1. Laura said:

It is beyond absurd to compare gun control advocates and their calls for licensing and registration of guns to terrorists. Why do you allow your fixation with guns to continually creep into this discussion? This was a good article until you chose to make that analogy.

2. Ptah said:

Laura, Bill was using it as an example.

Bill, regarding your request for reproducing my comments in this post a while back: Okay by me.

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2006/01/at_a_loss_for_w.php#more

3. Straylight Run said:

How does it make any sense that you want Israel to "annex the West Bank and Gaza" and then expect Palestinians to "live in peace"? That is both a violation of international law and their fundamental rights as human beings. What incentive does that provide to any Palestinians to "live in peace". I'm sure if Palestinians annexed parts of Israel, no Israeli citizen would "live in peace". Please Bill...

4. Bill Levinson said:

OK, Laura, I know we don't agree on gun control and obviously the gun control movement does not engage in violence. It came to mind as (1) an example of incrementalism on the political level and (2) its use of harassing tactics (lawsuits) to wear down its adversaries. :-)

Straylight Run, the Pallies are not going to live in peace no matter what Israel does-- aside from lying down and dying, in which case the Palestinians will probably kill each other-- come to think of it, they're already doing that-- so Israel may as well annex everything.

Ptah, thanks!

5. Juda Engelmayer said:

"Withdrawal is NOT the Answer to Palestinian Incrementalism"

It is nice to say Israel should or shouldn't do a whole lot of things, and it is each of our prerogatives to form and express an opinion on the matter. The Israeli people themselves will ultimately have to vote for the leadership that will presumably represent the will of the people. We’ll all have to wait and see.

That said, I pose a simple question. What should Israel do in the wake of this Hamas takeover?

The will of most Israelis, if polls mean anything, is that they want to get on with their lives, to live, to thrive, to raise their children and to strengthen their nation. Many are losing the will to fight a never ending war and have little notion on how to get past it all. They look at us in the US in our mcMansions in Teaneck and the Five Towns, our high rises in the big cities , our Lexus’ and Cadillacs and ask how we can ask them to sustain more war, more death to their children entering the army and more uncertainty brought on by continuous fighting.

The idea of unilateral disengagement is not one that comes easy, nor is it one that even the biggest leftists prefer, it is hardly utopia, it is certainly not the ideal land of our forefather. Yet, given the choice of building higher, more formidable walls, cutting Israel off from alien workers, economic and – if any – social engagement with the people on the other side of the fences and just getting on with life, knowing that any encroachment by the Palestinians can now more readily be handled with less public scrutiny (not zero, but less), and even support from those who have challenged Israel to give the Palestinians their own land to govern, most would choose this option over that of continued policing the un-policeable and sending their young to get shot, maimed and even kidnapped, and better than having malls and pizza stores targeted by terrorists who care little for their own lives and buy into the hypocrisy of the people who send them to their deaths.

Israel has so much to offer the world in terms of its culture, its science and technology, its intellect and its economy, but much of that gets hampered in times of violence and bloodshed. I think most Israelis would choose to live and be normal – as normal as they can under the circumstances.

There is a very unfortunate trend theses days which we seem to have failed collectively to stop, and that is the lack of yearning for Israel and the frontier Zionism that many who lived in the era of the Holocaust, the founding of Israel, the fight for nationhood and the pride at the ’67 and ’73 victories felt and still have. The younger people, even the younger Israelis, don’t understand this and don’t see the struggle as a cause, but see it as a nuisance and an albatross to their moving on.

We all need to find the way to get this feeling back, to get more people to get it and understand just where the Zionist fervor comes from and why it is needed. Those who have the yearning, myself included, have a view of Israel as a cause and as a religious mandate to fulfill, but we often fail to appreciate that the people who live there also see Israel as their home, their daily grind, their mortgage, car payments, children’s welfare and education and every other routine thing we deal with while are not blogging about Israel and arguing about it in shul. They live there and have to cope with the every day as well as the existentialism that we each try to deal with as a religious requirement, a job, hobby, or a cause.

