“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”
- The Shadow
In the context of international affairs, who knows what events really are occurring, let alone what thoughts are in the minds of those involved? For outsiders to analyze diplomatic situations-in-question then to offer solutions might seem akin to the proverbial blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. Isn’t it a job for insiders only?
Not necessarily, especially when you consider that each individual, whether inside or outside, knows only what he knows. In fact, the consequence of viewing the outside from the inside might be impaired discrimination (www.inescapableconsequences.com) of the proverbial forest from the trees. Ironically, an outsider might do better.
While acknowledging the limitations imposed by the improbability of any one group or person, inside or outside, knowing all the independent variables, the penultimate posting in this series offers five planning options available to Israel. (Note: Visitors who would like to propose alternative plans might consider sending them to firstname.lastname@example.org.) The five options are the following:
#1) Total Surrender. Surrender totally by dissolving the Jewish State, by annexing it to the so-called Occupied Territories, and by submitting to rule by an Arabic majority under whatever form of government that it chooses. Would Hamas be merciful? Conversely, would total surrender equal total subjugation . . . or what the Arabs might call “subjewgation”? Worse, would total surrender equal total annihilation?
Possibly, but there is “world-opinion”, isn’t there? Would the rest of the world stand by as it did previously, allowing the subjugation and even slaughter of the then-former-Israeli Jews? Not likely, at least not without a loud whimper.
What about the currently anti-Israeli “human rights groups”? Mightn’t they object albeit not too strenuously? Certainly, the homicidal faithful among Hamas would give these “do-gooders” a hearing, wouldn’t they? After all, haven’t these groups been supporting Hamas against Israel for years?
Alright, but mightn’t the anti-Israeli United Nations deliberate a resolution condemning the use of “disproportionate force” by the Mohammedan Arabs. On the other hand, while the anti-Israeli delegates debate for the cameras, would the blood of erstwhile Jewish Israelis be coloring the Mediterranean Sea red?
#2) Conversion. No, not Jewish conversion to Mohammedanism but Mohammedan conversion to a radically revised interpretation of The Koran. Truly, it would mean rewriting what to the Mohammedans is the sacred word of the one-and-only God spoken through the Angel Gabriel. Even so, wouldn’t it be possible to convince most Arabs to surrender their devotion to the current Koranic version with its promoting intolerance and violence? To adopt a new, sanitized version promoting tolerance and peace as well as acceptance as respected equals of those now regarded as unforgivable infidels . . . infidels such as all Jews, all Christians, and especially all atheists?
Couldn’t the Israelis present an argument sufficiently compelling to achieve such a conversion? Yet, even if they could, how long would those accepting such a radically revised viewpoint of The Koran survive? How many fatawa would be issued against the converts?
Alright, what about simply a slightly more tolerant and less violent interpretation of The Koran? Parts of the writings of Mohammed do seem to allow for some forbearance, especially for believers in The Book. Moreover, historically on occasion, Mohammedans such as the Moguls in pre-British India did embrace more moderate points of view, at least for periods of time. Couldn’t it happen again? Now? In the Middle East? For an answer, ask the Muslim Brotherhood. Ask Hamas. Ask Hezbollah. Ask the Taliban. Ask al-Qaeda. Ask Iranian President Amadinejad.
Wait! After President Ataturk, didn’t Turkey remain secularized for decades? Absolutely, under the threat, occasionally exercised, of a Turkish military sworn to uphold such secularization. Today, Prime Minister Erdogan, a former self-proclaimed “Islamist”, has dispossessed the military of that secular oath. He is moving Turkey increasingly towards theocracy nationally and military hostility against Israel internationally.
Even so, where there’s life, there’s hope, isn’t there? Doesn’t hope spring eternal in the human breast . . . at least as long as that breast hasn’t been pierced by a slug from an AK-47?
#3) Stall. Continue the current game of verbal yo-yo while Israelis hope that time and chance will tilt the equilibrium away from the current downward slide . . . a slide towards their survival having become a lost cause. One might wonder, though, with a re-election of Mr. Obama, what would be the consequences for Israel of even a partial abandonment by the USA? For how long would Israel be able to maintain the charade that Arabs ever will negotiate in good faith?
