The goal for Israel is a secure state. Peace is one of the **ways** of meeting that goal.

Thanks for an excellent article. I hope that many people read it in various languages. A Palestinian state in the West Bank means the end of Jewish Israel.

Without consideration of traditions and prejudices, Israel must find the courage to gather our people and their strength for an advance along the road that will lead our people from its present restricted living space to new land and soil, and hence also free it from the danger of vanishing from the earth or of serving others as a slave nation. The Zionist Movement must strive to eliminate the disproportion between our population and our area—viewing this latter as a source of food as well as a basis for power politics—between our historical past and the hopelessness of our present impotence!

sending more of a stronger hint to the Palestinians to leave.

I fear that Barak Hussain Obama will become another Jimmy Carter-like president towards whom evil world leaders will pay no respect. More than since 1948 Israel needs a strong leadership for it's own survival!

wants peace and continue doing to make is impossible .The truth is Israel wants peace and the land, and better the land without Palestinian and business with the rich Golf countries. The two states solution is a fiction that stupid Arab swallowed long time ago and still believes in it. Israel will find no matter what excuse to do not withdrawal from occupied territory this is definitely. Hey, BenGorion airport close to West Bank ...new symphony for morons.

Actually, it is. There is no way in hell you will be able to convince anybody that two-state solution is not workable without giving it a try. If we all are wrong there will be peace and two states. If we all are right there will be peace and one state but only after two-state game played out. Key is when attacked you get to keep territories you gain defending yourself.

Dear Martin, Thank you for taking the time to respond to my TB. Most author's never reply to any TBers. First of all some generalisations. Just because a government flies a "left wing" flag does not mean it'll have left wing policies. Kennedy Administration in USA and Begin Admin in Israel are perfect examples from Left and Right. And right, if you can see it with zoom even most likely you can hit it with a rocket. Specifics. Morganthau's Geographic Imperative was dated almost the moment he published it because nuclear weapons make this concept redundant. Israel's size vis-a-vis Iran is meaningless because Israel retains the real capability to wipe it off the face of the Earth (which is a good capability to have in this neighbourhood). In Morganthau's analyses of how to calculate a nation-states power capabilities he never said that one should focus on one aspect alone because this will give an incomplete picture. All the aspects have to be taken into consideration each with its own weighting: economic, diplomatic, military, etc. My objection to your paper was that it perpetuates the bubble created by Likud and others over the Israeli electorate that somehow they can unilaterally control the destiny of the Palestinians without any kind of interference from the outside world, chief among them, the USA. The American's forced Begin into the Madrid talks, forced Israel not to retaliate against Iraq in Gulf War 1 and threatened to down her planes, and scuppered the Syrian track when the Bush 2 Admin wanted nothing to do with Assad. The fact is that contrary to what the politicians and opinion formers in this country would have a good majority of the citizenery believe Israel does not exist in a bubble. Her behaviour, including her military budget, is routinely analyzed and assesed in Congressional committees ranging from the House to Senate on aid, trade, military technology, and so on. In an alliance, as Thucydidies said, the smaller party should always be wary of the stronger side because it will not hesitate to force its interests when it feels it is needed. Better to elect a government that will get a long with our only ally than one that is likely to antagonize it by trying to fulfill empty election promises that fly in the face of previous commitments made to America. I think that is the "something" you are missing. Besides, if we give the Arabs a state, and they do attack us then we have jus cassus bello and can therefore use as much firepower as we want without much restraint. We can force a DMZ and other constraints on them as the legally vanquished. You see, nation-states have a lot more to lose than national movements.

1) It was Begin not Shamir forced to go to Madrid. That said Shamir basically went and did nothing. 2) You honestly see a situation where Israel is going to be allowed to wipe out Iran with nuclear weapons short of in retaliation for Israel being wiped out - in which case it doesn't matter. 3) No one is claiming that the rest of the world will not interfere but at the end of the day there is a limit to what they can do. The limit depends on who they are, who our leaders are and our tolerance for any punishment meted out. Bush may have "forced" the IAF not retaliate but they also redirected bombers to Scuds, rushed over Patriots and gave Israel a boost in aid in return for the IAF not doing a job that Rabin acknowledged would not be better than the USAAF. Syrian track was going nowhere and probably will never go anywhere, pretending it had something to with the US is a convenient excuse. 4) Her behaviour may be scrutinised but that doesn't mean Israel has to bend over. 5) Finally and this is probably the most major point. The people who will quote international law the most are the ones who don't care about it. We were meant to have jus cassus bello in Lebanon and in Gaza but somehow we managed to still "occupy" them so they could carry on "resisting" whilst not actually being in a position to monitor and fight them. And you can't force a DMZ, hell Hizbollah won't even allow a fence on the actual border, it has to be 100s of metres into Israel. Also when Israel pulls out under ANY circumstances, they claim victory so you can't impose ANYTHING. Can u honestly say the situation is better in Lebanon and Gaza now than before?

