What should Israel do?

2456

Comments

  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    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.

    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.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    dayan wrote:
    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.
  • shiraz
    shiraz Posts: 528
    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.

    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.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    FinsburyParkCarrots wrote:
    You should have got the gist of my argument from the first post. Israel should start thinking long term.

    But what would that entail?
  • surferdude
    surferdude Posts: 2,057
    dayan wrote:
    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.
    I'm sure you already know why keeping the land but giving compensation is not acceptable. How would your logterm feelings for me be if I just took a chunk of your land by force but then offered you monetary compensation. That the UN has given theoretical sanction tho this is no surprise, they're the ones who created this mess to start with, with the creation of Israel. This was not acceptable to Britain with regards to the Falkland Island, and it won't be acceptable to any country I would think.
    dayan wrote:
    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.
    Israeli control of holy sites has generally been unobtrusive to Jews and holy site administration. It has certainly caused more than one issue regarding access for non-Jews.

    Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.
    “One good thing about music,
    when it hits you, you feel to pain.
    So brutalize me with music.”
    ~ Bob Marley
  • zcyrus
    zcyrus Posts: 22
    I agree with you about the religous aspects of your argument to a certain extent. But as Thomas Friedman has said, at the end of the day everybody has mother, and the math matters. Is it really possible to kill or capture every member of Hamas or Hizbullah? The Israeli army was in Lebanon for 18 years, with very little success. I've even heard it refered to as the Israeli Vietnam. So invasion and overwhelming force doesn't work in these situations. The most frustrating thing about the US approach to the world is that if you refuse to talk to a group of people, you have no idea if a solution can be reached. I'm just saying try it. If it doesn't work, than you try something else. But to secure Lebanon, which hasn't been secured since 1975 will probably take hundreds of thousands of soldiers. If you talk first, you are much more likely to get other countries to help you out with the massive force that will be needed.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    zcyrus wrote:
    I agree with you about the religous aspects of your argument to a certain extent. But as Thomas Friedman has said, at the end of the day everybody has mother, and the math matters. Is it really possible to kill or capture every member of Hamas or Hizbullah? The Israeli army was in Lebanon for 18 years, with very little success. I've even heard it refered to as the Israeli Vietnam. So invasion and overwhelming force doesn't work in these situations. The most frustrating thing about the US approach to the world is that if you refuse to talk to a group of people, you have no idea if a solution can be reached. I'm just saying try it. If it doesn't work, than you try something else. But to secure Lebanon, which hasn't been secured since 1975 will probably take hundreds of thousands of soldiers. If you talk first, you are much more likely to get other countries to help you out with the massive force that will be needed.

    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).
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    surferdude wrote:
    I'm sure you already know why keeping the land but giving compensation is not acceptable. How would your logterm feelings for me be if I just took a chunk of your land by force but then offered you monetary compensation. That the UN has given theoretical sanction tho this is no surprise, they're the ones who created this mess to start with, with the creation of Israel. This was not acceptable to Britain with regards to the Falkland Island, and it won't be acceptable to any country I would think.Israeli control of holy sites has generally been unobtrusive to Jews and holy site administration. It has certainly caused more than one issue regarding access for non-Jews.

    Israel is stuck between a rock and a hard place, that's for sure.

    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.
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    dayan wrote:
    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).

    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.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • zcyrus
    zcyrus Posts: 22
    dayan wrote:
    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'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.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    All right. Seeing as how I'm in Israel and it's the middle of the night I'm gonna go to bed, but I look forward to responding to anyone else's ideas when I get up in the morning. Please feel free to post in my absence.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    zcyrus wrote:
    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.

    My pleasure.
  • dayan
    dayan Posts: 475
    Abookamongstthemany wrote:
    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.

    Yes, but what would that change in plan look like, taking into account that Israel must continue to protect its civilians in the here and now?
  • Abookamongstthemany
    Abookamongstthemany Posts: 8,209
    dayan wrote:
    Yes, but what would that change in plan look like, taking into account that Israel must continue to protect its civilians in the here and now?

    Give back the occupied land and lay of the offensive. Don't give land back in one area then take more in another. I'll leave the maps and whatnot to the pros but I'm sure they could reach some sort of compromise. Afair offer from both sides is possible, imo.
    If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.

