Home ] Columns ] Topics ] Liberalism ] Liberal Lexicon ] Resources ] SoothSeeker ]

 

10/13/03

Liberal Solution for Israel?

    Richard Cohen, columnist for the Washington Post, wrote recently (10/7/03 Israel is Losing) that Israel is losing in the conflict with the Palestinians.  Central to his proposal is that, in order to bring the conflict to an end, "Israel must return to the so-called Green line--the border before the 1967 Six Day War."

    With all due respect, there is no reason to think such a move would improve Israel's security, all other things being equal.  This is just another example of the liberal tendency to leap for the appeasement model of international diplomacy.  It has never worked even once, but they seem to keep wanting to try.

    The Six Day War was started by Israel in response to a military buildup by surrounding Arab states, who clearly planned to use Palestinian occupied territory (which they had illegally 'annexed' after the war of 1948) as a launching pad for an attack to wipe out Israel once and for all.  Israel's preemptive strike destroyed the forces and ended the threat in six days, preventing the invasion and preserving Israel's sovereignty.

    The obvious question is this:  if Palestinians and their Arab 'benefactors' would be satisfied with a return to the 1967 borders, why did they plot an invasion when the 1967 borders were in effect?  The answer is equally obvious: they were not satisfied in 1967 with the 1967 borders.

    There is no evidence that Palestinians would be content with a return to the 1967 borders today.  They have rejected every deal offered them that does not include the "right of return," which basically gives millions of Palestinians the right to return to various places in Israel that were once occupied by one of their ancestors.  They have rejected at least one deal that gave back some 95% of the territory they held in 1967.  They have never agreed in principle that such a deal would be sufficient for them without the right of return, and Arab states have never pledged to recognize Israel and guarantee her security if there was a return to the 1967 borders.

    Once Israel retreats to the 1967 borders and dismantled all the settlements (as Cohen also suggests), it will also have given up any negotiating clout it currently has.  When the Palestinians come to the table with a list of demands, and world opinion expects Israel to compromise, they will have to give up more peace and security, or more land, or will have to give ground on the "right of return," because they will have nothing else to give up.  They will be backed into a corner.

    Cohen's suggestion amounts to a suicide pact for Jews: give up the occupied territories, which provide you with a buffer zone against Arab invasion, give up the settlements that are your only negotiating tool, and prepare yourselves for the peacetime invasion of millions of Palestinians when they finally invoke the "right of return."  Israel would then cease to exist, and since Imams constantly refer to Jews by such endearing terms as rats, pigs, dogs, monkeys, and so on, it is no mystery what would happen then: ethnic cleansing.

    The fence Israel is currently building will severely limit suicide attacks in the future.  It will also tighten the noose on the Palestinian economy, making their position completely untenable.  In concert with increasing pressure on the terrorist groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, Israel can turn the tide and win the war by making it clear to the Palestinian people that the only thing the terrorists can bring them, ultimately, is economic isolation, stagnation, and decay.  Just as this lesson ultimately led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, it will lead to the breakdown of the corrupt Palestinian Authority which will pave the way for a negotiated peace that the Palestinians and Arabs will have no choice but to accept.

    Remember: liberal policies of appeasement and unilateral retreat (disarmament) did not win the Cold War, but conservative arms buildups and tough negotiations based on the threat of the use of overwhelming force.  Let us not forget that lesson as we approach the problems of the terrorism and despotism of murderers and thugs like Yasser Arafat and Osama bin Laden.

Modified: 09/10/2004

Find:

Bye-Bye, Harriet
Plamegate? NOT
Judge Who?
Bush Knows Miers
Supreme Prognostications
D-Day for Hamas
Ethical Embryocide?
Wake Up, Democrats
Solidarity
Our Favorite Gulag
Liberals' New Clothes
Let There Be Cat
Defending Terri
Euthanize the Courts
Liberal Scorecard Q1 05
Failing History Again
Reform Social Security?
Terror and Geneva
Framing the Debate II
Framing the Debate I
Liberal Scorecard 2004
Doesn't Think Tank
Media's 'October Surprise'
Kerry's Crazy Promises
Dirty Tricks 2004
'Nightline' Lies
Factchecking FactCheck
Unborn Human Rights
Kerry Doctrine
Liberal (Republican) Myths
The New MAD
Truth Will Bury Kerry
New Democrat Math
800 Lbs. of Hooey
Kerry's Non-Defender
Swiftees Free to Speak
Democratic Fish Story
Marriage: No Middle Ground
Connecting the Dots
NY Times Tissue of Lies
Two Americas
Dirty Politics
WMD? Yes!
Liberals Fail 'History'
Liberal Myths of Iraq
Redefining Brutality
Oversimplifying Iraq
The Passion of Jesus
The New Marriage
Gay Marriage
Hypocrisy on Secrecy
Liberal Irresponsibility
Interpreting Intelligence
Yellow Journalism
Anti-Americanism
"Human Right" Support
The New Bigotry
Feminism Bankrupt
Cubs' Moment
Israel's Solution
Syria Beware
CIA Red Herring
Kosovo vs. Iraq
Politics in Academia
Remedy for Terror
Labor Day
Security in Iraq
Socialism=Death
Israel & Palestine
Defining Marriage
Bias and Incompetence
Conservative Reality Check

All Original Content (C) 2003, 2004, 2005 SoothSeeker.Com

 

SoothSeeker Welcomes your Comments at letters@soothseeker.com

Report problems to webmaster@soothseeker.com

Hits on this site: Hit Counter