at what point do you call the two state solution a failure? What exactly has to happen for you to throw your hands up and say this will not work. PS We got the West Bank, East Jerusalem and the Golan after being attacked. We have been attacked from Gaza and Lebanon. How many people think Israel gets to keep those territories after being attacked? Are you really that naive?

Sorry I made a mistake..What I e-mailed was to reference to an other article written by a certain"professor" I am in total agreement with this. I apologise to the Author. Keep up the good work!

I know exactly who you are . You work for a US firm in TA . I heard your racket from within our local coffee shop . Your not even Jewish so why don't you shut up and leave Our Jewish Country . Of course once the bombing starts on TA you'll be the first one to get their fat rear on the plane back to Ohio !

You say :”… Israel does not exist in a bubble.” Hamas and Fatah STILL have in their Charters the clause that the State of Israel should be destroyed -- that should be clear to ALL. The Left’s obsession to give away Judea & Samaria (i.e. the West Bank) to the Palestinians without taking their (i.e. Hamas, Fatah) Charters seriously -- is proof that the Lefties in Israel exists in a bubble. Smith, I think that is the "something" you are missing (in your overall picture) -- to use your words.

My dear Smith, I am genuinely impressed – and appreciate – the obvious effort you have invested in your response to mine. However I am compelled to rebut/repudiate/reject most of what you state therein: YOU WRITE: Morgenthau's Geographic Imperative was dated almost the moment he published it because nuclear weapons make this concept redundant. Wrong! For a number of reasons. 1. In fact the advent of nuclear weapons have acutely INCREASED the strategic value of Geography - allowing the wide territorial dispersal of strategic installations, vital infrastructure facilities, military capabilities and weapon systems. This facilitates enhanced scope for TERRITORIAL BASED SECOND STRIKE CAPABILITY (although significant elements of this can be sea-borne) and POST ATTACK SURVIVABILITY, should such be suffered. Small nations (especially those without formidable naval capabilities - including access to exterritorial logistical facilities) have very little ability to project credible SECOND-STRIKE CAPACITY which is a critical element in creating effective deterrence against a first-strike by a nuclear armed enemy. Similarly, if such a strike is carried out, very small countries will suffer proportionately far more devastating destruction endangering their very post-war survivability, compared to very large countries with widely dispersed population centers, infrastructure installations and military centers, a considerable portion of which may survive . (Note I am not talking about total destruction produced by THERMO-NUCLEAR WEAPONS (fusion-based as opposed to fission-based) which only a handful of countries have – not Including Iran. 2. However the in the context of the Palestinian issue, N-weapons are not, and have never been, a relevant issue. One hopes that you are not suggesting that just because there is A POTENTIAL NUCLEAR THREAT it would be a good idea to expose ourselves to EXISTING CONVENTIONAL ONES? One does not even have to conjure up a full scale military invasion of Israel from the "West Bank" to comprehend the strategic dangers that could emerge from hostile "militants" there. Consider the economic ramifications of the disruption that could be caused to social and economic routine in the country if - like in the north in 2006 and south in 2009 - large portions of the populations would have to take shelter for extended periods of time, paralyzing the nation's economy. Or consider how the call up and mobilization of reserves – required to meet an emergency on another front – perhaps in the north – could be disrupted and delayed by hostile action from the highlands of Judea and Samaria, possibly critically endangering the young IDF regulars, who may be in dire need of reinforcements (CONT…)

