Comments on: Israel’s ghosts http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/01/israels-ghosts/ National Security Studies Program :: Weatherhead Center Thu, 12 Nov 2009 21:06:56 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Philip Carl Salzman http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/2009/01/israels-ghosts/comment-page-1/#comment-1538 Philip Carl Salzman Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:03:18 +0000 http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/?p=489#comment-1538 In the eyes of the "international community," Israel may never fight back against aggressors. While condemnation is never heard against Arab invasions and terrorist campaigns against Israel, whenever Israel strikes back the "international community" demands it cease, giving commitments for guarding the peace which are never fulfilled. So the options available for Israel are either "weak and failing victim" or "cruel conqueror." I would suggest that the latter is preferable, and that surrounding adversaries will be more reticent in attacking the "cruel conqueror" than the "weak and failing victim." Conquering attackers is the most robust peace process. "Israel has tried destroying terrorist groups through direct action" and has succeeded in the West Bank. Negotiation is only feasible if there are sincere and capable Palestinian negotiating partners; but there are none. Deterrence capability is the prerequisite for any negotiation, and so is patience in the current absence of Palestinian negotiating partners. Perhaps Israel might have to look to actors beyond Palestine as potential negotiating partners. <i><a href="http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/mesh/members/philip_carl_salzman/" rel="nofollow">Philip Carl Salzman</a> is a member of MESH.</i> In the eyes of the “international community,” Israel may never fight back against aggressors. While condemnation is never heard against Arab invasions and terrorist campaigns against Israel, whenever Israel strikes back the “international community” demands it cease, giving commitments for guarding the peace which are never fulfilled. So the options available for Israel are either “weak and failing victim” or “cruel conqueror.” I would suggest that the latter is preferable, and that surrounding adversaries will be more reticent in attacking the “cruel conqueror” than the “weak and failing victim.”

Conquering attackers is the most robust peace process. “Israel has tried destroying terrorist groups through direct action” and has succeeded in the West Bank. Negotiation is only feasible if there are sincere and capable Palestinian negotiating partners; but there are none. Deterrence capability is the prerequisite for any negotiation, and so is patience in the current absence of Palestinian negotiating partners. Perhaps Israel might have to look to actors beyond Palestine as potential negotiating partners.

Philip Carl Salzman is a member of MESH.

]]>