i'm trying to game this out, and if i see this correctly the biggest immediate problem might be the potential for israel to move very quickly and very aggressively to expand settlements, on the theory that this is the best shot available for some time to come.i would consider it highly unlikely that the us will engage israeli troops at gunpoint, so any "imposed settlement" is probably going to require nato troops to occupy a buffer zone for some indeterminate period of time...and as you may recall, the exact nature of the mandate under which they operate is going to be important (to put it another way, will they be allowed to shoot back?); there is considerable question as to whether europe is up for such a task. do israeli politicians do better with an "us v them" mentality in this scenario, or is it smarter to acquiese? my guess is that this will make the far-right "fringe" parties stronger, as the population becomes more nationalistic.the best way to crack that barrier, i think, is to communicate directly (and often) to the israeli population before a settlement is "imposed", but the experience of health care reform in this country suggests that is not the approach favored by this administration.
The term "imposed" was never meant, in my view, to use of military power, but rather soft power, including annual USAID to Israel of $3 billion, Veto in the UN SC, political backing, moral support and other benefits Soft power works like a charm. Remember we debated this idea of peaceful resistance. Military power has proved counter productive in all encounters occurring in the last 50 years at least. Not a single world power has actually net-profited from a war which it wagedI actually agree that Israeli population should be engaged to support peace, much like what Sadat did in 1977 - it is a powerful tool to have the local public behind such a causeThanks for your commentsI enjoyed the discussion as usualbestw
i must have failed to communicate effectively...what i was trying to say was that an imposed settlement, which i assume would have to come out of the un security council, would involve using troops to create a buffer within which gazans would be unlikely to fire rockets and israelis would be unable to build settlements.israel has a history of "testing" these things, and i would assume that these troops will, at some point, have to fire back if they are confronted by either side--and if israel knows that us troops would be unable to fire back, they will break any imposed settlement with impunity.
oh I see what you meanI think UN SC Resolutions should focus more on self-enforcement while establishing mechanisms for monitoring compliance and consequences (economic and political sanctions) when compliance is unsatisfactory