Obama's Peace Plan

[curlyg]

I would consider someone like yourself who justifies Obama's anti-Israel positions as an Obama supporter. Are you ashamed of that?

It makes no difference to me. Regard me as you please.

The Saudi "peace plan" is of course national suicide for Israel for the reasons I already mentioned earlier. The whole purpose of the Saudi plan, which is supported by Obama, is to ethnically cleanse large parts of the Jewish homeland from a Jewish presence, and to position Muslim terrorists' conventional and unconventional weapons within a few miles of Israel's main population centers.

To ethnically clease large parts of the Land of Israel of Jews? Perhaps. Some settlements which can't reasonably be incorporated into the State of Israel will have to be evacuated. That is the price to pay for keeping a Jewish state in the Land of Israel a viable reality. It's not particularly pleasant for anyone, particularly after the sort of scenes we saw at Gush Katif, but the alternative is a de facto Arab majority state.

As for "conventional and unconventional weapons" being stationed in the West Bank, that seems quite unlikely. Even the Clinton parameters called for a demilitarised Palestine. Netanyahu continues to insist on that demand, and hell, even the Palestinian negotiating team at Taba essentially conceded that demand. Furthermore both Israel and the Palestinians now seem to be calling for an international (non-UN) force on the border, and both seem to be leaning towards an American-led force.

Maybe for you that's a solution (or even the Final Solution) for Israel, but for most others who believe that Jews have the right to live in the Jewish homeland, the Obama-Saudi plan is suicidal for Israel.

See above.

However, it's true that allowing an enormous hostile Muslim population to exist within Israel's borders is very problematic. So, in any peace plan that stands a chance of succeeding, there needs to be a provision for dismantling Muslim settlements in places like Haifa, Yaffo, Jerusalem, etc., and sending the Muslim population back to their own homelands to live in peace and dignity with their Arab brothers.

As far as I'm concerned it's a matter of redrawing the border along essentially ethnic lines.

Normalization? With all due respect, that's a cynical joke. As you very well know, the Muslim world despises Jews and Christians, and there will never be any normalization dictated by a piece of paper. Just look at the shining example of the "warm" peace we got from Egypt and Jordan.

So suddenly, when it suits you, we should not intepret the Arab commitment to normailization literally, because of context? Funny that.

Anyway, I've no doubt there will be plenty of animosity for years to come. That's not the primary concern - the primary concern is keeping Israel a viable Jewish state, and removing the "Palestinian cause" as an Arab propaganda tool.

It's actually you being absurd and talking about nonsense. All international agreements hinge on the exact letter of the agreement, not on wishful thinking. I'm not sure what you're talking about with your imaginary exchange of land. That's not part of the Saudi/Obama plan.

You're not answering the question - because you know how ridiculous the answer would sound. Are you saying that if Israel reached agreements with the Palestinians in which they renounced their claim to the major settlement blocs in exchange for land swaps, and the Syrians agreed to certain border adjustments, the Saudis would reject those agreements simply because they did not mention such a possibility in their initiative?

The fact that Syrian and the Palestinians could, theoretically decide to work out some other arrangement is true, but in reality Syria has refused to even do Israel the great favor of sitting at the negotiation table and has instead destabilized Lebanon and transported tens-of-thousands of missiles from Iran to Hezbullah, which are not aimed at Israel and capable of hitting Tel Aviv.

Indeed, and Iran is Israel's main enemy in this entire story -- and it's an enemy which we share with many of the Arab regimes. That's something you might want to keep in mind.

That's right. The 1967 borders have always brought Israel to the brink of destruction, which is exactly why the Muslim world and Obama are insisting on them now. Since 1967, there has been one war after another, because the Arabs understand that those border leave Israel vulnerable to Arab attack. Considering the facts of history, the 1967 borders are not something that can be acceptable to Israel, as much as Obama, the Muslims, and Israel's Leftist enemies would love it.

And that's why security arrangements will be made with the Palestinians, and why Israel maintains its overwhelming military superiorty, and why it has nuclear weapons. And once again, I think Egypt - the only neighbor which can be called even remotely a military threat - sees Iran as a far bigger problem than Israel.

[NewsGuy]

To ethnically clease large parts of the Land of Israel of Jews? Perhaps. Some settlements which can't reasonably be incorporated into the State of Israel will have to be evacuated. That is the price to pay for keeping a Jewish state in the Land of Israel a viable reality. It's not particularly pleasant for anyone, particularly after the sort of scenes we saw at Gush Katif, but the alternative is a de facto Arab majority state.

