Israeli PM: Israel must keep Jordan Valley

[Scurrilous]

<snip>

"Israel's prime minister says he won't pull out of a key part of the West Bank even if there's a peace agreement with the Palestinians.

Benjamin Netanyahu was referring to the Jordan River Valley along the eastern border of the West Bank. Palestinians claim all of the West Bank as part of their future state.

Netanyahu's pronouncement comes as the U.S. is pushing hard to restart peace talks. Palestinians hesitate to negotiate because of Netanyahu's hardline attitudes and Israeli settlement construction.

Netanyahu told a parliamentary committee Tuesday that the Jordan Valley's strategic importance makes it impossible for Israel to withdraw, according to a meeting participant who spoke on condition of anonymity because the meeting was closed."

http://Iwww.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9E6F6PG2

[Scurrilous]

1. Netanyahu Does It: Kills Two-State Solution Dead

<snip>

"This is from Ha'aretz today: "Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Tuesday that Israel would never agree to withdraw from the Jordan Valley under any peace agreement signed with the Palestinians."

The Jordan Valley is the area on the far east side of the West Bank, adjacent to Jordan.

So here is what Netanyahu says Israel will never give up for a Palestinian state: (1) the entire area of East Jerusalem, massively expanded by Israel to include hundreds of thousands of Palestinians -- along with the holy sites of the Old City (2) all West Bank cities and settlements near Israel which will be incorporated into Israel itself (3) the huge city of Ariel smack dab in the middle of the West Bank.

Now, remember, Israel without any of the occupied areas or East Jerusalem constitutes 78% of historic Palestine. The Palestinians want the other 22% to be their state, no more but no less.

Netanyahu is now ruling out a sizable chunk of that 22%, making any kind of Palestinian state impossible."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/netanyahu-does-it-kills-t_b_481960.html

[oberliner]

2. What constitutes historic Palestine?

Is any part of modern Jordan part of historic Palestine?

Does historic Palestine include anything east of the Jordan river?

[Violet_Crumble]

3. If you really need to know, you should email the author of the article...

Scurrilous didn't write the article. Just thought I'd correct you as you appear to be confused...

[oberliner]

9. The author of the article could be misinformed

Sometimes folks at DU know more about this topic than people whose articles get posted here.

Case in Point: Richard Cohen - whose recently posted article was recently called a "pile of complete irrational crap"

[Violet_Crumble]

13. So? Are you allergic to emailing them and asking them what they mean?

I don't see what the point is in demanding that Scurry tell you what the author means. Oh, and that Richard Cohen article was a pile of completely irrational crap. Tough shit if you don't think so...

[IndianaGreen]

4. Let''s not start the Talmudic reasoning so often employed to obfuscate the issues!

The fact is that Jews have a stronger claim to the disputed West Bank than the Arabs do. That's just a historical fact. It is also an irrelevant fact! The world community, and the US which indirectly bankrolls Israel's Occupation, have a legitimate interest in having a fair and just resolution to the I/P conflict. Statements by the likes of Bibi Netanyahu are par for the course for a Likud government.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

8. How does your logic work when applied to the Falklands?

[IndianaGreen]

12. Argentinians were expelled from Falklands in 1833 by the British

Falklands are in the Americas (Monroe Doctrine). Argentina has a solid claim to land taken by a European colonial power.

The Jewish people have been in the West Bank (aka Judea and Samaria) for over three millennia, and they are not European colonialists.

Apparently you read what I posted in LBN about the Falklands. I am sure you are aware about this particular DU rule: do not "stalk" another member from one discussion thread to another. Do not follow someone into another thread to try to continue a disagreement you had elsewhere.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

15. Another perspective is that they were retaken by the Brits.

Another key point is that the UN direction included a plebiscite which Argentina has steadfastly refuse to honor, knowing they would surely lose. Unless the residents agree, there is no UN support or mandate for a change in sovereignty.

I do not particularly recall any of your posts in either forum. I have pointed out before some of the macro level similarities of the two situations in the past. Apologies if you thought it was more than that.

[Ken Burch]

29. Are you sure our military-industrial complex actually has an interest in ending this conflict, Indy?

After all, if it ends, it becomes much harder, if not impossible, to justify a continued U.S. military presence in the Middle East.

