How the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Must End
 

I have been following the Israeli-Palestinian conflict for as long as I can remember. Because it does not directly affect me, I am in a position to look at it objectively. I realize that neither side is fully responsible, that neither side is really trying to end the violence.

It has become extremely clear to me that there is only one way for this to end in peace.

First, we need to accept that Israel is not going away. It is there to stay, and there is nothing the Palestinians can do to stop that. It's not going anywhere.

Secondly, we have to acknowledge that it is going to be a bloody and horrible process, which isn't much different from what's going on right now. Scores of lives will be lost, definitely in the thousands, probably the tens of thousands, possibly upwards of one hundred thousand.

The way it must end is this: a total and crushing defeat of the Palestinian resistance by Israel.

I'm certain that a lot of people will argue this, and that is because they simply have not spent enough time thinking about this and are too stubborn to cede a point. Read on before you reply, as I am going to cover quite a bit.

Why can it not be any other way? Because

1) the Palestinians will never defeat Israel. Israel is simply too powerful, and they could never win. If they <b>could</b> win, it would be the other way around, and I would be saying that the Palestinians needed to crush Israel. But this is laughable.

2) the Palestinians currently support suicide bombing and the killing of innocent civilians as resistance against Israel. By "the Palestinians" I mean "a vast majority of", somewhere in the neighborhood of eighty percent (that's 80%). This is because suicide bombing has not been punished in an extreme enough manner, because Israel has managed to restrain itself. So as long as suicide bombing is a viable option, it will continue, and there will be bloodshed and tit-for-tat responses from Israel. This support has to be crushed.

3) We know that Palestinian terror groups such as Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade (the three most active militant groups involved in this) will attack Israel during times of relative "peace". Therefore, Israel cannot sit back and not respond to attacks, because by doing so they are inviting more attacks.

4) Because of popular support, and the damage it does, Palestinian terror groups will not stop their attacks while they are intact. If they did, this would be perhaps the fastest route toward peace, because it removes Israel's justification for attacking Palestinian targets. However, these groups know this, and they cannot stop because it means they become irrelevant. They also know that they are not going to be severely punished for their attacks, so they are free to continue.

What I forsee happening: Israel stops restraining itself and makes the prospect of suicide bombing so horrifying to the Palestinians (because of the response it will draw) that popular support drops. The public needs to say "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! STOP THIS MADNESS!" This can only happen if the public that supports suicide bombing is severely punished as well. This means the killing of "innocent" civilians, albeit those who support the killing of innocent civilians.

Israel will need to completely eradicate the terror groups, and probably their families as well. Hamas support demonstrations and the like will almost certainly need to be attacked by Israeli warplanes and helicopters. Israel will need to take a hard line stance on this, a full-out declaration of war on the militant groups. It must be so miserable to support the groups that no one will do it any more. The Palestinian public must say "Please stop. We will stop supporting Arafat and anyone else that pushes this. We just want a normal life." Many propagandists and misinformed people say that this is what they are saying already, when in fact it is far from their mind set. If that is what they wanted, they would stop their support of those that kill innocent people.

This is obviously not the most ideal solution to the problem, nor is it even a pretty one. It is ugly, and will be ugly when it happens. Unfortunately, it is the only way to end this situation, as it is the only one that removes the root of the problem - the extremists that instigate violence.

You're just kidding, right? I mean, this is just a practice exercise for the Cellar Troll Response Team, isn't it?

Dead serious.

I believe Dave is right.

5) The Palestinians, and perhaps the Arab world in general, regard willingness to negotiate as a sign of weakness.

Maybe I'm wrong, and maybe not always. But it seems to me that all the rest of the world is missing this very basic cultural disconnect. Every time the Pals are offered something, they flatly turn it down and bomb harder. What if the internal dialogues go like this:

World: We're offering the Pals something, so they should see our good will and offer something in return.

Pals or Pal resistance: They're offering us something, so the resistance is working. Turn them down and bomb harder.

I suppose it's racist to say that perhaps their culture is not advanced enough to recognize offerings as good will and to understand the diplomacy involved. Perhaps the Pal resistance sees it that way and convinces the public of their approach (which they do easily in a tribal culture with no information from the outside world). Or perhaps the Pal resistance simply sees it that way because it is the only way they can guarantee themselves money and power and jobs. (NB: Arafat is a billionaire)

To follow up my own post, this is what's gone on with the "road map", isn't it?

World: We're giving you A and B, and your job is to upgrade your internal forces and go after militants.

