MERGED--> all Israel/Lebanon conflict discussion, Pt. II

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
STING2 said:



The Vietcong and the justness of US wars should probably be discussed in a different thread anyways.:wink:

You're right, this discussion would be for another thread. And despite being quite an amateur Vietnam war buff, I'd have to do some research to respond to your analysis of what happened in Vietnam.

I'll give you this--you seem very knowledgable, and you sound very convincing in all of your arguments. Yet your interpretation of events always sounds just a little too good to be true.
 
STING2 said:


If you think there is a better way for Israel to defend against the thousands of rockets been fired into its cities and the terrorist incursions across its border, state what this better plan is instead of simply criticizing what the Israeli's are doing.


First off, let me concede an obvious point here. Obviously, Israel's current campaign will be "fine" in terms of preserving the existance of the Israeli state. When this is over, Israel will be fine, Lebanon will be in shambles,and Hezbollah will be regrouping and recruiting somewhere else. If all that Israel wants is to maintain a modicum of safety for it's people and continue it's wonderful course of technological and economic advancement, then yes you are probably right, Israel will be successful. Will Israel be successful in ending the factors that breed terrorism and that cause Israel to remain an armed camp (albeit a prosperous and technologically advanced armed camp)? I doubt it.

But now to the hard question. And it is a hard question. It's been much easier to complain about what's being done than to suggest what should be done instead. But I'll take a shot.

First off, Israel could have offered to work with the Lebanese government to take on Hezbollah. They could have said "Look, this group is launching rockets into our country, killing our people, they're crossing the border and wreaking havoc and we can't tolerate it. We know you can't do anything to stop them, but we have to try. You want Hezbollah out of your country. We want them away from our border. Let's work together. We have the military power to do what you can't. All we need is your permission and your cooperation in taking them on." The incursions could have been announced in advance. The Lebanese government could have assisted in getting civilains out of the area where the buffer zone would be created before an agreed upon deadline (like the one we had for the first Gulf War and the invasion of Iraq). Some might argue that if Hezbollah knew the invasion was coming, they would have packed up and moved away from the border with the civilians. Which would be fine. Everyone clears out of the buffer zone, and no one gets killed. Then together Lebanese and Israeli military focus on the issue of the kidnapped soldiers and further weakening Hezbollah.

I'm sure there will be many to tell me why this scenario is totally unrealistic and impractical and I'm ready to hear those arguments. After all these situations are usually not simple and don't have simple solutions, but this is a start at answering Sting2's challenge--if Israel shouldn't be doing what they're doing now, then what? They HAD to do something, after all.
 
diamond said:
Israel's war separates the decent left from the indecent left
By Dennis Prager
Tuesday, July 25, 2006




I believe the Left has been wrong on virtually every great moral issue in the last 30 years.

During that period, it was wrong on the Cold War -- it devoted far more energy to fighting anti-communism than to fighting communism.

It was wrong for attacking Israel for its destruction of Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor.

It was wrong on welfare.

It was wrong in its demanding less morally and intellectually from black Americans than from all other Americans.

It was wrong in advocating bilingual education for children of immigrants.

It was wrong in generally holding American society rather than violent criminals responsible for violent crime.

It was wrong in imposing its view on abortion on America through the courts rather than through the democratic process.

It was wrong in teaching a generation of men and women that men and women differ because of socialization not because of innate sex differences.

It was wrong in reducing sex to a purely biological and health issue for a generation of young Americans.

It was wrong in identifying "flag waving" with fascism.

It was wrong in supporting the teachers' unions rather than students and educational reform.

It was wrong in allying itself with trial lawyers and blocking tort reform.

It was wrong in blocking the military from recruiting on campuses and teaching a generation of young Americans that "war is not the answer" when war is at times the one moral answer.

It was wrong in arguing that America is not based on Judeo-Christian values, but on secular ones like Western Europe.

It was wrong in advancing multiculturalism, which is an extreme form of moral relativism that holds all cultures morally identical and which is a doctrine designed to undermine American national identity.

In just about every instance, one could say that the Left was foolish, the Left was naive, the Left was wrong, even that the Left was dangerous. But in all of those cases, one could imagine a decent person holding any or even all of these positions.

But we now have a bright line that divides the decent -- albeit usually wrong -- Left from the indecent Left.

