A post by Maynard

You’ve heard the ongoing debates about where the final borders of Israel should be set. These discussions are usually phrased in terms of how much land changes hands, as if Israel’s purpose is simply to have more land. But the vital pursuit isn’t land for its own sake, but control of land that’s strategically defensible. Topography makes all the difference in the world. You want natural barriers to make it difficult for the other guy’s tanks and armies to move into your territory.

A river makes a good barrier; this is why you hear of bridges getting blown up in wartime. No bridges means no large-scale invasion.

Also, you want to control the adjacent mountain ranges. The high ground gives your artillery the range to hit anything that approaches you from the low or flat ground; meanwhile you’re out of range for the approaching military to shoot back.

You may think that natural barriers are obsolete in this era of aircraft. A jet or sophisticated missile can go over or around a mountain. But, although the missiles may play a role, they’re expensive and can be countered by an air defense. The war is ultimately settled by control of the ground. If you can keep the invading army out, your nation will survive the missiles.

Keep these factors in mind as you watch this video, which lays out topographical and strategic details. Note that the 1949 armistice lines set the northern borders of Israel at the base of the mountain ranges that make up the west edge of the Jordan Rift Valley. You can see more details on this topographic map.

The problem with that 9-mile waist we hear about isn’t merely that it’s narrow; it’s that the land is indefensible. Those 9 miles are a flat coastal plain. If the enemy controls the adjacent mountain ridge, then they can gather their forces in the hills and sweep down rapidly to the sea, cutting Israel in half. Israel must retain military control of the high ground to prevent this from happening. This is also the reason that Israel retains the Golan Heights in the north.

The article attached to this video: Why Obama’s Proposal is a Suicide Note for Israel.

A bit of history to make the point by analogy. You’ll recall that, in the negotiations leading up to World War II, Hitler signed the Munich Agreement with England’s then-Prime Minister Chamberlain. This treaty gave Germany control of a portion of Czechoslovakia, Sudetenland, in exchange for Germany’s pledge that its territorial ambitions were fulfilled. Less than a year after making this hollow promise, Germany invaded Poland, and WWII began.

Take a look at this map of European topography. Note, in particular, the flat land between Germany and Poland, as opposed to the mountainous border with Czechoslovakia. Germany rolled into Poland very quickly, because there was nothing to stop the tanks. On the other hand, the Sudetenland was defensible territory, and an invasion would have been very difficult, even for the mighty Germans. The irony is that England and France handed over the land that Germany couldn’t easily seize, and then promised to defend the land that they had no way to stop Germany from grabbing. That’s why Germany moved so successfully into the war; because they were given a winning hand by English leadership that was as brainless as it was spineless.

Israel can’t afford to be pushed into abandoning a defensible Sudetenland in favor of an indefensible Poland. That would be a pathway, not to peace, but to suicide.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
6 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Shifra says:

    When Candidate Obama went to Israel in ’08, he was taken to the city of S’derot, (pronounced “s’day-ROTE”), which suffered many missile attacks from Gaza. There, they visited an Israeli home that was very close to the Gaza border. After the group left, the Israeli woman was curious who Obama was. When she was told that he was running for POTUS, she was shocked. Her response was quoted in the Israeli press: “WHAT???? That young man wants to be president of the United States of America? How is this possible? His questions were so naive! He doesn’t seem to understand *anything* about the Middle East!” I repeat this story because I vacillate in my feelings about Obama with regard to Israel. Although I basically agree with Tammy that Obama is a real Jew-hater, and wishes ill of Israel, sometimes I think, “Maybe he is just so arrogant that he picked up a few bits of information and he thinks he can run with it. Maybe someone told him about the ’67 borders, and he thinks this will make him look like he is ‘in the know’.” Then, there is a third possibilty: Maybe this is all about “Bibi-envy” (a term I just made up, thank you very much) — I think Obama has a very deep-seated rage at Netanyahu: Boy-President vs Man-Prime Minister. But, whatever the explanation for Obama’s Middle East policies, he has turned the region into a mess. Here’s hoping the Arab Spring does *not* turn into a Nuclear Winter….

  2. Jeffrey says:

    Thanks for this post Maynard- When you take your sentance “That’s why Germany moved so successfully into the war; because they were given a winning hand by English leadership that was as brainless as it was spineless” and replace Germany and English with say Iran and America, everything seems to come to grinding halt. Obama is spineless but he dose not get a pass on being brainless and I for one can’t come to any other conclusion other than he is in fact a Jew hater. I like that Bibi-envy Shifra! If our little boy running with scissors POTUS wants to be seen and repsected as a Man and a Leader, maybe he should trade out his peas for spinach?

  3. CO2aintpoison says:

    Maynard, do you think it is possible the freaks use them to “pay a visit” to Israel and then, in their defense Israel takes out all of those tanks. Would that be considered an act of war against the United States?

    IMHO it seems pretty well-established at this point, the current usurper in chief is a Jew hater.

  4. aardvark says:

    Knockout post by Maynard (THESE maps are the best I’ve seen!). Though I consider myself well versed on the issue, I am happily recommending THIS explanation as one of the best – short and CLEAR as the proverbial bell; Shifra’s comments are a superb addition. Thanks to both of you.

  5. flaggman says:

    I will add on the topic of American Jewry’s support for Obama: a good percentage of the community are Jews by birth, but liberals by religion. They do have a soft spot for Israel, but will live with no end of cognitive dissonance on the topic because, on the priority scale, having a Democrat in the White House is #1. They hate Bibi as much as Obama does. In fact, you wouldn’t believe how much liberal Jews hate Bibi. It’s almost like Clarence Thomas to liberal blacks. So they will explain away the “Arab Spring” as a good thing, and dismiss the “1967” reversal as “much ado about nothing”. I know this community well, and it’s head-exploding frustrating to talk to these people.

    The good news is, Reagan turned many of these people to his side – but not necessarily on the Israel issue. He appealed to their sense of pride in American prosperity, and to Ellis Island – which holds, to many American Jews, more of a personal emotional connection than Israel itself. This is the soft spot that a certain Republican candidate, I believe, has already figured out. Romanticizing and supporting LEGAL immigration for the world’s persecuted, and those wanting in on America’s unique MERITOCRACY, will peel off a good chunk of the more open-minded liberal Jews.

You must be logged in to post a comment.