Israel must be compelled to comply

[newyorican]

ISRAEL and America have score another own goal. Osama bin Laden is delighted. Contempt for the West grows ever higher in the Arab world. Promises by Bush and Blair of the rule of law in the region are in danger of being made a mockery. And all of us are likely to be less secure than before last Friday’s decision by the International Court regarding Israel’s "wall" in Palestine.

With only the American dissenting, 14 out of 15 judges found Israel’s 700-km barrier of wall, ditches and razor-wire illegal in international law. We should not be surprised at the Israeli government reaction - echoed by George Kerevan in his column in The Scotsman on Monday - that the issue was heard "in the wrong location, in the wrong court and reached the wrong verdict". Nor is it a surprise that the official Israeli spokesman could state: "I think we have assurances from the United States that it will exercise its veto power if this one-sided resolution reaches the Security Council." ("This resolution" being one anticipated from the UN General Assembly seeking action by the Security Council to enforce the ICJ judgment.)

In world history, the superpower of the day has always been able to manipulate and control the foreign policy of lesser states, but in the Middle East that relationship is, remarkably, reversed. The small state of Israel can whistle up the superpower to do its bidding. Yet there are millions of Americans who still don’t know why their country is despised and hated in the Muslim world.

What is happening in Palestine today is the war of the settlements. The settlement policy, pursued by Israel since the 1967 occupation, is meant to annex additional territory at the expense of the Palestinians. The path of the "wall" emphasises just how key are the settlements to that annexation policy. Lip service to an eventual Palestinian state by Bush and Sharon is just that. The settlements did not rise in some random manner, but were planned strategically, so that so long as they are held, they make impossible a viable Palestinian state, with coherent territory and a fair share of water supplies.

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=803332004

[physioex]

1. So much for Wolfie..

Who said a free Iraq would serve as a beacon for democracy. And resolve the Israeli Palestinian conflict. Those Neocons are such morans...

[hansolsen]

2. I know how to make them comply -- follow me.

Fellow bloggers, I have been around DU for only a little while, and this is my first post to this section of the forum. some of you will be pleased to learn that I know how to make Israel tear down the wall. That will require that we talk about the Arab / Israeli dispute and the root causes of Islamic fundamentalist attacks on Israel and America. Here are some assumptions I bring to the subject:

a. Bush's so called "war on terrorism" is making the world worse off, not better, and is increasing the risk of a major attack in America. Iraq is a mere distraction on one level, and a war to liberate Israel on another.

b. Osma bin Laden and other so called Islamic fundamentalist "terrorists" are attacking America in part for valid grievances, and unless we address those grievances, we can never make progress in the "war on terrorism."

c. Valid grievances, you say?? let me list a few things America supports that create grievances:

> Taking land in Palestine under the initial U.N mandate, but then refusing any just compensation, or right of return for refugees.
> Taking additional land in the interest of "settling" the Holy Lands and making Jerusalem the capital of Israel, i.e. the overall Likud plan for a "Greater Israel".
> Building a Wall or Fence that becomes a defacto border that is untenable.
> The support of dictators all over the middle east, who are allowed to own and profit from oil, at the expense of their own indigenous populations.
> The consumption of more than our fair share of all the world's resources, including especially, oil.
> The arrogant assumption that we can have weapons of mass destruction and Arabs cannot.

I could go on, but that is enough for openers.

d. I assume that some time in the next ten years the so called "Terrorists' will get their hands on usable nuclear weapons. They will most likely get them (existing, old models) on the black market rather than build them from scratch in a "rogue" state like Iraq or Iran. If they get them, they will use them, and a million Americans will die so that old Mullahs and old Priests and old Rabbis can dither to their heart's content over old books that were written by men long ago. I don't want that to happen. That is why I am here talking to you now.

e. If competent radicals try to smuggle ten nukes (broken down into component parts and reassembled in place) into the U.S. today, 9 out 10 would get in. After all the committees and legislation and tightening of borders and Homeland Security, after say 5 years of improved security, 8 out of 10 would still get in. Just my best guess. So static defense is worthless.

f. Wars of aggression to fight terrorism are also worthless. George Bush is proving that in spades every day. So what will work, you ask?

Bold, creative new ideas that have not been tried before, that are based on dealing with the fundamental root causes of Islamic terrorism, that is what will work. I have such ideas, and I assure you they are bold and radical. Before I post those ideas, I would appreciate some feedback on these assumptions.

