Two-and-a-half years ago, I returned to the Prime Minister’s Office.  One of the principal and most complicated missions that I found on my desk, and which I set my heart to, was to bring our abducted soldier Gilad Shalit back home, alive and well.  Today, that mission has been completed.

It entailed a very difficult decision.  I saw the need to return home someone whom the State of Israel had sent to the battlefield.  As an IDF soldier and commander, I went out on dangerous missions many times.  But I always knew that if I or one of my comrades fell captive, the Government of Israel would do its utmost to return us home, and as Prime Minister, I have now carried this out.  As a leader who daily sends out soldiers to defend Israeli citizens, I believe that mutual responsibility is no mere slogan – it is a cornerstone of our existence here.

But I also see an additional need, that of minimizing the danger to the security of Israel’s citizens.  To this end, I enunciated two clear demands.  First, that senior Hamas leaders, including arch-murderers, remain in prison.  Second, that the overwhelming majority of those designated for release either be expelled or remain outside Judea and Samaria, in order to impede their ability to attack our citizens.

For years, Hamas strongly opposed these demands.  But several months ago, we received clear signs that it was prepared to back down from this opposition.  Tough negotiations were carried out, night and day, in Cairo, with the mediation of the Egyptian government.  We stood our ground, and when our main demands were met – I had to make a decision.

I know very well that the pain of the families of the victims of terrorism is too heavy to bear.  It is difficult to see the miscreants who murdered their loved ones being released before serving out their full sentences.  But I also knew that in the current diplomatic circumstances, this was the best agreement we could achieve, and there was no guarantee that the conditions which enabled it to be achieved would hold in the future.  It could be that Gilad would disappear; to my regret, such things have already happened.

I thought of Gilad and the five years that he spent rotting away in a Hamas cell.  I did not want his fate to be that of Ron Arad.  Ron fell captive exactly 25 years ago and has yet to return.  I remembered the noble Batya Arad.  I remembered her concern for her son Ron, right up until her passing.  At such moments, a leader finds himself alone and must make a decision.  I considered – and I decided.  Government ministers supported me by a large majority.

And today, now Gilad has returned home, to his family, his people and his country.  This is a very moving moment.  A short time ago, I embraced him as he came off the helicopter and escorted him to his parents, Aviva and Noam, and I said, ‘I have brought your son back home.’  But this is also a hard day; even if the price had been smaller, it would still have been heavy.

I would like to make it clear: We will continue to fight terrorism.  Any released terrorist who returns to terrorism – his blood is upon his head.  The State of Israel is different from its enemies: Here, we do not celebrate the release of murderers.  Here, we do not applaud those who took life.  On the contrary, we believe in the sanctity of life.  We sanctify life.  This is the ancient tradition of the Jewish People.

Citizens of Israel, in recent days, we have all seen national unity such as we have not seen in a long time.  Unity is the source of Israel’s strength, now and in the future.  Today, we all rejoice in Gilad Shalit’s return home to our free country, the State of Israel.  Tomorrow evening, we will celebrate Simchat Torah.  This coming Sabbath, we will read in synagogues, as the weekly portion from the prophets, the words of the prophet Isaiah (42:7): ‘To bring out the prisoners from the dungeon, and them that sit in darkness out of the prison-house.’  Today, I can say, on behalf of all Israelis, in the spirit of the eternal values of the Jewish People: ‘Your children shall return to their own border [Jeremiah 31:17].’  Am Yisrael Chai! [The People of Israel live!].

Related posts:

1. Government Approves Agreement For Release Of Gilad Shalit Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "This is a difficult decision...
2. NYC Council Speaker Christine Quinn Proclaims September 7th “Gilad Shalit Day” "When we stand for what is right, we stand united,”...
3. America’s U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice Meets with Noam Shalit Said the American Ambassador to the United Nations "I expressed...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

It is unconscionable that a Jew would harm something that is holy to another religion. This act is not-Jewish, illegal, immoral, and brings upon us heavy shame. I strongly condemn this horrible act in every language. This is not only a difficult day for the residents of Tuba-Zangariyye, it is a difficult day for all Israeli society. As the President of Israel, during these days of introspection between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur, I call upon all to denounce these terrible acts.  These acts, destroy relations between us and our neighbors, and between the various religions in Israel.

