politically incorrect
Jun. 18th, 2002 11:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
cellioSo, yet again, terrorists have blown up a bus-load of innocent bystanders, and the Hamas warlords in Gaza are taking credit. Meanwhile, Palestinian spokesmen are protesting the building of a fence that might make this a little harder. (It's not that the fence compromises their proposed borders in any way.) And Bush wants to give the terrorists a state so they can legitimize their weapons stashes and continue the attacks.
Israel has to act against the terrorists itself because no one else will do so, but what can they do? One approach that would make a major dent, but that will never happen because it's politically inexpedient, goes as follows.
This is predicated on the notion that the priorities for preservation, in order, are: (1) innocent civilians (on both sides), (2) Israeli non-civilians, (3) Palestinian non-civilians, and (4) money and property. Given that, the following would be effective, ruthleess, and altogether just:
Surround Gaza, set up checkpoints, and continuously broadcast that people must gather their valuables and leave now. Known criminals and members of terrorist organizations are arrested at the checkpoints; everyone else can leave. Belongings that can't be inspected on the spot are stored for later claim. No weapons get out, obviously. Then, after you've allowed enough time for anyone who wants to leave to do so, obliterate what remains from the air until there is nothing left. Voila, no more Gaza weapon stashes and bomb factories, and anyone who died there declared himself to be a combattant by staying, so deserves no sympathy. Compensate those who left something reasonable for their homes and let them go anywhere but Israel. They can return to Gaza and rebuild if they like. Perhaps give them more money if they promise to leave the Middle East and never return.
Announce that if the attacks continue, the process will be repeated in the west bank, town by town until the attacks stop.
Israel has to act against the terrorists itself because no one else will do so, but what can they do? One approach that would make a major dent, but that will never happen because it's politically inexpedient, goes as follows.
This is predicated on the notion that the priorities for preservation, in order, are: (1) innocent civilians (on both sides), (2) Israeli non-civilians, (3) Palestinian non-civilians, and (4) money and property. Given that, the following would be effective, ruthleess, and altogether just:
Surround Gaza, set up checkpoints, and continuously broadcast that people must gather their valuables and leave now. Known criminals and members of terrorist organizations are arrested at the checkpoints; everyone else can leave. Belongings that can't be inspected on the spot are stored for later claim. No weapons get out, obviously. Then, after you've allowed enough time for anyone who wants to leave to do so, obliterate what remains from the air until there is nothing left. Voila, no more Gaza weapon stashes and bomb factories, and anyone who died there declared himself to be a combattant by staying, so deserves no sympathy. Compensate those who left something reasonable for their homes and let them go anywhere but Israel. They can return to Gaza and rebuild if they like. Perhaps give them more money if they promise to leave the Middle East and never return.
Announce that if the attacks continue, the process will be repeated in the west bank, town by town until the attacks stop.
(no subject)
Date: 2002-06-18 07:54 pm (UTC)What's especially frustrating is that the end state is pretty obvious: Israel for the Israelis, Gaza and most of the West Bank for the Palestinians (presumably with a connection), no rights of return except within your "own" side, and Jerusalem under international control. That's pretty much where it has to end up when the smoke clears -- no one would be happy but no one would be completely screwed either. But fanatics -- on both sides, yes, but there seem to be more on one than the other at the moment -- are preventing this from being a possibility. They'd rather have war. Very sad.