After seeing the results of Olmert's ethnic cleansing of the Jewish towns in Gaza, which resulted in about 8,000 rockets fired into other Israeli population centers and ultimately a war, I'm not sure under what circumstances Israel will make that mistake again.

It's interesting that the concept of ethnically cleansing Jews from the West Bank is even being considered while the idea of removing all Arabs from Israel is never mentioned in international negotiations.

Normally, if the West Bank would ultimately be turned over to the Arabs, why would Jewish towns be removed? Why would Jews not be given a choice to remain under Arab rule just as Arabs are allowed to live in Israel, Europe, the US, and all over the world actually? Why wouldn't Jews receive equal treatment as any other citizen in a Palestinian state?

So suddenly, when it suits you, we should not intepret the Arab commitment to normailization literally, because of context? Funny that.

Anyway, I've no doubt there will be plenty of animosity for years to come. That's not the primary concern - the primary concern is keeping Israel a viable Jewish state, and removing the "Palestinian cause" as an Arab propaganda tool.

You're not answering the question - because you know how ridiculous the answer would sound. Are you saying that if Israel reached agreements with the Palestinians in which they renounced their claim to the major settlement blocs in exchange for land swaps, and the Syrians agreed to certain border adjustments, the Saudis would reject those agreements simply because they did not mention such a possibility in their initiative?

Those points seem to all be related to your wanting to add your own peace plan to the Arab/Obama plan. (And, BTW - it would be a worthwhile price to pay if ALL Arabs and Jews could be sent into their own countries, but of course that will never happen, because under the Arab/Obama plan only Jews are disposable unfortunately).

Anyway, the written word of peace treaties is the maximum that one can expect to be carried out, not a starting point. In reality, though, both peace agreements with Arab countries that promised normalization have never delivered on that promise. In fact, in every land-for-peace deal, Israel gave up the land and never received any real peace in return. Just a cessation of military hostilities to some degree. And maybe that's fine, too.

Yes, it would be fine with Obama and most other people if the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to exchange populations, but so far no such thing has happened and the Palestinians have rejected taking their own people into the land that would be theirs. Actually, they are still talking about sending even more Arabs INTO Israel, not taking them OUT of Israel. That's why the Arab/Obama plan is designed to guarantee that Israel will be stuck with more than 1.25 million Arab enemies in its borders.

You mentioned that the Palestinians have agreed to not station weapons pointed at Israel? That's simply not true. No draft of any peace agreement ever included provisions that prohibit importing weapons into their territory or even the right to have an army. That's just wishful thinking at this point and something that was mentioned only by Israel and the Bush administration.

As a point of reference, let's look at Gaza, which even after Israel ethnically cleaned the Jewish towns and handed it over to Palestinians control, the Palestinians attempted to import Iranian anti-aircraft and other missiles by way of sea. Some of those weapons are in Gaza right now. So in any peace plan, there would have to be a mechanism to supervise the Palestinian borders by some one other than the UN (which failed miserably to do so in Lebanon).

As it stands, the Arab/Obama plan has no restrictions on Iranian, Russian, or North Korean weapons and military advisors being stationed 4 miles from Tel Aviv.

[curlyg]

After seeing the results of Olmert's ethnic cleansing of the Jewish towns in Gaza, which resulted in about 8,000 rockets fired into other Israeli population centers and ultimately a war, I'm not sure under what circumstances Israel will make that mistake again.

Your argument seems to be:

1) Jews were ethnically cleansed from Gaza
2) Gaza turned into a militarised Iranian base

Therefore: ethnically cleansing Jews results in militarised Iranian bases

That isn't a sound argument. The cause of Gaza's militarisation is not the ethnic cleansing of Jews per se, but as you point out towards the end of your post, the lack of any mechanism to enforce demilitarisation. That, in itself, was a consequence of Sharon's decision to withdraw unilaterally rather than in the framework of some agreement which would have bound the Palestinians to behave in some way.

I think unilateralism is the mistake we should avoid making again, if possible.

It's interesting that the concept of ethnically cleansing Jews from the West Bank is even being considered while the idea of removing all Arabs from Israel is never mentioned in international negotiations.

It's not interesting at all, the legitimacy of those Arab citizens of Israel is not in question. The settlements are constructed upon what has been deemed to be occupied territories, and thus they are widely regarded as illegitimate. There's also the problem of construction on private land...

