Comments on: Where Is Israel Going?

By: Ravi Singh

Ravi Singh — Fri, 21 Dec 2012 07:37:19 +0000

Launchingt peace talks with a sincere intention of reaching a permanent solution fair to all….
Sounds good, but where's the sincerity as far as Israel is concerned, which wants peace as well as more land, water and control over the Palestinians daily lives?

By: David Lowell Lasoff

David Lowell Lasoff — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 18:51:35 +0000

You are wrong, Mr. Shuman, dead wrong…no, suicidal is the most accurate word I can find. The status quo is the only quo that is realistic because WE CAN MAINTAIN IT, AD INFINITUM WITH ONLY MINIMAL CASUALTIES which is the price we must pay for survival as a Jewish State. The Arabs aren't going anywhere and Israel cannot yield anymore sovereign land nor negotiate with people determined to destroy us. I only wish we had the will to destroy them or to keep at it forever if need be, living in a constant state of war like we are doing and will continue to do because there is no rational alternative, whether you like to face the facts or not. How can you and your delusional ilk believe otherwise? What evidence do you possess, besides the facts of the 64 years of our "knife-edged" existence to offer except more foolish compromise with the enemy? I am no rabbid right-winger nor am I orthodox. I am just an Israeli Jew who is tired of false dreams and "land for rockets" policies. Retire already and stop writing silly blogs that are the stuff of utopia-enthralled Diaspora Jews who don't live here. Actually, with all due respect to your sensibilities and not knowing your own sacrifices for Israel which, no doubt, have been substantial and worthy of respect, you should know better because you've also lost compatriots, friends and loved ones, like the rest of us. Your view is national suicide because there is NO PARTNER FOR PEACE and you know this or should resign yourself to this fact like a mature man of your years instead of clinging to the fantasies of the well-meaning but foolish lot who advocate a two state solution. One State and maintaining the status quo with military might in perpetuity until one side wins and the other side loses is all that can be real. Grow up already, Mr. Shuman, please, for all of our sakes and quit selling Israel down the river.

By: Yishai Kohen

Yishai Kohen — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 14:14:54 +0000

The simple fact is that the would-have-been “Palestinians” could have had a state in peace, but chose war on MANY occasions- INSTEAD:

The would-have-been “Palestinians” would have had a state IN PEACE in 1937 with the Peel Plan, but they violently rejected it.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1939 with the MacDonald White Paper, but they violently rejected it (and Jews would have even been restricted from BUYING land from Arabs).

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 1948 with UN 181, but they violently rejected it (and actually claimed that the UN had no such mandate!).

They could have had a state IN PEACE in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza from 1948-1967 without any Jews- because the Arabs had ethnically cleansed every last one; but they violently rejected it. In fact, that's exactly when they established Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964).

They could have had a state IN PEACE after 1967, but instead, the entire Arab world issued the Khartoum Resolutions:

A. No peace with Israel.
B. No recognition of Israel.
C. No negotiations with Israel.

They would have had a state IN PEACE in 2000 with the Oslo Accords, but they violently rejected it- as always.

And as soon as Israel pulled every single Israeli out of Gaza, what did the would-have-been “Palestinians” do? They immediately started shooting thousands of missiles into Israeli population centers, they elected Hamas (whose official platform calls for jihad with no negotiations until Israel is destroyed) to rule them, and they have dug tunnels crossing into the Negev to kill and kidnap Israelis.

And even afterwards, Ehud Olmert made his subsequent generous offer that went far beyond even that of Barak. The would-have-been "Palestinians" rejected it.

They had many chances.

They threw them all away because destroying Israel was higher on their priority list.

Oh well. That’s their choice. Game over for them. They won’t have a state here.

http://www.israelinitiative.com/

By: Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 13:02:23 +0000

You posit natural gas offsetting "economic damage from increased international isolation," Mr. Karmi–and that makes sense. There is arguably another "effect" (I won't label it as "damage") of such "isolation"–and that would be "psychological"…and what the results of that would be (if any)…I, personally, have NO idea.

By: Yonatan Karmi

Yonatan Karmi — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:39:36 +0000

Ellis, your analysis is correct, but I'm pessimistic. There is no solution. Largely due to demographics, Israel will continue electing right-wing, religious governments. Palestinian violence will get worse and we could even enter a period of ongoing low-scale war. This will be highly damaging to both sides. Israel will become more isolated internationally and that will cause economic damage. Fortunately the arrival of natural gas from the Mediterranean will offset that.

Israel needs a strong, pragmatic, but moderate leader to give electors an alternative. Yachimovich has abdicated responsibility for security policy and Livni is politically discredited. They're just not up to it.

By: Robert Taylor

Robert Taylor — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:09:39 +0000

This is no "answer" to your headline's question, Mr. Shuman–but it would seem to me that Israel is "going" where the leaders elected by its citizenry–are committed to "taking it."

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 20 Dec 2012 11:13:20 +0000

Oh so you want peace now? It's not going to happen. Maybe in 20 years. The other side has refused a state twice in the past 15 years after receiving very generous offers. What has changed since then? Obviously the current Pal leadership is more interested in destroying Israel than in getting their own state. After what happened in Gaza no sane Israeli would agree to setting up a Pal state in Judea and Samaria unless it was completely disarmed.