Posted on 06/21/2002 8:41:11 AM PDT by robowombat
WORLD IN FOCUS Interview with Martin van Creveld
Broadcast: 20/03/2002
Interviewer: Jennifer Byrne
Professor Martin van Creveld, of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem is Israel's most prominent military historian. In this interview with Jennifer Byrne he claims that despite the recent increase in Israel's military operations, the huge Israeli defence forces will inevitably lose to the Palestinians. Transcript:
Byrne: Thanks for joining us tonight on Foreign Correspondent. How has it come to this, Martin... how is it that the mighty Israeli army – one of the world’s most powerful - with its helicopter gunships, with its tanks, with it’s missiles, can be losing to this relatively small, relatively under-armed if fanatical group of Palestinians?
Van Creveld: The same thing has happened to the Israeli army as happened to all the rest that have tried over the last sixty years. Basically it’s always a question of the relationship of forces. If you are strong, and you are fighting the weak for any period of time, you are going to become weak yourself. If you behave like a coward then you are going to become cowardly – it’s only a question of time. The same happened to the British when they were here... the same happened to the French in Algeria... the same happened to the Americans in Vietnam... the same happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan... the same happened to so many people that I can’t even count them.
Byrne: : Martin you used the word ‘cowardly’ yet what we’ve seen tonight – these commando units, the anti-terrorist squads – these aren’t cowardly people.
Van Creveld: I agree with you. They are very brave people... they are idealists... they want to serve their country and they want to prove themselves. The problem is that you cannot prove yourself against someone who is much weaker than yourself. They are in a lose/lose situation. If you are strong and fighting the weak, then if you kill your opponent then you are a scoundrel... if you let him kill you, then you are an idiot. So here is a dilemma which others have suffered before us, and for which as far as I can see there is simply no escape. Now the Israeli army has not by any means been the worst of the lot. It has not done what for instance the Americans did in Vietnam... it did not use napalm, it did not kill millions of people. So everything is relative, but by definition, to return to what I said earlier, if you are strong and you are fighting the weak, then anything you do is criminal.
Byrne: : You are a military historian, but let’s face it the Prime Minister was a general... how could General Sharon – Prime Minister Sharon – be getting it so wrong, by your analysis?
Van Creveld: It’s not a question of personalities, it’s a question of the balance of forces. I’ll use a metaphor that I’ll take from Lao-tzu – the Chinese sage who lived about 2,400 years ago – ‘a sword put into salt water will rust’ – it is only a question of time. And this is happening to the Israeli army and to the Israeli society, almost regardless of who is leading it.
Byrne: : Are they losing, or have they lost, in your opinion?
Van Creveld: No they have not yet lost, but they are as far as I can see, well on the way to losing, which is why Israel over the last few weeks has been positively begging the Palestinians for a ceasefire. We have arrived at the point where, if you will, like Johnson in Vietnam, we are constantly asking the other side for a ceasefire, and the other side either will or will not respond as it pleases him – the reason being of course that they have so much less to lose.
Byrne: : The reason being also, in a sense, that it’s what isn’t about, isn’t it? A ceasefire would provide security for the Israelis, which is what they want, but it would not provide statehood for the Palestinians, which is what they want.
Van Creveld: Exactly. The other side will definitely not have a ceasefire without some considerable political achievement. If I were Arafat and the Palestinians, I would not put an end to this intafada, because the way I see it, from the first day of the first intafada they have been winning.
Byrne: : What options does the Israeli army have, do you think?
Van Creveld: Nothing will work.
Byrne: : Nothing at all? Do you think there’s no change of strategy?
Van Creveld: No. There is one thing that can be done – and that is to put and end to the situation whereby we are the strong fighting the weak, because that is the most stupid situation in which anybody can be.
Byrne: : And how do you do that?
Van Creveld: Exactly. How do you do that. You do that by A, waiting for a suitable opportunity... B, doing whatever it takes to restore the balance of power between us and the Palestinians... C, removing 90% of the causes of the conflict, by pulling out... and D, building a wall between us and the other side, so tall that even the birds cannot fly over it.... so as to avoid any kind of friction for a long long time in the future.