Note: Please don't read too much into my having listed only "problems" on the Israeli side of the equation, and not the Palestinian side. I am aware that there are two sides to the dispute. The Israelis have valid grievances too, and I address these as well. But I am an American, and as far as I can tell, we have no valid grievances in this affair whatsoever. We only have responsibilities that go begging.

And as for 9/11, that is just the chickens coming home to roost. And there are a lot more chickens out there. 9/11 was tragic, unconscionable, and actionable, but also oh so predictable. So is the next one.

[mike_c]

3. regarding your assumptions and your conclusions...

...I agree with you in every respect. It never ceases to amaze me that the political leadership in both the U.S. and Israel has their heads so thoroughly jammed out of reach of sunlight that they cannot see the obvious.

The "war on terror" is just a new jingle to market a tired and unsuccessful foreign policy that is growing more and more out of touch with reality each year. THAT was the real lesson of 9-11, but no one wants to admit having learned it.

[hansolsen]

4. Good, thanks. I'll wait for a few more replies, hopefully, and then post

some ideas, radical ideas. Probably tomorrow. I need to hit the hay.

[bemildred]

5. If you are going to consider the, ummm, democratization of weapons,

you should probably consider this sort of thing too:

DIY Cruise Missile Designer Turns Freelance
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/07/09/1253201.shtml?tid=137&tid=98&tid=99

You basic point, that governments' monopoly on the ability to blow
shit up and make really big messes is rapidly disintegrating, seems
well taken to me. Many governments, like the USA, have a large blind
spot about this because the change seems just too unpleasant to
contemplate.

[hansolsen]

6. Good link, thanks. N/T

[hansolsen]

7. Four ideas that will solve everything

Fellow bloggers: The poets say that "fools go where angels dare not tread", and lord knows many have gone before me and tried their hand at solving the Arab / Israeli dispute. I assert that they all have failed, leaving room for another try. I propose we try things that have not been tried before, bold, radical things that are in fact new. Why not?

So here are four ideas. Let me introduce them.

The first one is intended simply to buy time -- to avoid the dreaded escalation to the use of WMD.

The second is intended to spread one of the great institutions of democracy without demanding that countries implement democracy. The hope is that democracy will follow of its own accord.

The third is intended to restore some fundamental fairness and equity to the situation on the ground. This will do two things, IMO. It will put U.S. troops on the ground in Israel to help maintain the peace and enforce the original U.N. mandate establishing the state of Israel, and it will give Palestinians the best chance they have had to form a separate state they can be proud to call home.

The fourth is a call for universal sacrifice. It is time to tell the American people the truth -- there are immense costs associated with our policies in the world. We must step up to those costs now.

Are you ready? Here we go.

TWENTY FIRST CENTURY MUTUALLY ASSURED DESTRUCTION: George Bush has said this is not a war on Islam. He might have better said this is not a war on Islam yet. Maybe John Kerry can say it for him. I urge him to announce the next Presidential Doctrine declaring that the use of weapons of mass destruction on American soil, if ever perpetrated by Arab fundamentalists, and if ever done in the name of Islam, will be met with war on Islam. What we need now is the twenty first century equivalent of "Mutually Assured Destruction." That policy during the Cold War, however grotesque in enunciation, had the sublime beauty of being effective on the ground. It concentrated the mind. We now need to concentrate the Arab mind.
Put this in effect by dispatching the Marines to deliver this Presidential doctrine to every city and village on the Arabian peninsula. Have them nail it to the door of every Mosque. Include the message that in the event of war, every Mosque and every Mullah will be declared an enemy command and control center, and dealt with as such.
Drop a billion leaflets on the Arabian peninsula announcing that if a weapon of mass destruction is deployed against America in the name of Islam, no man will stand in Mecca for a thousand years. Go on Arab television and say the same thing, and say it in a tone of voice so they know you mean it. And say it in such a way that you clearly mean no disrespect for Islam.

WORLDWIDE SUPPORT FOR FREEDOM OF THE PRESS Announce another, and even more important Presidential Doctrine. Declare every journalist in the world to henceforth be a United States citizen. Extend automatic dual citizenship to every journalist in every nation on every continent. Declare your intention to defend freedom of the press as a universal human right. Declare it your intention to protect these new citizens of democracy with the full force and might of American military power. Stand up and say it so they know you mean it.
Make it our business to know how every journalist in the world is treated. Make the spread of democracy the highest national priority, higher, for example, than trade, and GDP. Explain this new fact of life to our friends in international business. Explain it in a tone of voice that convinces them we won't forget our new doctrines in the morning. Threaten to sink a few of their ships on the high seas just for emphasis if they demur. Tell the CIA to stay out of the business of killing leaders we don't like and picking new leaders of our choice. Let democracy work its magic. Support universal freedom of the press and most importantly, be open to the outcome.
Immediately cease and desist from any further financial and moral support for authoritarian regimes in that region, or any other region for that matter. Announce that if regime changes on the Arabian peninsula disrupt the flow of oil, we will infer that to be a breach of legal contract and will then take whatever oil we need at a fair price. Smile when you say that.

