What Will Work In Israel?

It seems as though most of the world has given up hope for peace between Israel and the Palestinians. It seems to me that we've seen, over and over, in the last ten years or so that sitting on the sidelines (in Rwanda, in the former Yugoslavia, etc.) produces more death. Are we hoping that we won't lose allies by only interfering a little bit in this conflict? We continue to pressure Israel to respect Palestinian human rights (and for the vast majority of Palestinians this is precisely the posture we should take) while groups like Hamas and the Al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade continue to send young Palestinians into Israel to kill Israelis (and whoever else might be standing around) indiscriminately.

Have their been wrongs and overreactions committed on both sides? Certainly, but Israel does make an attempt to respond militarily, and they do continue to set out reasonable (ie: stop the suicide attacks) conditions for continuing peace talks. Is Ariel Sharon more of a hawk than previous Israeli prime ministers? Most certainly. If there had been more peace and stability within the borders of Israel prior to his election would he have been elected? Probably not.

So, it really has gone past the idea of what should we do, or what can we do that will protect our political influence. We have reached the point of considering: What will work?

Station one quarter of the U.S.'s military in Israel; establish a de-militarized zone between Israel and the newly-created Palestinian state; enforce the peace in said state with U.S. military; create a viable infrastructure (schools, utilities, non-aligned government offices, industry, etc.) in Palestine; enforce separation while promoting trade; be prepared to sustain casualties; tell the other Arab states to butt out.

Yes, I'm aware of all of the flack we'll take if we do this. On the other hand, I think we'd probably take at least 75% of that flack no matter what we do.

Argument: We need Middle-Eastern oil.
Response: Who else are they going to sell it to?

Argument: We'll increase the likelihood of terror attacks.
Response: We're told daily that the likelihood of future terror attacks is 100%. Let's get something for the risk we run, and a peaceable Israel and Palestine will eventually lessen the likelihood of terror attacks.

Argument: We would be violating both the Israelis and the Palestinians human rights.
Response: In the short run, probably, In the long run, the right not to be suddenly killed probably trumps other rights, since without that right there is no long run.

I've told a couple of friends about this idea, with varying responses. Generally, I'm told how either the Israelis, the Palestinians, or the rest of the Middle Eastern countries won't stand for it. Yes, they will. They won't like it. They'll rattle their sabers. There will be more terror attacks, but as long as we keep the peace in Palestine those attacks will end up eventually being unsponsored. Terror is here to stay, unfortunately. It is the only method of war that favors the undeveloped over the developed. It's (relatively) cheap, and although its casualties are enormous percentage-wise, they're trivial in actual numbers. That's the whole point of terrorism.

What we need right now in the Middle East is to force the combatants into neutral corners, and make them stay there until they both feel safe enough to trust each other just a little bit. Did you notice how nice everybody was the week after September 11th? Christ, the Pakistanis just flat-out switched sides and disavowed the Taliban, because of their support of Al Quaeda. Do you think they did that because they all of a sudden started liking us? They did it because they were scared that Pakistan would become the annex to the big, all-new Afghanistan parking lot.

There is grave danger in using the kind of political and military power that the U.S. now possesses. Unfortunately, there is also grave danger in not using it. Me? I prefer to be the instigator and creator of my own fate.

Shalom, gentle reader