The logic is simple. Israel is surrounded by Arab countries that are committed to its destruction. There’s no chance of reaching an accomodation with moderate Palestinians, because any moderate Palestinians who pop up are murdered.
Other neighbors are horrendous dictatorships, like Iraq, Iran and Libya. Their leaders use hatred of Israel to help maintain power – as a way to distract their citizens from their own miserable governance.
Arabs outnumber Israelis by a big margin. Their weapons are becoming more and more powerful and sophisticated.
The United Nations is dominated by countries prejudiced against Israel. They will not succeed in bringing peace. In fact, they are currently avoiding responsibility, even for Palestinian areas where they exert a measure of control.
The EU will not help. They continue to support Arafat financially, even though they give lip service to criticizing the terrorism by the PA’s Al Aksa Brigades.
In short, no negotiated settlement is possible, and the situation will only get worse, from Israel’s POV.
I am not asserting that it would be moral for Israel to start an all-out war. I am saying that as a practical matter they are doomed under the current course. I’m very unhappy about this “solution,” but that’s how the real world looks from my POV.
The logic is simplistic–and wrong.
Israel is surrounded by hostile nations that have all finally acknowledged that Israel is not going away and that have not engaged Israel in a war in 29 years (following a period of four wars in 25 years).
There is no chance of reaching an accomodation with moderate Palestinians under the current rgime, because any moderate who sticks his head up will be jailed by Israel.
At whom do you intend to aim this war? Are you planning to simply kill all the Palestinains? Jordan is nearly friendly with Israel. Egypt has a working association. Saudi Arabia has no designs on the territory. Even Syria seems more inclined to use words rather than arms to reclaim the Golan Heights. Lebanon is a shattered sheel–thanks in large part to Israeli interventions.\
Israel needs to sit down and talk with the Palestinians, ignoring the terrorist attacks that neither they no the PA can actually stop, thus demonstrating the good faith that will remove the support in the general population for the terrorist elements. This approach has worked in Spain and appears to be working (in fits and starts) in Northern Ireland.
Calls for genocide from their American “supporters” will not help Israel or anyone else.
December: Just assuming for the nonce that your analysis of the state of affairs is completely correct, please explain to me how this all-out slugfest would make Israel safer and less prone to terrorist attacks, even given an overwhelming Israeli victory. After all the Israeli victory in 1967 was pretty overwhelming as well. Just what differences do you envision between 1967 and your proposed war? What is the best possible outcome in your view?
I just don’t see how any such victory would make more than a minor difference in improving Israeli security ( after all, none of Israel’s neighbors are a credible conventional threat anyway, especially assuming U.S. intervention if things somehow turned bad ) and I can think of all sorts of ways it could actually compromise it in the long term ( depending on the aftermath ). So I’d like to see some more thorough explanation on your part on how you think this would work.
Good questions, all. And, I do not necessarily have good answers. I just feel that the current course of simply retaliating one attack at a time is useless.
<<At whom do you intend to aim this war? Are you planning to simply kill all the Palestinains?>>
Yes, I think Israel would be well-advised to declare war on the Palestinians and drive them out of some of their current terrotory. Israel needs a contiguous, defensible area.
Israel needs to separate themselves from the Palestinians. They have tried to integrate Palestinians into their community, but st seems that no good deed goes unpunished. E.g., Hebrew University is available to Arabs as well as Jews, which makes it easy for terrorists to plant a bomb. Two days ago, two Israelis who were selling fuel to Palestinians were murdered.
If other countries came to the aid of the Palestinians, Israel would need to be prepared to expand the war.
<<Jordan is nearly friendly with Israel. Egypt has a working association. Saudi Arabia has no designs on the territory. Even Syria seems more inclined to use words rather than arms to reclaim the Golan Heights.>>
Then Israel would have no need to fight these particular countries.
<<Lebanon is a shattered sheel–thanks in large part to Israeli interventions.>>
I do not believe that the decimation of this once lovely country was the fault of Israel. Do you have cites, Tom?