Byrne: : Well, that’s a tall list. Let’s start with the last one – the wall... I mean, when I was there last month people were talking about a wall but you’re seriously saying this is an option, to build a gigantic wall.... what.... on the old green line, basically – there’s Gaza – there’s the West Bank – and there’s Israel proper, and they shall never be combined?
Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.
Byrne: : What about the many thousands of extremely belligerent Israeli settlers that would be on the wrong side of the wall?
Van Creveld: If it were up to me, I would tell those people – and you’re quite right, many of them are quite belligerent – look, ladies and gentlemen, you have been magnificent, you have served us well, you have protected us all those years, but this is coming to an end. If you choose to stay, it’s your problem – you are on your own. My guess is that 95% of them will come home.
Byrne: J: What about another scenario, which has been much discussed in recent months – which is one of full military solution? Basically, the Israeli army just goes in... it doesn’t build a wall – it basically blows up the Palestinian home... razes the camps... stops, as it might say, pussyfooting around, and it’s “curtains”?
Van Creveld: Look... a home that has been demolished offers even better shelter than a home that stands intact. The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much.
Byrne: : Martin, just personally... can you bear the thought of living in Jerusalem behind a wall – as the only way to be safe?
Van Creveld: Quite to the contrary – I came to live in Jerusalem in 1964... three years before the 1967 war. There actually was a wall, and life was wonderful. Nothing ever happened. Jerusalem was the quietest, safest place on earth. More than that, between 1957 and 1967 the number of Israelis who lost their lives as a result of enemy action was just thirty-five. Now we pray for a week in which we shall not lose thirty-five people.
Byrne: : Martin van Creveld, thank you very much for joining us tonight. Thank you.
Van Creveld: Thank you. Bye.
This also is interesting:
Byrne: J: What about another scenario, which has been much discussed in recent months – which is one of full military solution? Basically, the Israeli army just goes in... it doesn’t build a wall – it basically blows up the Palestinian home... razes the camps... stops, as it might say, pussyfooting around, and it’s “curtains”?
Van Creveld: Look... a home that has been demolished offers even better shelter than a home that stands intact. The Americans in Vietnam tried it. They killed between two-and-a-half and three million Vietnamese. I don’t see that it helped them much.
Americans didn't have night vision, IR scanners and remote heat and movement detectors in VietNam, neither did the Germans in Warsaw. Theoretically, if the Israelis find forced expulsion as their second to last resort before the Sampson option, running void scans from their new nifty satellite over leveled Palenstinian camps will allow them to find subterranean voids up to a few meters below ground. Eliminate those voids, put up arrays of sensors on high ground, eliminate water sources, and efficiently eliminate the "Ghosts of Tulkarm", or whatever the Arab talking heads call them...
Hopefully this will never happen, this short term victory would mark the end of Free Israel, as world opinion turns rabid against the state.
It started with decolonization. The West was thrown out of its colonial empires by nationalist insurgents of indigenous peoples (Algeria, India, Vietnam, etc). Then, the West was overthrown in those areas where significant Western minorities had established minority rule (Rhodesia, South Africa, Kosovo). Now, the third world is pushing into areas previously inhabited by Western majorities (Israel, the American Southwest, etc).
Eventually, this will culminate in a struggle for control in the very hearland of the Western World (the rest of America, Europe, Australia, etc). The West is running out of places to hide.
Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that his argument here -- or, rather, his asserstion -- is unsupported by reason or relevant analogy. Seriously, what is his argument? If read carefully, I don't think you find one. He just idiotically asserts that the Pallies are strong because they are weak. Huh?
My only point about his background, which is substantial, is that we shouldn’t dismiss him because we don’t like his conclusions. Some of my response is based on my general knowledge of his writings (I’ve posted one or two before, wish I could search by author and find them), so forgive me if I put words in his mouth, it’s half me.
Note that all his analogies are to nations that were fighting foreign wars, and lost the will to fight against a determined enemy. The goal of war is indeed to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As for the Pallies, the only effective means they have found to fight Israel is by means of terror attacks directed against the hearth and home. The problem is that killing your enemy's women and children invariably strengthens his will to fight.