We will not allow extremists and criminals to undercut the need to live together equally in equality and mutual respect. Arabs and Jews as one. I am sure that the Israeli police and security forces will apprehend these criminals and bring them to justice.

We must all stand behind them in an effort to preserve human dignity and respect for the law.”

* * *

(Communicated by the Prime Minister’s Media Adviser)
Earlier today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu this morning instructed ISA Director Yoram Cohen to quickly find those responsible for the arson at the mosque in the lower Galilee town of Tuba-Zangariyye.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, who was outraged by the images, said that this crime contravenes the values of the State of Israel, in which freedom of religion and freedom of worship are supreme values. “The images are shocking and have no place in the State of Israel,” the Prime Minister said.

Like

Unlike

Related posts:

1. Following Grisly Terror Attack, a Look at Palestinian Incitement Terrorists are given an honored status and become models for...
2. Prime Minister Netanyahyu Responds to Terror Attack in Jerusalem "They are trying to test our resolve and the fortitude...
3. U.S. Condemns Tel Aviv Nightclub Attack Early Monday morning, a 21 year old Palestinian man from...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Iran’s president once again, as in his previous appearances in New York and elsewhere, brought a message of hostility towards the family of nations as well as threats to global peace and security.

This should come as no surprise. Less than two weeks ago Ahmadinejad – so cordially hosted today by the UN  – reiterated his hollow assertion that the terror attack of 9/11 was a western plot, a decade after more than 3,000 innocent people lost their lives. He has reiterated this infamy today, facing the Nations.

Iran’s disdain for the international community is clear, and is exemplified by its continued serial disregard for six Security Resolutions calling on it to cease its nuclear and missile programs – as well as its arms transfers to terrorists.  For the past 10 years Tehran has defied the insistence of the International Atomic Energy Agency to come clean about its military nuclear program. Its meddling in the internal affairs of countries near and far flies in the face of respect for territorial sovereignty. A chronic violator of human rights, its cynical attempt to be elected to bodies established to fight human rights violations of all kinds is by now well known. For these reasons alone the international community should not have dignified the Iranian president with this platform to speak.

Tehran’s hostility for the Jewish state and people is also plain for all to see. Iranian leaders repeatedly call for Israel’s destruction, deny the Holocaust, and openly support terrorist organizations in word and deed – as demonstrated by its involvement in the 1994 bombing in Buenos Aires of the AMIA Jewish community center, a tragedy which still cries out for justice to be done.

Related posts:

1. Israel Responds to President Obama’s Mideast Speech Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that...
2. In Speech, Netanyahu Affirms Israel’s Desire for “Egypt to Succeed in its Quest for Genuine and Lasting Democracy” American and European leaders want an Egypt that is free,...
3. Speech by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to a Joint Meeting of the United States Congress I recognize that in a genuine peace, we will be...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

On a hilltop at the entrance to Jerusalem, overlooking a timeless view, stands the Middle East’s only memorial to the victims of 9/11. Forged in bronze and set in Jerusalem stone are the names of the 2,974 victims of the terrorist attack.

A 30-foot sculpture of an American flag transforming into flames evokes the twin towers. Side by side, the Stars and Stripes and the Shield of David flutter. The monument, built with American contributions to the Jewish National Fund and incorporating granite segments of the World Trade Center, stands as a testament to the shared pain — and common hope — of the United States and Israel.

As an Israeli who grew up in the United States, I feel that connection deeply. The twin towers dominated the skyline of my suburban hometown. They were a fixture of our lives, beacons of a resplendent future. My memory of that vision remained luminous throughout the grim summer of 2001, when suicide bombers targeted buses and restaurants in my Jerusalem neighborhood. Our son, Yoav, about to enter the Israel Defense Forces, refused to give up his normal life as a teenager and to stop going out to clubs. Which left his father sleepless.

“That’s it,” I finally told him. “Until your induction, you’re staying with your cousins in New York.”

On September 8, Yoav met his friends on the top the north tower. Dazzled by the vista, they agreed to rendezvous there again on the morning of the 11th. Yoav was still sleeping, fortunately, when his cousin awakened him with the news. From the roof of her apartment, he watched as both towers collapsed. My wife and I frantically tried to phone him, but the international lines were down. Hours passed before we finally reached him, weeping from the horror he had witnessed.

