Tophat665

OK, this is just a thought:
It seems to me that the only way that Israel and the Palestinians can ever come to a peace is if first the Israelis stop calling it terrorism and declare war upon.... Well, therein lies the problem. It would take a good international lawyer to phrase this properly, but a list of armed groups intent upon 1) the expulsion of Israelis from the occupied territories through violent means and/or 2) the destruction of the state of Israel through, including but not limited to Hamas, al-Aqsa, Fatah, Hezbollah, and Islamic Jihad.

Yes, these people are terrorists, fine. That is the fashionable way to look at it, and it is an accurate description of their method, but I wonder if, in this case, that description might not have outlived its utility, and now serve only to obscure other avenues by which one might reach a peace.

Do not misunderstand me! I am not advocating negotiation. Not yet. Maybe not for a very long time. Negotiation has been tried. For it, Yitzak Rabin sleeps in the earth, slaughtered by his own countryman. Shimon Perez is not willing to go that far out on a limb, or, in any case, will never be allowed to. Ariel Sharon is just making the occasional conciliatory noise so that it remains political poison for the US to back off even slightly. No leader on either side has the support of his people to do what it takes to make it work. It has failed.

So, other than terrorists, what are these people? Well, they are the partisans of a country that no longer wants them. They are soldiers, in one sense (but not in many others, which becomes important later) in an assymetrical war, an urban guerrilla war of attrition against an enemy that has proven it's ability to take on any combination of any or all of the militaries of it's neighbors, and not merely win, but win resoundingly.

So the Israelis assassinated Yassim the terrorist guru, and the world is having a snit. Well, Yassim was an Israeli citizen. Had he not been tried and conviceted for treason? No? If not, well, they could have tried and convicted him in absentia, and then this would have been an execution. Messy, but arguably legal. So Traitor is more useful than terrorist for Yassim. But if Israel is at war with Hamas, well, then they just took out one of the generals. These things happen in war, particularly if it is done right. Yassim the soldier would have been easier to kill with fewer repercussions. Not saying that the Palestinians would not have screamed bloody murder, but I am saying that, if it's a war, what does it matter?

Also, if Israel declares war, well, all the groups I listed are composed exclusively (with the possible exception of some of Hezbollah units) of unlawful comabants. I haven't read the entire Geneva convention, but I went over the Article on POWs last night, and these guys don't qualify. They can be shot on sight or locked up indefinitely. The UN gets indignant, it's, "Hey, we're fighting a war here, for our survival, against people who have no use for civilized rules. We're doing what we can, but we will have to break some rules ourselves to win."

If Israel has a war against these Islamists, all of a sudden, they aren't negotiating with terrorists; they're (eventually) discussing the terms of surrender with the enemy they are sure they can beat.

Now, I really don't want to get into an argument, but it seems to me that there has got to be some lateral thinking about this to break the deadlock. What do you think about this one? Any other interesting ideas about how to get this moving that haven't been tried?

(Edited for typos)

__________________
Light a man a fire, and he will be warm while it burns.
Set a man on fire, and he will be warm for the rest of his life.