Options for Israel

[KrustyKidd]

Again: you mentioned Jordan and Egypt as two countries that Israel has made peace with. Yet both these countries were, at one point, intent on Israel's destruction. Yet Israel was able to make peace and return land to those nations. Why?

Egypt had thrown out the Russians and needed money. In order to get western investment and political support they needed to make peace with Israel. On the Jordinian side, the PLO was close to taking over the kindom and, Syria actually invaded. With Israeli help, Jordan was able to expel Syria. Rerlations between the two contires were alwys somewhat friendly even though Jordan had to side with Arab unity on their official position on Israel even warning them about the Yom Kippor war plans of the Arab states prior to the attack. After pressure from the US, Jordan began negotiations with the intent of getting land and water rights.

Both these situations would not have occured had Israel simply allowed them to continue attacking and killing Israelis as per the 'Black Dog Doctrine.'

My point was simply returning land is not a guarantee of peace, unless you're actually returning that land to someone with teh ability to ensure peace.

You said Israel has never returned land. You were wrong and now you are tap dancing like the Dickens. Very well, simply returning land to people bent on your destruction is not a guarantee of peace. That's why Israel doesn't do it all the time whether to a government or to a people. So, now that you agree with me, let it go.

So was Egypt not intent on destroying Israel?

They were until they found it too expensive a habit to continue. Hard on resources, hard on politics, hard on internatinal investors. No parallel with Hamas and Hezbollah.

First: wipe the spittle off your keyboard. You're losing whatever semblance of coherence you may have had.

Good argument. Adress the posts please.

Second: you dodge the issue of how Egypt went from being at war with Israel from 1948 to 1978 to being peaceful neighbours.

I did not dodge it, I actually assumed you were avoiding it because it weakens your argumensts. We all know Egypt did not do it because they like or need Israel. They did it to survive in an international world and get investment and aid. The political harm that making peace with the Israelis would cause at home and abroad was softened by the return of the Sinai. A condition that if not ensured would be given in return would have been suicide for Sadat from his own people and, all the other Arab states.

Third: Israel can hunker down and continue to act unilaterally, but that won't help them acheive any lasting peace. If you prefer Israel to exits in a state of perpetual war, thus providing its enemies with fuel for the hatred and alienating and marginalizing moderates on all sides, well, no friend of Israel you.

It has worked for them so far amidst this sea of hatred. If they did not, there would have been a lot more wars and terrorist attacks.

Now. Please explain how Israel is to rid Lebannon of Hezbollah, an organization comitted to killing them any way they can? How are they to make friends with Hamas? If it requires the death of one Israeli man woman or child, then the government is not doing their job and will weaken and probably fall. The 'Black Dog Doctrine' of allowing terrorist attacks rather than confronting the terrorists would never be adopted by any sane government as a position. Ours does not, either does the US, China, Russia, England or any number of countries involved in the War on Terror. Nor would it be campaigned on as an election platform. Remember, the prime responsibility of any government is to protect it's people, not use them as trading cards for policy.

[Black Dog]

Egypt had thrown out the Russians and needed money. In order to get western investment and political support they needed to make peace with Israel. On the Jordinian side, the PLO was close to taking over the kindom and, Syria actually invaded. With Israeli help, Jordan was able to expel Syria. Rerlations between the two contires were alwys somewhat friendly even though Jordan had to side with Arab unity on their official position on Israel even warning them about the Yom Kippor war plans of the Arab states prior to the attack. After pressure from the US, Jordan began negotiations with the intent of getting land and water rights.

So both sides had something to offer the other. Are you saying Israel has nothing to offer any of its neighbours, such as Syria and Lebanon, in exchange for assistance curbing Hizbullah?

You said Israel has never returned land. You were wrong and now you are tap dancing like the Dickens. Very well, simply returning land to people bent on your destruction is not a guarantee of peace. That's why Israel doesn't do it all the time whether to a government or to a people. So, now that you agree with me, let it go.

Like I said, I stated my premises pretty clearly and have held to the definition I started with. I acknowledged my error WRT the Sinai, but noted teh clear distinction between that case and the other cases you cited as Israel giving up land in exchange for peace (Southern Lebanon and Gaza). No tap dancing, just your relentless nit-picking.

They were until they found it too expensive a habit to continue. Hard on resources, hard on politics, hard on internatinal investors. No parallel with Hamas and Hezbollah.

