It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Israels Dilemma

page: 1

log in


posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 09:45 PM
There are varying views across the political spectrum with how Israel should handle it's interminable struggle against the Palestinian Arabs.

On the far right, you have a figure like Meir Kahane, who advocated expelling the Palestinians from the west bank and forcing those Arabs wanting to stay in Israel proper to accept his new terms of government: full personal rights, no political rights (no voting).

This is a solution that may have worked when he suggested it, and it could in fact work if considered in the future. But for valid reasons, many opposed him.

Towards the middle of the spectrum are those willing to accede territory in the west bank for the creation of a Palestinian state. These people subscribe to the doctrine that Israel (and Jews) can gain peace by giving lands gained in wars for a pledge for peace. However, in hindsight, such pledges might in fact be worth nothing. As we can see in Egypt, with the very likely case of an Islamic government coming to power, Israels peace treaty made with the Sadat government (during Egypts "post colonialist colonialism") could be annulled, and if that happens, it would show that peace is NOT made with land exchanges, but with changing the climate and attitude of the people in the country towards the country held in disdain.

Unfortunately, through the period of Egypts "peace" (or cold peace, would be a better term), Egyptian press daily vilified the Jews and Israel, so much so that Egypt is one of the most antisemitic countries in the world.

Between these two positions lies a more moderate, though less concessionist, approach towards making peace with the Palestinian Arabs.

I believe Israel MUST defend it's territorial obligations in the west bank. The West bank is a mountainous region that overlooks Israels economic heartland - the Tel Aviv - Haifa - Jaffah region.

I do NOT believe, unlike most other political pundits, that either Hamas or Fatah ever plan on making peace with Israel, at least not in the foreseeable future, not when Israel and Jews are vilified in the Palestinian (and overall Arab) media, and not when these two companions - hamas and fatah - are following the radical revolutionary handbook.

The following is from Robert Taber's classic study of guerrilla warfare, "the war of the flea"

Usually, the revolutionary political organization will have two branches: one subterranean and illegal, the other visible and quasi-legitimate.

On the one hand, there will be activists – saboteurs, terrorists, arms runners, fabricators of explosive devices, operators of a clandestine press, distributors of political pamphlets, and couriers to carry messages from one guerrilla sector to another, using the towns as communications centers.

On the other hand, there will be sympathizers and fellow travelers, those not really of the underground, operating for the most part within the law, but sustaining the efforts of the activists, and, of themselves, accomplishing far more important tasks. The visible organization will, of course, have invisible links with the revolutionary underground, and, through it, with the guerrilla's in the countryside. But it’s real work will be to serve as a respectable façade for the revolution, a civilian front, or, as the Cubans called it, resistencia civica, made up of intellectuals, tradesman, clerks, students, professionals, and the like – above all, of women – capable of promoting funds, circulating petitions, organizing boycotts, raising popular demonstrations, informing friendly journalists, spreading rumors, and in every way imaginable waging a massive propaganda campaign aimed at two objectives: the strengthening and brightening of the rebel “image”, and the discrediting of the regime.

- Robert Taber, The War of the Flea, pg. 23-24

Could this be anymore redolent of Hamas - the bad 'cop', and Fatah 'the respectable' opposition seeking political legitimacy?

This is clearly what Israel is up against. It is not dealing with an honest and sincere opposition that seeks to make peace with Israel, but rather an implacable enemy.. And might i add that since Israels founding Arabs everywhere, from Egypt to Syria to Lebanon have vowed to see Israel's destruction. Hamas and Fatah is sustained by outside elements - from Egypt, Iran, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

Israels struggle for sovereignty that will be respected by Arabs nations ultimately lies in how Arab nations view Israel, in other words, in how it's elites view Israel. A solution exists, but it is not Israels to find, since every concession Israel makes leads to a reduction in Israel's territorial size. And still, given the trend in the last 70 or so years, this approach that Israel is taking diplomatically, although 'holding off' the inevitable, will ultimately lead to a stand off of some sort.

edit on 15-1-2012 by dontreally because: (no reason given)

posted on Jan, 15 2012 @ 10:13 PM
Since when did the 1948 war between arabs and jews get called off?
The struggle of both sides has not ceased .......Its one of those conflicts that simply goes through slow patches, but never ends.
IT is clear to me that there is no solution to the situation given the present power politics and people involved as well as the age old hatreds which exist.
The Constant provocations on both sides are likened to children acting out....The wisdom required,the maturity,and strength of character for peace , is hardly available in any human form.
I am beginning to think that the decimation of both populations due to fighting themselves to a standstill.....
Would be the only thing that would leave both populations, Isrealis and Palestinians far more serious about co existance....
The survivors of such a conflict (should any exist)would be perhaps too drained to wish any more death on anyone....
At that point with both sides humbled and bleeding profusely, perhaps they would be willing to set aside their intransigence and settle for peace instead of eternal conflict.....

