What Should Israel Do?

Sorry you misunderstood. This is the same argument as was proposed on both sides during the formulation of the O.A. Olmert's position was a reluctant middle ground.

I think Israel really should get its borders in order before attempting anything such as this. I still say it is to late for your proposal. About 4 yrs too late.

The Holy Land is far more than just sand and dirt. It is history. There is a reason that the US has the Lincoln Memorial, the Smithsonian, National Historic Sites, etc. That is, because you are your past, plus extra. For all three religions, Israel, and Jerusalem in particular, is a large part of their religion, and in Judaism's case, the center of the religion.

Therefore, neither country/entity/group-of-people-united-by-geography/whatever would be the same if relocated to Saskatchewan. Although Israel is a new country, many people, Palestinians, Israeli Arabs (they aren't the same), Jews and Christians have been living there for many generations. They won't just give up their homes - even for
$100,000.

Certainly untargeted "heaping on the cash" would be a terrible idea. It would have to be a matter of particular projects - irrigation here, power and sewerage there, education. You see what I mean, although it doesn't remove all your objections if only because it potentially allows movement of money from other areas into arms.

Either Israel will blow them away (see part 1, above), or the other Arab groups will blow them away (either because they sincerely want to make peace, or because they know that they might be on the hitlist if they don't get the guys who did it).

As far as this goes, I perhaps have the wrong picture - because my idea is that it might be difficult to even know who all the small players are let alone control them.

Point #2 (With which I agree whole-heartedly) would best be accomplished with public, disciplined purchase of goods by Israel, transported and installed by the IDF. This would allow the Palestinians to see their 18-, 19- and 20-year-old neighbors doing something constructive, and prevent misuse of the funds and materials.

I agree with Djehuty, the Palestinian terrorists are too fragmented to be required to refrain from violence. There are always nutjobs, even in peaceful countries. (Try Eric Rudolph, for one) If the major terrorist groups cease violence and incitement, that would be enough for me. (Hamas, Hezbollah, Fatah)

btw, Very nice article!!

But there in lies the problem with your thinking Yaakov.

As a result of Abbas futility (and the corruption of his party), as well as Hamas' perceived strength at having driven the Zionist Entity from Gaza last Summer, Hamas carried the last election a few months ago. They still refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist. As a result of their policies, the world has stopped providing free money economic aid to the Palestinian government. Workers haven't been paid in month and are close to rioting. They still support (like Abbas' Fatah organization) terrorist attacks against Israel. They are engaged in a power struggle with Abbas and the PLO. It seems that any day, all out war will break out in Gaza between these two groups.

Israel is the Greatest welfare state ever. This is an appalling double standard and it shows that the Israelis are not serious about peace and they only wish to harm the people of Palestine. Because of this Racist Zionist attitude they will never ever stop trying to destroy Israel. One day the world will get so sick of it we will cut off the Oil, The money the Bullets and leave you to face 500 million Arabs by yourselves if you keep this type of attitude alive.

This is an appalling double standard

Arab Israelis get the same standards of welfare as Jewish Israelis. As for Arabs in the occupied territories, who want their own state and many of whom want Israel to disappear altogether, you cannot seriously expect Israel to pay for and run their social infrastructure for them.

The US and Europe have given the PA huge sums for that purpose and it was squandered. Israel has enough poverty problems of its own.

What happens when or if Palestine is created? Will Israel still be expected to run their welfare? It would be one thing if the occupied territories were to become part of Israel and Palestinians living there became Israeli citizens, but that is not the way of it.

Because of this Racist Zionist attitude they will never ever stop trying to destroy Israel

While we're about it, the desire to destroy Israel espoused by a sizeable hard core of Palestinians has nothing whatever to do with Israel's treatment of Palestinians. Israel could lavish as much money as you like on them and their attitude would not change one tiniest bit.

Motivations are a heady mix of the political/economic and the religious/ideological. The Hamas view of affairs is driven entirely by the latter.

Although there's undoubtedly racism - now - it's not helpful to make blanket statements like this. To me the racism is a side effect; it may complicate things but in the end it won't matter as much as everything else. Even the Nazis played the racist card in a cynical way (the same thing has happened recently in Australia against Muslims.)

It's too easy to say "they're beyond hope, just write them off." I don't believe it's ever justified to take this sort of viewpoint. People argue this about the worst AIDS areas of Africa; about so many marginalised peoples. Step back from this brink, Dennis, please - I'm sure it's worth finding a positive way forward. Both the Israeli and Palestinian attitudes need to change if they are to live together.

"they're beyond hope, just write them off."

I really don't believe I made that claim. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Step back from this brink, Dennis, please

A bit dramatic don't you think?