Why not?

I did not dodge it, I actually assumed you were avoiding it because it weakens your argumensts. We all know Egypt did not do it because they like or need Israel. They did it to survive in an international world and get investment and aid. The political harm that making peace with the Israelis would cause at home and abroad was softened by the return of the Sinai. A condition that if not ensured would be given in return would have been suicide for Sadat from his own people and, all the other Arab states.

Now you're getting it (and undermining your own argument tthat negotiations with thjose who want to destroy you are futile).

It has worked for them so far amidst this sea of hatred. If they did not, there would have been a lot more wars and terrorist attacks.

Ah, so very real wars and terrorist attacks Israel has continued to endure are acceptable to you.

Now. Please explain how Israel is to rid Lebannon of Hezbollah, an organization comitted to killing them any way they can? How are they to make friends with Hamas?

I'm not certain either organization is instrangient. Hizbullah is an establishment faction with a place in the Lebanese cabinet and a quasi-state to protect. Hamas is the nominal state overseeing the Palestinian territories. IOW, both have something to lose and lots to gain from acheiving peace with Israel. Hizbullah gets to keep its foothold and status in Lebanon as a political entity, the Palestinians get a state. Now, if the prospect of dealing with these two is unworkable, there's the otehr 60 per cent of Lebanese society, there's the teetering regime in Syria and there's moderates in Palestinian society that can be taken to the table and can marginalize the radical elements. That means final status negotiations on the status of a Palestinian state, aid and assistance to the democratic Lebanese government and resolutions to the territorial conflicts over the Sheeba Farms and Golan Heights. In the meantime, Israel, of course, would retain the right to respond to any provocations with force.

The 'Black Dog Doctrine' of allowing terrorist attacks rather than confronting the terrorists would never be adopted by any sane government as a position.

Way to completely misrepresent my position. I simply stated that Israel was better off keeping the conflict local, which means meeting local military attacks with a local military response.

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Can you give me a list of Arab countries whose people do not despise Jews?

A loaded question, to be sure. 'Whose people' indeed. If you mean some of the people, I don't believe there are any countries in the world that fit that answer. If you mean 100% of the people, I doubt there are any either.

I mean countries where Jews are not routinely despised, mocked, ridiculed by political leaders, where the media, schools, mosques and academia are not filled with Jew-hatred, where the most ludicrous conspiracy theories are not widely believed about Jews, where you can't use things like the blood libels and be believed by the majority of people who are listening to you. Where people who makes statements like "If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli." would not be considered heros and men of God, countries where Jews have not been driven out, which don't welcome terrorism against Israel, where a Jew can walk the street openly identified as a Jew and not fear attack.

An obvious Muslim can walk the streets of Jersusalem and Tel Aviv and not fear attack. Can an obvious Jew walk the streets of Cairo or Beirut or Tehran?

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

Can you give me a list of Arab countries whose people do not despise Jews?

A loaded question, to be sure. 'Whose people' indeed. If you mean some of the people, I don't believe there are any countries in the world that fit that answer. If you mean 100% of the people, I doubt there are any either.

Very dangerous Argus. I wouldn't want to be grouped with many majority opinions of Canadians.

Perhaps not I, either. But there are opinions - as in, I don't believe in private medical care" and then again there are opinions, as in "Jews are the descendants of pigs and monkeys and must be destroyed". I disagree with both, but there is a vast difference in how I would feel about the people who would mouth such beliefs.

[KrustyKidd]

So both sides had something to offer the other. Are you saying Israel has nothing to offer any of its neighbours, such as Syria and Lebanon, in exchange for assistance curbing Hizbullah?

If you will note, Israel had only a conciliatory reward to Egypt to offer that allowed them to have peace with the Israelis with honor. The true reward was US dollars and western aid. As Hezbollah is a terrorist organization they are unlikely to recieve that. Syria wants the Golan and Lebannon has hothing to offer.

Like I said, I stated my premises pretty clearly and have held to the definition I started with. I acknowledged my error WRT the Sinai, but noted teh clear distinction between that case and the other cases you cited as Israel giving up land in exchange for peace (Southern Lebanon and Gaza). No tap dancing, just your relentless nit-picking.

You said

Black Dog

My point was simply returning land is not a guarantee of peace, unless you're actually returning that land to someone with teh ability to ensure peace.

