There are a lot of arguments that people make against Israel’s expanding wars. 

Anti-Israel Critics

Those who do not take Israel’s security concerns seriously and those who don’t understand the term “disproportionate” believe that Israel’s response is disproportionate. 

These Israel-critics posit that if a Palestinian terrorist organization kills a thousand Israelis, Israel’s response is disproportionate if it launches a military response that kills more than a thousand Palestinians. (Which is wrong.)

Other Israel critics criticize the Jewish state for dropping bombs on densely populated urban areas. 

Israel’s defenders point out that Israel’s enemies use the urban population as human shields. 

If Israel is dissuaded from bombing Hamas or Hezbollah military installations because of civilian casualties, then terrific! 

But if, on the other hand, Israel bombs those military installations and kills children in the process, then, from the anti-Israel point of view, that’s even better! The death of child-civilians makes Israel look awful in world opinion and dissuades otherwise persuadable countries not to form an alliance with Israel, which would be bad for Iran. 

And Hamas and Hezbollah, after all, work for Iran, not their local populations. 

But that’s a discussion for another day. You’ve heard it before. 

How Do Israel’s Wars End?

All I want to say here is that Israel should never go into a war without putting out a proposal to end the war. 

This would be a good way to handle the “Situation,” Israel’s intractable conflict with the Palestinians. 

Remember when the Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat rejected the Clinton Parameters offered by the US President and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, then a few years later accepted them? 

Unfortunately, by then, there was a new U.S. president, George W. Bush, and a new Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon. The Clinton Parameters were off the table. 

A few years after that, a new Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert, accepted the Clinton Parameters, and excitedly announced his decision to the Palestinian Authority. 

Unfortunately, by then, there was a new PA President, Mahmoud Abbas, who not only refused to honor Arafat’s agreement, but also refused even to talk. 

Today, if Abbas suddenly accepted Olmert’s offer, he would find the current Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, unwilling to listen. 

Make an Offer and Leave it On the Table

Given this amazing history of missed opportunities, I’ve argued for years that Israel should sit down with the United States, work on an offer to the Palestinians, enact it into law, and then wait. 

Even if the PA never makes a counteroffer, this would still be good for Israel’s reputation in the world, which would be good for the United States and democracy in general. It would also act as a constraint on Israeli malfeasance; why would anyone buy into a settlement bloc slated for demolition if the PA just says the word? 

If history is any guide, the PA would eventually accept. 

But without a plan on the table that the PA could accept, with nothing by more and more settlements in Palestine’s future, what incentive does the average young Palestinian in the Territories have not to fight? 

How Does the Gaza War End?

What is a good idea for the Situation generally is a good idea for Israel’s current wars. 

The so-called progressives who today scream “Ceasefire Now!” would, upon the declaration of a ceasefire, go back to screaming for armed struggle. 

Their love of peace and ceasefires is highly situational. 

Still, the pro-Israel advocates who insist that Gaza would have its ceasefire if Hamas would release the hostages may not know whereof they speak. 

Would Netanyahu stop bombing Hamas in the highly unlikely/basically impossible event that the terrorist organization released the remaining hostages? 

There is no indication that he would.

Indeed, there is no indication of what conditions Netanyahu would accept to end the Gaza war. 

How about this: a one-to-one exchange of hostages for nonviolent Palestinian prisoners; an agreement by Hamas to transition from a resistance movement to a purely social services organization in exchange for a gradual open border for trade and work for Hamas residents; and an Israeli inspection presence, along with other regional partners, along the Philadelphi corridor where Hamas is known to smuggle its weapons. 

This would be a great outcome for Israel, but also for the long-suffering people of Gaza. 

How Does the Lebanon War End? 

What about Lebanon? Would Israel agree to a ceasefire if Hezbollah agreed to abide by UN resolutions 1559, 1701 and 1680 (which require Hezbollah to disarm) and Lebanon recognized Israel’s right to exist and set up a process to resolve future disputes? 

This has the benefit of being essentially a request that Hezbollah abide by U.N. resolutions. How could even the stridently anti-Israel U.N. object? 

Again, all of these scenarios are unlikely, of course! But without them, Israel seems to be the intransigent party, rejecting proposals and offering none of its own. It must propose an end to the war. It cannot fight forever, after all. And while Israel can cause destruction, these are wars it cannot win. 

Let’s remember how each of Israel’s many prior wars in Lebanon and Gaza ended: after Israel caused immense destruction and killed thousands of civilians, and international outcry forced a ceasefire, and Israel withdrew its forces, leaving its enemy intact, declaring victory and preparing to fight another day. 

This outcome can be avoided, which would be good for Israel, for Lebanon and for Gaza. 

^^^

This editorial is by Oblivioni Magazine does not necessarily reflect the views of its contributors.

Image by Seyma D.