What should Israel do?

Ahnimus wrote:

Release all women and children from their prisons. Return the Shebaa farms to Lebanon as agreed to in UN resolutions and return the Golan Heights to Syria. Get the fuck out of Gaza and the West Bank and treat Arabs as people.

I think at that point the "terrorists" won't have any motivation.

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.

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:

Oh, I was answering seriously, dayan. A deft, intelligent political analyst with recourse to clever assessment of the CIA's involvement, in exploiting Israel. for the destablisation of the Middle East (with view to getting Syrian and Iranian oil), would forecast wisely that Israel might ultimately become a liability in ensuring that the passage of profit heads to the States.

You're clearly not informed on the subject, and incapable of serious political debate.

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.

Ahnimus wrote:

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.

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.

zcyrus wrote:

Is Israel better off now than it was fourty years ago? Their civillians are still under an intense threat. Hizbullah and Hamas are stronger than ever. Israel is more insecure than maybe anytime in recent history. They need to talk with Hamas and Hizbullah and see if a political solution can be raised. I think by all acounts the latest response by Israel (which they have a right to do) is disporpotional and empowering their enemies. When you refuse to talk to your opponents, you will never come to a compromise. They were willing to talk to the PLO, a terrorist orginazation, and they came close to a lasting peace in the mid-90's. Rabin's assassination, by an Israeli fundamentalist, was the biggest blow to this crisis.

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'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.