Israeli flag burned as protests sweep Egypt

[HistoryBefore67]

Your offer is rejected, crazy person.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

Israel should not give away any land at all because the whole issue is not about land. Do people honestly think that if Israel gave away the West Bank that the arabs would not attack Israel for the rest of the land?

I have proved before (and can do again - just ask me) that the Palestinian Authority have stated that if Israel gives away the West Bank to them, that the rest of Israel will be conquered.

Israel should not, under any circumstances at all, give away any more land. In fact I believe it should re-conquer land, but that would not be feasible.

 

[Coyote]

Israel should not give away any land at all because the whole issue is not about land. Do people honestly think that if Israel gave away the West Bank that the arabs would not attack Israel for the rest of the land?

I have proved before (and can do again - just ask me) that the Palestinian Authority have stated that if Israel gives away the West Bank to them, that the rest of Israel will be conquered.

Israel should not, under any circumstances at all, give away any more land. In fact I believe it should re-conquer land, but that would not be feasible.

If Israel keeps the West Bank, then it will have to make citizens of all those within.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Israel should not give away any land at all because the whole issue is not about land. Do people honestly think that if Israel gave away the West Bank that the arabs would not attack Israel for the rest of the land?

I have proved before (and can do again - just ask me) that the Palestinian Authority have stated that if Israel gives away the West Bank to them, that the rest of Israel will be conquered.

Israel should not, under any circumstances at all, give away any more land. In fact I believe it should re-conquer land, but that would not be feasible.

If Israel keeps the West Bank, then it will have to make citizens of all those within.

Or... Israel can maintain the status quo until the "Palestinians" finally wise up, elect a unified leadership, come to the table with reasonable goals, and enter into a peace agreement that denounces the goal of eliminating the Jewish State.

 

[Coyote]

Israel should not give away any land at all because the whole issue is not about land. Do people honestly think that if Israel gave away the West Bank that the arabs would not attack Israel for the rest of the land?

I have proved before (and can do again - just ask me) that the Palestinian Authority have stated that if Israel gives away the West Bank to them, that the rest of Israel will be conquered.

Israel should not, under any circumstances at all, give away any more land. In fact I believe it should re-conquer land, but that would not be feasible.

If Israel keeps the West Bank, then it will have to make citizens of all those within.

Or... Israel can maintain the status quo until the "Palestinians" finally wise up, elect a unified leadership, come to the table with reasonable goals, and enter into a peace agreement that denounces the goal of eliminating the Jewish State.

That means they wouldn't be keeping the West Bank then, right?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

If Israel keeps the West Bank, then it will have to make citizens of all those within.

Or... Israel can maintain the status quo until the "Palestinians" finally wise up, elect a unified leadership, come to the table with reasonable goals, and enter into a peace agreement that denounces the goal of eliminating the Jewish State.

That means they wouldn't be keeping the West Bank then, right?

I presume that a two-state solution would mean that the bulk of the West Bank would become part of a new "State of Palestine."

 

[Coyote]

Or... Israel can maintain the status quo until the "Palestinians" finally wise up, elect a unified leadership, come to the table with reasonable goals, and enter into a peace agreement that denounces the goal of eliminating the Jewish State.

That means they wouldn't be keeping the West Bank then, right?

I presume that a two-state solution would mean that the bulk of the West Bank would become part of a new "State of Palestine."

I was interpreting Caroline's statement to mean Israel keeping West Bank for Israel...

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

I believe that giving the WB away would be sheer madness, suicide for Israel.

Israel wouldn't be able to survive.

To rehome all the Jews out of the WB into Israel where the last of the Jews from the Gazan disengagement are still to be rehoused, coupled with the housing shortage in Israel would be a difficult, if not impossible, situation. The Palestinians want their State to be Jew-free and even if negotiations meant there would be still some Jews living in the Palestinian State their lives will certainly be at risk and they would be ruled under Sharia law.

Militarily too it would be suicide with having a narrow strip of Israel's land being about eight miles from the border of the new State in the WB to the ocean.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

I believe that giving the WB away would be sheer madness, suicide for Israel.

Israel wouldn't be able to survive.

To rehome all the Jews out of the WB into Israel where the last of the Jews from the Gazan disengagement are still to be rehoused, coupled with the housing shortage in Israel would be a difficult, if not impossible, situation. The Palestinians want their State to be Jew-free and even if negotiations meant there would be still some Jews living in the Palestinian State their lives will certainly be at risk and they would be ruled under Sharia law.

Militarily too it would be suicide with having a narrow strip of Israel's land being about eight miles from the border of the new State in the WB to the ocean.

I didn't say the "1967 borders."

There are a lot of issues that would have to be worked out, and the "Palestinians" are not ready to come to the table.

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

I believe that giving the WB away would be sheer madness, suicide for Israel.

