I can’t see this plan working. No one has given up UBL for a staggering amount of reward money. The people you want to buy off are driven by something other than money.
I agree, the militants will never be bought off. But I think the average Palestinian can be. They support the militants because they think they are eventually going to get something for it (land). Putting such an opportunity in front of the average Palestinian is going to make that person begin to wonder if their political leadership should be followed any longer. And if such an offered were rejected, then it becomes just that much clearer to us that the problem is going to be solved by conflict. After all, if a check for $250K is not going to make them happy do you think that pretending the WB is an independent country is going to?
Not IMO.
I don’t know, but I think the real question is whether 250K would make them happy enough to abandon the idea of destroying Israel. I doubt it.
I can’t remember where I saw this line but I think it sums up the situation.
If the Palestinians gave up their weapons there would be peace. If the Israelis gave up their weapons Israel would be destroyed.
Similarly, Gold Meier is reported to have said of the Palestinians, “There will only be peace when they love their children more than they hate us.” (quote may not be exact).
Rush Limbaugh is fond of pointing out (correctly) that peace is the result of victory—when one side defeats the other.
The problem is, Israel swims in a vast sea of Arabs and Persians, all dedicated to her extermination. She cannot defeat them all. Without financial and military support from the United States, she could not survive, and that support may be waning as Americans grow weary of Middle-East involvements.
Then there is the coming Iranian bomb, to be followed by the Arab bomb that Saddam wanted and we forestalled—but for how long? Israel will have no chance unless the threat of the US nuclear retaliation is enough to deter her enemies. But will it? Her enemies are fanatics, willing to sacrifice themselves in the holy cause.
Given this gloomy future, perhaps we should entertain some kind of buy-out, as A_Tom proposes. The chief obstacle to it, however, is that same Islamist fanaticism. When mothers are willing to strap bombs on their children, why would they stop for a little money?
She cannot defeat them all. Without financial and military support from the United States, she could not survive, and that support may be waning as Americans grow weary of Middle-East involvements./Mr Lynn
Check it out if you can. There are times when I think that our support for Israel may be a liability to them because we are after all “Big Satan” to their “Little Satan”. Who is most hated here?
I can’t see this plan working. No one has given up UBL for a staggering amount of reward money. The people you want to buy off are driven by something other than money.
I agree, the militants will never be bought off. But I think the average Palestinian can be. They support the militants because they think they are eventually going to get something for it (land). Putting such an opportunity in front of the average Palestinian is going to make that person begin to wonder if their political leadership should be followed any longer. And if such an offered were rejected, then it becomes just that much clearer to us that the problem is going to be solved by conflict. After all, if a check for $250K is not going to make them happy do you think that pretending the WB is an independent country is going to?
Not IMO.
I don’t know, but I think the real question is whether 250K would make them happy enough to abandon the idea of destroying Israel. I doubt it.
The problem with the buyout is that it is temporary, at best. When the $250k is spent or squandered, the problem returns. Ditto with the next generation who didn’t get their $250k (or their cut of the $250k)—the problem returns.
Ultimately, the buyout will not work because the underlying problem is not money.
What no one has explicitly mentioned is that Jerusalem is Muslim’s third holiest city. Arab leaders would not be exposed for what they are by rejecting this deal, simply because the refusal to sell Jerusalem provides them with a political boost. Think of Assad in Syria, shedding crocodile tears as he stood up to the Zionists and Satans of the west trying to use blood money to purchase the Dome of the Rock, the site where Mohammed is believed to have ascended to heaven. Or Ahmadinejad (admittedly not Arab, but very relevantly Muslim) decrying the infidels attempts to buy out one of Muslim’s holiest sites. No, I think this would be a political loser for us and a huge gain for the very people we are trying to defeat.
Obviously, we cannot ask them to “sell Jerusalem”, but it’s not as if they exactly own it now do they. Jerusalem would have to be open to people of all religious faiths from around the world. How open is it to Muslims now?
Check it out if you can. There are times when I think that our support for Israel may be a liability to them because we are after all “Big Satan” to their “Little Satan”. Who is most hated here?
Thanks for the link. Mr. Kramer points up Israel’s pre-1973 demonstrations of self-reliance, which he says convinced the US to make Israel a strategic ally, for realpolitik reasons, a Pax Americana in the eastern Mediterranean. It is an interesting argument, though I don’t know how far it can be carried, and I don’t think the support of the American people is founded in ‘realism’, but rather in sentimentality, which can be fickle.