America’s agony was intensely felt by Israelis. Though we had long known the trauma wrought by terror and had grappled with its grief, the 9/11 attacks were unique in their scope and devastation. We watched, helpless, as the survivors staggered from the smoke and as families searched desperately for their loved ones. Yet we were also awed by the sheer heroism of the first responders, especially those who risked and even gave their lives to save others.

Volunteers poured into the streets of Lower Manhattan, offering food, shelter and emotional support in a display of community that inspired every Israeli. This, for us, was not only America at its most vulnerable, but also America at its most resilient and humane.

Yoav soon returned from New York and joined an elite IDF unit. Three years to the day after he visited the north tower, he was wounded while apprehending a Hamas commander responsible for the deaths of dozens of Israelis. And yet, despite encounters with terror on both sides of the ocean, Yoav remained optimistic. While aware of the need to defend his country from mounting threats, he still believes that peace is possible, and he yearns to embrace it. He is not alone. Today,10 years after 9/11, Americans and Israelis refuse to allow terror to diminish their determination to defend themselves or extinguish their desire for peace.

Together we are fighting back, pooling our technology and intelligence and medical know-how. For that reason, Israelis applauded the intrepid operation against Osama bin Laden — Hamas denounced it — and the successful campaign to eliminate Al Qaeda’s leadership. And together we are striving to create a more stable Middle East. Accordingly, Israel welcomes President Obama’s efforts to restart our direct talks with the Palestinians. We share his vision of a Palestinian state living alongside our Jewish state in mutual recognition, security and peace.

Throughout, we will not forget. We will remember the victims’ pain and their families’ irretrievable losses. On the anniversary of the horrendous attack, Israelis will stand with the people of America and lower our heads in silence. A great many will gather at the monument outside Jerusalem, and others at the ground zero memorial, “Reflecting Absence.” Fittingly, this solemn masterpiece was designed by Israeli architect Michael Arad, a veteran of an IDF commando squad and son of a former Israeli ambassador to the United States. Two countries, two memorials, inextricably linked by the same sorrows, strengths and hopes.

Michael Oren is Israel’s ambassador to the United States.

Related posts:

1. Israel Joins World in Shock Over Oslo Terror Attacks President Shimon Peres sent a special condolence letter to the...
2. Ambassador Oren: “Preserving peace is a paramount interest for the peoples of Israel, Egypt and the region” On Sunday, February 20th, Israel’s Ambassador to the United States,...
3. Ambassador Oren on Israel as “The Ultimate Ally” in Foreign Policy Magazine Israel may be one of a handful of countries that...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

By Uri Resnick

Against the backdrop of a possible Palestinian bid for independence at the United Nations this September and thus far unsuccessful deliberations within the Quartet regarding terms of reference for restarting peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, the issue of defensible borders merits renewed attention.

Former foreign minister Yigal Allon was one of the clearest and most authoritative exponents of the case for Israel’s need for defensible borders. In an October 1976 article in Foreign Affairs, Allon noted that whereas Israel’s rivals seek to “isolate, strangle and erase Israel from the world’s map,” Israel’s strategic aims have been focused on its “imperative to survive.”

Thus, even if peace agreements are reached, border and security arrangements must ensure Israel’s ability to defend itself in the event that such agreements are breached. As the recent upheavals in the Middle East have clearly demonstrated, this guiding principle has not lost its salience.

Allon contended with a number of claims raised to counter Israel’s argument for defensible borders. Then, as now, technological advances such as missile technology were pointed to as obviating the need for strategic depth and topographical assets. Then, as now, international guarantees were pointed to as constituting a satisfactory substitute for physical control of defensible ground.

Then, as now, such arguments did not coincide with anecdotal experience, drawn, as noted by Allon, from historical cases such as the German air ‘blitz’ against Great Britain, or the American air-strikes against North Vietnam, which demonstrated the limitations of air-launched attacks and continuing importance of having “boots on the ground.”

Then, as now, such arguments failed to account for the resounding failure of international guarantees to ensure Israel’s security, as evidenced, for example, in UNEF’s withdrawal from Sinai in May 1967.

Yet even beyond cases such as these, today we have the benefit of quantitative research which has shed a great deal of light on numerous international relations phenomena.

Two research findings are of particular relevance in this regard: the strong correlation between extant territorial claims and violent international conflict and the positive association between conflict durability and insurgents’ access to an international boundary.