So, anybody that Israel should have returned land to? Instead they gave it back to the people who were there who happened to be Palestinians.

Why not?

Because the international community does not pay money to terrorist organizations. Therefore, they have nothing to lose by calling for Israeli destruction. And therefore, are not to be seriously negotiated with.

KK

I did not dodge it, I actually assumed you were avoiding it because it weakens your argumensts. We all know Egypt did not do it because they like or need Israel. They did it to survive in an international world and get investment and aid. The political harm that making peace with the Israelis would cause at home and abroad was softened by the return of the Sinai. A condition that if not ensured would be given in return would have been suicide for Sadat from his own people and, all the other Arab states.

[black Dog Reply

Now you're getting it (and undermining your own argument tthat negotiations with thjose who want to destroy you are futile).

How so? Egypt had so much to gain both politically and economicaly whereas Hezbollah knows they would never in the short term evedr become able to recieve international investement as they don't run the country and cannot absorb investment funds from US companies and European agencies. So, their power is hatred of Israel. The moment they enter into direct negotiations they become irrelevent as that hatred is their power base and gravitational pull.

Ah, so very real wars and terrorist attacks Israel has continued to endure are acceptable to you.

Prefferable to opening the doors to what the hard line Arabs really want which is their destruction. Or, in the Black Dog Doctrine - making it almost promiscuous and allowable. Imagine the results after the induction of your policy - this or that in negotiation, then, when Hezbollah wants more, they up terrorism. Wow, you rock.

I'm not certain either organization is instrangient. Hizbullah is an establishment faction with a place in the Lebanese cabinet and a quasi-state to protect. Hamas is the nominal state overseeing the Palestinian territories. IOW, both have something to lose and lots to gain from acheiving peace with Israel. Hizbullah gets to keep its foothold and status in Lebanon as a political entity, the Palestinians get a state. Now, if the prospect of dealing with these two is unworkable, there's the otehr 60 per cent of Lebanese society, there's the teetering regime in Syria and there's moderates in Palestinian society that can be taken to the table and can marginalize the radical elements. That means final status negotiations on the status of a Palestinian state, aid and assistance to the democratic Lebanese government and resolutions to the territorial conflicts over the Sheeba Farms and Golan Heights. In the meantime, Israel, of course, would retain the right to respond to any provocations with force.

They have lots to lose - legitimacy. If they make peace, allude to negotiations, they become a political faction rather than an extremist organization and thus, must give up their one claim to glory that is their raison d'etre. Political Suicide.

Way to completely misrepresent my position. I simply stated that Israel was better off keeping the conflict local, which means meeting local military attacks with a local military response.

Yes and of course, it is every government's responsibility to simply allow people to be killed by the same killers over an over rather than go after them and shut them down. However effective that action might be. Better allow the killers to hit them whenever or wherever they might. Good one.

[Black Dog]

If you will note, Israel had only a conciliatory reward to Egypt to offer that allowed them to have peace with the Israelis with honor. The true reward was US dollars and western aid. As Hezbollah is a terrorist organization they are unlikely to recieve that. Syria wants the Golan and Lebannon has hothing to offer.

That's funny, because some Israelis say they got screwed in the bargain:

The terms of the treaty required both countries to stop all hostile activity and demilitarize the Sinai. Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 border, giving up military bases, settlements, roads and other infrastructure as well as the Sinai oil fields. Israel, which had repeatedly been the target of shipping blockades, military assaults, and terrorist attacks staged from the Sinai, made far greater economic and strategic sacrifices in giving up Sinai than Egypt did in "normalizing" relations with Israel.

Link

That's opinion, of course, but shows that there was more to it than a token gesture for western cash.

As for the Golan, well, why not? What about Lebanon and Sheeba Farms?

How so? Egypt had so much to gain both politically and economicaly whereas Hezbollah knows they would never in the short term evedr become able to recieve international investement as they don't run the country and cannot absorb investment funds from US companies and European agencies. So, their power is hatred of Israel. The moment they enter into direct negotiations they become irrelevent as that hatred is their power base and gravitational pull

Nonsense. Hizbullah runs a quasi state of its own in Southern Lebanon and, as I've pointed out, is an establishment entity in Lebanese politics, even has its own foreign interlocuters. We're not talking about al-Qaeda-esque cave dwellers here. But, as I've said as well, if negotiating with Hizbullah is too distatesful or impractical, there's ways to work around them.

