Israeli policy is self-defeating and counter-productive (for Israelis)

Great Debates
1

Suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians; Israelis demand revenge. In response, Israeli forces kill Palestinian civilians; Palestinians demand revenge. In response, suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians…etc., etc. ad infinitum.

Clearly this will never end if both parties continue this way. In this vicious cycle of revenge and retaliation, it seems to me the Israelis have more freedom of action, and therefore more responsibility to break the cycle. Israelis have more freedom of movement, more land, more weapons, more personal security and more economic options than Palestinians have ever had.

If Israel had never held on to the West Bank and Gaza after 1967, we would not be hearing about suicide bombers today, and every Israeli would be safer.

If Israel pulled out of the West Bank and Gaza tomorrow, you would see a sharp decrease in violence. If Israel removed the illegal settlements, an even sharper decrease. If Israel facilitated a “Marshall Plan” whereby the U.S. and other Western nations brought economic development to the Palestinians, there would be no conflict at all – everyone would be too busy enjoying their higher standard of living.

I have always thought Middle Eastern problems had economic roots.

2

Every conflict has economic roots to some degree or another. In the case of the Middle East, I’ve always felt that religion, ties to land, and bad blood made it a case where economics weren’t quite as dominant a factor as they tend to be.

That being said, a big improvement in economic standing for the Palestineans would probably cut violence drastically, as more money helps people to forget those other issues.

As for the main point about Israeli response, I agree, but I also see how difficult it can be to ignore such an attack. It’s very easy to feel that no response will show weakness and encourage the other side to press harder , i.e. “go for the kill.” Whether that would be the case, I don’t know. But I can see how the Israeli government could feel that way.

And yes, keeping the occupied territories after 1967 was a bad idea. I’d say making them UN controlled demilitarized zones would have been better, but then the prelude to the '67 War shows how bad those could work.

3

Rather unlikely, given that the groups who are perpetrating the suicide bombings have as their stated goal the destruction of Israel per se. Playing nice would probably significantly reduce the violence, but not end it altogether.

4

This presupposes that there was never an initial incidence from which the last 54 years enmity arose. That’s your first error.

Why would this follow? The single suicide bomber, of which there have been many, is every bit as responsible for perpetuating this cycle of violence. The economic viability of Israel is in no way a result of Palestinian lack of same.

Now you’re way off base. Israel has fought and won four wars in her 54 year history. The first began on the first day of Israeli statehood. The war of 1967 in which Israel forced back Jordanian troops and acquired what is still know as the “West Bank”, was not due to aggression by Israel. For anyone to suggest that the side initiating hostilities and ultimately losing the war and territory, should then recoup that ground…what exactly was the lesson to be learned? We all end with the same pieces we started with? That’s counter-productive. As to your other arguments, recall who exactly rejected Clinton’s Camp David initiative which would have created a Palestinian state, done almost everything you listed, and in full given Arafat 95% of everything he asked for. HE turned it down. Recognize that a sizable group of Palestinians want nothing less than the destruction of Israel, and perhaps your viewpoint will change.

This situation is more properly the result of two enemies of several millenium, both at war over one ancient homeland. Neither can ever been completely satisfied.

5

Any perceived appeasement of the Palestinians, no matter how self-interested in fact, will anger and alienate the hawks in Israel, who, in the extreme, are capable of violence. Remember what happened to Rabin?

Also remember, Barak pushed the peace process further than any Israeli prime minister before him, and was soundly defeated in the next election, to be replaced by an extreme hawk who is accused by some of war crimes against the Palestinians.

The kind of peaceful, paternalistic course of action suggested in the OP is pragmatically impossible.

6

hansel, you forgot to mention that Sharon’s election occurred after Barak’s incredibly generous offer had been flatly turned down, and after the Palistinians had responded with an Intifada, i.e., ongoing mass murders of civilians.

7

True, Arafat turning down the offer convinced a lot of moderate Israelis that no peace was possible because the other side doesn’t want it, pushing them towards the hawks. But, I recall, Barak’s popularity waned following the offer itself: a lot of Israelis felt that Barak went too far at that point, and Arafat’s refusal simply reinforced that opinion.

Our collective point stands: there are too many Israelis who feel that peaceful coexistence with the Palestinians just isn’t possible.

8

Cite?