The first indicates Israel has considerable grounds to expect security threats to persist, even subsequent to an agreement, as long as substantial Palestinian territorial claims to pre-1967 Israel persist. Thus, the fundamental source of potential conflict – the willingness – will in all likelihood continue.

The second underscores the fact that access to an international border would provide Palestinian militants with the opportunity to continue – and expand – violent activities against Israel. As many scholars and observers of international relations have long understood, a conjunction of willingness and opportunity is an almost certain formula for violent international conflict.

Thus, forcing Israel into indefensible borders, such as those of June 4, 1967, is unlikely to lead to a stable regional order.

On the contrary, insofar as comparative, empirical research can serve as a guide, relinquishing an Israeli presence along some of the borders of a Palestinian state will severely diminish the chances of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and will probably exacerbate it. A cursory glance at developments in Gaza since Israel relinquished control of the Gaza-Sinai border in 2005 provides a rather stark confirmation of this basic observation.

Territorial claims and conflict Over the past several decades, a very large, empirical literature has emerged which demonstrates the key role of territorial claims as a source of international conflict. Numerous studies, employing different research designs, varied spatial and temporal domains and independently conceived theoretical frameworks, have produced robust findings pointing in essentially the same direction, permitting a very decisive conclusion: territorial revisionism leads to violent international conflict.

The particular value of this body of research is that the above conclusion has retained its validity, notwithstanding the numerous controls that have been imposed in different studies over the years.

Irrespective of whether or not rivals sign treaties or commence their relations violently or peacefully, notwithstanding the variance in rivals’ cultural and historical background, or configuration of relative power, regardless of the rivals’ institutional structure (democratic or not) and level of economic development and taking into account the numerous other caveats that have been explored in the literature, the basic finding remains intact.

While different factors have been shown to exert a mitigating effect on conflict, none appears capable of entirely vitiating the basic association between territorial revisionism and war.

While it may appear trivial in some sense, the finding actually bears non-trivial policy implications. What it says, in effect, is that in instances where territorial claims cannot realistically be resolved, either through a negotiated or non-negotiated redistribution of land, violent conflict is likely to persist. This remains true, in particular, whether or not a formal treaty is signed between rivals. Indeed, empirical work on treaties has largely shown that while they are not mere “scraps of paper,” in the words of one of the prominent scholars in this field, they don’t generally appear to be capable of resolving disputed issues. At best, they may be able to manage them, primarily by affecting the incentives and degree of uncertainty facing potential rivals.

The ramifications in the Israeli- Palestinian context should be clear, with regard to what can be realistically expected from a political settlement, at least at the present time. There can be no doubt that political forces such as Hamas and numerous fundamentalist affiliates would continue to harbor territorial claims regarding the pre-1967 territory of Israel, even were a peace treaty to be signed between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

The problem is further underscored by the positions of the Palestinian Authority.

Its refusal to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, its objections to formulas such as “two states for two peoples” and its continuing commitment to the idea of having descendants of Palestinian refugees settle in Israel with the explicit goal of gaining demographic, and eventually political, control within it, reflect an ongoing nurturing of ultimately territorial demands for pre-1967 Israel. The extent to which Palestinian schools and popular culture venerate the idea of a “right of return,” and the consistency with which Palestinian leaders affirm support of it, reflect a firm commitment within a broad Palestinian constituency to these ethnically-based territorial claims.

Might the Palestinian Authority disclaim these positions in the context of future negotiations? Perhaps, though it has revealed no indication of willingness to do so in eighteen years of talks. Recent revelations of internal, classified documents pertaining to Palestinian negotiating positions during the past decade, including on the question of refugees, have been extremely edifying in this regard, illustrating the very tangible, concrete nature of the Palestinian Authority’s ambitions with regard to the refugee question.

Commissioning classified demographic studies that explored alternative scenarios for the influx of hundreds of thousands and potentially millions of Palestinians into Israel over a number of years, while contemplating the open-ended negotiation of additional migrations, presumably into perpetuity, these documents reveal a calculated, remarkably matter-of-fact vision for using the refugee issue as a means of acquiring demographic (and ultimately political) control of Israel.

Yet, even if the Palestinian leadership were to renounce their call for “return,” would such a renunciation resonate with popular sentiments among Palestinians, sentiments that have been meticulously cultivated over decades? It seems unlikely.

Would it reflect the views of millions of Palestinians kept in “refugee” status in neighboring states since 1948? It seems rather whimsical to suppose that it might.

