The Labour Party was not happy at the prospect of partition, which, if you have ever seen a map of the proposal, was absurd and created indefensible areas for Israel.
Wow, that's such an obvious lie that I'm surprised you would embarass yourself by posting it. If the borders were "indefensible", then how did Israel expand them so quickly and easily? There is no answer to that question.
In the case of 1967, Labour was not eager to give back the Golan Heights, which had been used for shelling positions in Northern Israel
This is another lie that is easily debunked. The Syrian artillery positions were virtually unmoved as a result of the 1967 war, and their capabilities were unchanged. Thus, the whole pretext for the attack on Syria is exposed as bogus. In reality, the move was a desire to gain control of key headwaters, as well as a bit of arable land.
As was demonstrated in the case of the Camp David Accords, even Likud was willing to give up the Sinai for a reliable peace with Egypt.
No, Camp David proves that Israel only understands the language of force. Israel rejected the Camp David terms in 1971, because they felt they had the military power to hold on to the Sinai. When Egypt proved in 1973 that it could go toe to toe with Israel, Israel capitulated at the negotiating table.
Tom |
