Take a look at Ali Eteraz’s Aziz Poonwalla’s post on Israel-Palestine.
It’s interesting, and positive…but will it get any traction? I’m doubtful.
And it isn’t as if peace is an intractable solution. In fact it is quite simple: resolution of the conflict requires genuine sacrifice by both parties. The ideal framework would be along the lines of the Taba accords and the King Abdullah proposal. It will require that the Palestinians abandon the right of return, and accept some form of financial recompense in its stead to only those displaced families whose property claims can be verified. It will require that Israel dismantle all settlements in the West Bank, and relocate the settlers. It will require that a administrative body with authority over joint issues such as water rights and transportation be established. It will require NATO security guarantees of Jerusalem as a open city, the capital of both nations. It will require peace through diplomacy with Syria, with Damascus granted economic trade rights, security guarantees, and teh return of the Golan Heights in return for total cessation of military and financial support for Hizbollah. It will require bilateral normalization of diplomatic relations with every Arab country. It woudl require Israel to eventually be invited to join the Arab League and begin to interact with its neighbors as a neighbor and member of the regional identity, not a Western satellite. It will require Arab nations to carry Israeli satellite television as part of their media feeds and absolute sanitzation of all anti-Semitic rhetoric in their educational systems.
As to the issue of the West Bank and Golan Heights; they were nominally held after ’67 to provide Israel with some defense in depth – some land on which to fight a land war.
The military challenges to Israel no longer look much like columns of Syrian tanks. While I’m doubtful that the political changes Ali is discussing will happen – it’d be interesting to see what it would take to crack the door open.
I just read that off of Instapundit’s link, and I see two big problems with it. The first is that Palestinians in general, and some Israelis (the harder-line of the settlers, in particular), are invested in the conflict; their identities depend on being in perpetual war. That is not smoothed over without a generations-long effort to remove hatred and flashpoints both, and at this point I certainly don’t see the Palestinians being willing to do that.
The second issue is that these measures by and large depend on each side trusting the other. I don’t see that happening any time soon.
I think that a more reasonable expectation is that these measures would come after a preliminary ratcheting down of open warfare, the first steps of which are identical with the first steps of the “roadmap”, namely ending the ceaseless attacks on Israel. Since that has not been, apparently, interesting to Palestinians so far, I see little hope that it will become so any time soon.
That said, I applaud the sentiment, and even more would applaud the effort to implement it.
AL, it’s actually my post, not Ali’s 🙂
Apologies, Aziz…good post.
A.L.
no problem, it’s a quirk of scoop that your username is your full name there. So it lends itself to confusion easily.
With respect to the post, like anyone else who’s taken pains to keep up with the facts my own position on the conflict has gone through various phases. I’m convinced though that the path forward is nothing new or surprising or innovative – just a lot of tough work and tedium nd political risk. Jeff I hear your critique but that’s far less damning a critique than “the plan isn’t fair!” (to one side or the other). There’s a burden of cynicism to overcome, and if that can be surmounted then it will fall into place. it just requires a collective will from the people, so that inaction carries higher political price than action.
Left unsaid in my essay are the benefits to US national security, incidentally, but that’s another topic.
The problem i see is that even reasonably moderate Arabs still cling to an illusion that the Jewish character of Israel is in play. In other words, there is a belief that since armed struggle has failed, with the right negotiating ploy (and ploy is the right word) Israel can agree or be made to agree to allowing millions of Palestinians back into Israel proper, thereby rendering the 2 state solution moot.
I think that dream is a major roadblock- so long as it remains a mirage no real deal will ever be forged. Israel is not going to be so kind as to commit suicide, no matter how reasonably the Arabs make their case.
There also seems to be some mad sentiment that since this moderate position isnt calling for the violent overthrow of Israel anymore, Arabs should be given credit for their new tolerance. This is akin to being kind enough to offer a samarai a suicide knife as opposed to beheading, hardly worthy of discussion.
According it Rober Spencer, “Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam; this is a key element of the claim to Israel put forward by Hamas and Islamic Jihad.”
Now, I doubt seriously if there is going to be any meaningful negotiated peace on behalf of the palestinians. Oh, there may be tactical negotiations to further the strategic goals of re-acquiring muslim lands and eliminating Israel, but I would be not only skeptical but even fearful of any negotiated agreements until the islamists suffer a devastating defeat across the region especially in Iran. Even then, I would never negotiate a weaker position for Israel in exchange for specious promises of “peace”, “diplomatic recognition” or “secure borders”. These would only be temporary positions until the muslims felt strong enough to effect the reconquista.
“Islamic law stipulates that Muslims possess by right any land that once formed part of the House of Islam”
Robert claims this, but that hardly makes it absolutely true. Robert tends to focus on extreme interpretations and then present them as normative. He also dismisses any non-extremist interpretation as taqqiya.
Aziz, I believe it is the extremist groups in the ME that are controlling the agenda in Lebanon, PA, Iran, Syria, and Iraq. The thinly veiled rhetoric of PA politicos is revealing to anyone with any intellectual honesty. They call for the killing to stop amongst groups within gaza and the west bank, and yet they say nothing of the killing of innocent Israelis. Why? The assumption is that Isreal sits on muslim land and effecting their defeat is a religious duty.
It’s nothing but obvious.
The ME is a “powder keg”. The only question is when will it blow.
_The thinly veiled rhetoric of PA politicos is revealing to anyone with any intellectual honesty._
The rhetoric also has a distinctively European Left voice and origin.
The big problem as I see it is that the compromises that Israel is expected to make requires hard concessions that cannot be reversed (pay reparations to descendents of the refugees, abandon the Golan Heights, dismantling of settlements, and surrender of sovereignty on sensitive issues to a 3rd party authority) while the compromises of the Arabs are easily reversible (cease funding Hamas/Hezbollah, change of education materials, allowing access to Israeli media) or of little material benefit (inviting Israel to join the Arab League).
At any point, the Arabs could decide to renge on their concessions (re-arm terrorists, re-start anti-Semitic propaganda, ignore Israel at the Arab League summits) while Israel could not take back their concessions in retaliation.
This lack of reciprocity is a powerful incentive for the Arabs to backslide. They can get what they want now for meaningless promises they can always negate in the future at little cost. This is the real dilemma, and until it is addressed the prospects for a lasting peace is endangered.
Lasting peace requires a strong institutional mechanism that enforces it by legitimizing appropriate responses to provocations. In any case, I cannot imagine any scenario that would compel me, if I were Israel, to surrender the Golan Heights. The other concessions are more tenable.
