Formation of Palestinian State no Solution to Middle East Violence

For the entire twenty years since the fiasco named Oslo was perpetrated on Israel and the entire world we have heard the constant drumbeat droning out the mantra that the founding of a Palestinian State living side-by-side in peace and security with Israel will result in peace and calm over all of the Middle East ending all strife and violence. Even after experiencing over two years of unrest and turmoil of the Arab Spring, more aptly called the Arab Winter, we saw uprisings, violence, protests and revolution replacing longstanding dictators in the hope of founding something better all without even the mention of Israel or the Palestinians. How could it be that we had a popular uprising that replaced the government of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Yemen with further unrest ongoing or soon to come in Syria, Jordan, Mali, and possibly Lebanon and others. Again, none of these will be about Israel or the Palestinians with the possible exception of Jordan whose population largely consists of Palestinians. Yet still we hear the drumbeat droning out the mantra that the Palestinian Statehood being established and carved out of Israel will end all Middle East problems and the world will enter a period of blissful peace.

 

How can anybody expect a thinking person to believe such foolery after witnessing the Middle East of the recent past? The Palestinian leadership itself has demanded that one of the conditions which must be granted when forming a Palestinian State in any form other than having it completely replace the State of Israel that they retain the right to resist and fight against the Zionist existence in the rest of their homeland until all of Palestine from the River to the Sea is liberated from the Zionist influences. So, by granting the Palestinians statehood a country established in all of the lands beyond the Green Line that includes every inch of land lost by Jordan in the West Bank, all of Gaza that Egypt lost, and half of Jerusalem including all of the Old City and the Temple Mount, there still will not be peace because as long as the Jews retain any land which was once under Muslim control there can be no peace. This is not my opinion but is the opinion of the PLO, Fatah, Hamas, Palestinian Authority, Arab League, Hezballah, al-Qaeda, and countless rulers, Imams, and Islamic leaders worldwide. So, it is obvious by their own words of intent that the two state solution as a final agreement is unacceptable to the vast majority of the followers of Islam and that they will only accept the entire eradication of Israel and replacing it with a Palestinian Islamic governance where the Jews will initially be allowed to remain as long as they accept the status of Dhimmi. But, even if this result were to be implemented, would that then lead to complete calm and peace throughout the Middle Easy? I think not and here is why.

 

Does anybody actually hold that should Palestine be formed and meet even the wildest of demands of the most radical of Palestinian leaders that this would result in the end of the violence and uprising in Syria? Of course not. That alone should be sufficient to disprove the claim that all of the violence in the Middle East has as its root cause the Palestinian/Israelii conflict. Would founding Palestine end the violence against Christians and other non-Muslims in Mali or Nigeria? No chance that would end simply because Israel and the Palestinians reached an agreement. Would all the terror induced violence in the West immediately terminate once the State of Palestine was founded and borders were established between the Israelis and the Palestinians? Nope. What about the eternal standoff which flares up with consistent levels of animosity and violence between Pakistan and India over the lands which were formerly Kashmir, would that come to a conclusion after the peace was signed between Israel and the Palestinians? That would rank as highly unlikely. Would stable governance and an end to the conflicts suddenly fall over all of Somalia, especially in its capital city of Mogadishu? Not a chance. Would Iran cease their drive to attain nuclear weapons and establish a Shiite crescent and hegemony over the entirety of Muslim lands and then spread this new caliphate to encompass the entire world? Never happen as their goals would remain unfulfilled. The simple fact is that most of the violence and terrorism which exists or is rooted in the Middle East has nothing to do with Israel or the Palestinians and whatever should come to pass between Israel and the Palestinians would have absolutely no effect on the rest of the Islamic world and those places where they have extended their influence or interests.

 

Solving the impasse between the Palestinians and the Israelis with the intent of solving all the violence and situations currently existing in the Middle East is a fool’s errand which only the most misguided would believe or expect such a result. That begs the question as to why in the world is it taken as fact that solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict would be the cure-all of all the problems in the Middle East? The reason is the most obvious of reasons. An often used excuse for not addressing a difficult problem or not tackling a pervasive threat is to blame it on some unsolvable problem that is only loosely tied to the situation. The Middle East violence is a pervasive problem which would be extremely difficult to address, let alone solving. Much of the violence in the Middle East is of ancient origins with no resolution as long as the two sides of each conflict exist. The conflict between the Sunni and Shiite Muslims will not reach any conclusion in the foreseeable future. So, blame it on Palestinian/Israeli conflict and its lack of resolution. It does not matter if transferring the responsibility for tackling near impossible conflicts is a total ruse which anybody who takes even a moment to inspect would find the complete insanity of the claim as nobody wishes to see the truth. Seeing the realities as they truly are would require actions that nobody is prepared to undertake. Blaming the Palestinian/Israeli conflict for the entire bundle of turmoil, violence, and conflicts throughout the Middle East and related problems traceable to the Middle East is simply a way of kicking the can down the road, just somewhat more insidious.