Prefferable to opening the doors to what the hard line Arabs really want which is their destruction. Or, in the Black Dog Doctrine - making it almost promiscuous and allowable. Imagine the results after the induction of your policy - this or that in negotiation, then, when Hezbollah wants more, they up terrorism. Wow, you rock.

How do negotiations "open the door...to (Israel's) destruction"? If one uses the Palestinian situation as an example, violence decreases during periods of diplomatic activity and increases during diplomatic lulls. Thus, you're formulation is utter rot

They have lots to lose - legitimacy. If they make peace, allude to negotiations, they become a political faction rather than an extremist organization and thus, must give up their one claim to glory that is their raison d'etre. Political Suicide.

They already are a political faction; recognition as such by diplomatic measures directed at them would increase their legitimacy.

Yes and of course, it is every government's responsibility to simply allow people to be killed by the same killers over an over rather than go after them and shut them down. However effective that action might be. Better allow the killers to hit them whenever or wherever they might. Good one.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether its possible for Israel to shut Hizbulah down (shorts answer: no).

You should allso go back to school and learn how to read: "meeting local military attacks with a local military response." IOW, if someone hits you, you respond. This is not sitting on your hands and letting your people get picked off, nor is it responding in a way that will endanger more citiozens in the long run (your "

solution").

[Rue]

Sheeba farms is a non issue. It is a tiny parcel of land that is empty. It has no strategic value to anyone except Israel and all it did was allow Syria to use the Golan Heights to attack Israeli farmers in the North. In regards to that parcel of land, this is an issue between Syria who it legally belonged to and Israel who Syria is technically at war with and does not recognize.

As for the Gaza, Shebba Farms, West Bank, etc., you again still have this illusion that Israel "wants" these lands. The only thing they want is no terrorists using those lands to launch attacks. In case you haven't noticed Israel has no interest in keeping ground forces permanently outside Israel. It can't afford to financially nor do its people support such things. What its people support and rightfully so, are using its armed forces to prevent terrorist attacks and if that means going into the West Bank, Gaza, etc., to attack terrorists that is what they do. They have no choice. Israel is far too small to survive if it did nothing adn allowed Gaza and Shebba and the West Bank to be used as launching pads.

Now as I said before, since you are the expert, travel to Israel and get Hamas and Hezbollah to behave and never engage in violence again, and if you do that, I will be pleased to guarantee you that I can get the IDF go back to their barracks. Until then give it a rest.

And I also have news for you. NO ONE wants the Gaza. It is a living hell. It is an open sewer teaming with people jammed in each others' faces in filth. It is one of the worst places on earth and is a pit of human despair. It is a breeding ground for hatred and terrorism as it is

a sess pool. It has no economy, it has no fresh water. One has to ask this question. If the Palestinians adapted Ghandi's tactics and not the tactics of the PLO and now Hamas, chances are, the IDF would never have ever gone into the Gaza in search of terrorists and it might have had a chance of being a sort of independent suburb from which Palestinians could have travelled to Israel for work but go home to int he night time and not be taxed by the Israeli state for their wages. It could have been a tax haven for Palestinians.

Now it is a disaster. Hamas uses teaming crowded apartments to store its weapons and it uses its children to engage in terrorist activities.

Its parents are helpless to prevent the children born in desperate poverty from becoming terrorists unless they send them oevrseas. Yes I know you trendy Leftists blame Israel. The fact is prior to the Israeli state and after the Israeli state in 1949 to 1967, it was Egyptian and exploited by Egypt. It then became exploited by the PLO and the PLO's coruption which saw billions of dollars sent to develop the Gaza end up in Swiss bank accounts of corupt PLO officials including Mrs. Yasir Arafat who lives off that money to this day. Now Hamas runs the place like Hezbollah did South Lebanon. Youd on;t dare say you want to work in Israel and live peacefully side by side Israelis and live to talk about it in Gaza with Hamas in charge. Long before Israel was around it was a slum and pit of despair and it continues as such with Hamas who although not corupt in the same sense as the PLO are so blinded by their hatred for Israel they can not see the only way Gaza can be of any hope and use to its people is if it is allowed to create a common econmic trade zone with Israel. Yes since 1967 it has been involved in thousands of

incursions by the IDF chasing Hamas and other terrorists. This is part of the vicious cycle of terrorism, poverty and the IDF trying tp revent attacks into Israel..and no its not simplistic and black and white and simply a case of blaming Israel. The violence and despair pre-dated Israel and continues because part of the problem is not just the Palestinian-Israeli conflict but the battle between fundamentalism Muslims and more

Westernized Muslims within the Gaza Muslim society.