So my thoughts are that unilateral disengagement may turn out to be the solution of the day, not to appease the Palestinians, but to help Israel be Israel for us and for the people who live with her every day.

6. Ted Belman said:

Juda

Many, if not most of us, who are against withdrawal, are pragmatic rather then messianic. You don't have to tell us the advantages of peace over war. The question that you beg is, will withdrawal bring peace or war? Is the occupation the problem or the solution. We believe that the Arabs want to drive us out of the ME. We have no confidence in any agreement they may sign. We think that the more we withdraw, the more they will demand and the more they will arm themselves. We don't want to have Hamastan on our east and west and Hezbollahstan on our north and Al Qaeda all over.

We believe your pursuit of peace at any cost will bring war. Our pursuit of war will bring peace.

So the issue is not, who is morally superior, but who is right.

7. Ted Belman said:

Two quotes. I will leave it to you to judge the men:

"We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender and even if, which I do not for the moment believe, this island or a large part of it were subjugated and starving, then our empire beyond the seas, armed and guarded by the British Fleet, will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

Winston Churchill, June 4, 1940, speech before the House of Commons

"We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want to be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies."

Ehud Olmert, June 9, 2005, speech to Israel Policy Forum in New York.

8. Bill Levinson said:

Juda wrote, "The will of most Israelis, if polls mean anything, is that they want to get on with their lives, to live, to thrive, to raise their children and to strengthen their nation. Many are losing the will to fight a never ending war and have little notion on how to get past it all."

Then end the war by destroying the so-called Palestinian state, expelling all Palestinians who will not live in peace, and make an end of the problem. Your comment, in fact, inspires me to post another article on the Western versus Eastern ways of war. The Arabs (and other Easterners) wage war so as to wear down their adversaries; they inflict a cut here and a cut there until their foe goes down from exhaustion. The reason I brought in our gun control movement is because they are campaigning in the same manner (incrementalism, death of a thousand cuts through harassing lawsuits). It never occurred to them, however, that someone might END the conflict as described here.

This is how the Million Mom March conflict was ENDED in the United States on the political level. Israel must deal with the Palestinians the same way militarily.

9. Juda Engelmayer said:

Ted

Your comment says it all, "Our pursuit of war will bring peace"

Your ends are subjective, but your means is what I believe Israelis no longer want. You can bring Olmert in as an example, but I am, with much certainty, self assured that a Netanyahu policy may have lines drawn differently, but unilaterally all the same. I do not see any possible government pursuing a policy of outright war, and I think your characterization of that "pursuit of war" serves as an injustice to Israel and Jews on all sides who are advocating for Israel's continued survival and success.

Additionally, I think you misread any of my intentions if you can truly believe that anyone as passionate about Israel and its well being honestly sees peace on the horizon. Your attribution of my "pursuit of peace" is dead wrong. My pursuit is for Israel to be in a position to defend itself, protect itself and to live and thrive without daily worries of terror. I believe that a unilateral solution gives Israel that upper hand ability, and puts them on a track that most Israelis can live with. I by no means see it as a peaceful or even peace-hopeful solution. I see it as a way of getting on with life and leaving the terrorists to waste their time, energy and resources trying to find ways of hitting Israel and further destroying themselves in the process.

On the flip side, as some point, maybe Palestinians sick of living in squalor and being told that Israel is to blame for all of their woes might open their eyes and realize that their own "defenders" have been selling their futures down their murky sewers of the very land they live on because they truly have no desire or ability to self govern, as “victimhood” has been a far easier accomplishment than that of trash collection, filling potholes and making sure the people have food, jobs and shelter to live and grow. Maybe that can happen one day and then, and only then, can israel hope for any real progress on peaceful co-existence.

10. Juda Engelmayer said:

Ted,

One substantial difference between the situation in the UK then and Israel now.

Churchill said, "[We] will carry on the struggle until in God's good time the New World with all its power and might, sets forth to the liberation and rescue of the Old."