 

This begs another question, what would happen if the Palestinian/Israelii conflict were to be resolved? Obviously, those blaming every ill or at least the majority of them, on the ongoing conflict between Israel and the Palestinians are counting on that problem never ending which is why there is never any pressure placed on actually forcing a solution. The pressures for solving the Palestinian/Israeli conflict are almost universally placed upon Israel while the Palestinian side rarely has any pressures applied to make concessions towards solving the conflict. The reasons for this is that Israel is actively seeking to meet and solve the problem while the Palestinians do not wish a solution as they are only being paid great amounts of money for as long as their “difficulties” continue. The Palestinian society is setup as being dependent on large infusions of money and on not taking the responsibility for governing themselves and simply blaming Israel. This fits perfectly with the desired situation of an insolvable situation which will continue without end allowing for a plethora of other problems to also be avoided and left unsolved. Making the finding of a solution acceptable to both sides of the Palestinian/Israeli conflict as the prerequisite for tackling the other myriad of problems which is the Middle East is exactly the same as promising to weed your garden after the last rainfall had passed. There will never be a last rainfall within reason thus the garden never needs to be weeded. The Palestine/Israel conflict also will never be resolved as long as the actual only result the Palestinians will accept is the instillation of a Palestinian State over all of Israel replacing the Jewish State and subjugating the Jewish population of Israel at best and an unspeakable alternative at worst. Since the Israelis are never going to submit to Palestinian rule over their entire homeland, the problem will never be resolved. Even if a Palestinian State is formed with recognized borders, the conflict will continue if this recognition includes a Jewish State of Israel existing beside the Palestinian State. That insures that the rest of the world can simply kick the can down the road rather than making the difficult decisions to address the rest of the problems in the Middle East. Simply stated, it is much easier to blame Israel for not completely surrendering to the Palestinians while never expecting them to do so. That is the path of least resistance when one considers that all the other paths are just as insolvable and much more dangerous to become involved. That is why the claim exists that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict is the root of all evil in the Middle East and why there will be no truthful attempts to address any of the plethora of problems involving Islam.  

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Arguments For and Against American Troops Protecting Israel

Lately Israel has been the target of even more contentious arguments and disagreements than the excessively high level it normally occupies. Much of this stemmed from the Occupy Movement where Israel and Jews were brought forward as agents who were working against the general population and controlling much of the media, Wall Street, banks, businesses in general, much of the machinations of governments throughout the world, and the foreign policies of the most Western countries and the United States in particular. The rest has come out of the Republican Presidential Debates where it has been argued that Israel and those who support her have held an inordinate amount of sway over government policies, especially when the question is foreign aid to Israel and military support for Israel. Somewhere in the blizzard of new items concerning Israel, somebody put forth the idea that it would be a serious mistake and should never even be considered to send American soldiers to protect Israel. This is important now due to the distinct possibility that they may be involved in a war with Iran or any of the surrounding nations, all of which appear to be growing even more threatening towards Israel, as the continuing Arab nightmare vaults Islamist interests into positions of leadership in these countries. With this item getting some degree of discussion, perhaps the use of American troops in the defense of Israel past, present and future should be discussed and clarified.

We should initially look at the past in order to quantify the place the United States has held in Israeli history. Initially, President Harry Truman ignored the vast majority of his advisors, especially those from the State Department, when he instructed the United States Ambassador to the United Nations Warren Robinson Austin to vote favorably for United Nations Resolution 181 which would lead to the founding of the State of Israel. President Truman went the extra mile by recognizing the nascent Jewish State, Israel, immediately after David ben Gurion declared statehood. During the two years of war that ensued immediately after the declaration of Israeli statehood by numerous Arab countries including Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and Yemen, the United States continued to enforce their arms embargo on Israel. Israel depended mostly upon France and Jews world-wide who smuggled arms and supplies to Israel, including some Americans. When Israel allied with France and Britain to free the Suez Canal after Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser had nationalized the waterway stating intent to deny the use of this vital route to Asia for non-Muslim European countries, President Dwight David Eisenhower not only continued the arms embargo on Israel, but also insisted that Israel immediately return the entirety of lands taken in their part of this military confrontation. This demand was made despite the fact that the closing of the Suez Canal from use by any country was considered to be a Casus belli for war by international laws, treaties and agreements. This had technically made the Israeli actions to be committed in a defensive act and not as an instigation of war, thus Israel easily could have claimed to retain the lands in question as the international rules of war at that time.