The real insight here is that Israel needs to be accepted as a legitimate member of Middle East society.
However, I think the only way that could really be achieved is by becoming a greater hegemon and establishing client states among its weaker neighbors – Lebanon and Jordan (and perhaps a de facto Kurdistan) while cooperating with Egypt. This is not so far fetched as there has been historical cooperation with Israel and these states in many areas.
Aziz Poonwalla: “It is absolutely true that the Israelis have fumbled the ball for peace as surely as it is true that Arafat did. Arafat was wise not to accept teh Barak peace plan, but he cynically tried to keep pressure on Isrrael by legitimizing terror attacks on civilians, which gave sufficient excuse to Sharon for unilateral action.”
I disagree.
On the one hand, Ehud Barak offered an extremely generous peace plan, which it is said Yasser Arafat was wise to reject. (Though without any reason being given for that).
On the other hand, Yasser Arafat launched a terrorist war, which made sense only if the ultimate aim of Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims was the elimination of Israel, which it was and is and apparently will remain.
Aziz misses the #1 required sacrifice on the Arab side. The one that destroys any possible agreement.
Arab leaders would have to give up the Palestinians as the #1 external distraction they use the channel the rage of their populace, in order to prevent that rage from being turned on them. An outcome which would destroy their regimes and kill more or less everyone they care about (a group that does not, incidentally, include the Palestinians).
Even assuming – and it’s a stretch to so assume – that the Arab rulers themselves would be willing to abandon their supremacist doctrines and accept outsiders on land they consider Muslim. And (bigger stetch) that Iran would ever play along as they would have to do. The question still comes down to what would make them so secure in their ongoing power and privilege that they would give up their top security blanket.
Answer: A boot stamping on their populace’s face forever. One always trusted to be effective, and indefatigable.
So AL, you volunteering America for that role?
Be careful what you dream…. and be cognizant of the dreams of others.
Why do the settlements have to be dismantled?
Are Jews unwelcome in Palestinian territory?
OK we know Jews are unwelcome. So I propose a population transfer. Jews come into Israel proper. Arabs out of Israel proper.
Will the Arabs buy into that? I didn’t think so.
As always, I find the things Mr. Poonwalla (and also Mr. Eteraz, for that matter) reassuring in themselves. (Not that we can’t disagree about details, as e.g. here the distinction between tangible vs intangible concessions that others have made.) But as always, I also worry they are too far in the minority to do much good. But keep on, gentlemen, what else can you do?
Joe, I think you overstate the “look! jews!” approach of the local Arab tyrants. As anyone reading Marc Lynch or John Burgess for the past two years already knows, there has been a profound sea change for the better in Arab opinion re: cynicism towards their rulers. Arabs are more focused inwards than ever before and this new scrutiny and skepticism is largely mediated by Al Jazeera and the rest of the Arab media.
The Arab tyrants seek to stay in power. Their citizens aren’t buying their crap anymore, either. It’s a lot more complex a picture than it used to be, and increasingly so – in a good way.
I don’t buy the fatalist approach that somehow Arab rulers are teh obstacle to peace. King Abdullah himself proposed a peace plan that drew nearly universal praise and which included normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel by all major Arab countries.
Jordan and Syria meanwhile boast western educated elites and they are supremely open to carrots and sticks diplomacy.
What’s needed is a willingness to let the past go and to look for a fresh start. Its not just muslim audiences (to whom I addressed my initial post) that need to be convinced of this, clearly.
David Blue: I disagree that the Barak plan was fair by any reasonable standard. The Taba accords were a vast improvement, but Sharon indicated he would not honor them. I base my assessment on these facts which to date I havenot seen refuted, but if you have additional information do share. At any rate, Arafat is dead and Sharon is out of the pcture as well, so it doesn’t really matter anymore. What matters is the ramework for moving forward, which starts with Taba and King Abdullah but extends to the conditions upon the Palestinians and Syria in particular that I laid out in my original post.
Joe, it’s gonna come unwound somehow, someday – and that day is getting closer.
When it does, it can be non-pretty or disatrous, or monstrous. It won’t be the Velvet Revolution, I can promise you that.
But it doesn’t have to be streets running in blood, either.
A.L.
The problem is not the leaders but the people.
Arabs have no desire to settle with Israel instead clinging to a fantasy.
A pathetic fantasy but one nevertheless of destroying Israel.
shrug.
On the Israeli side the HEzbollah War and the Hamas war after withdrawal from Lebanon and Gaza have destroyed any belief in Peace other than military deterrence. An ugly lesson but there you have it.
Israelis face an existential choice beyond the trivialities of the Palestinians.
Either they strike, with nuclear missiles, Iran’s nuclear program, or surely Iran will strike them. Iran has said they will nuke em. No one is going to stop em. So that’s it.
Re: #15 from Aziz: following your link… “This is no generous offer. It is a humiliating demand for surrender!”
Once more with the “humiliation!” Oh boy.
And indeed, Barak’s offer may be great if you want to put down the sword and live in peace, but its not acceptable if you want Jew-free territory well-suited to serve as a fighting platform for further armed struggle, and if you see arrangements built on different assumptions as a “surrender”, an abandonment of what you really want. Because, basically, Barak’s offer was a lot of pie, a lot of territory, and that’s all.
–
Re: #15 from Aziz: “At any rate, Arafat is dead and Sharon is out of the pcture as well, so it doesn’t really matter anymore.”
That part I agree with.
But the Islamic mentality, obsessed with domination and superiority or humiliation and surrender, antisemitic, and violently disdainful of equal rights for non-Muslims – that isn’t out of the picture. It never has been, and I don’t think it ever will be.
But Aziz, we already know that the Jews are the cause of their own destruction.
Which is why the conflict will continue until the Jewish State is destroyed.
(Especially since the Arabs are now smelling blood.)
So you can take your two-state solution and stuff it where….well, where Hamas (and its supporters, democracy-lovers, all) would like you to.
As Israel’s neighbors in Gaza and Lebanon (and their pals in Syria and Iran) have demonstrated, “land for peace” is just so….passe.
The Palestinian/Israeli problem is the core of the MidEast Troubles. Without a solution here, there will be no solutions anywhere in the area. Without dwelling on history, I will go directly to the solution.
First, Jerusalem becomes an International City and the Israeli capital is re-acknowledged as Tel Aviv. The Palestinians name their own capital.
Second, Israel pulls back to the pre-1967 borders.
Thirdly, the area of Jerusalem is physically defined to form many functions :
– The city will become host to most large-scale UN functions.
– Jerusalem will have a local security force and a UN security force of limited scope.