It becomes much harder to silence debate about that involvement.

It becomes much harder to justify massive military aid to Israel, large amounts of which ends up in the pockets of U.S. defense contractors.

And that's just for openers.

[kayecy]

74. Jews per se .....Or those able to demonstrate a connection to the West Bank?

The fact is that Jews have a stronger claim to the disputed West Bank than the Arabs do. That's just a historical fact

Would you care to explain how you arrive at such a 'fact'?

Do you include US and European Jews, many of whom cannot trace their ancestors back further than a century or two and have no connection to the West Bank other than their religion was preponderant in the area two thousand years ago?
.

[Violet_Crumble]

14. Do you agree with what the Israeli PM said?

Not that you should feel obligated to actually comment on the contents of an article rather than zeroing in on a few words of it and running with it...

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Kick for Obie! n/t

[oberliner]

33. Absolutely deranged

Some questions are so insultingly idiotic that they do not warrant responses.

[Violet_Crumble]

35. If you were opposed to his stance on it you'd have no problems saying so...

There's nothing idiotic in asking someone whether they agree with what was said in the OP or no. Maybe you can explain why you think asking you about yr opinion of the OP is 'insultingly idiotic'?

[oberliner]

38. I've made my position clear so many times

And I know you have been around long enough and engaged in enough discussions with me to have seen it.

The Geneva Initiative, which I have promoted repeatedly, represents my vision for what a two-state solution should look like.

If you are ever wondering what my position is with respect to what anyone proposes regarding a peace agreement, you can consult the Geneva Initiative.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. That never stops you from stating yr position repeatedly if it's critical of Hamas...

So I don't understand the reticence to do the same when it comes to stuff like this.

If I want to know whether you agree with something in an OP, I'll ask you. You can feel free to evade answering, which is what you've done in this case...

[Ken Burch]

25. Oh come on, Obes. You know perfectly well

that if Israel keeps the Jordan Valley, that leaves virtually NOTHING for a Palestinian state.

It goes without saying that no Palestinian state that doesn't include the entire West Bank can ever be viable. That's WHY Bibi wants to hang on to at least half of it(which is no different in reality than hanging on to all of it.)

[Violet_Crumble]

27. I'm still waiting for Obie to say whether or not he agrees with Nutty's stance...

Because so far Obie's attitude in this thread isn't one of someone who is opposed to it...

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

34. I was referring to the fact that you chose to deflect attention

from the inherent injustice of Netanyahu's anti-peace statement by asking a fatuous question about "historic Palestine", a question that has no relevance to this thread.

And while I know there is a "Likud" party, my use of the term "Likudnik" is based now on the mindset that party(and Labor under many of its leaders, to be fair)has taken towards the Palestinians:

A refusal to admit that Palestinians are a nation and have just as deep a claim to the lands of the mandate as anybody who just showed up from the Diaspora(remember, Zionism was almost entirely an Askenazim movement and the indigenous Mizrahim community in pre-1948 Israel had no interest in it).

A refusal to admit that Palestinians have and ALWAYS DID HAVE an absolute right to self-determination, and that this could only be expressed by a Palestinian state.

A refusal to admit that a Palestinian state HAS to include the entire West Bank to be viable(clearly, it can't be if Israel holds the Jordan valley, since Israel will always be hostile to the survival of a Palestinian state). A refusal to see that no "land swaps" would ever contain any land of any worth or use.

A refusal to admit that Palestinians have any real grievances about their treatment under the occupation.

A blind and pointless insistence that the only thing that matters is this mythical concept of "terrorism", as if what the IDF does to Palestinians as a group isn't equally terrorism.

A bizarre belief that the only important issue in domestic Israeli politics is "security" and the mythical "existential crisis". Not social justice, not fighting poverty, not any of the things that make a society a society. Just crushing the foe for the sake of crushing the foe, and just taking land for the sake of taking land.

And an insistence that the whole territorial is the Palestinians' fault.

This iw what I mean by Likudnik, and I hardly ever see you criticize ANY of that here. You just seem to go along for the ride.

Why?

Why aren't you speaking out against the nightmarish choices that Netanyahu, Lieberman and Barak keep making, over and over again?

Why are you silent?