Pals: We like A and B, and we'll try but we just can't promise anything. But we also want C, not on the road map: you release Pal prisoners.

US: We also kinda want D, stop building that wall on the border. We're not really against it but the world wants us to look fair and balanced.

Israel: We are doing A and B and we are also releasing all the prisoners except known bomb-builders. Since you say you can't do your part, we are helping you with the militants by killing some of them.

Pal Militants: In response we are blowing up a bus. *boom* See what Israel made us do?

World: Israel! We hate violence, so stop killing those militants!

Re: How the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Must End
 

Um, did someone remap the Cellar's DNS entry to point to Little Green Footballs when I wasn't looking?

No. Someone just stepped up and laid it out honest.

Reminds me of the old Scorched Earth Party slogan: "Remember, there's no problem that can't be solved by killing everyone even remotely associated with it."

Israel is not going away. Neither is Palestinian hatred of Israel, even if (and ESPECIALLY if) vast numbers of Palestinians get blown off the planet by Israeli warplanes, including many who may not played any active role whatsoever in attacks on Israelis.

It only takes one person with a grudge to kill a lot of people. Thankfully, it takes a pretty high level of anger and self-delusion to reach the point of actually picking up a gun or strapping on a bomb. (Sort of like how there are lots of pro-lifers in America, but very few who go to the extremes of shooting doctors or bombing clinics.) But if Israel truly goes balls-out and stops caring about collateral damage, won't that spawn as many new extremists (whose family and friends were "innocent" from their point of view, but who got taken out by the Great Evil Israel) as it eliminates? "Habib was right all along -- they ARE out to kill us all!"

What stops the cycle? If Palestinians are already angry enough to have no fear of death (and thus perform suicide attacks), I'm not sure that "stop it or we'll keep bombing you flat" will shut them off entirely. It only takes one or two individuals to start the fun all over again (suicide bombing -> new Israeli outrage -> bombing/raiding of the Palestinians -> new Palestinian martyrs -> lather rinse repeat). No matter how vicious the response, there will always be a degree of active resistance.

So would you endorse the TOTAL elimination of the Palestinians to eliminate the threat to the Israelis, on the grounds that the Israelis have that capability and the Palestinians don't? If so, that's dipping pretty far into "ethnic cleansing" land for my tastes... and just think how the neighbors would react (both towards Israel themselves and towards the United States, Israel's sugar daddy).

I don't have a perfect solution myself, mind you -- I just don't agree that this would be a viable solution.

The number who hate are equal on both sides. The massive majority don't want violence. Most Isrealis and Palestinians want a fair and equitable peace - as even Isreali newspaper polls repeatedly demonstrate. Bottom line continues to be one man (and his extremist supporters) who does everything to undermine that peace - Ariel Sharon. That wall could have been built inside Israel. But then it would not steal more land and keep the intafada going. Intafada is necessary for Sharon to accomplish his goals. That wall is just another way to keep hate and violence going - so that more settlements can be built to steal the West Bank.

Violence is because a tiny minority on both sides promote it. It is not different from Northern Ireland or the Balkans. Violence will only end when both sides suffer increased death rates - that are equal on both sides. Problem is that Palestinians are dying at a rate of about 8 to one Isreali. That is not sufficient to undermine those that promote hate.

Because those that hate have so much power - ie the mass murder Sharon - then there is not enough death on both sides to undermine their support.

Until death rates rise on both side AND until Isrealis die in numbers equal to Palestinians, then there will be no willpower to, for example, send Ariel Sharon to The Hague for crimes against humanity.

It may be politically incorrect to say, but as long as extremists remain in power because not enough poeple are dying, then there will be no peace.

One must have been a fool to think that 'roadmap' was going to lead to peace. It simply gives Likud more time to steal West Bank land. That is their objective. Anything to stall for more time - to build more settlements - to take all the good land in the West Bank and leave the Palestinians to "go back with they own kind".

Of course George Jr is so naive as to think he can destroy the Oslo Accords, but then create a "roadmap"! He must actually think he knows how to make a successful deal. There is no willpower to stop the violence because not enough people are dying.

They're like fighting cocks or trained pit bulls. They must be separated or one (or Both) will die. There will never be peaceful coexistence.

An Alternate Solution
 

The mistake in all of this is the belief that Israel, by itself, is invincible. This is incorrect.

Israel, as we know it now, exists due to massive amounts of direct financial aid and loan guarantees from the US government, extremely generous agreements for the licensing and/or purchase of sophisticated American weapons systems, and the psychological comfort that comes from knowing that the United States military will backstop the IDF if it ever looks like Israel's about to get sucked into the blades.

