Hypothetical

[droberts1958]

INTRO
OK so you opened it. You know what a hypothetical is. It can make assumptions and then pose questions. This is what this is. The assumptions you cannot question for the purpose of the following question and if you are incapable of making the assumption don't waste anyone's time by reading further.

LAST WARNING
One last time in case you didn't get the message from the first paragraph. Read no further than the next paragraph unless you are prepared to make this next assumption.

THE ASSUMPTION
Complete peace in perpetuity for Israel with the whole Middle East region would be gained by giving up all the land acquired in the 1967 war. This includes all the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza and Jerusalem were to become an international city similiar to the Vatican with a police force of true independant peace keepers.

THE QUESTION
Can someone give me one good reason why the exchange of land for peace should not be made.

THE RESPONSES.
Please just make the assumption and then answer the question.

[ibrodsky]

* Because most Arab states do not recognize Israel's right to exist within any borders;

* Because Palestinian terrorists do not recognize Israel's right to exist within any borders;

* Because genuine peace cannot be bought;

* Because the Arabs who oppose Israel already have plenty of land;

* Because when the Arabs controlled all of the land you enumerate they attacked Israel;

* Because militant Islam is an ideology of world conquest;

* Because Israel withdrew 100% from Lebanon. Did this cause Hezbollah to make peace with Israel? No, instead, they have redrawn the map in order to keep the conflict going.

No wonder you need to build a protective wall around your argument...

[Iori Yagami]

Because there is no such thing as indepedendant peace keepers, i.e Hebron, and the UN "peace keepers".
And because of the simple fact that peace with countries like Syria isn`t really needed, nor it is a strategic will for Israel. Definitely not with the current regime is Syria.

[Vic]

What exactly is this thread about?

[L@mplighterM]

Originally posted by Vic
What exactly is this thread about?

It's a because thread Vic.


Just kidding!

[droberts1958]

Message to Vic

What is this thread about.?????

Trying to establishing what the goal is and once you know it at least having some chance of finding it.

Uniformly Israelis want peace and the goal of land for peace is the only way to achieve it short of killing every last Arab.

Establishing the goal is relatively easy whereas finding a path there is what is difficult but not by any means impossible.

Even posing the issue as a hypothetical some people are so full of anti-arab bile that they are incapable of addressing the idea.(ibrodsky in mind) Either that or they have limited reading skills.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Uniformly Israelis want peace and the goal of land for peace is the only way to achieve it short of killing every last Arab.

You only seem interested in debating if you can impose restrictions on others' arguments.

It's hardly clear that "land for peace" and "killing every last Arab" are the only choices.


Even posing the issue as a hypothetical some people are so full of anti-arab bile that they are incapable of addressing the idea.(ibrodsky in mind) Either that or they have limited reading skills.

Your scheme is transparent: you present an assumption which is also your conclusion, and you offer to "discuss" it as long as we agree not to challenge it.

Please explain how any of my seven points are "anti-Arab bile." The majority are well-known facts. The others may be debatable, but they are hardly "anti-Arab bile."

[JustPat]

Originally posted by droberts1958
Even posing the issue as a hypothetical some people are so full of anti-arab bile that they are incapable of addressing the idea.(ibrodsky in mind) Either that or they have limited reading skills. You accuse ibrodsky of "anti-arab bile" because he states historical record and the self avowed position of Islam? Are only answers that agree with you acceptable?

Based on your assumption: Land for Peace, what would really change between the two parties? The Palestinians evidently do not accept this or they would have already had a plan in place that would do it. They offer no plan except the extermination of Israel. That is not peace.

[Skogan]

I think you read too much into his question. He was just asking do you want land for peace IF you could be guarenteed peace. By asking you to make that assumption, he is admitting that it is debateable that you could be guarenteed peace in any event. But, there is no reason to strive for a guarentee of peace for land, if Israel wouldn't want that deal anyway.

I think it is a fair question. IF Israel could be guarenteed peace for land, would Israel take that option. Or is there some other reason that makes it so that even if you were guarentted peace, they would not want to give up the land?