Olmert said less than a year ago, "There is always a chance that against all the expectations we have, and I think many in the world have, that the Palestinian Authority will not try to exercise any authority against the Palestinian terrorist organizations and will continue terror. If this will be the case, believe me, we will fight them, we will we reach out for every one of them everywhere."

Olmert's comments in NYC come recently after Israel's 58 years of fighting to survive after first reaching statehood, while Churchill’s struggle was ultimately short-lived in comparison, as for England, "G-d's good time" seems to have come. Your pulling of those quotes are out of context and an uneven comparison. Churchill may very well have been willing to fight forever, but alas, we will never know what may have happened had the circumstances been different.

Just a point of information.

Juda

11. Ted Belman said:

Juda

We are at war. There is a war process we are involved with and not peace process. When I counsel the pursuit of war I am merely counseling a policy of victory rather then appeasement. We aleady are in control the land. We already have to defend against terror. I don't think we can turn our back on it we must confront it and defeat it or it will be never ending.

I am totally in agreement with unilateral actions and I agree that between Likud and Kadima is about where to draw the borders.

"My pursuit is for Israel to be in a position to defend itself, protect itself and to live and thrive without daily worries of terror. I believe that a unilateral solution gives Israel that upper hand ability, and puts them on a track that most Israelis can live with. I by no means see it as a peaceful or even peace-hopeful solution."

I totally agree with this also. But I don't see how we can achieve that goal if we withdraw our security forces from the West Bank and allow convoys from Gaza to the west bank. What are your thoughts on this.

As for future borders they must be defensible. In my article Wake up and smell the gun powder, I recommended that Israel annex all West Bank land except Area "A". This would add 300,000 Arabs to Israel and they should be offered citizenship under certain terms.

Thus we both have the same goals and no illusions. The only question is what borders work best? What I don't like is the idea that the green line with minor tradeoffs should be the future border. I fail to see how a major withdrawal achieves your goals as follows "I see it as a way of getting on with life and leaving the terrorists to waste their time, energy and resources trying to find ways of hitting Israel and further destroying themselves in the process." Israel seems to be doing that now. The more we withdraw the more we will have to deal with terror.

As for your point of information on my selected quotes I agree. but I simply point out the difference in attitude.

12. shammai said:

I cannot believe that any sane individual would say something like, "end the war by destroying the so-called Palestinian state, expelling all Palestinians who will not live in peace, and make an end of the problem." How does that "end the problem"? What happens the day after 3 1/2 million Palestinians are shoved across the Jordan (assuming the world lets it get that far; a couple of days of Saudi, Quwaiti, et al, oil spigots turned off make for a powerful action-inducer)? Does anyone really think that the Arab world will say, "Gee, look at that. Oh well, guess Israel finally beat us"? Or will the sight of all those people destabilzing Jordan and even posing a threat to Saudi Arabia spur on the combined armies of various states to begin a war that, while they may lose the first few times, will eventually result either in someone nuking the whole region or the Jews are pushed into the sea? I'd say "Get real," except that anyone who thinks guns don't kill people has already demonstrated that he lives in Fantasyland.

13. Bill Levinson said:

shammai wrote "Or will the sight of all those people destabilzing Jordan and even posing a threat to Saudi Arabia spur on the combined armies of various states to begin a war that, while they may lose the first few times, will eventually result either in someone nuking the whole region or the Jews are pushed into the sea?"

There is no "lose the first few times" under a properly-run foreign policy. If the Arabs start another war, Israel should destroy their governments and kill their leaders so it will never happen again. This is what was done to the Nazi leaders after World War II and it is what should have been done to Assad and (without the benefit of foreknowledge) Sadat in 1973. Damascus should have been leveled.