It's not as if this state is still WORTHY of your loyalty. You know it's going to be this bad the rest of the way in.

[oberliner]

41. In a nutshell

I support the Democratic party which ran against and worked to defeat Bush. The US has done a lot of unpleasant things, even with parties to the left of the Republicans in power. However support for parties to the left of Republicans by definition means you are not a Republican.

With respect to Israel, I support parties that ran against and worked to defeat Likud. Israel has done a lot of unpleasant things, even with parties to the left of Likud in power. However support for parties to the left of Likud by definition means you are not a Likudnik.

I feel the same way about the Likud Party in Israel as I do about the Republican Party in the US. Disagree with them on pretty much everything and want to see them out of power.

[Violet_Crumble]

36. That's very rude and nasty of you, Oberliner...

Ken is not completely ignorant of Israeli politics and society.

[oberliner]

42. We all have our less polite moments

Even you, I would imagine, have made a rude and/or nasty post once in a while.

[Violet_Crumble]

46. That doesn't make it okay to be as nasty and rude as you were n/t

[oberliner]

31. Nothing you said relates to my question

The question has nothing to do with the present situation.

I want to know what "historic Palestine" refers to.

Was the current country of Jordan a component of that at some point or not?

[Violet_Crumble]

37. Is there some reason you can't email the writer of the OP?

Not sure why yr demanding that posters in this forum try to be mind-readers, nor why yr so fixated on one small tangental thing in an article where you flat-out refused to answer my question as to whether you agree with what was said by Nutty or not.

[Violet_Crumble]

39. Some questions are so insultingly idiotic that they do not warrant responses.

;)

[oberliner]

43. Yet you have responded more than once!

I don't need to email the author of the OP because he made clear what he believes historical Palestine to be in his article.

Other writers appear to believe that historical Palestine means something other than what that author thinks it means.

I was wondering if DU'ers had an opinion on the subject but either no one does, no one cares, or everyone has me on ignore!

[Ken Burch]

44. Or...wait for it...it doesn't actually MATTER.

Why are you so fixated about the question of "historic Palestine"? How does it relate to what Netanyahu said here at all?

Remember, some people in HIS government still want to have settlements on the West Bank...of the Euphrates.

[oberliner]

47. Then why did the author make the point of noting those percentages?

I refer to these paragraphs:

Now, remember, Israel without any of the occupied areas or East Jerusalem constitutes 78% of historic Palestine. The Palestinians want the other 22% to be their state, no more but no less.

Netanyahu is now ruling out a sizable chunk of that 22%, making any kind of Palestinian state impossible."

<end of citation>

Edit to add: This citation is in the second article that the poster posted in response to his own original OP.

[Ken Burch]

48. Clearly, for the sake of the purposes of the article

The author had to have meant the lands of the League of Nations Mandate. Of those lands, if Palestinians got a state comprising the West Bank and Gaza, they'd have 22% of the Mandate, while Israel would get 78%. Wouldn't you have to agree that for Israel, 78% of the Mandatory lands would be enough?

And wouldn't you also have to agree that the "Jordan is the Palestinian state" line is unacceptable?

[oberliner]

52. I do agree with your last statement

I think there is a difference, though, between making the claim that "Jordan is Palestine" and saying that "historic Palestine may have included some of what is now Jordan."

[Ken Burch]

64. What is the purpose, in the present territorial dispute

of even saying "historic Palestine may have included some of what is now Jordan"?

Bringing that thought into this discussion objectively gives aid and comfort to the "Jordan is Palestine" mobs(and that idea has almost no political support in Israel itself. If it did, Avigdor Lieberman would be leading a majority Beitenyu government.
I realize you wouldn't want to help people like that, but raising the questions about "historic Palestine" is something the rejectionist right in Israeli and "pro-Israel" circles do on a daily basis.

In any case, it's not possible to redraw Jordan's boundaries, and it's not the Jordanians' fault that Palestinians don't have the right to self-determination.

[Violet_Crumble]

45. So what? It was an idiotic and moronic 'question'...

If you know what the author of the OP meant, then it's really quite silly to demand that people in this forum tell you what was meant in the article.

I hope that you decide at some point that you'd like to discuss the subject of the OP. I'm not holding out any hope of that, though...

