SF Bay Area Indymedia indymedia
About Contact Subscribe Calendar Publish Print Donate

Palestine | U.S.

Israeli trap
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday Aug 7th, 2014 11:47 AM
Because Israel will never willingly withdraw from the Israeli-occupied the Palestinians territories and has said flatly she will never give up Jerusalem, and because the Palestinians have said they will never be satisfied with anything short of an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinians territories, including and particularly Jerusalem, nothing less than forced intervention by one of the superpowers can solve the situation.

America's only beachhead in the Middle East aimed at the Arab oil fields, and America cannot survive without the oil which the Arabs are determined not to give her unless she makes Israel give up Jerusalem and the Palestinians territories and let the Palestinians back in, which she will never do.

Because Palestinians territories patience has reached its limits with Israeli refusal to abide by the unenforced UN Resolution No.242 in which virtually the whole world, including America, agreed that Israel should withdraw from Palestinians territories lands. America will be left standing alone with her powerful hand caught painfully in an Israeli trap, only to be destroyed by her own foolishness!

Ted Rudow III, MA
by Mike Novack
Thursday Aug 7th, 2014 2:49 PM
"Because Israel will never willingly withdraw from the Israeli-occupied the Palestinians territories and has said flatly she will never give up Jerusalem, and because the Palestinians have said they will never be satisfied with anything short of an Israeli withdrawal from the Palestinians territories, including and particularly Jerusalem......"

"nothing less than forced intervention by one of the superpowers can solve the situation."

It is the conclusion I disagree with. The reason I disagree is that there is another scenario related to any "two state" solution. In other words, I agree with you about what the two sides are SAYING but what about grim necessity.

a) In the absence of a specific agreement between two neighboring countries the border between them is CLOSED. Not just Israel and some hopeful Palestinian state but everywhere on the planet.

b) That means the Palestinians would have to negotiate for passage of people and goods across the border with Israel. This is NOT a situation where Israel would be surrounding either half of the Palestinian state so no way can be demanded by right. The new Palestinian state would also have to negotiate and pay a price for "restraint" because rather unlikely that there wouldn't be attacks by militants across the border with the attacked neighbor generally getting to call what sorts of measures the side from where the attacks come must take to put them down << up to fighting a civil war >> OR consider that it is at war with the neighbor.

c) What price do you imagine the Palestinians could offer for these two things that they just about have to have in order to have a viable state? Is there anything EXCEPT perhaps their claim to Jerusalem?

PS: In addition to Israeli intransigence consider another reason there has been little progress toward a two state settlement is that the Palestinians KNOW they could be forced to a civil war. There is very little worse than a civil war.

c)
If Israel wants to take the knife out of Palestine and stop twisting it, it can do so at any time.

Palestinians should not have demands put upon them before the knife is removed. "You're not asking nice enough, so the knife will remain."

Leaving the knife in, decade after decade, will only lead to one natural conclusion, a one-state solution. The dream of Israel as an ethnically pure Jewish state will die. It will become more like the US, ethnically and religiously diverse, and a major struggle for equal civil rights will ensue.
by Mike Novack
Saturday Aug 9th, 2014 12:39 PM
Essentially Israel can "force" a two state solution any time it wants to. And in effect, put those options I mentioned earlier into effect. The cost would be a somewhat higher number of Isralie casualties and a VASTLY greater number of Palestinian casualties. After you have read what I suggest as possible here, think about WHY Israel is doing this.

Simply end the (sea and air) blockade of Gaza, evacuate the West Bank (but probably not Hebron, Gus Etzion, and the old city including Mt Scopus). In other words, leave the area "vaccum" in terms of ANY Israeli control. Completely seal the borders between Israel and Gaza and the West Bank.

This would allow the Palestinians to bring in a much greater supply of arms, but would that HELP them? Sure, they could to cause a larger number of Israeli casualties. In a NON-OCCUPATION war where they just stood back and pounded back, no responsibility for the survival of the civilian population (I'm speaking in terms of "standard military convention" here, not morality).

For example, in this latest round of fighting, the Israelis went in on the ground. WHY do you think they did that instead of standing back and returning fire. Forget airplanes, none of Gaza is out of range of a 155mm howitzer from Israel. A rocket of mortar fires from some location? "Stonk" the hectare from which that fire came << and no, again by standard military convention, rounds coming down within 50 m of enemy artillery isn't considered "firing at civilians" and the responsibility for the civilian casualties is considered to lie with whoever sited their artillery in close proximity to them >>

My thinking about why the Israelis aren't doing this? Perhaps they DO care about killing large numbers of Palestinian civilians.