Two wars, and Israel has yet to decide which to fight. Do they claim a big chunk of the West Bank, my preference? It’s a foreign war, it involves controlling population, and thought Israel hasn’t yet chosen to fight it (it’s time), they are losing it.
Both sides kill women and children, the Palestinian’s deliberately. Jewish deaths strengthen Palestinian resolve, regardless of cost. Palestinian deaths weaken Israel’s resolve. I disagree with the author, I don’t think it’s the inequality of force (think risk), it’s a function of a moral world view. But the reason doesn’t matter, in an exchange of children the Palis win.
The Pallies would do much better (i.e. have some chance of weakening rather than strengthening their enemy's resolve) if they rigorously restricted their attacks only to Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza, but their fanatacism does not permit of such restraint. This, btw, is also their key weakness as military opponents of Israel: their potency depends entirely on maintaining hyper elevated levels of hatred and fanatacism against the Jews, and, one might add, the overwhelming obsession with victim hood that is the primary psychological feature of nearly all terrorists whatever their nationality or religion.
It’s not restraint. They would get their *ss kicked and they know it. Victimhood plays well throughout the world.
Such an extreme and debilitating psychological state is not stable under most circumstances. It has only been maintained so long among the Palestinians due to the support of their cause from the rest of the Arab world. Of course the Arab world has "supported their cause" by purposefully keeping them stuffed into squalid refugee camps, propagandizing them with hatred, keeping them focused on Israel rather than their own sorry state, and defending and underwritting the thugs and gangsters that "lead" them by driving them to destruction and siphoning off their resources to Swiss bank accounts.
You’re right. Israel’s enemy no more resides in the territories than America’s resided in Afghanistan.
Any change of affairs that would cause the Palestinians to more or less permanantly shift their focus away from the Jews, and toward their own prospects for a better way of life, will undercut the fanaticism that drives their will to fight. Say, for instance, that the U.S. topples Sadam and manages to establish a successful democracy in Iraq. Suppose that this triggers a democratic revolution in Iran. The Palestinians, I think, really do want a democracy in the end, and they have the unique experience in the Arab world of having been able to observe one, in Israel, at close hand. If other Arab or regional Islamic countries start to go democratic, one can expect the Palestinians to become jealous of someone besides the Jews. And once they begin to think in terms of putting their own interests ahead of destroying or damaging Israel, the war will be over.
You know the Palestinians had a better, not perfect, life pre Oslo. The occupation at least provided for a safe, stable society. Israel agreed to give them a state. And some morons decided that, rather than allow democratic institutions and a political process to develop, then hold elections, then independence, it might be quicker to bring a known terrorist, with tens of thousands of lives to his credit, home (not really, Egypt) from Libya to run the place. IMO that’s the start of the tragedy. Dumb move, but the ultimate blame for that rests with the Palestinian people who support him.
Granted the Palestinians may win in the end by sustaining their fanatical attrition-warfare terrorism, and eventually destroying the Israeli economy -- and thus the Israelis' ability to field technologically state of the art military forces -- if you want to call that "winning". (Palestinian economic viability is dependent on Israel, and their "victory" would bequeath them a Somalia-like hell on earth.) But to` say, as Martin does, that the Pallies will inevitably, or even probably, prevail is simply stupid.
I wouldn’t grant that at all. IMO, they will overstep, a fatal flaw of tyrannies confronting democracies. They won’t win. And unlike the author, I don’t think the only successful conclusion for Israel rests with a wall on archaic borders.
It is not an easy thing to maintain that level of fanatacism. It takes hard work, and outside help. If the Arab world, for instance, ever decides to reconcile itself to the existance of Israel, and the Palestinians try to nevertheless maintain the conflict, they literally won't stand a chance. Their ability to damage Israel depends on many circumstances that are subject to change.
You’re right. The source of the problem rests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. They’d hang the Palestinians out to dry in a minute, have a few times already.
Unless Israel opts for the wall option (not on the 67 lines), it's not a struggle of technology. See some of my sources in 28. Technology can preven Israel from losing, it won't achieve a victory.