[oberliner]

53. I know what the author meant - not sure if I agree with him

Was curious to know other people's thoughts on the matter - if they had any further insights beyond what the writer of the OP was claiming.

What is it about the OP that you'd like to discuss? "Do you agree with Netanyahu?" does not seem a particularly useful opening question for any kind of discussion on this article.

Although I notice that you have recently been posting articles from (or to the right of) the Netanyahu/Likud perspective so perhaps you have flipped over to his way of thinking.

[Violet_Crumble]

70. Then the question was idiotic and moronic...

You know what the question was I asked you, so if you have any genuine desire to discuss the OP, you can always answer it...

Thanks! I'm always warmed to know that people like you pay so much attention to the OPs I post in this forum! It makes me realise that at least someone pays attention and read what I post! Though it's sad that you appear to get confused and believe I may be a believer of what I post, especially so when I've seen you explain to people in the past that just because someone posts an OP it doesn't necessarily reflect their own beliefs. Guess that must only apply to yr fellow 'supporters' of Israel ;)

[azurnoir]

57. Which moment in history are you referring to?

It has varied depending the time period in question, sometimes including Jordan and more recently not including Jordan here is my Google search

http://www.google.com/search?q=historic+palestine&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

the second in the list is of interest here, due to recent events @ DU BTW it was first when you initially asked the question which is why at that time I chose not to reply

[ProgressiveProfessor]

7. The two state solution has been bad fantasy for some time

When the Palestinians decide they are not going to be the proxies for others in violence, then and only then will things start to improve for them. Unfortunately by then, Israel will have allowed enough building and other "facts on the ground" to change the map significantly.

[azurnoir]

11. what "others" violence is being proxied from

the West Bank?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

16. The arms there and in Gaza and not of local manufacture, even the rockets

Some one is providing them. Iran and Syria are often cited as doing so. They send weapons and Islamic preachers but its the locals whose blood stains the sands.

[Violet_Crumble]

17. Providing weapons doesn't make the supplier a proxy...

btw, when it comes to Gaza I find it ironic that the blood of locals staining the sands seems to only be a concern to some people only if its not Israeli weapons causing the carnage...

[azurnoir]

19. Oh no it's that it isn't Israeli weapons for some

they are well aware of that it's that the Israeli weapons causing the blood can be excused and "justified" by the fact that Iran is arming Hamas it comes back to the it's all the fault of Hamas excuse and you should note that has been extended to the WB also

[azurnoir]

18. So you are claiming Iran is arming Fatah or is it some

other force on the West Bank? Do you have any proof of this?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

20. They are cetainly supplying arms and funding.

Go back to OCL. Where was most of the most senior Hamas leadership at the time?

Look at it inversely too...There is no facility making ammunition or small arms in Gaza or the West Bank. They are coming from somewhere.

[azurnoir]

22. I asked specifically about the WB

not Gaza but your answer does point to Gaza being used as an excuse to hold the West Bank BTW where do the PA police get their arms is it Iran or Syria or the largest small arms manufacturer in the region

[Ken Burch]

26. You can't actually DEFEND the Israeli government making a Palesitnian state impossible

You know no solution that doesn't either give the Palestinians a state or give them equality in a unitary state can possibly be just or moral.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. I figure if someone can defend the use of cluster bombs they can defend anything n/t

[Mosby]

5. FYI - The link in the OP does not work. nt

[IndianaGreen]

6. Try these

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD9E6HB882

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=24519

[Mosby]

10. thanks. nt

[sabbat hunter]

21. More proof that

Bibi is not interested in peace.

He is only interested in what will keep his hard right wing coalition in the Knesset.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

23. ...but Israel really, truly wants peace with the Palestinians.

How anyone can still believe this is beyond me. Both the Israeli government and the majority of the Israeli electorate have given up on peace, and are aiming to perpetuate the status quo. They don't want two states, they don't want one democratic state, they want a state of Israel and a non-state of Palestine.

[Ken Burch]

30. And they want to keep on smearing anyone who questions any of the above

as "anti-Israel" and antisemitic.

It's all about staying in the comfort zone.

