Why doesn't Israel do something along these lines...

Great Debates
1

Now that the hudna is over, and the Israelis and Palestinians are back to killing one another, I got to wondering about how in the world the senseless carnage can end. I maintain that Israel must do something big to get back in the good graces of the international community, but at the same time maintain its security. Why not something along these lines:

  1. Israel withdraw its troops from the occupied territories back to the 1967 borders and say to the Palestinians - “OK, here’s your state.” Loudly pronounce to the world that it is following international law and the original UN mandate. Say to the settlers that if it’s that important to live on the Biblical land, do so under Palestinian authority. The Palestinians will be allowed to work in Israel (Israel needs the cheap labor to keep its feeble economy going anyway). IOW, this is the way for Israel to show that it is serious about respecting the Palestinian’s demand for a state.

  2. Say to the Palestinians in as clear a manner as possible, "you get 10 free suicide attacks in Israel proper, or 100 innocent Israelis dead (whatever comes first). Israel promises not to respond. Every time Hamas or Islamic Jihad commits an atrocity, loudly warn the PA and the Palestinian people that the terrorists are bringing them coming closer to the brink of destruction.

  3. On the 11th attack, or with the 101st innocent Israeli dead, Israel reserves the right to invade Palestine. Nevertheless, to show its restraint, Israel says it will grant two more suicide attacks to the Palestinians, or 25 more dead.

If two more attacks occur, or 25 more Israelis die, Israel invades. But this time, Israel doesn’t just occupy the land - it will destroy the towns, completely and utterly. It seems like the Israelis have the best success at curbing terrorism when the Palestinians themselves police the terrorists, and this would give them the opportunity and great incentive to do so. Tell the Palestinian people that if they really reject terrorism as a tactic, they must loudly protest the taking of innocent Israeli lives.

  1. If the Palestinians use the land to build up their military for a strike on Israel, Israel reserves the right to preemptively strike.

I always figured that it would have to be Israel making the first move, and first risk, toward peace. But I don’t think anything short of the threat of bringing on total annihilation will convince the radical Palestinian minority (b/c I do believe the majority of Pals are willing to live side by side with Israel) to stop killing innocent Israelis. But maybe if they are seen as bringing the Palestinian people closer to doom, they might lose their popularity.

God, I hate that I’m writing this shit. But this tit-for-tat shit just doesn’t get anything accomplished. Why not try something like this?

2

Hey, I can pretty well buy this idea (except I would start out with NO bombings and NO dead “allowed”, and MAYBE give the Palestinians one or two so-called “free passes” only after the fact, and only if it can be shown that the attack was truly unknowable and unstoppable by the PA).

Tell you what - YOU get USA and UN to endorse this plan in its entirety. Once this is accomplished, I will get my government (Israel) to implement this solution… :rolleyes:

We Wish…

3

**

First of all, this would require Israel to relinquish control over the East Jerusalem and (more importantly) the Temple Mount. Considering that Jews were not even allowed to visit the Wall when Jordan controlled the area (from 1948 to 1967) and considering the fact that the Jordanians demolished every synagouge and Jewish institution in the area when they were in control, I don’t see Israel handing this area over, even if they did hand over the rest of the West Bank. And the Palestinians have made it a point that they MUST have Jerusalem. So, the fighting wouldn’t end anyway.

**

Give them 10 free suicide attacks? Forgive my impudence, but what are you smoking? The primary function of a government is to protect it’s citizens. Do you think the US should give binLaden a freebee on the next terrorist attack he plans here? Let him have the Empire State Building for free?

**

If you’re going to make a threat, then be prepared to carry it out. If you make a threat and then back down, the world then knows that your threats are meaningless.

**

This then puts us in a worse situation than we are in today.

**

Guess what? Any nation has that right as is. If Canada started a massive buildup along the border and relations with them were cold and war seemed imminent, the US could pre-emptively strike.