Israel wouldn't be able to survive.

To rehome all the Jews out of the WB into Israel where the last of the Jews from the Gazan disengagement are still to be rehoused, coupled with the housing shortage in Israel would be a difficult, if not impossible, situation. The Palestinians want their State to be Jew-free and even if negotiations meant there would be still some Jews living in the Palestinian State their lives will certainly be at risk and they would be ruled under Sharia law.

Militarily too it would be suicide with having a narrow strip of Israel's land being about eight miles from the border of the new State in the WB to the ocean.

I didn't say the "1967 borders."

There are a lot of issues that would have to be worked out, and the "Palestinians" are not ready to come to the table.

The 67 armistice line is what they will be asking for. But yes, as you say, they will delay coming to the negotiating table.

 

[Coyote]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

I believe that giving the WB away would be sheer madness, suicide for Israel.

Israel wouldn't be able to survive.

To rehome all the Jews out of the WB into Israel where the last of the Jews from the Gazan disengagement are still to be rehoused, coupled with the housing shortage in Israel would be a difficult, if not impossible, situation. The Palestinians want their State to be Jew-free and even if negotiations meant there would be still some Jews living in the Palestinian State their lives will certainly be at risk and they would be ruled under Sharia law.

Where do you get the idea that they want it to be Jew free? Realistically though - if I were Jewish, I would absolutely opt to be in Israel, not remain within a Palestinian state given the level of animosity on both sides, but I have seen nothing about being "Jew free" nor is there any certainty of Sharia law.

Other than that, you have to look at the populations involved. West Bank has 3,092,555 inhabitants of which 524,000 are Israeli settlers. If Israel kept the West Bank what are you going to do with the 2 million plus Palestinians? Realistically - there would be land swaps with the largest established settlements going with Israel, but not the whole WB.

Militarily too it would be suicide with having a narrow strip of Israel's land being about eight miles from the border of the new State in the WB to the ocean.

So what about the 2 million plus Palestinians in the WB?

 

[MHunterB]

Coyote: I can only speak for myself here. I take the PA/PLO/HAMAS each having a law that selling any amount of land to Jew incurs a death sentence to be an indication of their desire to have a 'Judenrein' state. The continual propaganda claim of 'Jewish invaders' as 'European colonists' and the conflation of 'the US/West' with Israel and Zionism suggests very strongly that the Palestinian *leadership* views this situation as a 'clash of civilizations' and also that 'multiculturalism' is not a value they hold.

And then of course there was the panArab eviction of Jewish communities and the Palestinian 'leadership's' avowed support for 'panArabism'.....

 

[Sweet_Caroline]

I am a pragmatist.

That means that, regardless of my ideal solution, or my beliefs regarding what is truly "deserved," I accept that sometimes compromise is necessary to solve a problem.

So, from a pragmatic standpoint, I accept that Israel may ultimately have to relinquish land that I believe to be part of the historic Jewish State in order to protect and preserve the current Jewish State.

I believe that giving the WB away would be sheer madness, suicide for Israel.

Israel wouldn't be able to survive.

To rehome all the Jews out of the WB into Israel where the last of the Jews from the Gazan disengagement are still to be rehoused, coupled with the housing shortage in Israel would be a difficult, if not impossible, situation. The Palestinians want their State to be Jew-free and even if negotiations meant there would be still some Jews living in the Palestinian State their lives will certainly be at risk and they would be ruled under Sharia law.

Where do you get the idea that they want it to be Jew free? Realistically though - if I were Jewish, I would absolutely opt to be in Israel, not remain within a Palestinian state given the level of animosity on both sides, but I have seen nothing about being "Jew free" nor is there any certainty of Sharia law.

Other than that, you have to look at the populations involved. West Bank has 3,092,555 inhabitants of which 524,000 are Israeli settlers. If Israel kept the West Bank what are you going to do with the 2 million plus Palestinians? Realistically - there would be land swaps with the largest established settlements going with Israel, but not the whole WB.

Militarily too it would be suicide with having a narrow strip of Israel's land being about eight miles from the border of the new State in the WB to the ocean.

So what about the 2 million plus Palestinians in the WB?

The PA have stated that they want their new State to be Jew-free. Giving away land simply isn't feasible. A PA State in the WB alongside Israel just wouldn't work. There should be one State and that is the State of Israel up to the Jordan River with Israel in control.

 

[alpine]

To get the general picture, you have to realize there are 2 groups clashing in Egypt right now. First group was the one holding government, islamists; the other is the secularists, liberals and university youth, one with the army. Now islamist blame army to be the toy of US and Israel, which would be surprising if they did not. I would be surprised if islamists did come up and said people just rose up... because they screwed the country up.

Once a politician said; politics is all about finding the right enemy at the right time...

 

[Lipush]

Well, that makes sense..