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:49 AM
reply to post by stirling

With nuclear weapons on the table for any SHTF scenarios, is it really a valid proposition? Could the world just blow up Israel and Palestine and just leave it like that, a nuclear wasteland for a generation or two? Or would the flames of destruction spread to all the worlds major cities and strategic regions? Where would the bombs stop?

Would it really sort out this issue or just make some bigger ones? I am leaning towards bigger problems.

reply to post by dontreally

This is clearly what Israel is up against. It is not dealing with an honest and sincere opposition that seeks to make peace with Israel, but rather an implacable enemy..

There is a war going on with a lot of dirty tactics on both sides, what about 9/11 and the regional military support Israel gained? So lets get over who done what and focus on how to get out.

There is a reasonable argument for Israel to take over the regional boarders of Palestine so effective national governance can do its job, the isolation of Gaza looks like a concentration camp. If governance of these regions is to take place then recognition of the responsibilities is also required. A commitment and application of basic human rights to the Palestine people is a must.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:10 AM
In order to pacify the Zionists, I think President Obama should give them North Dakota in exchange for giving Palestine back to the Arabs. Then the American Senators and Congressmen who are in their pockets will not have to travel far to kiss their "bleeeep". Besides who doesn't love sugar beets?

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:32 AM
These are some interesting thoughts! Israel certainly has the right to expect peace to bring a an expectation of security and Israel certainly has a right to secure borders. They do not however have a right to continue to build and expand settlements contrary to International law and conventions. It is unlikely given the current political situation that the Palestinians will get their state. This is unfortunate on several levels. Soon the settlement expansion will make a Palestinian state impossible. The only alternative will be for Israel to "absorb" the indiginous Palestinian population within one state. Within 10 years the Arabs will outnumber the Jews creating a Palestinian majority within Israel. World pressure will force Israel to to give the Palestinians the same rights as Jewish citizens which of course will mean Israel will no longer be controlled be Jews. Israel can still be considered the "home" of the Jewish people but the Palestinians will be making the laws. Mark my words, this day is coming.

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 10:00 AM
reply to post by gem_man

So are you expecting Jerusalem to be like a Singapore? Temporary agreed government period to help establish a better cultural understanding and trade connection?

posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 02:26 PM
reply to post by groingrinder

There's to much Oil in the Dakotas
Give em California.
It'll be awesome!

posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:16 PM
reply to post by gem_man

Mark my words, this day is coming.

You're wrong to think that.

Undoubtedly, the 'natural' uninterrupted course of events would lead there, if Israel doesn't get in the way and prevent that from happening, that is.

Although I suggested a solution exists in considering how Arabs view Jews, there are still major issues, and this is probably the greatest.

I'm reticent to say "leave the westbank", when considered historically and ethnologically, Judea and Samaria (called the westbank since the Jordan occupation) is the most Jewish of all historical Palestine. What the Jews did post '67, and have increased since the late 70's, 80's and 90's and 2000's, is simply REestablishing communities that existed there before the 1948 war. Communities mostly destroyed during the Jordanian occupation.

Most of those Jews settling in Judea and Samaria are religious Jews, returning to areas they feel they have a greater right to than either Tel Aviv or Haifa or any of the coastal cities of Israel. They have a justifiable position. It is true. Tel Aviv was a creation of Zionist settlers. Jerusalem, Hebron, Sheckem (Nablus), These cities are Jewish, are more rooted in the Jewish historical memory and tradition (religion) then either Tel Aviv, Haifa or Jaffah, which are of a purely secular relevance.

So I wouldn't call for a stop to settling in Judea and Samaria, nor would I call for the forceful removal of Palestinian Arabs from Israel. Additionally, I would be highly cautious of annexing the west bank, which as you said, will create the scenario of an Arab demographic majority, or at least the threat of a majority.

I'm a proponent of espousing an economic initiative that would make life in the west bank intolerable and unappealing to Arabs. This way you avoid the political backlash of 'forceful removal' (decried as an 'ethnic cleansing', which in fact would be no different from the exchanges made between Indians/Pakistanis, Turks/Greeks or the expulsion of ethnic Germans from Slavic lands after WWII) or the national suicide of annexing the west bank and granting full rights of citizenship to Arabs. If the latter is done, Israel would be voted away and the country renamed to Palestine.

new topics

top topics


log in