quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Well, DK joined and didnt latch onto it, so for all you ME geniuses, the one non-negotiable item Netanyahu told Obama in December must be a part of any peace settlement is for Palestine to formally relinquish the Right of Return. That is far more critical to Israel than 1967 borders, because while loss of the Golan Heights in particular would be a military setback, they can still defeat any conventional attack. With Right of Return Israel would be gone in two generations. It is also far more important than formal recognition of Israels right to exist, which is a fairy tale the Palestinians might try to tell with "forked tongue".

Give that up and Netanyahu said a two state solution would be feasible. Again, he may have taken that position knowing it would never come to that, but the offer is out there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy
Well, DK joined and didnt latch onto it, so for all you ME geniuses, the one non-negotiable item Netanyahu told Obama in December must be a part of any peace settlement is for Palestine to formally relinquish the Right of Return. That is far more critical to Israel than 1967 borders, because while loss of the Golan Heights in particular would be a military setback, they can still defeat any conventional attack. With Right of Return Israel would be gone in two generations. It is also far more important than formal recognition of Israels right to exist, which is a fairy tale the Palestinians might try to tell with "forked tongue".

Give that up and Netanyahu said a two state solution would be feasible. Again, he may have taken that position knowing it would never come to that, but the offer is out there.

Didja hear of the researcher who found that only about 10% would actually return, while the rest would rather have financial compensation?  It made a major stink:

"Just ten percent of Palestinian refugees living in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Jordan and Lebanon are interested in coming back to their former homes in Israel, according to a survey conducted by a Ramallah research institute, Israel Radio reported Sunday night.

The director of the survey, Khalil Shikaki, says that most of the refugees understand that returning to Israel entails accepting an Israeli citizenship, in addition to conforming to laws and life in Israeli society.

The survey included interviews with 4,500 people. Approximately half said they would like to live in an independent Palestinian state, while 17 percent preferred to stay in their current home. Similar surveys conducted in the past have reported some 95 percent demanding the right of return, but the question of whether the refugees would actually put their right into action was never posed to them.

Dozens of furious Palestinian refugees wrecked Shikaki's office on Sunday to stop him releasing the survey, pelting him with eggs, overturning tables and smashing windows.

Shikaki, whose think-tank monitors the Palestinian political pulse through periodic surveys, found that "the vast majority" of refugees were willing to accept monetary compensation in lieu of a return to homes and land they abandoned or were forced to flee when Israel was established in the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. " "

This was back in '03, and appeared via Haaretz and Reuters.  I heard it on NPR back then.

Obama's entire position (most folks, especially the republicans, are quoting it out of context) is less radical than what Carter proposed in the past.

Aylee, if we kept what we won in war, we'd own Japan, and have shares in Germany and Italy!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

"Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions.
When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.."
http://nicademia.blogspot.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Obviously Israel did not defend the the 67 borders in 73 that war was fought in the Sinai  part of the buffer zone Israel had as a result of 67.   

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

"Bibi called the 1967 borders indefensible. Of course, Israel successfully defended those borders in 1967, and again in 1973. Meanwhile Israel has seen a foe become a friend (Jordan), its arch-foe become a non-factor (Egypt), another arch foe (Saddam's Iraq) irrevocably weakened, and an Arab world in general more concerned about a threat from Iran than from Israel. In other words, Israel's geopolitical position is far stronger now than it was forty years ago, when it was able to decisively defend the 1967 borders on two separate occasions.
When one stops to think about the threats Israel faces, it becomes even more ridiculous. There is no conventional threat to Israel. Iran has rockets, not a ground army with thousands of tanks like Egypt had in the 60's. The greatest threat to Israel is terrorism from WMDs or delegitimization. Occupying the West Bank makes Israel more vulnerable to those dangers, not less.."
http://nicademia.blogspot.com/

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This point is made in a far more pragmatic way in today's Haaretz, the excellent Israeli paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

This point is made in a far more pragmatic way in today's Haaretz, the excellent Israeli paper:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/netanyahu-s-israel-is-on-course-to-become-a-pariah-state-1.362923

That's pretty out there for Haaretz, it lays out the major issue. Palestinian Statehood ( and a 2 state solution ) is happening, and Israel can lead, follow, or get out of the way.

Will the UN resolution be 187 to 2 or 188 to 1 or unanimous really the only question left.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b
Well, if Cuba doesn't count, then Cuba doesn't count. But then, I wasn't defending Aylee's contention... I was merely correcting your misconstruing of the War of 1812 (a back and forth, slapdash affiar that didn't really resolve anything).

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion.

Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion."

Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion.

Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion."

Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydawg


You are correct in that not every war involves the taking of terrirtory, which is as irrelevant as saying the Sky is often blue. true, but meaningless to the disscussion.

Interesting argument. Being "correct" and "true" is "irrelevant" and "meaningless to the discussion."

Little wonder then that you can find or invent reasons to justify Israel's criminal belligerence.

Its called a non sequiter and yes, irrelevant and meaningless to the discussion