1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Netanyahu Outlines Israel's Stance on Peace and Rejects pre-1967 Borders

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Dreadnought, May 24, 2011.

  1. Dreadnought

    Dreadnought Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Messages:
    6,896
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...njamin-netanyahu/story-e6frg6so-1226062270152

    Bolds added by myself.

    More information will come in the following weeks, but Israel's stance seems pretty clear. I think it was silly for Obama to make such a firm stance in his foreign policy speech; here, it seems Israel has openly opposed his idea, and it doesn't seem like they want to bulge. He says Jerusalem must remain totally in Israel, and that the pre-1967 borders are indefensible. He states the borders must provide peace and security for Israel.

    I heard the full speech, though, and they are willing to compromise on many issues. Is that enough?
     
  2. Cheezy the Wiz

    Cheezy the Wiz Socialist In A Hurry

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2005
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Freedonia
    Actually he compromised on absolutely nothing. This is exactly what the position was at Oslo and again at Camp David. That he even suggested that he would "negotiate" is insulting to our intelligence. He used the word "negotiate," but then turned around and said "Israel will be generous in what it allows Palestine to have." This was precisely their feeling in 2000: the Palestinians should be grateful for what we offer them out of the goodness of our hearts, and just take what they can get from us before it's too late.
     
  3. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton How much Parmesan to put on your umbrella?

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,095
    I was just about to ask what those compromises were.
    That the 1967 borders are not defense-able seems to be the main argument of his. Anyone knows how much merit there is for this?
     
  4. Thedrin

    Thedrin Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,649
    Location:
    London
    I don't believe that a two state solution is workable (since I can't foresee a situation where Israel trusts Palestine to police cross border crime), but even if I did some of those conditions would make it unworkable anyway.
     
  5. happy_Alex

    happy_Alex Happiness set to 11

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2003
    Messages:
    1,442
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ch ch ch Charvil
    I don't think that without US support Israel geographically would be especially defensible with or without 1967 borders.
     
  6. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    So he is basically offering the status quo?
     
  7. kochman

    kochman Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,818
    They should be grateful... they are receiving land for the promise of peace... which everyone knows they will violate. So, land in return for, well... nothing.
     
  8. Cheetah

    Cheetah Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2002
    Messages:
    7,792
    Location:
    the relative oasis of CFC
    If the US ever actually want to order Israel around, all you have to do is cut of the aid. What Israel says as long as they have a backing in the US, is totally irrelevant to what they'll say if they don't get any help.

    That said,
    I can understand the argument that Israel wants to defend itself, and find the '67-borders to hard for that.

    However, a Palestinian state, broken up by all the settlements will be hopeless. It will be difficult to manage, and it will be impossible to travel any distance within such a state without crossing through Israeli territory, with all the problems of commuting and trade that involves. And asking the Palestinian people to live in their own state without an army to protect them, after having been in violent clashes with the Israeli army for decades, is unimaginable. That won't happen, and everyone - including the Israeli government - knows that.

    The demands for all of Jerusalem is also near impossible to swallow for the Palestinians, yet another thing that doesn't take a genius to figure out.

    And finally, the demand that Palestinian refugees will not return to Israel, and that Israel will be recognized as a Jewish state, smells far too much of the South African apartheid and theocratic ramblings to be worthy of a modern, 21st century, Western nation. But of course, that was the whole idea behind creating Israel in the first place...

    Whatever Israel is willing to compromise on, is breadcrumbs after they've taken their entire cake and the Palestinian piece as well. Of course it is not enough, and everyone can tell.

    No, he isn't offering anything. He's not offering the status quo. He's stalling for time!

    Israel does not need to compromise, and the current situation suits them perfectly.

    As far as I see it, as wholesale genocide is not acceptable in the current world, the master plan behind Israeli strategy is as follows:
    1. As long as they can remain militarily superiour - and efforts are in place to make sure they will remain so - they can basically do whatever they want with their neighbours, as long as they do it slowly and in small doses, so that the US and Europe doesn't complain to much.

    2. They'll continue to build settlements for as much and as long as possible, in a great land-grabbing operation to secure them as much Lebensraum as they want. As the settlements become more and the settled population expands, it will be harder and harder to remove them, and soon the Jews living there will be grandchildren of Jews who lived there, and they'll have a very strong right to continue to live there.

    3. At the same time, continued settlements make it more and more difficult to establish a viable, Palestinian state, so as the Israeli position grows stronger, the Palestinian grows weaker.

    4. Continue doing what they're already doing for, say, the next hundred years or so, and the Israeli state will contain all the territory they initially wanted. The Palestinians will be crowded together in ever-decreasing small pockets on the Gaza strip and West Bank, and will eventually have to migrate into other countries or die.

    5. Israel win everything (Profit?).

    It's a perfectly viable strategy. It just requires some heartlessness and about 4 or 5 human generations of time.

    There is an even darker side however:
    Secular Israel's problem is of course that the extremist Jews are increasing in numbers far more than the seculars or moderates, and will in time dominate Israel in such a way that it'll be turned into a theocracy.