It was not until after the 1967 Six Day War that the United States altered their relationship with Israel. During the Six Day War the United States was still enforcing that very same arms embargo and Israel was critically dependent on France, Germany, and to some extent, England, for their weapons and resupplies. President Lyndon Baines Johnson was fully involved in managing the United States actions in Viet Nam and thus mostly ignored the conflict instigated by Egypt and Syria against Israel. Despite Jordan entering the war in response to requests and promises of sharing the spoils of victory extended by Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Israel managed to defeat the combined armies of these three countries in six days and had taken control over the Golan Heights from Syria; Gaza and the Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; and Judea, Samaria, and Benyamin (aka West Bank) from Jordan. Impressed, perhaps even amazed, with the seeming ease with which Israel defeated its combined enemies in the six Day War, President Lyndon Baines Johnson made a tactical decision which was the beginning of the Israeli American close ties and military cooperation. Despite the new definition of Israel as a close and vital ally, when Israel was caught flatfooted by Egypt and Syria in 1973 and the onset of the Yam Kippur War, President Richard Milhouse Nixon, under advice from Secretary of State Henry Kissinger designed to make Israel feel vulnerable making future pressures more potent, delayed resupplying Israel with the munitions and other weapon systems to replace the rapidly depleted Israeli inventory until the situation became harmfully critical. Since then, most of the military aid given by the United States to Israel has been made with the proviso that Israel spend the vast majority on systems and armaments manufactured by the United States and that should Israel make modifications to such systems that the plans be made available to the United States if so desired by the United States.

Throughout all the conflicts between Israel and her enemies there has been one vital truth that needs mention, namely that never has Israel requested or expected the United States to supply troops to fight alongside the IDF in any capacity. Truth be told, Israel has actually insisted that American troops never be used and have stated they would refuse any offer by the United States to send soldiers to assist Israel in any conflict. The IDF in all its capabilities has, on occasion, trained in joint training exercises. These training exercises have been held in the United States, Israel, and other allied countries of the United States. In the spirit of complete honesty, yes, there have been soldiers from the United States military who have fought as part of the IDF in the past. Every case of such has not been done as assignments of the military commanders of the United States. In every case the people in question have either been retired from the military of the United States, taken a leave in order to assist Israel (usually having to deny that their leave was taken to facilitate their joining in the IDF defense of Israel and such denials have been blindly accepted in every case I am familiar with), or resigned from their service in the militaries of the United States to join the IDF. The most famous of these people was Colonel David Daniel “Mickey” Marcus who served in the IDF during the 1948 Israeli War for Independence. Colonel Marcus became the first Commanding General of the IDF and died in a friendly fire incident as he approached a sentry at night and was shot suspicious that he may have been attempting to infiltrate the IDF positions. The sentry spoke no English and Colonel Marcus spoke no Hebrew which was the root of the misidentification. His story is the theme of the 1966 movie “Cast a Giant Shadow”.

Currently, there exists a squad of American troops in Israel at the insistence of the United States. These troops are manning a highly advanced X-band radar system, also known as an AN/TPY2, which is a powerful phased array radar that is designed to track ballistic missiles through space and provide ground-based missiles with the targeting data needed to intercept them. The United States refused to allow the Israelis to operate the system as it is considered to be a highly secret system which the United States did not wish to allow the Israelis to have access which may lead to their reverse engineering of this advanced and highly technical system. Israel was, obviously, ready, willing, and claimed able to operate this radar system but the United States insisted that the IDF not have access to the unit and provided American personnel to man the radar. These radar operators are not to be used for any combat mission beyond caring and operating the X-band radar system.

