Americans and Israelis reject land for peace premise
A poll of Israelis I ran in an earlier post had the following result:Well, it seems that the Americans have figured out the same thing. Well, the Americans who aren't part of the Obama administration anyway.Some claim that if Israel were to withdraw to the '67 lines - including leave the Golan - it would enjoy peace for generations since the Arabs would no longer have any claims against Israel. Do you think that this is a naive or simplistic view or a reasonable and correct assessment?
82% Naive and simplistic
08% Reasonable and correct
10% Don't know/Other replies
So how come all those 'smart' people in the Obama administration can't figure this out?And, thinking again about the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians...which statement do you agree with MOST?
18.7% THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS IS REALLY ABOUT LAND. ONCE AGREEMENTS ARE REACHED ON DIVIDING JERUSALEM AND ESTABLISHING BORDERS, THE TWO SIDES WILL LIVE SIDE-BY-SIDE IN PEACE.
72.8% THE CONFLICT BETWEEN ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS IS ABOUT IDEOLOGY AND RELIGION. THE TWO SIDES WILL LIVE IN PEACE ONLY WHEN THEY ACKNOWLEDGE EACH OTHER'S RIGHT TO EXIST.
08.5% KNOW/REFUSED (DO NOT READ)
Telephone poll conducted by Frank Luntz, Ph.D. of The Word Doctors, March 19-20, 2010 with 811 registered American voters (margin of error: +/- 3.5 percent) for The Israel Project
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:33 AM
2 Comments:
The point is Israel cannot surrender more territory. In his speech to AIPAC tonight, Prime Minister Netanyahu drove home the point by stating the Jordan River must be Israel's security border, with an Israeli military presence. This is not what the Obami were expecting to hear. But Israel cannot be defended from a narrow waist 9 miles wide and there is no guarantee the PA regime won't be replaced by a Hamas one literally overnight. Israel cannot place its security in the hands of the Palestinians. Nor can her right to her sovereign capital be compromised. As he reminded his audience, the other side must also compromise for peace to happen.
Israel is willing to settle the conflict with the Palestinians but the other side isn't interested in peace. Israel is a small country in which there is no margin for error. I think its clear how far Israel can go and what it limits are.
A Palestinian state along the lines envisioned by the rest of the world is not a kind of settlement Israel will accept either now or in the future.
The defining moment for me was when Ehud Barak offered the terrorist Arafat 97% + some exchanges, and the response was rejection. If this was about land, it would have been a done deal there. If it was about something else, the deal should never have been made.
The arabs think that if you are willing to bargain for some of it, you are willing to bargain for all of it.
Which means that any future offers, as misguided as they are, should be for smaller slivers. There needs to be a high price for intransigence. A very high price. There needs to be a very real possibility of losing all of the offer in order to bring them to the table.
An end to the conflict is needed, preferably at the negotiating table. Capitulation is not needed. Giving up land won't gain peace. That calculus is dead. Killed by arabs who went on murderous rampages from the land given up. Managing the conflict is a good idea, either let it devolve into hot shooting war to finish it fast, or remove the political leadership of the 'palis' and let the situation calm and cool over a generation or three. Then organize elections, let them have their own state, and completely irrevocably ignore the PLO and its terrorist bretheren. Issue interpol warrants for all PLO/PA operatives, for all of Hamas and Hezbullah leadership. Remove them from the picture.
But stop trading something real for something fungible.
Post a Comment
<< Home