The Left's anti-Israel positions until now were based, at least in theory, on its opposition to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its belief in the "cycle of violence" between Israel and its enemies. However, this time there is no occupied land involved and the violence is not a cycle with its implied lack of a beginning. There is a clear aggressor -- a terror organization devoted to Islamicizing the Middle East and annihilating Israel -- and no occupation.

That is why the Israeli Left is almost universally in favor of Israel's war against Hezbollah. Amos Oz, probably Israel's best-known novelist and leading spokesman of its Left, a lifetime critic of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:

"Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. . . . This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages. . . . There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah."

Likewise, another longtime liberal critic of Israel, historian and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, wrote last week:

"As one who rejects war, I regret Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon last week, as I deplored Israeli attacks in population centers and on infrastructure in Gaza. . . . Yet, given the rejectionism of both Hamas and Hezbollah . . . is the path of negotiations actually open to Israel? . . . There is no moral equivalence between enemies here. . . . It seems urgent [to] reaffirm foundational support for Israel. . . . The fury of anti-Israel rage among Arabs and Muslims is accounted for only partially by the present conflict. It resuscitates . . . the long European habit of scapegoating Jews. . . . No one should think that embedded contempt for Jews -- anti-Semitism -- is not part of the current crisis."

Amos Oz and James Carroll are men of the Left who have been tested and passed the most clarifying moral litmus test of our time -- Israel's fight for existence against the primitives, fanatics and sadists in Hezbollah and Hamas and elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world who wish to destroy it. Anyone on the Left who cannot see this is either bad, a useful idiot for Islamic terrorists, anti-Semitic or all three. There is no other explanation for morally condemning Israel's war on Hezbollah.

You know I could rip to shreds that tripe at the beginning of this post, but I'm not going to since it would just take this thread off topic. But you see the appeal, don't you? Like I said in another thread, the Right just makes the better movie. That litany of the Leftness wrong just sounds so strong, so muscular, like John Wayne, Mel Gibson, and Clint Eastwood all roled into wrong. It sounds simple, certain, sure. Black and white. Good guys and bad guys. Tough. It makes a great blockbuster action flick. But it makes for crap policy. But in a world where politics has increasingly become a form of entertainment, the Right wins the day hands down.

But. . .back to topic. While I know there is widespread support in Israel for what is currently happening in Lebanon, it's not like there aren't voices of dissent IN Israel as well. Several examples, including the soldier who went to jail rather than fight in Lebanon, are on this thread if you've taken the time to read them.
 
Generally, I support Israel and know it must defend itself against terrorists. I don't automatically support everything their politicians do, however. I didn't like Sharon, and I don't think I like the current leader much better. I need to do some research on Hezbollah, I really don't know much about this particular terrorist outfit. Alll I really know is that I hate terrorism and condemn people for participating in terrorist activities.
 
I support Israel
and a mid-east settlement.

a unilateral settlement from Israel
is ridiculous

would Israel accept one from the Palestinians?

a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)
 
STING2 said:


Really, is that what happened in 2001 with Al Quada in Afghanistan? Israel has been dealing with terrorism longer than any other country on the planet, and they know full well what is effective and what is not in combating it.

Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

:scratch:
 
Sherry Darling said:


Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

:scratch:

Thats a question you should ask those who keep attacking them for no legitimate reason. My point has been Israel has done what it needs to do to survive and thrive in the middle of a region that has been trying to destroy it for 58 years. Yet, Israel has one of the highest standards of living in the world. They are democracy. They have achieved their dream and will continue to defend it when they are attacked.

When was the last time any Arab country or Arab terrorist organization was able to put a dent in or stop, Israel's progress as a prosperous nation? Look at what Israel has achieved as country for the past 58 years. What have the Palestinians terror groups and Hezbollah achieved? What has Lebanon and Syria achieved?

The world still has to fight terrorism and crime, and will probably have to on some level for an indefinite time. Israel success and effectivness has been their ability to survive and thrive against the unbelievable odds against them. To suggest that because they have not ended global terrorism or the need to defend themselves, that their policies have been ineffective is simply absurd.
 
deep said:


a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)


What's glaringly apparent is our inability to learn from the mistakes and battles in the past. CBC Radio played a clip here in Canada a few days ago from the Israel/PLO conflicts of the early '80s. It was a revealing listen, to say the least--you could clearly hear the very same ideological arguments, but with a different cast of characters.

