Do Israelis Even Want To Win?????

[Bonnie]

As Israelis went to the polls, not one of the leading parties offered the option of winning the war against the Palestinians. It's a striking and dangerous lacuna.

First, some background. Wars are won, the historical record shows, when one side feels compelled to give up on its goals. This is only logical, for so long as both sides hope to achieve their war ambitions, fighting either continues or potentially can resume. For example, although defeated in World War I, Germans did not give up their goal of dominating Europe and soon again turned to Hitler to try again. The Korean War ended over a half century ago but neither north or south having given up its aspirations means fighting could flare up at any time. Similarly, through the many rounds of the Arab-Israeli conflict - wars in 1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982 - both sides retained their goals.

Those goals are simple, static, and binary. The Arabs fight to eliminate Israel, Israel fights to win the acceptance of its neighbors. The first is offensive in intent, the second is defensive. The former is barbaric, and the latter civilized. For nearly 60 years, Arab rejectionists have sought to eliminate Israel via a range of strategies: undermining its legitimacy through propaganda, harming its economy through a trade boycott, demoralizing it through terrorism, and threatening its population via WMD.
While the Arab effort has been patient, intense, and purposeful, it has also failed. Israelis have built a modern, affluent, and strong country, but one still largely rejected by Arabs. This mixed record has spawned two political developments: a sense of confidence among politically moderate Israelis; and a sense of guilt and self-criticism among its leftists. Very few Israelis still worry about the unfinished business of getting the Arabs to accept the permanence of the Jewish state. Call it Israel's invisible war goal.

Rather than seek victory, Israelis have developed a lengthy menu of approaches to manage the conflict. These include:

•Unilateralism (building a barrier, partial withdrawals): The current policy, as espoused by Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and the Kadima Party.

•Lease for 99 years the land under Israeli towns on the West Bank: The Labor Party of Amir Peretz.

• Palestinian economic development: Shimon Peres.

•Territorial compromise: The premise of Oslo diplomacy, as initiated by Yitzhak Rabin.

•Outside funding for the Palestinians (on the Marshall Plan model): U.S. Representative Henry Hyde.

•Retreat to the 1967 borders: Israel's far Left.

•Push the Palestinians to develop good government: Natan Sharansky (and President George W. Bush).

•Insist that Jordan is Palestine: Israel's Right.

•Transfer the Palestinians out of the West Bank: Israel's far Right.

These many approaches are very different in spirit and mutually exclusive. But they have a key element in common. All manage the conflict without resolving it. All ignore the need to defeat Palestinian rejectionism. All seek to finesse war rather than win it.

For an outside observer who hopes for Arab acceptance of Israel sooner rather than later, this avoidance of the one winning strategy prompts a certain frustration, one that's the more profound on recalling how brilliantly the Israelis early on understood their war goals.

Fortunately, at least one prominent Israeli politician advocates Israeli victory over the Palestinians. Uzi Landau notes simply that "when you're in a war you want to win the war." He had hoped to lead the Likud in yesterday's elections but failed to win anything approaching a majority in his party and was ranked fourteenth on the Knesset list, not even high enough to guarantee him a parliamentary seat. With Likud itself expected to get under 15 percent of the popular vote, it is clear how deeply unpopular Israelis presently find the idea of winning their war.

And so, they experiment with compromise, unilateralism, enriching their enemies, and other schemes. But as Douglas MacArthur observed, "In war, there is no substitute for victory." The Oslo diplomacy ended in dismal failure and so will all the other schemes that avoid the hard work of winning. Israelis eventually must gird themselves to resuming the difficult, bitter, long, and expensive effort needed to convince the Palestinians and others that their dream of eliminating Israel is defunct.

Should Israelis fail to achieve this, then Israel itself will be defunct.

http://www.iris.org.il/blog/archives/1171-Try-Victory.html

 

[jillian]

I'm not quite certain how you define victory. To me, victory would be Israel getting to exist without having to worry about being attacked or terrorized with Jerusalem intact, along with the borders as they exist now, without the West Bank and Gaza.

Obviously, that can't happen until Hamas disavows terrorism (unlikely...I know), but seems that should be the goal, IMO, of course.

 

[Bonnie]

I'm not quite certain how you define victory. To me, victory would be Israel getting to exist without having to worry about being attacked or terrorized with Jerusalem intact, along with the borders as they exist now, without the West Bank and Gaza.

Obviously, that can't happen until Hamas disavows terrorism (unlikely...I know), but seems that should be the goal, IMO, of course.

Yes I do mean win in the broader sense of being able to live in the tiny piece of land they call home in peace. Seems like they are loosing their will to do that.

 

[jillian]

Yes I do mean win in the broader sense of being able to live in the tiny piece of land they call home in peace. Seems like they are loosing their will to do that.

I don't quite see things that way. I think they're fairly pragmatic and look to the long-term. Seems to have worked for them thus far.

 

[Bonnie]

I don't quite see things that way. I think they're fairly pragmatic and look to the long-term. Seems to have worked for them thus far.

How can anyone think pragmatically when it comes to terrorists? They know no logic only violence. Israel has already given up much of their land to the Palestinians/ Hammas and what has it gotten them? Right now Iran is funnelling millions to Hammas to destroy Israel. Exaclty how has pragmatic thinking worked for them thus far?

 

[Annie]

I don't quite see things that way. I think they're fairly pragmatic and look to the long-term. Seems to have worked for them thus far.

