MK Uri Orbach (HaBayit HeYehudi): "People who think peace alone will solve all the problems in the region just don't understand the reality of things."
Count me as one of the people who think peace will solve all of the problems in the region, like those having to do with the lack of peace, e.g., war.
>Why do you think that a Palestinian State would be peaceful towards Israel?
The PA governed West Bank is pretty much at peace with Israel. Egypt is at peace with Israel. Jordan is at peace with Israel. Most countries that are near Israel are more or less in de facto states of peace with Israel. Why would Palestine be all that different as to render peace impossible?
>When they lob over missiles from their "well defined borders"
I'm not sure why the PA is unwilling to lob rockets now, when they don't have a state, but would be willing to, when they do have a state. They would have even less international sympathy.
>-- Israel will still be unable to respond, or will face the wrath of Goldstone.
I really think you overrate the "wrath of Goldstone". I don't think Goldstone was all that wrathful, and Israel doesn't really care what the UN thinks anyway. If Israel wants to respond, it will respond.
As for Goldstone himself, he did not deny the right of Israel to respond, just the method it used. (Although to you, I could see why they would be much the same thing. To me, it's not.)
>Its unfortunate you define peace as "well defined borders" -- since that has absolutely nothing to do with real peace.
I think it has a large part to do with peace. Palestinians want a state, and Israeli wish to be rid of the Palestinian problem. Separate states solves that.
Posts
4 comments:
How do you define peace?
Your definition may be impossible in Israel's region.
1. Separate Israeli and Palestinian states, with defined borders
2. Full diplomatic relationships with surrounding Arab states
Why do you think that a Palestinian State would be peaceful towards Israel?
When they lob over missiles from their "well defined borders" -- Israel will still be unable to respond, or will face the wrath of Goldstone.
Its unfortunate you define peace as "well defined borders" -- since that has absolutely nothing to do with real peace.
>Why do you think that a Palestinian State would be peaceful towards Israel?
The PA governed West Bank is pretty much at peace with Israel. Egypt is at peace with Israel. Jordan is at peace with Israel. Most countries that are near Israel are more or less in de facto states of peace with Israel. Why would Palestine be all that different as to render peace impossible?
>When they lob over missiles from their "well defined borders"
I'm not sure why the PA is unwilling to lob rockets now, when they don't have a state, but would be willing to, when they do have a state. They would have even less international sympathy.
>-- Israel will still be unable to respond, or will face the wrath of Goldstone.
I really think you overrate the "wrath of Goldstone". I don't think Goldstone was all that wrathful, and Israel doesn't really care what the UN thinks anyway. If Israel wants to respond, it will respond.
As for Goldstone himself, he did not deny the right of Israel to respond, just the method it used. (Although to you, I could see why they would be much the same thing. To me, it's not.)
>Its unfortunate you define peace as "well defined borders" -- since that has absolutely nothing to do with real peace.
I think it has a large part to do with peace. Palestinians want a state, and Israeli wish to be rid of the Palestinian problem. Separate states solves that.
Post a Comment