...transferring your own civilians into occupied areas.I sure didn't. Why? Because that's not what the Convention says. Let's try the actual text of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. From Article 49:You meant to say forcibly transferring your own civilians into occupied areas., didn't you?
The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.
Show me where the word "forcible" applies. You can't. Indeed, deporting is forcible transfer. Since the Convention says "deport or transfer", it's pretty clear that voluntary transfers are also included.
BTW, a meeting of the conention signatories without all the signatories and with out signatures is as useful as the new war crimes tribunal, which I assume you assert Americans are subject to.Just like a meeting of the UN without a major member(like the one in 1950 minus the Soviets)? A meeting of Congress without full attendance. All signatories were there except us and Israel. We've stated our opposition to the settlements on other grounds.
We haven't signed the "war crimes tribunal" deal, nor should we. Israel has signed the Geneva Convention.
-Eric
Try the Geneva Convention, and you're wrong about everyone but us and the Arabs.Israel is a signatory, and the Palestinian Authority has declared its acceptance of the Convention. Indeed they wish to sign it formally. From Article 2:The Geneva Convention doesn't apply here. If you think it does, tell me the nation-states involved.
Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
Hell, the USA is the most pro-Israel nation in the world right now,Only the smaller portion of Jerusalem is in the West Bank. I don't believe that Israeli government buildings or embassies are in that section. In any case, I expect Israel to end up keeping all of Jerusalem except for the Muslim quarter of the Old City, and Mount Moriah (aka Temple Mount and Noble Sanctuary, which will likely be divided).Sentiment is irrelevent. Most countries recognize the West Bank as Israeli territory and have their embassies in Jerusalem. Except us and the arabs.
... and our official position is the squatter camps (aka "settlements") need to go.That's what the "settlements" really are: squatter camps. Go where? The same place the ones in the Sinai did when that peace treaty was settled.Which squatter camps and go where? What's your point here?
And tell me who gives a sh!t what our "official" position is! If you want to know what our real position is, just follow the money.Clinton is gone. We have an honest man in the White House now. Once again, words mean things.
-Eric
Unless Israel opts for the wall option (not on the 67 lines), it's not a struggle of technology. See some of my sources in 28. Technology can preven Israel from losing, it won't achieve a victory.Israel is completely safe from being wiped off the face of the Earth. It has nuclear weapons. "Defensible borders" don't mean all that much.
As Clancy said/proposed in the book version of Sum of All Fears, I would actually favor signing a full mutual-defense treaty with Israel (with a codicil against it attacking its neighbors without our permission) if it reaches a fair and equitable peace deal with the Palestinians.
-Eric
There are other options he doesn't mention, such as a decisive military move to capture and annex a large chunk of the West Bank, resettle the population as needed. Thus far, Israel hasn't the will for that.She doesn't have any desire to be treated as South Africa was in the 80s or Serbia in the early 90s, that's why. No nation on Earth would support such an action.
-Eric
The PA is neither a state nor a signatory in the formal sense. It's inapplicable.
Go where? The same place the ones in the Sinai did when that peace treaty was settled.
Then show us (and the Israelis) a treaty that means something first other than more backstabbing from the PA.
Clinton is gone. We have an honest man in the White House now. Once again, words mean things.
All that's true but words have never meant much of anything in diplomacy.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Nuclear weapons don't keep out suicide bombers; real, controlled borders do.
Ensured mutual destruction doesn’t assure survival. The Soviets had it, and their vile culture is gone. It’s a last ditch option which is of no benefit to Israel. They won’t use it, other than in response to their destruction and a renewed Diaspora, a loss for everyone.
I would oppose a mutual-defense treaty tying the US to Israel. A fair and equitable deal has to be accepted by both sides. If the Palestinians accept a deal, no guarantor is needed. If it’s a ploy, as Oslo, we don’t need Americans defending Israel against future terrorism. Israel doesn’t need us either.
As a strategic partner, IMO we don’t need a treaty, I can’t visualize a major power conflict Israel wouldn’t support us in, if we let them (the real issue)
There are other options he doesn't mention, such as a decisive military move to capture and annex a large chunk of the West Bank, resettle the population as needed. Thus far, Israel hasn't the will for that.