I give you credit for trying GoHeels, but the proposal is flawed all the way through.

Zev Steinhardt

4

So to summarize, the plan is for Israel to let the Palestinians kill a set number of Israelis, then, in retaliation, commit genocide?

5

Leaving aside the whole “hudna” fiction (or is it a cease-fire when “only” 72 Israeli civilians are killed by terrorists?), I’d have to say that your entire proposition is ridiculous.

You want to allow a certain number of innocent deaths as a matter of state policy? I’m sorry, but that’s insane.

It seems to me that some people have this weird disconnect when it comes to terrorism and Israel, as if an attack on Israelis is somehow less horrible than an attack on anybody else. It really smacks of “yeah, that’s tragic, but it was only Jews.”

Makes me sick.

6

Number two sounds pretty nasty, if you ask me.

7

Worse, he wants to allow these innocent deaths to occur as a pretext for a subsequent invasion, which would surely result in further innocent deaths. For anyone who cares about the lives of innocents on all sides, this is a scary idea.

8

I’d have to concur that this idea is proposterous!!! No offense GoHeels…that’s insane, and the Israeli people would and SHOULD hate their government if that ever was set in place.

Makes me sick also, Exgineer. It’s the largest, sickest, scummiest double-standard that I can think of.

I think a better plan would be to allow the IDF to infiltrate all of the Arab-Palestinian towns and, in a civil fashion, dismantle the terrorist organizations at any damn time they wish. It’s their security, their country, and their civilians. These terrorist organizations are the ones causing all the trouble, am I wrong? (although I shouldn’t set aside Arab media who make Israel out to be the bad guy) The Palestinians have been brain washed by the PA (PLO), Arafat, and his cronies, and the Arab media. A huge, massive re-education of the Arabs need to be done in order to end the condoning of Palestinian terrorist acts among the Palestinian mass. (Actually, that needs to be done ALL OVER for ALL TERRORISM) Only then will the Arabs condemn terrorist acts such as these, and, with sincerity, dismantle its own terrorist organizations.

Yeah, in our dreams…

9

Yeah, but, with his idea, he is saying that if the PA doesn’t truly crack down on terrorism and idly sit back as it all happens, then they will, knowingly, be setting up their certain destruction. So his idea is that, if they want to save their own skin, they’ll stop, and the subsequent invasion will never have to occur. This I can agree would stop terrorist acts among the Palestinians, but if the subsequent invasion did occur, I would quickly change my stance.

10

Forget what I said before-the whole THING is just disgusting.

What would it gain? Just a whole bunch of dead bodies. That’s it.

11

You miss the point. Neither side WANTS peace. If they did, peace would easily be achieved.

Hamas & PA leaders make money through the funneling of money into their organizations. Some of which goes towards suicide bombers. Some of which goes towards weapons. The rest which goes to profit for the leadership.

Israel leadership makes money through funneling of money to weapons programs. If there is peace, how can Sharon (an old intelligence officer deeply involved with defense contractors) convince the people that they REALLY need to spend such large percentages of their budget on arms and weapons?

That is the bottom line. Neither side in LEADERSHIP really cares about the plight of the common person (who IMHO really deep down wants peace, but is so misled they may never see it). It’s all about the money that war brings.

12

I refute that in the defense of the Israeli government. You can’t honestly say that they don’t want peace. That’s ridiculous. Money goes to their weapons because they need them to deter and retaliate terrorist attacks against them by the Palestinian terrorist organizations. But I agree that the common person also would just like to see peace. But the PA? They want all of historic Palestine, they don’t just want Judea-Samaria and the Gaza. The Arab-Palestinian people, however, would probably just like to have a permanent home. But the PLO (renamed PA to hide their true motivations) just wants to destory Israel. There’s no question about that…

13

Look, I’m fully aware of the odious nature of this idea. It makes me sick just to even think about it.

But it makes me sicker that I’m seeing images of dead two-year-olds getting blown up just for riding a bus, or images of bloody teenagers whose “crime” was going into a pizza parlor.