– The borders will be maintained by Israel and Palestine, either in tandem or separately.
– There will be an International airport.
– The area will be large enough to be physically defended and observe adjacent areas.
– The area will control the major highland aquifers, and oversee per capita national allocations.
– The area will allow a transnational journey by either nationality. By passing through Jerusalem, an Israeli transits N/S, and a Palestinian travels E/W. This allows Palestine to have international borders with Jordan and Egypt, but not Syria or Lebanon, respecting current treaties and civilities.
The area will be a duty/tax free area, and the allocated ownership will be dispersed to the “right to return” Palestinians, the displaced Israeli colonists, and all who have lost their homes. Internal agriculture (because of crowded conditions) will also be “eminent domained”, the owners compensated and they and the land are included in the allocation.
The Jerusalem area should be as small as possible, hence the agricultural exclusion. The land should be Israeli or Palestinian, as much as possible.
Jerusalem will be a service, marketing and manufacturing zone. Each family unit will be prorated by size, then entered into a lottery for both a plot of residential land and a plot of commercial value. The allocations will be random to negate ghettoes and insularity. The residential and UN infrastructure will be internationally funded and built immediately. The residents will have startup funding of some sort. The residents of Jerusalem will have ownership, equity, involvement, and potential.
They, and the UN personnel, will not abide terrorism, and will self-police effectively. The key to controlling terrorism is to remove the cause and the base. This will do both. This is a step towards World Peace.
But Aziz, we already know that the Jews are the cause of their own destruction.
good grief. If thats the message you got from my proposal, then you didnt read it. Why are you introducing such tropes?
David Blue: the facts of the proposal, not the leftist Gush Shalom politicospeak, is the important part. Try to look past the rhetoric focus on the numbers and the maps and compare Taba to Barak.
Richard, I don’t see why an Israeli capital should be Tel Aviv, not Jerusalem. Why the insistence on that point? Jerusalem’s importance to the Jewish faith is central so Jerusalem is the logical place to be the capital.
Aziz, I think he was kidding.
Your set of things that must be met remind of the things that must happen for my parents’ divorce to not go through.
Your plan would probably work, but it has to _actually_ happen. With the players involved, its almost like trying to get a 100 cats to all sit still.
As for the Barak plan, that was Israel’s proposal. Arafat, and pretty much the entire Palestinian nation, rejected it and chose war. They didn’t try to improve the map through negotiations. They started killing Jews.
And Sharon was under no obligation to respect a Taba agreement made during an election campaign by a government that had collapsed.
Lost in the earnest analysis of all those who are trying so hard to find a fair deal is that “fair” for the Palestinians means the elimination of the State of Israel.
Ultimately, of course, the onus of this whole sorry state of affairs (“The conflict for peace in the Middle East”—and the World or whatever) will be placed on Israel and her existence. It already is, to a great extent.
And this is precisely why, for as long as Israel continues to exist, the conflict will not end. (Why should the Palestinians stop fighting?)
And when the Iranians reach the point where they can ask the West (the US, that is; I don’t think Europe will have to be asked), “Why risk your own destruction by continuing your support of Israel?” one might wonder who will be clamoring for what….
As for Isreali control over Palestinian borders, I wonder why they would want that. Maybe to prevent the Palestinians from resuming the Jew-killing as soon as the ink on the agreement was gone?
Because that’s what happened in Gaza and Hezbollahstan.
The war will continue until the Palestinians/Arabs/Umma decide they don’t want to have their asses kicked anymore.
I don’t have time to google the quote, but I think Nathan Bedford Forrest said after Appomattox to a couple of CSA governors “You gentlemen may do as you please, but I am going home.
Then again, NBF went on to found the Klan, so maybe he wasn’t done fighting.
If 80% of a population want to kill all the people who live in the country next door, and they’re willing to bend or break the local laws to do it, the word “peace” has no meaning.
I’m not trying to be pessimistic or negative, but those are the facts. You can plan and suppose things all you want. The population is just waiting for more ways to exterminate Jews.
In fact, one might say that all of this thinking and planning in the air actually has the reverse effect — it continues to give hope to the Pals that they can exterminate the Jews. In fact, that we might be unwittingly helping them to do so. Somebody said once we should just let the region fight to the death and sort it out instead of interfering so much. There have been situations where peoples have been unable to coexist for all of recorded history. Usually once the stronger group clearly demonstrates it’s superiority _in terms the common man can understand_, then it is game over.
Just go back to the fundamentals- good fences make good neighbors. Israel should follow the Sharon plan: withdraw to the Green Line (or best approximation), build a big nasty wall, and if anything flies over the wall shoot back at it and level the city block it came from- and to hell with what anybody thinks of that. Thats how human relations have worked since the dawn of time, I see no reason to reinvent the wheel.
“The Palestinian/Israeli problem is the core of the MidEast Troubles. Without a solution here, there will be no solutions anywhere in the area. Without dwelling on history, I will go directly to the solution.”
No, it is not. The core of the Muslim troubles is the failure of Islam to adapt to modernity, as Chinese Nationalism did, as Korean nationalism did, as Japanese nationalism did. Lacking well-defined nation states and instead stuck in crumbling multi-ethnic empires Muslims fell back on Islam after trying various socialist solutions that did not work.
Quick name ONE world class Muslim company?
It’s not Danish Cartoons, or the Pope, or Al-Andalus, or the Balkans, or Thailand, or East Timor, or Korans in a toilet, or Israel. It’s Islam itself being totally unable to cope with modernity.
Consider this: Mexicans and Colombians and Brazilians are devout Catholics, yet when is the last time you saw them blowing themselves up in London over Northern Ireland?
Mark — Israel has already tried your solution. Hamas and Hezbollah fire rockets over the wall. Soon Iran will fire Missiles with nukes down on them. Walls don’t stop missiles.
Well, Dubai Ports World comes to mind.
Thought the original article was sensational – I’ve never seen it laid out step-by-step so clearly before.
My question is whether or not we can reasonably expect the Palestinians to pack it up and leave on their own as time goes by. I’m seeing articles that bunches of them want to immigrate out of Gaza or where-ever they’re trapped, which seems like a good idea. And then if they’re killing each other internally, too, wouldn’t that also decrease the Pal population?
I know that Muslims are supposed to have a horrifically high birth rate, but has anyone actually done a census or guesstimate over the past ten years to see how many Palestinians are we talking about now?
And if we continue to just ignore it, will the whole question sooner or later go away as the Palestinians move, die out and kill each other?
