I never claimed it’s an original approach, just that it’s the one I think is most viable. As for being rejected, which leadership when? There are Palestinians who be thrilled by such an approach and other that would loathe it. Such is the nature of compromise. That’s why an official recognition of Israeli borders and its right to exist would be a necessary condition, and why a US unilateral guarantee of its territorial integrity would also be important.
Timex
3482
The problem is that even if the leadership agrees, you continue to have elements in Palestine who continue terrorist acts against Israel, and the Palestinian leadership fails to police them… So negotiations on Israel’s part end up being kind of pointless.
Palestinian leadership would be required to police them as part of such an agreement, and US forces would be involved as well in case they failed (deliberately or otherwise). Israel would be making a major concession by pulling out of all the settlements, one they’ve never come anywhere close to implementing. They’d deserve economic and direct military support in exchange for that concession.
…US forces would be the ones who needed to go in and fight door to door if the Palestinian leadership failed? Oh my, outright laughing here. There’s absolutely zero chance that would happen, no matter how “binding” the guarantee. The body count for non-terrorist civilians would be massive, for starters… (it’s training and doctrine, for starters…)
Moreover, it’s the sort of commitment which would require vast numbers of troops to be committed on a permanent basis. Can’t see that happening…
(And no, you don’t just want them out the settlements, you’re demanding an inflexible border which both sides in reality want to adjust (I also don’t see why anything should be given, bluntly, for settling the settlers actions! In fact, I think there should be very strong action taken against terrorist “price tag” attacks from settlers!)…but the reality is, not everyone (most yes, but…) living over the 1969 borders is a settler, and those border adjustments are necessary in some cases, especially around Jerusalem and in the South where the border can and should be moved West to allow more space for a Palestinian state (and the Geneva Initiative has been too easy on the settlers, I’d note). Peace Now has done maps on this…)
olaf
3485
I can’t believe how many of you support Hamas and accept disproportionate force as a legit thing. It shouldn’t surprise me, I have been here for a long time. But it does. My guess is its the same crowd that does not support castle doctrines or stand your ground laws.
And as for the rockets not being effective and likened to fireworks…what the fuck? They are not effective because of iron dome, bomb shelters and lots of practice. That does not make them insignificant. Imagine your neighborhood being subject to that. If that isn’t terrorism, what is? Intent MATTERS. Hamas would literally kill every jew in Israel if they could. Israel could literally kill every Palestinian in Gaza and chooses not to.
Opposing current Israeli policy is not at all the same as supporting Hamas. And I’m a gun owner and huge fan of castle doctrines. Stand your ground is much dicier.
There is no way US forces should be engaged in policing Gaza or a new Palestine. What is the exit strategy or endpoint for such a police action? It’s just a quagmire and as soon as enough US blood is spilled you’re back to square one.
I never said it’s a perfect solution. I don’t think there is one. But third party peacekeepers have been useful in various parts of the world in the past, and they’d help establish a working relationship as Palestine and Israel settled into their new borders. Just as hatred and violence develop a momentum of their own, so does peaceful coexistence. The exit point would be when things calmed down enough to go. If that never happened, if a Palestinian state that controlled the pre-1967 regions didn’t work for peace and still supported attacks on Israel despite pledging to do otherwise, we’d stop policing and throw full military support behind the Israelis. But a peaceful solution deserves a real shot first.
I like how optimistic you are that things can “calm down” but how many Americans should die to bring about Israeli-Palestinian peace? How fragile would any peace brought about by placing US boots on ground be, and how quickly would the militants be back in place after US forces leave?
I believe that both sides need to suffer trade-offs and exercise extraordinary restraint for peace, but I really don’t think US soldiers, seen for too long in the Middle East as the extension of pro-Zionist force, should be part of that equation. My druthers would have been that it would be a mixed Arab force, but given the present jihad between various Muslim schools at the moment, I am thinking even that would be unworkable.
Only when the two sides have agreed on borders. Otherwise you get, say, Kashmir.
Or, to use an example closer to Israel, the Shebaa Farms.
(Hezbollah still use them as a casus belli, despite the fact that the UN has clearly ruled that they’re Syrian!)
Destarius - And a mixed Arab force would always be even handed with Israel? There are real issues there too with say Saudi troops, let alone ones from Qatar (who fund Hamas, I remind you). Plus, I’d point out that multinational UN forces like UNFIL, UNDOF or UNMOGIP are not generally there to prevent conflict so much as to monitor it. I very much doubt you’d find European countries willing to commit the troops, and who does that leave?
Certainly a monitoring force would be useful and even necessary, but you can’t tie that to a hardline border stance which would have neither side in strong support of the peace.
Janster
3491
This conflict has only one real source, the rest is just diversion, the problem is the Israeli occupation and not the resistance against that.
Israel has NEVER given the Palestinians any deals, while the Arab-Nations have given Israel LOTS of offers that includes pulling back to the 1967 deal, and restoring ALL normal diplomatic relations…
Can’t believe the bullshit in this thread…sigh
No, I was responding to Dave in relation to a third party force - I think a US force would be the worst of all options. At least Jordan and Egypt can be somewhat fairer to Israel. My own view is that Israel and Palestinians need to solve this themselves.
Janster - you can’t be taken seriously when you lay no blame on Hamas. The sins of the Israeli government does not justify the murder of children and intentionally trying to create collateral damage. Your views are abhorrent.
Timex
3493
It’s as if you have absolutely no education regarding the history of this conflict at all. Amazing.
You’d think that if you held such strong feelings about it, you’d exercise even the smallest amount of effort to actually learn about it.
Janster
3494
Justify?? You are crazy, the Israeli are the ones doing almost ALL the killing, whatever the fuck Hamas is doing, they are not pulling triggers! Israel will not negotiate, respect any treaties or stop the occupation or it’s expansion, infact they are doing nothing but killing Palestinians at ANY opportunity, and when they are not they are brutally oppressing them.
You and mr Twix got nothing.
Hamas is not pulling triggers?
We have your bias right there, sir. You can stop talking.
Yeah, that’s an indefensible stance, Janster. Hamas is absolutely pulling triggers. Said triggers aren’t particularly effective or abundant, especially when compared to Israel’s, but they’re being pulled nonetheless.
Well, Dave and I agree on that at least.
Israel has been tremendously disproportionate, and some would argue even indiscriminate, in its response - but to say Hamas is not killing anyone or pulling triggers, or firing rockets from particularly vulnerable areas like schools, hospitals and mosques in order to draw fire - that’s just so far out of line.
My view is that whether you take the view that Israel committed the “original sin”, it doesn’t warrant committing atrocities in return. I would even go so far to say that in the case of Israeli oppression, I would understand an armed struggle restricted to military targets. I cannot imagine a situation where I could justify the killing of Israeli teenaged non-combatants, nor putting Palestinians, the people Hamas claim to protect, in the line of reprisal fire of Israeli rockets and bombs, by lobbing rockets at Israeli civilian populations.
Practically speaking, the international community needs to deal with the sins of both parties, whichever came first, in order to achieve a meaningful outcome which would satisfy both sides.
In many ways this thread reminds me of the current conflict.
Israeli supports (of which i have one foot in that camp) may or may not be right, but many Palestinian supporters are so frothing at the mouth insane that it is hard for reasonable people to support them once they hear them talk.
olaf
3499
Emotion is the enemy of critical thinking. Regardless of the history of the conflict, how do you solve the problem at hand? I don’t have that roadmap but I guarantee it starts with Hamas stopping rocket attacks into Israel.
If Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israel, will the international community, including the US, start forcing Israel to honor its agreements?