<<Israel needs to sit down and talk with the Palestinians, ignoring the terrorist attacks that neither they no the PA can actually stop, thus demonstrating the good faith that will remove the support in the general population for the terrorist elements. This approach has worked in Spain and appears to be working (in fits and starts) in Northern Ireland. >>
Yes, but this approach has failed in the Middle East. Israel has demonstrated their good faith over and over in the various agreements negotiated. It hasn’t worked. One can always hope or wish that it will work the next time, just as Charlie Brown can always hope that Lucy will leave the football there for him to kick. IMHO it’s just not in the cards.
Maybe if Charlie Brown beat the sh*t out of Lucy, she’d be more honorable.
Tamerlane, you ask a very good question. I see the fanaticism of the militant Arabs to be parallel to the fanaticism of the fascists in WWII. It took a thorough victory by the allies, but Japan, Germany and Italy are now upstanding democracies. I see no reason why Arabs cannot become upstanding democracies, too, after military conquest and the imposition of a democratic government.
I’m still trying to wrap my mind around the concept of the interlopers (the Israelis) declaring all-out war on the people who were there first (the Palestinians) and having this somehow be a “good thing”…
Tell me, December, what’s your take on the United States of America’s (the interlopers) recent all-out war on Native Americans (the people who were there first)?
Um, and maybe if Charlie Brown beat the shit out of Lucy, everybody would know he was a psychopath, and would give him a wide berth, and nobody would ever speak to him again, let alone play football with him.
And if an opportunity came to drop him from the strip, they’d go for it, no question.
IIRC the Israeli economy needs Palestinian workers.
I believe the US and the UN would exercise undue influence if Israel attempted such a strategy.
As mentioned above, why antagonise the neighbors who very well might support the Palestinians in such a fight.
As a small state with few allies and surrounded by many potential enemies, IMHO Israel needs to vigorously defend itself without retaliating extremely and if the violence ever subsides, try to negotiate the best deal it can get for itself.
But what will it take for the violence to subside?
So how does one determine who was “there first”? The Israeli government believes the Jews were there first, whatever that means in the Middle East context. I guess they have a point in that Islam originated several thousand years after Judaism. But if you think about it, probably most Palestinians are descended from Jews who converted, anyway.
Just think how wacky it would be once DNA analysis gets to the sophistication level where it’s a reasonably useful geneaology tool, and we can find things out for sure. What if we found out that, say, Yasser Arafat is a direct descendant of Solomon or something? Maybe this will be the way that science will come up with an answer; if the Jews and Palestinians come to realize that they really are all one big, dysfunctional family, they’ll find some way to coexist. OK, like many families, maybe it won’t be entirely placid, but at least mabe it’ll involve fewer pointless murders.
Setting aside that this is diplomatic suicide and morally repugnant IMHO ( it would transform Israel from an embattled nation with much legitimate emotional and intellectual support into one of the villains of history ), there are a couple of issues here.
The first is that I believe you would effectively destroy Israel from within, as a significant portion of Israel’s Jewish population would oppose this tactic ( especially since I assume from your later comments that you envision expelling the Arab citizens of Israel as well ). The polarization could completely destabilize the country. Actually, simply because of this internal factor, I submit it will never happen anyway, so it’s a moot point. Perhaps Alessan has some insight here.
Second, there is NO area large enough to be defensible enough to stop hatred, even if Israel had the manpower to occupy a significantly larger chunk of the Middle East permanently than they do now ( which they do not ). You may think things couldn’t possibly get worse on this front, but I would submit that you are wrong. Such action would breed decades of intensified terrorist activity and solidify what has been up until now the slowly waning opposition of surrounding Muslim states.
Any purchase in security would be short-term. At any rate, as I’ve said, this will almost certainly never happen. The diplomatic fallout and internal upheaval alone speak against it.
Israel would win. Which would accomplish nothing. Again genocide and ethnic cleansing are unthinkable ( in terms of a modern democracy surviving it intact ) and Israel lacks the manpower to permanently and safely occupy those far more populous neighbors.
