It takes 2 to make war?

Think again: For about a century now, Jews have been trying to live peaceably in what was once called Palestine, and is now Israel.
All that time, Arabs have waged war. The only thing that varied was the intensity of the conflict.

During most of that century, the Jews were well aware that most Arabs didn't want them there. And they reciprocated every time, usually in proportion to the attacks made. A sniper attack on a kibutz warranted an equally 'minor' retaliaton, whereas a full scale invasion would be answered by the near annihilation of an entire army group.

One might claim that it was always a reactive form of warfare (except perhaps in 1967), but at least it was warfare. Well, doh, you might rightfully argue, IT WAS WAR!

Right.

So what has changed? When did war actually cease against Israel? And if you have trouble thinking of a precise date, like I do, then explain to me why Israel has stopped waging war? Unilaterally? As in: The other side DID NOT?

Evelyn Gordon has an article in the JPost that touches on this aspect of the lopsided conflict:

If anyone thought that Israel's withdrawal from Gaza would revive prospects for peace, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas scotched that notion last week. Full withdrawal to the pre-1967 lines is insufficient, he declared: Israel must also concede additional territory inside these lines.

She also mentions something I never knew:

Specifically, Abbas demanded land north and east of the Gaza Strip. This land was indeed on the Arab side of the 1949 armistice lines, but Egypt, which controlled Gaza at the time, traded it to Israel in 1950 in exchange for a larger chunk of land that Israel held in eastern Gaza. This new border was subsequently acknowledged not only by UN Resolution 242, but also by the Oslo Accords, which the Palestinians signed. The PA, therefore, has no conceivable claim to this land: Not only did Israel "purchase" it by ceding a larger bit of land to Gaza, but the new border was recognized by both the UN and the PA itself.

Gordon then continues to demonstrate how desperate Abbas in fact appears to create ANY other impression than being willing, ready and/or able to actually live in peace with the Jews. No matter what they do, or give away.

The conclusion is inescapable, though very far from new: It is impossible for the Arabs to live in peace with Israel, if it is left up to them. As long as Israel continues to let itself be beaten and bloodied, with only token retaliation, as long as only Israel gives and the Arabs only takes, as long as Israel persists in giving off signals of weakness, indecisiveness, division and even fear, the Arabs will contine their war. By terrorism, attrition, propaganda and - in the not too distant future - direct attacks from old, declared enemies.

Peace must be forced upon your enemy. He must be left in no doubt about the consequences of continuing war. Look at history to see where peace endured, and where it didn't. Only where decisive victories were obtained did peace ensue.

Israel should have taken Yasser Arafat captive, should have given him a fair trial and then hanged him. With a detailed motivation in the court sentence. It should have been clear to any of his successors what their fate would be had they copied his performance and actions.

He could have served as an example of what happens if you challenge the state of Israel. Now he is an enduring example of what an Arab can get away with. A shining example, judging from Abbas' attitude. Wage war on the Jews, and they won't even acknowledge that they're bleeding and suffering. Murder them slowly, and nothing much happens.

Please read all of Evelyn Gordon's article. In case you were in any doubt, it'll give you a taste of what's to come.