DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**9mm_fan** · 05-31-2011, 06:07 AM

I have no idea whether There is a Palestinian partner for a secure peace with Israel, along the lines that President Clinton laid out. I just know one thing. Given the implication for Israel, if it gets stuck permanently holding the West Bank, it is in Israel's overwhelming interest to test, test and test again, OK? Because that would be a huge strategic threat to Israel if it has no choice but to absorb the West Bank ...

On and on he went in this vein to his adoring interviewer, Fareed Zakaria.

It left me shaking my head and it brought an old phrase to my mind which gives the definition of insanity. It goes something like this:
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."I mean, how many times do people like Friedman expect Israel to make concession after concession after concession for the sake of that elusive peace which this generation of Palestinian Arabs are just not interested in? And what is this exaggerated dread of "getting stuck" in the West Bank? It is that old bogey that the Israeli left invented of course. But the reality of course is not as dreadful as they pretend. At the worst, if the Pals continue with their obduracy and intransigence, Israel could always decide to annex as much of the unpopulated areas of the West Bank as possible and just leave the population centres to the Arabs. That way, Israel would not need to rule over an unruly population forever and Israel would not become undemocratic as the Thomas Friedmans warn. The fact that such an act would leave the Arabs in an untenable situation would be their problem. A problem of THEIR making. And if they would try to make it Israel's problem too by the use of terrorism, Israel has ways to defend itself. Ways such as the security barrier and a strong army. In any case, their situation would not be worse. In fact it would be better than if they make repetitive concessions, as Friedman demands, only to find that the Arabs would still not give up their terrorism. Which is exactly what happened in the past ...

05-31-2011, 06:07 AM	#1
9mm_fan Join Date May 2007 Age 54 Posts 5,191 Senior Member	I have no idea whether There is a Palestinian partner for a secure peace with Israel, along the lines that President Clinton laid out. I just know one thing. Given the implication for Israel, if it gets stuck permanently holding the West Bank, it is in Israel's overwhelming interest to test, test and test again, OK? Because that would be a huge strategic threat to Israel if it has no choice but to absorb the West Bank ... On and on he went in this vein to his adoring interviewer, Fareed Zakaria. It left me shaking my head and it brought an old phrase to my mind which gives the definition of insanity. It goes something like this: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again but expecting different results."I mean, how many times do people like Friedman expect Israel to make concession after concession after concession for the sake of that elusive peace which this generation of Palestinian Arabs are just not interested in? And what is this exaggerated dread of "getting stuck" in the West Bank? It is that old bogey that the Israeli left invented of course. But the reality of course is not as dreadful as they pretend. At the worst, if the Pals continue with their obduracy and intransigence, Israel could always decide to annex as much of the unpopulated areas of the West Bank as possible and just leave the population centres to the Arabs. That way, Israel would not need to rule over an unruly population forever and Israel would not become undemocratic as the Thomas Friedmans warn. The fact that such an act would leave the Arabs in an untenable situation would be their problem. A problem of THEIR making. And if they would try to make it Israel's problem too by the use of terrorism, Israel has ways to defend itself. Ways such as the security barrier and a strong army. In any case, their situation would not be worse. In fact it would be better than if they make repetitive concessions, as Friedman demands, only to find that the Arabs would still not give up their terrorism. Which is exactly what happened in the past ...
	Quote