I live in one of those "communities just over the armistice line" - which is also a "tiny outpost deep among the Arabs".

Have you ever visited here?
Toured the WestBank/Judea-Samaria?

There is no such distinction. And the number 1 error made even by friends of Israel is to overestimate the size of the territory under dispute.

Israel fought in 1967 because of terror raids and missile attacks from the hills into the coastal plain.

After 40-odd years of peace/piece-making, I assure you that the mountains are exactly where they were back then. Only 2 things have changed:

- Israel's expanding population is now pushed right up against the 1949 armistice line. If you come to visit, the airport you land in - just a few miles from the "Green Line" - is now engulfed by the Tel-Aviv metro area.

- missile technology has improved greatly.

(Ignoring for a moment the fact that Israel itself is delegitimized by those hostile to her as a "tiny outpost deep among the Arabs"... )

...the vast majority of "tiny outposts" are in strategic locations.

A good example was the handful of settlements in northern Samaria which were destroyed together with Gaza.

These "outposts" were on the very crest of the central mountain range, with *commanding* views of the entire coastal plain. On a clear day you could see from the Galilee basin to Jerusalem, and almost all of pre-67 Israel.

It's not Texas, folks.

Many of the new "illegal outposts" have sprung up on the remains of army bases abandoned during Oslo - whose locations were originally selected for their strategic value.

My "settlement" is just 12 miles over the armistice line - on the first low mountains of the central range (it's called Peduel).

We can see the individual skyscrapers of downtown Tel-Aviv, and the landing strips of Ben-Gurion airport at night.

These are the hills from which Israel was attacked before 1967. They haven't gone anywhere. Neither have those wishing to attack us from these locations.

Any security-driven annexation of West Bank territory will include the west-facing side of the central mountain range - where the "outpost" of Tapuach is now, and where Homesh used to be.

In addition, it will include a strip along the Jordan river.

Look at a map. That doesn't leave much.

It's not Texas.

People don't look at maps apparently. If they did, especially from the perspective of the Arab League states vs Israel, it might change their point of view.

http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/asia/arableag.htm

The size of the West Bank itself is 2270 sq. miles.

For purposes of comparison Cook County IL is 1635 sq miles. Osage County OK is 2304 sq. miles. The West Bank is bigger than Cook County but smaller than Osage County.

Texas, on the other hand, is 268,601 sq. miles.

Israel itself is 8,000 sq. miles. The Arab League, 6145389 sq. miles.

Now - one can't quantify the emotional value of a home or a homeland. One can't quantify suffering, either that of Palestinians or Israelis or Arabs or Jews.

But, we can use some common sense. We can try to share resources equitably and peacefully, in ways that don't victimize nations or ethnic/religious groups or individuals.

Where there are shortages of water, let's figure out ways to desalinize or transport water. If there are shortages of housing - let's build some. If we don't have food - let's grown some.

If people lack basic rights - let's see to it that their rights are protected and their honor respected. In exchange, let us ask that we be allowed to live.

We don't have to wage endless war over a postage stamp.

Right?

Some further thoughts on land use, including some aggravating political factors:

* On the West Bank: it is not only very small but poor in resources, especially water. People there are still living in "refugee camps".

I worry that the idea of "returning" millions of refugees to the West Bank is absurd. In fact, the largest land area in Israel is the Negev Desert. Thus far it hasn't even been agreed that millions of Palestinian Arabs won't be "returned" to Israel itself.

Aggravating this problem further is Jordanian citizenship policy concerning both Palestinians and Jews.

As to land usage:

Cook County IL only supports the population it does because it has a highly developed economic infrastructure AND because it sits near a huge body of fresh water, in rich farmland linked by rail, highway, ship and air to the great peaceful world around it.

Even so, there are large numbers of very poor people trapped in violent neighborhoods and the city and county's resources are overtaxed. So even with all the blessings of water, infrastructure, farmland and connections to the rest of America, Cook County and northwest Indiana suffer major economic and social problems.

What can we expect of the West Bank, especially if it's isolated between Israel and Jordan, and including the often violent polarities within the Palestinian community?

I am really worried that the whole premise of the argument is faulty and that we need to think harder about solutions for the problems confronting stateless Palestinians.

In principle I agree with "the two state solution" but don't see how it will work in fact, I don't think it is enough for the numbers of people involved and this would be in peaceful times.

Also, the idea of deliberately "cleansing" Jews/Israelis from Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem is despicable to me.

If it's wrong in Bosnia or the Sudan why is it right in this case?

On Jordan:

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/06/jordan-taking-away-citizenship-rights.html

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/07/jordans-identity-crisis.html

http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-jews-cannot-become-citizens-of.html