If only states were unitary rational actors, William Saletan’s arguments in favor of Israel’s new “we take your land if you take our peace” strategy would be compelling:
To the extent that the purpose of Palestinian terrorism is to get land — and it must be understood that this extent is limited — the clearest demonstration of the failure of that approach is to take land from the Palestinians each time they commit terrorism. If it wasn’t crazy for the Israelis to halt their surrender of land under the Oslo agreement on the grounds that they weren’t getting the peace they had bargained for, why is it crazy for them to raise the ante? The new policy simply pushes the Palestinian reward/punishment calculus into negative territory. If Israel is deprived of peace, it won’t just stop giving up land. It will take land back.
As long as Palestinian extremists can provoke an Israeli response, any political solution remains utterly infeasible. Obviously, Arafat has proven himself completely unable to contain extremists, including those in his own Fatah faction. Which is why I support a NATO occupation of the West Bank, with a complete disarmament of the population, leading to an independent but demilitarized state. Just have no illusions about “exit strategies”. US forces have been in Germany, South Korea, and Japan for 50 years, and would need to stay in an independent Palestine at least as long. But, I also believe a just resolution to the conflict there could be the linchpin that catalyzes positive changes in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran.
Post a Comment