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
There are many possible solutions but I don't agree that forcibly resettling the Arab inhabitants of the West Bank and/or Gaza would be acceptable or accepted by any significant number of nations... least of all many the inhabitants themselves.
There are much bigger problems which do not come into consideration, one being the differences in economic, education, and religious adherence between the three camps of Palestinians - those in Gaza, those in the West Bank, and those in the camps of Lebanon et al. The West Bank residents are more wealthy, more moderate, and better educated on whole. It's highly unlikely they would accept 1 million immigrants from Lebanon let alone free passage for all Gazans to come settle in the West Bank.
It's easy to avoid these questions when they all have a common foe in Israel, but if there is to be a Palestinian state these differentials need to be worked out. I believe Palestinians in the West Bank would suffer from a severe case of NIMBY if 1 million claimed refugees with no money, no education and few skills were to arrive and attempt to settle in the West Bank. It's a big, never talked about yet obvious hurdle, but I'd wager it's one of the reasons why the Palestinian political class cannot reconcile themselves to peace. The status quo may very well be much easier to tolerate than what would happen if/when they could reach a peace agreement with Israel.