It's truly a mystery to me why we don't learn from this stuff. It might simply be an act of self-preservation from both sides, but the lack of evolution in dialogue is very frustrating from my vantage point.
 
deep said:
I support Israel
and a mid-east settlement.

a unilateral settlement from Israel
is ridiculous

would Israel accept one from the Palestinians?

a settlement that is fair/just? will not be one that Israel finds acceptable
(or the Palestinians, for that matter,
but few seem to even consider the Palestinians)

Israel offered the Palestinians 95% of what they wanted back in 2000. They rejected the offer. Israel offered the Syrians 99% of the Golan Heights, they rejected the offer. Israel pulled out of Lebanon in 2000, and what has been the result, a massive build up of Hezbollah military strength, the launching of thousands of rockets into Israel and incursions to capture and kill Israeli's. Israel just recently pulled out of Gaza, and what was the response, terrorism against Israel.

From 1948 when Israel accepted the UN partition plan rejected by the Palestinians that would have given them the state they supposedly seek, to 2006, Israel has accepted several proposals that have been presented, the Palestinians have rejected every one.

The problem is not Israel, but those who only believe in the use of violence and terrorism in attempting to get what they want and have rejected every peace plan presented to them for 58 years.
 
angelordevil said:



What's glaringly apparent is our inability to learn from the mistakes and battles in the past. CBC Radio played a clip here in Canada a few days ago from the Israel/PLO conflicts of the early '80s. It was a revealing listen, to say the least--you could clearly hear the very same ideological arguments, but with a different cast of characters.

It's truly a mystery to me why we don't learn from this stuff. It might simply be an act of self-preservation from both sides, but the lack of evolution in dialogue is very frustrating from my vantage point.

Israel has what it wants, and independent, prosperous democracy. The Lebanenese and Palestinians continue to live in the same poverty like conditions because they refuse to accept any peace plans offered them and engage in terrorism that has done nothing for their people over 58 years.

Things have changed inside Israel since the early 1980s. The standard of living, health, technology for the people has increased just like it has in other first world countries around the world. Israel has agreed to peace deals that would have created a Palestinian State giving them 95% of what they wanted. They in turn have rejected every peace deal since 1948.

Israel has indeed changed in many ways since the early 1980s, unfortunately, many of their neighbors are stuck in the past.
 
maycocksean said:
I'm sure there will be many to tell me why this scenario is totally unrealistic and impractical and I'm ready to hear those arguments. After all these situations are usually not simple and don't have simple solutions, but this is a start at answering Sting2's challenge--if Israel shouldn't be doing what they're doing now, then what? They HAD to do something, after all.
Thank you for reclaiming the elephant from the closet. :wink:

Militarily speaking, I'm with the majority of posters in here--Israel's current approach is highly unlikely to decisively crush Hezbollah as a militia, it's further inflaming the deep regional distrusts that already exist, and it's resulting in unacceptable losses of civilian life and infrastructure, given both the past and present scope of the threat. Politically speaking, though, I'm far more sympathetic to Israeli pessimism about the prospect that any other parties to the situation (in the Middle East or elsewhere) will ever muster up the resolve and resources necessary to disarm Hezbollah and cut its cords to Tehran and Damascus. And I don't share Sherry's optimism that if Israel only fought terrorism and the hostilities underlying it more "effectively," there would be nothing left to fight. Far too many parties involved still categorically refuse to grant Israel's right to exist where it is, and are wholly unwilling to negotiate that point. I also don't think it's valid to analogize Hezbollah to Hamas. Yes, we can and should debate Israel's handling of the occupied territories and Gaza, as well as whether Israel should embrace negotiations with Hamas on the assumption that they'll eventually come around to fully recognizing Israel's right to exist in exchange for autonomy and peace. But if nothing else (and assuming the fundamental goals of the now-crippled "road map" are still alive and breathing somewhere) Hamas really is based out of what would be the land of the people they claim to speak for, and really is committed to securing autonomy and a viable state for said people. The same simply cannot be said of Hezbollah. Regardless of their political role as a voice for Lebanese Shiites, as a militia group, they're first and foremost a proxy for Iran and Syria, and if their "soldiers" really had service to Lebanon foremost in their minds, they'd instead join the Lebanese army and push for that organization to move into Shebaa farms and confront the IDF there themselves...if Israel's presence there is really the non-negotiable casus belli the Lebanese government's response to UN Resolution 1559 made it out to be, UN disagreement that Shebaa was ever Lebanese territory notwithstanding.