    Man is least himself when he talks in his own person. Give him a mask, and he will tell you the truth.
    -Oscar Wilde
  • shiraz
    shiraz Posts: 528
    I think one of the problems is Israel is not learning from past mistakes, living in the present and only thinks about the near future, while Palestinians are still living in the past, don't think about today (=reality) nor the future. Don't laugh, but a peace process is the same as love goes - full with compromises on both sides. Lets face it, Palestinians were never willing to compromise. Sure, Ariel is on their land, but its now a city, a big city. Why can't they accept another pice of land in exchange? And about their people right to return to Palestain: sure, I personaly think their people have every right to come back, but look at the reality - Israel itself is has one of the highest number of residents per square, and its a very small country. Now think about the future country of Palestine, it's gonna be smaller, much smaller than Israel. There are millions of Palestinians who actually want to come back here (I'm not talking about potential) where will they be? There is not enough room for everybody, and that's why the solution gotta be something else than letting everybody the right to come back. For example, restricted quantity of people per year (the same thing happens naturally with jews who come to settle in Israel). But they don't want to even hear about it.

    And what about us? Why can't we return all the prisoners who sit here without a trail, we don't even use them as a negotiative means, they only cost us more money and more problems. And the road-blocks? Clearly unnecessary in any way you'll look at it. Hamas? sure, it is a HUGE problem to talk to someone who don't think you got the right to exist, but we didn't even tried to.

    I can go on and on with examples but I think you're getting the point: As long as Israe's/Palestain's way of thinking stays the same, I don't see any solution in the near future no matter how many withdrawal we're gonna pull off.
  • FinsburyParkCarrots
    FinsburyParkCarrots Seattle, WA Posts: 12,223
    dayan wrote:
    But what would that entail?

    Inductive rather than deductive reasoning, maybe: a rightfully paranoid sense, that your apparent allies are your inevitable, and most decisive, enemies. :(
  • enharmonic
    enharmonic Posts: 1,917
    I think that Israel should prepare for its destruction.

    Consider that no one seems too concerned about Bin Ladin and Al queda in the Mountains of Pakistan. Consider also that the Taliban is regaining control in parts of Afghanistan. Next, consider that Al Queda has many sympathizers in Pakistand, and Musharaff hangs onto power by a thread.

    A few small terror attacks here and there to keep the "Axis of Justice" on their toes while Al-Queda solidifies its operations in Pakistan. Once Al-Queda has that, they will lead a coup to overthrow Musharaff, and take possession of Pakistan's nukes. I doubt that the Taliban will help them...they simply complicate things. they are the red herring in all of this.

    You can figure out the rest. Starting with buhbye Israel.
    new music: http://www.myspace.com/blackbirdsymphonique

    old music: http://www.myspace.com/slowloader
  • Ahnimus
    Ahnimus Posts: 10,560
    shiraz wrote:
    about Israel-Palestain

    Is that a typo?

    Or do you really call it Palestain?
    I necessarily have the passion for writing this, and you have the passion for condemning me; both of us are equally fools, equally the toys of destiny. Your nature is to do harm, mine is to love truth, and to make it public in spite of you. - Voltaire
  • shiraz
    shiraz Posts: 528
    Ahnimus wrote:
    Is that a typo?

    Or do you really call it Palestain?

    It should be Palestine, It was a typo error.
  • SundaySilence
    SundaySilence Posts: 537
    dayan wrote:
    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.


    In the short term, while Hezbollah missles are raining down, target the enemy with minimum possible collateral damage. But there is no precedent for a large offensive millitary action destroying an organization like Hezbollah. It should be clear to the deciders, if they want peace, that this tactic doesn't work by now.

    It seems there is an of action-movie sort of fantasy idea that affects people's minds in these situations. That if only we "get tough" with these terrorists they will roll over. In fact, terrorist actions are designed to provoke exactly the type of incompetent, heavy-handed approach we are seeing from the Israelis.

    The more force you apply, the more innocent bystanders get killed, and the more recruits join the terrorists. That is happening as we speak in Lebanon. Israel is radicalizing the whole country against them. Hezbollah will move into power vacums created by the bombing. Hezbollah is going to be a significantly larger player than it is now. And even if Israel were able to kill every one of them, Syria or Iran or both would then create afreash a new terror organization to destabilize the region.

    There are precedents for destroying such groups through diplomacy, economic redevelopment, popular protest, external pressure from moderate players nominally supportive of the terror group's goals, and time. It does take a lot of time, and patience. But there isn't any alternative. This was essentially the route Lebanon was on. The Israelis just set them back to square one.

Categories