I have earlier commented on Andrew Stunich's article, Israel Cannot Achieve Peace with Hamas, at this website. I follow it up with this discussion regarding likely future policy of Israel towards the Palestinians and its Muslim neighbours.

If one bases one's conclusions on: (1) international law, (2) the behaviour of the West during the Cold War, (3) the implemented strategies of Israel since the fifties, and (4) the probable policy of a Western country threatened by total destruction, one can make the following prognosis regarding a future Israeli policy towards the Palestinians and other Muslim countries. It is a scenario and thus based on a considerable number of assumptions. Therefore, it is not possible to state an exact probability for the implementation of the policy. Let's just say that it seems more probable in the end than any other scenario.

One possible endgame for Israel in its fight against its aggressors can be called “MADIME” (MUTUAL ASSURED DESTRUCTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST). The conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, with Muslim states on latter's side, is about territory, only to a very small degree. It is mainly caused by religious reasons, i.e. Islamic doctrine. Western states that treat the conflict as purely or mainly a territorial issue have little grasp of the problem. Therefore, their proposed solutions have never succeeded. Muslims want to eliminate Israel from the region owing to their religion. That is true both for extremists and the moderate Muslims. The conflict is a one proof of the relevance of Huntington's thesis of the clash of civilizations and lack of sound Western interpretation of real Islamic doctrine.

Military policies that can stop Islamic terrorism in the short, medium and long term by eliminating the terrorist organizations in Palestine; backed by Iran and other Muslim rogue states, Al Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood and other terrorist outfits in the territories around Israel will then be used. If they are not effective enough, the only solution is evidently to create an empty buffer zone between Israel and the Palestinian territory. It means that the Palestinians will be pushed back more and more; at last, they may perhaps be made to leave Gaza and (part of ) of the West Bank, if the rockets of the Islamists reach long enough. If the government of Gaza or the West Bank fail to control the Islamists, they will be treated as if they collaborate with the Islamists. They are then not viable governments.

Israel has put itself in a weak position by allowing any organization to target and kill its citizens regularly by using rockets (from abroad). The West behaves as if it is weak, and would likely behave in similar manner for some years from now—i.e., refusing to see the global Islamic threat. What we will see then in the future? If the West continues to weaken its support for Israel, and the Arab countries, Iran and the Muslim world, in general, increase their threat to its existence, a chain of events would likely follow. Israel will decide not to be annihilated alone. Its soldiers always risk individual annihilation in performing their duties. Now we talk about civilizational annihilation.

1. At some time in the future, when Israel has suffered significant causalities owing to rocket attacks and other aggression from across its borders, it may put all Arab states on notice that it will free itself from further terrorist acts by eliminating territories around it to create a larger enough empty security zone between Islam and its neighbors. Israel has the right to do that if no other means—diplomatic or low-intensity military operations—failed to stop the attacks. If Israel has the necessary means to do it. But it has to build its case for the destruction of the Islamist organizations and Muslim aggression very skillfully before it acts to avoid UN reprisals. But in the end, it will act anyway.
   

2. The Israeli government may at some point inform Muslim governments in the Middle East and the Muslim world that if Israel is attacked by Muslim states putting it in a difficult military situation, it will destroy the most important Muslim religious sites in the Middle East, wherever located: the sites in Mecca will be the prime target. The reason is that the conflict is basically religious; the Palestinian conflict has been maintained for 60 years and Israel is attacked for mainly religious reasons; and that Muslims are trying to destroy the Jewish religion and state mainly for religious reasons. The arguments such as that the Palestinians only want to go back to their homes are false and are mainly for Western consumption. The Middle East conflict has been waged in the first place, and then maintained, by Arab governments to attain a religious goal (and also to keep the attention away from their own failures).

