The argument, to many, is not Land for Peace, but Land is Peace. Although the nature of warfare has changed, strategic depth is still critical. That is, the final determinant is what happens on the ground. Hence, maintaining possession of the lands taken in the Six Day War is necessary not only to prevent attack, but also to protect against terrorism. For these reasons, when considering solely the security perspective, no military expert has ever counseled return of the lands Israel conquered in ’67. In fact, military men in the U.S. are sometimes surprised that Israel has spoken about making any concessions.
The Arab regimes are for the most part totalitarian dictatorships prone to coups and unpredictable changes of heart. What would happen if the leader who made peace fell? Would his successor keep up the agreement? In such a scenario Israel would have compromised its security, and brought the enemy closer, without having any guarantee of future safety….
A restaurant serves cups of coffee that flies occasionally find their way into…
The Italian – throws the cup, breaks it, and walks away in a fit of rage.
The German – carefully washes the cup, sterilizes it and makes a new cup of coffee.
The Frenchman – takes out the fly, and drinks the coffee.
The Chinese – eats the fly and throws away the coffee.
The Russian – Drinks the coffee with the fly, since it was extra with no charge.
The Israeli – sells the coffee to the Frenchman, sells the fly to the Chinese, sells the cup to the Italian, drinks a cup of tea, and uses the extra money to invent a device that prevents flies from falling into coffee.
The Palestinian – blames the Israeli for the fly falling into his coffee, protests the act of aggression to the UN, takes a loan from the European Union to buy a new cup of coffee, uses the money to purchase explosives and then blows up the coffee house where the Italian, the Frenchman, the Chinese, the German and the Russian are allng to explain to the Israeli that he should give away his cup of tea to the Palestinian.
…The proposition of exchanging land for peace is unheard of in the annals of history. Whenever has a nation that won territory in a defensive war surrendered it to the very nations which attacked it?
And will giving back the land lead to peace? Never in the history of Israeli-Arab relations have concessions led to an attitude of conciliation and peace. Instead, the initial concessions have communicated feelings of weakness and insecurity that have been exploited by the Arabs and have encouraged them to make further and more excessive demands. ( to be continued)…