So. There's an alternative solution to Dave Strategy.

Cut 'em loose.

No more free money or loan guarantees from Uncle Sucker. No more F-16s. No more Apaches. No more look-down shoot-down radar. No more vendor maintenance from Loral or Raytheon or Lockheed-Martin.

No more. No more.

Let the Israelis stand or fall on their own. And after the Arabs drive them into the sea and the Palestinian flag is flying over the Knesset building, peace will reign throughout the Middle East. Right?

This is obviously not the most ideal solution to the problem, nor is it even a pretty one. It is ugly, and will be ugly when it happens. Unfortunately, it is the only way to end this situation, as it is the only one that removes the root of the problem - the extremists that instigate violence.

So dave, hubris, it seems you both have the same solution - just different sides. If everyone is dead noone will fight.

Because killing every 'terrorist', 'freedom fighter' and generally pissed off about being tier people getting the equivilant of a continual cavity search is a damn good way to make sure the remaiing ones take up arms, stores, small pieces of thier once-houses-now-craters etc and start trying to kill as many Isrealis as possible. I ean gee - smacking the shit out of the Iraqi army sure worked didn't it - just ask any member of the Iraqi UN staff.

The 'wall' they're building at the moment i think is the best hope yet - it's the first step towards seperate statehood which is the first step towards less violence. It'll never really stop, just go down a bit, like Northern Ireland.

Before the US gave one thin dime of military aid money, the Israelis had won six wars. They have nuclear weapons and the Arabs don't. If the US were to pull its aid money Israel would be just fine. But the amount of blood split first would be horrendous.

HB -

I already thought about that (a lot), and I don't see it happening. The Jewish lobby is too fuckin' good at what they do, and there would be a shitstorm here. It's not realistic because it would never happen.

vsp -

I suppose you might be right, if history hadn't proven you wrong so many times. Japan turned out okay, as did Germany, both of whom were crushed in WWII. The aftermath has to be handled properly, obviously, but if Palestinians see a better life when there's no suicide bombers, and Palestinian police (and the public) actually attempt to prevent suicide bombers, then perhaps things won't be quite like they are today. A small group performs a suicide operation and both sides actually attempt to round up the rest of the group and put them on trial. Gee, wouldn't that be the day.

jag -

Don't be retarded. Read again what you said:

That obviously means that the work isn't done yet. My solution is "remove the resistance", and you're saying "a-ha, that doesn't work! See, there's still resistance!" Ahem. Yes, of course there is. Because it hasn't all been removed yet.

I know you're a smart lad. Turn the brain on!

<b>I'm not advocating ethnic cleansing. I'm not even advocating the solution to the problem. I'm simply stating that it's not going to end any other way.</b>

Bullshit.

Oh. Okay.

I didn't realize that 'realistic' was a qualifier for this thread.

In that case, we can forget about your solution too, Dave. Because it ain't realistic and it's never gonna happen. Sorry.

http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-...o_Israel1.html

Not bullshit, overstatement. Four wars and various other actions before 1974.

Hubris, even if the US did stop all aid to Israel ( which won't happen) I think you underestimate the resources of the Jews around the world. They would rather the US pay the bill but if necessary I think they could do a credible job on their own.
If we blocked arms sales, we've already seen the world market will pick up the slack quite handily.
There are many Jews working in weapons technology careers in almost every country, that would come to Israels aid. How do you think they got nuclear weapons.

Sorry, Tony. According to your source, US military aid to Israel began in 1959, and flat-out 'economic' gimmes began in earnest in 1952.

If memory serves, the wars Israel has fought to date:

1) 1956- The Sinai War
2) 1967- The Six Day War
3) 1973- The Yom Kippur War

I don't count "The War for Independence" because that was just a bunch of Irgun thugs with guns. I'm also leaving out the occupation of southern Lebanon because that fiasco didn't start until '82. So, which three wars did I miss?

War of Attrition, 1968-70

It should also be noted that before 1974, military "aid" was actually loans. Grants did not begin until 1974; loans were phased out some time thereafter.

Does anyone know if those loans were repaid or forgiven?

I did count the War of Independence. There's this guy:

http://www.historyguy.com/arab_israeli_wars.html

...who is as generous as I was with the definition of "war"...

BUT, the original point remains. Before Nixon, the US didn't really have much concern with Israel; they were a minor matter to us. During that time, they fought and won major conflicts with major military hardware against a good sector of the Arab world, and they kicked ass and took names.