The demand that Lebanon disarm Hezbollah is not new: Resolution 1559 (2004) called for full withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, especially Hezbollah--to which the Lebanese government's response was, essentially, "Nyah nyah, let's see you make us," a challenge to which, not exactly surprisingly, the UN has failed to respond, settling instead for a small and toothless "observer" force, and unhelpfully observing that Lebanon is "confessionally divided," making implementation difficult. It took the assassination of the Lebanese PM in early 2005 to galvanize Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation enough to force Syria out (and Syria is likely quite pleased that all the current misfortunes next door are distracting the UN from their ongoing investigation into Syria's role in that incident). Following a November 2005 attack in which Hezbollah combined the attempted abduction of 11 IDF soldiers with a Katyusha barrage "distraction," the UN twice reiterated its call for Lebanon to implement the rest of the Resolution, again fruitlessly. (This was not the first time Hezbollah had attempted such things; for example in 2000 they abducted 3 IDF soldiers, for which Israel negotiated, and followed through with, the release of over 400 prisoners detained for security reasons; Hezbollah then returned the 3 soldiers, but as corpses unfortunately. As those of us old enough to remember the Lebanese Civil War probably recall, their track record for returning hostages alive, Jewish or otherwise, is not good. Additionally, if you fold in their past bombing campaigns, they are believed to have killed some 258 Americans and 113 Argentinians, as well as smaller numbers of other nationals.) In January 2006 the UN also called on Syria to stop funneling Iranian transfers of arms and personnel to Hezbollah, and to stop funding Hezbollah and hosting training camps for Hezbollah, Hamas, and Kurdish militants. That didn't happen either: the Baathist regime in Damascus may be happy enough to hand over Sunni extremists who resent Alawite domination of majority-Sunni Syria, but where Shiite extremists are concerned, it's generally more profitable for them to side with Iran.

There was a very good article in Sunday's New York Times (registration required) about the nature and scope of Iran's strategic interests in Lebanon, the essential points of which were:
The Islamic Revolution in 1979 was viewed by its clerical leaders as a part of a pan-Muslim movement. Linking up with the Shiite Muslims of southern Lebanon was part of Iran’s efforts to spread its ideological influence. But in building up Hezbollah, the ideological motivation fused with a practical desire to put a force on Israel’s northern border...Iran believed that Israel might pause before attacking it because they would assume Hezbollah would assault the northern border. If Hezbollah emerges weaker, or restrained militarily because of domestic politics, Iran feels it may be more vulnerable.

...If Hezbollah emerges as the primary political force in Lebanon, Arab governments, which have not pressed hard for a cease-fire, may find that in order to deal with Hezbollah they will have to work through Iran..."It is inconceivable for anyone who calls himself a Muslim and who heads an Islamic state to maintain relations under the table with the regime that occupied Jerusalem,” said President Ahmadinejad in an interview on Iranian television this week, in a clear dig against governments like [Egypt's, Jordan's and Saudi Arabia's]. "He cannot take pleasure in the killing of Muslims yet present himself as a Muslim. This is inconceivable, and must be exposed. Allah willing, it will."
By most current estimates, Iran gives Hezbollah roughly $200 million per year (in addition to arms shipments), as well as an additional $15 million for Hezbollah's Beirut-based al-Manar TV station (owing to the circumstances, the link may or may not be active; it was yesterday, but isn't as I type this). However Iran is not thought to host as many Hezbollah training camps as Lebanon and Syria do, perhaps for proximity reasons.

Since references to earlier Hezbollah-IDF skirmishes and Katyusha attacks keep coming up, but numbers have not yet been cited (so far as I can tell), here are lists from Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs of border incidents from May 2000-August 2003 and border incidents resulting in Israeli casualties from May 2000-May 2006. If anyone knows of an analogous Lebanese government source providing similar information from the other side, please post it; I looked, but couldn't find anything.