A sober analysis cannot but lead to the conclusion that very significant followings within Palestinian public opinion will continue to harbor territorial claims with respect to pre-1967 Israel, even subsequent to a possible Israeli-Palestinian agreement.

The empirical literature on territorial claims – particularly those with an ethnic component – presents us, in turn, with the unfortunate conclusion that such claims can be expected to continue fueling violent conflict.

Such conclusions are sometimes erroneously taken to imply a sense of determinism or inevitability as to the likely trajectory of the conflict. This is not, however, the case. Territorial claims to pre- 1967 Israel and tolerance for violence can be expected to persist in Palestinian society at least partly because they have been, and continue to be, deliberately cultivated by Palestinian elites, as has been extensively documented by organizations that monitor Palestinian society and media.

Just as such motifs have been promoted over the years, so too can others, including those which may ultimately assist in fostering a culture of tolerance, territorial compromise and rejection of violence.

The continuing salience of borders as a component of security As argued above, there is little reason to doubt that significant Palestinian territorial revisionism will persist, with its attendant potential for violence, whatever political arrangement emerges between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. A question may nevertheless be posed as to whether the location and topographical features of Israel’s borders will play a significant role in determining its security in such a context.

Here too, as in the case of territorial claims, the theoretical and empirical literature is able to shed some light. It has long been argued by globalization theorists that geographical boundaries have been losing significance in the international arena. This trend is typically noted to be related to processes of transnational economic integration, alongside tremendous advances in communication and transportation technologies.

The value of territory as a military asset has also been argued to be diminishing, inter alia, due to advances in missile and intelligence-gathering technologies. The significant decline in large-scale inter-state war in recent decades appears to corroborate this view.

Yet, as noted by some scholars, borders do not generally seem to be losing in importance so much as changing their role.

As Peter Andreas phrased it in his 2003 article in International Security: “In many cases, more intensive border law enforcement is accompanying the demilitarization and economic liberalization of borders.”

The struggle against ‘clandestine transnational actors’ (CTAs), whether they come in the guise of organized crime or terrorist organizations, is becoming a growing concern for states concerned with safeguarding their borders against the infiltration of narcotics, weapons or illegal migrants. The post-9/11 focus on homeland security is symptomatic of this general trend.

It is, therefore, not surprising that in recent empirical work on the subject of geography and rebel capability, covering civil conflict duration across the globe for much of the post-WWII period, it has been shown that “conflicts where rebels have access to an international border are twice as durable as other conflicts” (Halvard Buhaug, Scott Gates and Päivi Lujala [August 2009] “Geography, Rebel Capability, and the Duration of Civil Conflict.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 53(4): 544-569).

The reasons are clear: such access serves as a life-line for the supply of weapons, funds, personnel, training, and, if need be, a safe haven, all of which can significantly enhance the relative capabilities of the insurgents and thus underpin protracted conflict.

COUPLED WITH the inherent instability of the Middle East, vividly underscored in recent months, a realistic appraisal of Israel’s geopolitical situation behooves caution. In such circumstances, the importance of maintaining defensible borders is all the more plain, notwithstanding the general global trend towards a reduction in large-scale interstate war. Once again, empirical research is instructive in this regard: where territorial revisionism persists, so too does war.

Some have argued that international guarantees and UN peacekeeping troops can serve as a substitute for direct border control by a concerned state. While findings have been reported revealing such measures to be capable of mitigating conflict, it has yet to be shown that they can decisively end it, where significant territorial claims persist.

Tellingly, “identity” conflicts – those involving religious and ethnic aspects – prove significantly less susceptible to the irenic effects which treaties and international involvement may otherwise display. Also, multi-national troop deployments prove especially ineffective against groups determined to funnel illicit goods across a poorly secured boundary.

This general observation gains very clear, specific expression in the Israeli-Arab arena.

Hezbollah, with unhindered access to the Lebanese-Syrian border, has for years enjoyed a massive influx of missiles and other weaponry, supplied by Iran and Syria.

Notwithstanding the efforts of an enhanced UNIFIL since 2006, Hezbollah has succeeded in increasing its arsenal to over 40,000 rockets, distributed throughout some 270 south Lebanese villages. The threat thereby posed to Israel, demonstrated as recently as 2006, when over 4,000 rockets were fired on densely populated areas in Israel, can scarcely be questioned.

