Why do writers think that returning to the 1967 borders will mean peace? Is Sderot an outdated paradigm and why they don't relocate there? I certainly wouldn't like to fly from an airport adjacent to Gaza.

Israel has already made many Sacrifices for Peace giving back the Sinai to Egypt, Lebanese buffer zone area's back to Lebanon and Gaza to Hamas. Not only is there no real Peace but the enemies of Israel are still trying to isolarte and destroy Israel with terrorist gangs taking over areas the IDF has withdrawn from. Even in Sinai the Egyptians no longer are able to keep Al-Qaida and others from moving in with missiles and more potent weapons closer to Israel's cities. Israel need not make itself the "sacrificial lamb" as czechoslovakia was by the World attempting to appease the Nazi's before WWII.

This author needs to get his facts straight: "The Air Force hit Hezbollah's long-range missile bunkers during the 2006 war" - what about the tens of thousands of Katyushas almost impossible to detect until fired? Qassam rockets are even harder to detect, since they are not vehicle-mounted. And what made Operation Cast Lead necessary? Was it not the thousands of rockets that hit the conveniently close town of Sderot beforehand? The way I see it, a withdrawal to the "1967 borders" would produce a Third Intidada. Hamas will begin firing rockets and mortar shells into Israel from both the West Bank and Gaza Strip, leaving almost the entire country vulnerable. From the heights overlooking Gush Dan, the strikes will be accurate, and snipers will kill at will. Infiltrators will be able to sneak through the long and irregular border line and launch terrorist attacks. Airliners will be targeted with Iranian-supplied missiles as they take off and land at Ben Gurion Airport. All this will be done by Hamas and other terrorist groups, with the full backing of the Palestinian Authority, which will pretend to give an effort to fight terrorism, while any international forces stationed at the border will prove useless as usual (think UNIFIL and UNDOF). Israel will deflect most of the rockets with the Iron Dome and David's Sling systems, but casualties will mount, and eventually, Israel will get fed up and launch a Cast Lead-style invasion of the West Bank, setting off the next round of the conflict. And what about the settlement blocs near the borders? Those can't be given up simply because it is politically impossible to expel so many Jews. Why expel when it is so easy to annex?

Want to make the middle east Judenrein. They dont want any kind of peace. Look at Lebanon! Look at Gaza! Arming to the teeth. For one purpose. Eliminating the Jews. And you two yahoos dont get it? SUICIDAL

I don't know how old these soldiers are who wrote this article, but it is obvious that they can't remember history and the fact that if Israel had not had borders with strategic depth in 1973 it is more likely that Israel would not be in existence today. Can you imagine Israel with 8 mile wide borders in 1973. It would have been a disaster. Can you imagine Israel without Sinai in 1973. Eugene W. Rostow assistant secretary of state for the United States in 1967 who wrote UN resolution 242 wrote in several articles in 1991 that resolution 242 never meant for Israel to go back to the 67 borders. He also wrote that settlements were legal in the West Bank based on the fact that the British mandate in 1922 could not be rescinded. There is nothing in his writings in any agreements that say Israel had to go back to 67, and nothing was ever mentioned about land swaps. The authors talk about defensible borders as being nonsense. But what if a radical government in the West Bank or Gaza decided to have a mass march on Tel Aviv. 8 miles would not be enough to defend Israel. I also wonder who funds the organization these Israeli soldiers belong to and their motivations.

Actually, both of these writers served in elite combat units in the IDF and put their lives on the line to defend their country. They have experienced first hand the realities of the West Bank and other territories and have as much credibility as anyone. Does that sound like an enemy to you? They do more for Israel you could ever know! You've probably never even been their have you?!?

The authors conveniently neglect to discuss the catastrophic results of withdrawal. Leaving Lebanon in 2000 lead to kidnappings and the 2nd intifada, while leaving Gaza was rewarded with almost 10 years of rocket fire and a war with Hamas. The authors need to wake up. Withdrawal from the West Bank will have similarly tragic consequences.

is this a joke? "general" baskin, "admiral" baskin, "field marshal baskin" said so??? well, if gershon said it, then it must be true, right? why not just dismantle the IDF because generalissimo baskin doesn't think it's necessary. baskin is a joke and anyone who would rely upon his "military" opinion makes himself a joke, also. DON'T BE STUPID. if you can't follow that advice, just stfu.

Depends on leftists staying in the opposition.

dont forget that this is the implication. Its against the Geneva convention to exile civilian population from their homes

if land is given away, the mighty one gets upset and that's what counts imo - or did u forget what happened to the guy who gave away gaza?

