...the more generous Israel is now the better for them in the long run. Use the Wall to give the Palestinians the absolute maximum amount of territory possible, recognize a Palestinian State, and walk away from negotiations now and forever. In the future, let boundary disputes be settled the way they have been between states since time immemorial, by war.

This just doesn't make sense. What is the incentive for the Israelis "to give the Palestinians the absolute maximum amount of territory possible," when you recognize in the next sentence, "...let boundary disputes be settled the way they have been between states since time immemorial, by war"? In either of the two possibilities of resolution of their boundary disputes, internationally brokered mediation or war, Israel is better served by the minimalist position.

One other thing Orrin, in your threads on this topic you always insist that there must be a Palestinian state without Palestinian compliance for peace and if peace doesn't come about, then Israel surely can wage war with this sovereign state. Again, this doesn't serve the Israelis very well indeed.

A war between the state of Israel and some sovereign state of Palestine would not be easier to accomplish and at the same time be more palatable than expulsion. As Iraq proves the efficacy that Israel knows through its wars, that with the Arabs, when the party starts, everybody not directly involved crash the party anyway. Only a media with a 15 min mentality, can create news analysis solely based on Vietnam for Iraq and not any hint or connection to another democracy's very pertinent experience with these very same people. The Arab confrontational states would be geometrically more likely to come to the defense for the State of Palestine than they ever had for the UN camps or enclaves in either the Gaza of the West Bank.

Both Israel and the US understand very well that Israel has to endure the sidelines in America's fight, for fear of galvanizing the Arab and Muslim worlds into a world-wide jihad. America suffers the most from this self-enforced embargo, but willingly pays the price so as to be able to proceed with a war on their terms and time frame. An Israeli-Palestinian war, between the two sovereign states would surely upset American strategical interests, as much as, inflicting more casualties upon the Palestinian people than any other option Israel could consider.

Ransom:

Suppose Israel simply claims the whole West Bank. Do you think that's a final boundary that will stand ten years from now? Obviously not, they'll have to renegotiate. And negotiations allow Palestinians to dream of victories. Negotiations are thereby the enemy of peace. Give them the maximum state feasible now and get it over with.

On your other point, what's wrong with a generalized war between America/Israel against the entire Arab world if that becomes necessary? It would only last a few hours, because Israel would have to go nuclear, and would essentially settle all these issues. Most Americans would give George Bush a green light to nuke Saudi Arabia right now, let war break out between them and Israel and no one will bat an eyelash at an exterminationist response by the Israelis. But continued repression of what will soon be its Arab majority will leave Israel in the same boat as the Afrikaaners were, betrayed by America despite having been an invaluable ally.

"for fear of galvanizing the Arab and Muslim worlds into a world-wide jihad..."

Meaning that what's occurring at the moment is merely local?

All;

The biggest problem with a war between Israel and Palestine is, what is the end game? Isn't that how Israel ended up with the West Bank tar baby to start with?

In terms of war, Israel would be far better off to not send a single soldier across the border and instead use massive amounts of stand off weapons. Then any joint Arab response would require moving troops across the West Bank or Gaza. Israel can then "highway of death" them as they get stuck in traffic.

But Israel must not conquer any territor it's not willing to clear of people afterwards.

Orrin:

Suppose Israel simply claims the whole West Bank. Do you think that's a final boundary that will stand ten years from now? Obviously not, they'll have to renegotiate. And negotiations allow Palestinians to dream of victories. Negotiations are thereby the enemy of peace. Give them the maximum state feasible now and get it over with.

The point is not how much of the West Bank Israel claims, the point is that they have something with which to negotiate with. No salesman, negotiator or even smart consumer goes into a negotiation/mediation with their best offer or their bottom line, as the circumstance dictates. Your original proposal "to give the Palestinians the absolute maximum amount of territory possible" leaves Israel no room for concessions unless you think the Israelis were willing to go the table and offer up Israel itself as a concession.

Your other ideas about negotiations are just off the wall.

I wrote:

Both Israel and the US understand very well that Israel has to endure the sidelines in America's fight, for fear of galvanizing the Arab and Muslim worlds into a world-wide jihad. America suffers the most from this self-enforced embargo, but willingly pays the price so as to be able to proceed with a war on their terms and time frame.

Barry:

Meaning that what's occurring at the moment is merely local?

It is local in the sense that while the state sponsors themselves are facilitating a proxy war by Muslim terrorists, but are not even marshaling and mobilizing their own armed forces and marching to the borders of Iraq. As long as the war is fought asymmetrically with proxies, it leaves the state sponsors exactly where we want them, waiting for the whirlwind to hit them as it did Hussein's Iraq.

Ransom:

Okay, if you advocate negotiating with terrorists, I suppose the Israelis should claim more than they can realistically hold and then go sit down the the PLA, stoking the hopes of the Palestinians that they'll get all they want. Seems counterproductive to me.

