Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure

JERUSALEM — Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel returned from Washington on Wednesday to a nearly unanimous assessment among Israelis that despite his forceful defense of Israel’s security interests, hopes were dashed that his visit might advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians.

One of the widely articulated goals of his trip, where he met with President Obama and addressed Congress, was to find a way to lure the Palestinians back to direct negotiations, thereby preempting their plan to approach the United Nations in September for recognition of statehood within the pre-1967 lines.

Instead, the Palestinians now say, Mr. Netanyahu’s speeches persuaded them that they had no negotiating partner. They plan to intensify their United Nations efforts, leaving Israelis worried about increasing international isolation and pressure.

A cartoon in the centrist newspaper Yediot Aharonot illustrated the concern. It showed Mr. Netanyahu’s returning plane flying near a volcano. Inside the plane someone says, “All in all, it was a very successful visit.” From the volcano, smoke rises that spells out “S-E-P-T-E-M-B-E-R.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/26/world/middleeast/26mideast.html

All Netanyahu did was push the Palestinians closer to the UN and manage to isolate Israel in the international court of public opinion. He, also, managed to drag us along with him.

Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders. U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

By Barry Rubin

We are living in Satireworld. I mean what more can you say? Well, I can say the title of this article that sums it up:

Israeli People and Experts: We Support Netanyahu and Don’t Want to Return to 1967 Borders. U.S. Media: Israelis Don’t Like Netanyahu and Israeli Experts Say 1967 Borders are OK

Here's the evidence:

New York Times headline:" Israelis See Netanyahu Trip as Diplomatic Failure."



Actually, Israelis generally have no hopes that anything is going to advance peace negotiations with the Palestinians because even though it makes them unhappy they know that the Palestinians don't want to advance peace negotiations. But that theme--the Palestinian leadership doesn't want peace--is not permitted in virtually all of the American mass media.

And who cares that the article is the exact opposite of the truth:

Ha’aretz headline: "Ha'aretz Poll: Netanyahu's Popularity Soaring Following Washington Trip"
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/haaretz-poll-netanyahu-s-popularity-soaring-following-washington-trip-1.364068



Because the American media wants to tell its public the exact opposite:

Washington Post (should be but isn't) headline: Israelis Oppose '67 Borders with Land Swaps

Oops! That’s not the headline! The real headline is: “Netanyahu says pre-1967 borders are indefensible for Israel, but experts wonder if that’s so.”

Get it? What does Netanyahu know? Obama knows better and Israeli experts (two of them!) agree with him.

If hundreds of thousands of lives weren't at stake this would all be very funny.

more...
http://rubinreports.blogspot.com/2011/05/israeli-people-and-experts-we-support.html

That's a pretty accurate headline. Most experts seem to believe that the borders could be defended. Today's Israeli military is light years ahead of what it was in 1967. They have the most advanced and sophisticated military outside the United States, and they hold a nuclear deterrence.

...Israel is too narrow and tiny to withstand a initial offensive barrage (this is why it's so tempting for fascist Arab powers to try to gang up and attack Israel).

MOST of the civilian population would be within range of attacks and this is UNLIKE any other western nuclear power.

Sure, they'd win any war against them but at what cost?

This is why MOST Israelis are very leery of what's going on - because ALL are within range of very real lethal attacks. MILLIONS would have under 1 minute to respond to alarms/sirens in the event projectiles (kassams) are fired over the border. NO population on this planet would choose to live for an extended period of time like rats scurrying from an exterminator.

-------

As to experts on the '67 borders.....which experts? Most Israeli/Jewish American experts think the '67 borders are insanely indefensible. What's happening here is that sources are quoting the extreme minority view and presenting it dishonestly as the majority view.

use the same argument you are using. Rovian talking points for the right-wing Israeli hardliners.

Ask any military strategist who has actually fought a war, and can look at Israel without a jaundiced eye, and they will tell you that Israel is more than capable of defending that border.

What you're pedaling is the most extreme view I have ever heard either here, or in America.

...from short range rocket attacks, mortars, or shoulder mounted anti-tank missiles - like Hamas is firing from Gaza?

If you don't know the geography, the settlements hugging the border are built on high land (hills) giving Jihadis with their rockets easy targets to look down towards. The Golan Heights are strategic in this way too.

If Hamas controlled hilltops looking down on Sderot, the carnage would be 100x worse. Now imagine Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Ben Gurion Airport.

Israel would shut down.

If Sderot is indefensible as it is right now, how much MORE indefensible would Jerusalem and Tel Aviv be EVEN with Israel being the baddest nuclear armed military in the region?

"NO population on this planet would choose to live for an extended period of time like rats scurrying from an exterminator."


Like the Palestinians are forced to?

If you see it as a WWII style aircraft, tank and artillery battle, then the '67 lines are hard to defend, and you can't do defense in depth.

If you see it in terms of modern rocket and missile warfare, with a large addition of guerilla war carried out by light infantry, then that sort of issue does not come up, you expect all the heavy metal to get blown up in short order, and in the long view the entire battlefield becomes Somalia-like, Iraq-like, Afghanistan-like.

Edit: If you consider recent disputes, the invasion of Lebanon (Barak's Folly) or the Gaza War, you get a better idea of what one must expect in future wars.