She doesn't have any desire to be treated as South Africa was in the 80s or Serbia in the early 90s, that's why. No nation on Earth would support such an action.
Israel would be justified in her actions. It would be a permanent solution. In the long run it would give the Palestinians a future. I suspect America and most of the world would accept it. IMO, there’s no real sympathy for the Palestinians anywhere, that’s why they’ve been cannon fodder for so lont. It’s in keeping with international law. No one claims that territory. It would be soon forgotten.
However, you could be right. I think most factions in the Israeli government, including Sharon, would agree with you on this, not me.
"in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."
Ronald Reagan
Ensured mutual destruction doesn’t assure survival. The Soviets had it, and their vile culture is gone. It’s a last ditch option which is of no benefit to Israel. They won’t use it, other than in response to their destruction and a renewed Diaspora, a loss for everyone.The Soviets were a sick nation to their core, so being safe from any external enemy wasn't enough to save them. Israel itself is a healthy nation that is not built upon internal contradiction and does not require force to maintain its social order. It only needs to protect itself from external threats. Its own bad elements threaten others, and rarely threaten Israelis.
I would oppose a mutual-defense treaty tying the US to Israel. A fair and equitable deal has to be accepted by both sides. If the Palestinians accept a deal, no guarantor is needed. If it’s a ploy, as Oslo, we don’t need Americans defending Israel against future terrorism. Israel doesn’t need us either.An Israel which could make that fair and equitable deal, I could support in such a way. It's a last ditch defense, to make any radicals who might wish to attack Israel not even think of doing so. Much like the nukes.
The problem is that none of the offers made by Israel have been remotely fair. Each resembles the old South African "homelands" more than anything else. The demands of the squatter camps for exclusive access road and water preferences (up to 85%) make it absolutely impossible that this Palestinian state would ever be more than an economic (and thereby political) vassal of Israel. A fair settlement would require either removing them (as was done in the Sinai)or integrating them without preference into the Palestinian state. The latter is infeasible because of the political-religious nature of the "settlement" movement. Unfortunately, that movement has enough power to put either side of Israel's tight political balance into the permanent minority.
As a strategic partner, IMO we don’t need a treaty, I can’t visualize a major power conflict Israel wouldn’t support us in, if we let them (the real issue)The basis of Israel's legitimacy as a state is the 1947 Partition of the former British Mandate of Palestine. That Mandate also decreed that the West Bank would be Arab. Israel actually gained more land than that mandate in the 1949 cease fire. Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank, which it has since renounced...but renounced in favor of a Palestinian state in the region. They reject the idea of Israeli sovereignty over the area.There are other options he doesn't mention, such as a decisive military move to capture and annex a large chunk of the West Bank, resettle the population as needed. Thus far, Israel hasn't the will for that.
She doesn't have any desire to be treated as South Africa was in the 80s or Serbia in the early 90s, that's why. No nation on Earth would support such an action. Israel would be justified in her actions. It would be a permanent solution. In the long run it would give the Palestinians a future. I suspect America and most of the world would accept it. IMO, there’s no real sympathy for the Palestinians anywhere, that’s why they’ve been cannon fodder for so lont. It’s in keeping with international law. No one claims that territory. It would be soon forgotten.
However, you could be right. I think most factions in the Israeli government, including Sharon, would agree with you on this, not me.I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small, and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down.
"in the pre-1967 borders, Israel was barely ten miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again."It's a different world now than when Reagan said those words. Israel and Jordan are close friends with a mutual defense agreement. These are the only nations that the West Bank touches. Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that. Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.Ronald Reagan
-Eric
Too late. They don't have any choice in the matter except what they are allowed by the Israelis and the USA.
I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small,
Good for him. They've proved that word isn't worth monkey snot.
...and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down.
As Prime Minister, he can set his own policy just like Bush can reverse Clinton.
Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that.
Bwahahaha! They don't have an army - just 50,000 policemen and various militias.
Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.
Just like they're doing now?
I think you are deranged to seriously suggest this nonsense.
