OK, lets talk peace from my objective point of view. Alright, as objective as I can be, since I'm an ethnic Jew, and I realize that Israel does serve a purpose right now, and probably the next 100 years at least, as a place of last refuge for any Jew to go to if anti-semitism gets ugly anywhere in the world. Right now, Israel needs to have a Jewish majority, but inevitably us Jews only need to be around 1.8% of any population in order to control just about everything:)
My viewpoint is also tainted by my militant atheism too. There is no evidence for any God, and the idea that Noah's Flood or the Exodus happening is zero in my books. But I do understand that humans have evolved the susceptibility to believe in God, and that is a fact that isn't about to be changed in the next little while. It isn't like God is going to show up and tell everyone he doesn't exist.
I have a few assumptions based on reality.
1. If the Arabs dropped their arms there would be peace. And Israel inevitably wants peace. Proof: We now see peace between Israel and Egypt for example, since they signed a land for peace deal. Another example is the exodus of Jews from Gaza.
2. The Palestinian Arabs collectively have never shown an inclination to want a state peacefully laying next to Israel. Proof: 1948 and the rejection of the Partition, and from 1948-1967 when there was no talk about turning the West Bank and Gaza into a state prior to the Israeli "occupation." Present, Hamas' complete rejection of the Annapolis Summit. Hamas was elected by the majority of the Palestinians.
3. Sovereign Israel is behind the Green Line. However, the West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations, much like the entire Palestine region was up for negotiations prior to 1948. Jews in the West Bank are settlers, but so are the Arabs. If the land belongs to any government right now, it is Israel (since Jordan gave up rights in 1988). But Israel has not made sovereign borders to include the West Bank because they don't want the West Bank Arabs to be citizens of Israel, because demographically it would be a nightmare very shortly, and suicide for the Jewish majority state (The Jewish state is needed as I pointed out before)
4. The governments that decided to put Jewish settlements and increase Jewish settlements in the West Bank were not thinking straight. It was an emotional decision with absolutely no foresight. You can't have settlements that are not continuous and expect to be surrounded by Arab villages along the way, at least not in a sovereign nation where you can't give the Arabs in the West Bank equal rights....if Israel were to make final borders that included Arabs who were not citizens, that would be Apartheid. It isn't right now, but this situation cannot go on any longer. It is like a perpetual game, and it is starting to get old.
5. Even full withdrawal behind the Green Line will most likely not stop the violence, but some sort of final borders must be made. Even though Israel was condemned by many Moonbats last year for the war with Lebanon, at least it was a war between two sovereign nations. Israel needs to just give the Palestinians a state they most likely don't want in order to give a Israel legitimate military target, if Israel gets attacked (which most likely will happen). Until Israel makes sovereign borders, technically non sovereign portions are in fact up for grabs, and violence, though detestable, is not completely off base. But it works both ways. And since Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to, it really is foolish on the Palestinian's part to engage in Israel in this way. But nobody has ever accused the Palestinians of doing the right thing.
The biggest problem is the solution for final borders.
Including the West Bank and Gaza would be suicide for the Jews of Israel. Not gonna happen, not even on the table.
Going back to the Green Line or close to it is probably the best bet. Compensate the Palestinians with a little land to draw the West Bank closer to Gaza so the Palestinians could possibly have a tunnel to connect the two areas (which of course will be used to ship arms back and forth). I would also compensate the Palestinians with a few billion dollars, just to show some Goodwill (so they have some money to buy more arms, most probably).
Sign an agreement that allows Jews and settlements to remain on their perceived holy lands in the West Bank, but they must live under the new Arab majority government. It really is only fair, since many Arabs live in sovereign Israel. But would it be safe for the Jews to live in a most probably hostile new Islamic nation? Absolutely not, but they should have the option.
Jerusalem has to be divided, but I do like the idea I just read in this article: Western nations should put their embassies in Jerusalem. Islam lacks humility. The West needs to bring humility to them in order to foster in the best of the West which is "the social contract" (confused in the article as being Judeo-Christian values).
