In the wake of the 1967 Six Day War, the American Joint Chiefs of Staff issued a non-political, purely strategic, map which showed the minimum territorial requirements for a secure Israel. In other words, what was the least amount of land Israel had to retain to ensure her security? No consideration was given to political factors; defensible borders was the only consideration. Considering what Israel has already given up for peace (well beyond what the Joint Chiefs suggested was feasible), and considering what Israel has received for its complete Gaza withdrawal in 2005, can anyone still honestly say that it is Israel which is the intransigent party in the "peace process"? What more would one suggest Israel do to prove its willingness to make peace?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete