Israeli Victory Is The Only Way To Advance Peace Process

[Purveyor]

At his first security briefing, Avigdor Liberman, Israel’s Defense Minister, declared that Israel no longer has “the luxury of conducting drawn-out wars of attrition.” 100 days into his term, with no sign of the decades-long conflict slowing, it is clear that the time has come to apply that principle to the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. In order for there to be peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, Israel must win and the Palestinians must lose.

For most of human history, military victory ended wars. The Pax Romana, a period of 200 years of relative peace within the Roman Empire, began only when Augustus defeated Marc Antony in the Battle of Actium. When the North ravaged the South in the American Civil War, it caused the seemingly intractable conflict that claimed three quarters of a million lives over four years to fade away. The South, knowing it was defeated, never made trouble again. German and Japanese ill-will toward Western democracies in World War II rapidly dissipated, thanks to the bitter pill of defeat; friendship soon followed.

Today’s conventional wisdom holds that conflicts are best resolved through negotiation and compromise. But let’s look at the facts. After 40 years of negotiations to reunite Cyprus, the island remains divided, and 60 years of standoff over the Korean peninsula have achieved little. In Syria, the killing continues unabated despite five years of talks to reconcile Sunnis and Alawites. And at the same time, years of diplomatic efforts to roll back Iran’s nuclear program ended with the West’s capitulation to Tehran’s demands.

The negotiations fallacy is especially evident in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

more...

http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/foreign-policy/295211-israeli-victory-is-the-only-way-to-advance-peace-process

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. Define victory for Israel.

Victory for the Palastinians it is simply not to loose.

Israel has won every battle but is no close, and perhaps even farther, from winning the war.
Palastinias have gone from puppets of Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and other Arab States to near full acceptance by at least half the nation's on earth.

Some wars have no military solution. They can only be ended through negotiated peace. The problem is finding a leadership willing to negotiate in good faith.

Because the Palastinias feel they are winning, they have no desire to negotiate.

[6chars]

2. war is hell

This article - expressing the journalist's opinion, not that of Lieberman whom he quotes, shows a misunderstanding of history. The journalist correctly notes the lesson from history that decisive military victories that end in unconditional surrender are often followed by peace. However, the journalist fails to learn the lesson from history that war is horrible and should be avoided if at all possible.

[Mosby]

3. Are you a fan of the Middle East Forum?

I didn't realize people can post analysis from neocons here at DU.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, if posters can use counterpunch, spuknik news, infoclearinghouse etc then why not MEF right?

[Purveyor]

5. Have you ever watched "Chrisley Knows Best"?

[aranthus]

4. "Never fight a battle you don't have to win."

Klingon proverb.

The point is don't fight unless you have to. And if you have to, then you fight to win. There is nothing wrong with negotiating a settlement, as long as the negotiation is based on a rational understanding of the balance of forces. But if you are already in a war, and if you can win the war at a reasonable cost (and most times one side or the other can), then just win the war, and get the issue decided. Those who can do. Those who can't negotiate. That's because negotiation means making a deal. It means giving up something you want for something you want more. There's nothing wrong with that either as long as both sides are reasonable, and both can deliver on their promises. Also, remember that peace talks are never about peace. They are about what each side wants more than it wants peace. In Syria, for example, each side wants the other dead or at least to dominate and rule over the other side. So the cease fire is unlikely to last.

So what does that mean for the I/P conflict? First, Israel and the Palestinians are already in a war. It's not like Israel has a choice here between war and not war. They are stuck with the war that the Palestinians started back in 1947. The trick is how to end it. That means each side getting its act together and figuring out what it wants. Roman thinks that is, "Israel wants to survive; the Palestinian leadership wants to destroy it." That's generally true. It is probable that a majority of Israelis would give up most of the West Bank and all of Gaza, if that meant Israel could survive in peace. Part of the problem is that most Israelis believe it won't, and they are probably right. Also, the leadership of Israel represents hardline expansionists who want the West Bank. Without some change in Palestinian core positions, those hardliners are going to be able to keep driving the Israeli bus.

What Roman gets really wrong is the idea that Israel could achieve "victory" over the Palestinians at anything like a reasonable cost. Unfortunately, Palestine isn't much different from the rest the Middle East. Either you get an oppressive dictatorship that keeps order, or else you get the chaos of Islamist and Leftist factions fighting each other. What you don't get is a stable Western style liberal democracy that can live at peace with its neighbors. So if "victory" to Israel is continuing to survive and to not be attacked, the only way to achieve that is by imposing the oppressive dictatorship. That means destroying Hamas and Fatah once and for all, and then putting in some new rulers. Except those new rulers are either going to be the Israelis themselves (which the Israelis really don't want), or some dictator under Israel's thumb. Either way, the new government will have zero legitimacy and won't last. So "victory" means fighting a major war, with huge casualties, only to impose a "solution" that will just lead to another major war in few years. No one wants that.