Options
What should Israel do?
dayan
Posts: 475
So I've been reading a lot about how terrible Israel's actions have been in Lebanon on all sorts of different threads on this site. And I am willing to give many people (although not all of you) the benefit of the doubt, and assume that your anger grows out of a genuine horror at the loss of human life, and not out of a hatred of Israel itself. I accept that the death of an innocent civilian is a tragedy. My question is what would you have Israel do? And this is a political question. Please think politically when answering. As a sovereign state Israel's first priority must be to protect its citizens. How would you prefer that Israel fight Hezbollah, a group religiously committed to Israel's destruction, that hides among civilians while attacking Israel? I am not interested in hearing how morally wrong it is to kill civilians. I know this already. I want to know if anyone can actually give me a well thought out political alternative to what Israel is now doing.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I think at that point the "terrorists" won't have any motivation.
How bout after they give gaza to the palestinians, the palestinians dont use it to set up rockets and mortars? THen cry when their shit gets owned by israel....
:rolleyes:
What your suggesting is that Israel give in to every demand made of them by their enemies without any sort of quid pro quo. However I don't see how you could consider this a viable POLITICAL position for Israel to take. Anyone who has followed the political situation here should be aware that Israeli concessions, such as their complete withdrawl from Lebanon in 2000, was seen as a sign of weakness, and encouraged radicals such as Hezbollah and Hamas, who interpreted the withdrawl to mean that with enough time and blood Israel could be wiped out. With regard to the Shebaa farms in particular, the UN has itself recognized this piece of land to belong to Syria and not Lebanon. It is merely used by Hezbollah as an excuse to attack Israel. Israel already pulled out of Gaza and got a terrible result. What insentive do they have to continue with such withdrawls in the West Bank? Lastly, why do you assume that even if Israel took all of these actions that they would no longer be attacked? Hamas and Hezbollah, as should be clear to anyone reading their charters, are religiously committed to destroying Israel. For them fighting Israel is a divine commandment which they take very seriously. Their grievance is not with any Israeli action, but with Israel's existence. It seems more than likely that to take your course of action would embolden these groups and lead to more violence rather than less.
I think the feeling of complete hatred for israel and the desire to destroy it stems from these problems. If Israel does what is right and not what is politically benneficial to them, over time this could heal itself. perhaps you are right and it will seem as a weakness to extremists, but it will discourage future extremists and groups like Hizbullah will start to lose support. Israel's current solution only increases support for groups like Hizbullah and al-qaida.
I asked a serious question, and expect serious answers. If you're just gonna post throw away crap like this please do it elsewhere.
Request that the UN take a role in having a presence on border security and a policing presence at some holy sites.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
You're clearly not informed on the subject, and incapable of serious political debate.
I'll post pithy comments. If you perceive them as throwaway, you need better skills in close reading.
Even if you are right, and I don't think you are, Israel has to act to protect the lives of its civilians here and now. They don't have the luxury to try such solutions which could take generations to materialize when Israelis are being killed here and now in the present. Also, if you haven't read the Hamas charter I suggest you do so. In it they draw on such sources as the Protocals of the Elders of Zion to place the blame for every world catastrophy since the French Revolution at the feet of the Jews. They also say that fighting Israel is a religious obligation mandated by God, and that God does not allow any compromise to be made over Muslim control of land. They believe that any land once controlled by Muslims is Muslim land forever and can not be given away under any circumstance. Lastly, Hamas does not believe in Palestinian nationalism. For them a Palestinian state is only one step towards the reconstitution of the ancient Caliphate. Given all of this, I really don't think that any concessions will lead to a lasting peace with these people.
I have no idea what the first part means, but I don't appreciate your ad hominum attack. If you would like to explain yourself in a manner accessable to all that's fine, but don't start with the "your stupid" retorts.
There are reasons that an extremists parliament would be elected by a distressed people. What I am saying is that the underlying issues need to be addressed. This war will not protect Israel from the root problems and it will take generations to obtain peace. That's the reality Israel needs to face.
From an Israeli point of view the 67' borders are indefensible. Israel would seek in final status talks to adjust to border slightly to make them more easily defended. This has been given theoretical sanction by the UN. Israel has also offered in the past to compensate the Palestinians for land taken in this way with land elsewhere from within 67' Israel. UN peace keepers, I shouldn't have to say, have a terrible record all over the world. They certainly did no good in Southern Lebanon. As for Holy Sites, I'm not sure what problem you're addressing here. Israeli control over holy sites has generally been non-intrusive. Israel provides for their security, but leaves everything else up to the local authorities of the particular faith.
