To Those Who Advocate More Concessions By Israel For the Sake of Peace ...

[sharonbn]

is cynicism the last resort of the wrong, or otherwise can you tell me that your point was NOT as I said?

[wat0n]

watOn

If I was a betting man, then I would bet that it WILL translate to something. Not necessarily to war. At least not immediately. If you look at human civilisations and different cultures, you will find, for example in tribal societies, that before they actually resort to violence, they dance, they posture, they chant in chorus in order to intimidate their enemies and psych themselves up to action (violence). That's how we humans are. Egypt is now taking the first steps down that road.

So you think they will talk, then "do" or they will just talk?

[Reffo]

sharonbn

I am not going to argue with you about what you think I meant when I started this thread. But this is what I specifically said in my post #11:

Yet, I am still NOT against concessions by Israel. As long as the Palestinian Arabs too reciprocate. For example by formally recognising Israel as the nation state FOR the Jewish people. And as long as Israel does not go overboard with it's concessions for a peace that could turn out to be a mirage ...

You did NOT answer that point in your post #12. So I asked you again in my post #13. From your response in #14, I guess you don't want to comment on that point or question that I turned it into in my #13. That's ok sharonbn, you don't have to if you don't want to ...

[Reffo]

watOn

Like sharonbn said, none of us are prophets. But my bet is that even if it is just "talk" on their part, they are going down the slippery slope and it will end in hostilities again. Unless they wake up before it's too late and stop this nonsense.

[sharonbn]

Reffo,
I cannot force you to argue over what's the original topic of this discussion. However, your choice of words ("what you think I meant") suggest you insist that I missed the original point. Going back to post #1, I believe I didn't. The purpose of this thread, according to my reading of post #1, is thus:

1) judging from recent events in Egypt and mainly from rhetoric of presidential candidates, you conclude that the peace treaty with Egypt has ran its course and the new regime in Egypt will soon break the agreement and/or turn hostile towards Israel.
You reiterate this point in post #11: "what is happening with Egypt demonstrates what can happen with the Palestinian Arabs too." yet you dropped this point in later posts.

My answer to that point, given in several posts, can be summarized into these points:
1.1) it is too early to judge the fate of the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty, based on election propaganda and street demonstrations.
1.2) even if it turns out that all we got was 30 years of peace and quiet, the treaty was still good and worth the price we paid.

2) The Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty invented the concept of land for peace. You say it's an unbalanced deal: Israel gave up real estate while Egypt only gave its word, and it's easy to break it and there is no real price to pay for breaking it. This is what you call concessions without reciprocations.
Furthermore, you explicitly said that 30 years of peace and quiet aren't worth the concessions that the Pals require from Israel.
I believe this is the point you say I missed answering?

but I did give an answer. My answer was:
2.1) You are wrong to think that countries can easily break their word and just "go bonkers". there are reprocautions far beyond broken trust (which is grave own its own merit).
take a look at Iran. it doesn't receive any financial aid from the US and still it doesn't say "we are going to develop nuclear bomb and the hell with all of you" - because the western world can inflict serious damage to Iranian economy, to the point where it can force the regime down.
Now regarding Egypt - I went and check online - Egypt received something like $165M from USAID in 2011. This is something that you don't care that much about while you're running for office, but once you bear the responsibility - you care a lot.
I called it "things you don't see here that you see up there" and it happens a lot to Israeli PMs.

...and Fatah and Hamas are even more dependent on western money than Egypt

so I don't believe that getting "only" peace for land is a bad deal. I rely on western money to make the deal stick. In my eyes, that's good guarantee.

2.2) In my eyes, if all we get from the peace treaty with the Pals is 30 years of peace and quiet and after that we have to reconquer Gaza and WB (and I see no reason why we won't be able to do it once more) - then it's worth it for us, and our kids will thank us for it. Furthermore, our kids won't thank us for blowing a deal because we asked for more reciprocation.

[Reffo]

sharonbn

You are acting as if my views are inconsistent. But the truth is that on every thread and every discussion with you too I have been advocating the same consistent thing. I am for compromise and I too support those who try to make peace. However, I have been cautioning people like you not to be over enthusiastic and not to give too much away, at the wrong time without getting anything or much in return. This is what I have been saying in this thread too.

As for the peace with Egypt, irrespective of how things turn out from now on, I wasn't against it when Begin, that arch right winger, signed the peace deal with Sadat. In fact I was all for it and I applauded it. But we have to learn from history. As they say, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me. So if the peace with Egypt ends up going sour, we have to learn from that too. Even if that happens, I believe that Israel should still try to reach a peace deal with the Palestinian Arabs but Israel would need to drive a much harder bargain, with MORE safeguards in it and give up less in return.

Why? Firstly, because you cannot assume as you seem to that any peace with the Palestinians would be real even for 30 years. And more importantly, you cannot assume that if the peace does not last, Israel can just re-conquer them and return to the status quo. It is nowhere as simple as that. It is much easier to give up things too easily for too little and for uncertain outcomes. But unless you put a lot of thought into it and include a lot of safeguards in any peace deal, you cannot easily make things right if the peace deal does not work out.