It's my understanding that the Arab world makes really crappy militaries, partly because their culture requires them to get clearance from the very top of their command chain for every little decision. (Thus, perhaps, the failure of the Iraqis to blow up the mined bridges this time around: once their communications was cut on day one, the grunts had no way to get the order to blow up the bridges, and would not take the initiative to do it on their own.)

I wonder if the Islamic soldiers (at least the grunts) feel they just have to go through the motions and obey orders because it's all in Allah's hands.
Whereas the Jewish soldiers know it's up to each and every one of them to do the best they can or they're all toast. :confused:

The Israeli Arab conflict will most probably end when one of the fighters will die. Today Israelian state is much stronger but never knows tomorrow. The history was always harsch.
The conflict, I believe it's religious and cultural. There is no way to kill the members of Hamas for example, because the hate is in the minds of all the muslims in this world and it is reinforced by Quran. There will always appear muslim extremists with Quran in their hands sustaining their terrorist acts. Should we kill the muslims? It's absurd! The only acceptable solution would be to modernise a Middle Age stucked religion and this is ISLAM. But this could last (if it really works) for centuries.
I see no wonder solution.

Those that have said American disentanglement from Israel won't work have it right. Jews form one of the core voter blocks of the Democratic party, as do the Christian Right (and their ties to the Holy Land) with Republicans. The chances of our cutting Israel off are actually slightly less than having a third-party President.

Okay, I've spent about a half hour staring at this map of Israel, I think I have (at least the rough outlines of) a plan. Poke holes where you can, global problem-solving is an evolutionary process.

First of all, we need to eliminate the friction area - the West Bank. To start with, I propose relocating everyone out of the area - Israeli and Palestinian alike - and place the land tract under the jurisdiction of a UN peacekeeper force. Essentially make it neutral territory. Should either side attempt to encroach, it will be held against them later on. Jerusalem would remain Israeli, but under the auspices of a similar UN force.

Next, we need to give the PLO land that they can call their own: after looking at the map, the best possible stretch I can determine is this: Start at a point on the eastern border, just south of midway between the Dead Sea and that lake to the south of it - say 10-50 miles. From that point, draw a line southeast that skirts the northwest coast of the lake. Continue the line until you reach the 31st parallel. When there, run along the parallel west until you hit the Sinai. Everything inside Israel's borders and south of that line becomes Palestine - essentially, it's the Negev desert, with access to a water source. Run a similar line maintaining the 10-50 mile distance I mentioned earlier, but north of the new border. This space becomes a buffer, controlled by the UN, for a period of however long is necessary.

Okay, now the problems. Here's what I see thus far:

1) I know Jerusalem is the declared capital of Israel, however, most of the world maintains their embassies in Tel Aviv. Is this an instance of de facto / de jure capitals, or are the Israelis seriously entrenched in Jerusalem?

2) The land grant is a huge concession, which means Israel would have to get something serious in return. I'm thinking the handover of the top x number of leaders from Hamas, IJ, and AAMB, with the PLO's assurance of no terror attacks for x number of years. The treaty clearly states that one infraction will result in a hard-line retaliation by Israel, however they see fit. Has to be that language. They want to send in every man, woman, child, tank, and fighter plane - fair enough. They want backup assistance from the UN - fair enough. They want to use nukes...negotiable.

It was stated that it's a cultural thing "Hey, we've bombed them and gotten this much, now let's kick it up a notch.", but I have to think that the public leaders of the PLO will recognize that they are being handed an honest-to-God victory here and will seize it with both hands.

3) The PLO may bitch about not having a direct land access to the Mediterranean coast and, through that, the Suez. This may be difficult, and can be revisited. It's 2 AM, and I'm not at my most miraculous this late in the day.

Okay guys, Tha Troubashoota needs him some sleeps. See you tomorrow...today...Kwanzaa...whatever it is now.

Watching the events unfold on TV, the thing that strikes me about the landscape of Israel, Iraq, Afghanistan is a zillion square miles that all look alike. Nobody there. Desert. No water.
Providing water would make all this land viable living space with room for everyone. Expensive? hell yes but what are we, and others, spending now on weapons and aid.
Would this solve everything? Hell no. The cultural clash and deep seated hate would still be there, but that could be addressed. It's like the 'hood, the cultural rubs are exerbated by physical rubs.

BTW, I read Isreal gets 40% of it's water from captured lands.

THIS is the only way the Middle Easy conflict will end:

http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew...90MS640c10.jpg