[scandium]

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens

Let's make sure it stays that way.

I'd go one better and say no to any form of theocracy, be it Islamic, Christian, Jewish, or whatever, I want no part of it.

This is the hub, the showstopper for everything, right? Let me hear you say it; we will never have peace as long as Israel exists. Is that your position? Is that a defensible psotion for the Islamic states in the ME? If the Arabs can leave the Jews alone... I'm confident we would have peace in the ME then. Would you agree? Or would the state of Israel, left alone and not under terrorist attack, get restless and start something? That's the set of questions I want answered. Ignore them, we don't have a discussion.

Fair enough. Will there ever be peace in the ME as long as Israel exists? I don't know to be honest; though I could be a little disengenous (only to make a point) and ask is there peace anywhere else? I mean, what's the current homicide rate in Washington, D.C? Or in Toronton, Ontario? I believe there is only one path to peace in the region and it is this (and it would take a lot of work and require a lot of patience on both sides):

1. An honest two state solution where Israel and Palestine co-exist side by side with equal international recognition and protection under the U.N. charter. I know this has been tried before but it seems like everytime its been tried some extremist derails it and the deal's off (more on this below), or one or the other side gets impatient or offended and again the deal is off. In order for this to even have a hope of succeeding it has to be brokered by a disinterested neutral party with the support of the U.S., E.U., and the Arab community. I'm thinking of something along the lines of arbitration whereby the parties are baited/coerced to the negotiating table and forced to work it out with the arbiter.

2. The unemployment rate in the Palestinian areas is something like 70% and this is why Hamas was elected; like Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas has a history of doing charitable type work for the people, isn't plagued by the corruption of the old Arafat government, and the people believe it acts in their best interests rather than in some self-serving interest - this is why they elected them. And having elected them, it doesn't help us when we promote democracy on the one hand, then punish them with the other because we don't like who they elect. Idealism is all well and good, but its pragmaticism that get results so you work with what you got. This means that just like the U.S. has always subsidized Israel, the International community - at least in the short-term - would have to put money into the new Palestinian state to create an ecomony that would reduce the unemployment rate and provide these people with something tangible to live for instead of the current situation where the opposite is true.

3. Israel has to give it a chance. It has the prosperity, the military, the economy whereas the new Palestinian state would be the fragile weak sister (no economy starting out, weak security, no military, no prosperity); just like we don't punish criminals by killing their families or blowing up their houses, Israel and the Palestinian government need to combine resources to crack down on terrorism in the same way that say our countries do (through partnerships like NORAD, intelligence sharing, etc). If/when terrorist acts happen Israel cannot continue to retaliate tit-for-tat; it hasn't worked for the last 60 years and it never will never work. Instead you find, arrest, try, and imprison/execute the perpetrators, collaborators, and planners (which is much easier in a strengthened Palestinian state with a functioning security apparatus) just as would be treated, for instance, am act of domestic terrorism or a criminal act such as mass-murder. Prosperity, hope, security, and mutual respect are the only way to go and this can never happen as long as 70% of Palestinians are unemployed, could have their house demolished (if they have one) on a moment's notice for a crime they're not even aware of, or simply die on the street by a stray missle.

If the above conditions are satisfied then the Palestinians are self-sufficient and no longer need to turn the Arab community who in the past has (elements of it at least) used them only as cannon fodder. Likewise the Arabs lose the ability to play the Palestinian card as way of scapegoating and distracting. Would they be thrilled about this? Some of them probably wouldn't be but there's nothing they can do about it. Israel is the regional partner while the Arab states with the most clout will do to them what the U.S./E.U. tells them to do because they already have strong relations with one, the other, or both (Egypt, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia I think carry the most clout and all 3 are pro-U.S., even if only by necessity, to a degree).

As to Israel getting restless and starting something, I don't think that would happen if the above process produces results or at least, over the short-term, there is good faith that it will. And especially if Israel is provided with a strong incentive not to do so. Right now it gets a $3 billion/year blank check and incentives to spend most of it on U.S. weapons. That's the wrong incentive (it might have made sense during the cold war, or when Israel was still a fledgling state).

Dictatorship that would not comply with the terms of the ceasefire of the first Gulf War.

I think we had that debate before but regardless of how it got there, its there and there's no indication its leaving anytime soon; it was only an example of the footprint the West has in the M.E. rather than the other way around.

A region that harbored terrorists, they had it coming. Be glad I wasn't President on 9/11.

Like I said elsewhere, I believe that was a just war and have supported it everytime the issue has come up here - but I think it could have been fought a lot better(more boots on the ground in Afghanistan instead of getting sidetracked with Iraq), we should have gotten Bin Laden, and the situation there (as in Iraq but on a much smalller scale) seems to be steadily deteriorating.

Lebanon, refuge for the terrorists who kidnapped several Israeli soldiers. They would not have been invaded if their clients Hezbollah had let the soldiers go home.

Hezbollah offered, when the soldiers were captured (not kidnapped - kids get kidnapped by their parents, journaists in war zones get kidnapped, armed soldiers do not get kidnapped, they get captured, killed, or wounded - "kidnapped" in this context was thought up by some PR firm to make this thing more palatable to us Westerners) to exchange them in return for prisoners that Israel has been holding. A simple prisoner exchange was not without precedent, and if they didn't want to go that route they had other options to explore first. The one they chose instead has neither served them well (it would take me a separate post to explain why I believe this) nor gotten their soldiers back.

By the way Lebanon is a good example (Iraq another) of why you need a good security apparatus if you're going to fight terrorism or dismantle guerrila groups like Hezbollah; the weak central government in Lebanon lacked the means and the manpower, with their pitiful military, to do anything (only 1 year after kicking Syria out) then try and marginalize Hezbollah over time. You could say "well its getting dismantled now", only the facts as reported by both Israeli and International media seem to contradict this while Hezbollah and its charismatic leader is becoming a hero in the Arab world (because while Israel single handedly defeated the strongest Muslim nations of their day in 6 days, during the Six Day War, the 5,000 ragtag members of Hezbollah has fought the IDF for four weeks without capitulation - this is classic David vs. Goliath and David doesn't need to win, he needs only not to lose).