9

The Israeli Cabinet has just finished pointing their collective fingers at the Palestinian Authority and shouting, “Terrorists! Terrorists!”

http://www.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/meast/12/03/mideast/index.html

So, am I just imagining it, or are they also shouting, “Dubya! Sic 'em!”? After all, there’s been a lot of speculation on “who’s next on Uncle Sam’s anti-terrorist agenda”. Are we looking forward to watching the 83rd Airborne occupy the Gaza Strip during Christmas break?

10

Uh, Duck, that’s borderline insulting. We can fight our own wars. All we need from you is moral support and some PR.

11

**

The PLO is equally capable of peaceful protest in order to get what they want. If they have the resources to buy weapons and make bombs then they have the resources to organize peaceful protest.

**

To the victor goes the spoils. What was the lesson that the invading nations learned in 1967? Invade Israel and they’ll kick your ass and take some of your land. Seems fair to me.

**

Or they could just rid the west bang and the Gaza strip of Palestinians.

I am sometimes critical of how Israel handles things. But I tend to be rather forgiving considering the situation they’ve been in since day 1. Also they happen to be the only nation in the middle east I’d even consider living in.

Marc

12

First, there will be no US action against the Palestinians. At least any overt action. There is no world consensus for action there, but there is consensus for negotiation.

Withdrawal probably will not work, unfortunately. There are entire Israeli cities that would have to be uprooted. There are some parts that they will not give back, for instance the Old City of Jerusalem. There is no Israeli government who will accept Palestinian sovereignty over the Western Wall. Perhaps internationalization, perhaps compromise, but bad precedents have been set for putting Muslims in control of Jewish holy sites. See Old City, 1948-1967, under the control of Jordan. See Tomb of Joseph last year. See current construction done by the Waqf on Temple Mount.

Besides holy sites, the geography of the region bars a “complete withdrawal with a wall” option. Beit Jala and Gilo are separated by 100 meters. All along the Green Line, there are West Bank villages directly adjacent to Palestinian settlements. Walls will not stop sniper bullets or missiles or mortars or determined infiltrators.

It is for this reason that any settlement needs to be made between two sides who are actually seeking peace. The Israelis have demonstrated their willingness to make peace a number of times so far – Oslo and Camp David, along with endless negotiations at places like Taba. The Palestinians have not budged one inch from their stance – complete withdrawal and full sovereignty over Jerusalem, with right of return for perhaps one million violently anti-Israeli refugees. They are demanding that one million refugees be allowed to resettle land within the 1948 borders of Israel. If this isn’t a recipe for destruction from within, then I don’t know what is.

The Israelis have become pragmatic. Knowing Arafat was all that they had, they have shown willingness to negotiate with him until now. All they asked was for one thing – any hint, whatsoever, that he was controlling the violence. Any type of hint that he could represent the Palestinian popular will, or at least control it long enough for the situation to stabilize. This would be demonstrated by a period of complete silence – if the two sides are to live in peace in the future, surely the Israelis are not out of line asking for a small demonstration of peace now?

Arafat has not done this. Furthermore, he has only paid lip service to the idea of peace, in the form of unfulfilled rhetoric and arresting militants who are released hours later. Instead of a reduction, what they get is now Arafat’s own party, Fatah, who hadn’t attacked inside the Israeli Green Line since 1967, now launching numerous attacks on Israeli civilians, the last being 5 days ago in Afula.

Walls won’t work. Only two sides willing to live in peace will work. If we can’t have that, at least we can have two populations controlled enough to become accustomed to quiet so that normalcy may return. Peace negotiations don’t work if only one side is acting in good faith. Just ask yourself – if Israel was to withdraw tomorrow, what evidence do you have that the violence would decrease, let alone stop? There is none. That is what frightens the Israelis.

13

How can one provide a cite for one’s opinion about a possible future? OK, maybe by providing a cite about other people’s opinions.

This poll shows that in early '99, before the current intifada, the vast majority of Palestinians supported the peace process even though they were pessimistic about its outcome. Three years and many bombings, shellings, blockades and targeted killings later, that opinion has obviously changed.

To me, this indicates, at the very least, that Palestinian popular opinion is not as grim and inflexible as NaSultainne would have us believe. Like most other people, Palestinians probably change their opinions as the world changes. Like most other people, Palestinians probably become less angry and dissatisfied as their material conditions improve.

Of course, NaSultainne, there will always be some Palestinians who will always advocate the destruction of Israel, just as there will always be American yahoos who blow up Federal buildings and abortion clinics and shoot doctors. But without popular support for their actions deriving from popular anger at Israel, they would find it a lot harder to operate and would face a lot more social censure for the actions they do carry out.