I'm making some observations about motivations. I said Hamas and their supporters are ideologically driven so not amenable to being "bought" by Israeli welfare aid. Am I wrong about this?

I guess I let my emotions get the better of me, so for that I apologise. I was arguing against the quote you were supporting

Because of this Racist Zionist attitude they will never ever stop trying to destroy Israel

- which I think is a dangerous attitude.

Now I'm really confused! I thought I was taking issue with I SPY over that quote of his.

Ax I understood it, he was arguing that Palestinians' desire to destroy Israel was a reflection of Israelis' treatment of Palestinians, i.e. forcing poverty on them.

I was trying to argue against that by saying that a good many Palestinians would still want to destroy Israel on ideological grounds, even if Israel went out of its way to support them financially.

I think we may have misunderstood each other and I hope this makes my position clearer.

Sorry Dennis - I think I must have misunderstood what you were getting at.

No problem. Better to query than get wrong impression!

:-)

Deferring to some local government policy to evade my point is cute. My post is a blanket statement and warning that if Israel does not take measures to secure its borders then there could be serious trouble. At some point Israel will no longer be bankrolled by the US and these days may be sooner rather than later. If you believe that Israel should be a Garrison on the Dead Sea then at least have the strategic sense to build it properly. I am not seeing any viable solution in either direction. The wall is a Lemon. The peace process is a non starter with the US in Iraq.

Yes and when you read that in the context it was written

"Greatest welfare state" that has an "apalling double standard" in terms of this welfare.

it is correct. It does show that there is a double standard and the Palestinians will never stop while they perceive its existence.

I can see tour trying hard to shift the agenda here so let me spell it out for you.

As long as the Palestinians believe that Israel is a threat to them they will continue to kill Israeli's. It does not matter what you think or believe, only that they believe what they do. No opinion or resolution can be heard as long as this mindset continues.

I refer to the answer I gave earlier. It is all there. Read it properly.

It makes no difference Dennis M Wright As long as the Palestinians believe Israel is a threat to there existence They will fire rockets into and blow themselves up in Israel until the stars burn out.

Israel is no threat to their existence. Israel has pulled out of the area! If Israel was interested in wiping anyone out it would have done so long ago.

You really don't understand why they fire those missiles, do you?

Well dont hold back lets hear it. Why ?

Those missiles are part of a campaign by those Palestinians (typified by Hamas and their supporters) who are ideologically committed to the entire Middle East being Arab land. Their long term goal is a Moslem world but Islam originated in that area and it has been deemed Arab land - the home territory from which the faith expands outward.

The existence of a what they see as a Jewish state in that area is more than a fly in the ointment. It is a completely unacceptable step in the wrong direction for them.

People of that view are not restricted to Palestinians. It applies to most of the Moslem world. Neither is it a minority among Palestinians who hold to this view.

Result: Israel must go, by whatever means. The missiles themselves do little real damage but, alongside suicide bombings, they keep the pressure on Israel.

They achieve the following:

(1) Weaken the resolve and spirit of Israelis
(2) Disturb the calm, so preventing the moderates on both sides agreeing a deal that enables Israel to be recognised by the Palestinians
(3) Results in Israeli security measures which invariably have downsides for the quality of life of Palestinians. That fact is then used to make political capital internationally so that Israel can be portrayed as an "aggressor" or "state terrorist", and the socialist liberal bleeding hearts all fall for it, especially in Europe

They haven't worked out the end game yet - exactly how to complete the job of destroying Israel, but they are biding their time, keeping Israel as weak as they can, seeing what turns up. Stop Israel from getting recognised by their fellow Palestinians and other Arab nations and maybe Iran will wade in like a knight on a white charger to save the day where previous wars failed.

News just in

Israeli aircraft fired missiles at a car in the crowded Jebaliya refugee camp in northern Gaza today, killing three children and wounding 10 people.

Looks like you'll be getting some of those rockets tonikght.

Sleep Well.

For the record I SPY I have problems with pretty much all of methods by which Israel responds to the missile fire, but their options are limited.

I wrote an article on the specific subject here and Yaakov has a preferred suggestion you can see here (see
Treppenwitz's 2-Step Plan for Stopping the Qassams) .

This is actually a very interesting link. Thank you. It does shine a fascinating light on the complex intertwined nuances of politics, international law, objectives, sub-objectives, psychology and manipulation that surround the whole conflict and its history.

Even on a relatively high-brow "news club" like this forum we get too much of people with one-sided agendas trotting out over-simplified routine demonizations of the other side.

..What are you talking about?

Try Meah She'arim. Most high street synagogues. That sort of thing.