That's all I have been saying sharonbn, consistently, ever since I have been posting on this forum.

[Pleepleus]

...Now regarding Egypt - I went and check online - Egypt received something like $165M from USAID in 2011...

They also receive $1.3 billion in military aid annually from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/wo...pagewanted=all

[Reffo]

They also receive $1.3 billion in military aid annually from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/wo...pagewanted=all

There is a case in point. All that money and training that has been pouring into the Egyptian military for 30 years, won't make it any easier to re-conquer the Sinai if the Egyptians decide that they have had enough of peace. I am not saying that Israel can't win another war against them. What I am saying is that it may be more difficult and costly to Israel.

[sharonbn]

well, I say something different - if we all are so clever and already KNOW what the solution is going to look like, I don't see the need to go about tip toe just to get where we know we're going to get eventually. we can go ahead and get there as fast as we can.
sure we'll have watch stations inside Palestine and all other kind of safeguards. its all been thought out and planned already.

and I maintain that whatever peace period we get out of the peace treaty, is good. and I maintain that Israel should be able to retake the west bank if it all breaks down.

and for heaven's sake why would we want to retake Sinai???

[Reffo]

well, I say something different - if we all are so clever and already KNOW what the solution is going to look like, I don't see the need to go about tip toe just to get where we know we're going to get eventually. we can go ahead and get there as fast as we can.
sure we'll have watch stations inside Palestine and all other kind of safeguards. its all been thought out and planned already.

and I maintain that whatever peace period we get out of the peace treaty, is good. and I maintain that Israel should be able to retake the west bank if it all breaks down.

and for heaven's sake why would we want to retake Sinai???

Yes sharonbn, you keep on saying that but what I would like to hear you tell me is how far you are willing to go.

1. What ARE you prepared to give up for the sake of a nebulous peace?
2. What if anything won't you give up, no matter what?
3. What undertakings, if any, do you expect from the Palestinian Arabs in exchange for what you are willing to give up?

From your answers, at least I hope to know whether our respective positions are worlds apart or just skin deep. Are you willing to enlighten me sharonbn? Of course you don't have to if you don't want to.

[Reffo]

and for heaven's sake why would we want to retake Sinai???

I would prefer not to have to. I would prefer peace to be maintained. But if the new Egypt would embark on another adventure, if the choice would then be between the Egyptian army mobilising and lining up to attack Israel from the Sinai Israeli border or from across the Suez Canal, I know which choice I would prefer.

Then there is the small matter of oil and Gas in Sinai and that it could be used as a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations in order to perhaps obtain 60 years of peace the next time around.

[sharonbn]

[*]What ARE you prepared to give up for the sake of a nebulous peace?

I accept the Geneva accord in its entirety. it includes detailed maps of proposed borders.

[*]What if anything won't you give up, no matter what?

I already answered that one to Aliyah here

[*]What undertakings, if any, do you expect from the Palestinian Arabs in exchange for what you are willing to give up?

again, they are fully listed in the Geneva accord.
Mainly -
- End of conflict. End of all claims.
- A comprehensive and complete Palestinian commitment to fighting terrorism and incitement.
- A demilitarized Palestinian state.
- An international verification group to oversee implementation.
- Palestinians must relinquish "right of return" (at least as far as immigration to Israel)

[sharonbn]

I would prefer not to have to. I would prefer peace to be maintained. But if the new Egypt would embark on another adventure, if the choice would then be between the Egyptian army mobilising and lining up to attack Israel from the Sinai Israeli border or from across the Suez Canal, I know which choice I would prefer.

Then there is the small matter of oil and Gas in Sinai and that it could be used as a bargaining chip in future peace negotiations in order to perhaps obtain 60 years of peace the next time around.

I have as easier solution -

They also receive $1.3 billion in military aid annually from the U.S.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/wo...pagewanted=all

shutdown financial aid, and within a fortnight, they will capitulate.

[Reffo]

I accept the Geneva accord in its entirety. it includes detailed maps of proposed borders

Oh well then, our discussion is academic only. Why? Because of the following clause in the Geneva accord:

As part of the accord, the Palestinians recognize the right of the Jewish people to their own state and recognize the State of Israel as their national home. Conversely, the Israelis recognize the Palestinian state as the national home of the Palestinian people

Here is what Abbas has been saying about that consistently for a number of years now ...

The Palestinian Authority will not be recognizing Israel as a Jewish state, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas said Saturday, adopting a belligerent tone ahead of his planned statehood bid in September

Abbas: We won't recognize Israel as Jewish state

furthermore, the last time I read anything about the number of "refugees" that he wants Israel to accept, it was 100,000. And the numbers keep on shifting every time that Abbas opens his mouth. Can I therefore safely conclude, sharonbn, that under those circumstances you would not be favouring Israel to give up anything unless the PA and Abbass become more reasonable?

[sharonbn]

yes, Reffo, you can conclude that.
can we conclude that you agree with the Geneva accord, including its demands from Israel and the Palestinians?