Meanwhile on the International front....

Sure. Maybe.

But at least the two sides (in that case) were talking about something other than killing each other. This has happened again and again and again since 1948. Camp David. Oslo.

At least part of the unwillingness to solve the problem diplomatically or politically or economically or socially or culturally lies with Israel.

Israel-Palestine: the real reason there’s still no peace

The Israeli-Palestinian Peace Conundrum

 

Sure. Maybe. Ever hear of taqiyah?

 

Sure. But the roots of this problem go back much farther than the founding of Hamas.

Hamas is only the most recent and most violent iteration of organizations that sprang up 100 years ago.

Each of which has been worse than the one preceding it.

So the same cycle of violence persists and persists and persists.

I guess my question is this: are there ways Israel can better defend itself?

 

"Better" as in "more effectively?" Or "better" as in "not scandalizing* other civilized states/citizenries?" Because if it's the latter, the stone cold reality -- one that has slapped this correspondent in the face but good these last few weeks -- is that there are very large portions of such citizenries that would be perfectly content to see Israel and its people simply disappear from the surface of the Earth.

*I couldn't think of a "better" word.

 

More effectively.

As I asked upthread, is it possible or desirable for a nation of 7 million people to safely maintain an internal refugee population of 2.5 million people.

 

Well, then you run into the issue of that "refugee" population (at least goodly chunks of it) choosing to be and/or remain such. So my answer to your question is ... "Probably not."

 

How closely did you read the first one? It puts blame for the peace process on Israel for not accepting a deal that would have been incredibly costly to Israel. Um...sure....

 

There are legit problems with that. One is that many of those refugees were pushed off of land that their ancestors owned/lived on, in some cases for generations, and they feel that if they walk away from that claim they will never be allowed back to contest it. Add that surrounding countries either don't want to provide them a place to move to (and bring along all the issues of that refugee population, political, social, economic and terror related) or are content to have them remain a weeping sore for Israel to contend with. Israel is the strongest country in the region militarily, and having to devote social, political, monetary, and military resources to the West Bank and Gaza Strip means that such resources are taken away from their overall military readiness and economic stability. A lot of the regional players find that to be a very desirable outcome. Add that much of the Middle East is still a strongly tribal culture, and they simply don't like the Palestinians and have no desire to have the refugee population enter their countries.

Add that if you're Joe Palestinian living in such a camp with your wife and a couple of kids, chronically unemployed, coming up with the money to move to another country and any assurance that you won't starve when you get there is damn difficult. The surrounding countries have had since certainly 1967 to take in such people. It does not happen.

 

Which comes back to the idiotic notion that Israel is somehow the villain for not agreeing to a shitty deal that leaves itself far weaker and vulnerable than it is now for a vague promise of peace that only a moron would trust.

 

As there are with anything going on in that particular vale of tears. Hence my "probably not".

 

Yeah. I hate it for all sides involved, but I'm very thankful that I have no personal involvement in that mess.

 

Every compromise is / was / will be an intolerable mess.

For which we can maybe blame the British and the UN for leaving things unfinished pre-'48.

But that doesn't help folks on the ground right now.