I don't understand the "non-defensible" aspect of the 1967 lines.

[WheelWalker]

Seems to me those lines were totally defensible; in fact, someone held, defensively, and on top of that took some of the other players' marbles. How does that equate to "non-defensible"?

[Ian David]

1. You can stand on one side of Israel and fire artillery across the country to hit the Israeli navy.

Keep in mind Israel is only the size of New Jersey.

Now, put New Jersey in a corset.



Also, before Israel took The Golan Heights, people were literally just tossing grenades off mountains into Jewish settlements.

[WheelWalker]

2. I understand that. Point well taken.

Nevertheless, the fact is, those lines were defended, successfully. Is that not correct? All I'm saying is that there must be better than a sham argument. Isn't there? I mean, those lines WERE defended successfully.

[aquart]

3. They were successfully defended by winning the six day war and correcting the problems.

What utter fucking nonsense. What part of throwing grenades down from the Golan Heights is DEFENSIBLE to you? Ducking practice?

[Harmony Blue]

4. Other than the Golan Heights

the point does stand that it is defensible moving to the 67 lines. Especially if you consider the technology available, and quality training of IDF forces of today compared to 67. Then, Israel was a fledgling Democracy, but now is a well matured, Democracy with a robust technology sector.

As Obama said, the '67 lines are a basis (starting point) for negotiations, and the issue of the Golan Heights must be hammered out as an example given it causes security concerns for multiple parties if one party is in control of it.

[Posteritatis]

6. Israel wasn't exactly standing on the defensive in 1967. (nt)

[Harmony Blue]

7. It is true that they were able to project force quickly during the war

And it probably is multiplied exponentially now as of the year 2011. Furthermore, they are the leading edge when it comes to urban warfare due to their experience, so I am extremely skeptical when it is argued that the '67 lines are not defensible (excluding the obvious Golan Heights of course).

[Posteritatis]

15. Actually, I don't really think it would be in the present

They effectively lost the war with Hezbollah a couple of years ago, though someone could argue easily enough that they won on points or that it was a stalemate too.

In any case, the reason we're talking about the '67 lines these days is because, back in 1967, they found them indefensible enough to move them into a better location.

[Swede]

18. Lost the war?

Good one.

[shaayecanaan]

32. Southern Lebanon is just as close to major Israeli population centres as most of the Golan...

All of Israel is currently within range of Syrian Scud missiles, and indeed Hezbollah had the ability to strike Tel Aviv during the 2006 war. They elected not to do so as it would have given Israel the grounds to bomb central Beirut.

Perhaps the Golan had strategic value in bygone ages, but with modern artillery (and with Israel having nuclear weapons) it has become decidedly less so.

[Zoeisright]

5. You can stand on one side of Gaza and fire artillery across the country to hit Palestinians.

Same effing difference.

[regnaD kciN]

8. "Not defensible" = "Not compatible with dreams of 'Greater Israel'"...

...which includes the entire West Bank, Golan Heights, Gaza Strip, and possibly even more. All "purified" of Arabs, of course. :puke:

[JDPriestly]

9. Right. The biggest problem was the Golan Heights.

Israelis were just getting picked off so to speak. They were easy targets.

[CJvR]

13. Partly.

Strategicly the Westbank was a much bigger problem. Lowflying aircraft poping up over the hills give the Israelis less than 30 seconds reaction time. All the major cities and airbases are within artillery range. The Golan heights were a nasty problem but the Westbank was the critical dilemma. The Sinai border was never much of an issue, which is why it was returned, except for right of passage in the Tirana straights.

[Crunchy Frog]

10. What about that big wall they've got going up?

And since when are settlements in the occupied West Bank more defensible? I'm not quite buying it.

[CJvR]

14. They were built to...

...dominate the landscape around them. With the regular Arab armies pushed back beyond Golan, Gaza and the Jordan river they are quite secure appart from the occational sniper.

