Stop fighting back. Tell the world that you wan’t to be the first to end this bloody fight and stop retaliating to terror strikes. If the Palestinians respond to this and peace talks restart, great. If not, by the fifth or sixth unprovoked attack on Israel’s civilian population i think the UN will be ready to back Israel up and try and make a lasting solution to this problem. And no i don’t mean “the final solution,” i mean taking whatever steps necessary, military action, removal of Hamas leaders, and the forced relocation of settlers.
That’s not a bad suggestion when you are living in relative safety. It is less appealing when you realize that basically your suggestion is to wait and see how many more people die from suicide bomber attacks. A few more happen, and then Israel should defend itself seems to be the argument.
If you can’t share, then NO ONE gets to have the Holy Land!
all is easier said than done.
More and more, I’m starting to think that’s the only solution.
I can only assume you’re joking. You expect the U.N. to intervene and make “a lasting solution to this problem?” Well, the U.N. certainly has a stellar track record when it comes to imposing peace on warring parties and protecting civilians, especially when that calls for taking decisive military action!
I say we nuke the whole joint. They’re all gonna kill each other sooner or later anyways, we might as well help them get it over with.
. . . yes, I am joking. The sad part is that I have yet to hear a solution that’s really much better. sigh
I wouldn’t call this solution “radical” at all. Israel has implemented it before, albeit in smaller degree. For instance, after I believe the Sbarro bombing, Israel held fast to the cease-fire it had agreed to, only to find out it was the only one actually living by the cease-fire. Any time Israel has unilaterally ended retaliation, pulled out of Palestinian areas, or offered Arafat the entire Gaza Strip, 96% of the West Bank, and land to compensate for the other 4%, the response has only been more terrorism. People seem to forget that the PLO, the most “moderate” significant Palestinian faction, still calls for the destruction of Israel in its charter.
** Not really
The Israelis who built a democratic, capitalist oasis in the desert with their blood and sweat, and who have fought only in self-defense should be forced to leave too?
And Truth Seeker, what’s the alternative? Let the fighting continue until both parties have accomplished mutual genocide?
yeah, and Mussolini made the trains run on time…
and China is ‘freeing’ Tibet from religious oppression…
and Torquemada ‘saved’ Spain from the Pagans and Heathens…
Nice skirting around Godwin’s Law. Do you really think that the Israeli/Palestinian situation is equivalent to the fascisti, Spanish Inquisition, and Chinese human rights violations in Tibet?
The situation is slightly different, in that Israel has been the party repeatedly trying to make peace. When I see any single overt gesture of goodwill from the Palestinians, maybe I’ll change my mind. Until then, the Israelis are the good guys here.
When was the last time Arafat advanced a peace plan based on compromise?
Nobody will be, or can be, “forced” to leave. The “self-defense” claim is also irrelevant. Though I have serious doubts about their current tactics, the real problem isn’t so much how the state of Israel has responded to armed aggression but, rather, policy choices it has made. Perhaps things would have been even worse had Israel made different choices. Nonetheless, whether or not this is the shudder best of all possible worlds, Israel bears a share of the responsibility for the current situation just as do the Palestinians and the many Arab states.
Well, I don’t know what the alternative is. In any conflict like this, outside intervention is unlikely to be effective until both sides have become heartily sick of the carnage. Perhaps Israelis and Palestinians are reaching that point now. In any event, you’re better off putting your faith in the peace fairy if you expect the U.N. to forcefully intervene and separate the combatants.
BTW, to whom, exactly, are you referring when you speak of “forced relocation of settlers?”
Forgot to address the OP.
Israel has basically tried the unilateral cease fire thing a bunch of times, and it hasn’t worked for the reasons pointed out aptly above.
A more interesting (and more radical) solution would be as you say, but accompany that with a unilateral withdrawal to a defensible line, perhaps Barak’s 97% Camp David line. Evacuate the remote settlements, build a wall, and unilaterally declare Palestinian independence. Guarantee Muslim access to al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, but don’t budge an inch on Jerusalem and annex the East Jerusalem suburbs like Gilo. Then open the table for the rest of the negotiations – final status on land exchange, water rights, power rights, refugees, safe passage from Gaza to the West Bank, port rights, airport rights, etc. Only with good faith measures by the Palestinians will they get these things.
If they can’t cohabitate peacefully, if they won’t stop the bloodshed, would it be unreasonable for a coalition of nations to send forces into the middle east to move the Palestinians into neighboring nations- each of which would have to agree to take a portion of them? (something they’ve never done before and would have to be persuaded to do)
I’m not recommending this now. Israel’s hard line policy of retaliation is making them little better than their adversary. But as I stated in my OP I think this scenario could be agreeable to the world if after Israel switched to a passive role Palestinian attacks continued.
i agree you with you exactly, edwino. Stop fighting back, give them everything they want except Jerusalem, and wait to see if the violence stops. There could be no clearer sign to the world as to which side is truly interested in peace.
Piffle and tosh, HH The Israelis have in fact, created a relatively tolerant and free society, especially given the norms in the region. It is true that Muslim Arabs (which make up about 20% of the Israeli population) are treated like second-class citizens. However, thougthful Arab leaders have remarked that the true tragedy isn’t that Israel discriminates against its Arabs citizens, it’s that, despite that discrimination, Israel treats its Arab citizens better than Arab nations treat their Arab citizens.
