Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Netanyahu: The Land of Israel Will Be Divided

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:41 PM
Original message
Netanyahu: The Land of Israel Will Be Divided
Edited on Wed Sep-16-09 01:42 PM by Ozymanithrax
Netanyahu: The Land of Israel Will Be Divided
IsraelNN.com) The Israel HaYom newspaper reveals a leftist turn for Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Speaking in an interview to be published Thursday, the Prime Minister admitted he had come to terms with dividing the Land of Israel. The land is already divided. How it will be divided, that is the question, the newspaper reports.

In the interview, Netanyahu insisted that the new reality required practical solutions. How will the land be divided? Territory-wise, there have been those who predicted the land would be divided according to the 1967 armistice lines, which is not acceptable to me. Israel requires defensible borders.

"I know every place in this land, but there is a reality that exists regarding the million and a half Palestinians that live in the heart of the Jewish State. We need to find a true solution for co-existence with them."

Now what do you suppose Bibi is up to now. It is hard to say in the slow waltz that is international relations, but he could be ready to dance with President Obama, or this could be a feint.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. Ah, Bibi, FYI -
There is no such thing as 'defensible borders' for a nation the size of Israel.

The only REAL security is in making your neighbors your friends.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 01:58 PM
Response to Original message
2. Meanwhile, he's doing all he can to prevent that happening any time soon.
He is a liar.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:28 PM
Response to Original message
3. He's wrong -- it's the land of Palestine that will be divided.
He ain't dancing as long as he's promoting the building of settlements -- I'll believe the dance when he starts destroying settlements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ozymanithrax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
4. He may be positioning himself for the inevitiable...
negotiations toward finally bringing a Palestinian state into formal existence in Gaza and West Bank. At least his is how I read the signal.

And Israel boundaries, at least as set in 1948, are Israel's.

But it is long past time when a Palestinian state should have been set up. He has initiated a temporary Settlement Freeze in all areas except East Jerusalem. It appears that he may be signaling a desire to negotiate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-16-09 04:03 PM
Response to Original message
5. Sounds like he is advocating land swaps.
Palestinian state gets some majority arab land in Israel, Israel gets some majority jewish land in the west bank.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 05:25 AM
Response to Original message
6. The West Bank was NEVER "The Land of Israel"
The "Land of Israel" is the pre-1967 boundaries. That's enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:01 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Go and study your history books
First of all the Etzion bloc - Kfar Etzion, Migdal Oz and the surrounding kibbutzim - were within the boundaries of what should have been Israeli territory. Then in 1948, on the day Israel was born, the Arabs (all 5 armies) attacked and captured the Etzion bloc and Jerusalem, killing the Jewish residents or taking them prisoner. Jordan - NOT Palestine which hadn't been invented yet - held onto this land for a grand total of 19 years when the land was recaptured by Israel in 1967. Somehow in those 19 years the land became "holy Palestinian land" and all connection with Jews was wiped out. Please explain why Arab claims to this piece of real estate is any more legitimate than Israeli claims. The same can be said for Jerusalem and most of the rest of the West Bank.

By the way, where did the term "West Bank" come from? It's the West Bank of what? The Jordan River? How big is a river bank? If you look at a map of Israel the West Bank covers some 50 miles or more. That's a pretty big bank. The term was invented to remove any Jewish and/or Israeli connection to the land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:58 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Why are Israeli claims to Ashkelon and Ashdod more legitimate
than the claims of the Arabs? Those towns were virtually entirely Arab, there are no historical Jewish sites there nor any record of there having been any. The history of the area is entirely Arab and Turkish and the archaeology is mostly of Philistine origin.

As to how those towns were denuded of Arabs:-

General Yigal Allon ordered the expulsion of the remaining Arabs but the local commanders did not do so and the Arab population soon recovered to more than 2500 due mostly to refugees slipping back. During the next year or so, the Arabs were held in a confined area surrounded by barbed wire while a secret debate took place about their fate. Some, such as General Moshe Dayan and Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion wanted them expelled, while others, such as the left-wing minority party Mapam and the Israeli labor union Histadrut, wanted them to remain. The government decided that the Arabs should be expelled, but their consent should be obtained first, which the government might have conceded because of growing international pressure. A carrot-and-stick campaign was carried out. Positive inducements included favorable currency exchange, and negative inducements included "black propaganda" and harassment such as night-time raids. On 17 August 1950, the town's inhabitants were served with an expulsion order and the first group of them were taken on trucks to the Gaza Strip where they joined their fellows in the refugee camps there. The expulsion was pushed through by David Ben-Gurion and Moshe Dayan over the objections of Pinhas Lavon, secretary-general of the Histadrut, who had wished to turn the town into a productive example of equal opportunity to the Arabs. By October 1950, only 20 Arab families remained, most of whom later moved to Lydda or Gaza. Lavon declared that the expulsion had dissipated "the last shred of trust the Arabs had in Israel, the sincerity of the State's declarations on democracy and civil equality, and the last remnant of confidence the Arab workers had in the Histadrut."


