Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Obama: Pullback to 1967 Borders


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Do I hear an echo?

Seriously, what's the romance with very unprogressive Palestinians. Women won't get to drive or vote, will have to cover their faces, and homosexuals will be persecuted. What's liberal about that?

I believe that Palestinians deserve a state of their own. As to the things you point out, how about the fact there are no buses running in Israel on Friday night or Saturday due to religious laws? How about persecuting others due to their faith (Christians and Muslims)? Even better, how about refusing to allow the building of a mosque (Murfreesburo, Tennessee). Religious intolerance isn't a Muslim thing only.

Edited by scouterjim
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't care who owns what land in the final deal, as long as both sides are satisfied with it and there's peace.

But why do you care about both sides being satisfied and there being peace? If you don't care who ends up with the land, what's wrong with the present situation? It is relatively peaceful after all. The occasional rocket attacks and retaliatory strikes, but casualties are occasional and minimal. It is probably one of the most peaceful times in history for that piece of the middle east. It will get more peaceful yet as Israel continues to deploy Iron Dome, nulling the threat of rocket attacks and reducing the need for retaliatory strikes. As for being satisfied... it should be obvious that a deal where both sides are "satisfied" is impossible. Any deal will be one that one or both sides feel like they have sacrificed/compromised a lot and will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of most Israelis and/or Palestinians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But why do you care about both sides being satisfied and there being peace? If you don't care who ends up with the land, what's wrong with the present situation? It is relatively peaceful after all. The occasional rocket attacks and retaliatory strikes, but casualties are occasional and minimal. It is probably one of the most peaceful times in history for that piece of the middle east. It will get more peaceful yet as Israel continues to deploy Iron Dome, nulling the threat of rocket attacks and reducing the need for retaliatory strikes. As for being satisfied... it should be obvious that a deal where both sides are "satisfied" is impossible. Any deal will be one that one or both sides feel like they have sacrificed/compromised a lot and will leave a bitter taste in the mouths of most Israelis and/or Palestinians.

I don't think the current situation is peaceful. You forgetting the flotilla last year? 2008/09 Gaza war? 2006 Lebanon war? Second Intifada? The region is constantly on the verge of another big incident, it just needs a spark. I shouldn't even have to defend this point.

As for "being satisfied", no they won't be under the current mindset of many on both sides. That's why mindsets need to change in order for there to be peace, not changes in negotiating terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This doesn't fly. What Israel did in 1967 broke international law. If you are attacked in a war, you have the right to defend yourself of course, but if you win you can't just annex parts of the countries/territories that attacked you. That's what Israel did, and UNSC Resolution 242 from 1967 binds Israel to give back the acquired land.

Obama is basically trumping Israel to follow the UN Resolution and international law.

UN resolutions are not binding unless someone decides to enforce them such as now being done in Libya. And with regard to the above resolution, if that were to be enforced Russia would need to give back land to Finland, and the US would give back states to Mexico.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

I don't care who owns what land in the final deal, as long as both sides are satisfied with it and there's peace.

Do you honestly think anyone feels any differently? That's what both sides want - what satisfies them and peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they took the land because WANTED IT. End of story. The occupation is WAY more than a security operation... Isreal is plundering the land for vitally needed resources.

I disagree.

The land that Israel now occupies beyond the 1967 borders is largely held for security reasons. Given Israel's security situation, the 1967 borders are not defendable. In the distant future, this may change.

Let me make a comparison.

The land south of Montreal up to the US border (45 degrees) is largely flat. On the US side, the terrain becomes mountainous. This border was determined in the Treaty of Paris to the advantage of the US. It made an invasion from the north difficult.

A similar situation occurs with the Golan Heights between Syria and Israel. The land (like northern NY state) is largely useless but it is a critical defensive position. The Israelis are not going to give it up and I think that Obama was simply grandstanding when he asked them to.

Edited by August1991
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The land south of Montreal up to the US border (45 degrees) is largely flat. On the US side, the terrain becomes mountainous. This border was determined in the Treaty of Paris to the advantage of the US. It made an invasion from the north difficult.
I never knew that. Very interesting.

Given the relative quality of our two countries' leaders do you think the Canadian Forces could make another invasion attempt? Just an idea. </joke>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

There exists many people on both sides who don't care if the other side is 'satisfied' with a deal, as long as they what they they want.

I see what you're saying, but my point is that I don't think there will be a "final deal" until both sides are satisfied; unless both sides are satisfied with the deal, I don't think there will ever be peace. Do you? Therefore, I think everyone is hoping for a deal that both are satisfied, so there will be peace.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see what you're saying, but my point is that I don't think there will be a "final deal" until both sides are satisfied; unless both sides are satisfied with the deal, I don't think there will ever be peace. Do you? Therefore, I think everyone is hoping for a deal that both are satisfied, so there will be peace.