[azurnoir]

11. It means we would no longer have access to the Jordan River

and our population is growing by 100,000 a year also Israel's Foreign Minister along with other Knesset members live in the OPT settlements

[aranthus]

20. That is simply untrue.

Israel is litoral to the Jordan River even without the West Bank. I do think it is significant that you automatically assume that Israel's position is based on a hidden and illegitimate agenda. Do you really believe that there is nothing more to Israel's self defense concerns than that they want to swallow the West Bank for themselves? Because on the face of it, it looks as if your biases are causing you to lose sight of reality.

[azurnoir]

28. lol is there not a treaty with Jordan?

then why does Israel need the laand along the Jordan River?

[aranthus]

29. Because treaties are only made of paper. They tear easily.

The best defensive terrain against Jordan is the River. Are you at least willing to admit that you were wrong about Israel needing to keep the West Bank for the Jordan River water?

[azurnoir]

30. No I did not admit anything of the sort Israel takes 4/5 of the water from the

West Bank aquifers

[aranthus]

31. That's different. That isn't the Jordan River water.

However, you are certainly correct that the Judean aquifer is something that Israel would give up if it gave up the entire West Bank. In my opinion that's just something that Israel has to give up. Same for the Jordan Valley (except for the part that's in Israel proper). However, none of that means that the Israelis' security concerns about giving up the West Bank are not real and important in themselves.

[azurnoir]

33. the Jordan River is part of that aquafer to claim otherwise is ridiculous

Israel's security claims are IMO mostly economic security and and with a rapidly growing population it needs the area for growing room

[azurnoir]

34. Further more

The waters of the Jordan River are an important resource to the dry lands in the area and are a source of conflict among Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Israel and the Palestinians which began with 1951 Syrian border clashes. Mediation by the Eisenhower administration failed because Arab states would not agree to diverting 33% of water to Israel while only 23% originated there.<5> For Israel the Jordan, including Yarmuk, supplies 40% of fresh water, of which 70% is used in agriculture, while 80% of the water derived from renewable resources of the mountain aquifers in the region are also exploited by Israel.<6> The National Water Carrier Project was begun in 1956 and completed in 1964; it combined all previous water projects and delivered water to the dry Mitzpe Ramon in the south. Soon after, Syria and Jordan decided to divert the Jordan water at the source. The diversion works would have reduced the installed capacity of Israel's carrier by about 35%, and Israel's overall water supply by about 11%.<7>


This page was last modified on 15 May 2011 at 16:18.

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

[Dick Dastardly]

48. Israel has 3 main water sources. Two of them the Sea of Gallilee and the Coastal aquifer

are entirely within pre 67 Israel. The third is the mountain aquifer also called the western and northern aquifers which straddles both Israel and the West Bank and is the West Banks main source of water. While this mountain aquifer straddles both Israel and the West Bank most of the water is only accessable in Israel and parts of it in the West Bank are only accessable due to Israeli technology. Prior to 67 when Israel had no access to the West Bank it took 95% of the Mountain aquifer because it was only accessable in Israel. It now takes a smaller percentage around 80% some of which is used to supply Jordan and the West Banks water and the West Bank takes a greater percentage around 20% because of Israeli technology has allowed them to access more.
In addition to this Israel built a pipeline to supply the West Bank but the PA never built its part of the pipeline.



There is much more than this info



By GS Don Morris is a member of the Board of Directors of Scholars for Peace in the Middle East.