A lot of interesting stuff here. #’s 10, 20 (ambitious, but complicated, and I think ultimately unworkable given the proclivities of the parties involved), and 27 (back to basics is always a good start). BTW, “a quirk of scoop” would make an excellent name for a rock band.
_”Mark — Israel has already tried your solution. Hamas and Hezbollah fire rockets over the wall. Soon Iran will fire Missiles with nukes down on them. Walls don’t stop missiles.”_
They certainly have not! First- this cant be done piecemeal very well. Israel needs to withdraw all of its settlements at once to obtain the absolute moral highground necessary. Secondly, the wall isnt built to stop missiles, its built to seperate two independent and uncorrellated nation-states.
Once that is done, any missile flying over the wall is an act of war by an independent, democratically elected nation and can be responded to with maximum retalliation. Sending tanks into Gaza is not part of my plan. Dropping enough artillery rounds to flatten the neighborhood and provide a _massive_ disincentive is. The Palestinian locals will rise up against anyone attempting to commit such an act in pure self-defense.
Joe Katzman is right. The conflict is NOT between the Israelis and palestinians, it is a war of the Arab world and Iran against Israel. The palestinians are simply proxy fighters in the wider Muslim War against Israel.
Aziz ignores the responsibility the Arab states and Iran have in maintaining the conflict and in any possible solution. Gaza belonged to Egypt… Is Egypt going to give it for a second palestinian state? Jordan refused to negotiate over the West Bank… the land Israel seized in the process of defending itself… who does it belong to now? Why didn’t the Arabs form their second palestinian state on the West Bank between 1948 and 1967? It was the rest of the Arabs that kept it from happening, and it’s the rest of the Arabs (plus Iran) who keep it from happening now.
Until there is an Iranian, and a Saudi Arabian, and a Kuwaiti, and a Libyan, and an Egyptian… Embassy in Israel, there will be no peace.
Aziz ignores the responsibility the Arab states and Iran have in maintaining the conflict and in any possible solution.
No, I didn’t. In fact, the Arab states want a solution as well, because their primary concern is security. Each Arab nation can be negiotiated with and all of them signed onto the Abdullah peace plan, which included normalization of diplomatic relations with Israel.
Here is a good set of articles about the 2002 plan by Abdullah. It includes a critical essay by an Israeli, Yossi Alpher. I believe that my proposal addresses Alpher’s concerns, though a discussion on the acceptability to the Israeli side is what i am trying to provoke.
I note that thus far the poll I attached to my essay has about half saying it is a good plan, one fourth saying that no peace is possible (the maximally cynical position that many here espoused above), and another fourth saying that the plan is unfair to Israelis. It’s the attitudes of the latter grouup that I want to discuss because I am optimist enough to believe that their remaining concerns CAN be addressed.
Mark – Jim Rockford is worried about nuclear-tipped missiles coming from Iran, not the West Bank.
The problem for Israel is that Iranian leaders might not care if they lose nearly all of their own population as long as Israel loses all of its people first. This is an outcome Israel wants to avoid by preventing Iran from going nuclear.
The question is whether in fact Iran cannot be deterred. If it is reasonable to assume that it cannot, the question then is whether Israel (and the United States) can prevent Iran and other opponents in the Islamic world from acquiring and making first use of weapons of mass destruction, not just in the short run but also in the long run. (Will WMDs over the coming century become increasingly accessible to small states and private groups?)
My own sense is that if we are dealing with people who cannot be deterred, and especially if the technological trends favor the spread of WMDs, the threat may not be possible to manage with the international system that exists right now. The question I have is whether we should rethink the fundamentals of the system in advance of a more demonstrated need to do so.
Duly noted, but Iran is an entirely different story. If i’m Israel i dont conflate the policies at all. If they need to attack Iran at some point i’d still go ahead with disengaging with the Palestinians.
My skepticism comes from the NATO security guarantees of Jerusalem as a open city. I’m skeptical about the ability and willingness of Western forces to provide security in an urban environment with two signifiant, hostile factions.
Aziz,
I’d fall into the “unfair to Israel” group, mostly. Here’s the bottom line for me.
On one side, you have an arguably civilized, democratic nation which attained additional lands and power in the course of defending its existence. It has been known to kill civilians and has shown, often at times, few real concerns engaging in a long-term military campaign which results in significant collateral damage.
On the other side, you have a group of people who either condone, support outright or commit targeted acts of mass murder, directed squarely at a civilian population with the intention of killing as many people as possible for maximum effect. This is not normal collateral damage, or even flagrantly careless collateral damage: this is the *intended effect*. And it is the prominent weapon of choice.
I’m in favor of people getting along. And, seriously, I’m not dense enough to assume that Israel has clean hands. But I don’t find the Palestinian argument terribly compelling *before* they started blowing up busses and markets as a matter of a targeted policy. Neither the aggressor in war nor her people can make claim to an expectation of “fairness” — there is no such thing in war. Going to war is putting all your chips down on the table. If you have any left after losing, you have a merciful opponent. A lot of people forget this and make themselves look foolish and naive.
And now the Palestinians have decided that teaching people to hate and blowing up women and kids as a matter of policy is the way to go. This isn’t even for a practical gain, like a war of attrition. This isn’t demonstrating military prowess, or leveling a city and its infrastructure and war machine; it’s just plain killing.
It’s a war designed to influence Israel through nothing more than the death of civilians, of friends and family.
The Palestinian people have shown, again and again, that they support this. I’ve read heart-warming stories of wonderful Palestinian people and I believe every word. Unfortunately, the Palestinians as a whole are effectively not like that.
When you get to the point where murdering people simply for effect is your solution, you have no right to exist.
The Palestinian people flat out have NOTHING legitimate to stand on anymore.
But they can earn it back. But not until all this changes. And until then I won’t regard any peace offering as reasonable for the Israelis. Changes must be made on both sides, but it is crystal clear who is the (imperfect) adult, and who is the child here.
To clarify, above when I said:
“Neither the aggressor in war nor her people can make claim to an expectation of “fairness”…”
I was referring to the Palestinians who argue for their lands and tell of their suffering.
#32 from Mark Buehner,
Why are settlements an issue? Why should the Palestinian territories be Jew free?
Some Arab villages on the border were asked if they wished to be transfered to Palestinian control. Despite being second class citizens in Israel they declined.
So there you have it. Better to be a second class citizen in Israel rather than a first class citizen in Palestine.
#34 Aziz,
I believe the Arab plan contains the phoney “right” of return. But assume it is a real right. The Jews are exercising their right 1800 years after losing a war. I’d say the Jewish claim takes precedence.
