<< . . . you would be back to 67 , when no body was satisfied at all.>>
Hopefully, both sides will have learned something in the 43 intervening years. The Jews that they can't have the whole package, the Palestinians that they can't drive the Jews into the sea. People DO get tired of fighting, that HAS been known to happen, and 43 years is a long time for people to learn to coexist.
The problem today is the right-wing Zionists of the Likud Party and the religious fanatics who are backing them - - to them, the whole land is theirs, promised by God and to give up on any part is to spit in God's face. If these fucking maniacs are allowed to drive Israeli policy, and through the Israelis, through the influence of the Zionist lobby on the corrupt, sham-democratic U.S. Congress, U.S. foreign policy as well, then Israel will still be fighting Palestinian "terrorism" for another 43 years and the U.S. will still be broke from its misguided efforts to fight "Muslim terrorism" long before the 43 years expire.
<<This plan has no potential for causeing any peace, it was very exactly tried already.>>
That is just not true, it was never tried. There was no Israeli concession even to the idea of a Palestinian state at that time (see Golda Meir's infamous remark, "Who are the Palestinians?") - - their existence as a people, let alone their right to a state of their own, was denied by the entire Israeli nation.
<<A return to the 67 border invites a replay of the 67 war , but with stronger weapons on both sides and less mercy this time.>>
How can it invite a repeat, when all the Arab participants in the war are members of the Arab League then and are now, and the Arab League has endorsed the peace plan and guaranteed diplomatic recognition and normal relations with the Israeli state if it accepts the peace plan?
<<I don't know what convoluted logic leads you to hope that appeasement would lead to anything but greater demands for appeasement.>>
There is nothing convoluted in my logic, it is straightforward enough: when you stop oppressing people, they stop fighting back. That's convoluted? It couldn't be simpler. Sounds to me like you don't even know what "convoluted" means if you think THAT was convoluted.
You like to think in simplistic generalizations which have no basis in reality. To you, every situation resolves back to 1938 and anyone who is not calling for torture, war, mayhem and murder as a solution to any problem is Neville Chamberlain.
In the first place, you don't even understand the dynamics of 1938, so any "lessons" you draw from it for application to 2010 are bound to be flawed. Neville Chamberlain was not the villain in 1938 and it was not his policies that directly resulted in WWII, it was Hitler who was both the villain and the cause of the war.
In the second place, you seem to think that appeasement originated in 1938. Appeasement is a tactic and only a tactic. It has been around as long as diplomacy itself, which is a sign that it must work sometimes. If in fact it failed as a tactic consistently every time it was resorted to, if in fact it had a 100% failure rate, it would not have persisted as a tactic for the thousands of years that humans have practised the art of diplomacy. The root word of "appeasement" is "peace" and the basic meaning of the word is to calm down, to remove a motive for war to resolve things peacefully. It's a perversion of the word to allow it from the mouth of an oppressor to justify his on-going oppression of others; to end an ILLEGAL (by international law) 43-year-old military occupation of another people is NOT "appeasement" in any negative sense, it is merely doing right and abandoning doing wrong.
<<Chamberlain could have listened to Chirchill and could have been busy building Spitfires while the fight in Spain was still going on, I know about the Hurricane and I know that the Spitfire outclassed it and was in prototype before the invasion of Chezoslovokia. Better preparation would have ment more Spitfires and less reliance on the Hurricane which wasn't quite as good as the ME109.>>
The men in the planes were better men, plane. That was what decided the outcome. That plus Hitler's fucking stupidity in giving up while the fight was still going on. They didn't have to outlast the Germans, just inflict casualties at a rate that caused them to lose their nerve. If you want to diss Chamberlain for his policies at Munich, I think I have trashed that argument. If you want to diss him for not being Churchill, you will get no argument from me. Churchill wasn't arguing for war in the earlier part of the thirties, he was arguing for early armament, for preparedness, following the massive disarmament that followed the end of WWI, as a means of avoiding waR.
<< I don't buy the rehabilitation of Chaimberlain , I rather beleive Churchills apraisal that the wasted time was " eaten by the locust" and that there was foolishness involved in being poorly prepared while the Germans restored their war machine, even before Hitler even came to power.>>
Well, that's why I referred to the armaments production tables in Prof. Overy's book on the Origins of WWII. They're very interesting and they clearly justify Chamberlain's policies, at least to the extent of preparations and rearmament.
<<Meanwhile Stalin knew the Germans were building aircraft in violation of treaty , some were built on his own territory.If there was anyone dumber than Chaimberlain it was Stalin.>>
Meantime, Stalin was able to buy more time than Chamberlain did, used the interval to move most of his weapons factories beyond the Urals and out of German reach, and finished the war in possession of Eastern Europe with an army that, if it wished, could have driven to the English Channel. Some dummy!