[shira]

50. Netanyahu not so much but Olmert made an offer in 2008. Abbas was foolish to reject it.

Those who say they support the Palestinians but are silent WRT Abbas' foolish decision seem not to care much about peace.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

54. A generation of Israeli leaders have been foolish not to accept the Palestinians' offers.

Time and again, it's been on the table: Israel gets to keep all of Israel, the Palestinians get to keep all of Palestine. Time and again, Israel has rejected it and tried to present offers whereby Israel gets to trade a chunk of the Judean desert for East Jerusalem and large swathes of the heart of the West Bank as "generous".

[oberliner]

55. Do you think the entire Jewish Quarter should be part of Palestine and not Israel? nt

[azurnoir]

58. Are you speaking

of what is now claimed as the Jewish Quarter? or the pre 1967 Jewish Quarter?

The Moroccan Quarter or Mughrabi Quarter (Arabic حارة المغاربة Harat al-Maghariba) was an 800-year old neighborhood in the southeast corner of the Old City of Jerusalem, bordering on the western wall of the Temple Mount on the east (including the Western Wall), the Old City walls on the south (including the Dung Gate), the Jewish Quarter to the west, and the Muslim Quarter to the north. Several schools and religious institutions were located there. The fifth and smallest of the old Jerusalem neighborhoods, it was largely demolished in 1967 by the Israeli government in order to make public access to the Western Wall easier. Today, most of the area has been fully absorbed into the Jewish Quarter and almost no trace of it is left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan_Quarter


On the evening of 10 June 1967, the several hundred residents of the Moroccan Quarter in the Old City of Jerusalem were given two hours notice to vacate their homes. Those who refused the orders were forcefully evicted from their places of residence, as bulldozers and floodlights were mobilized to raze the area. So suddenly came this dictate that one woman from the quarter, Hajja Rasmia Tabaki, who did not hear the calls to vacate was buried alive beneath the rubble that evening. Her body was found the next morning under the ruins of her home.

Nearly all of the quarter's 135 homes were flattened by the evening of 11 June, with the "cleaning up process" proceeding for a few days thereafter. Certain structures on the neighborhood's periphery, however, were initially retained, most notably a mosque near the Bab Maghribeh, and the Zawiyya Fakhriyya. Both, however, were eventually razed in 1969. Palestinian historian Albert Algazerian believes that these religious sites were initially left standing as a gesture to the Moroccan King Hassan II, a monarch with whom Israel wished to cultivate a relationship and with whom many Moroccans of this community maintained close ties.<9> Roughly one-half of the neighborhood's residents at the time of its demolition traced a lineage back to the Maghrib. Many of these returned to Morocco via Amman with the assistance of King Hassan II after the destruction of the quarter. Other families from the neighborhood found refuge in the Shu'fat Refugee Camp and elsewhere in Jerusalem.

http://cosmos.ucc.ie/cs1064/jabowen/IPSC/php/event.php?eid=388

[oberliner]

60. I am speaking of The Jewish Quarter in the Old City section of East Jerusalem

I was asking if that poster thought all of it should be part of any newly created Palestinian state?

Do you think it should?

[azurnoir]

61. as it exists now including land confiscated after 1967 no

as it existed pre1967 yes

[Donald Ian Rankin]

65. Yes, unless Palestinians get a right of return too.

It *is* not part of Israel; the Palestinians should not be forced to surrender it. Jews should be entirely welcome to live in the Jewish quarter, and everywhere else, provided that they do so by legal purchase under Palestinian law, and not by armed conquest and theft.

The vast majority of Israel has been in Palestinian hands for most of the past two millenia and will remain under Israeli control; if the right of return were to work one way it should work both.

If a mutually satisfactory agreement involving it ending up under Israeli rule, or as an international city, can be reached, fair enough, but pressure should be placed on Israel to give it up (or, more realistically, make the Palestinians an acceptable offer involving not doing so) and pressure should not be placed on the Palestinians to give it up.

N.B. I see not a snowball's chance in hell of Israel agreeing to surrender the Jewish quarter. However, your question was asked about "should", not "will".

[shira]

56. the last Israeli offer was generous, as Abbas and Erekat admitted it was serious

If ending the "occupation, colonialism, apartheid, etc.." is so important, there's really no excuse for Abbas' refusal.

