Livni: Give up half of 'Land of Israel'

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
DaRizzle

DaRizzle

BLAKER
Joined
Sep 16, 2008
Messages
9,631
Likes
104
Points
48
JERUSALEM – Tzipi Livni, who hopes to be appointed Israel's prime minister-designate, said Monday Israel must give up considerable territory in exchange for peace with the Palestinians, drawing a clear distinction with her rival, Benjamin Netanyahu.

She told a convention of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, "we need to give up half of the Land of Israel," using a term that refers to biblical borders that include today's Israel, the West Bank and Gaza.

She explained that such a withdrawal would be for the good of Israel, to maintain it as a Jewish state.

Livni told the U.S. Jewish leaders that Israel must take the initiative and come forward with its own peace plan to head off international programs. "Any plan put on the table will not be in our interest," she said.

Livni's centrist Kadima Party won one more seat than the hawkish Likud, led by Netanyahu. He opposes large-scale territorial concessions in peace talks with the Palestinians. He believes negotiations should concentrate instead on building up the Palestinian economy

Netanyahu and Livni, the current foreign minister, both claimed victory in last week's election. Each hopes to be picked by President Shimon Peres to form the next government.

Netanyahu appears to have the edge, because a majority of members in the new parliament agree with his views.

Netanyahu was addressing the gathering later Monday.
Click to expand...

link

:ghoti: Please win!
 
Amazing, an Israeli leader who has the chance to win that might actually compromise? How long until she is assassinated?
 
You've got to love Israel. "I know we stole all your land, but you can have half of it back. We're all good now, ok." :rolleyes:

landmap1.jpg
 
I'm a bigger fan of the "We were threatened on all sides by a triple-team of invaders. Not only did we beat them back, but actually took some of their land, until the UN made us give it back" part.
 
Last edited:
BrianFromWA said:
I'm a bigger fan of the "We were threatened on all sides by a triple-team of invaders. Not only did we beat them back, but actually took some of their land, until the UN made us give it back" part.
Click to expand...

No doubt.

As much as I like Israel, it's doomed within a couple of generations. Population growth between different segments of the population as well as the democratic principles that have helped set the country apart are going to cause it to implode.

If the Palestinians and other actors so keen on destroying Israel would be patient and buy into the democratic process, they would paint Israel into a corner from a PR perspective as well as a reality-based one.

Ed O.
 
BrianFromWA said:
I'm a bigger fan of the "We were threatened on all sides by a triple-team of invaders. Not only did we beat them back, but actually took some of their land, until the UN made us give it back" part.
Click to expand...

Considering Israel had heavy infusions of help from the US, in the form of arms and training, it's not quite as remarkable as you make it out. The US has been making the "war" more and more asymmetrical in Israel's favour over the decades.
 
I agree, Minstrel, but I was speaking specifically about the 1967 and 1973 wars.

And any materiel gains Israel got from the US up to 1973 were more than matched by USSR contributions to the armies of Egypt, Jordan and Syria. There's a decent story about how Andropov basically sent a message to Kissinger in 1973 saying something to the effect of "don't start WW3 over this crap". Kissinger didn't even wake up Nixon, just sent the response back in Nixon's name. Then he told Israel (paraphrase) "If you pre-emptively attack this time, we won't send a scrap of help your way"
 
I just don't see how someone can root for the forced annexation of native land and collective punishment of over a million people.
 
That Im happy about the possibility that both can co-exist without constant killing? Why?
 
DaRizzle said:
That Im happy about the possibility that both can co-exist without constant killing? Why?
Click to expand...

It won't happen. There are too many Palestinians who won't stop until Israel is driven out of existence. When they turned down the Oslo Accords, you knew the Palestinians never wanted peace.
 
I'm not hearing anyone talk about the cultural-religious aspect of this. I understand many of you may not believe in Imaginary Friends and stuff, but a lot of those people do. And some think that their imaginary friend tells them to eradicate the believers of the "false" imaginary friend.

I don't understand how politicians giving up land makes either side give up lifelong-held beliefs about the inability to coexist with the other. For instance, the President of Iran does not believe Israel should exist at all. Would he (for one) be happy with Israel only existing in half their original land?
 
maxiep said:
It won't happen. There are too many Palestinians who won't stop until Israel is driven out of existence. When they turned down the Oslo Accords, you knew the Palestinians never wanted peace.
Click to expand...

There are a lot of angry people on both sides, but eventually those people die. We don't hate the British or the Spanish or the Japanese or the Germans anymore (well, maybe the Germans). If we get to a point in the middle east where there isn't constant warfare, then possibly a new generation won't be so angry. Certainly it is tougher in that region, since you've got both religion and geographical close contact to deal with. Maybe I'm an optimist, but I don't think it is impossible.

If it is impossible, though, we ought to just nuke them all and be done with it.

barfo
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top