Hamas has similarly benefited from the fact that Israel no longer controls the border between Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula, transferring many thousands of rockets, mortars and other weaponry through tunnels burrowed under the border.

Whereas the IDF presence on the Philadelphi Route in the 1967-2005 period could not prevent all weapons-smuggling efforts, the sheer magnitude of the weapons-smuggling operations since 2005, in terms of both quantity and quality of the armaments, belies any notion that control of the boundary has no military significance. The more than 9000 rockets and mortars that have struck Israeli territory since 2000 similarly illustrate the very tangible security threat thereby presented.

Moreover, the pattern of rocket and mortar fire serves to illustrate the key role of border control. As documented in a March 2011 study by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Center, in the five years subsequent to the Israeli withdrawal, the number of rockets and mortars that struck Israel increased by more than 150% to 6,535 compared with the 2,535 in the five year period prior to the withdrawal.

Tellingly, whereas rockets, which are relatively sophisticated and effective, made up only 26% of fired projectiles in the earlier period, they accounted for 73% in the later period, reflecting the enhanced smuggling capacity of Hamas following the Israeli withdrawal.

THUS, TO prevent the emergence of a heavily armed, hostile Palestinian state dominating Israel’s 15 kilometer wide heartland – precisely as has transpired pursuant to Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza and relinquishing of control over Gaza’s southern boundary – Israel will have to maintain a perimeter presence along the borders of a Palestinian state. This implies a continuing Israeli presence on the eastern boundary, that is, along the Jordan Valley.

The viability of a Palestinian state Contrary to certain claims, maintaining an Israeli presence along the Jordan Valley is entirely compatible with the establishment of a contiguous, viable Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria.

According to Palestinian statistics, based on a 2007 census, approximately 10,000 Palestinians reside in those parts of the Jordan Valley that were not already passed over to Palestinian civilian control under the Oslo Accords. This amounts to less than a half of a percent of the Palestinian population of Judea and Samaria, as documented by the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics. Moreover, the area lies exclusively to the east of the main Palestinian population centers, such that its omission would not interfere with the contiguity of a Palestinian state. Thus, excluding the Jordan Valley from the territory of a Palestinian state would have negligible demographic implications. By contrast, as argued above, the security implications would be weighty indeed, and probably critical with respect to the durability of a two-state arrangement.

The stated Palestinian position is clearly incompatible with such a territorial division. Palestinian claims to the Jordan Valley form part of their claims to Judea and Samaria in its entirety, claims which compete with those of Israel to the same territory. Reflecting an appreciation for these conflicting claims, the terms of reference of the peace process, as expressed in the Oslo Accords as well as relevant United Nations resolutions, from Security Council Resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008), have consistently required that the borders, along with other disputed issues, be agreed upon between the parties. A priori rejection of the possibility that Israel will retain a presence in the Jordan Valley in a final status settlement is flatly inconsistent with the principle of mutual agreement and negotiations, which has underpinned every peace breakthrough thus far achieved between Israel and its neighbors.

Thus, Palestinian opposition to a territorial division that would leave an Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley should not be confused with a claim as to its inherent infeasibility. Not only is such a division consistent with the implementation of a two-state solution, there are strong grounds, based on an analysis of the security reality which can be expected to emerge, suggesting the necessity of such a solution.

THIS ANALYSIS does not imply that a stable, two-state solution to the Israeli- Palestinian conflict cannot be achieved. It simply underscores what such a solution would have to look like if it were to be genuinely stable. Contrary to views which regard the 1967 boundary as a sine-quanon for such a solution, empirical research suggests that a relinquishment by Israel of perimeter control of Judea and Samaria would be highly destabilizing.

Such findings belie the idea that the mere presence of a signed agreement, or peacekeeping deployment, would obviate the need for Israel to retain tangible strategic assets as a component of its national security. Whereas this is a conclusion many observers of the conflict have intuitively understood for some time, today we have the benefit of quantitative empirical findings which serve to corroborate it.

The writer serves as policy adviser to the minister of foreign affairs and lectures on game theory and territorial conflict at the Herzliya Interdisciplinary Center.

