From: Adam <""4thwormcastfromthemolehill\"{at}the field.near
the bridge">

Monte Davis wrote:
> Adam  wrote:
>
>> & then Netenyahu basically killed Oslo by going hell for
>> leather building new settlements
>
> Broader and older  than that...
>
> After 1967, Israel could have said (as I think Geo has offered), "'We
> whipped your ass, losers lose territory, Gaza & West Bank are now part
> of Israel" -- then either (1a) buckle down to full democrfacy/equality
> for all within new borders, or (1b) let the ethnic cleansing [however
> bloodless] begin. One set of costs & risks, but clear to all parties.
>

Shrug. That worked well for the French & the Germans/Prussians didn't it.

Winner gets to keep Alsace & Lorraine & the
Saarland....whoops...they're coming back at us....

Remember (A) that they were only saved in 73 coz the US sent them shitloads
of top flight weapons in a hurry (e.g F4's) coz the Egyptian SAMs had
almost killed the IAF & (B) That the Egyptians etc did come back at
them.

Are you saying they should/could have kept the Sinai? Seriously?

> Or they could have patrolled them as (minimally) occupied territories,
> and used them purely as bargaining chips for peace treaties over a
> fairly short term. Another set of costs & risks, but also clear.
>

Yup. I suspect that was the original plan but then militarism set in.

> Seems to me that in part for domestic political reasons, they tried to
> have it both ways and keep things usefully UNclear... saying to the
> Arabs and outside world, "we stand ready to return land for peace,"
> while encouraging/discouraging/encouraging (but never stopping)
> settlements to please their own Greater Israel wingnuts, as well as
> IDF generals wanting more strategic depth. Which of course made the
> "land for peace" stance less credible year by year, and by now almost
> certainly a non-starter for any Israeli government w/r/t much of the
> West Bank. As a corollary, year by year the demographic time bomb
> ticks louder.

Yup. & that's without the Palestinian returnees i.e. were they to hand
over enough of the West Bank to make it vaguely viable then the
demographics in the area would worsen dramatically.
>
> Do I "blame" the Palestinian (non-)leadership just as much? Yeah, in
> fact more. But as a rule I expect well-armed winners to take chancy
> initiatives rather than army-less losers, not because that's "fair &
> balanced" but because the former can afford the risk better.

Nah. It's like blaming the Koreans for not "coming to an
agreement" with the Empire of Japan prior to 1945.

Do you blame the Koreans too?

Adam

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5