ESTABLISH U.S. MILITARY BASES IN ISRAEL AND ENFORCE the ORIGINAL U.N. MANDATE Declare a ten year moratorium and cooling off period for the Arab / Israeli dispute. We cannot allow this protracted religious argument to cost a million American lives for nothing. This is no time for four eyed geeks in Foggy Bottom to dither away to their heart's content. This is no time for dithering. This is no time for timid politicians to bow and scrape to the Israeli lobby. This is no time for bowing and scraping. This is a time for bold action.
Stop sending blood money to Israel and Egypt. Instead send the U.S. Army to reestablish and defend the pre 1967 borders. Send the Army Corps of Engineers to bulldoze the Israeli settlements level with the sand, every one of them. Tell Yasser Arafat that if there is one more suicide bomber we will pick up every Palestinian on the West Bank and relocate them to the caves in Afghanistan.
Declare Jerusalem to be an open city administered by the United Nations. Declare that it will remain an open city for the rest of this Millennium. If the Rabbis and the Mullahs and the Priests complain bitterly and wave their musty old books in your face, round them up en mass and drop them in the Mediterranean sea.

IMPLEMENT A UNIVERSAL DRAFT Tell the American people the hard truth. Tell them that their safety and security is now not only dependent on the Marine Corps, but also on the Peace Corps. Make it our highest national priority to make friends with the world, and by that I mean the people of the world, not the regimes of the world and not the religious nut cases of the world. The weed of terrorism can only thrive in an unplowed field. We must plow every field, sow it thick with democracy, and pray that God rains freedom on the world. In freedom lies our safety.
In support of this goal, ask American families to make a great personal sacrifice. Institute a universal national draft. Require all young American citizens to give two years of their lives to national service. Send them throughout the world to every town, hamlet, and field. Set them to work outside under God's blue sky. Let them feel the sun and the rain on their face every day. And let them spread democracy and freedom every evening over dinner and conversation. You have a unique opportunity, Mr. Kerry, to ask this nation for sacrifice, sacrifice in support of a great goal. Do not squander that opportunity; do not be afraid to ask. Do not let the moment pass. If not this, what?

[The Magistrate]

8. That Is Quite The Modest Proposal, Mr. Solsen

Taken together, this amounts to a prescription for Imperial over-reach sufficient to make the usual demons of this place, the dreaded "neocon," blush in admiration. Far be it from me to under-rate the usefulness of force in human affairs, but believers in force must cultivate a sense of what it can and cannot achieve, and of the response likely to follow on its exercise, for it is a tool only, and one does not cut wood with a hammer, or drive nails with a saw.

Mutually assured destruction worked because on both sides of the balance, the obliterating force was concentrated under the absolute authority of a very few people who had a great deal to lose in the event of any mistep. This necessary condition does not apply to the amorphous foe faced today in the radical fundamentalists of Islam under arms. These do not even operate themselves under any tight central control, but rather in a dispersed manner similar to the "affinity groups" of classical revolutionary Anarchism. Further, they have no particular attachment to their own lives, nor to the lives of their fellows: any believer killed in their struggle, willingly or no, is a martyr sent to Paradise, and so done something of a favor, if involved in either an attack or a retaliation against them.

Your suggested means of communicating your proposal cannot be carried out without a full-bore invasion of Saudi Arabia. There are certainly sound arguments in favor of such a course, but make no mistake that such an action would be required to carry out your proposal. This would certainly be the beginning of, not the deterence of, a war with Islam, in which the entire Islamic world could be expected to become involved. The spectacle of infidel soldiers nailing threats to the doors of mosques in the homeland of that creed would quickly spark a situation that could only be dealt with by extremities of frightfulness. You would not get the chance to say anything to make it clear you meant no disrespect for Islam; the whole of your action would be such an offense that it could not possibly proceed from any degree of respect.

