Annexation maybe, but a larger point remains

Submitted by Thomas (United States), May 7, 2020 at 20:43

-"Israel must assert itself against the Palestinians; but that assertion must be strategic, fitting into the larger campaign to compel Palestinians to give up their goal of eliminating the Jewish state."

What does this actually mean in real terms? What could possibly compel the Arabs to give up on the homeland they deem as theirs, stolen from them by what they see as a bunch of European crusaders? This seems to be the salient point, if there is no real strategy available, then what makes annexation any more of a mistake then not annexing? It seems to me that as long as they remain on the land, they will fight for the land. The destruction of one Palestinian group or another, or the material poverty of their people won't mean a thing.

-"Contrarily, I do encourage Israeli steps that signal the Palestinians that the conflict is over, and they lost."

What makes you think they have lost? What have they really lost after all of these years?

I do largely agree that annexation isn't all that important in the scheme of things. I would prefer intense settlement building, but that would make all of the above actors even more angry. Fact is the republicans and democrats and europeans and leftist israelis will always be angry, this conflict makes a mockery of their worldview.

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".