Ask anyone from Sderot if they feel secure and defended across the border from Gaza, with Israel having nukes and the strongest military in the region.

:eyes:

Imagine Hamasniks firing down into Sderot from hilltops, as would happen along the '67 borders if the settlements were abandoned.

Moving the border into somebody else's territory leads to arguments and does not result in not having a border at all.

The real problem is that with rocket and missile warfare, the border area becomes (at least) hundreds of miles wide.

The whole Jordan Valley argument, for example, assumes you have a tank-army punching through from Jordan towards Tel Aviv or whatever, which was realistic in 1967, but is a truly fatuous idea now, as the 2nd Lebanon war showed; to even attempt it one would require complete air superiority, which one would expect to belong to Israel, if it were to be had at all, in the next war.

It's not all about long range capabilities.

Israel has no solution to short range weaponry, shoulder rockets, etc. That should be VERY apparent from the Sderot example and the '67 lines would be far worse than Sderot.

--------

As to your other point, the IDF was stationed at the Gaza border NOT to prevent tanks from coming in - same as the Jordan valley - but also to prevent really bad guys from crossing over and to prevent really rotten weaponry from coming in. I can't remember where I read it but Jordan prefers it this way as their border with the W.Bank and Israel has been quiet a long time. Jordan also prefers not to have a repeat of September 1970 w/o the IDF controlling that border.

It's not all about long range capabilities.

The indefensible borders argument pretty much is about defense in depth, not short range sniping or whatever, the model is being able to do a strategic retreat, the old "pushed into the sea" before you can re-organize and resist argument, which has merit in terms of WWII style warfare, but is now obsolete for the most part IMHO. Tanks are just fat targets without air cover.

There are drawbacks to siting your forces on low ground (the Jordan Valley) too, and one hears all about the advantages of high ground in the context of hanging onto the Golan, but somehow that is OK in the Jordan Valley.

Israel has no solution to short range weaponry, shoulder rockets, etc. That should be VERY apparent from the Sderot example and the '67 lines would be far worse than Sderot.

Indeed, but that has nothing to do with where the border happens to be, it is a property of any border, wherever it is, that foreigners on the other side can take pot-shots at you, if they want to.

As to your other point, the IDF was stationed at the Gaza border NOT to prevent tanks from coming in - same as the Jordan valley - but also to prevent really bad guys from crossing over and to prevent really rotten weaponry from coming in. I can't remember where I read it but Jordan prefers it this way as their border with the W.Bank and Israel has been quiet a long time. Jordan also prefers not to have a repeat of September 1970 w/o the IDF controlling that border.

I understand why borders are guarded, the issue was whether "defensible" borders buy you much nowadays, and or whether the Jordan Valley constitutes a defensible border in terms of modern military capabilities.

For example, Hezbollah, in the 2nd Lebanon War, had a very defensible border, high ground, heavily fortified, and with a sound defensive strategy, which was the main reason I thought it was stupid to attack there. But that did nothing to protect Beirut, or anyplace else, from rockets and missiles. There was a good deal of slogging around in the mud down by the border, but things just bogged down there, despite the vast technical superiority of the IDF. There is no reason at all to think that some future Arab force is going to do better against the IDF than the IDF was able to do against Hezbollah.

Also, any such attack requires that one mass ones forces, which takes time and creates a fat target, and I have no doubt that the IDF and IAF would promptly bomb and disperse any such attempt at concentration of forces. Remember the successful attacks on the IDF while it was massing forces to attack Lebanon? There was one lucky hit that killed a bunch of IDF soldiers. So what is the IAF going to do if some Arab forces tries to concentrate for an attack across the Jordan? Why it's going to bomb the shit out of them.

The Jordan valley is easily attacked from above to the East, on the other hand, and as I pointed out, is not the route a sensible person would take to get to Tel Aviv, you'd come up from the Sinai or down from the North along the coastal plain, as in the past.

To summarize, in modern warfare with aircraft, missiles and rockets, it is difficult and dangerous to concentrate ones forces, especially without air cover, so there is little reason to expect such an attack on Israel, and even if someone were foolish enough to consider such an attack, they would not be doing it from the East towards Tel Aviv.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/05/25/ap/world/main20066279.shtml

The majority of what you wrote doesn't address the above concerns.

I don't do YouTube, so I don't know what that is about.

Edit: Perhaps you could actually hazard a comment on my arguments, if you want to continue, you know: admit they have some merit, or offer some counter-argument? And remember we are talking about defensible borders, not some other issue. The 2nd CBS piece is pretty good actually, that's my comment on it.

For example in the CBS piece they talk about holding land, and then they admit there is no real defense to be had against the sort of small guerilla arms that are really the issue here, IEDs, RPGs, automatic rifles, simple rockets, etc.

The youtube video is about 5 minutes long and lists the security concerns WRT the 1967 borders. You should watch it.

Your points, and Creveld's, don't address Eiland's concerns at all. It's not that I have a problem with your view. It's just that you're stopping short of countering the concern that there is a great security risk to millions by giving up the strategic highlands (hills) and certain areas right near major population centers and BG airport. As though Israel really could pull back to exact '67 lines and there wouldn't be anything more significant to worry about than had they swapped certain strategic areas and settlements.