They are quite capable of making formal complaints to the UN about Israel. But if they are independent of Israel, then that fondness for formal declarations has only one move. That, and the fact that they’ve whipped their population into an anti-Semitic frenzy, they know that if they don’t make that declaration, their own lives are at stake.

So, that’s why I say that it’s just as rational for them, more so, to declare war than to not.

The only way I can see your scenario happening is if they back away from their independence declaration.

So we have two different speculations on what would happen. It’s up to history now. We’ve called it both ways.

@ ETAB: As previously mentioned, most settlements are within 5 miles of the “Green Line,” as most of the population uses WB settlements as bedroom communities for Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Yes there are several settlements that are further out inside the West Bank, but these are generally smaller. Those who live there tend to be ultra-religious, who do consider Samaria/Judea to be part of Israel proper. But this is a minority in the population. The majority of Israelis understand that the WB is not part of Israel, and that it will eventually be ceded.

The general consensus on how a final peace agreement will look has already been established: Israel retains 5-9% of the West Bank (land near the Green Line where the major settlements are) and compensates the Palestinians by ceding an equivalent amount of land from Israel proper (either Arab-heavy portions just north of the WB or land from the Negev in the south). The outpost settlements which lie deeper inside WB will have to be abandonded. There is precedent of this occurring, when Israel dismantled settlements within Siani when it established peace with Egypt, when it dismantled settlements in Gaza when it pulled out, and in Ehud Barak’s 2000 negotiation offer to Arafat. A remaining sticking point is the status of Jerusalem. But even here, if true peace is at hand, most would likely agree to ceding a small portion of Jerusalem and “custodianship” of the Temple mount, as Ehud Barak offered Arafat in 2000 (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_David_Summit )

Of course, dismantling settlements within WB and ceding even an inch of Jerusalem would be tremendously traumatic, but most understand that, if true peace is at hand, it’s worth it. However, given the belligerence and unwillingness to compromise on the part of the Palestinians, there is little impetus to put this plan in motion. Israelis geneally state that they are ready and willing to make the above compromises, if and when there is a true partner for peace on the side.

P.S. Insofar as the 1948 Palestinian refugees, they’d be monetarily compensated… just as soon as the 1948-1952 Jewish refugees were compensated by the Arab nations that expelled them….

The US is already abstaining or voting yes in cases where it has never done so. You cannot say we have a loose cannon at the UN because they represent Obama’s mindset (Ideology).

There is no ‘land grab’ going on.

470000 Israeli Jews migrating to the West Bank and East Jerusalem since 1967…… is not a “land grab”?

Your ability to see through only one side’s propaganda is commendable……

I mean you know, I’m biased towards Israel myself …… but I’m not blind.

Neither side can ever be objective on these issues ….. negotiations are no further along now than they were 20 years ago….. its disingenuous to assume a negotiated settlement is attainable.

It was a unilateral declaration, and a UN mandate, of statehood that created the problem …… why not let it be a UN mandate’s problem to fix.

….. I’ve been on Israel’s side in every war or skirmish they’ve ever had with the Arabs…… I’m not suggesting they were ever the aggressor (post 1948) …… but its obvious to me they are going to need to be forcefully restrained from taking even more land away from the Palestinians.

Frankly, right or wrong, I’m tired of being their only supporter at the UN. I’m tired of being held responsible for their survival and actions, and I’m tired of being responsible for restraining them against their attackers as well.

As far as being a strategic ally goes, they’re useless in the region. We couldn’t let them help us in any of our wars in the region. They’ve got no natural resource we covet. They are, to put it bluntly, more trouble than they are worth….. and they’re our problem and not Europe’s because we chose to be their protector for cold war reasons….. none of which any longer exist.

We should cut them loose from the American taxpayer’s tit, stop running interference for them at the UN, and let nature seeks it equilibrium in the region without outside interference.

Sorry, you’re falling for the Pally/Leftist/Obama rhetorical equivocation of “settlement activity.” The fact is, Israel has not founded a new settlement nor expanded the area of an existing one since 2001. There is no ‘land grab’ going on.

Sorry RT ,demographic threat is a leftist scracrow whose purpose is to press for more disastrous “withdrawals”
See the blogs of Yoram Ettinger or Caroline Glick for more details .