Quick book plug (don’t worry, I don’t get a dime if you buy the damn thing):
In the last election, Fiamma Nirenstein, an Italian journalist who lives part time in Jerusalem, became one of two Jewish candidates elected to the parliament. Nirenstein is recognized globally as a charismatic and articulate champion for Israel, and she undoubtedly played an important role in helping to cement its relationship with Italy. Berlusconi told me that he has enormous admiration for Nirenstein’s contribution as a legislator to Italian politics. She has just written an inspiring book promoting the case for Israel which was published in English translation by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. (Jerusalem Post)
Marc Di Martino 
a concise opinion from a respected center left voice in the US about why leaving the West Bank is in Israel’s best interest:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2009/06/doing_israel_no_favors.php?ref=fpb
I’ll be getting this book for sure 🙂
And to BARNEY:
It is NOT in Israel’s ‘best interest’ to surrender yet ANOTHER bit of land that we have a history with and connection to. Israel = 0.1% of the Middle East. And by the time America and the Arabs have finished carving her up, she’ll be the size of a postage stamp!
One question that nobody ever answers: if Jews are to be removed from all the areas claimed by Palestinians (Gaza, Judea, Samaria) then does that mean all Palestinians will be removed from all Jewish areas…?
No?
Double standard, anyone…?
Over the last thousands of years many peoples have had a history and connection to the lands in question, that does not make any or all of them inherently entitled to the land (unless one is making a claim based on religious tradition, in which case, get in line, and don’t pretend to be making a rational argument).
Israel is the size of a postage stamp, and as a matter of law it’s territory does not include the occupied territories. Negotiations focusing on territory acquired in 1967 is not relevant to “carving up,” as the territory is not a part of Israel. Far from carving up Israel, Israel would not exist without the US (and Britain and the UN). If your argument is assuming that the state of Israel formally includes the territories, then again, don’t pretend to be having a discussion originating in consensus reality.
The question you pose is a narrow one: who should be removed from where. Double standards abound (there wouldn’t be the contentious issue about the “right of return” if Palestinians hadn’t been removed from Jewish areas). The broader question the linked opinion is addressing is, how does Israel best secure its future (with particular attention being paid to remaining both Jewish and democratic), and even more broadly, how do all the people living in the region live with one another?
You have several mixed up arguments here, each weakening the other, relating to historical connection, size, and pointing out selected double standards. At base though the tone of these is simplistic and tautological– I want what I want because I want it– ie, this is a pure power argument.
If you have a pure power argument, just make it, don’t pretend to be reasonable. Don’t dress it up with half baked appeals to history, strategy, or logic. If you think Israel’s best bet at survival is as an expansionistic, militaristic, and authoritarian state with a permanently oppressed underclass, just say it.
Reasonable people disagree.