Unlikely recipes

Submitted by Marshall Onellion (United States), Sep 21, 2009 at 12:40

Mr. Pipes' article has three paragraphs of recipes- what to do- and I respond to the recipes, not to the rest of his article.

1) ...This analysis implies a radically different approach for the U.S. government from the current one. On the negative side, it puts Palestinians on notice that benefits will flow to them only after they prove their acceptance of Israel. Until then — no diplomacy, no discussion of final status, no recognition as a state, and certainly no financial aid or weapons...
No diplomacy, no benefits- and thus, no leverage. No way to influence events within the Palestinian communities. I fail to see the advantage to our country in eliminating any possible influence we might have with the Palestinians. Also, it settles once and for all that the U.S., far from acting as a 'honest broker,' is the undisputed ally of Israel. Why exactly should Palestinian groups deal with such an unequivocal ally of their perceived enemy. This idea reminds me of my history professor, who ironically noted that U.S. negotiators should not view talking with the North Vietnamese as waiting for their unconditional surrender.

2) On the positive side, the U. S. administration should work with Israel, the Arab states, and others to induce the Palestinians to accept Israel's existence by convincing them that they have lost. This means impressing on the Israeli government the need not just to defend itself but to take steps to demonstrate to Palestinians the hopelessness of their cause. That requires...a sustained and systematic effort to deflate a bellicose mentality.
Excuse me, I must be a bit thick today, but what exactly is this? What specific steps? ... What am I missing?

3) Israel's victory also directly helps its U.S. ally... Washington should encourage Jerusalem not to engage in prisoner exchanges with terrorist groups, not to allow Hezbollah to re-arm in southern Lebanon or Fatah or Hamas in Gaza, and not to withdraw unilaterally from the West Bank (which would effectively turn over the region to Hamas terrorists and threaten Hashemite rule in Jordan).

* Not to engage in prisoner exchange- this is up to Israel; after all, it is Israeli citizens whose lives we are talking about. Would the U.S. accept another country 'encouraging' us to take or not to take actions that affect the lives of U.S. citizens? I doubt it;
* Not to allwo Hezbollah to re-arm: Excuse me, but Hezbollah has already re-armed. Also, you are now suggesting exactly how Israel might accomplish this? Military occupation of southern Lebanon was tried- and failed. What else might Israel do, exactly?
* Not to allow Hamas to re-arm in Gaza: See Hezbollah, above.
* Not to unilaterally withdraw from the West Bank: OK, here I agree. But don't stop with dipping your toe in the water. Jump in. What should be the conditions under which Israel withdraws?

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".