Because I believe, at this point, that the situation requires a concerted international response, it's easier for me to talk about what Israel shouldn't do (and what the UN should), than about what Israel should do and how the UN might facilitate that. What Israel should not do is continue to use conventional warfare tactics against Hezbollah; the costs to Lebanon at large, not to mention Israel's future standing with its neighbors, for long-term Israeli "success" against Hezbollah are and would be simply too high. What the UN should do is pull together not only a peace and reconstruction plan, but also sufficient, combat-ready international forces to help implement it--and that plan must include a *UN* mandate to oversee Hezbollah's disarmament. And that is going to be the big sticking point: Hezbollah MPs have signed on "in principle" to PM Fouad Siniora's Lebanese peace proposal, on the understanding that disarmament talks between the various Lebanese factions will wait until after the UN has announced the composition and mandate of its forces. However, several Hezbollah MPs have already expressly stated that they will not sign on to any disarmament plan which does not grant sole sovereign authority for ensuring Hezbollah's compliance to the Lebanese government. IMO, such a plan would be virtually guaranteed to fail, which in all likelihood is precisely what Hezbollah--and their friends in Tehran and Damascus--wants.
 
deep said:

Would Israel take an offer from the Palestinians that is 95% of what Israel states they can accept?
Somehow drive the Jews into the sea doesn't have the 95% two state solution ring to it. The failure in 2000 rests on Arafat, even the Saudies blamed him.
 
yolland said:

The demand that Lebanon disarm Hezbollah is not new: Resolution 1559 (2004) called for full withdrawal of Syria from Lebanon and for the disbanding of all Lebanese militias, especially Hezbollah--to which the Lebanese government's response was, essentially, "Nyah nyah, let's see you make us," a challenge to which, not exactly surprisingly, the UN has failed to respond, settling instead for a small and toothless "observer" force, and unhelpfully observing that Lebanon is "confessionally divided," making implementation difficult. It took the assassination of the Lebanese PM in early 2005 to galvanize Lebanese opposition to the Syrian occupation enough to force Syria out (and Syria is likely quite pleased that all the current misfortunes next door are distracting the UN from their ongoing investigation into Syria's role in that incident). Following a November 2005 attack in which Hezbollah combined the attempted abduction of 11 IDF soldiers with a Katyusha barrage "distraction," the UN twice reiterated its call for Lebanon to implement the rest of the Resolution, again fruitlessly.

So, Yolland, what's your take on the Lebanese government? Are they unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves? Or they willing but unable? Because if they've chosen to look the other way with Hezbollah, I could certainly understand Israel's decision to take on Lebanon as a whole. Would you say the relationship between the Lebanese gov and Hezbollah is analogous to the relationship between say the Taliban and Al-Quaeda? Because if so my scenario would not have worked.
 
maycocksean said:
So, Yolland, what's your take on the Lebanese government? Are they unwilling to deal with Hezbollah themselves? Or they willing but unable? Because if they've chosen to look the other way with Hezbollah, I could certainly understand Israel's decision to take on Lebanon as a whole. Would you say the relationship between the Lebanese gov and Hezbollah is analogous to the relationship between say the Taliban and Al-Quaeda? Because if so my scenario would not have worked.
I think comparing them to the Taliban would be way overstating it--the Taliban was far more intimately and extensively tied to al-Qaeda than, so far as I can tell, the Lebanese government is to Hezbollah. My reasons for skepticism about your scenario have more to do with your fourth sentence above, and essentially amount to two points:

--I'm not sure there is a coherent "they" to which to ascribe opinions where the Lebanese government is concerned. The Lebanese Civil War is over (and will hopefully never resume), but the state remains deeply factionalized, and many factions--not just the Shiites--still retain active and well-armed militias, which in part explains the weakness of the Lebanese army: "we Lebanese" is just not an idea with deep roots yet, especially militarily. I certainly don't think the Lebanese army has either the unity or the werewithal to rout Hezbollah on its own. Frankly, I would feel pretty comfortable describing Lebanon as essentially a failed state--perhaps not a terminally failed one, but one too fractured and weak to resist outside manipulation, and to speak as one voice when it comes to bilateral negotiations.

--At this point I do indeed think there's a high level of resistance to disarming Hezbollah for the sake of peace with Israel within the Lebanese government, and not just among Hezbollah MPs. I must admit my perceptions on this matter are still in flux: I really knew very little about Resolution 1559 and the Lebanese government's prior responses to the UN concerning it until all this broke out. Only by reading materials given to me by colleagues specializing in the region (and of varying stances on the present conflict) do I know anything about those responses, and I was taken aback by the--as I said in the post you quoted--"Nyah nyah" tone of many of them.