And it makes me throw up to think that so many morally obtuse folks in the world excuse these atrocities as “legitimate resistance.” As Exgineer pointed out, and I agree fully with him (and Exgineer and Krillan, sorry if it didn’t come across in the OP), the double-standard regarding the deaths of Jews is appalling, and the opprobrium Israel receives borders on the ridiculous.

Nevertheless, it is a reality that this issue has divided much of the world into two camps – those who blame the Israelis (and the U.S. in extension) and those who blame the Palestinians (and the Arab world, by extension). The real tragedy, as Amos Oz has pointed out, is that both sides are right.

I maintain that Israel, which is (IMHO unfairly) castigated in many parts of the world and the UN, must find a way to regain the moral high ground in the world’s eyes. I understand the need for the occupation in terms of protecting Israeli security, but the occupation is damaging economically, damaging to the morale of the Israeli troops who have to do it, and worst of all, it damages Israeli credibility in the world. The settlements, to me, are a provocation and damage Israel’s ability to fulfill its mission to be a democracy.

The idea of the “free shots” (and yes, 10 is way too many) is the acknowledgment that the problem with any peace plan is that a lone nut can wreak havoc by himself. Yes, to unleash hell upon the Palestinian people because some nut comes along with a homemade bomb wrapped around his waist and kills 20 or so innocent Israelis is wrong.

But a series of bombings or murders over a period of time (say, 6 months) represents a pattern, and indicates that the Palestinian government is not willing to reign in the murderers who threaten both Israel and its own newly-formed state. Doesn’t the threat of annihilation give the Palestinian government an incredible incentive to stop the terrorists?

If Israel does not respond, then it can truthfully say that it has 1) complied with international law in returning to the 1967 borders, 2) is going above and beyond the call of duty in trying to break the cycle of violence, and 3) had the courage to take on its own nuts who would derail peace (by ending the occupation and abandoning the settlements). Truly, then, Israel is giving peace and co-existence a chance, a real chance.

But if the bombings and murders keep happening, then Israel has the standing to finally lay to rest the claim that the Palestinians wish to live in peace with the Israelis, but in actuality want to destroy the Jewish state. At that point (actually, at any point), Israel has the sovereign right to defend itself and use the full might of its military to crush its enemy.

At some point, doesn’t it come down to a question of “us” or “them?”

The sad but true fact is that in today’s post-modern milieu, being a victim scores you brownie points. The Palestinians have figured this out as they loudly proclaim to the world their plight as victims of Israeli oppression. And yes, they do have a valid point that I acknowledge. But it only goes so far - it makes no sense to me how one minute you can loudly claim victimhood, and the next minute you can celebrate some murderous fool who blew up a bunch of kids as a “martyr.”

The good part about being a victim is that you don’t have to take responsibility for your own fuck-ups.

14

Another though experiment. Every time a terrorist attack kills a civilian, X amount of square meters from the west bank or Gaza strip is automatically immediately cleared and annexed into Israel proper, in such a way that there can be no doubt what instigated the annexation and who’s to blame. That would make it very obvious to the Palestinians that terrorists acts only work to their own destruction.

  • Rune
15

Look, people. This is one of those rare situations where there is a clear right and a clear wrong.

The “right of return” nonsense is just that, nonsense. The Palestinians, whoever they may be this week, base their whole argument for being a “displaced and oppressed people” on the utter fiction that they were displaced from their “homeland” by the “greedy, land hungry Jews.”

That’s a lie.

There’s no other way to describe it, it’s just a lie. The Jewish presence in what is now Israel started in the 1920’s, when people started buying worthless desert from willing arabs, because, hell, it’s worthless desert. Those horrible nasty Jews made themselves a viable nation out of dust that they bought. The current nation of Israel encompasses those areas of legal Jewish settlement. This was formalized in 1948, with the recognition of the State of Israel.