The point is that decades of slowly and painfully won political acceptance, however how grudging and marginal, would be thrown away. And given an issue of genocide/ethnic cleansing, I think you would see hostilities that would gain Israel zip.
Israel was definitely a contributing factor. However, I will grant you that it was hardly the only one. Lebanon’s fall has been a complex one, but the PLO and Israel jointly have a significant share of blame.
Perhaps not. But your option is many times worse. If you have to choose an alternative to continued dialogue, at least the less-than-optimal “withdraw, unilaterally declare a Palestinian state, and build a wall” option allows for eventual re-negotiation with honour. Your scheme does not.
Seems that gambit has failed repeatedly as well.
Drawing such a historical parallel is very, very dicey. The situations are not identical. Just how far afield are you going to go with this “conquer and impose democracy scheme”? Syria? Egypt? Iraq? Iran? Algeria? Yemen? At any rate, I once again submit Israel,while more than capable of defending itself, lacks the resources to make any such sustained effort. Nor, depending on how wide you want to cast your net, does the United States in all probability ( even if it did want to the cost would be insanely high in terms of money, blood, and goodwill for a scheme of highly uncertain chance of success ). I’m not entirely certain the U.S. can pull it off in just Iraq ( maybe - we may soon see ), where it has some things going for it, let alone Israel pulling it off with a substantial chunk of the Levant.
Sorry, I think your reasoning is, aside from being morally unacceptable, entirely unrealistic.
We must do what we can to stop the Evil Doers, and as the OP has stated, we, as a country supporting Israel, should not hesitate to start an all out war that we must win. Israel is indeed surrounded by implacable enemies. Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebannon. These are the countries that surround Israel and daily threaten its very existence. I propose that we start with Jordan. It is close by, and since they have a regular commerce with Israel, it will come as a surprise, and surprise is a necessary element in a successful campaign. Once Jordan is conquered and occupied, with the help of collaborationist Jordanians, as Israel is too small to conduct a long term occupation, the next logical step is to sweep through Syria and take Lebannon, driving all the way to the sea. Next Israel must turn its invincible forces towards its most hated Arab neighbor Egypt (African really, but you get the idea). Egypt must be crushed and occupied. Once again, with collaborationist help. Once Israel has established these buffer zones around its borders, it can begin to transport the Palestinian homicide bombers in waiting off to the new occupied territories were they can be resettled in larger refugee camps. These will be in the former Jordan as most of these people posing as Palestinians are really Jordanians anyway. Then, as needed, Israel can conduct campaigns in concentric semicircles until Israel is truly safe, Libya, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq (Kuwait and other Emirates too), Turkey, Iran, etc.
Now you may object on the logical grounds that Israel will make too many world wide enemies, who will complain about this solution to terrorism, and it is too small a country with insufficient resources to conquer so much territory and hold it for an indefinite occupation. Not so.
You are forgetting that Israel has one and only one unwavering ally in the world: the United States. The United States is not just Israel’s unwavering ally, but it is also the strongest military power in the world by a long margin, and it is run by people who understand exactly why such a campaign would be feasible and limited in scope, and worth it.
Texas tea. Black Gold. Oil that is. Yes siree, the conquered countries control about 40% of the world’s known oil reserves, which are projected to last about 50 years. And Bush and Cheney understand the value to the American public of direct control of that oil, and that an occupation need only last 50 years. After we such the oil dry out of the Middle East and switch to they hydrogen economy, the occupation can end, because then those countries will be about as threatening as Chad during the dry season.
Such a plan of conquest will be greatly successful in bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East, and great economic success to the victors. History is written by the victors, and because we want to write history that will sell well in the bookstores, we must go to war. Israel can never have peace otherwise, and certainly not by talking about peace at a conference table.
I think Tamerlane and Tomndebb have done a good job of outlining the moral and practical problems of “all-out war”.