I agree. I was addressing the nuclear option, though perhaps not the best analogy. It’s existence didn’t save the Soviets. Their culture was corrupt. It won’t save Israel (or the US) from external threats because, for cultural reasons, it won’t be used. It’s nice to have, but it’s only a “protection” when Israel’s enemies (or ours) have either an overwhelming advantage on the ground, or a serious offensive nuclear (or chemical) threat themselves. It’s as useful to Israel as a deterrent as it is to the US.
An Israel which could make that fair and equitable deal, I could support in such a way. It's a last ditch defense, to make any radicals who might wish to attack Israel not even think of doing so. Much like the nukes.
I disagree, I don’t want to see US troops committed, they’re not needed. I admit, a defense treaty would do little harm, I wouldn’t be writing my congressman if you got your way.
The problem is that none of the offers made by Israel have been remotely fair. Each resembles the old South African "homelands" more than anything else. The demands of the squatter camps for exclusive access road and water preferences (up to 85%) make it absolutely impossible that this Palestinian state would ever be more than an economic (and thereby political) vassal of Israel. A fair settlement would require either removing them (as was done in the Sinai)or integrating them without preference into the Palestinian state. The latter is infeasible because of the political-religious nature of the "settlement" movement. Unfortunately, that movement has enough power to put either side of Israel's tight political balance into the permanent minority.
Please keep in the back of your mind that the Palestinians, despite numerous promises, have yet to take even the first tiny step (the procedure is clear in their charter) to recognizing Israel’s right to exist.
The settlements are legal. The concept that Jews living in a Palestinian State is an impossibility is corrupt at it’s face. They are Israel’s only negotiating point (and she gave them up in the Sinai).
I believe Dennis Ross (I’ve posted the link elsewhere on the thread). Israel offered a state with NO access road grids. Palestinian control (after 7 Years of the Jordan River corridor. Though not stated, forcible removal of settlers from the new Palestinian state (an actual war crime) would have been a given. The barrier to peace did not come from Israel.
The basis of Israel's legitimacy as a state is the 1947 Partition of the former British Mandate of Palestine. That Mandate also decreed that the West Bank would be Arab. Israel actually gained more land than that mandate in the 1949 cease fire. Jordan had sovereignty over the West Bank, which it has since renounced...but renounced in favor of a Palestinian state in the region. They reject the idea of Israeli sovereignty over the area.
Sovereignty was rejected in 47. It was rejected by Jordan. I’m never heard that they rejected it in favor of a “Palestinian State”, it would be irrelevant anyway. Jordan had years to establish a state there, right up to their treaty with Israel. They weren’t particularly interested.
I don't quite trust Sharon on this. He has a history of antagonizing and showing contempt for the Palestinians in ways big and small, and of course there's the 1982 invasion of Lebanon where he broke Begin's word to Reagan. I suspect he's an "Eretz Israel" believer deep down…It's a different world now than when Reagan said those words. Israel and Jordan are close friends with a mutual defense agreement. These are the only nations that the West Bank touches. Palestine needs no real army, and they've agreed to that. Israel and Jordan can mutually defend it.
Sharon really isn’t the issue, his positions aren’t unique, if anything he galvanizes opposition.
You’re right, Palestine doesn’t need an army, they’ve agreed to that, and yet their “security forces”, armed and trained by Israel and the US, are essentially combatants. Whatever entity is created there must be demilitarized or you’re simply setting the stage for the next conflict.
I don’t want to get into a drawn out tactical discussion on the borders, but recognizing that any new neighboring “state” will be a hostile one, Israel is at least entitled to borders which would preclude a crude ground attack (or one from those Iraqi tanks invited in). More important, one that would negate 1950s technology artillery, without the necessity of using the force Israel has available against a “sovereign” nation.
a retrospective to a topic from 6/21/2002.
We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall.
Didn't work, did it Mr. "Expert"?
Thanks, think I'll ping it
High Volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel.
also Keywords 2006israelwar or WOT [War on Terror]
----------------------------
Interesting article to revisit from pre-ping list days. Note posts 10, 13, 21, 28, 37,44, 45, 53. 56
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.