What do you think about this solution (Excerpt from a debate):

"The main context, in my opinion, is as follows. Since the mid-1970s, there's been an international consensus for resolving the Israel-Palestine conflict. Most of your listeners will be familiar with it. It's called a two-state settlement, and a two-state settlement is pretty straightforward, uncomplicated. Israel has to fully withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and Jerusalem, in accordance with the fundamental principle of international law, cited three times by Mr. Ben-Ami in the book, his book, that it's inadmissible to acquire territory by war. The West Bank, Gaza and Jerusalem, having been acquired by war, it's inadmissible for Israel to keep them. They have to be returned. On the Palestinian side and also the side of the neighboring Arab states, they have to recognize Israel's right to live in peace and security with its neighbors. That was the quid pro quo: recognition of Israel, Palestinian right to self-determination in the West Bank and Gaza with its capital in Jerusalem. That's the international consensus.

It's not complicated. It's also not controversial. You see it voted on every year in the United Nations. The votes typically something like 160 nations on one side, the United States, Israel and Naru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia and the Marshall Islands on the other side. That's it. "

Link: http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

As an impartial observer (I have no vested interest in either Israel or Palestine being treated favourably), I have to say that this seems reasonable to me.

The article clearly points out that this is a majority opinion of the world. This includes all of western europe(incl UK), asia and australia.. so I imagine the UN could step up to the plate and make it happen..

The people standing in the way of this are primarily the US and Israel. I won't pretend to understand why the US is against this..

You said that this looks good on paper, and then asked "if this was not controversial, why was it not implemented?". I think the real question should be, "what objections do the US and Israel have to this proposal and what, if any, are the specific issues with implementation."

Governments have a funny way of (mis)interpreting the wishes of the public....

I think being in accordance to "International Law" would give Israel legitimacy. If that was the case the International community and the US could easily help Israel militarily in case the aggression continued. As long as Israel keeps occupied territories the rest of the world can't take any side in the conflict and this war does not seem to have an end anytime soon. I don't know much about war, I'm just a peaceful Brazilian, but I think anything possible to avoid war should be done.

So you suddenly reverse your position on something as big, complex and convoluted as the Middle East conflict on the basis on one blogger's hawkish tone?

Doesn't objective analysis come into it anywhere?

Just a couple of points then:

Israel really needs to return the land it usurped

The extent to which the land is "usurped" is a moot point, but if you mean just the post-67 occupied territories then returning them in full unilaterally will not bring peace because a substantial Palestinian contingent is committed to complete destruction of Israel on religious/ideological grounds.

If Israel follows international laws

It seems distinctly unfair to criticise Israel for this when the tactics used by Palestinian terror groups (and condoned/supported by the government) involve deliberate murder of civilians - not something sanctioned by any International law I'm aware of.

Also the requirements of UN resolution 242 are often misquoted to suggest Israel is in breach of international law. The resolution does not call for immediate unilateral return of the occupied territories, rather Israel is required to negotiate a settlement in relation to them based on the "land for peace" principle, something it has tried to do on more than one occasion and is still trying to do, but you don't get very far negotiating "land for peace" with someone who is sworn to your destruction.

Thanks Dennis and Yaakov for being quick to interpret my sentences.

Dennis, you said: "So you suddenly reverse your position on something as big, complex and convoluted as the Middle East conflict on the basis on one blogger's hawkish tone?

Doesn't objective analysis come into it anywhere? "

Dennis: While I happened to reply to Yaakov's post about his favorite blogger, this is far from being the extent of my research, as you were quick to jump to conclusions about. In fact, in this very thread, I listed a resource that I happen to value as an objective source of information, my favorite listener sponsored radio station in LA. The irony is that you even responded to my link. I certainly resent your implication that I read one hawkish blog and jumped to conclusions. I would suggest that you follow your own advice on objective analysis.

Yaakov, you were very quick to extend my simple statement and jump to conclusions.. let me state my position for the record now, instead of having you state it for me..

I earlier said "Israel just lost my support and ANY moral authority to claim that the other side is a terrorist.. Palestinians seem more like freedom fighters to me now...."

My point is very simple... Israel does not have the authority to label Palestinians as terrorists, unless they also concede that they have also committed heinous crimes and accept the same label... I seem to recall from the debate that I had posted a link to that "Israel, in retaliation, killed FAR more innocent than the Palestinians.." . While you might argue that retaliation is justified (and I happen to agree that it is, for the record), my research has indicated that Israel is quite indiscriminate about the way it retaliates.. That to me is as heinous a crime as the original attack.. how on earth can you justify the killing of innocent civilians by anyone?

I believe that the families of every one of those innocent civilians who were killed by Israel have the right to retaliate... they are the ones I called freedom fighters...

As for my comments about religion, I am sorry yaakov but I don't care a hoot for people who see holiness in some abstract concept or land or book but are blind to (and in fact condone or inflict) human suffering. That to me is the worst hypocrisy of all...