Will an IDF Withdrawal from the West Bank Mean a Safe Haven for Extremist Groups?

[shira]

Will an IDF Withdrawal from the West Bank Mean a Safe Haven for Extremist Groups?

Col. Richard Kemp



To stand any real chance of success, every insurgent or terrorist movement needs a safe haven to operate from. Israel has had more than a flavor of what it can mean to leave hostile groups in control of lands adjacent to its own borders in southern Lebanon and in Gaza. Any similar move to totally cede control to the Palestinians of the West Bank or a part of Jerusalem would carry immense risk.

Some might argue that a modern high-tech state can monitor hostile activities outside its borders. But surveillance and intelligence collection against a deeply embedded, secretive, extremist network operating within a dense civilian population is the most difficult target, and no national intelligence organization can be confident that it will have a high success rate against such a target.

It has been suggested that an international force, perhaps a NATO force, should replace the IDF presence in the West Bank, an idea that raises a number of very serious questions. Where are the NATO troops going to come from and how long are they going to stay? Some nations are simply not prepared to put their troops into undue danger.

What would happen to those who were prepared to take part in such a force when the going got tough, as it inevitably would? Think of Lebanon in 1983 when suicide bomb attacks killed 300 troops and led to the withdrawal of the French and American peacekeeping forces, or al-Qaeda's attack in Madrid which led to the withdrawal of Spanish forces from the Iraq campaign. Just how sure could we be that the electorates in contributing countries would allow their militaries to remain deployed in the West Bank under these kinds of pressures.

more...
http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=1&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=283&PID=1845&IID=4579&TTL=Will_an_IDF_Withdrawal_from_the_West_Bank_Mean_a_Safe_Haven_for_Extremist_Groups?

[The Magistrate]

1. No One Is Going To Occupy The Place For Israel, Ma'am

If the state of Israel wishes that area policed in its interests it can maintain its military occupation.

The chief problems with this occupation are its violations of law in regard to confiscation of land and settlement of Israeli citizens on occupied territory, and the ambitions for de facto annexation, or permanent occupation, of large swatches of the territory in question.

If the state of Israel wishes to maintain a military presence east of its Green Line borders, it needs to liquidate the settler movement and make clear it has no territorial ambitions in the area.

[shira]

4. Agreed - which doesn't bode well for peace prospects based on Lebanon 2000 and Gaza 2005.

No way the PA agrees to allow the IDF to occupy the W.Bank once a peace deal is cut, even if every last settler is removed.

Peace is nowhere near on the horizon.

[The Magistrate]

5. A Peace Settlement Must Include Cessation Of the Occupation, Ma'am

No political body could possibly consent to establishing itself as an independent sovereign state with foreign forces long hostile to it in occupation of its territory.

[shira]

6. Agreed - so do you have a better idea? I sure don't. n/t

[bemildred]

7. A few points:

1.) Security of ones borders depends on the security and intentions of the people on the other side of those borders. It is worth observing that Israel is not an island and that it will always have borders, most likely with Arabs on the other side of them, both sides actually, and therefore it must somehow find a way to get along with those Arab neighbors. That is not, in fact, an impossible task, but there is no simple mechanical recipe for it either. A starting point would be the realization that you are going to have to be friends if you are not to be forever enemies. People that spread generic fear and anger about Arabs are not friends of the future peace and security of Israel.

2.) I believe that The Magistrate and I share a rather gloomy view of the present situation and future prospects.

3.) The first and essential step is to start treating the Arabs that you must rule WELL, at least as well as you want to be treated yourself, decent jobs, decent medical care, the absence of arbitrary harassment, a modest degree of cultural sensitivity, personal security, etc. You cannot expect anyone to agree to perpetual subjugation and arbitrary mistreatment. Those who leave you alone ought to be left alone likewise.

4.) This is somewhat of a problem because Israel itself is badly governed these days; however I have no solution to achieveing political reform, I'm simply pointing out the problem.

[shira]

8. On point 3, treating Arabs well.

Even if Israel treats Palestinians as royalty, what good will that do with Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, Syria, and terrorist factions and extremists still in the PLO and PA?

:shrug:

I'm right with you on point #2 WRT a gloomy view of the situation.

[bemildred]

9. That answer to that is obvious, it would reduce political support for Hamas etc.

Which is what it's all about in the long run. You can win all the battles and lose the war, it happens all the time.

It's not a question of treating them as "royalty" either, you can't think well if you use the wrong words, just hunt down the fuckers that uproot the olive trees and make them pay reparations etc.

[shira]

10. Really? Hamas would just start another war and create another humanitarian crisis.

Which would in turn lead to Goldstone part 2 and Israel's efforts to treat Palestinians much better would be for shit.

The MSM successfully conveyed to 43% of Americans that Gazans were starving, that the 9 killed on the Marmara were peaceful humanitarian advocates who were murdered, and that Israel provoked the latest incident at the Lebanon border. What makes you think Israel's best efforts with Palestinians will change any perceptions?

Besides, even if political support waned for Hamas they're in for life. Who's knocking them out politically? :shrug: Iran's political leaders are in for life and there's no outside force treating Persians so poorly that if they were only treated better support for their leaders would wane and they would vote the Ayatollahs out. Why do you think Israel's actions would matter one bit?

[bemildred]

11. If Israel continues to be a sucker for that, Hamas will keep doing it.

But I can see you have shifted back to disparaging points of view that differ from your emotional attachements, so I will say "Good Day" now.

[shira]

12. Right. Unless Israel takes another 8 years and thousands of rockets, Hamas will keep doing it. n/t

[bemildred]

13. Forever, more or less, not just 8 years. If not Hamas, then someone new.

"Plus ca change, plus meme."

[shira]

14. Real problems demand real solutions.

Your idea of trying to take away support for Hamas is nice but unrealistic for the reasons given a few posts up.

If you have any better ideas, by all means share.

[bemildred]

15. Like I said: "Have a nice day!" nt

[shira]

16. Indulging in hope and fantasy rather than reality will never bring a close to the conflict. n/t

[bemildred]

17. "Have a nice day!"

[IndianaGreen]

2. Yes, the Zionist settlers will still be on the West Bank

They are the real terrorists!

[CJvR]

3. Well...

IDF pulled out of Lebanon - Hizbollah steps in.
IDF pulled out of Gaza - Hamas steps in.

The precedents are not encouraging.

[Ken Burch]

18. It will ONLY be a safe haven for extremist groups

if said groups remain on their illegal settlements.

[Chulanowa]

19. Excuses, excuses, excuses

Maybe you shouldn't have occupied it and continued your land-theft programs so blatantly eh there ol' chaps? Dumbfucks.