Herman Cain: You Mess With Israel, You Mess With the U.S.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

Hamas has already broken plenty of agreements. Put the lives of all Israelis at risk to prove a point?

I don't think it would get that far. At best new settlements would stop (a good thing anyway) and maybe a few settlements would be removed. It depends how long Hamas played along. The only way lives would be at risk if Hamas actually played nice for 4-5 years.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

It is. Israel has nothing to lose from the status quo.

Actually, they do. The Israeli people themselves are becoming tired of the stalemate. If ever a coalition could be formed without hardliners like Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu or Ariel "Bulldozer" Sharon in the mix, then it would be a quick fix.

[The Dude 206]

I bet even if Israel threw the 2000 divide into the agreement, it wouldn't stop Hamas being Hamas, don't you think?

15 years ago, I would have said the same thing about the provos, but they have taken a step back, maybe Hamas can too. Unfortunately, I don't think either side will ever come to any sort of consensus regarding Jerusalem, regardless of who is sitting at the negotiating table.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

15 years ago, I would have said the same thing about the provos, but they have taken a step back, maybe Hamas can too. Unfortunately, I don't think either side will ever come to any sort of consensus regarding Jerusalem, regardless of who is sitting at the negotiating table.

That is why I have always thought Jerusalem should be taken of the table, and administered as an open city by the UN. That would give the US an excuse to not renew the lease on the New York headquarters, and let the UN build a new headquarters on Mount Zion.

Edited May 23, 2011 by Some Old Guy

[scandal 951]

The argument is that if we went to the pre 67 boarders that Israel couldn't defend itself. Considering Israel's military capabilities I have a hard time believing that. Does anybody have some insight into this?

I think this map does a pretty good job of illustrating the answer to this question.

70% of Israel's population lies in the "Mishor HaHof" region encompassing Tel Aviv and its suburbs (shaded on the map).

At it's narrowest, the width of pre-1967 Israel between the Med. Sea and the "Green Line" is about 9 miles, from Tulkarem to Netanya. That's the point Bibi made on Friday at the White House. One can easily see that there is very little strategic depth in such a narrow zone.

Consequently the various Israeli proposals for a land-for-peace swap have called for one or more of:

(1) a buffer zone within the Green Line to widen this narrow belt

(2) a disarmed West Bank, with no standing army or armor

(3) a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan Valley and at other strategic locations, typically hilltops

(4) strategic Israeli settlements within the West Bank

There has been vigorous discussion of this question within Israel, of course. Well respected military and political figures come down on both sides of whether the borderline is really a vital strategic interest. You have those who believe that 1967 lines are mass national suicide. And you have those who believe that the real strategic threat comes from Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Arab world. 10 or 20 or even 50Km of "strategic Depth" between Netanya and the Jordan River would mean nothing in an Iranian nuclear missile launch, or if Syrian armor came down over the Golan as they did in 1973.

I personally lean towards the left in these discussions, but I'm not a military tactician of any sort. I do have a commonsense notion that massing hostile armored divisions along the Tulkarem/Kalkilya line on the map above would be something that keeps the military high command in Israel to lose a lot of sleep.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I think this map does a pretty good job of illustrating the answer to this question.

70% of Israel's population lies in the "Mishor HaHof" region encompassing Tel Aviv and its suburbs (shaded on the map).

At it's narrowest, the width of pre-1967 Israel between the Med. Sea and the "Green Line" is about 9 miles, from Tulkarem to Netanya. That's the point Bibi made on Friday at the White House. One can easily see that there is very little strategic depth in such a narrow zone.

Consequently the various Israeli proposals for a land-for-peace swap have called for one or more of:

(1) a buffer zone within the Green Line to widen this narrow belt

(2) a disarmed West Bank, with no standing army or armor

(3) a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan Valley and at other strategic locations, typically hilltops

(4) strategic Israeli settlements within the West Bank

There has been vigorous discussion of this question within Israel, of course. Well respected military and political figures come down on both sides of whether the borderline is really a vital strategic interest. You have those who believe that 1967 lines are mass national suicide. And you have those who believe that the real strategic threat comes from Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Arab world. 10 or 20 or even 50Km of "strategic Depth" between Netanya and the Jordan River would mean nothing in an Iranian nuclear missile launch, or if Syrian armor came down over the Golan as they did in 1973.