The lie about Israel’s denial of water rights to Palestinians is typical of the kind of” beating your wife accusation” that is commonly made against Israel. Here are the facts: Israel obtains 50% of its water from the Sea of Galilee and the Coastal Aquifer, both of which lie inside Israel’s pre-1967 borders. Another 30% comes from the Western and Northeastern Aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer system. These two aquifers straddle the so-called “Green Line” boundary of the West Bank, but most of their water lies under pre-1967 Israel and is easily accessible only in Israel. In the 1950s, Israel used 95% of the Western aquifer’s water, and 82% of the Northern aquifer’s water. Today, Israel uses only 83% and 80% respectively; the Palestinian share of these aquifers has actually increased. Moreover, “every year over 40 MCM (million cubic meters) of water from sources within Israel is piped over the Green Line for Palestinian use in the West Bank. Ramallah, for example, receives over 5 MCM. And despite the virtural declaration of war against Israel by the Hamas rulers of Gaza, Israel still sends to Gaza another 4 MCM of Israeli water annually.”<4>

http://spme.net/cgi-bin/articles.cgi?ID=6669





Palestine and Israel

Water is an extremely important issue in Israel. Being an arid country, with desert covering more than half of its land, water resources in Israel and Palestine mimic that of other areas in the Middle East. Israel acquires about 40 percent of its water from the Sea of Galilee which is in Israel's pre-1967 borders. Another 30 percent comes from the Western and Northeastern aquifers of the Mountain Aquifer system (Pal, 2010). The Western and Northeastern aquifers straddle the Green Line that separates Israel from the West Bank, but most of the stored water is under pre-1967 Israel, making it mostly accessible only to Israel (Figure 2). Being a country that has been at constant war with the Palestinians, water rights are a serious impediment (Pal, 2010). The remaining 30 percent comes from a combination of natural springs, desalination plants, where about one million cubic meters of water are desalinated each day, and man made reservoirs for aquifer recharge (Mekorot, 2010).


Before the Oslo agreements of 1993, water rights belonged solely to Israel. With the responsibility of millions of people, Israelis and Palestinians, Israel promised safe drinking water to all of the people of the region. After 1993, with the signing of the Oslo agreements, Palestinians were allowed to have a share of the water that is under and flows through Israel. There were still problems building the infrastructure that was to carry the water. Due to political reasons, Palestine did not want an Israeli water infrastructure. To fix this, the Oslo II agreement gave Palestinians two-thirds of the development and Israel one-third (Pal, 2010).

After Oslo II was signed, Israel moved very quickly to fulfill their end of the bargain. The Palestinian Authority (PA) worked slowly and neglected its obligations. In many locations, nothing was done to create a Palestinian water infrastructure (Pal, 2010). The PA has many Israeli built wells but no pipes to bring the water to their people. There is also significant water loss due to corroded and insufficient water systems that are old or failing. In some areas, water is stolen through water trucks and is then sold illegally to needy Palestinians (Pal, 2010). There is also the problem of areas which are controlled by the PA that supply water to Jewish settlements. Some areas, such as Hebron, experience frequent water shortages along with undrinkable water (Pal, 2010).

http://kanat.jsc.vsc.edu/student/conant/main.htm

[pelsar]

35. learning time again...if you want

the jordan river "connects" to the Lake Knerret...which israel has access to and did pre 67...not to mention that the jordan river is only a trickle and no longer flows much....

and to make you further wrong israel is now building enough desalination plants to know need any local water...but hey dont let a few facts get in the way of a belief.....

didnt the world end yesterday, i guess those believers will have to adjust to keep their belief

[azurnoir]

36. yawn Israel wanted more than it was getting and found a means by which to take it

and with a population growth of 100,000 per year Israel nay well cough cough feel it 'needs' the extra land and water to support it's high standard of living, no matter who's expense it comes at

you could sell sand in the Sahara on a windy day how ever I am not in buying mode

[pelsar]

40. your just wrong again...thats all...

It means we would no longer have access to the Jordan River

basic geography lesson.....the jordan river source is the kinnert....(which is no longer used as a water resource these days anyway, but was accessible in 67 as well)


i understand that it 'bores" you...hence the "yawn'...i guess its one way of reacting when your caught 100% wrong. Other options may be admitting it....(but those might start adding up)

[azurnoir]

42. lol see comment 34 n/t

[shira]

12. They're not defensible. Kassams and rockets from those heights would shut Israel down for good....

...and certainly bring on a war more bloody in that region than has ever been seen before.

