Jjimm, first off, I want to express my appreciation for your honest and good-faith attempt to answer my questions. Also, no need to apologize for taking so long to reply; I made my post at around 1:30 A.M. EST, your response was quite prompt.
I’d like to further discuss your post, if you don’t mind.
Posted by jjimm:
“It may surprise you, but I would totally support the wall, if it were built along the 1967 borders. This would have the effect of ameliorating the movement of Palestinian terrorists into Israel, thus cancelling out a drastic amount of terror within Israel. The manner in which Hamas would react would move from insidious secretive violence, packing explosives onto idiots who blow up buses, to the kind of thing that happens around the Syrian border. As I said, still a massive problem, but surely preferable to what’s happening during this Intifada. The IDF would be in a defensive, rather than an offensive posture. And whichever Palestinian negotiates the settlement should be put under no illusion as to the necessity to keep them as much under control as they can.”
I agree with you wrt support for the wall – although my caveat would be that Israel should be allowed some leeway to deviate from the 67 borders if it determines it must do so to effectively defend the borders. Obviously, I would not support a deviation from the 1967 borders in which the deviation is meant solely to include settlements within Israel proper – this would indeed be a land grab. I agree with you on the effect the wall would have of ameliorating movement of terrorists into Israel, and basically agree with you on the manner in which Hamas would react. And just about anything is preferable to the current idiocy of the Intifada.
But I do want to pick your brain on the last sentence:
If the existing Palestinian authority proves unable or unwilling to control the terrorists, what then? Considering that you’re asking Israel to give up or weaken quite a few deterrence options by withdrawing to the 67 borders, just how far would you (meaning EU) be willing to go to support Israel’s fundamental right to security, especially since Israel has assumed the moral high ground?
You say, “I’d say incursion into the new sovereign Palestinian territory would be disallowed, for a start,” so are you saying that even though Israel did what the world asked, it would still be required to take body shots without retaliation? If Israel does put its trust in its enemy, and the enemy takes advantage of the trust, are you saying that Israel is just shit out of luck? If incursion is prohibited, what actions by the Israelis would you support?
Posted by jjimm:
“To me, this is the biggest sticking point in these arguments. I largely disagree with this viewpoint. This was the attitude of right-wingers in the UK towards negotiation with the IRA. They were proved wrong. Maybe you’re not wrong in this case, though I believe you are.”
Certainly, I hope that if this withdrawal scenario actually came to fruition, you would be proven right and I wrong. Unfortunately, I simply have little to no confidence in the Palestinian body politic’s ability to make a rational decision. Furthermore, I suspect that as the wall comes closer to completion, Israel will disengage from the West Bank, and the Palestinians’ chances of achieving the dream of taking Israel back would be dealt a severe blow – perhaps a fatal one. The Palestinian power struggle could easily become a Palestinian civil war. Considering that Hamas is probably the most powerful faction, why should we doubt it would lose that struggle?
Jjimm:
“To me, the invasion of a country due to unwillingness to hand over terror suspects is relatively unprecendented.”
9/11 set the precedent, and the world backed the U.S. Why not Israel, if it is in compliance with the wishes of the int’l community?
Jjimm:
“The UK didn’t invade the Republic of Ireland during the 1970s and 80s, though many of the terrorists were derived from there.”
I’m ashamed to admit that my knowledge about the “Troubles” is small, but did the IRA seek to destroy and take over the English Isles, or just kick the Anglos out of NI?
Jjimm:
“If you dismiss Arabs as permanent, untrustworthy, genocidal enemies, then you’re fucked: at some point, illogical and immoral though it seems, you have to place some trust in your enemy. Unless you crush them utterly. And that simply isn’t going to happen. I hope.”
I used the example of Japan because the nature of the war against Japan was horrific, involving the fire bombing of cities, atomic warfare, etc. America dealt with Japan mercilessly. But after the horror was over, Japan knew it was defeated, knew further resistance was futile, and subsequently chose a peaceful path, and the results were overwhelmingly positive.
To me, the major psychological problem is that the Palestinians will not acknowledge they are defeated. Refusal to give up right of return, and reliance on the “biological bomb” (AKA destruction of Israel via demographics) as some sort of weapon.
And Israel, because it operates by an enlightened moral code (at least when compared to its enemies, or to nations like Russia that face their own territorial disputes), its history, and international and domestic pressure, can not obliterate the Palestinians the way the U.S. destroyed Japan, which might ensure the Palestinians knew they were utterly beaten.
Considering that the Palestinians in this scenario:
- would have their state, yet would not give up the dream of eradicating Israel, and,
- Israel had complied with the wishes of the international community, and hence placed trust in the Palestinians,
I would have a hard time complaining about anything the Israelis did to ensure their security, even if it meant letting loose the dogs of total war.
I agree with you that Israel, as the stronger and more enlightened entity, must somehow regain the moral high ground, and must take the first steps to regain the moral high ground. The settlements are an outright provocation, and the occupation is expensive and ruins the morale of the Israeli armed forces. But I contend that if Israel actually takes the strategic step of withdrawal, and the Palestinians use their new state to threaten Israel or launch attacks on its territory, Israel has every right to destroy Palestine.
Not occupy it, destroy it. The Palestinians must learn that they’ve been beaten.
And if the world is not prepared to support Israel’s right to defend itself even if it complies with the wishes of the world and gives an existential threat more room to maneuver, Israel is well within its rights to tell the world to go fuck itself when it complains about its actions.