It is my opinion, though certainly others here know better then I, that "land for peace" is rejected because the prospects of peace are too tenious, and for no other reason. If peace was an absolute certainty, then they would give up the land.



Skogan

[Mediocrates]

Or that the basic transaction is flawed or backwards. "What is it worth to you for me to leave you alone in your own country" sounds like blackmail.

I don't think it should be framed as a transaction: this for that. I think it should framed as mutually unpleasant agreements where both parties are more or less unhappy. That way you know it's at least close to parity. There is simply no where else to go from there if you're unhappy with the results of near parity.

Lest we forget that land for peace more than implies ethnic purity and cleansing for Palistan. That's whats at the heart of it. No Jewish settlers - no matter the color of their passports. That is not the basis of a transactional based agreement.

[JustPat]

Originally posted by Skogan
But, there is no reason to strive for a guarentee of peace for land, if Israel wouldn't want that deal anyway.

I think it is a fair question. IF Israel could be guarenteed peace for land, would Israel take that option. Or is there some other reason that makes it so that even if you were guarentted peace, they would not want to give up the land?

It is my opinion, though certainly others here know better then I, that "land for peace" is rejected because the prospects of peace are too tenious, and for no other reason. If peace was an absolute certainty, then they would give up the land. Skogan, are you familiar with the "Land for Peace" proposals? A little homework may be in order for you. These links can get you started.

http://www.time.com/time/daily/special/mideast/
http://almashriq.h.no/general/300/320/327/oslo.html
http://www.palestinecenter.org/palestine/osloaccords.html
http://www.state.gov/www/regions/nea/981023_interim_agmt.html
http://www.yahoodi.com/peace/landforpeace.html
http://www.masada2000.org/land4peace.html

It is Israel, not the Palestinians who initiated the "Land for Peace" dialogue. To date, the Palestinians have offered no proposals for peace. Only Saudi Arabia has also floated a "Land for Peace" suggestion. If there is to be a "Land for Peace" discussion, both sides must agree on its tenability. To date, Yasser Arafat refuses to negotiate in good faith, even with mediaries. The result, WAR. The very war he declared in the seventies still rages.

[ibrodsky]

THE QUESTION
Can someone give me one good reason why the exchange of land for peace should not be made.

WARNING: Some people get very distraught when confronted with the facts.

Israel offered Egypt "land for peace" and a peace, though cold, was made.

Israel offered the Palestinians "land for peace" and they rejected it. Instead, they insisted that Israel allow one million Palestinians to be settled inside Israel. It turns out that strategic position is more important to them than the disputed territories.

Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and Hezbollah have made it quite clear that they will accept "land for peace." However, they demand all of the land.

Israel withdrew from Lebanon 100%. Even the UN, not known as a friend to Israel, agreed it was a complete withdrawl. Hezbollah says "no it wasn't" in blatant contradiction to Lebanon's own maps.

Israel offered to negotiate possible "land for peace" with Syria. Syria's response is that they will not even negotiate until Israel hands over the land. In other words, the junior despot will negotiate with Israel only after Israel gives away its bargaining chips.

True peace can only come about when all of the parties decide it would be best to end hostilities. Israel was attacked repeatedly before it captured the lands in question. Israel withdrew from Lebanon and is still being attacked by forces on Lebanese soil.

The assumption that giving back captured land will result in "Complete peace in perpetuity for Israel" can only be reached by studiously avoiding the facts. This is not what Israel's enemies were fighting about prior to 1967; and it was rejected by the PA in 2000.

Really, what the PA and other hostile Arab states are saying is that they will make "peace" with Israel after Israel surrenders.

Sure, people who don't care whether Israel survives are willing to take the chance -- give back to the aggressors all of the land they lost in their Jihad to drive the Jews into the sea; then we will see if they are genuinely interested in peace or just wanted the land to use as a staging ground for the second phase in their quest to destroy Israel.