They're not defensible when millions (in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem) would be within close range of kassams and rockets and when thousands could easily become victims of newer and deadly Iranian imported technology.

Sure, Israel could win a war but how many tens of thousands would have to die in the process?

Seems "progressives" are okay with that - and of course Israel would NOT be allowed to defend with the primitive imperfect weapons they have. Seems to be a Zionist plot that they haven't invented perfect terrorist seeking stun fazers yet.

[Harmony Blue]

16. I don't think that argument will sway the worlds stance

Seoul is in range of N.Korean artillery where millions could perish within ten minutes. Should S. Korea invade N. Korea to ensure security of their capital, and an important economic center of the global economy? Should Ethiopians set up camp inside Somalia to ensure that their country is secure from the extremist Muslim warlords?

And as you pointed out, with better technology being developed, Israel would have to increase its buffer zone territory under control to combat the range of new projectiles, so this slipper slope leads down to a situation where Israel has to occupy even more land.

[shira]

21. The Gaza pullout shows what happens when Israel stops the occupation/settlements

And there's ZERO reason not to believe it would happen again, but this time where over a million would be within range of kassams rather than the people of Sderot.

I don't recall N.Korea shooting projectiles over the boarder, terrorizing the population in the process.

[Harmony Blue]

38. N. Korea has engaged in hostilties many times over the year

http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/11/23/us-korea-north-artillery-idUSTRE6AM0YS20101123

"Houses and mountains are on fire and people are evacuating. You can't see very well because of plumes of smoke," a witness on the island told YTN Television before the shelling, which lasted about an hour, ended

You don't recall that this event only happened about 7 months ago?

[Exilednight]

50. Israel has primitive weapons? They're the most advanced military in the region and get the

mass majority of their weapons from the US. They also hold a nuclear deterrence. The only country Israel can't defend against is the US.

[aranthus]

17. Actually, Israel did not "defend" the 1967 lines, because they couldn't.

In 1967, Israel was only able to defend itself by taking the offensive, precisely because they knew that they could not "defend" along the 1949 cease fire lines. To "defend" a line means to stand on that line and absorb the other sides attack, which you can do much better from high ground or behind a river line. Failing that, you conduct a mobile defense or delaying action, trading ground for the opportunity to wear down and destroy the invading force. On the 1949 (pre-June 1967) line neither of those is possible. In that situation, the Arabs hold the high ground in Judea and Samaria, so the Israelis don't have good terrain to mount a line defense. Also, at that point, Israel is at places only about 9 miles wide, so you can't conduct a mobile defense in depth either. The only solution the Israelis had in 1967 was to stop any Jordanian offensive before it got started. That meant that they had to attack first once it looked like the Jordanians were going to attack them. Which is what they did. Once the Jordanians started shelling the main Israeli air force base and began moving up their armored brigades to attack positions, the Israelis invaded the West Bank. So they didn't actually "defend" the 1967 lines. That's how they know they aren't defensible now.

[shira]

22. +1

The 1967 borders would actually ATTRACT more attacks from Hamas, etc., rather than prevent them.

[aranthus]

24. Thanks

I thought I would provide a little food for thought for those who automatically assume that the evil Israelis are just trying to justify a land grab.

[shira]

25. To any reasonable person, you made an intelligent, reasoned argument...

Just realize the "dark forces" are impervious to any reasoning or facts.

[WheelWalker]

26. Those are good points. Thank you for furthering my understanding

of the argument. Blessings.

[aranthus]

27. Your welcome. n/t

[Harmony Blue]

39. I respectfully disagree, and most the world does as well so here is why that is the case

You have clearly laid out the historical knowledge what the Israeli's had to do then, strategically and tactically, but that does not apply to modern warfare today. The 1960's warfare is so radically different from the 2000's that there isn't much we can apply in the modern era from that era.