I'm with Bonnie. After WWII both Israel and Palestinians, both without a home were offered a 2 state solution via UN, dominated by Britain. Israel said yes, Palis rejected. Israel got all. Then they were attacked, in 50's and 70's. Israel 'won'. Took more land. Then they have ceded land. Still attacked. Lots of accords: Carter, Reagan, Clinton. Shook hands, assassinations, ceded more lands. More suicide bombings before and after 9/11. Ceded more lands. Made more 'nice.' Ceded more lands. Now Hamas elected saying annhilate. Israeli response, we'll cede more land...

 

[jillian]

How can anyone think pragmatically when it comes to terrorists? They know no logic only violence. Israel has already given up much of their land to the Palestinians/ Hammas and what has it gotten them? Right now Iran is funnelling millions to Hammas to destroy Israel. Exaclty how has pragmatic thinking worked for them thus far?

One can think pragmatically about any problem and leave the fanatacism to the fanatics. It's part of having the moral high ground.

What would you have Israel do?

 

[CSM]

One can think pragmatically about any problem and leave the fanatacism to the fanatics. It's part of having the moral high ground.

What would you have Israel do?

The moral high ground doesn't mean much if you are dead. The moral high ground doesn't keep a lot of people from getting blown up, gunned down, assaulted, raped or otherwise being victims of those with the moral low ground.

 

[Bonnie]

One can think pragmatically about any problem and leave the fanatacism to the fanatics. It's part of having the moral high ground.

What would you have Israel do?

High moral ground sounds nice in theory, but it doesnt' do much to save one's own life in the face of those whose only goal in life is to kill you. But I suppose they could always put that on your tombstone.. "They took the higher moral ground"

What should Israel do? They should vote someone into office whose determined not to let the Middle East blow Israel into the ocean. They used to do that, now they seem to have no will to fight for the little land they have left.

 

[Bonnie]

Kathianne...Lots of accords: Carter, Reagan, Clinton. Shook hands, assassinations, ceded more lands. More suicide bombings before and after 9/11. Ceded more lands. Made more 'nice.' Ceded more lands. Now Hamas elected saying annhilate. Israeli response, we'll cede more land...

Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[jillian]

I'm with Bonnie. After WWII both Israel and Palestinians, both without a home were offered a 2 state solution via UN, dominated by Britain. Israel said yes, Palis rejected. Israel got all. Then they were attacked, in 50's and 70's. Israel 'won'. Took more land. Then they have ceded land. Still attacked. Lots of accords: Carter, Reagan, Clinton. Shook hands, assassinations, ceded more lands. More suicide bombings before and after 9/11. Ceded more lands. Made more 'nice.' Ceded more lands. Now Hamas elected saying annhilate. Israeli response, we'll cede more land...

Hi Kathianne. I am aware of the circumstances which existed in Israel after the mandate was divided. And there is no question that it has been historically correct that "the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace". And had the Palestinians not left at the urging of the Grand Mufti, there would have been two states going back to '48.

The way I see it, Israel can take either of two self-destructive positions: those which used to be taken by Sharon or those which were taken by Rabin. Neither was productive or successful. The direction in which Sharon was taking the country when he fell ill seems to me to be the most clear-headed and I hope they continue along that path.

 

[Annie]

Hi Kathianne. I am aware of the circumstances which existed in Israel after the mandate was divided. And there is no question that it has been historically correct that "the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace". And had the Palestinians not left at the urging of the Grand Mufti, there would have been two states going back to '48.

The way I see it, Israel can take either of two self-destructive positions: those which used to be taken by Sharon or those which were taken by Rabin. Neither was productive or successful. The direction in which Sharon was taking the country when he fell ill seems to me to be the most clear-headed and I hope they continue along that path.

Cute, clear headed path to self-destruction! :firing:

 

[jillian]

The moral high ground doesn't mean much if you are dead. The moral high ground doesn't keep a lot of people from getting blown up, gunned down, assaulted, raped or otherwise being victims of those with the moral low ground.

Israel, except when Rabin was around, hasn't exactly been pacifist and the IDF is quite capable of defense. No question that the two intifadas have taken their share of Israeli lives, but seems that Israel would be far worse off if it took an extremist position.

In saying that, I have no problem with the wall or with taking every appropriate response to terrorists and their supporters.

 

[jillian]

Cute, clear headed path to self-destruction! :firing:

So you think Sharon was too moderate?

 

[Annie]

So you think Sharon was too moderate?

You were the one that posted that, what do you think?

 

[jillian]

You were the one that posted that, what do you think?

Actually, I already said I agreed with where he was at the end. And after reading your posts, it seemed to me you think he was too moderate.

Hence my asking....

 

[Annie]

Actually, I already said I agreed with where he was at the end. And after reading your posts, it seemed to me you think he was too moderate.

Hence my asking....

Maybe I'm reading wrong what I considered key to your post?

The way I see it, Israel can take either of two self-destructive positions: those which used to be taken by Sharon or those which were taken by Rabin. Neither was productive or successful. The direction in which Sharon was taking the country when he fell ill seems to me to be the most clear-headed and I hope they continue along that path.

Seems you were saying both were self-destructive, but Sharon's clear-headed?

 

[jillian]

Maybe I'm reading wrong what I considered key to your post?



Seems you were saying both were self-destructive, but Sharon's clear-headed?

Sharon's old policies were self-destructive. His policies at the end were clear-headed.

 

[Adam's Apple]

One small detail was left out of the talk about Israel ceding their land to the Palestinians. My best recollection is that they did not do this "ceding" voluntarily. They were pressured into it by their "friends" who thought that giving Israel's land to the Palestinians would keep the peace in that area. Such simpletons!

 

[Gunny]

The moral high ground doesn't mean much if you are dead. The moral high ground doesn't keep a lot of people from getting blown up, gunned down, assaulted, raped or otherwise being victims of those with the moral low ground.

That's about as well-said as I have seen and I totally agree.