    All in all: What a great idea it was to forcefully insert a new state onto a third-party's territory and displace the population who used to live there...

    The Israelis promised peace if they were given the territory in British-controlled Palestine?
     
  9. kochman

    kochman Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,818
    2) They aren't building new settlements, as far as I know. They are only building in already established settlements.
    3) Is therefore incorrect.
    4) Also incorrect.
    5) Also incorrect.
     
  10. illram

    illram Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2005
    Messages:
    9,218
    Location:
    San Francisco
    Well, yeah, since that's what they're doing now, that to me is the status quo which is why I said that. I.e. getting Palestinians off all the land Israel wants in a long drawn out process over generations.
     
  11. Terxpahseyton

    Terxpahseyton How much Parmesan to put on your umbrella?

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2006
    Messages:
    10,095
    This map seems relevant (I found it in some other Israel thread some time ago):

    So without giving up on settlements, a sovereign Palestinian state seems rather impossible. Unless you make it ridiculously fractured or you just forcefully wedge those Palestinians into the Gaza strip.
     

    Attached Files:

  12. nivi

    nivi Call me Ishmael

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,175
    Location:
    Middle of nowhere, israel.
    What Bibi is currently saying, is nearly the same as what was offered by Clinton in 2001, and was rejected by Palestinians then, and it will be rejected again. This is not a fight about 67' borders, no peace will come until there is Palestinian acceptance of the existence of the Jewish state.
     
  13. Verbose

    Verbose Deity

    Joined:
    May 17, 2004
    Messages:
    9,704
    Location:
    Sweden / France
    Originally there was a match between Israel buffers and current artillery ranges. As the technology performs better, the argument loses its punch. Israel is too small to be really defensible given modern ranges and speeds. Which means either Israel should extend its buffers pretty radically, or it might almost as well defend within the 67 borders as within these buffers. I think we can assume Israeli defense against say a Syrian offensive will begin deep into Syria anyway.
     
  14. Terrapin

    Terrapin Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 15, 2003
    Messages:
    505
    Correct as far as it goes. But really, the notion of "offering compromises" does not apply here. Israel and various groups purporting to represent the Palestinians have entered into several agreements, most notably the Oslo accords. Each time, the Palestinian side claims to be able to speak for the Palestinians as whole during negotiations. Each time, the Israelies ask for an end to attacks on their civilians. Each time, it turns out that those who negotiated had no real ability (or, maybe, no real desire) to stop terrorism directed at Isreal. Regardless of whether you think the Palestinians have acted in good faith, it leaves comes to the same thing as far as the peace process goes. There can be no peace process or meaningful negotiations of any kind because there is no one with whom the Israelies can negotiate. No matter what the sides promise each other, Isreal will continue to experience attacks. Under these circumstances, why should Israel even try to negotiate?
     
  15. kochman

    kochman Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,818
    I would say the constant truce breaking by the Palestinians is in accordance with the Koran, where it says specifically not to befriend Christians or Jews before Muslims, and that it is ok to lie to them... especially in the furtherance of Islam...
    Retaking land that was once in the Dar Al-Islam is certainly in the best interests of Dar al-Islam...

    Land for the promise of peace... with people who don't feel like lying about the peace is a problem...
    That's a problem.

    Moderator Action: This is borderline at best. Please do not attempt to bring broad generalisations into the discussion; it's really not conducive to civil or productive discussion.
    Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
     
  16. Formaldehyde

    Formaldehyde Both Fair And Balanced

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2003
    Messages:
    33,999
    Location:
    USA #1
    This isn't really Israel's stance. It is Netenyahu's stance and the rest of the Israeli far-right represented by the Likud Party. Hopefully, he will be defeated soon and replaced with someone who isn't nearly so reactionary and provincial. Until then, there will likely be no "peace" or "compromise" in Israel other than token gestures. It will be the same apartheid of Muslims and vilification of anybody who has the temerity to disagree with them.
     
  17. nivi

    nivi Call me Ishmael

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    Messages:
    3,175
    Location:
    Middle of nowhere, israel.
    I hate to burst your bubble, but the Likud is about as far right in Israel as the GOP is in America, it currently hold a quarter of Israeli votes, and more as a percentage of Jewish votes, in the election before last, it held a full third of Israeli votes. I won't even touch on the whole apartheid business, since I debunked it quite a few times in the past.
     
  18. kochman

    kochman Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2009
    Messages:
    10,818
    This whole "apartheid" thing is just to demonize Israel. It's a cheap trick.
    I'll never understand how so many on the far left, who are supposed to be so tolerant and understand, are completely anti-Israel.
     
  19. ParkCungHee

    ParkCungHee Deity

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2006
    Messages:
    12,921
    Oh look. It's the new out, out, out speech.
     
  20. Azale

    Azale Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Messages:
    18,723
    Location:
    Texas
    It's not like Kadima was that much more benign. The problem is, I don't see a way a party could govern in Israel without at least the begrudging support of ultra-right/Jewish orthodox parties like Shas or Yisrael Beiteinu.
     

Share This Page