The fact is that Israel has not only never requested that the United States or any other country send their soldiers to assist Israel in any manner for her defense. Israel has demanded that nobody who is not an Israeli be made to fight for Israel and that she will fight her own battles. Yes, Israel will ask for aid in the supply and arming of the IDF and has made urgent pleas a small number of times when the Israeli logistics was found to be lacking the necessary depth necessary to meet the resupply demands during times of conflict. The reason for such need becomes evident when one remembers that Israel is barely larger than the state of New Jersey yet has been forced to fight wars on a far larger scale. This is necessitated as Israel exists surrounded by existential enemies sworn to the destruction of the Jewish State and the whole-scale slaughter of her Jewish citizens should they ever lose just one conflict. The fact that Israel has not asked for and has honestly and forcefully refused to accept having soldiers from other countries assist in defending against whatever the odds or the size and scope of the forces which have unified intending their wholesale slaughter is beyond belief, but it is the truth and will always remain truth. Whenever anybody claims that the United States must never send American troops into harm’s way in the defense of Israel, know that they are constructing a strawman argument and are knowingly lying in order to grandstand at Israel’s expense. They are offering their insistence of not getting involved in an Israeli war simply to play on people’s fear of sending our troops into such danger despite the fact such a situation will never ever come to fruition. Those making such arguments need to be outed for the use of a lie that borders on being a blood libel against Israel by implying that there exists an Israeli expectation for others to fight their battles for them. Such has never been and will never be the case. Where Israel may ask for assistance, it would be limited to addressing the situation which presented a threat to more than merely Israel. Such a case is the Iranian nuclear weapons program. But there are those who believe, or at least will claim, that the Iranian nuclear bomb would solely be a threat to Israel and that Iran has no other targets in mind. That is why Iran is working so diligently to produce missiles that are able to carry a warhead to any point on the globe and not limiting their designs on being able to target only Israel.

Beyond the Cusp

Israel and America, Differences Without Any Real Difference

So many of the authoritative sources on terrorism tell us how the United States does not face the same type of terrorist threat as does Israel. They will point to the numerous differences claiming their importance while ignoring anything which would tie the seeming disparate threats together. Some will point to the fact that most Israeli terror attacks produce fewer casualties per attack than the massive style bombing attacks against American targets. Some assert that America is vulnerable to attacks all around the world while almost all attacks against Israelis are committed within the borders of Israel and the contested areas of the West Bank and Gaza. Some have argued that Israeli terror is purely local while terror against the United States is global and shared by European countries, Asian countries, basically any country anywhere on Earth. At every turn the experts find differences that allow the world to react to terror attacks against everybody except Israel as one type of terror that is undeserved and unjustifiable while consistently pointing to Israeli actions or mere existence as reasons for the terror against the Jewish State bending events beyond simple definitions in order to place the blame on Israel while excusing the terrorists as acting with justification.

Perhaps these false differences can explain the reasoning behind the coming universal conference being assembled by the United States. This conference will be co-chaired by the United States and Turkey. Yes, Turkey, the same Turkey that sponsored the Mavi Marmara Flotilla that attempted to break the Gaza Blockade and attacked the IDF units that boarded the Mavi Marmara Flagship with steel rods, knives, bats, and handguns. That’s the same Turkey that has threatened Israel to break off relations should Israel not make a formal apology for the Flotilla incident and the death of nine Turkish IHH terrorists who viciously attacked the Israeli forces who were enforcing a legal blockade and have carried through on this threat. This is the same Turkey that has ignored a United Nations investigation which found that Turkey had supported this terrorist attack against a legal action by Israel, another United Nations member. Oh, that’s right, that was Israeli terror which has nothing to do with the terror faced by the rest of the world.

Maybe it would be wise to look at the rest of the countries which will make up the rest of this effort. Also invited will be Australia, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, New Zealand, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Italy, Japan, and the European Union. All right, these are innocuous enough, though many of these countries as well as the European Union are often to be found taking a side critical of Israel at virtually every turn. Slightly more problematic members joining this American effort are South Africa, China, India, Colombia, and Russia. Both Russia and China are Iran’s protectors in the Security Council as well as helping with nuclear, missile, energy, and other technologies. The others in this group, especially India, are examples of countries that would make good additions to this conference.

But it is the last group that things get really questionable. Somebody at the State Department decided that no conference on combating terrorism would be complete without the participation of Algeria, Egypt, Indonesia, Jordan, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Is it honestly necessary to go into particulars and list the items that make these choices problematic at best? I doubt it, or at least it should not be required, especially for countries such as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan.

But the most disappointing item is not so much who the United States State Department and other security agencies included as much as the one country conspicuous by its absence, Israel. The United States is holding a combating world terrorism conference and has decided to invite numerous countries where much of the instigation, training, indoctrination, monetary support, and other terror supportive activities yet decided that Israel would have little if anything to contribute. Oh, that’s right. I keep forgetting that the terrorism that is committed against Israel is completely different than the acts of terrorism inflicted elsewhere in the world. I guess most have forgotten that until and aside from the one attack on September 11, 2001, Al Qaeda had committed fewer attacks and caused fewer American casualties than Hezballah. Have we forgotten the embassy and marine barracks attacks in Lebanon back in the 1980’s or was that a different era when America shared a problem concerning terror with Israel, a little matter that the United States appears to have forgotten.

Beyond The Cusp