Ken noted this article long ago advocating "disengagement" : foreignaffairs.org . The alteratives seem less appealing.
I think the Israelis would be glad to disengage IF -- and here's the big IF -- they could feel a) that it would not be read as surrender, as Lebanon was, and b) they would not get a terrorist state as their nearest neighbor. They remember, even as the West chooses to forget, that half the Palestinians and most of the other Arabs are still aiming at the whole nine yards, the extinction of the Jewish State.
Failing that, they prefer to fight. But the Palestinians have shown a certain skill at assymetrical warfare with what I call their "shoot'n'whine" tactics. They have managed to morph the conflict, in PR terms, from 5 million Israelis against 100 million Arabs into a Palestinian child with a rock against an Israeli tank. Remember too, that Israel must, in the world's eyes, fight with "pure" hands -- the Russians are allowed to be brutal, even the Americans are allowed to cause "collateral damage", but the Israelis must somehow fight a campaign of suicide bombers who hide among civilians without ever killing any innocent people, let alone unleashing their military might. This can't be done, of course, so in certain quarters the Israelis are always the aggressors unless they just sit and take it. |