So, are you prepared to concede to the Arabs those places to which they have a better historical claim?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. Israel and palestine are tiny places, both sides can claim nearly every piece of land.
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 09:10 AM by Kurska
Whether the claim dates back 10, 60, or 2000 years. If we fight over who has a claim to what when we aren't going to get anywhere.

So wouldn't it make for sense to drop the pretense of drawing up national borders on the grounds of ancient claims and do it instead on the idea of defensible borders and giving both sides as much of their majority Jewish or Arab towns as possible while still creating a state that doesn't look like swiss cheese?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Donald Ian Rankin Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. Emphatically not.
"Defensible borders" is Israeli-speak for "borders with as much land inside them as possible"; it's certainly not something that should be a concern. No-one is susggesting the Palestinians should be allowed them, and allowing the Israelis what they mean when they say "defensible borders" would make agreement impossible.

And basing borders on current population distribution would mean stripping Israeli residency from numerous Arabs who want to remain Israeli, while allowing many of the current illegal settlements to remain, effectively rewarding ethnic cleansing.

The only possibly basis for final status borders is the Green Line.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
henank Donating Member (755 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:22 AM
Response to Reply #10
11. The Green Line was never border, only an armistice line
So claiming that"The only possibly basis for final status borders is the Green Line." makes as much sense as claiming that the Bible has written "from the River to the Sea" or whatever is written there.

The Green Line was obviously indefensible because Israel was attacked numerous times by the Arabs from the high ground beyond the green line. Adjusting the border - which everyone knows and acknowledges will have to happen - will therefore lead to "defensible borders". I can't see what your problem with that is. Are only the Palestinians entitled to defensible borders in your opinion?

Remember that Israel needs defensible borders not just from a Palestinian state but from the hostile Arab countries beyond - Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. Or a defensible border could mean having Terrain that is hard to assault
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 11:47 AM by Kurska
as the border. But no, obviously the idea of Israel wanting to have borders it can militarily defend is just a scheme by the evil jews to grab more land.

I mean it isn't like Israel has been invaded by hostile armies several times in 60 years.

Right, so the only logical thing to do while splitting the land into a Jewish State and a Palestinian state is to ensure that Jewish majority areas aren't in the jewish state and Arab majority areas aren't in the Arab state. So essentially practical matters of allowing people to live in the nation they both have wanted so long must be ignored so you can feel what exactly?

No one is being ethnically cleansed or forced of their land by exchanging land to ensure as many jews get to live in the jewish state and as many Palestinians get to live in the Palestinian state as possible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. But since the Palestinian aspirations do not include a separate state for Jews
this is all a lot of blah blah talking for no reason.

They claim that they will not stop resisting until they have gotten back all of their "former land".

So, all this talk about "dividing the land" is nonsense.

On both sides.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 12:14 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. If you'll excuse my french, Tough crap.
The only way this situation is ever going to end is If the jews get to keep their state and the Palestinians get theirs.
Both states need to have the bulk of their own people in them and maybe then they can turn their backs to each other and pretend the other doesn't exist.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. If you gave Arab-majority areas to Palestine...
you would be looking at giving pretty much the whole northern district to Palestine - I don't think that would fly.

The idea of defensible borders is bunk, by and large. Most wars these days turn on who has air superiority. There is also the fact that Israel has nuclear weapons which makes the whole thing a zero sum game.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bemildred Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 06:15 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. What are nukes good for if they don't provide any security?
That's the question. Would Lebanon be more secure if it had a few nukes? Heck no. It's like asking to get pasted "pre-emptively".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. If Israel wanted to use its superior firepower
it could have done infinitely more damage over the years than it has.

It has never used nukes, despite the constant threats from the Arab countries.

It isn't really "bunk" about defensible borders, since Israel doesn't really want to blow all the Palestinians off the face of the earth.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 07:34 PM
Response to Reply #15
18. Israel's plan is long term and many people think MAD is getting close to the begining of the end.
The ability to intercept missiles is improving at a far faster rate then the ability for missiles to avoid being intercepted, in a hundred years nuclear missiles could be as dead as the battleship.

Beyond that, air superiority can be very strongly tempered when operating in certain terrains.

If the Afghanistan-Pakistan border was a desert instead of a mountain range, do you really think al qaeda could base their operations from there?

Military technology evolves, but good defensive terrain will always be useful, Israel wants that.

And in regard to the first point, parts of the north might end up in a Palestinian state, this wouldn't be that strange considering Gaza doesn't have a land link to the west bank either. Thats exactly the point, both sides need to go to the negotiating table and work towards a two state solution that solves the problem, not just extends it another 60 miserable years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #18
19. Absolutely incorrect...
The ability to intercept missiles is improving at a far faster rate then the ability for missiles to avoid being intercepted, in a hundred years nuclear missiles could be as dead as the battleship.