The former governments of Israel set up this mess in the West Bank, and it is something that just cannot morally or ethically or logically perpetuate. And it is going to be very expensive to unwind, but I think it is the only way to possible peace (a peace, which again isn't very likely currently):
BEAJ:
ReplyDeleteWhilst I broadly agree with your post, it does contain hopelessly reductionist simplifications and some outright comedy.
First off, your pointing out just how tiny Israel is, is immaterial. There are countries of about the same size with three times the population of Israel.
"If the Arabs dropped their arms there would be peace."
Yeah, if those damned fools would just surrender then everything would be hunky dory in the Holy Land...
"And Israel inevitably wants peace."
Right now the rightwing Israeli/Jewish Diaspora blogosphere is on fire: "No Passaran!!!" "No to Peace!" "No Trailers for Peace!!!" "The West will come tumbling down if we give an inch!!"
About 50% of Israelis genuinely want peace, which only riles the other 50% even more. The latter prefer a larger "Fortress Israel" to a smaller, more peaceful one.
"However, the West Bank and Gaza are up for negotiations, much like the entire Palestine region was up for negotiations prior to 1948."
Nonsense, sacrifice the West Bank to the expansionist desires of the hawks and there's nothing to negotiate a Palestinian state on.
BTW, the Arabs had many reasons to reject partitioning. Some good, some not so good.
"The governments that decided to put Jewish settlements and increase Jewish settlements in the West Bank were not thinking straight."
Simplistic. There was a lot of resistance to the idea of settlers, amongst others by Yitzak Rabin and Moshe Dayan. Presumable at least those (amongst others) had the prophetic foresight that colonizing Palestinian territory would lead to the intractable quagmire we see today.
"Even though Israel was condemned by many Moonbats last year for the war with Lebanon, at least it was a war between two sovereign nations."
Wrong on two counts. "Moonbats" like me protested the ridiculous and OTT air campaigns which solved nothing and made Israel look like a bumbling giant with no consideration for civilian life. Halutz and his clowns really royally screwed up Leb II. The repercussions and discussions are still reverberating in Israel today.
Hezbollah was and is not the army of sovereign Lebanon. Lebanon's real army hardly took part at all.
"And since Israel has the power to wipe out the Palestinians if they wanted to, it really is foolish on the Palestinian's part to engage in Israel in this way."
You're confusing a low level guerilla style resistance movement with an army that could pose a serious threat to Israel. The conflict, long standing as it may be, hasn't even cost that many human lives (on either side). "Wiping out the Palestinians" would simply be genocide.
"Sign an agreement that allows Jews and settlements to remain on their perceived holy lands in the West Bank, but they must live under the new Arab majority government. It really is only fair, since many Arabs live in sovereign Israel."
I've said that all along. But after sixty years of conflict (and more) it's unrealistic, at least for now.
"Western nations should put their embassies in Jerusalem. Islam lacks humility. The West needs to bring humility to them in order to foster in the best of the West which is "the social contract" (confused in the article as being Judeo-Christian values)."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHAHA... ROFPM... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA... HAHAHA... (Trying to compose myself.)
Man, you can be funny when you want to be!
Seriously though. Since the fall of the Caliphate, the Arab/Muslim world has suffered nothing but defeat upon humiliation by the West. It wasn't enough for Whitey to colonise Latin America, carve up Africa like a big pie, and colonise North America, no, we had to carve up the Middle East too. There is almost no border in that place that wasn't drawn by a British or French hand. Iraq is a prime example of a geopolitical construct gone horribly wrong. Syria/Lebanon is another excellent example. And to some extent, so is Israel. It's impossible not to see how the Arabs were always going to consider the creation of another Western-style Nation State in their midst as an insult added to injury. I support the state of Israel completely but there's no need to bury our heads in the sand.