It isn’t worthless desert any more, and the “hereditary owners of the land” (liars) want it. They want it real bad. And they’re willing to kill innocent women and children to get it. They’re also willing to recruit Useful Idiots (in the sense of Lenin’s writings) in the West, which doesn’t seem to be difficult.

Now we’re seeing complaints about the security fence that isolates the West Bank from Israel. I say, so what. The only possible objection to the fence is that it restricts overland travel between the West Bank and Israel. The only possible reason for such illicit travel is to blow something up, in typically cowardly fashion.

So, what’s the problem with the fence? We have one that’s intended to keep Mexicans from entering our country and picking vegetables for five cents an hour. The Israelis are building one to keep innocents from being murdered.

The IDF targets “militants” (that’s terrorists, for those of us who speak English) and the “militants” (you know) target anybody they can find.

And yet, we expect the Israelis to “compromise” for some stupid reason, even though they’re right and their opposition is wrong.

I don’t get it.

16

To critique the idea:

  1. Getting the settlements to either be removed or the settlers to agree to live under Palestinian rule (which would mean putting their security in the hands of the PA rather than themselves) would be such a major step that I don’t see much possibility of it happening.

  2. Assuming (which is a good bet) that terrorist attacks continue, you’re trying to give Israel carte blanche to conduct ethnic cleansing. This isn’t going to happen, the world at large isn’t going to change its views on such things based on a pronouncement from Israel. I gather from your writing that you yourself would likely turn away in disgust once you actually start seeing scenes of millions of people being killed and driven from their homes to face death from disease and starvation. As a parallel, imagine Russia announcing that it was going to drive all Chechens out of their homes once the 100th Russian civilian is killed starting from tomorrow. Were Israel to actually do this, they would become an international pariah on a level that they have never felt. US support and international trade would dry up overnight, the peace accords with Egypt and Jordan would be declared null and void, and a return to the no war-no peace status Israel had with its neighbors up to 1973 would likely happen, with all the attendant problems of cross border shelling. Israel would have no one in its corner at the UN to veto resolutions passed against its interests, and would face the prospects of a war with all of its neighbors and slow economic decay.

  3. These tactics have more in common with Tamerlane (the historical figure, not the poster here) than they do with a modern, professional army. Given the high level of professionalism in the IDF, I have severe doubts that they would carry out such an order, even if it were given to them.

I understand where the frustration is coming from, but it isn’t a viable idea.

Regarding the victimhood status of the Palestinians, my feeling any actuality of it gets overplayed somewhat. Suicide bombings do more to undercut their position than Israel ever has.

17

It really isn’t that simple or clear-cut Exgineer. The historical background is altogether more complicated than you are making it out to be. I’m not a big fan of the “right of return”, either. But as much for practical reasons as anything else.

I’ve already written one long post on the Palestinian situation today, so you’ll excuse me if I don’t go into great detail right this minute :). However if you check the archives, I’m know there is discussions floating around on the situation surrounding the original Israeli settlements. But just as an example, I’ll note one reason why the issue becomes a bit hazy. To quote:

*Prince Feisal and Dr. Chaim Weizmann had agreed in 1918 that there was no scarcity of land in Palestine: the problem, rather, was that so much of it was controlled by a small group of Arab landowners and usurers. The great mass of the peasantry struggled to eke out a bare living from low-yielding, much-eroded, poorly irrigated plots, while large holdings of fertile lands were being accumulated by influential families of absenteee landlords.