It's hard for me to know precisely what to make of this, because for one thing, Lebanon was still occupied by Syria at the time 1559 was passed. On the other hand, they seem to have pretty much blown off the UN's late 2005 and early 2006 reiterations as well, and that's post-Syrian-occupation obviously. I wish I could say I considered my knowledge adequate to assess whether this more reflects bad faith or bad efficacy, but I can't. PM Siniora's statements on Hezbollah's long-term legitimacy (as a militia) have been totally contradictory, declaring at one moment that Hezbollah is a necessary "resistance movement against the Israeli enemy" and valued supplement to the weak state army deserving of protection and preservation, and then at another that Hezbollah must be disarmed and that the only prerequisite to that is Israel's withdrawal from Shebaa Farms, which Lebanon alone claims as their territory. (It was originally part of Syria, but they ceded it to Israel following the 1967 Six Day War ceasefire; Lebanon never claimed Shebaa before 2000, however, while Syria for its part officially continues to decline comment either way.)

It may not be the best sign that Siniora's "Cedar Revolution" government is the first ever to have granted Hezbollah political status; on the other hand, you could also interpret that as a pragmatic concession to Lebanese Shiites. And Siniora is certainly not the only Lebanese political actor to endorse Hezbollah's continued military presence: the main Druze party (parliament's second-largest bloc, 16 out of 128 seats) has consistently done so as well, as have the Harakat Amal and Syrian Social Nationalist parties (17 seats altogether). (Hezbollah has 14 seats.) Plus, virtually all the more powerful parties represent groups which maintain militias of their own, making them reluctant to establish a precedent of denying militias a right to exist. However, that's not to say that many of them don't also deeply resent the proxy nature of Hezbollah's military wing at the same time.

Regardless, I think Israel's current strategy is only likely to increase both internal and external support for Hezbollah, as well as the tendency to deflect dissent over Hezbollah's military legitimacy onto the Shebaa Farms issue. Obviously any UN peace plan will need to address Shebaa, and Israel has indicated willingness in principle to withdraw from it, provided that UN forces follow through on routing Hezbollah and ensuring their disarmament. I also think--at least I hope--that the UN would take more care than Israel has to ensure that civilians (temporarily) clear out first. Penalizing Lebanese civilians with mass death for the weakness and/or terminal factionalization of their government, and indeed their country, is IMO simply not justified by the extent of the threat to Israel currently posed by Hezbollah, alarming though the speed of their buildup has been.

Of course, there is also the risk that Hezbollah itself could temporarily decamp to somewhere beyond the mandate's reach, thus threatening to restart the cycle. I have no idea at all what to suggest should that happen. But hopefully it wouldn't.
 
Last edited:
STING2 said:


Thats a question you should ask those who keep attacking them for no legitimate reason. My point has been Israel has done what it needs to do to survive and thrive in the middle of a region that has been trying to destroy it for 58 years. Yet, Israel has one of the highest standards of living in the world. They are democracy. They have achieved their dream and will continue to defend it when they are attacked.

When was the last time any Arab country or Arab terrorist organization was able to put a dent in or stop, Israel's progress as a prosperous nation? Look at what Israel has achieved as country for the past 58 years. What have the Palestinians terror groups and Hezbollah achieved? What has Lebanon and Syria achieved?

The world still has to fight terrorism and crime, and will probably have to on some level for an indefinite time. Israel success and effectivness has been their ability to survive and thrive against the unbelievable odds against them. To suggest that because they have not ended global terrorism or the need to defend themselves, that their policies have been ineffective is simply absurd.

I have to say, Sting, I was hoping you might at least attempt to answer my question, rather than sidestep it. Ah well.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of any others on the same question, if anyone wants to take a stab. :)
 
Sherry Darling said:


Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

:scratch:

Well STING can't answer your question because while for you "effectively" is a false premise, it isn't for him.

IMO, it's because they haven't been fighting terror at all, but terror groups. They think it's like fighting a military, and even if they push back Hezbollah, so what? Islamic terrorists in the Middle East are a dime a dozen, they gather, regroup, expand so long as they have safe haven within countries whose governments passively support them and whose populations actively support them. So, it's lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Sherry Darling said:
Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

Because the rest of the world community has done little to qwell the agenda of neighboring countries to push Israel into the sea.

UN resolutions may placate those in ivory towers, but sending memo writing forces as "peacekeepers" allow these agendas to flourish.

Considering what Israel faces day to day, and the robust society they have built surrounded by enemies, there is a large degree of effectiveness to what they are doing.
 
nbcrusader said:


Because the rest of the world community has done little to qwell the agenda of neighboring countries to push Israel into the sea.

UN resolutions may placate those in ivory towers, but sending memo writing forces as "peacekeepers" allow these agendas to flourish.

