Haim, if you both don't mind, I'll respond to you and Nadine in one post.
I don't wish to denigrate the contribution you have made.
And Nadine, I am not arguing that Israel's military actions have not resulted in temporary advantages.
But if the substance of your responses is that Israel is permanently safer now, as a result of military actions, than it was at its inception then I would respectfully disagree.
I submit that until Israel's right to exist has been negotiated and agreed to by surrounding Arab nations, Israel will be no safer in a thousand years, than it was in 1948.
Once more, I will restate my original conclusion:
"...The only hope for the citizens of Israel lies in a political settlement; notwithstanding its failings, the recent Saudi proposal at least offers a starting point. Its strength lies in the fact that it comes from a major funding source for Arab extremism, while simultaneously offering a more "moderate" view. The end point, of course, is the guarantee of Israel's existence, perhaps with enforceable terms...
...The alternative is predictable."
Folks, the field is yours.
Regards,
Jim |