My dear Smith (CONT...) YOU WRITE: Morgenthau's Geographic Imperative was dated almost the moment he published it… Wrong! (CONT…) 3. Furthermore in any non-nuclear scenario, the increased fire-power, mobility and range of modern weaponry, with their attendant requirements for deployment and maneuvering, have INCREASED not DECREASED the significance of territory, terrain and topography. You might find the following quotes edifying: Yigal Allon, former Deputy PM and Education Minister for Labor, and commander of the Palmach: ... the innovation and sophistication in weaponry ... [including ]the appearance of ground-to-ground missiles, and supersonic fighter-bombers... not only fail to diminish the value of strategic depth and natural barriers, but in fact enhance their importance. This is even more pertinent in the case of Israel’s difficult geographic position ‘Israel: The Case for Defensible Borders’, Foreign Affairs October, 1976, pp. 38-54. Shimon Peres, in one of his more lucid proclamations: In 1948, it may have been possible to defend the “thin waist” of Israel’s most densely populated area, when the most formidable weapon used by both sides was the canon of limited mobility and limited fire-power… [However], with the development of the rapid mobility of armies, the defensive importance of territorial expanse has increased…Without a border which affords security, a country is doomed to destruction in war’. Tomorrow is Now, Jerusalem: Keter, 1978, pp. 235 4. Geography is still placed at the head of the list of determinants of National Power. See for example John T. Rourke's widely used INTERNATIONAL POLITICS ON THE WORLD STAGE, 12th edition published 2007(!!) , which in Ch8. "The Foundation of National Power" places "The National Geography" first. Likewise in 1993 (well after the advent of nuclear weapons) a study ASSESSING THE VIABILITY OF A PALESTINIAN STATE conducted a comparative study of four approaches to national power which - apart from Morgenthau - included F. H. Hartmann, The Relations of Nations, W. J. Feld, International Relations: A Transnational Approach, D.N. Farnsworth, International Relations: An Introduction. ALL OF THEM PLACED THE GEOGRAPHICAL COMPONENT TOP OF THE LIST YOU WRITE : Israel's size vis-à-vis Iran is meaningless because Israel retains the real capability to wipe it off the face of the Earth (which is a good capability to have in this neighbourhood). Assuming this optimistic is assessment true, your conclusion is still contingent on another upbeat assumption – that it won't be the Iranians that strike first YOU WRITE: In Morgenthau's analyses of how to calculate a nation-states power capabilities he never said that one should focus on one aspect alone because this will give an incomplete picture. All the aspects have to be taken into consideration each with its own weighting: economic, diplomatic, military, etc. True - but see what Peres has to say on this – again in one of his more lucid moments: It is of course doubtful whether territorial expanse can provide absolute deterrence. However, the lack of minimal territorial expanse places a country in a position of an ABSOLUTE LACK OF DETERRENCE. THIS IN ITSELF CONSTITUTES ALMOST COMPULSIVE TEMPTATION TO ATTACK ISRAEL FROM ALL DIRECTIONS … Tomorrow is Now, , p. 255. (CONT…)

My Dear Smith (CONT…) YOU WRITE: My objection to your paper was that it perpetuates the bubble created by Likud and others over the Israeli electorate that somehow they can unilaterally control the destiny of the Palestinians without any kind of interference from the outside world, chief among them, the USA. A reality check may be called for here. We saw what happed when an attempt was made to allow the Palestinians to control their destiny – First Corrupt Kleptocracy, then Tyrannical Theocracy and finally … Absolute Anarchy YOU WRITE: The American's forced Begin into the Madrid talks, - Actualy it was Shamir who went Madrid -- against advice from me. YOU WRITE: [The American's] forced Israel not to retaliate against Iraq in Gulf War 1 and threatened to down her planes. I have heard other versions – including from Shamir himself. YOU WRITE: [The American's] scuppered the Syrian track when the Bush 2 Admin wanted nothing to do with Assad. Just as well someone had the good sense to do that YOU WRITE: In an alliance, as Thucydides said, the smaller party should always be wary of the stronger side because it will not hesitate to force its interests when it feels it is needed. And how will that change AFTER we have complied – being left to fend for ourselves? Inside indefensible "Auschwitz" borders and much more dependant on others for our security? The US will not cease to have "interests" that may not be concurrent with ours. Won't further "interests" still be forced on us? Why would our position be better then? Surely then being more vulnerable, we will be even more pliable and given to extortion by pressure from others? Anyway what possible US interest would be served by the establishment of an unstable Islamic tyranny antithetical to all America purports to stand for? YOU WRITE: Better to elect a government that will get a long with our only ally than one that is likely to antagonize it by trying to fulfill empty election promises that fly in the face of previous commitments made to America. If they force us to abandon our national interests and endanger our security – maybe they are not such a good ally. If they were, they wouldn’t. Instead of advocating kowtowing as a strategy you may be surprised to find out that people – especially the Americans - respect those who respect themselves. Moreover don't confuse the White House with America. There are significant and influential centers of power elsewhere – in an overwhelmingly pro-Israel Congress, in the public opinion, among the Evangelicals. If we had a Foreign Ministry worth the taxes we pay, all of these would be vigorously harnessed to prevent any detrimental policy decision by the Administration or the State Department