The Zionist plan plan, as outlined by Weizmann to Feisal in 1918, was to avoid encroaching on land being worked by the Arab peasantry and instead reclaim unused, uncultivated land, and to use scientific agricultural methods to restore its fertility. The large Arab landholders, however, turneed out to be eager to sell the Jewish settlers their fertile lands, too - at very considerable profits. Indeed Jewish piurchasers bid prices up so that, not untypically, an Arab family in Beirut sold plots of land in the Jesreel valley to Jewish settlers in 1921 at prices ranging from forty to eighty times the original purchase price…

For a variety of reasons, the economic yield on Palestinian agricultural landholdings had shrunk to low levels during the First World War and just afterward, and the Arab propertied classes were enabled to maintain their level of income only because of the bonanza provided by Jews purchasing land at inflated prices. Jewish settlement was a boon to wealthy Arabs, whatever they said in public to the contrary, and their claims that the Jews were forcing them to sell was fraudulent. The genuine grievance was that of the impoverished Arab peasantry…*

From Fromkin.

As the above quote shows, it was entirely possibly for both the Jewish settlers to have been entirely correct and still end up disenfranchising the mass of the population who had worked the land for generations and had neither recourse nor say in the matter ( even beyond this, however, was the issue of very dicey Ottoman deeds and land claims ). The argument that the Arab landlords were to blame is of course on target to a considerable extent, but as many were absentees to begin with ( as with the above Beirut family ), all the mass of Palestinians saw was Jewish farmers expropriating “their” lands. Note that I’m not making the opposite point - that the Israelis are in the wrong. Just that the issue is more complex than just greed and lies.

  • Tamerlane
18

I think that’s too simplistic a way to sum up the situation over there. Plenty of people on both sides want peace, but the sad fact of the matter is that as long as there are extremists who are willing to commit heinous acts against the other side, peace will remain out of reach. After all, you might really and truly want to be my friend, but if I punch you in the face every time we meet it makes friendship rather problematic. It’s the same dynamic that is playing out in Iraq right now. :frowning:

19

Here’s a better way to deal with the problem:

  1. The US unleashes about 2-3 gigatons of nuclear destruction on the whole area.

  2. We send the Laker Girls in special formfitting radiation suits to dance on the ashes.
    Seriously, Israelis are not the good guys. Neither are the Palestinians. They’re two bunches of idiots who have been slaughtering each other since the Stone Age. Break out a Torah. Even according to the Israeli side of the story, their “national identity” is that they were one of the groups in the area, and they killed a whole godawful lot of people to take their land (all because god thought it was a good idea of course). Then other bunches of locals started killing them back. Then they killed them too. Ad infinitum. Then along came Islam, and the now Palestinians appropriated the story because it sounded like such a great way to go.

This is why the founders of this country said to stay clear of foreign entanglements. People were not fleeing to the New World because they thought a nice cruise would be fun. It was because humans are irrational, violent animals who had had enough time to turn the Old World into a hellish nightmare. And that particular part of the world is pretty darn old.

The Romans recorded these same problems two thousand years ago. None of it is going to stop. Ever. The best thing to do is just slap a period on this particular sentence and leave it as a lesson to mankind about our own stupidity.

20

Tamerlane: excellent post my friend. As always.

On that note, is it possible to accurately guage the number of WWII Jewish refugees who entered Palestine between 1945-48? I’ve heard figures like 2.8 million but it’s obviously a hard figure to accurately quantify. Certainly, if that figure is true, inarguably the demographics of the region were forever imbalanced in a remarkably short period of time, and history shows that clashing cultures always struggle to maintain peace when confronted with sudden changes in demographics.

laigle: Well, I understand your sense of despair there. Interestingly, I note that you’ve taken the “frank, detached” point of view - which oddly enough tends to resonate with my own philosophy on the matter - namely, the blatant tribalism at play, and the gulf therein.

My understanding is that many, many Isreali’s are actually of European heritage, and are the grandchildren etc of refugees from Europe in the 1930’s and 40’s.

The Palestinians, obviously, are of Arabic heritage - and from an appearance point of view, there’s a real easy line to be drawn if you wish to deliniate between the two cultures who are at odds with each other.

The next step after that is the blatant tribalism which manifests itself. And I have little joy for tribalism - the world over it has shown a remarkable ability to inspire killing rather than conciliation.