3. The next step in the scenario can be that, if the Jewish state faces annihilation because of Muslim military and political aggression, Israel may threaten its enemies with destruction of their major population centers in the Middle East, if it is not left alone. It may target oil wells in the Middle East to turn them nonproductive for generations, such as by destroying them or contaminating with radioactive material. Dirty bombs will make it possible to close down the oil production for the next few generations.
   

By doing so, Israel will pin hope that the West will reluctantly back her at that time. It will also make many Arab countries very hesitant to continue the present path of war against Israel.  The Arabs would realize that, every time they get closer to likely annihilation of the Jewish state, it also brings them closer to their own destruction. This is MADIME: Mutual Assured Destruction In the Middle East (perhaps Israel will also target other aggressive Muslim states). Muslims in these states will be help responsible for the actions of their more faithful, i.e. fanatic, brothers, who have started and are engaged in the jihad. That will force the Muslim majority to rein in the militant movements in their states.

The issue as to what countries do, when threatened by total destruction, is not treated much in literature. However, the United States decided to risk annihilation of itself during the Cold War, whilst promising to exterminate Russia, and parts of Eastern Europe and China in return. So did Great Britain and France. There is no reason to believe that Israel will do less and not bring down the temple, when faced with destruction. The policy that the Western public accepted during the Cold War will be adopted by Israel too. So if the world, particularly the Muslim world, wants to avoid a Cold War scenario, they must work on stopping the growing aggression towards Israel by Palestinians and various Arab states.

This scenario seems extreme now, but quite likely may turn a reality in the future. Given the current chain of events, there are many reasons to expect that this is more likely to happen sometime in future. There are other scenarios, but this one seems most probable. The lack of foresight amongst current Western and Arab politicians make them fail to grasp what may happen in a number of years. However, before it happens, there will probably be an exodus of Israeli citizens to other countries, to countries that will receive them. Given the alarming growth of anti-Semitism in Western countries in recent years, many countries will not accept Jews (the 30's is back). Forced to stay in Israel, even many nonviolent Israelis will feel pushed to the wall and would be determined to perish, taking their enemies along.

There are, of course, a number of scenarios but one inescapable fact is that a large number of Israeli citizens will never want to leave their country (besides those who want to but are not able). They will tell the world that "Nobody but we (and our descendants) will ever govern, or live in, the territory of Israel. And the solution, MADIME, will naturally secure that goal for a considerable length of time. The devotion of many Israelis to their country is probably lo ness stronger than the faith of Muslim. There is then a possibility that the traditional, real religion of Islam will, owing to policy changes by Europe and/or the US, disappear as an aggressive religion before does the state of Israel.

So the question is: What is then the solution to the Palestinian problem?

No government can force another country to accept a peace deal, which threatens the survival of that country. This probably means that there cannot be a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians for the foreseeable future. And we cannot expect the current worsening situation to continue for a long time. Nobody can demand that a state continuous suffer deadly attacks from a foreign territory against its citizens. The Palestinian government is not viable, if it cannot control the terrorists and agents of other Muslim governments, namely Iran, on its territory.

According to international law, Israel can, of course, use reasonable force to stop these continuous attacks. And as long as the attacks continue, the use of stronger force will be reasonable given that warnings have been given and that lesser force is evidently not enough (Ordinary precautions concerning civilians are observed, of course). The long-term solution will probably be an empty buffer zone between Israel and the Muslim territories mainly created by Israeli military actions. If attacks stop, the distance can decrease again.

And what will then be the solution regarding the relation between Israel and neighbors? This is the main issue; it keeps the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel alive. MADIME then gives the Israeli government considerable power to influence all solutions. It means that there willl never be a solution to the Middle East conflict that is much better for the Arabs than for Israel. Israel will thus continue to be a country, dominated by Western ideals, in the Middle East for some generations at least. If Western governments try to impose a solution unacceptable for Israel, they will just shorten the time for MADIME to happen. Knowing that they will not do it, Arabs and Western socialists and left-leaning social liberals have met something they hate: "reality".