the jewish initiative, and create a state in a small area out of the vast land of canada to make it their state. i am sure that if they did, the state wouldn't be as small as israel jerusalem, haifa, nazareth, tiberias, hebron, etc etc, all these cities were thriving during biblical times, jews created them, and arabs invaded into them, without allowing the jewish community to grow. to your info, although most jews were exiled from the judea province a jewish community remained here still. in year 1880 there was a series of masscres in russia, that caused jews to come to israel under a national movement called zionism. jerusalem is only one name for the city, zion is just another name for the city of david, city of shalom etc.

All these analysis are biased and has not any logical explanation except the greedy will to hold the occupaied territories for settlements. If you, or your army generals were right, so Canada is a supper power with its geographical extend, not talking about Russia. Small organization Like Hizbollah can reach most of Israeli territories with rackets that are available to any buyers in the market. All countries surrounding Israel have or can have missiles with thousand of KM range. The use of nuclear weapon in Middle East is the most stupid myth can come to mind .After Hiroshima; nuclear weapons are made for stock piles nothing more. Keeping West Bank will make Israel more secure for a future nuclear warfare is the funniest idea could be suggested. The economy is in the engine in today world .After WWII no country ,no ,matter what was its powerful mean, could achieve a clear and not costly victory on its enemy. Your Ideas belong to the before WWII times , they are rusty ideas.

The fact that Israeli lived in that part of the world 2000 years ago do not give any legal right to claim it back, or, lets remap the hole world the way it was at that time and each ancient nation will claim its territory . Lot of today’s independent countries will vanish from the map. Land promised by God, is another crap idea that only religious idiot believe on it. The existence of God itself is disputable not talking about his promises. Through out the history Jews lived in peace and never were targeted and discriminated against only in Arab countries as communities including Palestine till the Zionism idea take over their mind and the fight started. Any immigrant to Canada( including you ), after 3-4 years can become a Canadian citizen ,and no power can root him out from here even he might not be the good one or his loyalty to this country is not perfect . Think about a such short time gives him a such powerful rights. The majority of Israeli( as latest poll shows ) support the dictator Liberman with his extreme and fascist political view, who will kick out Palestinian from their land and happy to transfer them out of Israel ,regardless being living here for hundreds of years on that territory and Israeli keep shouting we are the only western alike democracy in the Middle East.

Dear George Your talkback indicated that you have totally misunderstood the major thrust of my argument.! You must have missed the part where I wrote: "However in the context of the Palestinian issue, N-weapons are NOT, AND HAVE NEVER BEEN, A RELEVANT ISSUE. ..." And where where I wrote:: Consider the ECONOMIC RAMIFICATIONS of the disruption that could be caused to social and economic routine in the country if - like in the north in 2006 and south in 2009 - large portions of the populations would have to take shelter for extended periods of time, paralyzing the nation's economy.?

in judea and samaria, isn't 99.92 percent of the land in the middle east enough for arabs? the jewish kingdom in olden times, extends into lebanon syria and jordan, but the jews were granted palestine by the british, in 1917 and in 1922 the part from dead sea to mediteranean sea, after 80% of palestine became transjordan. in 1948 there has been yet another division of the land, but jews have won it back. and it still makes the arabs rule over 99.92 percent of the land in the middle east so yes, there is greed for land, and the figures show arabs have this greed, not the jews. the zionist movement immigration started in 1880 with the massacres in russia. more then half the arabs in palestine are immigrants who came in the begining of the 20th century, because jews were changing their minority ratio. british mandate population registration clearly shows arab immigration as well as jewish, and they wanted to keep it at more or less even rate, to appease the arabs, hence tens of thousands of jews were incarcerated and tens of thousands of jewish refugees on boats were reverted back to europe to be gassed by nazis. moreover, the arabs had no legal right for the land under the ottoman empire that lasted 400 years before the mandate, and only 5 percent was owned by locals in palestine in the ottoman land registry. arabs had no state nor self governing rights in palestine, what's this obsession to live in perticularly amongst jews, in such a small are?