Western indifference and arrogance vis-à-vis "Arabia" knows no limits, aided of course by the knowledge that we can hide behind the barrel of a very long and very loaded barrel.
More recent interventions in the region like Iran 1953 (Mossadeq), Suez 1956 or Iraq 2003 are clear indications we're not about to learn even the first thing. So, in the spirit of the ostrich, lets humiliate them a little more, huh?
No wonder you're an Arabophobe, Islamophobe and such an undying fan of the Cowboys... which is a shame because I like you... Yeeehaaw!
Gert, it is amazing that I could be wrong on so many points and you could be right on all the points I'm wrong on.
ReplyDeleteWell, I guess I'll just have to wait until someone else tries to refute what I say here...
ReplyDeleteOk, I'll debate a few issues here:
ReplyDeleteFirst off, your pointing out just how tiny Israel is, is immaterial. There are countries of about the same size with three times the population of Israel.
*****************************
Not immaterial at all. When you take into account that it was mostly the surrounding Arab nations who caused the actual wars and not the indigenous Arabs, who were not in any position to fight. And then taking into consideration the fact that these surrounding nations didn't care about the indigenous Arabs and have used them as pawns since 1948.
Yeah, if those damned fools would just surrender then everything would be hunky dory in the Holy Land...
*************************
What exactly would they be surrendering?
About 50% of Israelis genuinely want peace, which only riles the other 50% even more. The latter prefer a larger "Fortress Israel" to a smaller, more peaceful one.
************************
Do you have poll results, because I'm pretty sure there would be a majority of around 70% who supported peace for land.
BTW, the Arabs had many reasons to reject partitioning. Some good, some not so good.
**************************
The real reason was the Arab humiliation of not having 100% of the middle east. That is why the wars started.
I'm sure the natives of Hawaii had some good reasons to be against the annexation of Hawaii in 1898 and then again when it was made a state in the 1950's. But they didn't go to war over it.
Wrong on two counts. "Moonbats" like me protested the ridiculous and OTT air campaigns which solved nothing and made Israel look like a bumbling giant with no consideration for civilian life. Halutz and his clowns really royally screwed up Leb II. The repercussions and discussions are still reverberating in Israel today.
*************************
The war is over. What would happen if Israel did nothing but negotiate?
Hezbollah was and is not the army of sovereign Lebanon. Lebanon's real army hardly took part at all.
**********************
If Hezbollah came to Canada they wouldn't be able to have hundreds of weapons pointed towards the US without the government turning a blind eye to them, thus making the government guilty in a very large way.
As far as Islam goes, there are protests right now to put that teacher to death for naming the Teddy Mohammed. It sure is hard for the West to get in tune with Islamic ideology because of things like this.
BEAJ:
ReplyDelete"The real reason was the Arab humiliation of not having 100% of the middle east. That is why the wars started."
Tell me, do you think if Israel was created in Patagonia (Herzl had such a plan up to a point) or in America or in Europe that the process would have been smooth and without problems and resistance? Show me one serious Israeli historian or historiographer that doesn't agree that the building of the Israeli Nation State was always going to cause some problems with the natives. No project of nation building was ever without such problems, Israel or other. All nations are "born in sin".
"But they didn't go to war over it."
Yeah, the Hawaians (LOL). Well, they must have had a really good reason not to go to war (perhaps they only had sharp mango slices as weapons?) because everybody else would have. Touch my tiny little plot under the sun and a welcoming baseball bat awaits you. You live in lala land...
"There are protests right now to put that teacher to deth for naming the Teddy Mohammed."
Another attempt at comedy I guess. Where on Earth did you hear that? Fixed Noise? There was talk of some lashes, now she's supposed to do 15 days in jail. Totally ridiculous, I know, but a far cry from "being put to death". What's it like living in the Giant Echo Chamber of News Distortion I call North America?
There's more but I'm talking to a brick wall here.
Death to the teacher.
ReplyDelete