Comments on: The lesson Israel refuses to learn on Gaza

By: Andrew Emenike

Andrew Emenike — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 23:57:12 +0000

I am just wondering how long the Israelis will keep up with the occupation,talk about a nation with her head buried under the ground

By: Arieh

Arieh — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 12:03:15 +0000

Actually Larry, I must correct you. The preemptive war was against Egypt, not Jordan. Israel was pleading with Jordan not to enter the war but Hussain felt that he could not afford to stay out of it and he attacked Israel. So the West Bank was clearly won in a defensive war.

Larry, you are also forgetting that for years, Israel has been trying to reach a peace deal with the Arabs. But the Arabs never agreed to a deal. Right after 1967, Israel offered to give up 100% of the West Bank except Jerusalem but the Arabs rejected the offer.

I know you don’t agree with me. But under the circumstances I can see why any self respecting Israeli government does not want to now wind the clock back and evict half a million of it’s citizens from the West Bank for a peace deal that most likely would not last.

By: Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 08:12:04 +0000

Arieh, before 67, the Palestinians were attacking – Israel attacked them too, and got much the better of those exchanges – because they wanted their land and country back, which they lost in 48. Since then, they haven’t stopped wanting it, but they’ve realized they can’t get it, at least not by force, so they’re ready to settle for sovereignty over the post-67 territories with the repatriation of some number of refugees. That’s what they were negotiating at Camp David, at Taba, and in the Annapolis talks. Hamas speaks of a decades-long hudna on that basis (although with no give, at least not yet, on the refugees). Those talks prove an agreement is possible (though certainly not inevitable).
About the Arab armies lined up outside Israel’s border in 67, were they there to destroy Israel or to prevent invasion by Israel? That war was about brinkmanship that got out of hand – I don’t blame Israel for striking first, but informed opinion at the time knew Israel was much, much stronger than the Arab armies, so the “survival” theme has been exaggerated greatly.
Why the pre-67 borders? Because beyond them is land Israel conquered, and wars of conquest are immoral – especially when they’re presented as “preemptive” wars of survival, and Israel’s occupation has retroactively turned the Six Day War into a war of conquest, and turned Israelis into seekers of conquest, not justice.

By: Arieh

Arieh — Thu, 22 Nov 2012 23:51:27 +0000

My problem with what you advocate, Larry, is that you are trying to wind the clock back to pre 1967. But I am old enough to remember what things were like then. Before 1967, there was no occupation but Israel was still being attacked from all sides. And in 1967, when the Arabs lined up along Israel’s border and threatened to finish Israel off, it wasn’t world sympathy that stood between it and destruction. Israel was on it’s own.

Las but not least, Larry, can you please explain what is so sacrosanct now about the 1967 boundaries which are just the 1949 armistice lines? Did you know the text of the 1949 armistice agreement? At the insistence of the Arabs, the text of the agreement states that the boundaries are temporary and that they were not to be considered as borders. Do you want to know why the Arabs insisted on that clause at that time? It is obvious isn’t it? So why do you claim that those boundaries are the sacrosanct borders of Israel?

By: For Israel—With Love And Squalor | Egypt

For Israel—With Love And Squalor | Egypt — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 19:42:23 +0000

[...] Israeli columnist Larry Derfner wrote on Tuesday: “There is a proven road to security for the people of the Negev—a total end to Israeli rule [...]

By: klang

klang — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 17:14:50 +0000

I believe “Palestinian” is Derfners nom de plume

By: Greg Pollock

Greg Pollock — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 05:08:30 +0000

I believe Ami Ayalon, former director of Shin Bet, holds a view fairly similar to yours.

Note that underlying the replies of the (Mosaic) right nationalists seems to be the view that Israel IS occupying “Palestine,” so of course “Palestinians” will never stop fighting, a strange kind of guilt success which sees “Palestinian resistence” as a mirror image of emergent Zionism.

Perhaps we are hardest on those we think most like ourselves–yet not us.

By: Want2Know

Want2Know — Thu, 15 Nov 2012 01:31:17 +0000

The closest thing to a realistic, “international consenus” that stands any chance are the Clinton Parameters.

A full return to the June 4,1967 line would leave the Western Wall and Jerusalem’s Old City in Arab Hands, as well as all of the newer Jewish neighborhoods around Jerusalem. The real reason for leaving almost all of the West Bank is not to please “the world” but to insure Israel remains a Jewish state and to give Palestinians the chance to peacefully, in their own state. They may or may not take that opportunity, but it is Israel’s duty, to them and to itself, to put the ball in their court, especially if Israel does have to go to war with a future Palestine. If a Palestinian state became agressive, no Israeli would be confused or conflicted about why they have to go to war in the West Bank/Gaza. If it fails, all will then know who was responsible.

I might add, since Mr. Derfner didn’t do so directly, that the alternative to trying to maintain the status quo plays, ultimately, into Palestinian into the hands of Palestinian signle-staters. Again, focus on what is best for Israel, not “the world.”

By: Larry Derfner

Larry Derfner — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 20:54:56 +0000

Let me try it again – once there is a Palestinian state, what will stop Hamas from attacking Israel is the world consensus that Israel is not occupied Palestine, and that consensus will back Israel’s self-defense. In south Lebanon, the world consensus was that Israel was occupying it, which gave tacit backing to Hezbollah’s attacks. Do you understand?

By: P@le5tinian

P@le5tinian — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:52:57 +0000

I couldnt reply to your previous comment so I’m replying here.
People who share a common culture , land , history , economy and destiny make a country,whether its recognized by the UN or not.
Zionists thieves and terrorists have no right to this land.This land is ours just like France belongs to the french people and Britain is for the British.