Totally agree with everything you say there, but I’d cite the Northern Ireland example as a case in point.
All the time England acted defensively and actively hunted down the IRA, who hid inside communities they terrorised, we achieved diddly squat. The Loyalist paramilitaries cited our support as their motivator, when in fact most of us hated what those guys did in our name. The biggest driver to peace for the Six Counties was Omagh. Because after that event everyone was crystal clear who the real enemies of peace were. There was no argument anymore. Even those who hadn’t decommissioned, did so.
And now what’s left of the Troubles? A band of about 50 bored kids kneecapping drug dealers and hanging round a dozen has-beens who still think they’re part of something big when they aren’t.
I know what I’m saying does sound like a very risky strategy for Israel given it has other enemies in the region, but Ahhmedinajad uses proxies like Palestine simply because Hamas is an easy way to keep Israel’s eye off the real ball.
The stateless nature of the Palestinian people while they’re technically living in a state of occupation is the one thing that enables them to lob rockets over the wall. That’s what empowers Hamas. That’s what makes them useful to Iran.
Take that away from them and they’ll have no military might whatsoever, and no defence. Israel would be able to point a nuke at them. Any remnant dissidents in Hamas will have all the moral and strategic power of an IRA splinter group.
At that point, Palestine will be too busy reconstructing and too scared of the consequences to start anything, and Egypt and Jordan will be quite happy to leave things as they are.
We know that because of all the nutters in the Middle East, Saddam was by far the most unhinged and even he didn’t dare bring it. Ahmedinajad’s nowhere near as insane as Saddam, and we already know he won’t start anything he can’t finish unless he has allies who’re equally willing to commit to huge loss of life for a fight that’s not worth having.
So in the long run, resolving Palestinian statehood will do far more defensively for Israel than building more settlements in contested territory. Even if it means ostensibly giving land away,
Thanks. Israel tried that softer or “let them amass massive weaponry and attack first” (for the sake of “peace” or PR or whatver) approach for over 50 years. It lrd to insecurity and substantial losses in lives. Isr also tried the “give away your homeland for peace” approach and all it got them was 1oooo deadly missiles pointed at them. No, those approaches are proven losers. Proven over and over again. Sorry about that but that’s what 50 years of Arab murders have done. Now Isr needs to just get on with it, rebuild Zion and stop trying to be so very very nice and gentle and appeasement-prone. All those wonderful humanitarian efforts have only been interpreted as weakness and invitations to more murderous attacks. Pray for the peace of Jerusalem, yes for sure, but keep the powder dry. As president Reagan said, peace in this difficult world comes from strength (not weakness or reticence or any failure of resolve, all of which just invite more attacks missiles and terrorist bombs). Or something like that. The idea you wrote about sounded wonderful for a world 50 years ago, it has since, regrettably, been proven (by several Arab attacks and hundreds of terrorist bombs and thousands of terrorist missiles) to be very counter-productive. But thanks for your ideas. Much appreciated. Best regards,fhc