The fact that they have whipped up their population in a frenzy of suicide/homicide bombing should alert even the semi-conscious that they may not have any desire for peace.

It's like a business deal: he who operates solely on trust will end up getting taken to the cleaners. Only in this case, the lives of 5 million Jews are at stake.

[L@mplighterM]

I'll second your post ibrodsky. Well said!

[JustPat]

Originally posted by ibrodsky
land for peace
It's like a business deal: he who operates solely on trust will end up getting taken to the cleaners. Only in this case, the lives of 5 million Jews are at stake. Here, here!!

[droberts1958]

SKOGAN is the only one to have delt with the issue and puts it beautifully

QUOTE
He was just asking do you want land for peace IF you could be guarenteed peace. By asking you to make that assumption, he is admitting that it is debateable that you could be guarenteed peace in any event.

I think it is a fair question. IF Israel could be guarenteed peace for land, would Israel take that option. Or is there some other reason that makes it so that even if you were guarentted peace, they would not want to give up the land?
UNQUOTE

L@mplighterM, ibrodsky, JustPat, Mediocrates, the question has been put to you but you have all avoided it. You have brought up all the things which yes enormously complicate any solution but you do not answer the question.

You are not entitled to say the Arabs wouldn't accept it because in this hypothetical you have been asked to assume that all would. The question again.

In return for complete peace for ever would you give up the land and go back to the 1967 boundaries ?

The relevance is perfectly put by Skogan also

QUOTE
But, there is no reason to strive for a guarentee of peace for land, if Israel wouldn't want that deal anyway.
UNQUOTE

L@mplighterM, ibrodsky, JustPat, Mediocrates

The challenge is put to you.

Firstly answer with a Yes or No answer.

If however you answer No please explain what else you would need.

I look forward to your reply.

[Mediocrates]

Because you asked, dear heart ~~~~


No. Israelis are 'occupying' Israel. Just like Americans are 'occupying' the Iriquois Nation. So No. No land for peace no bartering away. Anymore than any other soverign nation should barter away anything. If you want to take it by force like Alsace Lorraine then have at it but no nation should ever give away a third of the country on such a basis. Else we don't need countries at all.

[elke]

Complete peace in perpetuity for Israel with the whole Middle East region would be gained by giving up all the land acquired in the 1967 war. This includes all the West Bank, Golan Heights and Gaza and Jerusalem were to become an international city similiar to the Vatican with a police force of true independant peace keepers.

Define "peace". Are you referring to the type of "peace" that Israel has with Egypt? Or the type of "peace" between US and Canada? Is the "whole Middle East Region" adequately stable and the peace treaty compliance assured? Is access to the holy sites free of molestation? Are Jews allowed to live in, say, Hebron - if they so wish?
The devil is, as always, in details.

[Steve]

Originally posted by droberts1958

Even posing the issue as a hypothetical some people are so full of anti-arab bile that they are incapable of addressing the idea.(ibrodsky in mind) Either that or they have limited reading skills.

Gotta love it - ibrodsky brings up facts, that are entirely verifiable from what Arabs say in the media, and then he's branded with being "full of anti-arab bile". Typical left-wing stance - don't believe that the violence is occurring because of blind hate based on the teachings of Mohammed. It must be that they're oppressed. It's not - read a freaken' Koran, and then you'll understand where ibrodsky is coming from. Islam is a religion based on conquest - learn it, before you tell people they're full of anti-Arab bile.

[MGB8]

Given your assumption, and with "peace" being defined as a permanent non-war, non terrorist aiding and housing, non-beligerence...sure.

BUT....that Assumption has absolutely nothing to do with reality.

First, there is no such thing as a guarantee of peace in perpetuity, or even for a year. A peace agreement is only a paper, it is only as good as the people who are "committed" to honoring it.

Even if peace was signed in good faith, if there were people who wanted war bad enough on the Arab side (and there are - see islamic extremists, Pan-arab nationalists, Arafat) then the people who signed the agreement would be irrelevant.

Second, history tells us that the assumption is no where near reality.