If so the Jews can move out all the interlopers in the west bank. After all, they are living on stolen territory. Rights do not come with statutes of limitations. Rights do not expire.
If the Jews have no claim after losing a war neither do the Palestinians. Or the Sudenten Germans for that matter.
“Why are settlements an issue? Why should the Palestinian territories be Jew free?”
Oooook, lets put it this way then- if im prime minister of Israel my position is that i’m withdrawing all Israeli government personel from the settlements by such and such a date. Anyone that wants to stay on sovereign Palestinian land is welcome to. If the settlers choose to fight it out with the Palestinian Authority thats their problem.
“So there you have it. Better to be a second class citizen in Israel rather than a first class citizen in Palestine.”
This is about land first. Nationality and citizenship is messy- lets keep things simple. Everything on that side of the line you deal with, everything on ours we deal with.
#21 from Aziz: “David Blue: the facts of the proposal, not the leftist Gush Shalom politicospeak, is the important part.”
The important part is the hostility and twisting of the Palestinians, which is also evident in your link, which is a good link (with concise information), but which also both displays and ignores the bad faith and the obsession with ego factors that did so much to make real agreement impossible.
Israeli concessions to be delivered later are dismissed as never to be delivered? Why? Because they were contingent on peace – a peace that there is no sign the Palestinians ever intended to deliver. If what you want is to pocket a lot of real gains that can’t be rescinded and then promptly break all your promises – which was Arafat’s style – then a bargain of the type “half now and half when you deliver the goods” means “half” period, because as soon as you get that half and go back to terror (never paying the political price to stop the terror machine), then the goods to be delivered later become politically undeliverable by the negotiating partners you have cheated and discredited and thus politically weakened.
Barak’s proposal was a great one – but only for people who intended to deliver on their side on it, and thus reap the deferred as well as the immediate gains. It was a plan for people who were not to live apart – as though that was possible – but for people to live together as friends. It was a true “grand bargain,” and you don’t see many of those on offer for real.
Though many people now think this proposal was idiotic, I think it was like George W. Bush’s effort to give Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq what he thought they really wanted most, which was democracy. It was a noble idea that had to be tried.
It’s all water under the bridge now. All that’s left is the record of a litmus test on the real intentions of the Palestinians – a litmus paper that turned the wrong color.
#21 from Aziz: “Try to look past the rhetoric focus on the numbers and the maps and compare Taba to Barak.”
I’ve looked at the numbers and maps, but the comparison is pointless. A real plan, intended to be delivered politically and backed by the power to do so, is not like some nonsense outside the realm of realization. It’s not reasonable to say Andy is making you a generous offer and Bobby is not being generous when Andy is only blathering about monopoly money and Bobby is putting real dollars on the table.
And I don’t intend to debate this any more, because it’s all gone now.
#41 from Mark Buehner,
I admire your courage in saying the Palestinian objective is the death of Jews on the territory they control.
So why given that admission should they control any territory?
It sounds like you approve of the creation of an apartheid state. Fine.
There should be reciprocity. No Arabs in Israel.
#22 from RiverCocytus: “Aziz, I think he was kidding.
Your set of things that must be met remind of the things that must happen for my parents’ divorce to not go through.
Your plan would probably work, but it has to actually happen. With the players involved, its almost like trying to get a 100 cats to all sit still.”
My most sincere commiserations.
The essence of divorce is this: everything that is really wrong with the little world of home can be put right instantly and forever, if two people will just do the simple, ordinary things that they made public and sacred promises to do; and there is no chance that they will ever do it.
Which sucks beyond all words.
“So why given that admission should they control any territory?”
Pragmatism.
#45 Mark,
Setting up another terroist state in the ME does not seem very pragmatic to me.
Why not be even more pragmatic and tell the Arabs to go back to where they came from?
No Arabs no problems.
In any case how does Israel live in peace with a state right next door with murderous intentions? Since the real problem is the murderous intentions the presence or absence of a state will not fix the problem.
You are not fixing the problem. Just giving the conflict new terms. i.e. lipstick on a pig.
Why Israel should pay for refugees property, wasnt hundreds thousands of jews expelled from Arab and Persian countries too?
What military security assurances Israel have. From the gist of it nothing.
“absolute sanitzation of all anti-Semitic rhetoric in their educational systems.”
?? Not even Europe or USA can make that.
———————————————————
The whole thing wiill only change with a catastrophe.
I have a big problem with the concept of the right of return considering:
1.) Israel itself holds a number of Sephardic refugees from Arab states roughly equivalent to the number of Palestinians displaced in ’48 (well, more).
2.) I would not hold #1 against the Palestinian right of return if the Palestinians had not fought alongside the very Arab states who have ejected their Jewish populations, and, if the Palestinians themselves had been a more homogenous group before ’48, as opposed to a collection of various Arab nationalities.
Considering the above, I view right of return as an Arab-Israeli issue rather than solely a Palestinian-Israeli issue. Judging by the former case, I believe the Palestinian call for right of return holds no water.
The rest is pretty vague, but I generally agree.
Mark #36,
I agree that the larger situation shouldn’t prevent Israel from disengaging. It may be increasingly difficult to do so, however, if it is true that the military use of nanotechnology is going to be a factor in the Middle East. What Israel develops will surely be “acquired and used by its adversaries eventually.”:http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=technologyNews&storyid=2006-11-17T082415Z_01_L1751091_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-WEAPONS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22
Apologies for not formatting the link.
Can a moderator correct this please?
There will be no peace until Muslims stop teaching their populations that Jews, Christians and any other non Muslim is not worthy of a second thought other than to torture and kill. It will take at least a generation before the changes occur.
Muslims do not want to change.
If Israel and the Palestinians are living in proximity in PEACE, there is no reason for Iran to attack – or even hate. There will be no reason for Arab anger. A huge step towards negating or defeating terrorism. That’s why the solution is so important. None of you posters have a solution. Mine is way back at #20-, and no one can notice a comprehensive attempt. If not mine, where’s yours?
#52 from Richard W. Crews: “None of you posters have a solution. Mine is way back at #20-, and no one can notice a comprehensive attempt. If not mine, where’s yours?”
That’s a very fair challenge.
I noticed your comprehensive solution, thought it was fatally flawed on all sorts of grounds … and refrained from criticizing, because I don’t have a solution of my own to suggest.
I think the first and main thing for Israel is army reform, because there is another war coming very soon, and because Israel’s weak performance in its last war seemed to revive hopes throughout the Muslim world that the eradication of Israel might happen speedily, in our own day. Those hopes have to be stepped on, hard.