Normally, if the West Bank would ultimately be turned over to the Arabs, why would Jewish towns be removed? Why would Jews not be given a choice to remain under Arab rule just as Arabs are allowed to live in Israel, Europe, the US, and all over the world actually? Why wouldn't Jews receive equal treatment as any other citizen in a Palestinian state?

I have always been very much against this idea. I think that leaving a Jewish population in "Palestine" is a recipe for disaster. If not slaughtered, then they would at least be subject to severe discrimination and regular attacks, and every one would be a diplomatic incident between Israel and the Palestinian state. It also gives them a tool with which to threaten Israel. Hafrada is, again, a correct concept. The reason we are contemplating the creation of a Palestinian state in the first place is because separation of the two populations seems to be (1) the best way to preserve Israel's Jewish character, and (2) the best way to end the ethnic tensions/violence.

Those points seem to all be related to your wanting to add your own peace plan to the Arab/Obama plan. (And, BTW - it would be a worthwhile price to pay if ALL Arabs and Jews could be sent into their own countries, but of course that will never happen, because under the Arab/Obama plan only Jews are disposable unfortunately).

First of all, we still don't know exactly what Obama's plan is, and I reserve judgement until we do know. Secondly, as I said, Obama did not accept the Arab plan in its present form - he said it would need to be amended to be more acceptable to Israel. Why have you decided to simply ignore these facts?

Anyway, the written word of peace treaties is the maximum that one can expect to be carried out, not a starting point. In reality, though, both peace agreements with Arab countries that promised normalization have never delivered on that promise. In fact, in every land-for-peace deal, Israel gave up the land and never received any real peace in return. Just a cessation of military hostilities to some degree. And maybe that's fine, too.

Good, so we agree. I think with time there is a chance normalisation will come too - not in the near future, but perhaps after a few decades. You know as well as I do that the Palestinian issue has been exploited by Arab despots to draw the gaze of their people towards Israel and away from domestic failings. That is the main cause for modern Arab hatred of the state of Israel. But with that issue removed I think there is a real chance for normalisation in the distant future, which is still a worthy goal in my opinion.

Yes, it would be fine with Obama and most other people if the Israelis and Palestinians agreed to exchange populations, but so far no such thing has happened and the Palestinians have rejected taking their own people into the land that would be theirs. Actually, they are still talking about sending even more Arabs INTO Israel, not taking them OUT of Israel. That's why the Arab/Obama plan is designed to guarantee that Israel will be stuck with more than 1.25 million Arab enemies in its borders.

And Israel should not accept an agreement on those terms under any circumstances. The underlying principle of the Lieberman Plan is sound, however much the man himself annoys me. It should serve as the basis for Israel's negotiating position. I previously discussed, in another thread, how Israel's Arab population can be reduced to something like 300,000 (many of whom would be Druze and Bedouin) by simply redrawing the border.

You mentioned that the Palestinians have agreed to not station weapons pointed at Israel? That's simply not true. No draft of any peace agreement ever included provisions that prohibit importing weapons into their territory or even the right to have an army. That's just wishful thinking at this point and something that was mentioned only by Israel and the Bush administration.

They never accepted total demilitarisation. But this has been an aspect of every American peace proposal, and is a central Israeli demand, I have a difficult imagining that it will just disappear.

As a point of reference, let's look at Gaza, which even after Israel ethnically cleaned the Jewish towns and handed it over to Palestinians control, the Palestinians attempted to import Iranian anti-aircraft and other missiles by way of sea. Some of those weapons are in Gaza right now. So in any peace plan, there would have to be a mechanism to supervise the Palestinian borders by some one other than the UN (which failed miserably to do so in Lebanon).

As it stands, the Arab/Obama plan has no restrictions on Iranian, Russian, or North Korean weapons and military advisors being stationed 4 miles from Tel Aviv.

Again, that's completely baseless criticism of Obama.

And as I said, the cause of Palestinian militarisation in Gaza was not the ethnic cleansing of Jews per se, but the fact that it was not done in the framework of an agreement.

[Sanket]

As it stands, the Arab/Obama plan has no restrictions on Iranian, Russian, or North Korean weapons

How can you think of adding Russia in that list.....

[bararallu]

How can you think of adding Russia in that list.....

Perhaps because they proliferate all sorts of weapons.. to anyone.

[Sanket]

Perhaps because they proliferate all sorts of weapons.. to anyone.

AFAIK, They did nothing wrong.

[bararallu]

AFAIK, They did nothing wrong.