Of course, anyone like yourself who believes resistance against occupation forces is legitimate - even if that resistance is in the form of illegal attacks due to use of shields or child combatants - will believe that anything Palestinian maximalists demand is reasonable.

Arafat later regretted turning down the CD/Taba proposal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jun/22/israel

Olmert's proposal was better than that and Abbas turned it down. I don't get how people for peace and an end to this conflict can defend that.

[azurnoir]

59. Lol still? do we really need to go over this again ? n/t

[shira]

62. do you need to be corrected again?

Arafat regretted turning down a lesser offer in 2002. How do you reckon Abbas was justified in turning down Olmert's better offer when Arafat regretted turning down a lesser proposal offered 8 years earlier?

I didn't quite understand your answer last time I asked so here it is again. If Nutty offered Olmert's proposal to Abbas today and Abbas rejected, would you try covering for Abbas' rejection?

[azurnoir]

63. I am not the one presenting a distorted view

shira you keep catapulting this piece of nonsense, if you do not understand my answer from another thread I suggest you go back and read it

[shira]

68. really?

The reason I'm asking again is because I didn't understand your last response regarding whether you'd back up Abbas if he rejected a similar offer by Netanyahu to that of Olmert 2008.

[azurnoir]

69. as I said go back to the thread it was on and read it n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

66. Have you no sense of shame at all?

As I have explicitly told you in the past few days that (unlike you) I condemn violence against civilians, I can only assume that your second sentence is a deliberate, knowing, intentional lie. Knowing what I do of you, I'm afraid this does not surprise me.

[shira]

67. oh please

You stated you're for Palestinian violence aimed at Israeli military or IDF. The fact is that the vast majority of those attacks happen while hiding behind Palestinian human shields. Or should we now assume you're against those attacks too, which means out of the totality of Palestinian violent resistance, you find less than 3% legit?

[Shaktimaan]

71. "A generation of Israeli leaders?"

OK, I'll bite. What offers have the Palestinians been making over the course of "a generation" that the Israelis have been rejecting?

As I recall it, prior to the late 80's, (and Jordan's decision to abandon any claim to the West Bank), the official Palestinian position was that Israel was what should be Palestine.

[Violet_Crumble]

51. I guess believing nonsense like that is easier for True Believers than trying to think n/t

[Shaktimaan]

72. You have GOT to be kidding me.

This is really just the height of ridiculousness. Obviously this was intended to scuttle any possibility of legitimate peace negotiations while more and more settlements are slowly built.

Here is what I really don't understand. Bibi clearly wants to stave off a two state solution for as long as possible, if not permanently. But while it might have been possible to imagine a "less-than state" being acceptable for Palestine twenty years ago, the idea that such a thing would be acceptable today is absurd. Israel faces a real problem in that the status quo isn't something that can be continued indefinitely. Either there is going to be a real two state solution or Israel will eventually become an apartheid-like single state. Obviously no one wants anything to do with a single state solution, ESPECIALLY not Israel and ESPECIALLY not Bibi. It isn't like this idea of having a real solution is just going to go away at this point.

So what's the deal? What does someone like Bibi see as the ultimate endgame for Israel here? Even assuming the best case scenario, it isn't possible for Israel to just keep the Palestinians in a state of depressed stasis forever. I am really curious as to how Bibi sees this working out in a way that ultimately benefits Israel.

I look at this in much the same way as I view Palestinian violence against Israel. The question of whether or not it's justified is irrelevant in the face of its overwhelming stupidity. At a certain point someone needs to change the question from, "Is this right?" to "Is this working?" The diaspora version was known in its iconic form, "Is it good for the Jews." It's a fair enough question. So I'm asking it now... "Bibi, how in the hell is this good for the Jews?"

[ncguy]

73. I don't think

that the leaders of either side want peace, because they see personal gain in continued conflict. As long as the people keep electing the most war like leaders (on both sides)I think we can expect more war.

On a slightly different note. Assume for the sake of argument, that the two-state solution was put into place. PA got all of the west bank, but little of east Jerusalem. After the two states are enacted, does Israel have the right to close its border with Palestine? If so, can Palestine operate as a functioning state? If it turns into another Yemen or Sudan or Somalia, then what is the point?