In committing U.S. military power to ensure freedom of the press throughout the world, you are similarly proposing a tremendous task. People who are threatened, as you propose to do to just about every governmental and major economic entity in the world, do not simply tremble and comply: they assess what can actually be done to enforce the threat, and how the threatener can be decieved or evaded. The force available to the U.S. to enforce such a threat being necessarily limited, and the space the threat is leveled against being effectively infinite, most everyone will conclude they can still do what they wish in this regard. They will be correct in that assessment. Journalists will continue to be controlled by "sweets and the whip", though perhaps in different proportion, and through different modalities.

In regard to your third proposal, if you think the Israeli armed forces could be easily brushed aside by U.S. forces, you are mistaken. Israel having no desire for U.S, occupation, its soldiery would resist. There probably is stomach in the U.S. for a war against Islam, but there is not stomach for an invasion of Israel, and it would prove costly. For your enforcement mechanisms, if people do not obey you, you recommend deportation of whole populations, and summary executions en masse. It is probably not necessary, really, to remind you these are serious crimes under international law.

Your final proposal for a sort of "Children's Crusade" is surely the least practical of them all. Tramping about the world to every village and hamlet to verbally persuade requires serious language skills, and, in the most literal sense imaginable, considerable intestinal fortitude. Most people are not up to it; damned few would be any good at it.

[hansolsen]

10. Thanks for your reply -- now considering my answer. N/T

[hansolsen]

11. Let's talk

First, you say, "Taken together, this amounts to a prescription for Imperial over-reach sufficient to make the usual demons of this place, the dreaded "neocon," blush in admiration"

Perhaps, but I think you misread my intent. If this plan is executed right, not one life need be lost. Here is what I am after:

The ongoing military action in Iraq right now is a little like someone intent on flocking all the trees in a great forest using a hose and a nozzle and snow making machinery. It strikes me as a tiresome and ineffective enterprise. What we really need is some way to make it snow. There are times in human history when great statesmen must turn away from their military commanders, and look to the priests and shamans, the poets and the songwriters, and to sacrifice. I believe one of those times is upon us.

Second, you say, "Mutually assured destruction worked because on both sides of the balance, the obliterating force was concentrated under the absolute authority of a very few people who had a great deal to lose in the event of any mistep"

It seems to me that is exactly the situation we will have when a small handful of people get their hands on some suitcase nuclear weapons and sit debating what to do with them. We need to give them something important to lose. I suggest that something is the material sybols of their religion. They threaten to knock down more buildings and kill people -- we threaten to destoy buildings and kill no one. But those sites are important to such fundamentalist believers and their supporters. It would give them pause, I believe.

Third, you take me too literally: "Your suggested means of communicating your proposal cannot be carried out without a full-bore invasion of Saudi Arabia"

I am using a little hyperbole throughout to make a point -- the essence of this proposal is to communicate these ideas widely and forcefully so that the deterrent effect is real. This has to be known on the "Arab Street". There would be many ways to do that including Al Jazeera, I suppose.

Next you raise some practical objections on the journalist issue: "In committing U.S. military power to ensure freedom of the press throughout the world, you are similarly proposing a tremendous task"
I will grant you there are practical limitations, but that is true when, for example, any U.S. citizen is kidnapped in a foreign country for ransom. But it is still useful for the kidnapped person's family to be able to go to the U.S. Consulate in that country and get help. I believe making every journalist in the world a dual citizen of the U.S. would send a positive message.
And there are many ways of enforcing this code of conduct. Countries that routinely deny freedom of the press could be denied U.N. membership, for example, or could be denied trading priviledges in this country. I believe it would make a difference.

Next, in regard ot Israel, you seem to jump to the conclusion that Israelis would not welcome U.S. troops on their land. I think a majority of Israelis would welcome U.S. peace keepoing forces there, and perhaps even a slight majority might be willing to retreat to the Green Line under such a scenario. You are too quick to see gun fire among these ideas. These ideas are intended to avoid gun fire.

Finally you have no use for a new universal draft with most of the young people going over seas in an expanded Peace Corps. I believe your practical arguments are over stated. Surely when Peace Corp volunteers take a two year assignment in Bolivia, they learn to speak the language. That is all i am proposing -- to do that on a grand scale, and with some humility.

So thanks for your reply, again. See if this assuages any of your concerns. Hans

[hansolsen]

12. Let's talk

First, you say, "Taken together, this amounts to a prescription for Imperial over-reach sufficient to make the usual demons of this place, the dreaded "neocon," blush in admiration"

Perhaps, but I think you misread my intent. If this plan is executed right, not one life need be lost. Here is what I am after:

The ongoing military action in Iraq right now is a little like someone intent on flocking all the trees in a great forest using a hose and a nozzle and snow making machinery. It strikes me as a tiresome and ineffective enterprise. What we really need is some way to make it snow. There are times in human history when great statesmen must turn away from their military commanders, and look to the priests and shamans, the poets and the songwriters, and to sacrifice. I believe one of those times is upon us.