By the way, NaSultainne and MGibson, the acquisition of populated territory by military conquest is illegal under international law.

I realize that MGibson’s suggestion, of expelling all the Palestinians, has been echoed by Israeli politicians like the late Tourism Minister Ze’evi, but such an act would not only be contemptible and contrary to international standards of decency (“genocide” if you will), it would also virtually guarantee a spiral of anger and retribution that would keep getting Israeli civilians blown up for the next 100 years – self-defeating, as I said in the title to this thread. I insist that Israelis would be safer in the long term if their army just GOT OUT.

Slight hijack, concerning international law: Israel is in violation of Articles 5-13, 15, 17-21 and 25 of the UN’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Palestinian Authority also violates the articles dealing with democratic government and dissent, and Bush and Ashcroft are specifically in violation of Articles 6-11, dealing with due process and the rights of the accused.

I have a question for all of you. WHY am I the only poster in these Israel-Palestine threads who ever advocates some solution that would be beneficial to all sides? The tone I hear most often in these threads is a kind of angry pessimism, even nihilism – even the moderate pro-Israel posters tend to say things like, “I don’t like what’s going on, but there’s nothing else we can do.”

This is depressing! Doesn’t anyone WANT to try to make things better? So, you think my recommendations are paternalistic and pie-in-the-sky? Why not TRY paternalism for once? Nothing else has worked, certainly not violence and retribution. Like I said: self-defeating policies, self-defeating attitudes.

Tom

14

While I fear the possibility that your last sentence may be correct ( though I hope I’m wrong ), I have to disagree with the rest of your paragraph.

First, several millenia is several thousand years and Islam, at least, has not been around that long. Nor has any coherent tribal group relating to the modern Palestinians.

Second, this is not an ancient conflict in any event, but a modern one. You might conceivably push the roots of this particular dispute back to the 19th century, but that would be about it. More accurately the watershed years were WW I and its aftermath, and WW II and its aftermath. Claims that this is the perpetuation of same ancient feud are just not accurate.

Edwino: This topic always depresses me, as I never seepolitically viable, realistic solutions. Personally I think the most logical answer would be an interlocking confederated system as I am convinced that a policy of separation is doomed to failure ( for both economic and social reasons ). Perhaps a “cantonment” system of sorts. Sadly, I consider this to currently be neither politically viable, nor realistic :frowning: .

I know you were thinking about this after the 11th. Any new thoughts on solutions?

  • Tamerlane
15

tclouie: I consider my tone to be more “sad pessimism”, than “angry pessimism” ( I’d put a winky smilie here, but given the topic I think it would feel odd ). I do try to be optimistic, though. I just fail a lot.

  • Tamerlane
16

Is that really of any importance at all? I doubt anyone feels much interest in your choice of personal residence, especially in such a sensitive matter.

As Edwino wisely points out, the crux of this entire problem is that both sides must want peace. How is that possible when each side perceives the other in such a negative light and with so much anger?

Arafat does not have the various violent Palestinian factions under control, so his influence over this matter is limited, particularly when Israel continues to “move against popular sentiment with tanks” (to paraphrase Kofi Annan); Arafat is a man struggling to hold together a lot of unravelling threads, and he is probably not able to accept certain compromises as long as the violent factions in Palestine remain organized and supported–dramatically splitting up the Palestinians is the last thing anyone would want to do. Sharon is a public relations nightmare, an extremist hawk strongly suspected of human rights crimes, provocation, etc.

So on one hand you have a leader with dwindling power over those he leads, and on the other you have an extremist without a track record when it comes to good intentions. There was, as Hansel points out, far more cause for optimism with Ehud Barak, a man who was sincerely trying to solve the problem. Yes, Arafat refused Barak’s offer, but that is not to say that the peace process was going nowhere.

Negotiation involves far more than making and accepting offers. Refusing a first offer is part and parcel of the negotiating process, and not an indication that the process is over. Barak’s offer was so generous that it is safe to call it landmark, but if that is not satisfying to the Palestinians in any way the negotiations must continue until both sides reach an agreement. The mistakes carried out then included violent attacks by Palestinians and violent reprisals by Israel, the Intifada, and Sharon’s election.

Also don’t forget that both sides have relied on bargaining “chips” along this process, and I wager that in recent times the primary “encouragement” on the Palestinian side is the whole Intifada business, while on the Israeli side it is the muscle-flexing program of assassination, repression, etc. Both sides would like their “chips” to tip the decision in their favour, but it looks like both sides are equally stubborn and have refused to give in to strongarm negotiation tactics.