I personally lean towards the left in these discussions, but I'm not a military tactician of any sort. I do have a commonsense notion that massing hostile armored divisions along the Tulkarem/Kalkilya line on the map above would be something that keeps the military high command in Israel to lose a lot of sleep.

What is the state of their military? My understanding is that much of it is not even in the country, its in Syria (Hamas excluded).

Edited May 23, 2011 by Sousuke

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Herman who?

[sandinista! 1,816]

I think this map does a pretty good job of illustrating the answer to this question.

70% of Israel's population lies in the "Mishor HaHof" region encompassing Tel Aviv and its suburbs (shaded on the map).

At it's narrowest, the width of pre-1967 Israel between the Med. Sea and the "Green Line" is about 9 miles, from Tulkarem to Netanya. That's the point Bibi made on Friday at the White House. One can easily see that there is very little strategic depth in such a narrow zone.

Consequently the various Israeli proposals for a land-for-peace swap have called for one or more of:

(1) a buffer zone within the Green Line to widen this narrow belt

(2) a disarmed West Bank, with no standing army or armor

(3) a continued Israeli military presence along the Jordan Valley and at other strategic locations, typically hilltops

(4) strategic Israeli settlements within the West Bank

There has been vigorous discussion of this question within Israel, of course. Well respected military and political figures come down on both sides of whether the borderline is really a vital strategic interest. You have those who believe that 1967 lines are mass national suicide. And you have those who believe that the real strategic threat comes from Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Arab world. 10 or 20 or even 50Km of "strategic Depth" between Netanya and the Jordan River would mean nothing in an Iranian nuclear missile launch, or if Syrian armor came down over the Golan as they did in 1973.

I personally lean towards the left in these discussions, but I'm not a military tactician of any sort. I do have a commonsense notion that massing hostile armored divisions along the Tulkarem/Kalkilya line on the map above would be something that keeps the military high command in Israel to lose a lot of sleep.

it's a nice map and all, but at the end of the day, who the he11 cares? it's still illegal to acquire territory by military conquest, let alone hang onto it for over 40 years. while i'm sure the us could probably make an emotional plea about how it would be best for their national security if they decided to carve out big chunks of mexico and canada as a buffer zone and plunked a bunch of americans down there in govt subsidized settlements, and blathered on about how it was extremely necessary to maintain that buffer zone, that the rest of the world would believe that was completely absurd. no one would think that was ok, least of all canada or mexico. and it would still be absurd and illegal, no matter how much the us attempted to demonize canada and mexico and impress upon the world how much of a theoretical threat they were. at the end of the day, it still remains stolen property.

[sandinista! 1,816]

Herman who?

he was a pizza guy. the political opinions of a pizza chain's former ceo are newsworthy these days, though i couldn't possibly tell you why.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

he was a pizza guy. the political opinions of a pizza chain's former ceo are newsworthy these days, though i couldn't possibly tell you why.

I know who he is. My comment was meant to convey my feeling that he is and will remain largely irrelevant.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I know who he is. My comment was meant to convey my feeling that he is and will remain largely irrelevant.

He is FNC's latest champion to unseat MS-NBC's champion.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

He is FNC's latest champion to unseat MS-NBC's champion.

Okay, so you agree with what I just said.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Okay, so you agree with what I just said.

We'll see. The right seems to be running out of candidates that don't self-destruct upon impact.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

We'll see. The right seems to be running out of candidates that don't self-destruct upon impact.

Viable GOP candidates are sitting 2012 out because they know they have a far better shot in 2016. Then, the President needs to go and the VP is not looking for the spot. Unless Hillary becomes VP in 2012, that is. The GOP has virtually no shot at winning in 2012. The House majority and GOP legislatures and governors around the country are making sure of that.

Edited May 24, 2011 by Mr. Big Dog

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Viable GOP candidates are sitting 2012 out because they know they have a far better shot in 2016. Then, the President needs to go and the VP is not looking for the spot. Unless Hillary becomes VP in 2012, that is. The GOP has virtually no shot at winning in 2012. The House majority and GOP legislatures and governors around the country are making sure of that.

And, the Senate is in play. I think that will suck up a lot of money that would be going to GOP candidates. Ron Paul has a shot, if only by default, with an ability to raise money on his own, and campaign effectively with an in-place grass roots organization. Talk about a boring set of Presidential debates, Paul v. Obama, in the fall of 2012. I am sure none of the networks want to carry that.