I agree with Orinn. The states must be
created in order to move the process along.
A democratic Israel would be able to drop its
moral guard if it were a war between two
states rather than internal repression of a
troublesome minority.

This isn't about a negotiated settlement. The
stage must be set for a decisive military solution
along the lines of the Mexican-American war.

Many claim that the problem is Israel's existence. Period.

However, for those (perhaps decreasing in number) who believe that Israel does have a right to exist, the real problem behind the Israel-Palestine issue has, since Oslo, been one of language. It is a problem most effectively described by Orwell.

Prior to Oslo, one could have said that there was less of a "problem" because the PLO made it very clear that it wished to destroy the Zionist Entity.

Since Oslo, the idea of a "negotiated" settlement has been the informing paradigm. And it is precisely the idea, the meaning of "negotiation" or "negotiations" that has ultimately been so problematic (people in the West believe, of course, they know what it means; all they have to do is look it up in the dictionary).

For negotiations means, on the face of it, give and take. But essentially, "negotiations" has no meaning when one side has maximalist goals and believes it has the right to, and means of, achieving them.

That is, negotiations have no meaning when the goal of one side is to destroy the other.

Nonetheless, "negotiations" does sound very good. It conveys the scent of civilized behavior; it conveys the bouquet of diplomacy. It is very useful.

For Israel, negotiations meant that Israel's existence was (finally, praise the almighty!) accepted by the PLO. What was to be negotiated was the extent of the Palestinian state

For the Palestinians, negotiations meant that Israel would agree to dismantle itself, it would repatriate all those millions of Palestinian refugees to their original homes and pay them indemnities for their suffering. It would provide them with social services and give them the vote. In other words, Israel would negotiate itself out of existence, or at least place itself in a position that would lead to its more easily being dismantled. Of course, Israel would not, could not do so, but failure to do so would mean that the Palestinians had the right to dismantle Israel themselves.

Which is to say that negotiations for Palestinians meant something slightly other than it did for Israel.

And so the use of "negotiations" was and continues to be (cf. "Road Map") a semantic weapon used by a people who were/are not willing to compromise (since the whole land belongs to them) to give the impression that they were/are prepared to do so (cf. "hudna," "peace of the brave").

That is to say, a Trojan horse.

And quite a brilliant public relations move.

In Christopher Sykes's excellent biography of Orde Wingate, the latter is quoted as explaining the facts of life to Zionist leaders by using the metaphor of a horse trader (i.e., England) who makes it appear as though he wants to sell a horse to a prospective buyer and so engages in bargaining with that buyer, all the while never intending to sell his horse in the first place.

I think a lot of the confusion arises from the fact that the Palestinians have never intended to sell that horse.

It has been posited fervently and often on this blog that Israel can not morally solve this conundrum using the full force of its military unless its enemy has a real state behind real borders. To this end, Israel should declare a Palestinian state (a proposal that would be recognized by no country nor by the Palestinians) as a ploy to make Palestinian leaders "be responsible" or to force them to reign in terrorists; that is, to change its policy of confronting and attacking Israel.

But since there is no intention on the part of the Palestinian leadership (supported by its citizenry) to change its maximalist attitude, such a proposal is essentially a recipe for all out war.

Which is precisely why Palestinians will not agree to a state existing side by side with Israel, no matter what is decided for them. They will fight it every inch of the way (and if, somehow, they do agree to it, it will only be to further continue the conflict from perhaps a better strategic positon).

But as they have been able to weaken Israel considerably over the past three years, one may assume that the status quo for them is quite desirable.

It should be understood that the main axioms that inform Palestinian policy is that Israel is a western-oriented country whose values (perceived as degenerate and cowardly) will limit Israel, will prevent Israel from destroying them. And should, should Israel ever feel the need to do so, it will not be allowed to by Europe and/or the US. Nor, for the same reasons, will Israel be allowed to transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank and/or pre-1967 Israel (even if, as was pointed out, this may be, by western standards, more humane than decimation; though as the Palestinians might say, if you remove a man from his land, you murder him).

Such is the assumption, the gamble, of the Palestinian leadership. It seems to be borne out. They are still there.

And it is something that many in the west and even in Israel do not appear to grasp. Perhaps for cultural reasons, we are unable....

The following article (not recent) by Robert D. Kaplan is, in this regard, alas pertinant:

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2000/06/kaplan.htm

Israel just needs to keep playing the game until they get their dingo fence built, giving their citizens some degree of security. I don't really care where it runs, as long as it is truly dingo-proof.

"But since there is no intention on the part of the Palestinian leadership (supported by its citizenry) to change its maximalist attitude, such a proposal is essentially a recipe for all out war."

Better re-read Orrin's original post, because that's just exactly what he's suggesting might, in the end, prove to be the best course. The point is that, with a real Palestinian nation-state on the ground, Israel therefore will be able to be far less constrained in the ways it responds to threats from that nation-state. If that means going the total-war route if such should prove necessary, then so be it.