Going back to my original point, education and communication will probably have a greater effect on Israel and Palestine than terrorist attacks or disproportionate force have had so far. Sharon is looking for an excuse to use all-out violence against the Palestinians, and the Palestinians are serving it up to him. As tclouie correctly points out, this is self defeating in the long run–for both sides.

17

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Tamerlane *
**

I wish. You know, when I run through the list of options, I end up stuck with nearly nothing. Separation, once was a fan, now see it as an impossible pipe dream used only for appeasement of the masses. War, nobody wants war. Negotiations, something needs to change to get the Israelis back to the table.

We need to keep our minds on the people who IMHO deserve the help: the Palestinian and Israeli moderates. They exist, but have been silent for a year and a half. If we can find a political solution and force it on both parties, even if the moderates are the only ones happy at first, the ensuing peace (even if it means temporary repressions to force it down the throats of the hawks) will give everyone a chance to calm down. This is what I felt Clinton and Barak were trying to push over at Camp David. IMHO Arafat wasn’t following suit – he was worried about catering to the extremists who would put his head on a spike.

What has gone on in Palestine is the woeful story of so many moderate Muslim nations. The leaders cater to the extremist Muslim cleric factions in order to channel hatred away from the corrupt leadership and to an exogenous source. Except in this case, the exogenous souce is not the mostly unreachable “West” or “America,” it is 20 meters over a barricade in Israel. This is bad news for everyone involved – the leaders on both sides, the people on both sides.

IMHO. This problem is so confounding because we constantly fall back on our safe American/European viewpoints and act as the solution will come from that. More and more, I move away from that. This region works differently. It is a world based on 1400-4000 years of conflicting traditions, right back to Sarah and Hagar. It is a world based on perceptions of strength more than actual strength. It is a world based on perceived divine rights.

Rights of the masses are not important here – it is rights of the moderates that are important. The masses are frothing at the mouth extremists or at most one step away from it (excuse my overly broad generalization). Peace and prosperity for both sides need to be thrust on these people before they can open their eyes and realize what is good for them. Both Israelis and Palestinians. I only hope that this realization does not come through war.

18

I can fully appreciate why both sides attack each other in retaliation. If one side does not do so, then it gives a hint to the other than it can strike with impunity.

I actually (pessimistically, reluctantly) think that peace will only come with exhaustion. When both sides are too ragged to come to further blows, a meaningful peace might arise. This has happened within the past decade in other parts of the world. Thinking out aloud, however, this, would need everyone (the US, the backers of the Palestinian groups) to back out, which I can’t see happening.

I personally would like to see peacekeepers in there, like in Cyprus, but the Israelis won’t allow that.

19

Sorry to be “borderline insulting”, Alessan, but are you talking about actual combat troops? I’m glad y’all can fight your own wars, but do you think Ariel Sharon and Shimon Peres would actually say “no, thanks” to an offer of, say, a little air cover? Maybe a couple of bombing runs just to soften things up? Or maybe a few Marines, just to establish a base, and then the Israeli Army can take over from there?

I don’t think so. Why else would they have an official Cabinet meeting to label Arafat as a terrorist, if not to get Uncle Sam’s help? I mean, they’ve been saying it for a long time now, but AFAIK there’s been no official governmental announcement to that effect. It’s just been part of the background noise, “yadda yadda, Arafat terrorist, yadda yadda…”

IMO, it’s because they want help from Dubya’s “Global War On Terror”, and specifically military help, in the form of combat troops, or at least air cover, not just PR and moral support.

20

While I’m supportive of Israel, you’re insulting our intelligence by claiming that “all we need is moral support and some PR.” Israel is heavily dependent on U.S. dollars, and if the taps were turned off Israel would scream bloody murder.

One can hardly blame them, though; when push came to shove in 1967, the UN acted like cowards and ran like a whipped dog.

I’m not going to say Israel is perfect, but the manner in which they’ve been treated by the United Nations is an absolute disgrace and completely invalidates any claim the U.N. might lay to having any authority in this quagmire. Israel’s sovereignty has been constantly threatened by belligerent neighbours for fifty years and the U.N. has shafted them again, and again, and again, and done nothing to help Israel, which is a member state and which damn well deserves U.N. support. Israel’s never been given any reason to trust the U.N. and I don’t see why they would start now.