#52 from Richard W. Crews,
If Israel and the Palestinians are living in proximity in PEACE
There is the rub.
As to “right of return” – this is a made up right. Very similar to my right to a milliion of your dollars. Why do the Palis claim this “right”? Well because it is a deal breaker. (Get it?)
I too have a solution. Stop making Jew hatred the official teaching of the Palestinian school system. That would be a start. Once you have that operative wait 30 to 40 years until the newly trained predominate. Then start negotiations.
If you are in a hurry then a polpulation transfer is in order. Let the Arabs assimilate the Palis in their countries. Trouble with that one is that not even Arabs like the Palis. They seem to cause trouble where ever they live in great numbers.
The Palis have designed a polity such that a solution that doesn’t require the destruction of Israel and the subjugation or murder of the Jews is impossible.
Even if our friend Aziz was as pro Israel as the Sandmonkey there is nothing that can be done until attitudes in the rest of Arab world change. i.e. pay no attention to that Islamic Supremacy stuff found in the Koran. Good luck with that one.
Your #20 is not bad. If we were dealing with countries similar to France and Germany as they currently exist such a prescription might have a chance. It has no chance because you have fallen for the “mirror image” fallacy. i.e. assuming their thought patterns roughly match your own. If their value system does not approximate yours, your ideas are a recipe for disaster.
The “solution”, if you must have one, is unending war until one side accepts the terms of the other unconditionally.
“They certainly have not! First- this cant be done piecemeal very well. Israel needs to withdraw all of its settlements at once to obtain the absolute moral highground necessary. Secondly, the wall isnt built to stop missiles, its built to seperate two independent and uncorrellated nation-states.
Once that is done, any missile flying over the wall is an act of war by an independent, democratically elected nation and can be responded to with maximum retalliation. Sending tanks into Gaza is not part of my plan. Dropping enough artillery rounds to flatten the neighborhood and provide a massive disincentive is. The Palestinian locals will rise up against anyone attempting to commit such an act in pure self-defen”
THe objections to this are several. Moral high ground means nothing, in that it doesn’t solve the problem of rockets raining down on Israel.
Israel withdrew from Gaza and got rockets in return. Same with Lebanon. An undeniable fact and evidence that the Palestinians and Arabs generally will accept nothing less than the destruction of Israel.
Any artillery barrage to “flatten” the areas responsible is not politically possible since it would end US support for Israel by Dem and “moderate” Rep demand.
It is also probably not politically acceptable to the Olmert Govt which craves Euro acceptance. Given that an existing artillery barrage to counter rocketing of Israel has Israel the subject of “war crimes” charges by the UN and World Court you can confidently assert that Israel has zero right to self-defense or even exist (so says Jimmy Carter).
But it’s trivial. The real threat is Iran which aims to wipe out Israel and soon will have the opportunity to do so. Unless the Israelis strike first. “Mobilization” in August 1914. [Whichever great power mobilized first gained advantage] Iran has stated they can absorb casualties including the loss of cities and still lead the Islamic world by wiping out Israel. Given their otherwise illogical bombings of Argentine Jews this is no trivial threat.
#15
re: the map. If the tables had been reversed, it’s a certainty that the Jews would have accepted the deal. It really speaks to Palestinian intent that they were willing to throw another generation into the fire rather than take a deal that, with all its flaws, could have by now made Palestine a thriving place.
#34
Yossi Alpher, of bitter lemons, is not representative of Israeli views. He’s far more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause than most and willing to make greater concessions than most Israelis would be comfortable with. It’s misleading to suggest that he represents a representative Israeli critique of the Abdullah plan.
If the tables had been reversed….
And if the tables had been reversed, just how many Jews do you think would be left to “accept the deal”?
…could have by now made Palestine a thriving place.
Alas making Palestine “a thriving place” is not quite the current goal, in spite of what so many of the earnest, progressive, humanist faithful would so sincerely like to believe.
And just what is the goal? Ah, well if you must be told at this stage, then you wouldn’t agree with it anyway….
_”Moral high ground means nothing, in that it doesn’t solve the problem of rockets raining down on Israel.” _
_”Any artillery barrage to “flatten” the areas responsible is not politically possible since it would end US support for Israel by Dem and “moderate” Rep demand.” _
These two concepts are intimately related. If Israel withdraws to the internationally recognized border and rockets follow, America will support whatever military actions Israel requires to deter attack.
“Setting up another terroist state in the ME does not seem very pragmatic to me.”
That state already exists. Israel isnt any further in the hole.
“Why not be even more pragmatic and tell the Arabs to go back to where they came from?”
Because, aside from making no sense, that idea is untenable.
“No Arabs no problems.”
And I suppose genocide would be the most pragmatic solution of all, but that is also off the table. Morality plays into this as well. The Palestinians do deserve a homeland of some sort.
“In any case how does Israel live in peace with a state right next door with murderous intentions?”
They’ve done so for 60+ years, I suspect they will manage.
“Since the real problem is the murderous intentions the presence or absence of a state will not fix the problem.”
I have no intention of ‘fixing the problem’. My idea manages it. Israel creates a viable deterrant to attack, which doesnt exist at the moment because while quasi-babysitting the occupied territories Israel doesnt have the moral ability to treat Palestine the way anybody would treat a neighboring state that launched missiles into their civilian populations. This is an internal Israeli roadblock as much as external.
“You are not fixing the problem. Just giving the conflict new terms. i.e. lipstick on a pig.”
Some problem can’t be fixed because the terms they are built on are intractable. Israel needs to change the dynamics of the issue instead of playing the same losing game.
Is that, perhaps, something like the moral high ground that Israel held after it left Lebanon in 2000?
Or maybe like the moral high ground that Israel held after it left Gaza?
“Is that, perhaps, something like the moral high ground that Israel held after it left Lebanon in 2000?
Or maybe like the moral high ground that Israel held after it left Gaza”
Lebanon is a fine example because Israel basically was given the green light by the United States for sure and the world in general to send a message in Lebanon. Tragically the Israeli administration botched that object lesson to such an extant that _the Israelis_ had to call it off. The US never pulled the plug, the plan was so ill conceived and badly executed that the Israelis themselves ran away from Lebanon. Thats a tiger of a different stripe- and of course in the wake of a pointless campaign that created a lot of Hezbollah photo-ops the rest of the world would return to their default blame Israel firstism. But it neednt have been that way.