Buffers are viable for defense if it entails large amounts of land to delay the surge of an invading army. Furthermore, it requires more resources in terms of man power, vehicles, etc to maintain such a buffer unless the goal is to slowly cede it. By spreading out forces, buffers allow an enemy to easily make a thrust attack where Israel could potential be split in two as an example. In addition, the buffers that Israel currently occupies aren't enough land to slow down a modern conventional army. We are not talking about large swaths of land used as buffers by the Russians (Soviet bloc nations) against the Germans in World War II, and there is no severe weather conditions like the "Russian winter" to use against an invading conventional army. I would like to also point out that technology has made many leaps where tanks in the 1960's can't keep up with modern tanks of today in terms of firepower, armor, and most importantly mobility. This mobility completely negates the argument that Israel must keep the occupied territories as a buffer against a conventional army.

In terms of assymetrical warfare, a buffer serves no role to defend against guerrila attacks as the many years of violence in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict in the region clearly shows. And terror attacks against Israeli civilians also continue despite Israel occupying the territories as a buffer.

2. The '67 lines are defensible in the modern era and we know this how? When Israel mounted a thrust attack into Lebanon in 2006 it ended up in a stalemate. The IDF which is better trained, equipped, and organized then Hezbollah could easily thwart any conventional army thrust attack if they pulled back to the '67 lines.

While it is true the Israeli navy is vulnerable to attack, the converse is true the Israeli navy would be in position to fire back.

In summary, a conventional army is highly unlikely to attack a matured, high tech IDF compared to an uptart Israeli army in '67. Furthermore, with Israel now having nukes, I really can't see the argument as to why Israel can't defend the '67 lines. The world sees it this way as well, given that, Israel has demonstrated its military prowess after '67 many times.

[shira]

41. The settlements along the '67 line are on hills overlooking Jerusalem...

...and therefore the people within Jerusalem cannot be defended as soon as Hamas takes control away from Fatah once the IDF leaves the W.Bank (right now the IDF is the only thing stopping Hamas from doing what they did in Gaza).

[Swede]

19. Imagine the lobbing of rockets from the Gaza strip times a thousand.

How can they defend against that?

[shira]

23. The antizionist internet jihadis think that's worth the risk...

...and that Israel should not defend themselves properly in case that happens.

[PCIntern]

37. I shall never forget that Golda Meier came to speak

at the University of Rochester after the 1973 War as she was an acquaintance of Senator Keating, and she quoted King Hussein of Jordan...not Chaim Wetitzman, not Moshe Dayan, and Hussein had said ruefully that the Fundamentalists/ Pan-Arabists position was that if Israel ceded all their land except for nine square inches, then that nine square inch parcel would require the fighting and dying of untold Arab people to secure. She further stated that if Israel could make peace with anyone, it was with King Hussein. And about that, she was correct.

All the keyboard-diplomats here who suggest that Israel shrink to her old nine-mile waist and try to 'defend' that should just forget about it. Not happening. In fact, it is arrant stupidity.

[shira]

43. Video about Israel's indefensible 1967 lines

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytWmPqY8TE0&feature=player_embedded#at=314

[azurnoir]

44. It seems you support Netantahu's position? n/t

[shira]

45. Nutty's position vs. Obama? Nope. That the original '67 borders are indefensible? Yep. n/t

[azurnoir]

46. well of course a liberal such as yr self would never oppose Obama

it's just that Netanyahu is correct?

[shira]

47. The '67 lines are indefensible but Obama isn't calling for a return to that.

Obama made it clear it was the '67 lines with swaps.

I don't see anything really new here that hasn't been debated the past decade.

====

Now I'm curious - do you disagree with Obama on anything at all?

[Old Troop]

49. Please don't forget that the President recommended a contiguous

Palistinean State. Logically that would require a corridor of land with Gaza that cuts Israel in half.