Second, you say, "Mutually assured destruction worked because on both sides of the balance, the obliterating force was concentrated under the absolute authority of a very few people who had a great deal to lose in the event of any mistep"

It seems to me that is exactly the situation we will have when a small handful of people get their hands on some suitcase nuclear weapons and sit debating what to do with them. We need to give them something important to lose. I suggest that something is the material sybols of their religion. They threaten to knock down more buildings and kill people -- we threaten to destoy buildings and kill no one. But those sites are important to such fundamentalist believers and their supporters. It would give them pause, I believe.

Third, you take me too literally: "Your suggested means of communicating your proposal cannot be carried out without a full-bore invasion of Saudi Arabia"

I am using a little hyperbole throughout to make a point -- the essence of this proposal is to communicate these ideas widely and forcefully so that the deterrent effect is real. This has to be known on the "Arab Street". There would be many ways to do that including Al Jazeera, I suppose.

Next you raise some practical objections on the journalist issue: "In committing U.S. military power to ensure freedom of the press throughout the world, you are similarly proposing a tremendous task"

I will grant you there are practical limitations, but that is true when, for example, any U.S. citizen is kidnapped in a foreign country for ransom. But it is still useful for the kidnapped person's family to be able to go to the U.S. Consulate in that country and get help. I believe making every journalist in the world a dual citizen of the U.S. would send a positive message.

And there are many ways of enforcing this code of conduct. Countries that routinely deny freedom of the press could be denied U.N. membership, for example, or could be denied trading priviledges in this country. I believe it would make a difference.

Next, in regard to Israel, you seem to jump to the conclusion that Israelis would not welcome U.S. troops on their land. I propose this on the assumption they would welcome permanent bases there if we end up being kicked out of Iraq, as I believe we will. I think a majority of Israelis would welcome U.S. peace keeping forces there, and perhaps even a slight majority might be willing to retreat to the Green Line under such a scenario. You are too quick to see gun fire among these ideas. These ideas are intended to avoid gun fire.

Finally you have no use for a new universal draft with most of the young people going over seas in an expanded Peace Corps. I believe your practical arguments are over stated. Surely when Peace Corp volunteers take a two year assignment in Bolivia, they learn to speak the language. That is all I am proposing -- to do that on a grand scale, and with some humility.

So thanks for your reply, again. See if this assuages any of your concerns. Hans

[Betty The Younger]

9. Your best idea is for the US to invade the soverign nation of Israel!?

That would be suicide and I don't think even bush is THAT stupid. Besides the majority of the American people support Israel unconditionally. AND even more the Democratic Party is Israel's historical ally. AND we would have to be destroyed as a nation to ever NOT come to Israel's defence. Though I do agree with you on one idea; namely, STOP giving Egypt taxpayer dollars and instead increase the money we give to Israel.

[hansolsen]

13. No, not invade. I assume we will be welcomed in Israel.

The last time I checked we are allies of Israel. And the deep thinkers on mid east policy seem to think the U.S. needs permanent military bases in the area to help maintain the peace.

Why not station them in Israel??

Now, I admit, a few Israelis might object to bulldozing the settlements, but we must do something with the settlements -- how about we start by bulldozing just a few of them?? The key is this -- whatever we do there must be seen as even handed -- i.e. it must piss off both sides on day one.

Doesn't that make any sense??

[Darranar]

14. What?

Universal draft? Collective punishment on a massive scale?

What would be your response if Al Qaeda nailed a declaration on every church and synagogue in the US, declaring that they would destroy it if the US intervened in the Middle East?

You may think that the US has the power to enforce worldwide freedom of the press; it does not. Trying would likely result in a devestating defeat, if not in a third world war.

You think Arafat has the power to stop suicide bombings? You're wrong. Arafat has little power these days; if he could rein in Hamas he would. Ethnic cleansing of the Palestinian people in retaliation for a suicide bombing would be disgusting and inhumanitarian, and putting them in Afghan caves would be almost equivalent to genocide.

Announce that if regime changes on the Arabian peninsula disrupt the flow of oil, we will infer that to be a breach of legal contract and will then take whatever oil we need at a fair price. Smile when you say that.

So the US has the right to a "flow of oil"? After they threaten to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians? After they threaten to bomb every mosque in the Middle East? After they, likely at great cost to the world, invade or otherwise coerce every authoritarian nation to give up its controls on the press?