PDS GI Debate Group A '11-'12

On July 14, 2009, the Russian president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, made a surprise visit to breakaway South Ossetia, inspecting a new Russian military base there and promising citizens that Russia would rebuild neighborhoods destroyed during the brief war between Russia and Georgia

lus all of the Gaza Strip, when the Palestinian Authority regains control over the Gaza Strip, which the militant group Hamas seized from forces loyal to Abbas in June 2006.

The Israeli proposal is not acceptable," Abbas's spokesman said. "The Palestinian side will only accept a Palestinian state with territorial continu

nd the Israeli government. Currently, in Washington, D.C., President Bush is promising aid to the Palestinians, ai

aid that they desperately need, in order for them to be able to establish good, peacekeeping forces that can rein in terrorists and serve as a police force in the region that Israel is trying to move out of.

Israel needs America’s help now more than ever.

"I'm ready to make painful compromises"

Hamas is not a partner for peace," Netanyahu said to one of 26 standing ovations. Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of Israel, the killing of Jews around the globe - and its leader recently bemoaned the killing of Osama bin Laden.

Last Friday at the White House, Netanyahu scolded Obama on how unrealistic it was for the administration to push 1967 borders as a starting point for negotiations with Palestinians.

The economy would have collapsed in 1973 due to the balance of payments problem following the Yom Kippur War. Today it is still important to shoulder the economy from external shocks such as the Persian Gulf War and the massive flow of Russian immigrants to Israel in the past few years. If the aid were reduced or eliminated, a sharp reduction in government spending would be required. Sussman adds: "The $1.5 billion in emergency aid allocated to Israel in the mid-1980s was responsible for helping to stabilize the Israeli economy and stifle hyperinflation."6

In fact, American defense and aerospace firms reap substantial benefits from U.S. aid to Israel, for it guarantees them a $1.35 billion captive market each year. Out of $1.8 billion in grants, then, Israel receives about $450 million in cash that can be converted into Israeli currency and used either to purchase Israeli-made military products or develop weapons (such as the Arrow anti-missile system). Steven L. Spiegel, a professor at the University of California in Los Angeles, points out that Israel performs invaluable services by testing and developing weapon systems for the United States, improving American-made equipment, and providing crucial intelligence information.11 Moreover, Spiegel argues that Israel's use of American-made arms not only saves the United States money but earns it more: For example, after Israel's much advertised successes with U.S. weaponry in the 1969-70 War of Attrition and the 1982 war in Lebanon, U.S. arms sales worldwide in 1972-82 nearly tripled, from about $6.8 to $19.6 billion in constant 1982 dollars.12 And while of course it does not wish for wars to occur, the United States gains valuable information by seeing its arms perform against those of Israel's enemies, lessons that "cannot be purchased, developed, or simulated."13

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) issued a press release today stating his intention to introduce a resolution next week disapproving of the policy concerning Israel that President Barack Obama announced on Thursday.

Mr. Obama declared that the prevailing borders before the 1967 Arab-Israeli war — adjusted to some degree to account for Israeli settlements in the West Bank — should be the basis of a deal. While the 1967 borders have long been viewed as the foundation for a peace agreement, Mr. Obama’s formula of land swaps to compensate for disputed territory created a new benchmark for a diplomatic solution.

Perhaps one would need to consider the scenario of a surprise attack against Israel, such as the 1973 war, but fought within the 1967 borders.

"A democratically elected Hamas is still a terrorist organization."

Hamas has targeted and killed many civilians, and Israel's occupation has contributed to a violent political environment.

Steven A. Cook, a Middle East expert at the Council on Foreign Relations, started off the evening by acknowledging several facts, which he immediately said were entirely irrelevant. Yes, he said, Hamas was legitimately elected freely and fairly. Yes, Israel has illegally occupied the West Bank and, until recently, Gaza. Yes, Hamas has done much good with its social programs. But, he said, none of that matters. Hamas' central charter calls for the violent overthrow of Israel. Hamas continues to kill innocent civilians. The group must lay down its arms and renounce its violent charter. Until then, Cook said, Hamas can only be labeled a terrorist group.

Kurz: The United States and Israel—at Israel's initiative—have already developed a plan to gradually eliminate U.S. economic aid to Israel. There is an understanding that Israel's economy is doing better, its debt repayments (the justification for economic aid in the first place) are going down. If Israel had had its debt forgiven, as Egypt did, after the Gulf war, it wouldn't need economic aid at all. But that couldn't happen because of technical budgetary reasons; so instead of forgiving the debt, the United States is essentially giving Israel the money it needs to pay back its American loans. That will end in seven years. On the military side, it's anybody's guess. If the conflict ends tomorrow, if there is a real peace treaty with Syria, if Iran becomes a moderate force in the region, if Iraq no longer is a threat to Israel, if Israel is finally accepted as a permanent, legitimate state in the Middle East, then Israel will not need to spend huge sums of money for her defense and will no longer need U.S. help in doing so.

We give aid to Israel to maintain its security in a very tough region and a very important part of the world in order to advance critical U.S. interests. If that aid were reduced to a point that Israel couldn't buy the equipment it needs to defend itself and maintain the peace, that would be dangerous to us.

I do, but just as Israel's economy is doing much better, the military threats against her are much greater. Look at what's happening in the region: the nuclear threat, the missile threat, where they are coming from, the distances involved from rogue regimes like Iran and Iraq.

the country’s 1967 borders are not militarily defensible. But his use of this argum

Israel needs peace with the Palestinians, and that will likely require a return to the 1967 lines with a few adjustments. These borders can be made defensible if they come with a security package consisting of a joint Israeli-Palestinian security force along the West Bank’s border with Jordan, a demilitarized Palestinian state and a three-way Israeli-Jordanian-Palestinian defense treaty. Combined with such a package, the balanced formula President Obama outlined in his May 19 speech can give Israel the security it needs and deserves.

Obama and Netanyahu, meanwhile, appear to have reached an impasse after two and a half years of rocky relations. The Obama White House was angered when Netanyahu refused a U.S. demand to halt building Jewish settlements in the West Bank.

The brewing crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations dimmed even further the prospect for resuming peace talks that collapsed late last year when Palestinians walked away in a dispute over Israeli settlement building in the West Bank.

The Democratic president has quickly come under fire from Republican critics, who accuse him of betraying Israel, the closest U.S. ally in the region. Pushing Netanyahu could alienate U.S. supporters of Israel as Obama seeks re-election.

Finally, in the context of a discussion over classic conventional war, there is one further consequence to consider from a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines: after such a withdrawal the chances of war would actually increase, as Israel's ability to deter war would be eroded. A post-withdrawal Israel would offer a very tempting target, since it would be a narrow country with no strategic depth whose main population centers and strategic infrastructure would be within tactical range of forces deployed along the commanding heights of the West Bank. Whoever believes that war is impossible does not have to take this consideration into account; but all who think that it is possible, even if unlikely right now, must then understand that by returning to the 1967 lines, Israel increases the chances that such a scenario of renewed hostilities may actually materialize.