The solution is to end the terrorism so that Palestinians can work in Israel and elsewhere. The tragedy is as long as Hamas is in charge aqnd is dedicated to the destruction of Israel, the people of the Gaza will be caught in the cross fires of Hamas terrorists and IDF soliders of under-cover Shen Bet commandos engaged in protracted apartment to apartment war. I have been in the Gaza and watched a boy blow up carrying bombs. I was also in the Gaza when a young boy posing as a woman engaged in a terrorist attack and was shot dead. I also witnessed someone from the news media from France smuggle weapons for the PLO and I witnessed people in the Red Crescent and Red Cross smuggle weapons. I saw UN observers hide PLO terrorists running from IDF after shooting at the IDF and I witnessed leftist activists from Europe and from certain Christian activist groups confront IDF and then realize when it was too late that the same PLO they were defending then decided to rape them and steal all their money and was absolutely disgusted with them. I also watched boys as young as 4 and 5 throw rocks at Israeli armed vehicles chasing them. Such is life in the Gaza. The average mother has 8 sons. The more sons, the more likely one might survive. The problem is of course, with the population out of control its people are choking themselves to death in their own shit.

Its a truly horrible place and I personally wish all its children could be air-lifted to somewhere peaceful. If you have gone through there you would understand how close it is to Israel, why it is a danger to Israel and how its sheer poverty and lack of economic opportunity fuels the despair which creates the ideal conditions to grow terrorists. There are no rights or wrongs, good guys or bad guys, there just is conflict with two sides caught in an accident of history and waiting for someone to find a way to find an alternative to violence. It aint gonna happen as long as idiots from the West tell terrorists they are victims and their behaviour is understandable. The people I know who made it out of Gaza denounced terrorism and saw through the b.s. from both extremes. Hopefully they can go back one day and be part of the moderates who can reach out to Israeli moderates and beat this thing called despair.

[KrustyKidd]

That's funny, because some Israelis say they got screwed in the bargain:

Yes indeed. However, when they can deal in good faith they do.

That's opinion, of course, but shows that there was more to it than a token gesture for western cash.

Egypt needed western investement. In order to quell hardliners they had to have something to show for it. That something was the Sinai.

As for the Golan, well, why not? What about Lebanon and Sheeba Farms?

When Syria has a leader who wishes to deal then that will come into play however, the Golan is a much more fragile area than the vast Sinai. As for Lebannon, who is in charge and, who of that can guarantee any peace treaties?

Nonsense. Hizbullah runs a quasi state of its own in Southern Lebanon and, as I've pointed out, is an establishment entity in Lebanese politics, even has its own foreign interlocuters. We're not talking about al-Qaeda-esque cave dwellers here. But, as I've said as well, if negotiating with Hizbullah is too distatesful or impractical, there's ways to work around them.

Hwzbollah is in charge of this and that. Not the entire country. Are you suggesting that Leganese politics be framented into sections and that Israel should deal with each of them separately or, that Israel should deal with other countries to get a treaty which Hezbollah cannot gurantee as they are only part of a political process? Meaning in short that the situation is untenuable for anybody to guarantee anything. As for expecting Iran, who have taken an anti Israelis position to give that up for no reason whatsoever (as their present leverage on the western scene is nuclear power generation) to suddenly lose all their aspirations of being the Muslim power center by going soft on Israel is not on. Syria also has nothing to gain in the short term by going soft as Israel will not give up the Golan until there is complete peace.

How do negotiations "open the door...to (Israel's) destruction"? If one uses the Palestinian situation as an example, violence decreases during periods of diplomatic activity and increases during diplomatic lulls. Thus, you're formulation is utter rot.

Giving up land which is strategic to Israeli defence won't happen as it opens the door to Israeli destruction. As for the lunacy of your formula where violence decreases, it does. However, you will note that when it does it is always an Arab that does it first. Showing that any negotiations are not done in good faith or, those negotiationg cannot have much control over the people they govern. Meaning that the negotiations are not in good faith or, that they are near meaningless.