I agree that this will indeed take generations to resolve, but I don't think that it is a given that distressed people will elect fundamentalists to represent them. (and I don't mean to say that you suggested otherwise) I believe that through negotiation these issues can be dealt with, but until the societies surrounding Israel elect leaders for themselves who are willing to negotiate, and who are strong enough to confront the fundamentalist elements within their own society, I'm not sure that Israel has any alternative to military action in defense of their civilians. Certainly they can not do nothing in the face of repeated attacks on Israeli civilians and soldiers.
Once again: Shebaa farms belongs to Syria (according to Syria, UN & Israel).
prisoners: aren't you forgeting OUR prisoners? I think dayan talked about Lebanon-Hizbullah situation, not about our other issues. Hizbullah has NO right to exist as a terror group for the sake of sympathy to the Palestinian people or the Iraqi people. I think there are only 2 Lebanese prisoners, the most importent one is called Samir Kuntar, a terrorist who got into Israel and killed Israeli civilians (the Haran family) including a 4 years old girl. He had a fair trail and was sent to life-time on prison. Why should we release that guy? would you do it?
On a completely other note, since Iran is funding Hizbullah, why don't we try to cut off their money. When oil goes to $10 instead of $100 it will be tough for countries to throw their money at terrorist orginizations. It will force these countries to develop real economies, trade with the world, and force change through trade. This should be the goal of US foreign policy, not the neoconservative, invade a country and "democratize" them.
I think you mean an ad hominem attack. Ad hominem attacks are attacks on the messenger or proponent of an argument, rather than the argument itself. I didn't do that. Now, semantics aside, I didn't infer you to be stupid, I was just stating that you weren't taking into account precedents of CIA behaviour, or even old British and French colonial patterns of behaviour, worldwide, in the modern capitalist era. According to this pattern, Israel would ultimately find its pact torn up when the colonial centre gets a bit desperate for resources. Examples: Ah, that's the fun part. Research, and come back to me.
I'll leave aside your second paragraph because I agree in principle with most of it. I think the difference between Hamas/Hezbollah and the PLO is very important. The PLO was/is a secular, nationalist group. As such they had more limited aims, and were more willing and able to compromise since they didn't percieve themselves to be divinely commanded to carry on the fight forever until victory. That said, at the end of the day negotiations failed even with the PLO, and in a big way, and I'm not so sure it can all be attributed to the Rabin assassination. In any event, I don't see how Israel can seriously negotiate with groups that don't even recognize Israel's right to exist.
OK, now I think I'm getting the gist of your argument. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that America supports Israel because it gives America important leverage in an oil rich region, and that once America no longer is dependent on ME oil, Israel will get dropped. I don't see how this is an answer to the question of what Israel should do in its current political situation.
You should have got the gist of my argument from the first post. Israel should start thinking long term.
We need to talk to Hamas who is (unfortunately) the elected party of the Palestinians. Hizbullah in an armed force who took control over southern Lebanon and stayed there after we moved out. This is a none official army/country (southern Lebanon = Hizbullah land) in Leabnon who represent nothing but itself ==> we should not talk to these people, it is pointless. We tried that before, and look where we are today.
But what would that entail?
Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I accept your argument, though I disagree with it. It just seems somewhat naive to think that one can talk to someone devoted to your destruction after they have already launched an unprovoked attack on you. Not to mention that talking to Hezbollah as an equal partner gives them legitimacy, which they do not deserve, and more importantly, which would further strengthen them (certainly not in Israel's interest).
I don't care about what is acceptable. I'm talking about political reality. Israel is a country that has lived under the threat of annihilation ever since its founding. It has had to fight for its existence on average every six or seven years. They are not simply going to, nor should they be expected to, compromise on having defensible borders just because the Palestinians insist on having everything exactly as they want it. That is the whole point of negotiation and compromise. Both sides give up something to get something back. In this case the Palestinians must accept that Israel can not, for its on security, go back to the 67' line.
You can bomb the world into pieces but not into peace.
You can't ever expect to live in peace by killing your neighbors. You are only bringing more violence upon yourself for years to come. Since this strategy is obviously not working, how about changing plans, learn from your mistakes and try a new approach? I don't think things could end up much worse.
Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
-Oscar Wilde
I'm just shocked that a discussion on this board didn't turn into a rant of name calling and accusations. Thanks for sharing your opinions even though we disagree.