Posted by Canajew:
Sorry for not responding in time. I was having fun with TDier on the Iraqi thread. That boy is lost even when it comes to their own European history. Anyways.
you can't really impose peace on warring peoples.
It was done before many times before and especially as it applies to Israelis vs. Arabs.
You can facilitate conditions that will allow them to make peace, and you can facilitate conditions that make war and aggression more difficult (like the wall in the WB), but peace cannot be imposed if one side is unwilling to accept it, unless of course the side that does not want peace is bluggened into submission.
True. I don't disagree but this can be accomplished by a third party intervention specifically the United States. It can be a third party that can offer the two sides status-quo by providing political, financial and even military benefits. The same as was done for Egypt and Israel in the seventies during the Camp David Accords. The problem to the latter is that the third party has to be commited to the process. Actually the second main role of the UN is to fascilitate conflict resolution or rather providing a Third Party platform to the conflict by taking accountability of the situation something that UN most of the time failed to accomplish. Most of the time it was the United States or even the Soviet Union accomplishing that particular function of the UN.
And on this logic, the Palestinians must be defeated in order to become independent.
I don't agree. Plus how would they be defeated?
Because if they are not defeated they will never be willing to stop fighting. Much like the Japanese in WWII.
I heard this Japanese theory over and over again, however, this does not apply to the situation. Egypt, for example was not defeated for it to make peace with Israel. From what I see if Syria was not defeated in 1973 it would accomodate for peace with Israel as well. The idea is not to embarrass but to to build a negotiating political platform.
This is ludecrous. Why should the Palestinians, once they gain independence, cooperate with Israel in any way, rather than continuing their efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international arena while continuing to facilitate cross border terrorist activities.
Because it is in their interest.
the world did nothing in the 50s and 60s about cross border terrorism from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon, so why in the world do you think they will do anything this time other than push israel not to retaliate or take effective measures to counteract these raids?
First of all don't compare situation of the 60s to the situation in the 21st century. Number two any retaliation of Israel on Palestine would be very devastating to Palestine both politically on the global stage and most importantly economically. Israeli retaliation capacity for letting terrorists through their borders is something that Jordan (especially Jordan), Syria and Egypt learned the hard way.
No, the Palestinians need to be conclusively and totally defeated in order for there to be a functional enforcement mechanism. Not humiliation-defeat, but total functional strategic and tactical defeat. Then the olive branch extended by the Israelis may get a little more respect.
You really think so? And whom exactly would they be fighting? The PLO?
And who is to enforce this 'peace'? The Europeans? Israel would never allow this. the Americans? Arab jihadists would flock to the area to kill as many as they can (and the Americans could be expected to treat the Palestinians far worse than the Israelis in dealing with these jihadists - the American's first inclanation is to carpet bomb when at risk). Some sort of third world intervention force? What kind of political will do you think they would have to stand up to Palestinian terrorist organizations willing to commit any and every kind of attrocity to undermine their morale?
I don't look at the situation as extremely as you do but international force would have many problems. That is why I say that the best approach to ensure border security would be worked out between the Pals and Israelis on their own.
we'll see. It may be the only answer and while it will surely not happen in the current political environment, there may be circumstances in the future when the international community would be more tollerant of this sort of thing.
If anything the international community would never approve Ethnic Cleansing. I would personally relinquish all the support of Israel - being a Jew and a human being - if it would ever happen. A transfer would be a very bloody and inhumane affair and it would condemn the Democratic nation for generations to come.
But with or without it, I still do not really see peace as a viable outcome. Rather transfer would only deliniate where the front lines are.
As much as I am against the transfer I do not desagree that it is a solution. The other solution is unilateral separation by Israel on Israeli terms (the best approach - in my opinion). The third solution is forceful introduction of a third party where the third party would enforce the solution. Fourth approach is to continue with this idiotic present approach or rely on the good will of the parties involved and specifically on the political strength of the Palestinians and the political interest of the Arab states.
You must be smoking REALLY good grass.
Sorry I don't smoke weed. But in reality there are solutions.