Since there are no rules, nothing could be wrong. The only 'wrong' is what you think is counter to your Countries interests. Russians transferring technology to Iran is problematic, to China as well- for a number of countries.

[Sanket]

Since there are no rules, nothing could be wrong. The only 'wrong' is what you think is counter to your Countries interests. Russians transferring technology to Iran is problematic, to China as well- for a number of countries.

What technology did Russia transfer to Iran? But i can prove - Israel transferred Missile Technology to China.

And our Brahmos supersonic cruise missile was a Joint Venture which is ONLY meant for India...

[bararallu]

What technology did Russia transfer to Iran?

Nuclear, as in military and generic applications- dual use tech. Missile tech via the N Koreans, and in compliment and competition to the NKs and Chinese. Ground to air defenses. To name a few.

But i can prove - Israel transferred Missile Technology to China.

please do.

[Sanket]

Nuclear, as in military and generic applications- dual use tech. Missile tech via the N Koreans, and in compliment and competition to the NKs and Chinese. Ground to air defenses. To name a few.

Neither Russia or China helped N. Koreans in Missile Technology and Nuclear Weapons they learnt on their own. Nobody spoon fed them.

please do.

U.S. Concerns Rise over Chinese Military Growth

An Israeli negotiator visited Washington this week to resolve a dispute between Israel and the United States over arms sales to China. The Bush administration is pressuring Israel to stop selling arms and transferring technology to China amid growing U.S. concern about China's military buildup.

----
US up in arms over Sino-Israel ties

For years, the US government has expressed concerns over Israel illegally transferring technology to China. During the Gulf War, the US gave Israel Patriot missiles as protection against Iraqi Scud missiles. In 1992, a US intelligence report revealed that soon after the end of the Gulf War, Israel had sold Patriot anti-missile data to China. Israel denied the intelligence report.

Washington has also alleged on several occasions that Israel violated agreements by exporting restricted US technology it buys with yearly US subsidies. This was the case with the largely US-funded Lavi fighter-plane program. Israel, the Americans believe, passed on technology to Beijing. China's F-10 fighter jet is believed to be almost identical to the Lavi.

--
Again you could do you own search you will understand why America forced Israel not to sell weapons & technology to China.

---

[bararallu]

Neither Russia or China helped N. Koreans in Missile Technology and Nuclear Weapons they learnt on their own. Nobody spoon fed them.

You actually believe that dont you? In theology it's called ex nilo... a miracle.

U.S. Concerns Rise over Chinese Military Growth

Right, that was over the Phalcon Awacs, where is the missle tech?

US up in arms over Sino-Israel ties

This is just bloaviation. A mole hill made into a mountain. Trust me if we sold them that much tech there would be no US Israel relationship.

Again you could do you own search you will understand why America forced Israel not to sell weapons & technology to China.

This is probably quite true, but for a number of reasons. At least one of which works for Israel too... The Chinese will reverse engineer and sell to the Arabs and Mullahs, as fast as the Russians.


Why are you blanket defending the Russians and the Iranians BTW?

[Sanket]

Right, that was over the Phalcon Awacs, where is the missle tech?

Just got up... I replied without Smoking....

---
I will answer to in the afternoon.

[Yala]

That's right. The 1967 borders have always brought Israel to the brink of destruction, which is exactly why the Muslim world and Obama are insisting on them now. Since 1967, there has been one war after another, because the Arabs understand that those border leave Israel vulnerable to Arab attack. Considering the facts of history, the 1967 borders are not something that can be acceptable to Israel, as much as Obama, the Muslims, and Israel's Leftist enemies would love it.

100% correct and this is a point that needs to be repeated, repeated and repeated again until the mainstreams starts to get the real Arab agenda and why there is such insistence on these imaginary 1967 borders.

[Aliyah1995]

Even Abba Eban, who was often refered to as the one who knew how to surrender in nine languages, refered to the 1967 borders as the "Aushwitz borders".

[curlyg]

100% correct and this is a point that needs to be repeated, repeated and repeated again until the mainstreams starts to get the real Arab agenda and why there is such insistence on these imaginary 1967 borders.

You could continue to repeat it until you were blue in the face, it would not change the fundamental reality in the slightest, and that is that without Israel withdrawing from the majority of the West Bank there will be in a matter of years an Arab majority ruled by a Jewish minority in the State of Israel. That reality is not acceptable to me, as a Zionist and as a moral human being. Is it acceptable to you?