Gaza cannot be separated from the West Bank. So long as Israel occupies one, the other will attack Israel and have some justification, however rancid. Should Israel withdraw completely, that justification evaporates. Israel has nothing left to offer, nothing left to negotiate away except her existance. At that point it becomes literally a fight for survival, and will be viewed in that prism by the US and the world. It becomes very much like the king of the castle argument in self-defense: pulling a gun in the street is entirely different than pulling a gun on somebody breaking down your front door. Entirely different.
#62 from Mark Buehner: “Gaza cannot be separated from the West Bank. So long as Israel occupies one, the other will attack Israel and have some justification, however rancid.”
There will always be some justification to attack Israel, however rancid.
#62 from Mark Buehner: “Should Israel withdraw completely, that justification evaporates.”
Leaving an infinite number of alternate complaints and rationales for jihad and Jew-killing.
Has there ever been a case in history where dedicated Jew-haters were stopped in their tracks, though they had means, motive and opportunity, because they couldn’t think of something to accuse the Jews of and blame them for?
#62 from Mark Buehner: “Israel has nothing left to offer, nothing left to negotiate away except her existance. At that point it becomes literally a fight for survival, and will be viewed in that prism by the US and the world.”
No.
We are already at the point where this is about the sheer fact of Israel’s existence. The Muslim world defines that existence as illegitimate.
If you want to claim a leadership role in the Muslim world, you need to look at least potentially like part of the solution to what the Muslim world regards as a problem, that is the sheer existence of the Jewish state.
The parts of the world where oil matters and where appeasing over a billion Muslims seems more important than appeasing a few Jews generally “get with the strength”. And there is any amount of propaganda to support anti-Zionism.
Anti-Zionism is all the rage in the United Nations, and the United Nations looks like “the international community” incarnate and the hope of the world if you are a small or poor nation and that’s the only forum where you might hope to count. A large part of the world would like the United Nations to matter more.
#62 from Mark Buehner: “It becomes very much like the king of the castle argument in self-defense: pulling a gun in the street is entirely different than pulling a gun on somebody breaking down your front door. Entirely different.”
No.
It is fine in international law to decide that Israel is practicing terrorism, but nobody is practicing terrorism against Israel, because acts that would be terrorism if practiced against other people are by definition not terrorism if they are against Israelis.
It was fine in international law to decide that it was a crime for Israel to put up a fence to stop suicide bombers, that is to stifle legitimate resistance. And a right of self-defense against non-state entities was not allowed.
What seems like a different case to you will look like the same old case of the need to fight Zionism, racism and the Little Satan and the Great Satan to the people who are driving this thing.
Oil, fear and whatever else it is that has driven Jew hate through long ages will not lose their appeal.
Business will continue as usual.
This is a jihad problem.
That is how the Muslim world is. It defines problems according to the concepts it has for dealing with the world, and jihad is right up there.
Palestine has been a jihad problem, at latest, since the Muslim world refused to absorb a mixed bag of Muslims from Palestine and instead formed them up as a new nation and a weapon against the Jewish state. The religious and cultural informal ideology of implacable opposition and supremacy came first, the nation later.
While Islam prevails, situations will be defined and shaped to require jihad, under that name or some other name that may win foreign allies. For examples, the jihad cause in Palestine cause could be called socialism when the Soviet Union was a valuable ally, and it can be called anti-racism while white guilt remains a potent card to play, and it can be called a matter of international law when that serves.
That is what we are up against. That is the problem.
“There will always be some justification to attack Israel, however rancid.”
True. The level of force appropriate to discourage those attacks, however, is directly tied to how invested Israel is in occupation. Again- that is an _ISRAELI_ hurdle. Anyone who knows anything about the history of Israeli politics will recognize it is their internal soul searching that often prevents more hard nosed reprisals- moreso than external pressure.
“Leaving an infinite number of alternate complaints and rationales for jihad and Jew-killing.”
Again, you miss the point. It is the Israeli’s perception of justic that is at stake here, and less so the Americans. When you are standing in your own kitchen and rockets land in your kids sandbox- there is absolutely no compunction about doing what needs to be done to end those rockets. When you are out slapping your neighbor around in his own house- things get more complicated, no matter the intent or justification.
“We are already at the point where this is about the sheer fact of Israel’s existence.”
That hasnt changed in 60 years. But Israel has made peace with some of their neighbors. Because they have ESTABLISHED and IMPOSED a peace that is tenable. Not because they waited around for the perfect plan that made everybody happy. They gave back land and dared Egypt and Jordan to try something.
“It is fine in international law” ad nauseum.
This has nothing to do with international law. You miss the point entirely. This has to do with what it takes for a democratic society to be able to inflict devastation on another human tribe. What it takes for an enlightened, world conscious, liberal if you will society in particular. And what that requires is a clear conscience. In order for _Israel_ to do what needs be done, Israel needs to be in a place where it is clear there is nothing more they can do to forge a just peace.
This is all based in military theory, guys like Martin Van Crevald. Soldiers cant remain soldiers when they have their boots on peoples necks, no matter the justification. They break down emotionally and become either useless or murderous. Same goes for the populations that command them. That is why powerful industrial nations have spent the last century getting their asses kicked by third world guerillas. War is based on will and will is based on character. If you cant summon willpower because your cause is destroying your character, you will lose. Discplined troops slower, but losing is inevitable over time. Same with populations. Western nations succeed when their cause is beyond doubt- fighting rampagins nazis and such. They fail when their cause becomes fuzzier, less urgent, less imminent.
Anyway, the point is Israel must put themselves in a position where their cause is simple justice and survival- not trying to hold onto Greater Israel when Israelis dont generally believe in it. When that happens, Israel will be able to fight unfettered, unconflicted, and the conflict will end very quickly. Think about it- if you get in a barfight because some lug spits on your girlfriend, you fight one way. But if some madman climbs into your childs bedroom, you fight quite differently. The analogy applies to all human nature- we only fight _decisively_ when we are unconflicted.
#64 from Mark Buehner: “This is all based in military theory, guys like Martin Van Crevald.”
I’ve read lots of Martin Van Creveld. I think his doctrine is questionable.
But anyway, now we know what our disagreement is, so I think there is not a lot more to be said on that.
“I’ve read lots of Martin Van Creveld. I think his doctrine is questionable.”
I thought so 4 years ago. Im far less certain any more.
“But anyway, now we know what our disagreement is, so I think there is not a lot more to be said on that.”
Fair enough.
There are precisely two appropriate places for a Muslim – any Muslim – in the modern world.
Six feet down, or the stratosphere.
You are right. But you are also wrong. So, are you right more than wrong? Or vice-versa? (And how do we know? And does it really matter?)
For in effect, though you would deny it, what you are doing is advocating lunacy and cloaking it as morality.