Furthermore, if the consequence of continued stalling is continued downward sliding, how many Israelis would want to remain in the Jewish homeland? How many would try to flee? Which other countries would accept them? Have Jews forgotten the infamous voyage of the damned in 1939 aboard the S.S. St. Louis when Chancellor Adolf Hitler demonstrated his claim that no one wanted Jews and that Germany merely was doing what everyone else wanted to do but didn’t have the fortitude? It couldn’t happen again, could it?
#4) Appeasement. Give the “Palestinians” essentially everything that they demand short of all Israel itself, including a presence in Jerusalem. Oh, oh! In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak tried to do just that. Overwhelmed, Yasser Arafat, nevertheless, rejected the offer of virtually total appeasement, reportedly with the statement that, if he accepted it, he would be assassinated immediately. For Mr. Arafat, it was all Israel or nothing. Even so, does that episode represent sufficient proof that the “Palestinians” don’t want a nation based upon the borders before 1967 . . . that they still want it all?
Admittedly, from a historical perspective, yielding solid territory in exchange for gaseous promises tends to end badly for those who do the yielding. With the ousting of Egyptian President Mubarak, might Israel be about to taste the bitter fruit of having planted the tree of appeasement in Sinai? If so, will the taste portend the consequences of ceding more territory, this time to people who actively support Hamas? Still, who would deny that Mahmoud Abbas is a match for the Islamic terrorists already controlling Gaza? Wouldn’t you bet your life on Mr. Abbas? The Israelis would be.
#5) Total war. A former advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a recent article, offered the following, two Arabic quotes:
1) “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
2) “A falling camel attracts many knives.”
- Michael Prell, The Washington Times (National Edition), 29 August 2011, page 37
All Arabic states but Egypt and Jordan, by their own choice, remain at war with Israel. Accordingly, Israel militarily attacking those states would represent merely a quantitative change not a qualitative one. By doing so, Israel could reclaim much of the Biblical lands, if not all.
Secondly, Israel could eject all “Palestinians” now referred to as “Israeli Arabs”. Although their detractors likely would label Israelis as Nazis, Israel hardly would be the first nation to have ejected “Palestinians” from within its borders. According to the UN Refugee Agency, others have included Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, aren’t these same “Israeli Arabs”, at this moment, waving “Palestinian” flags while demonstrating in support of Mr. Abbas’s pursuing a statehood to be declared by the multitude of enemies of Israel at the United Nations . . . a tactic opposed by Israel? Could their actions reasonably be construed as those of a “fifth column”?
Thirdly, Israel could claim all the fields of natural gas off the Israeli coast then respond to sabotage with overwhelming military force. Wait! Shouldn’t Israel share those valuable resources with its enemies? After all, in the Middle East especially, niceness isn’t viewed as weakness, is it?
Fourthly, destroy however much of Iran is necessary to eliminate the threat of Mohammedan fanatics gaining a nuclear arsenal. You know the Iranians . . . the same fellows who were planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the USA by blowing up a restaurant in Washington. The rest of the world wouldn’t condemn Israel while privately breathing a sigh of relief as it did with the Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities, would it? By the way, isn’t Iran also building missiles that easily could reach the heart of Europe and other far-flung targets? Opposing Iran militarily isn’t more important than opposing Israel diplomatically, is it?
Fifthly, seize the oilfields in Saudi Arabia, whence came Osama-bin-Laden and al-Qaeda. Depose the autocratic monarchy that has promoted radical Mohammedanism around the world. Declare the area a semi-autonomous state under Israeli administration, possibly even using it as a homeland for the “Palestinians”and sharing the oil-generating wealth with them. As they say, money moves the world. Wait! No more OPEC? Isn’t a cartel composed of enemies of the West and in restraint of trade desirable, especially if it’s anti-Israeli? Perhaps, we could ask President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; he’s neither Arabic nor Mohammedan.