“A two state solution” has meant “1967 with adjustments” for years and years. Everybody knows that Israel won’t accept precisely 1967’s borders, everybody knows the Arabs won’t accept anything less than major parts of East Jerusalem.
The strategic aspect, or the defensibility argument really only makes sense to me if someone is A: talking about the Golan Heights, which frankly Israel can keep for all I care since they aren’t some great affront against humanitarian principles, or B: talking about keeping major swathes of the West Bank, which has been a right wing non-starter since reality first set in on the demographics of the post-1967 situation.
Kalle
1922
The problem is that Hamas has no incentive to stop launching missiles until Israel stops annexing the West Bank and becomes serious about allowing the Palestinians a state. A proper Palestinian state would have both the means and the incentive to prevent people from launching missiles as Israeli threats of military retaliation mean more to people who have something to lose.
Hamas has the stated goal of the total destruction of Isreal, they have never given any reason to believe they will back away from that goal. They dont think Isreal has the right to even exist. I dont know a way to work this all out.
JeffL
1924
“The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines”
Are we talking about something different?
JeffL
1925
Jason: I’ve been hearing from you, for the last year, that Obama’s decisions are all based on not what he believes, but what he has to do to get re-elected! ;)
Kalle
1926
Really? Hamas is not my favourite brand of islamist government but what you are saying is just a parroted neocon talking point to excuse not negotiating anything, ever. They’re hardline fuckheads but they still need popular support and if it means a Palestinian state then I have the distinct impression most Palestinians want peace and a state more than they want to destroy Israel. If Israel made serious moves towards compromising then Hamas would need to respond in kind.
jeffd
1927
Read the rest of what he said. It’s 1967 + land swaps. That’s the same policy that all peace talks have been based on for ages.
I’m envisioning you as a folksy-talking get-along southern lawyer in a seersucker.
Why did you cut off the second part of the President’s sentence? Do you want to make Obama look bad? “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed upon land swaps.”
That’s pretty much the gist of where the two parties were going at the 2000 talks at Camp David, but it got torpedoed by the Right of Return and other issues.
JeffL
1930
Ah - you know, I have been traveling and just read through the speech and I actually DID miss the land swaps piece. That makes a lot more sense - thanks.
Comparing someone to Matlock generally isn’t one, no.
It should be, the guy never loses a case.
Anyway, I see JeffL more as Columbo
JeffL
1935
Don’t worry, you didn’t have to explain that to me Jason. But I’d rather be that than some characterizations you might consider a compliment. ;)
Lum
1936
You realize that this sort of strategic calculation became obsolete right around the time they invented the V2 rocket. Considering that Hezbollah was able to hit Tel Aviv’s outskirts from Lebanon, holding on to the West Bank doesn’t exactly give a whole lot of protection.
Lum
1937
Israel not maintaining a military occupation of Palestine (which is extremely unpleasant to live under, and which the Palestinians have done for 40 years), and thus making extremists like Hamas attractive because they promise to fight back and kill Israelis, in general would be an excellent way to start.
So if Mexico started attacking us would your solution be to give back the southwest of the US back to them?
Hamas doesnt just want Isreal back to their 1967 borders they want them completely destroyed. Giving them more land to attack Isreal with is something I can understand their government not wanting.
JeffL
1939
Is there a practical solution to the Israel-Palestinian situation that both sides would agree to? A good friend from Iran with whom I used to work told me years ago that one problem we in the West had was “you think there is a solution to every problem, and that talking will fix anything - some problems are just not resolvable by talking.” I admit, I do err on the side of believing (or wanting to believe) that there must be some way to “solve” the problem. “Solve” means come to an agreement that the majority of people on both sides prefer to the current one.
But what is it? If you were President, what would you try? Or would you just say, hey, the current leaders of (pick your side) prefer what is in place today and will only accept a violent solution so why waste my political capital here?
Kalle
1940
There aren’t very many situations analogous to what has been going on in Israel the past 50 years but if you’re going to invent one for argument’s sake Mexico attacking the US for no reason is not one of them, try harder.
