The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
I was rather sad, however, that we never really got to debate how either a one state or a viable two state solution might be achieved - which was the whole point of my posting the diary. Most Zionists seem to want neither, but a continuation of the present war and a gradual expansion of Israel and elimination of any viable Palestinian claim to statehood - probably by their absorption into Jordan and Egypt.
Palestinians are simply a non-people as far as most Zionists are concerned - I would be tempted to say Untermenschen except that would be to evoke the emotive rhetoric I am trying to steer the conversation away from. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
Getting back on topic, I don't know how a resolution is going to happen either, but I think it will. Whether it'll be a one-state or a two-state solution is going to be entirely up to Israel, but in the long term they cannot afford to maintain a permanent state of low-grade civil war. Eventually, Israeli mainstream opinion is going to realise this, or have it dictated to them by the outside world, and tell the extremists to take a long walk off a short pier.
Personally, I think that it'll end up with a two-state solution, because most of the settlements will have to go away in order to make the West Bank a viable society, no matter whose jurisdiction it's in. And with the settlements gone, there's no reason whatsoever that Israel should annex the West Bank. I think, however, that Israel will get to keep East Jerusalem, and I think that there will be some minor border revisions in which Israeli lands are surrendered in exchange for some of the major settlements close to Israel proper. Even Hamas have said that they're willing to accept such a resolution, almost in so many words.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
Whether it'll be a one-state or a two-state solution is going to be entirely up to Israel, but in the long term they cannot afford to maintain a permanent state of low-grade civil war. Eventually, Israeli mainstream opinion is going to realise this, or have it dictated to them by the outside world, and tell the extremists to take a long walk off a short pier.
I wish I could be quite so optimistic. I think the civil war option is precisely what "mainstream" opinion has adopted because it allows them to grind the Palestinians into dust and gradually realise the dream of a Greater Israel. Everything less that that is tactics and gameplaying for the optics to be seen as being "reasonable". The risks and costs of the conflict, for Israel, are currently less than the potential gains because of Israel's overwhelming military superiority which is the one thing that will never be ceded - even if Iran has to be nuked into the dust to ensure its continuance.
There isn't really a civil war going on here. Its a slow policy of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The Palestinian people will be extinguished and a deal made for Jordan, Lebanon and Egypt to absorb the leftovers. Israel will have succeeded with the Palestinian people where Hitler failed - one of the cruelest ironies of history. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I think the civil war option is precisely what "mainstream" opinion has adopted because it allows them to grind the Palestinians into dust and gradually realise the dream of a Greater Israel.
Except that it's not working: More Palestinians are born than get killed. As genocides go, it's one of the least effective ones on record. And various Israeli governments have been trying various tactics and strategies to break Palestinian will for more than half a century by now. So far without success.
And I disagree with you about the costs of the conflict for Israel. Even leaving aside the human cost to entire generations of conscripted Israeli youths - which are substantial - it has made them universally despised in their entire region. And I believe that we are entering an age in which regional institutions will become increasingly important, and the US will become correspondingly less so.
Which regional power bloc will Israel turn to? The EU? Not a chance, unless the Union is going to play even more fast and loose with the whole human rights shtick than we're doing now. Russia? Why should Russia support them? They have lots of friends in the region left over from the Cold War that they could re-activate. China? Again, I fail to see that happening; they'd have to start from scratch in any case, and both geographically, politically and resource-wise, Iran makes a lot more sense as a starting point. The African Union? If they think so, then they're smoking crack. UnaSur? They're a long way away, and I don't really see them having any serious interests in the region in the foreseeable future. The US? Maybe, but talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. And not a particularly solid one at that.
No, Israel will find some accommodation with her neighbours, or Israel will cease to exist. It's their choice, and I just hope they're going to realise that that's the choice they have before it's too late.
They may or may not be able to fend for themselves in purely military terms, but they are not able to maintain the current level of militarisation of the economy without outside help, and all the shiny military hardware in the world matters not a jot if your economy collapses. As the Americans are learning. Painfully.
In short, their long-term strategic situation is as tenuous as the DDR's: They exist only because they are protected by powerful outside interests. Those interests will eventually cease to protect them, and when that happens, they had better already have found an accommodation with their neighbours.
I think you're wrong about that. If Israel insists that the conflict will only be resolved when one of the sides is no more, then that side will be Israel.
I don't agree that Israel's very existence is in play because it has independent nuclear capabilities, but the Zionist answer to the Palestinians is to persuade Lebanon, Jordan, Syria, Egypt etc. to absorb them perhaps in exchange for Sheeba farms, Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip and other "incentives" which an increasingly prosperous Israel can provide together with its remaining friends.
The sad fact is that the Saudis etc. care no more for the Palestinians than the Israelis do and might be persuaded by the US to help fund such a deal. As part of a final settlement Israel may agree to absorb the west bank population but with no right of return for Gaza and all the other Palestinians in neighbouring countries and refugee camps.
That should keep Israelis in the majority overall especially with continuing immigration of Jews. They have already successfully absorbed a c. 20% Palestinian population and they have been quite docile despite being a disadvantaged minority. "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
5 years is very long term in politics.! "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
I am articulating what I understand the "moderate" Zionist position to be. The extremists don't want any Palestinians in Israel whatsoever but don't articulate what they will do with them - buy them out as many previous settlers have been? I really don't know. Extreme Zionists never seem to refer to Palestinians as a people at all - they are simply Arabs who wandered into Palestine, or Terrorists, and either way don't seem to warrant much consideration. When you have God on your side its not really your problem. He shall smite them as he smote the philistines before them.... "It's a mystery to me - the game commences, For the usual fee - plus expenses, Confidential information - it's in my diary..."
And if the Zionists believe that they can just expel what? five million people? into the surrounding countries, then they're smoking something unhealthy.
For Israel to annex the West Bank and all countries agreeing to assimilate the people currently residing within their borders could be A Good Thing or A Very, Very Bad Thing, depending on whether there is actually any political will to genuinely assimilate the Palestinians into those societies. If not, then the conflict will only metastatise, not resolve.
Honestly, I don't know why I need to keep saying this. Sadat turned it down 30 years ago, there is no Earthly reason why Mubarak would want it now.
jobs in Cairo
Ha ha. You're a real comedian.
by gmoke - May 6
by rifek - May 4 3 comments
by gmoke - Apr 26 1 comment
by gmoke - Apr 20 1 comment
by rifek - Apr 18
by rifek - Apr 17 2 comments
by Oui - May 81 comment
by rifek - May 43 comments
by Oui - May 42 comments
by Oui - May 4
by Oui - May 1
by Oui - Apr 27
by gmoke - Apr 261 comment
by Oui - Apr 25
by Oui - Apr 23
by Oui - Apr 22
by gmoke - Apr 201 comment
by Oui - Apr 204 comments
by gmoke - Apr 18
by Oui - Apr 181 comment
by rifek - Apr 172 comments