Why won't Israel just capture Palestine?

  • There are many small-scale conflicts currently going on around the world between two countries,where one or both deny other's right on some piece of land. like

    • India vs Pakistan on Kashmir.
    • N.Korea vs S.Korea.
    • Israel vs Palestine.

    In case of India vs Pak or the Korea's, both the sides are militarily very strong(all are in top 10 worldwide), so niether of them would probably start a full blown war with other, because they are sure of own damage.

    But in case of Israel vs Palestine, Israel is much stronger than all existing forces in Palestine. So capturing Palestine should not be difficult for Israel.

    Why does Israel still not capture Palestine, and rather resolve on small scale attacks like the ongoing missile attacks?. Israel has lost 1500+ people. So there is surely a reason to capture Palestine.

    They're doing it slowly, but that doesn't mean that they're not doing it.

    What would they do with it once they had it?

    I'm not sure why you think this didn't happen. Israel obtained control of the West Bank and Gaza Strip in 1967, along with the entirety of Jerusalem, and the Sinai and Golan Heights. Most of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has occurred in this context where Israel controls to various extents the regions the Palestinians wish to claim as their territory. Not only could Israel invade and capture the disputed territory, but it already has, and in 1967 it took territory from Syria, Egypt, and Jordan. A common center-left position on the issue is for Israel to return to pre-1967 borders.

    Indeed Israel fully controls the the West Bank and Israel's security forces regularly make excursions into "Palestinian" land without authorization. So they're allowed to police it but they are not responsible for Palestinian welfare or equal employment opportunities. In terms of avoiding rocket attacks, well, they frequently conduct raids and they are doing everything possible. Their security stance would not be improved in the slightest by openly annexing the entirety of the West Bank; it would just add responsibility for the welfare of the Palestinians with no further benefit to Israel.

    And then? Implement a Kashmir-like "solution"?

  • SoylentGray

    SoylentGray Correct answer

    7 years ago

    First, They already have, and that is part of the reason for the conflict in the first place.

    What it seems like you are suggesting is that they go in and remove the existing inhabitants from Palestine all together. The truth is none of the other Arab nations want the Palestinians either. They are from Arab tribes that have a history of conflict with their Arab neighbors. They have no wealth to speak of and bring little to no skill to anyone that would take them in. So they would become a burden on any state that granted them asylum. There are over 4 million Palestinians that would have to be resettled in lands that are already claimed in whatever nation did accept them.

    Israel wants to have a Jewish state, and the Palestinians are unwilling to submit to their rule, or even to peacefully coexist with the Jewish Israelis. The Israeli position is that it is unreasonable to expect them to submit to terror attacks and rocket attacks on its people from the Palestinians. So coexistence, which has been attempted since the 1970's, has failed.

    Since no nation seems willing to accept that Palestinians, the other option that Israel would have for removing them would be Genocide of the Palestinian people. I would hope that everyone would understand why that is not an option that Israel would realistically consider.

    So for now, Israel's only real option appears to be to neutralize the Palestinians' ability to make war on Israel.

    This is not a terrible answer, but I think it's a bit misleading to say that Israel already has, and that's part of the reason for the conflict. The conflict was going on well before 1967, and Israel does not currently control about half of the West Bank and the entirety of Gaza.

    @Avi, Not sure of the objection on those grounds. I suppose, *They already had*, since tense would be important here. For Israel to do so again would require those areas to not *currently* be under their control.

    It's not only about nobody wanting to take the Palestinians in, but also about them wanting to stay n their homeland, which they reside in from before the Exodus of the Israelian from Egypt ... if they were resettled they'd just be a minority n a new home.

    @johannes - You should make that an answer instead of a comment on a 4 year old answer.

    @johannes, the Jewish exodus from Egypt took place at 5th cent BC. Arabs have settled in the land of Israel in 7th cent. AD

    IMO the silent majority of Palestinians would prefer to coexist with Israel; the corrupt "leaders" at the top hold their power by crushing all resistance, and prefer the current situation where they leverage Palestinian suffering to move the world into providing immense sums of aid, from which they can skim of the top.

License under CC-BY-SA with attribution


Content dated before 7/24/2021 11:53 AM