This is 1973 and Yesawich and Nisman and Typical Israelis, in such euphoria over previous military victories that they fail to see even a little into the future. True, we are not threatened today with a conventional opposing force, but raising such a force could take less than a year for one or more of our enemies, and we'll be able to do nothing about it. The outlook should not be for the coming weeks, but for the coming decades, at least. Simply, the more territory the IDF controls, the safer we are. This is true for past threats, present threats and most likely for future threats. Yesawich and Nisman are prepared to sell our territories for a piece of paper. Most Israelis are not.

Israel cannot give up enough land to appease the Arabs, and the world will only support us when we bury our dead. ironically we are most understood when we say "no" as Netenyahu did to the American President. And our friends were only confused by our crusade to rehabilitate the PLO as a strategy against Hamas in Iran. Sorry gentlemen but you are wrong. The demographic threat is not beyond an imaginary green line but in Jaffa, Haifa, and Baka Al Grbiyeh. you have your bead stuck in groupthink muck not realities. A Palestinian state is a threat to Israel. This is why we are dressing up the "Palestinian state" but offering nothign more than autonomy. Only Israeli presence (and civilian as well as military) in the Jordan Valley will keep out a foreign army out.

Hi Lawrence, Just FYI, I received my wake up call in the form of a guided anti-tank missle in the second lebanon war, defending Tzfat from incoming missles. Ive earned my right to this opinion.

Nice article. It shows not all Israelis are religious freaks obsessed with occupation and oppression. Just a shame these two guys are not in government with the power to implement the policies they preach. That would give the Palestinians a fair deal. end the isolation of Israel at a stroke, and bring it back into the fold of mainstream democracy, where it belongs.

so you think its a good idea to allow a terrorist to sit in his house, start breakfast, fire a rpg through his window, shoot down an elal flight and then get on with his breakfast... because if we leave the west bank, that is what they will be able to do... I would assume we would then invade the west bank, and walla! we are this time actually occupying a country called palestine and hundreds of jews are dead. Great idea.

Prof. Van Crevald's comment on the 2nd Lebanon War: "Hezbollah “had the fight knocked out of it,” lost hundreds of its members and that the organization was “thrown out of South Lebanon,” replaced by “a fairly robust United Nations peacekeeping force.” Sure, that robust UN force has allowed Hezbollah to triple its weapons and to take over the government of Lebanon and to set up a terror state in its south. The two writers of this article say that since Hezbullah has thousands of deadly missiles on Israel's north, and Hamas on the south, then why not give up the West Bank so Israel can have daily missiles shot into the center of the country? Sure - give us a third terror front to "deter". Do these ivory tower geniuses truly believe that the Islamic imperialists, having Israel completely surrounded, will be deterred and sue for peace? On top of that, they quote from the fatuous Gershon Baskin, whose inane scribblings stain the pages of the Jerusalem Post all too often. For Baskin, the Arabs are always right and Israel is never right. His solution for everything is for Israel to commit state suicide. Quoting Abu Baskin as if he or his self-aggrandizing NGO's were anything intelligent or pro-Israel automatically invalidates any argument they might present. I suggest that these folks go live in Sderot for a while, and that they read the official charters of Hamas and Fatah. Remember when everyone promised that pulling out of Gaza would make the whole world love Israel and turn the Arabs into peace-lovers too busy with state-building to make trouble? This article is more of the same.

Everyone knows that Israel can "defend" herself without the West Bank. Like #3 mentions, it would require Operation Cast Lead 2,3,4,5 etc. but yes, Israel can ward off the Arab masses if need-be. The real reason Israel does not cede the West Bank is because the land is central to Jewish history, and because no state has a claim to it. Jordan released its claim in 1988 and the PLO is not a state government. Therefore, the West Bank is not an "occupied territory" but rather a military zone belonging to no state, and Israel has a strong enough legal position to hold it for security reasons.

Against it . Is the Internet and video cameras. A image of a Israeli soldier beating or arresting a boy is on the Internet within minutes and a bulldozing will have protesters recording and uploading it in seconds. Let's face it Internet killed the Israeli. P. R machine

Everything in this article has been proven false already. The left argued that if we withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon the world would "understand" if we responded to missile attacks. However, what we got was world condemnation, further isolation, two wars Goldstone, boycotts everywhere, flotillas to save Hamas and 50 000 missiles on our borders. furthermore, most of the rockets fired by Hizbollah and Hamas are short range rockets that our former buffer zones would have neutralized, to say nothing of the IDF' presence preventing the arms buildup in both Gaza and Lebanon. Lastly, the demographic canard is nonesense because by that logic we should withdraw into the sea since Israel's own Arab population will outnumber Jews in 50 years. Large land swaps( Ariel for Uhm el Fahm, the triangle for the Jordan valley) makes mroe sense. A true solution based on two states for two people. Not a Judenrein Palestine and a "binational " Israel that turns into Palestine 2 in fifty years.