Recommended reading: Orson Scott Card's Ender's Game. It encompasses the Euro-American concept that you only fight a war ONCE. Andrew (Ender) Wiggin is selected at an early age to be trained to command the Earth's military forces against an alien society. Upon being attacked by a bully in grade school, he not only knocks him down but then kicks his face in to make sure that bully will never trouble him again. Upon being placed in command of Earth's space forces, he ends the war for all time-- by blowing up the aliens' home planet. (The military commanders who train him develop his thinking process in exactly this direction.) Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the Nuremburg trials similarly ended World War II for all time, and that is how Israel has to look at the Arab aggressors.

"I'd say "Get real," except that anyone who thinks guns don't kill people has already demonstrated that he lives in Fantasyland."

Guns do kill people-- like terrorists, Nazis, and run-of-the-mill violent criminals. That is why Americans have the right to own them. (The bad guys are going to have guns no matter what; do you think the Palestinians acquired all those rockets and automatic weapons legally, for example?)

14. Juda Engelmayer said:

Ted

“But I don't see how we can achieve that goal if we withdraw our security forces from the West Bank and allow convoys from Gaza to the west bank”

I’m not sure I have all of those answers either, I am not in favor of withdrawing to the pre-’67 borders, as I see the need for buffer zones and even for stability for the hundreds of thousands who have settled there already. Unlike Gaza, the Jewish population on Judea and Samaria is considerable, and a withdrawal for them would pose tremendous hardships on so many levels. I think covered roadways or tunnels can be built to allow transport from Gaza to other Palestinian areas without any contact with Israel being made along the route and these tunnels can be guarded and monitored with the newest and highest biometric security measures.

But Ted, if I really had the unchallengeable solutions to all of these issues… Who know?

Just like you, I can only raise questions and possible answers. Many of our biggest dilemmas have been debated over and over again throughout history, our Talmud is testament to that. Even with that, we have more questions and continued studying and never-ending learning to do. It, in my opinion, is what makes us who we are and has given us the ability to survive 5766 years of relentless adversity.

I appreciate the forum Ted.

Juda

15. Leonard said:

Shammai has a point when he says that mass expulsions in 2006 would result in a regional War with catastrophic consequences for the region. There is an opportune time and place for everything. In 1945 after Hitler had used the Sudeten Germans to invade Czechoslovakia - a newly liberated Czechoslovakia under the Benes decree removed upto three million Sudeten Germans to Germany. Germany will never again threaten or lay claim to Czech territory - problem solved. 1948 & 1967 would have been opportune times to resettle a substantial number of West Bank arabs in Jordan but the opportunity was missed. Following Kuwaits liberation - Kuwait expelled 400,000 Palestinians to Jordan, since they had allied themselves with Saddam Hussein. They will never get a second chance to threaten Kuwait - problem solved. Both Gaza & Jordan are recognised as forming part of Palestine - it is the presence of 2 million arabs of the West Bank that would become in issue if they continue to pose a threat.

16. Ed D said:

I like to consider the consequences of mobilizing the IDF and commencing operations against our enemies.
1. Full scale war against the evil populations in Gaza, either killing the terrorists or deporting them into Egypt, annexing the territory would solve a major problem. Israel would no longer have to be concerned about security in the West. Egypt is not an ally.

2. Israel must defeat the Hizbollah in the North, destroy 10,000 missles and free up Lebanon to establish a government of Lebonese without ties to Syria.

3. The West Bank does not have the urgency of the other two areas because they can be controled by the IDF; however, the Palestinians have to be put into a sifter to weed out the hostiles who would harm Israel and deport them, not to Jordan but to Arabia who has plenty of room for them. Jordan, at this point and time with Abdullah as king poses little danger to Israel. Together, they could form a healthful economic future.

4. Once the hostiles are controlled, Israel would have secure borders, more room for expansion, more industry and room for natural growth and Aliyah.

I can see only good things for Israel in this light even though blood will be shed on both sides. The longer Israel has to wait, the stronger her enimies grow. Iran, with the US and the EU have the power and, hopefully, the will to set her nuclear ambitions back for enough years for the young population to take over the Mullahs. This being said, I can see many years of peace before history repeats itself.