The response is entitled How to Secure Israel: Demilitarized land for peace is the key to a settlement
More than 30 years ago...I wrote and Foreign Affairs published an article now being circulated in the blogosphere as evidence of an alleged anti-Israel point of view. Some commentators reach farther, suggesting that since I have been an active supporter of Barack Obama's presidential bid he, too, is anti-Israel. Both these assertions fall flat after any objective reading of the historical record.
...for friends like me, "success" means a secure Israel at peace with neighbors who recognize and respect its existence. Even so, we should maintain our special relationship and help Israel keep its qualitative military edge.
As for the article, much has changed in 32 years and much has not. The essential argument holds: no set of realistically achievable geographic borders produces safety for Israel. Rather, the security requirement is that any of the territory taken in the Six-Day War and given back as part of a peace settlement should be effectively demilitarized...
And if it can't be done?
And if Hezbollah trains Hamas?
And if Hamas takes of Judea and Samaria?
This guy sounds like Dan Halutz - we can win from the air.
No comments:
Post a Comment