I would like to agree with my colleague, Professor Schaff, and in point of fact with myself, for I have argued the following as well. Jon writes the following:
For many years I have suggested that Israel capitulate to a Palestinian state. Then the Palestinians would have the rights and responsibilities of a nation state. When events such as those in the last few days take place Israel would then be in the position of taking legitimate action against a sovereign state and not have the public relations problem (however unjustified) of attacking an "occupied people."
I have expressed hopes that the realistic possibility of a their own State might force the Palestinians to act more responsibly.
But hasn't that idea been tested? First, it is far from clear that the Palestinians are capable of forming anything like a state, or that Hamas or any other party could possibly begin acting responsibly. The various groups are being armed and to some extent orchestrated by Syria and Iran. If Hamas really tried to make peace, the weapons would simply flow to others into their own party or to other parties. At that point Hamas would have no more control over them than Jimmy Carter does. A responsible Palestinian state is, for the short run, all but impossible in such circumstances as the Arab states have themselves created.
As for the public relations question, the Palestinian parties will always be given credit (in the court of world opinion, or Jimmy Carter, whichever comes first) for what they promise to do. Israel will never get the credit for what it has already done, but only blame for what it has yet to do. Allowing for the creation of a Palestinian state will win them no friends at all.
I agree that Israel should not launch a war against Syria or Iran, though she would be well within her rights to do so. What she is doing right now, striking directly at the direct sources of attack, is what she will be doing for the next several decades, at least. I hope I am wrong.
Recent Comments