They already are a political faction; recognition as such by diplomatic measures directed at them would increase their legitimacy.

Then their first logical move should be to recognize Israel. When that happens looks like the peace process will be right on track.

Which brings us back to the issue of whether its possible for Israel to shut Hizbulah down (shorts answer: no).

You should allso go back to school and learn how to read: "meeting local military attacks with a local military response." IOW, if someone hits you, you respond. This is not sitting on your hands and letting your people get picked off, nor is it responding in a way that will endanger more citiozens in the long run (your "

solution").

Endanger citizens in the long run? Hezbollah as you are aware won't be pulling this crap for a long time. Either will other nuts unless of course, they wish to lose big.

[Black Dog]

KK:

When Syria has a leader who wishes to deal then that will come into play however, the Golan is a much more fragile area than the vast Sinai. As for Lebannon, who is in charge and, who of that can guarantee any peace treaties?

Syria can be pressured. Assad is domestically weak, so there's potential there to get him to play ball. Lebanon is a basket case, true, but the best way to do that is to build their strength to the point where they can police their own territory.

Meaning in short that the situation is untenuable for anybody to guarantee anything.

I agree that the fragmentation of authority is a problem, but not, IMO, an insurrmountable one.

As for expecting Iran, who have taken an anti Israelis position to give that up for no reason whatsoever (as their present leverage on the western scene is nuclear power generation) to suddenly lose all their aspirations of being the Muslim power center by going soft on Israel is not on.

Iran is a non-factor. Their only stake in thr region is through Hizbullah and all the manuvering I'm talking about is to deal with that problem.

Giving up land which is strategic to Israeli defence won't happen as it opens the door to Israeli destruction.

Israel's going to have to give up land at some point if it wants peace. That's all there is to it.

As for the lunacy of your formula where violence decreases, it does. However, you will note that when it does it is always an Arab that does it first.

Not true.

Endanger citizens in the long run? Hezbollah as you are aware won't be pulling this crap for a long time. Either will other nuts unless of course, they wish to lose big.

How long? A year? Two? And then what? More of the same? It's obvious that Israel needs to arrive at a modus vivendi with its neighbours. And it needs to work with the states it can before those states are rendered completely irrelevant by Hizbullah or its antecedents. It won't be easy, but its is necessary if Israel is to have any hope of long term peace.

RUE:

Sheeba farms is a non issue. It is a tiny parcel of land that is empty. It has no strategic value to anyone except Israel and all it did was allow Syria to use the Golan Heights to attack Israeli farmers in the North. In regards to that parcel of land, this is an issue between Syria who it legally belonged to and Israel who Syria is technically at war with and does not recognize.

Hizbullah uses Israel's annexation of that land as a pretext for its actions. So no, it isn't a non-issue. It's also part of the bigger issue of the Golan, whioch also needs to be addressed.

As for Gaza...

Its a truly horrible place and I personally wish all its children could be air-lifted to somewhere peaceful. If you have gone through there you would understand how close it is to Israel, why it is a danger to Israel and how its sheer poverty and lack of economic opportunity fuels the despair which creates the ideal conditions to grow terrorists. There are no rights or wrongs, good guys or bad guys, there just is conflict with two sides caught in an accident of history and waiting for someone to find a way to find an alternative to violence. It aint gonna happen as long as idiots from the West tell terrorists they are victims and their behaviour is understandable. The people I know who made it out of Gaza denounced terrorism and saw through the b.s. from both extremes. Hopefully they can go back one day and be part of the moderates who can reach out to Israeli moderates and beat this thing called despair.

I highlighted the above to make my point here. As long as those conditiosn exist, what reason will he populace have to renounce terror? Let's not forget, too, that Israel has invested millions into the Palestinian territories, not to benefit the people there, but to build homes and outposts for its own colonists and to buy weapons to keep the cycle of violence alive. What the whole region needs is an investment like the Marshall Plan.

[KrustyKidd]

Syria can be pressured. Assad is domestically weak, so there's potential there to get him to play ball.

Really? How?

I agree that the fragmentation of authority is a problem, but not, IMO, an insurrmountable one.

Yes. A small but not insurmountable problem indeed. Let's see, Hezbollah attacks israel but you think they should instead fix all sorts of problems with Iran, Syria and Palestinian territories. When Hamas attacks, you blame them for giving land back to Palestinians and then tell them to go in stormtrooper sytle and fix interior problems for them under fire. So this general formula of Israel fixing problems all over the place while taking fire may not seem insurmoutable to you but in reality who exactly are they supposed to deal with and who is going to give them guarantees of progress while they work away?

