A Few Thoughts

Submitted by orange yonason (United States), Apr 7, 2006 at 17:27

BS"D

A -- "Israel hardly enjoys freedom of action to pursue victory;..."

Constrained from within by those who have sold their bill-of-goods to a World initially committed primarily to verbal interference, and now from without to the purchasers of said defective goods, Israeli politicians have made the bed they now sleep in. What seemed difficult before, now appears almost impossible. Nevertheless, defeating the so-called "palestinians" is not an option, it is essential to Israel's survival.

So, why don't they? Why would Israel opt for a slow and virtually certain death as opposed to fighting a war they could win in days or weeks? One explaination I can think of, and which also clarifies why Israel "shuns winning," is that they are drawing a blank on an answer to the question, "What then?" Another related, and probably more fundamental explaination, is that it requires leaders with enough integrity to actually be more concerned for Israel's survival than with keeping their seats in power, similar to the behavior of Democrats here in the US, only worse.

B -- "Israel should be urged to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost,..."

By whom? The only person who I once thought might do that is President Bush. But he seems to be under the mistaken impression that listening to Israeli Leftists is good for Israel, which makes him unwittingly on the wrong side of both US and Israeli interrests. And, with no one else in a position to effectively influence the situation, it's just whistling-past-the-graveyard to suggest there is 'someone' who would or could accomplish such a monumental task.

Besides, there is only one way to convince anyone they have "lost," and that is to defeat them. Unfortunately, this would not be like defeating Japan or Germany who have accepted defeat and moved on. Muslims, and especially Arab Muslims, view even profound defeat as a temporary setback. Short of their complete annihilation, unacceptable for obvious moral considerations (which they don't share, by the way), or deportation (which, along with annihilation, are what they want to do do us), they will tenaciously cling to the hate that will only force the issue again and again until one side actually wins for good.

C -- "An aggressive step like "transferring" Palestinian Arabs out of the West Bank would be counterproductive for Israel, prompting greater outrage, increasing the number of enemies, and perpetuating the conflict."

And an "aggressive" step like the "war" necessary to convince them the have lost would not?

By transferring Jews from their land in Gaza, the precedent has now been established that whole regions of people CAN be transferred. That won't mute resistance to applying an equal standard to Arabs, but they can no longer justifiably claim it to be wrong. And for them to do so would mean that Jews are justified in reclaiming Gaza (not that we need such a contrivance to claim what is rightfully ours), so either way the Arabs would have only their propaganda and it's willing acceptance by most of the World to stand on, as usual. But their defeat, coupled with having to permanently live under Israeli rule, is preferrable. They could then be encouraged to freely choose to leave on their own, if Israel had the sense to provide them the requisite motivation.

D -- "Contrarily, perceptions of Israel's weakness lessen the possibility of Palestinian Arab defeat;..."

Oslo was in part about Israel relying on Arab "perceptions" of it's strength, and in part about responding in kind to Israel's good will. We see only too painfully how such "perceptions" of strength are no deterrent, and good will is a concept foreign to our enemy. What we saw as a 'carrot and stick' approach, was seen by them as a 'rotten tomato and a piece of straw" approach: (no reward+no threat = no compliance). Consequently both are of absolutely no avail. I'll say it again; in the necessary real war that Israel must fight; an Israeli victory, coupled with denial of self-governance for the Arabs, is the only clear and unambiquous message the Arabs will understand. There is no alternative.

E -- "...thus did Israeli missteps during the Oslo years (1993-2000) and the Gaza withdrawal inspire Palestinian Arab exhilaration and more war."

...not to mention the inspiration given to Jihadists worldwide, who saw this as their opportunity to copy what worked for their terrorist brethren against Israel. It is no exaggeration that what lit the modern terror fuse was the implementation of Oslo.

F -- "Israel needs only to defeat the Palestinian Arabs, not the whole Arab or Muslim populations, who eventually will follow the Palestinian Arab lead."

Yes. But until Israel has a vision of what will be AFTER it wins, that won't happen.

---

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".