What then?

Jacques Chirac and the Vatican, expressing view that were, no doubt, characteristic of European elites, have characterized Israel’s actions with respect to southern Lebanon and Gaza as “disproportionate”. This is a reference to the doctrine of proportionality from Just War theory and was first codified, I believe, in the Hague Conventions of 1907.

The United States and Canada have come out in support of Israel. Germany and Britain have attempted to split the baby, supporting Israel’s right to defend itself while urging proportionality.

In a rather remarkable turn of events but, perhaps, motivated by their domestic difficulties with terrorists, Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been more critical of Hezbollah than of Israel. I wonder if this doesn’t also reflect the widening Sunni-Shi’a struggle for power.

In proportion to what? As I noted in my post, The War of Jenkins Ear, what’s going on isn’t merely a response to the seizing of three Israeli soldiers. It’s a response to continuing, unrelenting attacks over a period of years that haven’t eased up despite Israel’s withdrawal from southern Lebanon or its withdrawal from Gaza. To understand Israel’s actions its vital that the context be considered as well as the immediate situation.

But, as I noted in my post Escalation in the Middle East, focusing on historical mistakes and injustices can result in an endless, futile search for who shot John.

Critics of Israel point to Israeli settlers and military presence on the West Bank, the Wall, a Palestinian “right of return”, and staggering U. S. military aid for Israel as present-day grievances aggravating the situation. This aid, too, has a context: the U. S. provides equivalent support to Egypt and this was part of the price for Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai.

Critics of Hezbollah and the Palestinians point to the continuing attacks against Israel, military and civilian alike, and the repeated commitment to destroy Israel.

This may come as a surprise to my readers (maybe not) but I’m no fan of Israel. I believe that Israel is in a very difficult situation in a very dangerous neighborhood and they’ll do whatever they believe they need to do to survive. If that furthers U. S. interests in the region, well and good. If it doesn’t, I don’t believe they’ll hesitate. Pre-9/11 this was the way I frequently articulated my view: “The Israelis are not our friends; the Arabs are not our enemies”. Since 9/11 I’ve hardened my stand somewhat: I still don’t believe that the Israelis are our friends and I don’t know whether the Arabs are our enemies or not. I think there’s an as-yet unsatisified burden of proof which it’s up to the Arab countries of the Middle East to satisfy. I find the rejoicing at the attack in some quarters of the region difficult to forget.

Here’s how I think of the prospects for a solution to the problems between Israel and its neighbors. First, what would happen if the Palestinians, Hezbollah, and the Syrians stopped attacking Israel? I think the answer is “Not much”. I think that, over time, Gaza and the West Bank would be absorbed into Israel either de facto or de jure and the Arabs living in those areas would be better off than they are now, just as the Arabs who live in Israel are better off than Arabs living in Palestine.

What would happen if the Israelis removed all settlers, tore down the Wall, stopped responding to attacks by Palestinian terorrists and Hezbollah, and allowed an unlimited “right of return” to anybody who said his grandfather had lived in the territory that’s now Israel? I think that Israel would cease to exist, most Jews would be driven out of the country one way or another, and the entire area would become much as Gaza and the West Bank are now: a dysfunctional mess.

So, what’s the solution? I genuinely want to know. Please leave your suggestions in the comments. Back up your assertions with some facts. And remember when proposing your solution: what then?