Dear,Mr Martin Sherman you have another geography imperative West Bank and Gaza are and still part of Israel , I will say more correctly inside Israel and will continue to be in the future in the case the fiction Palesinian state will arise. Your geographical ties with Palestinian are unbreakable today or tomorrow ,like it or not this is the important geographical imperative, not a ditch here or their to spread rackets . If I follow your analyze Israel will need the whole Middle East from Morocco to Iraq to feel secure and be able to strike back if the arabs have had already the 200 nucluare heads that Israel have, not just the West Bank strip. What about Israel (and is the only country in Middle East) that has” and well spreaded” nuclear missiles on submarine for post attack survivability? Palestinian will be economically tightened to Israel no matter what for today or tomorrow and economic ties will force peace. Don’t you agree, Arab countries( as showed last Gaza conflict) are indirectly interested in the presence of Israel to withstand Iran growing influence.

If given the West Bank, and Arabs continue attacking Israel, as they did after the Gaza withdrawal, the world will continue to attack Israel's disproportionate response. As a U.S. citizen, I believe, Israel has a right to the land won in 1967, and many others believe this as well. It is Europe that does not agree with keeping the land.

i am tired of writing this but there has been arab immigration THAT HAS INCREASED THE ARAB POPULATION BY 4 TIMES IN 60 YEARS before the declaration of state of israel in 1880, when zionist immigration started, arab best population count shows 400,000 in palestine. some other counts go as low as 200,000 arabs for the same year. other counts 150.000 arabs in 1860. in 1940 arab population counts 1,300,000, these are facts from pro arab sites they indicate one thing arabs are against having a jewish nation here they allways have you can check sites on google, there is plenty of evidence and no, jews have experienced a lot of problems in palestine before zionizm. i am tired of writing about it when there is so much evidence on the net.

So what is the answer? Is it fo Israel to accelerate its headlong tilt into becomong a 'pure' apartheid state? Ot transfer of the Palestinians either at gunpoint or though a slow genocide? Or becoming a binational state? Come on, answer the question. You blather on about how you can't give up the settlements in the West Bank so what is your solution? You want the Palestinians to offer fealty to a "jewish" ubermenschen? Or is your idea merely a Jewish version of 'lebensraum'?

was, just as greeks are allowed to be responsible to their fate as a nation in part of the greek empire. jewdaism is a way of life, with customs traditions and a language and not just a religion. thanks i have a british passport, you can't lure me with a canadian citizenship. i stay put where i believe my children shall grow to be proud of who they are, free to share with all their customs, language and tradition. i hope they won't grow in a country dominated by arabs, where the arab way will set their thinking, as in the rest of the middle east and beyond.

i think, that many arabs in israel do not mind genuinly living amongst jews and do not care about the borders. but those that do, should be offered an insentive by our neighbouring countries to move there, rather then remain as refugees in our neighbouring countries. and live of refugee benefits others bestow on them. and why should they be palestinian refugees really, when there was never a palestinian state? their collective memory for a way of life is no other then the way of life in the rest of the middle east, it is similar to the way of life in jordan, and all other countries, except israel. thats the paradox. they are fighting against israel to make it more like the rest of the middle east so they shouldn't be where they don't like, they shouldn't live according to another way of life that is foreign to their, they should be offered a choice, not fanaticism. it is that simple. there is such a huge choice other then israel, what's wrong with people?

in 1880 you are talking about arabs population 400,000 ,what about the jewish population at that time?!!!. Secondly the massive jewish immigration to Israel started after WWII and the promise and fasilitation from British to creat jewish homeland. outside Israel In Arab countries today there is about 4 millions palestinian refugees,so adding up what is inside israel about 3 millions according to your history from 1880 to 2009 the palestinian population has growen fro m400.000 to about 7 millions?!!!

Dear Mikesailor, Thanks for asking. This gives me the opportunity to refer you to an outline of a comprehensive solution that addresses both the Geographic Imperative and the Demographic Imperative. See A NEW PARADIGM FOR THE ISRAELI-PALESTINIAN CONFLICT:FROM THE POLITICAL TO THE HUMANITARIAN http://www.jerusalemsummit.org/eng/brochure_hs_short_eng.pdf (Be patient it may take a little time to load)