My book suggestion for the day - "Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic" by Chalmers Johnston. He deals at length with missile defence systems.

Long story short - the US has spent a gargantuan amount of money on missile defence. To date, not a single system has proven reliable in controlled tests, let alone in the field.

The only operational system is the Patriot missile system. This system failed to intercept a single SCUD during the first gulf war. It likewise failed in intercepting the WW2 rockets used by Hezbollah during the 2006 Lebanon war.

The Russians created the Topol missile during the Cold War to counter any missile defence. This missile can launch multiple decoys, and is capable of lateral movement during flight. They havent bothered much with upgrading it, as the US missile defence has proven unable to intercept a simple missile, let alone a missile with countermeasures.

Basically, intercepting a missile is rather like trying to hit a .50 caliber bullet flying at right angles with another bullet at 500 metres. Also, you can't see the bullet, you can only pick it up on radar. The bullet is capable of launching decoy bullets, and can move sideways as it flies along. Also, there is not just one bullet, but 50 of them.

Its impossible, basically. The only reason the missile defence program exists is because America's politicians are too weak-kneed and gutless to pull the pin on it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 08:47 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. We will see won't we, nuclear bombs themselves were umimagineable in 1845.
Many men have said things are "Impossible" they are seldom right.

Regardless, trying to use nuclear weapons as the sole element of your defensive strategy is beyond stupid even now, given that it removes your abillity to defend yourself without bringing about the end of the world.

Since the dawn of time kingdoms and republics alike have drawn their borders along Terrain they felt they could defend, the modern age doesn't change that reality one bit.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:19 PM
Response to Reply #20
21. Alchemists tried to turn lead into gold for 500 years...
before the kings of Europe realised what a bunch of old donkey's cobblers that was.

Since the dawn of time kingdoms and republics alike have drawn their borders along Terrain they felt they could defend

Not really. A river is something you can defend, and it is true that many national boundaries are contiguous with rivers, but for the most part, if one party enjoys the high ground (more defensible), then obviously people on the other side of the border are on relatively lower ground (less defensible).

The more important aspect of my earlier post was that wars today are generally won in the air. It doesnt matter how many tanks you have and how good the terrain is, if you don't have air cover you will get cleaned up pretty quickly.

This is why Israel has done a pretty good job of defending its supposedly "indefensible" borders - it has always enjoyed qualitative air superiority over its neighbours.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:39 PM
Response to Reply #21
22. Bad example we can do that
Edited on Thu Sep-17-09 09:40 PM by Kurska
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_transmutation

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/generalchemistry/a/aa0506...

The costs just far exceed the benefits of doing it, it happens in such tiny amounts and I think the gold tends to be radioactive (If it was cheap and easy, it wouldn't be worth anything anyways because of how supply and demand works, gold is only worth something because it is rare.)

Also, in a war every little bit helps, hills messes with tanks, mountains still pose major logistical problems even in modern days and rivers as you have said are the king of defensible terrain.

You're also assuming the situation will always be that israel completely dominates it's opponents airfoce, this might not always be true and if the balance of power in the air is close, every little bit of advantage helps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:57 PM
Response to Reply #22
24. In any event....
the US is a very, very long way away from a missile defence system that is even theoretically capable, so I don't think we even need to worry about the obsolescence of the missile just yet.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurska Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. 100 years is a long time, Israel plans to be around for the next 1,000 atleast.
This is supposed to the long term peace agreement where borders are set for generations, Israel understands that it needs to think long term.

MAD may not be enough one day, but high ground is always high ground.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 12:04 AM
Response to Reply #25
26. I doubt very much whether humanity will be around for the next 1000 years
let alone Israel.

If they can avoid global warming, peak oil, sea rises, nuclear apocalypse and all other associated maladies, I imagine that Syrian tanks will be the least of their worries.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Sep-17-09 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. defensible borders is bunk due to superior air power and nukes?
Maybe you don't have a problem with snipers on hilltops getting their rocks off firing at schools, kibbutzes, and homes.

Superior air power and nukes do nothing to prevent or stop that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 03:29 AM
Response to Reply #7
27. I've studied more than a few and yr Greater Israel mumbo-jumbo is crap...
The West Bank isn't part of Israel. It never has been, and should never be. I'm aware that you feel very differently, and in holding such an absolutist view, I feel that yr stance is not all that different than that of Hamas in wanting a Palestinian state encompassing Israel...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 11:35 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Sep-18-09 04:09 AM
Response to Reply #7
28. Sounds as if it came from the same mind set that coughed up
"there is no Palestine so there for there are no Palestinians" as for the rest of your post especially the "what should have been Israel" part if memory serves the flag of at least one pre-partition "resistance" group also showed what is now Jordan as what should be Israel is that what what your speaking of?
the name West Bank do you prefer Judea and Samaria and if so why?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed Jul 30th 2014, 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC