You are right.
Without victory there can be no peace.

Totally right.

Israel should have left alone to completely wipe out Arab opposition to its existence years ago. Everyone in the region would be better off and by now a Pax Israeliana would be in effect all over the Middle East.

Muslim states, instead going into the terrorist business, could be taking their places in the world community as modern day democracies.

I hope Bush understands as I do, that completely defeating terrorism everywhere it exists is the only way to achieve peace.

Um... did we forget Northern Ireland? How about Cyprus?

Thank you for the words of wisdom.

Re: did we forget Nothern Ireland?

The explanation is quite simple -- that terrorists of the ira did not have the support of general population, unlike paleostinians. In addition to that, if I recall correctly, terrorists tried to attack mostly political targets. I would want to see Brits react to bombings of buses, pizzerias, and disco halls. Who wants to bet that the reaction would be the same as the reaction of Russians when houses in Moscow were bombed? They just rounded up all the chechens.

You are 100% right Stephen. If Israel were left to its own devices they would be able to settle the Palestinian problem once and for all. It would involve a lot dead Palestinians, maybe all of them, but the problem would finally be solved. Unfortunately no leaders in the U.S. have the political courage to allow it to happen. I also agree with what you have to say about total war. It can achieve victory. Sherman's March to the Sea and Curtis Lemay's fire-bombing of Japanese cities were critical components of victory in those wars; they are two of the best examples of what can be achieved through total war. But today our use of precision guided weapons has convinced the American public that we can win wars without inflicting a large amount of casualties to enemy combatants, and almost no casualties to enemy civilians. The dilemma is how can we wage total war against our enemies when the very object of total war is to inflict heavy property damage and heavy casualties to both enemy combatants and enemy civilians. Also, how can the American public be convinced that total war, and all its horrors, is necessary to achieve final victory? This is going to be a major problem in our struggle against the terrorists.

In Northern Ireland, peace was achieved from the Brits completing infiltrating the IRA, and also from the IRA getting more interested in drug selling. In Cyprus, peace was achieved because N. Cyprus' sponsor, Turkey, made a bid for the EU and decided to give up on the project. Since the EU has been saying FU to Turkey in every conceivable way, I'd venture that Turkey at some point will re-examine their interests there.

One could argue that Israel's 'sponsor', the U.S., could help achieve peace -- namely, by withdrawing funding -- but I think the Israelis may be a bit more independent than even they realize, when push comes to shove.

You are 100% right Stephen. If Israel were left to its own devices they would be able to settle the Palestinian problem once and for all. It would involve a lot dead Palestinians, maybe all of them, but the problem would finally be solved. Unfortunately no leaders in the U.S. have the political courage to allow it to happen. I also agree with what you have to say about total war. It can achieve victory. Sherman's March to the Sea and Curtis Lemay's fire-bombing of Japanese cities were critical components of victory in those wars; they are two of the best examples of what can be achieved through total war. But today our use of precision guided weapons has convinced the American public that we can win wars without inflicting a large amount of casualties to enemy combatants, and almost no casualties to enemy civilians. The dilemma is how can we wage total war against our enemies when the very object of total war is to inflict heavy property damage and heavy casualties to both enemy combatants and enemy civilians. Also, how can the American public be convinced that total war, and all its horrors, is necessary to achieve final victory? This is going to be a major problem in our struggle against the terrorists.

You're making a point that I've been making for years in discussions with folks, many of whom are full-time participants in foreign policy-related work. It's distressing to see how much of a revelation this seems to many of them.

A companion observation one is that losing wars has consequences. To illustrate this -- and it's a little weird how this parallels your own Q&A format -- I've usually stated some examples this way:

Q: Why can't you take a vacation to a Bolivian Pacific coast resort?
A: Bolivia lost its coastal territory as a result of losing the War of the Pacific against Chile.

Q: Why can't you hike across the middle of Okinawa?
A: As a result of the bloody battle there in WWII, the US still occupies much of the midsection of the island and uses it as a base.

Q: Why can't you find very many German-speakers in parts of the Czech Republic or Poland where historically they abounded?
A: They were driven out as a consequence of Germany's aggression and subsequent defeat in WWII.

Moral of the story: losing wars has consequences. Uh, that's why they call it "losing".

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict resists clear resolution for several reasons. One is the underlying rejection of Israel's legitimacy by most Arabs, Palestinian and otherwise -- regardless of the military record or conventional balance of power. Another is that the clear Palestinian defeat required for a settlement is repeatedly averted or muddied by external intervention (e.g., when Arafat's gangster operation is weakened at home by corruption, misery, failure to achieve anything through bloodshed, and isolation by the US since June '02, he is saved by EU and UN and Arab world contact, support, etc.).

Obviously there's a lot more to it, but your central point is correct, and key to understanding the situation. And yet widely ignored in discussions of the topic.

I don't think Israel has enough soldiers or citizens to create a "Pax Israeliana" and I doubt the Europeans would allow it.

But what about the wall that Israel is putting up? I don't know much about it, but I'm hoping it'll do for Israel what the Iron Curtain did for the Soviets, except that it'll keep the Palestinians from coming into Israel instead of getting out.

One could carry this further into our WoT. Until ALL these nation states who we know still support terror are made to feel like a real loser, in a real war, this nation is doing a fools errand. Societies make choices, and Arab society made a bad choice a long time ago and now must reep the consequence of that choice. The sooner the better.

Great post by the way Stephen. Why is something that has been so obvious for so long so fogotten about now? It is complete mystery to me.

Israelis are generally too kind to engage in the kind of warfare that it would take to win, but the fence should help keep the Palestinians out. Meanwhile, they will rot in their self-made garbage heap.

To what Stephen said: yep.

To Gary: I don't think the root of the problem is in what America might think. Rather, I believe Totoro is right: the Israelis are simply unwilling to commit themselves to such a course. Consider that they still have left-wing members of government making back-room "peace deals," and cabinet members who disagree with Sharon airing their differences in public. Quite aside from the conflict itself, Israel has no consensus on how to act, and their government is a mess.

A quick note to nash: it would not take much effort for Israel to quash the Palestinians entirely, tossing them out and warning the rest of the Arab nations to behave, unless they relish the idea of being bombed to the ground. Europe's opinion is of no relevance whatsoever, and no one would ask their opinion, much less permission. What holds back Israel is, first and foremost, Israelis themselves.

> If Israel were left to its own devices they would
> be able to settle the Palestinian problem once
> and for all. It would involve a lot dead
> Palestinians, maybe all of them, but the
> problem would finally be solved.

Yes, indeed, a "Final Solution," but I believe you should give credit to Gen. Heydrich who I believe first coined the term. Shudder.

i dont think a "final solution" has anything to do with this conflict, and never will.

what is called for is an end to anti-israeli double standards. if the palestinians want to support war against israel so much, why not give it to them?

if you are going to wage war, dont be surprised when you lose everything you have,

Israel's war against Palestinian terrorists is no different than the U.S. war against terrorism.
Israel should have a right to defend itself by defeating its enemy.
Peace comes through victory.

I agree that wars tend to end when one side loses its will (or, more rarely, ability) to fight.

Perversely, I don't think the Israelis and Palestinians are killing each other fast enough to get to that stage in any reasonable amount of time. Each side can support the current violence indefinately. It's more like a blood feud between Hatfields and McCoys than a war.

The only feasible solution I can see at this point is essentially for Israel to retract its settlements and finish constructing its wall, hopefully along a line blessed by some group of Great Powers. Monetary compensation will need to be paid by Israel in lieu of the right of Palestinians to return to Israel.

If Israel wishes to survive as a Jewish state, it will also have to find a (non-Muslim--African? Indian?) substitute for cheap Palestinian unskilled labor. Otherwise, the use of Palestinian labor will lead to massive illegal Palestinian immigration to Israel.

