 |
| |
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
I'd say a fringe representing about 20-30 % of the electorate. About correct?
|
less than 20.
quote:
Overwhelming? Depends on how you draw the border. Though what's the point of the exercise?
|
 of course it depends on how you draw the border. the point of the exercize is to prove you wrong on that Israel's increase of borders has to be by taking up places like the Gaza strip.
quote:
Ehm... it depends on how many palestinians you have inside the walls.
|
Even if NO palestinians will be inside the walls. Ever heard of artillery?
quote:
In some areas - so you shouldn't endorse the bull that I responded to, that "larger borders" per se work that way. It depends what areas you include, some of the settlements around Jerusalem are pretty interwtined with palestinian areas, for example.
|
You responded to that "more territory usually means better defence[/q] The extraordinary just points out more strongly to the rule. The fact that those are "pretty intertwined" doesn't mean that those can be separated. I know this for a fact, since I have relatives living on the outskirts of Jerusalem. The fact that across the valley lies a palestinian town doesn't change the fact that you can place a wall between "us and them".
quote:
Now cry me an ocean. How often does that happen in international relations?
|
All the time, Everywhere. And that's true for every country. That doesn't change the nature of my question, which you didn't, because...
quote:
So what is the point of gobbling up much of the westbank? On 1967 borders, there is a chance for peace. If you annex half of the westbank, there will never be peace |
What is this chance for peace you're talking of? As long as the RoR remains a pillar of mainstream palestinian demands, peace will NOT be found.
quote:
How many wars can Israel afford to lose against the Arabs?
|
quite a lot, if those aren't all-out wars. And believe me, NOONE wants Israel to lose an all-out war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
I'm not sure where we actually disagree, in part I don't get you. Eg, artillery?
"And believe me, NOONE wants Israel to lose an all-out war."
Well this one I understand. The issue ends as soon as Iran, Syria or another enemy has nuclear weapons.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
|
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:31
|
|
quote:
I'm not sure where we actually disagree, in part I don't get you. Eg, artillery?
|
Unilateral withdrawal= No control of what goes on on the other side. groups like Hamas, and IJ getting artillery is only a matter of time then. So they'll place a Grad launcher inisde a town, near a hospital, or something and will fire away at Israeli cities. Lots of dead civilians on both sides, then.
quote:
"And believe me, NOONE wants Israel to lose an all-out war."
Well this one I understand. The issue ends as soon as Iran, Syria or another enemy has nuclear weapons.
|
Nothing will change, really. If Israel will be nuked, it will nuke everyone else, just like if it would be on the case of losing a conventional all-out war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Sure it's worse, but the effect of an outright Israeli conventional loss will be much more balanced.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Azazel
Unilateral withdrawal= No control of what goes on on the other side. |
Well depends on what you leave there. After Arafat and Sharon have in tandem dismantled the PA, most likely anarchy. Will it last? Will they take on Israel or each other? Who knows. But you still control the other side to pretty much the same extent as now as long as there is no real state established.
The alternative is full reoccupation. You want that one?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by skywalker
Yes, in that Israel would get nuked too. So much better. |
I haven't siad it's better. I have just said that it will pretty much eliminate the "NOONE wants Israel to lose an all-out war" issue.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
"No. it will mean the death of this society, in both cases."
Well let's assume the Israelis have been defeated and are on the retreat. Will you nuke Damuscus if that means Tel Aviv gets nuked? Maybe, maybe not. Or would you say a definite yes? Then I understand your view.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
An Israeli 1st trike policy vs an arab nuclear power... depending on the arsenals on both sides, might as well invite an arab first strike.
But anyway, that's not exactly a happy future. And I wouldn't bet my country's existance on the Arabs being as disorganiszed, backwards and incompetent forever.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
Do you think Sharon would make a reasonable offer if the RoR demand were gone?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
And then?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by HershOstropoler
LOTM:
"My suspicion is that something like 20% to 30% of euros would, in this hypothetical, support A."
I don't think so. No matter how much the likudnik lobby hammers along about supposed european racism, most people have a problem with occupation and settlements, not with Israel as such. I think broad support would rather be for C. in that case. D. is nonsense in itself - how does "changing the borders" make Israel more secure? Unless you want to do a little ethnic cleansing. |
I dont want to see ethnic cleansing. Thats one reason I DONT want to see an agreement that leaves Israel so insecure as to invite further conflict. Especially under an Pal leadership that seems to be interested in pursuing the conflict. Especially in circumstances that would lead Pals to think that terrorism and rejectionism pay.
But IF Israel were to sign on the demand that seem to be what the European left considers would ensure an end to the conflict (Pal statehood, with few limitations on soveriegnty, with the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders) and the conflict were to be renewed by the Palestinians, there would be HEAVY pressure in Israel for ethnic cleansing. I suspect, under those circumstances, the debate would be about the extent (do we just expel people ONLY from places where we want to moderately rectify the border, or from everyplace west of the Jordan? Do we do it as humanely as possible, or Serb style? )
I think those who advocate not a territorial compromise, but the minimalist Israeli position, have an obligation to recognize the legitimate Israeli fear that maximal concessions WONT end the conflict, and articulate what they would do should that eventuality arise. Their is a strong sense among Israel supporters that in Oslo the Israelis withdrew from large areas in return for a lessening of the conflict, and that the implicit promise from the world was that if the Pals escalated the conflict any Israeli return to the territories would be accorded an international legitimacy that the earlier occupation did not have. This does not seem to have proven to be the case wrt to Europe, where the 2nd intifada is seen as if Oslo never happened. Only in the case of the US is that different. I suspect one of the main reasons AMericans see the 2nd intifada so differently from Europeans is that Pres Clinton was so involved in the Oslo process, and Americans took that process more seriously than europeans did.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
HershOstropoler
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
But IF Israel were to sign on the demand that seem to be what the European left considers would ensure an end to the conflict (Pal statehood, with few limitations on soveriegnty, with the pre-1967 armistice lines as borders) and the conflict were to be renewed by the Palestinians, there would be HEAVY pressure in Israel for ethnic cleansing. |
First, there should be transitionary limitations on pal sovereignty, but that's very difficult to implement in the current situation. 2nd, renewing the conflict if there is a border to defend - why did Israel retreat from South Lebanon then? Why is it not reoccupying it?
"This does not seem to have proven to be the case wrt to Europe, where the 2nd intifada is seen as if Oslo never happened."
It has more to do with the circumstances under which the 2nd intifada started.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-11-2003 00:51
as long as noone will give up the right of return, as I said, we have little choice.
|