You are encouraging suicide and calling it pragmatism.
You are promoting the conditions for extreme bloodshed—even annihilation (of one group, perhaps even both)—and are saying that is the only way to cut the Gordian knot. This, by choosing to ignore not only the rhetoric of the recent and more distant past, but also actual events.
(Though you aren’t really ignoring either the rhetoric or the actions, are you? You’re only saying that in spite of them, the only way forward is to tighten the noose, to expose the neck—because, hey, it’s already exposed, no matter what one does—as the decision of both morality and pragmatism. As the only truly reasonable position to take.)
You are not the only one, of course; nor can there be any doubt that you do so as one who supports Israel’s right to exist. But that, alas may not matter much, in the end.
That is, you would support Israel’s right to exist under conditions that, though you would deny it (and even argue the opposite) would make Israel a lot harder to defend against those who’ve been dreaming, aching, dying, scheming, killing, lying constantly to see her destruction from Day 1 (Just win, baby!?). And for you, not only is this position the most moral, the most ethical to take; it is also the most pragmatic.
In your favor, it must be said that there are no good choices here. Because that noose is tightening, and so it only becomes a question of just how close ought that noose be to one’s neck—or more accurately, how close the enlightened nations of the world (together with those a tad less enlightened) think that noose ought to be, as well as how close Israel thinks it ought to be. (Israeli opinion, is of course, divided on this—there being fierce nationalists here along with those who believe that morality is a far higher value than continuing to exist, and those of course somewhere in between; to be sure, the events of the past five or so months have made some of those real-close-to-the-neck-noose-because-that’s-the-moral/pragmatic-imperative types a bit nervous; though some of them are as convinced as ever that the noose should be as tight as possible, because, well, that’s the right thing to do).
Certainly, as far as many are concerned, this conflict is interminable and absurd, and Israel is really going a bit too far in pushing the world to the brink just because it wants to continue to exist. And we’re all sick of it. So to hell with Israel; and once it’s gone, there will be peace, more or less, since that intractable sticking point will be finished with, and we can all breathe a bit easier. (Both moral and pragmatic, no?)
Look, we know what’s going to happen because we know what has happened so far, and we know (assuming we choose not to ignore it) the goal of the Palestinians— at least, those who are in a position to take decisions. We know what they want, and we know what they are prepared to do to get it. (N.B. In pursuit of that goal, it should be acknowledged that self-preservation is not one of their priorities—no matter who hard that is for any of us to actually understand this particular point).
Once again: we know what has happened so far.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon (don’t talk about Shebba Farms, as it’s merely a Hezbullah / Syrian / Iranian pretext to continue the arms build-up and hostilities)—heady with the praises of the enlightened nations of the world (etc.), Hezbullah lost no time in digging a vast network of tunnels, training cadres, arming villages, stockpiling arms and missiles in private homes, under hospitals, in mosques (why not, as they’re both a social, political and military organization?). And don’t forget about those missiles. They’re quite proud of those missiles. This with the gentle acquiescence of the UN, whose job it was, supposedly, was to ensure that the border was peaceful (or perhaps without their acquiescence—but what difference does it make, really?). Since the war this past summer, Hezbullah has dug in again, and has restocked its supply missiles, this with the gentle acquiescence of the UN together with France, Italy, Spain, et al.
When Israel withdrew from Gaza, the Palestinians lost no time in digging a vast network of tunnels, training cadres, arming villages, stockpiling arms and missiles in private homes, under hospitals, in mosques (why not, as they’re both a social, political and military organization?). And don’t forget about those missiles. They’re quite proud of those missiles. And those missiles were fired at Israeli settlements and towns. And cities (e.g., Ashkelon). And those tunnels were used to attack Israeli forces. And they’ll be used again.
And so, we therefore know what would happen when Israel leaves—or were to leave—the West Bank.
Certainly, we’ve been told often enough that “occupation” refers to all the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean; though we’ve generally assigned such “sentiments” as mere rhetoric, and we know that the third plank of the Palestinian demands (the “moderate” Palestinians,” at that)—the return of Palestinian refugees to their homes within Israel “proper”—will now begin to be touted in earnest; and that unless it is implemented, that this will be “the reason” why no peace is attainable. (Nor can you exactly accuse the (moderate) Palestinians of “moving the goalposts” because they have always insisted on this—even if the more nuanced and sophisticated among us have always reassured ourselves that the return of refugees is purely a symbolic issue.)
– And so we know that the conflict will continue, with heightened ferocity, especially since the Israelis will be seen as being in full retreat.
– We know there will be tunnels dug in all directions towards, and under the Green Line.
– We know there will an extraordinary stockpiling of missiles.
– We know that these missiles will be shot into Netanya, Afula, Kfar Saba, Jerusalem, Beersheva, and any other city, town, community or area close to the Green Line on a regular basis. And if they can reach Tel Aviv, they will shoot them into Tel Aviv. (Can you imagine the pride?)
– We know that they will target Israeli civilians and infrastructure (though if they were really smart—but does it really matter at this stage?—they will target the airfields).
– We know that the Palestinian leadership will say that they have no control over whomever or whichever group is shooting of those missiles.
– We know that when Israel tries to silence the missiles (so-called “retaliation” rather than self-defense, which in any event has not been recognized up until now and will not be recognized at that point either), they will be condemned, especially when they invariably kill Palestinian civilians, and that the world will accuse Israel once again, with all the righteous indignation it can muster, of war crimes.
(Oh, you say, “But if there is any evidence of missiles being infiltrated into the West Bank, then Israel will be justified to pre-empt in order to prevent it.” To which the only answer is, “What planet are you living on? Israel will do what she has to do, indeed—if she, at that stage, can do it—but she will never be justified.”)
– We know too that as a result of such “naked Israeli aggression” against “defenseless, suffering, oppressed people”—and such “aggression” to silence those missiles will either have to be continuous and long term or devastating—that other parties to the north and to the east, and even, perhaps to the west, will step in to “defend” the Palestinians from such naked aggression from the apartheid, colonialist, zionist, criminal regime.
And yet, knowing all this, we still find that withdrawal is the best policy. The most pragmatic policy. The most moral policy. Knowing this, the only reasonable thing to do is facilitate it.
Apparently, there’s no other viable, moral, pragmatic solution….
But if this isn’t lunacy, then what is?
Your entire post was built on a fallacy, so i’ll leave it at this- Israel withdrawing from the West Bank doesnt put her in any more danger than she already is. The only legitimate threat to Israel’s existance is Iranian nuclear weapons, and nothing in the occupied territories affect that one way or the other.