They need to dismiss the advantage of terrain so they raise straw men arguments regarding a non-existent demographic threat and delegitimzation. Well perhaps we could build a complete defense against mobile missiles, but since we don't have such a capability near Gaza let them prove their concept there first.

problems with this article: 1) ..Today, those threats are connected to the de-legitimization battle that is fueled by our presence there... .....so Jews do not have a right to visit our holy sites, the PA forbids access. and it is dangerous 2) Our control over millions of Palestinians remains a threat to the Jewish and democratic nature of our state, and is subsequently being used by our enemies to ostracize Israel. .. last time I checked, 30 seconds ago, the PA and Hamas had authority over millions of Palestinians. Ironic that the world wants two states but delegitimizes the elected governments of the so-called Palestinians by deferring all responsibility to Israel regardless of the elected body.

he says how well israel was able to defend itself in the pre-67 borders during the 6 day war but (somehow) neglects to mention what (heaven forbid) would have happened if the 73 war occurred when israel had only the pre-67 borders (hint: no more israel) also, there was not much mention of the country becomming unliveable because of a terrorist rocket launching state right right in the middle of israel's population centers. perhaps this guy smokes the same weed that our (supposedly brilliant) ariel sharon did before he handed over a launching pad for palestinian terrorists in gaza. if something is stupid, it stays stupid even if someone says its a brilliant idea

Shechem and Hebron are Jewish Holy cities. They are more Israel than Tel Aviv. Israel is under no obligation to feed its already scarce land to the insatiable arab empire.

#10- This was originally written to the authors, but encompasses you as well. (Read especially para. 1.) 1. The delegitimization campaign would continue, no matter what the future borders are, as long as the arabs do not accept a Jewish Israel (or any Israel). The WB is only an excuse. Arab intransigence is the real culprit. 2. Israel now fears a possible, future attack by Egypt as Israel traded land for a piece of paper. Lebanon, controlled by Hezbollah, is to the north, Syria to the northeast. And what if King Hussein is overthrown? The borders were of dire necessity in the Yom Kippur War (which Israel almost lost). They may be just as necessary (G-d forbid) in the future. 3. You are underestimating the enemy. NEVER underestimate the enemy. 4. Intelligence proved woefully inadequate and wrong in the Yom Kippur War. It could happen again. The opinions of the people on whom you base your argument could also be wrong. 5. You have swallowed a new, false paradigm. After all that has gone on, the "outdated" one is still the reality.

While the author is correct that Israel successfully defended herself during the Six Day War, the coflict has never been about land, and always about the destruction of the Jewish State of Israel. If this were simply a territorial issue, there would have been peace decades ago. The real problem has always been the palestinians true goal to return to homes in pre-1967 Israel, and the replacement of Israel with a muslim palestine from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. Plus, if Israel were to get out of the territories, how does that fix Israel's demographic problem? Once Israel's Jewish population goes to 60%, Israel will find itself in the same position as Lebanon. The solution is for Israel to allow citizenship to Jews, wherever they reside. This will bring an additional few million Jewish citizens of Israel, allowing Israel to safeguard our "Jewish and Democratic" nature.

"security experts and gurus"? I can come up with more experts and gurus that speak exactly to the contrary view. let's start with respected Aryeh Eldad, a known "dependable" ex-military, he says not now or ever should we give up any land. To these 2 all the leftist are respectable. Then Olmert and all the lefty cronies were bringing in as many arabs as possible, especially Beduin from Jordan, so that they could state the same stupid case of millions of arabs. The censuses show that the arabs also lie about how many they are. Another big lie. And I should leave my home in Gilo, for what, to where, who will compensate me, how will I find another job. Like they helped all our people from Aza? We are even more in danger then 1967 because the weapons and technology has multiplied also, thanks to the Russian. Afraid to make major sacrifice for peace? You mean suicide. Generally speaking, we the people of Israel are not insane enough to believe these to idiots. This is why, if Bibi thinks he can even come close to doing any of this insanity, he WILL be yanked as Prime Minister, there is no question about that. Then we will vote in a trully sensible right wing government that will listen to our wishes. You will not move any of our people from our land, bottom line..

The authors of this report are almost correct. Judaism did perfectly fine before 1948, when we didnt have a state. I miss those times, when we held the moral highground

Anybody who is happy living in Berlin would of course say what you say. Please understand that your moral high-ground is not more that your shame of being Jewish. A Jew who doesn't love Israel, who is not happy to have a country again, the country we were expurgated from by force is not a very moral Jew, he is forgetting ALL his moral basis for the cheap price of feeling "goy"