Related posts:

1. Israel Responds to President Obama’s Mideast Speech Israel appreciates President Obama’s commitment to peace. Israel believes that...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

Related posts:

1. Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Meets with UN High Commissioner for Human Rights in Jerusalem Said Deputy FM Danny Ayalon, "The Council is damaging the...
2. President Peres Meets with Visiting Members of Congress Said Peres, "We never forget your bipartisan support of Israel...
3. Israel Welcomes New U.S. Ambassador Said Ambassador Shapiro (in perfect Hebrew) ""Thank you for the...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

During yesterday’s daily press briefing, the U.S. State Department Spokesperson Victoria Nuland issued the following statement:

“The United States condemns in strongest terms yesterday’s brutal attack on innocent civilians in Tel Aviv. We extend our deepest sympathies to all those harmed in this tragedy. Attacks against innocent civilians in Israel or anywhere else are never justified. We again remind all parties that violence will not advance but will impede the hope for peace between Israelis and Palestinians.”

Like

Unlike

Related posts:

1. World Condemns Terror Attack That Left Five Family Members – Mother, Father, and Three Children – Dead In the evening hours of Friday, March 11th, Udi Fogel,...
2. BREAKING NEWS: Coordinated Terrorist Attacks in Eilat Terror attacks targeted a passenger bus, a military patrol and...
3. Following Grisly Terror Attack, a Look at Palestinian Incitement Terrorists are given an honored status and become models for...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The Erez Crossing, despite being hit by 2 rockets,  remained open to allow 100 Palestinians living in Gaza to enter Israel to receive medical treatment. At the Kerem Shalom crossing, 80 truckloads entered Gaza over the weekend, totaling 2,554 tons of goods, and 46 tons of cooking gas.

Here’s the breakdown:

• 13 truckloads of Fruits and Vegetables.
• 5 truckloads of Meat and Fish.
• 3 truckloads of Dairy Products
• 23 truckloads of Mixed Grain for animals feed.
• 9 truckloads of mixed food.
• UNRWA transferred 21 truckloads of construction materials and 6 truckloads of flour.

Related posts:

1. Hours After Gaza Rocket Hits Schoolbus in Israel, “Iron Dome” Makes Historic Achievement Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that "Iron Dome" intercepted two projectiles...
2. One Killed and Scores Wounded in Rocket Barrages on Southern Israel On Saturday, August 20th, over 60 rockets and mortars were...
3. Middle East Quartet Denounces Additional Flotillas The Middle East Quartet released a statement noting that efforts...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

The following statement was issued by the Middle East Quartet (United Nations, Russian Federation, United States, and European Union):

“The Quartet condemns the attacks in southern Israel on 18 August, 2011 and all acts of terrorism in the strongest terms. These are cowardly acts of premeditated terrorism. The Quartet hopes those involved in the planning and conduct of these gruesome attacks will quickly be brought to justice.

“The Quartet remains concerned about the unsustainable situation in Gaza as well as the risk of escalation, and calls for restraint from all sides. The Quartet also expresses its concern about the security situation in the Sinai Peninsula. Recent commitments by the Egyptian Government to address the security situation in the Sinai are important, and the Quartet encourages the Egyptian Government to find a lasting resolution to the issue of Sinai security.

“The Quartet extends its deepest condolences to the victims, their families and loved ones.”

Related posts:

1. BREAKING NEWS: Coordinated Terrorist Attacks in Eilat Terror attacks targeted a passenger bus, a military patrol and...
2. Middle East Quartet Denounces Additional Flotillas The Middle East Quartet released a statement noting that efforts...
3. One Killed and Scores Wounded in Rocket Barrages on Southern Israel On Saturday, August 20th, over 60 rockets and mortars were...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This barrage of rockets follows a coordinated attack on Israel that claimed the lives of eight citizens and wounded 30 more.

The names of the casualties have been released (click on their names to read about their lives as Israeli citizens):

• St-Sgt Moshe Naftali, 22
• Chief Warrant Officer Pascal Avrahami,  49-year old father of three
• Flora Gez and her husband Moshe Gez, as well as Flora’s sister Shula Karlinsky and her husband Dov Karlinsky
• Yosef Levy, 57
• Yitzhak Sela, 56

Since Thursday’s attack, over 100 rockets were fired at Israel.  For a timeline of events, click here.

Related posts:

1. Hours After Gaza Rocket Hits Schoolbus in Israel, “Iron Dome” Makes Historic Achievement Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that "Iron Dome" intercepted two projectiles...
2. Update on Terror Attacks in the South and Israel’s Response Over the last two days, Israel has been hitting back...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.