A few nights ago, I was watching one of Ken Burns' things on the American West. It was a sad recounting of what we did to the Sioux and the Nez Pierce.

At a certain point I came to the realization that there may come a day when we will have to do to Militant Islam what we did to the American Indians.

An unpleasant thought, but one that is becoming increasingly difficult to deny.

Q: OK, Mr. Smarty Pants, when did WWII end?

A: It ended when Germany was burned, occupied, and crying uncle. And when Japan was burned, occupied, slightly radioactive, and crying uncle.

I've seen it argued that since Japan and Russia haven't come to an amicable agreement over the Kuril Islands, WWII hasn't 100% ended. The Treaty of San Francisco in 1952 was supposed to clear this up, but Japan has consistently attempted to regain control of the islands (through entirely diplomatic means).

If one were inclined to do so, one could also argue the presence of US troops in Germany and Japan (as some other comments have noted above) as evidence that WWII isn't fully over.

Cheers,
Rum Smuggler

Steven, you're wrong. The reason that Israel doesn't 'win' the war is because that means 'losing' a Jewish state. Israel already occupies all the land, it militarily controls all the land, but it refuses to annex the land because to do so would mean giving democratic rights to the 'losers'. In every war you mentioned that ended after substantive military defeat, the losing nation became democratic. Israel is trying to figure out how to prevent Palestine from becoming a state without giving Palestinians any substantive rights because of demographic concerns. They're preference would be for all the Palestinians to leave voluntarily, short of that they would settle for low grade apartheid if they could just finesse it through the UN and past the US. The end of this war has to be negotiated like the war of 1812 (which America thinks it won) with treaties and the eventual ascension of the two state solution.

I'm new-ish to the whole arena of military history, but aren't we missing something here?

Israel is not at war with Palestine. Israel is at war with Iran and Syria at a minimum. Given that Saudi Arabia also funds Hamas, I'd have to throw them into the lot as well. God only knows what role other Arab countries are playing, not to mention the E.U., which finally agreed to stop funding the "political wing" of Hamas only this year. Maybe one of these days they'll decide to stop funding the political wing of the PLO, too. One can hope.

If the U.S. war on terror succeeds in the next years, Israel will, for the first time, be at war with the Palestinians alone.

Stripped of their sponsor states, how long would the Palestinians last ?

I guess they could carry on--this is where my lack of historical knowledge trips me up--but I don't immediately see how long they could last. And I don't see Israel having to crush them utterly, although I'm not getting a crystal clear image of just how much crushing *would* be required . . .

In the meantime, I am a *huge* fan of the fence.

Yup. It's a fact no one speaking about it seems capable of realizing.

As much as we'd like for both sides to come to their senses and stop thinking that their "god" handed them that land, it ain't happenin'. Either it will end in genocide, or it will not end.

Q: When did the Civil War end?
A: When the South was burned, occupied, and crying uncle.

According to some good ol' boys down 'Bama way, that war isn't over either.

Ed

I'm not suggesting the "final solution" ala the nazi's. Sarcasm is okay in it's place, the situation of children tying bombs around their bodies and killing innocent people including other children is not a subject for humor or witty repartee.

I'm suggesting that 25-30 years ago when Israel was attacked, they should have been allowed to retaliate, annex conquered territories and given the Arabs in the conquered territories the option of emigrating to an Arab state or becoming Israeli citizens (as you know there are many Arab citizens in Israel and even in the Knesset).

Had this occurred there would be no Islamofascists today who are organized and funded around the unifying theme of kill Jews and as they see it, their puppet masters in the U.S. and push Israel into the sea.

Israel could and still can be an agent for modernization and democracy in the Middle East. A lot of the hatred of Jews comes from their success in bringing wealth to an area that when in Arab hands was a land of abject poverty.

I know I'm late to the party, but good Lord that was rather good!