The uncomfortable parallels

What is it that NATO forces can demand but Israeli soldiers are denied, while both are fighting Islamist terrorists?
Appropriate rules of engagement, that’s what.
NATO forces in Afghanistan have long complained that their restrictive rules of engagement prevent them from dealing adequately with an enemy that wears civilian clothing, uses civilians for cover, fires on the NATO troops from civilian areas and then melts away into the surrounding civilian population. NATO soldiers are dying and many more are being needlessly maimed as a result. That’s US, German, British, Swedish, Australian and other soldiers.
They are now demanding liberalisation of the rules of engagement so they can target terrorists as and when they see fit.
They will doubtless have their wish granted by US, UN and EU nations keen to see Islamist terrorists defeated and patriotic forces’ lives saved, despite the terrorists’ abuse of civilian infrastructure for war purposes.
It is precisely the same charge that Israeli troops level in their dealings with Palestinian terrorists: that they wear civilian clothing, use civilians for cover, fire on the Israeli soldiers from civilian areas and then melt away into the surrounding civilian population.
Unlike the sympathetic hearing NATO forces are getting for an identical issue, in Israel’s case the US, UN and EU nations categorically refuse to entertain Israel’s complaint and indeed continue to actively pursue the Jewish state for every fatality among the Palestinian population – not only among civilians as a result of the terrorists’ nefarious practices, but also among the armed terrorist forces.
One rule for the Jew, another for the rest of the world.
The only way this problem is ever going to be solved is through the total cessation of violence, with the creation of a second Palestinian Arab state ethnically cleansed of Jews – Palestine – alongside the first Palestinian Arab state already ethnically cleansed of Jews – Jordan. That would be in addition to the third Palestinian Arab state already ethnically cleansed of Jews – Hamasstan. Jordan already occupies 80 percent of Mandate Palestine, and the second and third Palestinian states will occupy fifty percent of the remainder, giving the Palestinian Arabs a total of 90 percent of the land and the Palestinian Jews – known today as Israelis – the remaining ten (10) percent. It is a solution that the Jewish state welcomes, and has in fact welcomed ever since 1948. Nothing new there.
However, for the new second Palestinian state to be created and for all violence to cease, certain rules are going to have to be observed (a concept that is anathema to the Islamist mindset), foremost among them being the borders marking the new second and third states of Palestine sandwiched between Jordan and Israel and between Egypt and Israel, respectively.
The only way those borders are going to be agreed is through population transfer. In Gaza that solution has already been implemented and involved the uprooting of every last Jew from the Gaza Strip and their relocation away from Arab population centres to satisfy Arab demands for ethnic purity. Israel’s generous move nonetheless prompted the Palestinian Arabs to elect Hamas to government and its first act was to fire 10,000 missiles on Israeli civilian communities from its newly received territory.
Since Israel’s generous gesture failed, the recipe for the West Bank will under no circumstances be the same. This time there will be no actual movement of people – everyone gets to stay exactly where they are. Instead, it is the national borders that will be moved for the specific purpose of ensuring that nobody is uprooted while nonetheless finally creating separate states for the embattled peoples involved.
This proposal is not new, it is not remarkable in any way apart from the fact that it is the only workable solution – and hence by definition the one proposal that the world community will therefore refuse to entertain. Because the proposal’s success would put an end to armed struggle, and it is armed struggle against the very existence of a Jewish nation within any borders whatsoever that drives the entire Muslim world and their collaborators in Europe and elsewhere.
Should this proposal fail – and all the signs are that the world community will never entertain the notion of making any demands, however reasonable, on any Islamic nation or organisation, the result may have to be another few decades of war, death, terrorism, hatred and religious incitement by Islamist intransigents while the world community blames Israel for the failures of the Islamic mindset.
It is that Islamic mindset that is the root of the problem. And it is the world community’s fear of tackling that mindset that is inexorably delivering the world community into the hands of Islamism, Sharia law and everything else that comes with the radical Islamic ideology.
Far-fetched? On London’s buses passengers with dogs are already being refused entry in case the dogs offend the sensibilities of Muslim passengers or Muslim drivers. Islamists demand, Europe caves in.
The problem is not Islamism. The problem is a craven world community unwilling to stand up for its own rights on its own streets.