Replies

One of the flaws of the parliamentary system, many cabinet members are future and past political opponents.

Why now, why not? Israel has offered to withdraw twice, at Camp David and in 2008. Were they to use those rejected peace settlements as the basis of a unilateral withdraw, it would preempt any plan the US might be planning at the UN, wouldn't it. Likely on better territorial terms. They'll have to decide what to do with the Arab sections of East Jerusalem, but whatever the decision, the decision will have been made, the lines drawn. I suspect Sharon would have done this by now.

You make good points - I was reacting from within my current cloud of despair over the Obama crowd - but I have often wondered whether Israel should just declare final borders, whatever they are, and say that the other side has blown endless opportunities to negotiate.

I think the big international problem with that is that they will not become “legally recognized” borders anytime soon, if ever.

Were they to use those rejected peace settlements as the basis of a unilateral withdraw, it would preempt any plan the US might be planning at the UN, wouldn't it. Likely on better territorial terms.

Oh, it would "preempt" Obama's plan alright, in a manner reminiscent of the famous National Lampoon magazine cover showing a dog with a pistol to its head with the caption "Buy this magazine or we'll shoot this dog", or perhaps the scene in Blazing Saddles where Cleavon Little puts the gun to his head and tells the hostile townsfolk "back off, or the n****r gets it". In the spirit of your facile "Why now, why not?" the proper response is "So what?".

There is absolutely nothing to indicate that such a unilateral preemption would result in "better terms" in any permanent way. Once the initial "peace in our time" euphoria of that "dramatic breakthrough" evaporated, all it would do would be to whet the appetites of the circling wolves and set the stage for a new list of demands and concessions. That is the historical record, and has been exactly the case in every one of these instances.

While it is true that the best solution to be had may be a "two-state" solution and some necessary concessions by Israel, the way Ehud Barak has framed this is not just wrong and misguided, it's dishonest and despicable. In fact, it's John McCain/Colin Powell-level wrong and despicable. I respect and appreciate his military service, just as I do theirs, but in his political career he continues, like them, to betray the very things he once fought for.

3/4 of the so-called "palestinians" in Israel, in what the world refers to as "occupied territories," are illegal immigrants from all the arab states and have never had a claim to one inch of Israel ever in their history.
You are saying that Israel should cede land to the illegals and the terrorists because they are there, not because they have a "right" to BE there.
That is tantamount to saying the US should cede California, Texas, Arizona, Nevada, and other states to the illegals and their map of aztland simply because they are there and CLAIM it as their own.

That is very disturbing.