Back to Basics: The Question of Land for Peace

[NewsGuy]

Please post or distribute freely

Back to Basics: The Question of Land for Peace
May 31, 2002
Contributed by www.IsraelForum.com

The question comes up over and over: should Israel give up land for peace?

There are several reasons why Israel should not trade land for peace, not the least of which is that "land for peace" defies common sense.

Peace comes when the adversaries sincerely want peace, i.e., they have had enough of bloodshed and wish to focus on building rather than destroying. Genuine peace can't be bought or bartered, because the side that demands land (or money) has even less incentive for maintaining peace once it has been paid off.

Note also that Israel's enemies demand Israel give back all of the land captured during the Six Day War. Part of what they are trying to do here is get Israel to lend credence to their claim that the land is under "illegal occupation." They also know that Israel will never give back all of the captured land as it would leave the country indefensible; it's a great PR ploy for them to demand something they know will never happen.

Aside from what Israel's enemies demand, is Israel morally obligated to eventually return all of the captured land? Just the opposite: Israel is morally obligated to never give back all of the captured land. Contrary to demands that Israel return to its '67 borders, Israel's enemies never recognized Israel's '67 borders.

To give back all of the captured land would be wrong for three reasons: 1) it would send the message that there is no penalty for attacking Israel for 50+ years, 2) it would be to dishonor those who died or were wounded defending Israel since 1967, and 3) it would leave Israel with indefensible borders. (There are many other reasons that argue against it, such as that it would mean relinquishing Judiasm's holiest site to people who have repeatedly desecrated Jewish holy sites.)

When Israel's enemies are truly ready for peace, they -- like Egypt and Jordan -- will stop demanding all of the captured territory. Israel has already given back most of the captured land (the Sinai) and has offered 97% of the West Bank and Gaza. Given how small Israel is, and the existential threat it faces, if Israel's enemies truly wanted peace they would accept 97%.

Holding out for 3% plus the right to settle one million Arabs inside Israel, plus their maps showing "Palestine" encompassing all of Israel, shows that "peace" is not what they are after.

[varian]

Please post or distribute freely

Back to Basics: The Question of Land for Peace
May 31, 2002
Contributed by www.IsraelForum.com

There are several reasons why Israel should not trade land for peace, not the least of which is that "land for peace" defies common sense.

Peace comes when the adversaries sincerely want peace, i.e., they have had enough of bloodshed and wish to focus on building rather than destroying.

..."peace" is not what they are after.

Now to fast forward a few years from the original date of your post - and every thing looks about the same! Could it be that the "Golden Age of Islam" was due to the efforts of some forward thinking Muslims of that day, and not to "Regressionist" thinking Muslims similar to much of the Islamic leadership of today. It seems that "Radical Islam" represents "Regressionist" thinking, and an avenue that leads to anything but another "Golden Age." There does not seem to be much hope for peace with "Radical Regressionism."

[Mercury]

To give back all of the captured land would be wrong for three reasons:

1) it would send the message that there is no penalty for attacking Israel for 50+ years

A valid point.

2) it would be to dishonor those who died or were wounded defending Israel since 1967

I don't see why.

3) it would leave Israel with indefensible borders.

Again a valid point. However, this may be fixed if Israel retains the military control over the border with Jordan.


Your first point, as well as other possible arguments against the withdrawl from the W. Bank, have to be weighed against the permanent burden Israel has to carry while it retains the control over the exponentially growing palestinian population.

[Cyrus the Great]

I have always wondered how any sane person could possibly ask Israel to give up any of its captured land after almost half century. I mean that's how most countries in the world became what they are, by taking land and claiming it as their own. In Israel's case they weren't even the aggressors, they were the defenders. Do you think the US would ever give any land back to the natives and let them create their own country?! Do you think Iraqis would have given back any land to Iran if they had won the Iran-Iraq war? I don't think so. Even with the captured land Israel is so very small compared to all the arab countries and it's the only jewish homeland. The arabs have what like 30 countries. And it's not like Israel is sitting on oil or anything like all the arab countries. Besides the middle east does not belong to the arabs as many believe, Persians and Jews have been there as long as arabs, if not longer. So I for one wish everyone would just get off of Israel's case.

[Mediocrates]

But isn't this argument dead? No one with anything to say on the matter is seriously proposing that Israel chase out all the arabs and rule over the entirety of Yesha. In this sense zionism or at least religious zionism as it has been articulated in the most militant aspects of the settler movement is essentially done. And what everyone is left to argue about is how best to retreat. The Likudniks aren't really proposing a new kind of dominion over the Arabs. They're proposing a different way to wangle concessions over the process in order to ensure what they think is a better final position. Those in Kadima propose the same conclusion they differ only in the concessions they're willing to agree to, and the order in which they're willing to agree to them to arrive at more or less the same place. But in either case from the most expansive to the most accomodating all they're really arguing about is maybe 10% of the total land of the West Bank and what to do with about 100-130,000 Jewish Israeli citizens who happen to live there now. That's a shade under 585 sqkm or about 3/4ths the size of NY city leaving a land mass of 5260 sqkm or slightly larger than the state of Delaware for reference purposes. By comparison Wake county, NC where I live is ~900 sq miles and has 630,000 people. So all the Jews in the world who seemingly all the Arabs in the world want to get atomic weapons and vaporize off the face of the earth, this dreaded invasion, this stain on the planet - yeah they're about 1/5th of the people who live in my county on about half the land are.

Which by the way calls into question this whole nonsensical idea that the Jews and Palestinians are crowding each other out and that for some odd reason the West Bank won't be a practical homeland for a few million Palestinians. Come to where I live - it's pretty damn suburban/rural/farmland.

Anyway I digress. Land for Peace is dead because everyone for most part knows how it ends already. And there won't be any peace anyway. Only an acceptable level of atrocties.

[physics]

Giving up land for peace is unfair because Israel is supposed to make sacrifices while the Palestinians do nothing in return.

Gaza has been evacuated, but terrorism coming from there didn't suddently freeze.

The Palestinians are good at making demands and not returning any favors.

Giving more land is a regressive step.Instead, the Palestinians must learn to accept today's reality and compromise.

[Mira]

I agree with Medio in that nobody is thinking in terms of giving land for peace anymore. It could be many, many generations before there is peace, assuming that something catastrophic does not occur as a result of outside participation in the conflict. I'll add further that people who think Israel can hold on to most of the West Bank and remain a State where Jews are the majority culture and political decision makers are so out of touch with reality that I don't know what world they are living in. The Arabs will never be expelled and if people think that Israel can continue to hold land without giving everyone the right to vote, they are again so delusional that it's painful to see Jews hold these kinds of views. Continue to occupy the territories and see what happens within twenty years. Read the articles on what's happening in Egypt or even Bethlehem for a taste of that future.