A deal where both sides are satisfied is physically impossible. They both want Jerusalem. Besides Jerusalem, any final border deal will leave plenty of people dissatisfied, including settlers, Israeli Arabs, and many ordinary Israelis and Palestinians.

The problem with your premise is that you assume there are two sides that have to be satisfied. That's just not the case. There are a lot more than that. Settlers have different criteria for being satisfied than residents of Tel Aviv, for example. More catastrophically, the goals of Hamas are utterly incompatible with any kind of deal, even if they have agreed to temporarily not pursue Israel's annihilation. Then there is the Palestinian authority, which is supposedly more moderate. And yet they are currently in a unity government with Hamas. Neither represents Palestinians particularly well. Then, there is also always Lebanon and Syria to consider. These nations believe that it is their right to extort territorial concessions from Israel as part of a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians and are supported in this by much of the international community. This makes negotiations much more complex and intractable, because giving away the Golan Heights is about as horrible a mistake as Israel could possibly make at this point. There are dozens of actors in these negotiations, not two, and they are all pulling in different directions.

My opinion is that the situation between Israel and the Palestinians will continue along the lines of the present status quo for the foreseeable future, and will only be fundamentally altered in the wake of a major regional or worldwide conflict (by major, I mean really major, tiny skirmishes like Lebanon 2006 or Gaza 2009 aren't even on the radar), if one ever occurs.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree.

The land that Israel now occupies beyond the 1967 borders is largely held for security reasons. Given Israel's security situation, the 1967 borders are not defendable. In the distant future, this may change.

Let me make a comparison.

The land south of Montreal up to the US border (45 degrees) is largely flat. On the US side, the terrain becomes mountainous. This border was determined in the Treaty of Paris to the advantage of the US. It made an invasion from the north difficult.

A similar situation occurs with the Golan Heights between Syria and Israel. The land (like northern NY state) is largely useless but it is a critical defensive position. The Israelis are not going to give it up and I think that Obama was simply grandstanding when he asked them to.

The land that Israel now occupies beyond the 1967 borders is largely held for security reasons. Given Israel's security situation, the 1967 borders are not defendable. In the distant future, this may change.

Sorry thats just false, and Im amazed that anyone could make the statement that the 1967 borders are "indefensible". Israel already DID defend them against almost all of her neighbors and won easily in less than a week.

Most the land was taken to provide strategic access to fresh water... Israel gets almost 2/3's of its fresh water from land it occupied in 67, without which they could not irrigate crops or feed their own people.

As soon as the war started Israeli militarized its public water department and put water resources in the occupied territories under military control. See Israeli Military Order #92. And before any of that competition over that water was already a key causative factor in the conflict with both sides working on projects to divert the river jordans headwaters, and Israels bombing of Arab water projects less than 2 years before the war broke out. Even today Palestinians are kept under a strict quota and are not even allowed to drill wells or extract the water they need to build an agrarian economy.

This really is just a garden variety dustup over resources and realestate.

The land (like northern NY state) is largely useless but it is a critical defensive position

No its not largely useless. It gives them exclusive control of Lake Tiberius and its feeders. And again... Israel already DID defend the pre-67 border... easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree totally. This means that some people's mindsets need to change in order to reach such a goal.

I assure you that is literally impossible.

The only way those two groups will ever treat each other with respect is if someone puts a gun to both of their heads and forces them too. At best they could have the same sort of "peace" that south and north korea have.

The only way I can ever see a resolution is if theres a pretty significant shift in the global balance of power and the world community decides to force both sides into compliance. These people dont have the capacity to make peace with each other... its just not in them. As Bonham elluded to theres just too much water under the bridge and too many complicated issues for a negotiated settlement that both sides would accept.

We should do one of two things...

A. Enforce the Law... force Israel to leave occupied territory and recognize a palestinian state with a whole bunch of conditions placed apon it, and a large and permanent multi national force to make sure they dont provoke/attack Israel or vice versa.

B. Let Israel finish the job... Let them annex the land and hurd the palestinians onto reservations with the hope that after a few generations things will calm down and palestinians will contribute to Israeli society. Countries like Canada and the US have had varying degrees of success with this.

Niether of those things are likely to happen any time soon. The international community will both refuse to implement solution A, while preventing solution B. We will continue to embarass ourselves with wrong headed half-hearted attempts to broker peace, and I absolutely GUARANTEE you that you will die having not seen a resolution to this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never advocated that. You just cant read.

Hmmmm...you suggest forcing Israel to do something via a 'large and permanent multi national force' as plan 'A'. So Canada and who else were you thinking of trying to 'force' Israel? Norway, perhaps?

Edited by DogOnPorch
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep...that's what was meant by a shift in "global balance of power". Good luck with that.

Seeing that the Israelis took out several modern Soviet equiped armies using surplus M4 Shermans they bought at a military auction, Canada would need to make sure they don't bring the green camo...at the very least.

:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...