What I really fear is that in the process of trying to defend its tolerant and free society, Israel will destroy it. I’m saddened when I hear that innocent people have gotten killed in an Israel assasination-by-helicopter operation. I’m doubly saddened when I hear Israel leaders trying to justify it. Ultimately, I think that accepting an ends-justifies-the-means sort of moral reasoning will be far more damaging to Israel and, indeed, Judiasm, and what it stands for than any number of suicide bombers.
I see on preview that Edwino has suggested unilateral withdrawl by Israel. “Unilateral separation” has been the doomsday option in the peace process for some time. It is streniously objected to by the U.S. as well as the Palestinians. I believe Barak threatened this when Arafat threatened to unilaterally declare the creation of a Palestinian state. Arafat backed down. If this were to occur, Israel would never negotiate with the Palestinians. The official Israeli attitude would be. “We will not negotiate any further with you on any subject. Here’s your land. Declare a state. If you attack us, it will be an act of war. We will retaliate. You will lose. This discussion is over.” This would, of course, leave the Middle East festering for the forseeable future.
I would also add that while the Israeli Arabs are treated like second class citizens, they are afforded all of the rights of full citizens, excluding mandatory military service. I agree that perhaps they are not part of mainstream Israeli society, but one can point out similar things about minority groups in many other countries.
I know that it is a doomsday solution, but right now it may be the only thing that Israel can do to guarantee its safety. A unilateral withdrawal will mean that Israel can hermetically seal its borders. All of these suicide bombers coming in from the West Bank are entering through porous borders, which are necessarily so because of the Israeli settlers. Few come from Gaza because the border is much, much tighter. I agree it would leave the region in a simmer, but a simmer is better than a full-out boil. Israel would still be possessed to negotiate because a functioning Palestinian state in peaceful coexistence would be of great benefit to Israeli industry.
Israel has had no problem making a lasting peace with its neighbors who have demonstrated an interest in it. Let the Palestinians demonstrate an interest.
Finally an idea I can get behind. I’m sure that any number of countries would be available to participate in this. I understand the Serbian army has a good deal of experience in this area.
I’m also quite certain that the neighboring Arab states would be more than please to accept several million Palestinians, despite the fact that they have shown no interest in doing so for the last fifty-odd years. No doubt the coalition forces under their UN commander will have sufficient firepower available to bring them into line.
Indeed, those pesky Palestinians certainly deserve something like this. Why didn’t they have the decency to evacuate their homes in the West bank in 1967 and leave it free for Israel to use? I suppose this is at least partially Israel’s fault. Had the conquest of the West Bank and Gaza gone a little slower, the “settler” Palestinians would have had more of an opportunity to leave.
Forgive me if this is a hijack, but I thought it fit here rather than under its own thread. Along the lines of the OP, I have wondered for a while if it would make sense for the Palestinians to rethink their approach. First, here are a few premises I am taking as given: That many Palestinians truly believe/ feel that they are unjustly oppressed and victimized. That many Palestinians are so dedicated to the idea of a free Palestine that they are willing to sacrifice their lives. This sacrifice is not just for personal glory/ spiritual gain, but for the sake of Palestine itself. That such a sacrifice is done not merely as eye-for-an-eye revenge (though it is a significant factor) but to prompt Israel’s departure from what the Palestinians consider ‘their’ land. That suicide bombings have at least a two-fold purpose in achieving Israeli withdrawal – convince Israelis to voluntarily vacate (as a safety measure) and bring the Palestinian’s plight to the outside world (and so bring pressure on the Israelis).
My question/ suggestion then, is what if the Palestinians turned to immolation as a way of achieving those ends? They are willing to commit suicide, so the dedication to cause is basically the same. At the moment they are involved in a war of attrition, but an attrition of wills, not numbers. A terrorist bombing that kills usurpers/ civilians (depending on the point of view) brings with it another level of retribution, anger, and resistance to giving in. It garners less sympathy abroad (generally speaking, at least for the Western world) because of the carnage imposed on apparently ‘innocent’ people. However, what if no personal or property damage was done? What if in a crowded market, rather than a large explosion, a more personal method of suicide takes place? What if that kept up at the same pace as bombings do today? Would Israelis have the moral/ ethical/ political will to instill harsh penalties and incursions into Palestinian towns? I think not. Would the Western world, an enormous influence over Israel, carry the same sense of indignation against those incidents as they do terrorist attacks? I would predict (and am eager to listen to why I could be wrong – this is GD after all) that in a relatively short span of time Israeli and world opinion as to Israel’s prosecution of the war (is it a war?) would dramatically change.
The result? A significant rise in sympathy for the Palestinian cause. Less loss of Palestinian life. Even if suicides rise, the Israeli responsive incursions into towns/ camps will be fewer, yielding fewer direct killings. Less loss of Israeli life. Drastically greater pressure from within and without Israel to move towards peace. Peace sooner than through war, as I believe the ending of violent attacks on Israelis is of paramount importance to her citizens.
So what do you think? Again, I apologize if this is too much of a hijack – it struck me as related to the OP. If it is, I will repost it under its own thread. Other than that, I am very eager to know how the regular Israel/Palestine writers on the board react, especially in pointing out things like where my assumptions go wrong, other effects I haven’t thought of &c.
Thank you for reading,