Mr. Kramer argues in favor of a similar strategic ally in the Persian/Arab Gulf. Here I agree: that is the real point of the Iraq war in ‘03 and the subsequent pacification campaign still underway. The problem is that we are butting up against Iran, which would love to gobble up the Iraqi oil fields and drive the USA out of the Gulf. If we were to defeat Iran, which which we have been at war of sorts since 1979 (taking an embassy is an act of war, even though the feckless Carter failed to respond), that would extend the Pax Americana to the Gulf and greatly buttress Israel’s standing and security in the region.
But who is arguing for war with Iran at this point?
But who is arguing for war with Iran at this point?
Here is a quote from Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard. Not exactly an immediate call for war, but you can see where it’s headed.
“That policy would manifest a far greater sense of urgency about the diplomatic process, and about pursuing meaningful sanctions, whether through the U.N. or a coalition of the willing. That policy would mean supporting diplomacy with the credible threat of force--instead of rushing every few days publicly to reassure the Europeans (and the Iranians) not to worry, that we’re on a diplomatic track now, and, for that matter, for the foreseeable future. It would also mean stepping up intelligence activities, covert operations, special operations, and the like.
And it would mean serious preparation for possible military action--including real and urgent operational planning for bombing strikes and for the consequences of such strikes.”
And I know people on a personal level who advocate this, but who must remain nameless.
Tom, you ever read about someone who wins, say $250k in the lottery and a year later they’re broke?
What do you think the diaspored palestinians are going to look like after a couple of years living in other countries? No education, no trade, values and culture that puts them outside the mainstream of their host countries. Just a slug of money. Some will live frugally and survive off the interest, some will get educations. But most will self segregate, blow the money and end up back in exactly the same situation they’re in now - just with a different address.
and the trouble with that is?
For me, anything that puts a barrier between Israel and the murderous palestinian thugs would be a good thing........a wall, mine fields, or shipping the arabs in Gaza to anywhere else in the world (Africa might be nice)
A question if I may, senorlechero. On the current thread concerning Arlen and illegal immigrants, you vehemently opposed a fence along our southern border. Would you explain the apparent double standard in these two opposing positions? Why is it okay for Israel to build a barrier to keep out undesirable persons, but not the United States?
She cannot defeat them all. Without financial and military support from the United States, she could not survive, and that support may be waning as Americans grow weary of Middle-East involvements. /Mr Lynn
American evangelicals and fundamentalists will never abandon Israel, nor will they support any politician or policy that would open the door for the destruction of Israel. Firstly, to do so would be to reject the Biblical tenet that Jew are God’s chosen people. The second reason has to do with the Rapture.
One of the signs that the apocolypse is near is the return of the Jews to Israel and its re-emergence as a nation. This will lead to a major war in the Middle Ages with good and evil finally meeting in the battle of Armegeddon (supposedly to take place around the town of Megiddo). To them, this is all a part of God’s plan, as foretold in the book of Revelations, for the Second Coming, with the redeemed ascending into Paradise in the Rapture. Therefore, to abandon Israel is to deny God’s will, lining them up on the wrong side for the Rapture, which is, ironically, also part of the prophecy. With the votes of the Religious Right playing such a big part in our election politics, no Congressperson or Senator would propose such a policy, and neither would any president. To do so would be political suicide.
The idea of “buying off” the palestinians is very American. However, their claims are not. I agree with those who believe that the problem is multigenerational hatred which will not be solved by relocation. I also agree with Tom’s statement that the solution will not be found in the past.
How do we educate an entire populace about the righteousness of relative tolerance? How do you get generations that do not trust each other to do so? Just look at the first century after our Civil War to see how long it takes for bad feelings about prior wrongs to work themselves out. And that with a common language, prior peaceful dealings, and the opportunity to redress post-Civil-War wrongs politically.
Although it will cost thousands of more lives, time itself may be the only solution. I don’t expect to live to see it ended.
. . . Although it will cost thousands of more lives, time itself may be the only solution. I don’t expect to live to see it ended.
You might if America doesn’t lose the will to keep on extending the Pax Americana into the Middle East and to keep on fighting the Global War on Islamic Terror. But we’re pretty close to giving up, in which case you might live to see worse disasters than you could have imagined.
