies does not make one anti-Semitic. I harbor no animosity towards the Jewish people, none at all. Yet, that does not mean I have to condone every action the Israeli Government takes.

You know better than that Domer.

[The_Professor]

Let's pose a hypothetical here.

What if we had a conference between the U.S., the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and of, of course, Israel. Also, hypothetically, an agreement gets hammered out that sets the boundaries back such that no land on the West Bank is included into Israel. The fence is taken down. Israel gets extra Patriot batteries from the U.S.

Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? If so, thne Grrrreat! not, then what stops the cycle?

[Michael Tee]

<<Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? >> 

Nobody can answer that.  Some would, some wouldn't.  At this point in time a lot of hatred has built up because of killing and torture and some of the victims just aren't gonna forget all about something like that.  I'd say the Israelis just have to take a chance.  They're clearly in the wrong by continuing the occupation, so they can't use fear of retaliation as an excuse to continue the wrongdoing.  It's like a bank robber holed up in a bank and refusing to come out and face the music.  They need to take the first step and prepare to defend themselves in any case because the longer the occupation continues, the more killing and house demolition and humiliation of the occupied population goes on, the worse it will be for everyone in the end.  They need a little courage here - - stand up, acknowledge the wrong, prepare to make amends and hope for a long, slow and sometimes violent reconciliation, prepared to defend themselves at all times.  But at least make a start.  Stop the ongoing injustice.

I notice you stayed away from the refugee right of return issue and also the issue of compensation for lands abandoned under fire.  Those aren't issues that are automatically going to resolve with the territorial concessions.  This is a hugely complicated matter.

[Michael Tee]

Incidentally, further to my last comment in reply to the Professor:  a few days ago, I referred to a graphic journalistic account of Joe Sacco's time spent in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.  ("Palestine" by Joe Sacco)  There were numerous interviews with real Palestinians reproduced in cartoon form and very enlightening.  A few of the Palestinians interviewed would be willing to live in peace with the Jews if a peace accord could be reached and a lot wouldn't under any conditions.  There are still quite a few who want it all back, even the land of the original 1948 Jewish state.  And a lot of water has passed under the bridge since that book was written, during which the Arab hatred of Israel must have increased substantially.  So there's no question in my mind, even with the ending of the occupation, the Jews would still need to be prepared to defend what would be left for them.  And still to keep building bridges or trying to.  The bridge-building would be easier without the burden of the occupation, which IMHO makes bridge-building virtually impossible.

[sirs]

And here Tee ironically validates precisely why Israel would be foolish to give up any further defensible lands, and to maintain the strongest plausible border enforcement pollcy, logistically possible.  Go figure

[Plane]

<<Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? >> 

Nobody can answer that.  Some would, some wouldn't. 

Would those that "would" enforce the peace on those that wouldn't?

[sirs]

<<Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? >> 

Nobody can answer that.  Some would, some wouldn't. 

Would those that "would" enforce the peace on those that wouldn't?

EXCELLENT question.  I wonder how it'll be rationalized as inappropriate or impractical

[Michael Tee]

<<Would those that "would" enforce the peace on those that wouldn't?>>

That's just the Professor's original question, re-phrased.  I don't think anyone knows the answer.  Obviously there's one end of the Palestinian spectrum that just wants the West Bank and Gaza and would be prepared to compromise their other claims if they got their primary demands.  We don't know how numerous or influential they are.  There are others who would probably be encouraged to attack Israel if Israel ended the occupation, and we don't know how numerous or influential they are.  A lot would depend on the strength of the international community's guarantees of the final border.  I am assuming that in any final settlement, there would be no right of return or a very strictly limited one for the Arab refugees and some form of monetary compensation for lost Arab property.

As far as I am concerned, anyone who says he knows the answer to that question is simply lying.  Turning the West Bank and the Gaza Strip over to the Palestinians in a final settlement would be a step into the unknown.  However, maintaining the occupation and continuing the oppression of the three million Arabs in the West Bank is a recipe for ever-escalating unending violence.  And time is not on the Israelis' side.

I also think that leadership would make a big difference.  The new steps forward cannot come from the current political leadership in Israel.  These guys are old, tired, and totally lacking in credibility.  A surrender of land by them, no matter how they presented it, would almost certainly be taken as an admission of weakness by many Arabs.  Simply because they are overcommitted to the status quo in the eyes of the public on both sides of the battle lines.  Israel desperately needs fresh new political blood.

[Michael Tee]

I wanted to add one more comment to the debate over the occupation.  It is often presented by apologists for Israel that surrendering the West Bank means giving up a defensive military advantage.  In other words, that Israel is holding these lands for strategic reasons.  IMHO this is total bullshit.  Israel is holding and settling the West Bank for the oldest and commonest of all reasons for the annexation of territory by a national entity - - expansionism, land-hunger, or in simple terms: greed.  Any idea of a great strategic advantage gained by the addition of a few thousand square kilometers of land, even to a state as small geographically as Israel, is just hogwash in the age of missiles.  Obviously there is some advantage to the land as a buffer, but the settlement of the land by 240,000 Jewish settlers negates the advantage pretty completely.  It's not a buffer if it's full of your own people.  It is, however, Lebensraum.

[Amianthus]

I wanted to add one more comment to the debate over the occupation.  It is often presented by apologists for Israel that surrendering the West Bank means giving up a defensive military advantage.

You obviously don't understand military tactics.

[Michael Tee]

<<You obviously don't understand military tactics.>>

And I suppose you are a five-star general.

I understand military tactics as well as anyone else here and probably better than most.  I've seen "Sands of Iwo Jima" at least twice.

[sirs]

<<You obviously don't understand military tactics.>>

I understand military tactics as well as anyone else here and probably better than most.  I've seen "Sands of Iwo Jima" at least twice.

And check out the original '47 borders compared to the Armistice of '49 here

[Amianthus]

And I suppose you are a five-star general.

Never made that claim. Though, I'd be happy to take you on using any military simiulation you'd like. I recommend ASL (Advanced Squad Leader) - there is a virtual version that allows people to play online. Be happy to send you a set of rules and copy of the game.

I understand military tactics as well as anyone else here and probably better than most.  I've seen "Sands of Iwo Jima" at least twice.

And yet, you are making claims about military strategy and tactics that contradict people who have spent their whole lives studying them.

I guess you're just obviously much smarter than them.

[sirs]

Let's pose a hypothetical here.  What if we had a conference between the U.S., the Palestinians, Jordan, Syria and of, of course, Israel. Also, hypothetically, an agreement gets hammered out that sets the boundaries back such that no land on the West Bank is included into Israel. The fence is taken down. Israel gets extra Patriot batteries from the U.S.  Now, will the Palestinians live in peace with Israel? If so, thne Grrrreat! not, then what stops the cycle?

You and Plane posed an excellent hypothetical Professor, which Tee actually rationally addressed with realistic speculation.  Most notably that the attacks on Israel would likely continue, hatred for Israel will remain a fixture in much of the Palestinian population, that Israel handing out more land not only be a sign of weakness to terrorists, as Tee accurately references, but weakens them from a military defensive standpoint.  Yet with those realistic assumptions, his idea is that "the Israelis just have to take a chance".  Interesting how he apparently has no problem gambling Israeli lives, that includes the above assumptions.

I mean, we're all looking for ideas to help defuse the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, though IMHO that sure doesn't appear to be one that will stop the cycle, or help in reducing the conflict.  All it seems to really reduce are Israeli defensive positions.  

Ami......how many miles in width was Israel, at its narrowest, when Jordan controlled the West Bank in '47?