Let me just make a few points about the idea that there is no possibility of a negotiated settlements. On the contrary the two parties came quite close to a deal especially during the Taba negotiations and the fault for the breakdown of the negotiations lies with all the three parties concerned. (the third being of course the US).
If you add to that the Saudi peace proposal, the signals from Arafat and others that he would be prepared to compromise on the “right of return” then the Arab position is not that far from the final position of Israel during the Taba negotiations or for that matter the current positions of the Labor party.
There is a fair amount of evidence that both sides are exhausted by the intifida and seeking some way out. What it will take is strong US pressure on both side to take those confidence-building steps that will lead finally to negotiations. The US also needs to make clear to Sharon that it envisages a final settlement somewhere along the lines of Taba and nip any dreams he might have about the settlements or East Jerusalem. So far unfortunately it seems willing to put pressure only on the Palestinians over which it has rather little leverage.
The alternative to that ,which December proposes, is a genuine quagmire for Israel (and perhaps the US) where Israel fights a series of increasingly brutal wars which may win a temporary respite each time but which will radicalize the entire region, produce thousands of suicide bombers with ever more destructive weapons until one day they start killing Israelis in the tens of thousands or even worse.
Anyone who thinks Israel has the capacity to stamp terror out by force might reflect on its failure to do precisely that against Hejbollah in Lebanon.
Moderator’s Note:Taggert, I am officially tired of your little schtick. Please confine yourself to arguing for points of view you hold, or at least presenting hypotheses which you might actually be persuaded to accept, and find another forum for your “satire”.
december, I would like you to put your hand on your heart and declare whether or not you think that the life of an innocent Palestinian civilian is worth the same as that of an innocent Israeli civilian.
DDG, please re-read the OP. It specifically disavowed a moral dimension. What it said was that if the current course continues, Israel will be destroyed. (Same response to jjimm.)
However, from a moral POV, here are two points:
– If you believed that the utter destruction of Israel was in the cards, would that afrfect your moral position?
– Have you reckoned in the possibility that when Israel is faced with final, total destruction, they might then use their nuclear arsenal, killing tens of millions?
I do not really disagree with any of the major points made by posters here. However, a couple of quibbles:
Diplomatic harm – It’s not clear that Israel would suffer that much diplomatic harm, except possibly with the US. Their current, limited responses to terrorism get them blasted routinely by much of the world community anyhow. Furthermore, diplomacy doesn’t matter much. Look at the puny EU response to the horrors of Zimbabwe – not letting government officials visit their cojntries. I’m glad the EU is doing something, but it’s not much…
In short, if the US would go along (a big if), the diplomatic costs would be bearable for Israel.
I dispute the idea that Arafat was ever close to a real peace agreement. He did not keep the agreements he made in the past. My belligerant “solution” may be wishful thinking, but a successful negotiation with Arafat iis even more so.
Well, no. They moved in mostly after the Romans evicted the Jews. But the promised land is an article of the Jewish faith, and they have the means to live there now.
I do agree with Mr. Winter there thatIsrael is often treated unfairly by European govs. But genocide or conquest isn’t going to help them in the long run. In all honesty, I can’t think of anything that will. Maybe its just a situation that is hopeless until the Palestinians decide to straighten up. I think the Iraelis can loosen up then.
“I dispute the idea that Arafat was ever close to a real peace agreement. He did not keep the agreements he made in the past”
Well Israel ,particularly but not exclusively the Netanyahu goverenment , did not keep all their agreements either and there was a big expansion of settlements during the Oslo period which was at the very least, a terrible show of bad faith and a major cause of the breakdown of negotiations.
If Sharon is serious about peace he could make a counter-offer to the Saudi Plan with a cessation of terrorism as a condition. That would be a no-lose situation for him because if the Palestinians refused it would be a huge diplomatic coup. The reason that he doesn’t do this is that any serious offer would mean giving up most of the settlements and East Jerusalem which he refuses to contemplate. Which means in turn that he and his government is a huge obstacle to peace.