Considering what Israel faces day to day, and the robust society they have built surrounded by enemies, there is a large degree of effectiveness to what they are doing.



can you name another political/military "situation" (for lack of a better catch-all phrase) that gets more international attention, not to mention the personal attentiveness of the US and UK governments, than the Middle East and specifically the Israel/Palestinian (and, by extention, Israel's neighbors) conflict?
 
Sherry Darling said:


Here's a thought: if Israel has been fighting terror so long, as you say, yet so effectively, as you say....why are they still having to fight?

:scratch:

Because of the resources of their enemies, I would say. The Wahhibists of Saudi Arabia are still funding their little hate schools in the Arabic countries. And the Arabic countries aren't exactly going anywhere. They're not going to change their stripes. No matter how well Israel does, its neighbors aren't going anywhere, and they'll continue to consider Israel occupied territory that they have to take back for the Palestinians.
 
Considering the funding going to terrorist groups and methodology, I wonder how much life would be different for Palestinians if that same money went to their needs and development.
 
nbcrusader said:
Considering the funding going to terrorist groups and methodology, I wonder how much life would be different for Palestinians if that same money went to their needs and development.



agreed. if there's a group of people on earth to pity, it's the Palestinians, as their lives are little more than political fodder for the continued extention of power and control of unspeakable oft-US-supported dictatorships.

well publicized Palestinian misery is in the best interests of the Syrian, Iranian, Jordanian, Saudi Arabian, etc., governments, not to mention Hezbollah.

the US and Isreal continue to play into their hands.
 
nbcrusader said:
Considering the funding going to terrorist groups and methodology, I wonder how much life would be different for Palestinians if that same money went to their needs and development.

The terrorist groups are an extension of Wahhabism and the school of Deobandi Islam based in India, which has spread to Pakistan and given birth to the Taliban. There's no telling how many powerful people have a vested interest in keeping these schools going.
 
Sherry Darling said:


I have to say, Sting, I was hoping you might at least attempt to answer my question, rather than sidestep it. Ah well.

I'd love to hear the thoughts of any others on the same question, if anyone wants to take a stab. :)

The premise of your question is absurd. Your essentialy saying that Israeli policy has not been effective because they have not ended global terrorism or the need to defend themselves. Has any country in the world ever completely ended terrorism,crime, or the need to defend themselves for that matter? Is the United States a failure because it has had to maintain a military force of some size for the past 231 years?

At a minimum, I think you should try and understand what the Israeli people have accomplished over the past 58 years. It is incredible and I'm sure other Israeli posters on here would agree that their policies have not been ineffective as you seem to attempt to suggest.

If you feel that Israel has really had ineffective policies for the past 58 years, lets here would you would have done in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982 as well as the smaller conflicts in between and the current conflict. Its always easy to criticize, but what would you do yourself if you were the Prime Minister of Israel at any of these points over the past 58 years?
 
nbcrusader said:
I think critics of Israel keep playing into the hands of those who use Palestinians as political fodder.



how?

what do the Isrealis or Americans do to alleviate Palestinian suffering thus reducing political ammunition of various Arab dictatorships?
 
[q]Wars are more easily begun than won. It's not only Iraq that illustrates this; just look at Afghanistan, where the Taliban fights on. But the Bush administration, having apparently learned skepticism of military options since the Iraq imbroglio, veered back toward credulity when it came to Lebanon.

It is hard to see how Israeli troops can succeed in uprooting Hezbollah. Assume that the war begins to go better for them, and that they fight village by village until they destroy the militia infrastructure. But what comes after that? The Israelis will leave, allowing the pro-Hezbollah Shiite population to reclaim their land -- and opening the way for Iran and Syria to resupply military cells with cash and weapons. This prospect logically leads some analysts to advocate action against Syria and Iran. But what action? There's no international support for serious sanctions. And not even the Bush administration is talking about military strikes on Damascus or Tehran.

Just as in Iraq, the United States is supporting a war that is defensible in concept. Yes, it was Hezbollah that provoked this fight. Yes, destroying this militant state-within-a-state would be a boon not just for Israeli security but for Lebanese democracy. And yes, the diplomatic options for dealing with Hezbollah promise no quick progress. But Iraq surely teaches that wars must be more than defensible in concept. Wars are only defensible if they can be won.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/30/AR2006073000545.html

[/q]
 
Back
Top Bottom