Iran is a non-factor. Their only stake in thr region is through Hizbullah and all the manuvering I'm talking about is to deal with that problem.

I understood you to mean that pressure could be placed on Hezbollah through Iran. What pressure can Israle put on Iran to have them curtail their support?

Israel's going to have to give up land at some point if it wants peace. That's all there is to it.

No argument here. However, before they will give up land there will have to be a pretty good guarantee of peace from the people they give it up to.

Not true.

In reply to ....

As for the lunacy of your formula where violence decreases, it does. However, you will note that when it does it is always an Arab that does it first.

Ok, wait a few days and we shall see.

How long? A year? Two? And then what? More of the same? It's obvious that Israel needs to arrive at a modus vivendi with its neighbours. And it needs to work with the states it can before those states are rendered completely irrelevant by Hizbullah or its antecedents. It won't be easy, but its is necessary if Israel is to have any hope of long term peace.

What state? They talk with Syria, Iran, Lebannon but not Hezbollah. Should they recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government? Of what country does Hezbollah speak for?

[Black Dog]

Yes. A small but not insurmountable problem indeed. Let's see, Hezbollah attacks israel but you think they should instead fix all sorts of problems with Iran, Syria and Palestinian territories.

Well, as Syria and Iran are Hizbullah's main sponsors, dealing with them is a way of dealing with Hizbullah. And resolving the Palestinian issue, Hizbollah often claims to be fighting on behalf of the Palestinian cause. The continued linkage of the two conflicts helps undermine support for peace among the Palestinian population, as does Israeli operations in Gaza. Not only that, but Israel is fighting a two front war. Resolving the situation in palestine will enable them to direct more resources towards countering Hizbullah. Unlike you, I see the connections.

When Hamas attacks, you blame them for giving land back to Palestinians and then tell them to go in stormtrooper sytle and fix interior problems for them under fire

Again with putting words in my mouth. I've made a clear distinction between vacating land so an armed rabble can take over and helping establishing some kind of authority. You either just don't get it or you're just playing dumb. In any case, I'm not going down that road again.

So this general formula of Israel fixing problems all over the place while taking fire may not seem insurmoutable to you but in reality who exactly are they supposed to deal with and who is going to give them guarantees of progress while they work away?

They deal with the parties they have to, be it Iran, Syria, the Lebanese Government, or even Hizbullah and hamas. You play the cards you're dealt and try to make the best of it. As I've said elsewhere, diplomacy isn't about holding hands and singing "Kumbaya" ("Hava Nagila"?). There's no requirement that you have to like the people you're dealing with. All that really matters is determining how to acheive a mutually acceptable solution.

I understood you to mean that pressure could be placed on Hezbollah through Iran. What pressure can Israle put on Iran to have them curtail their support?

How about a security guarantee: we won't bomb you if you ease off with the help to Hizbullah? That's a possibility. I'm sure actual foreign interlocuters could come up with more, if given the chance.

However, before they will give up land there will have to be a pretty good guarantee of peace from the people they give it up to.

Which is why they need to be sure the people they are giving land up to can enforce the peace, something they failed to do in South Lebanon and in Gaza.

What state? They talk with Syria, Iran, Lebannon but not Hezbollah. Should they recognize a terrorist organization as a legitimate government? Of what country does Hezbollah speak for?

Hizbullah is a pivotal political player on the Lebanese landscape. It has two ministers in the cabinet, 14 seats in Lebanon's 128-seat parliament, and a base of support numbering in the millions. So it operates a s a state within a state. As such, they have interests to protect. Seems to me the best way to deal with such a organization is to resolve that duality, even if that means recognizing. Radical ideologies thrive on marginalization and locking Hizbullah out helps them more than it harms.

[Figleaf]

No, it doesn't matter "why" they're terrorists. If they want to join an organization that murders innocent civilians -- and it doesn't matter WHAT the reasons are, ...

If you want there to be no terrorists, wouldn't it make sense to remove the reasons for terrorism, to the extent that is possible at least?

[KrustyKidd]

Unlike you, I see the connections.

Unlike you and your fantsy world I see reality. You think that Hamas, Hezbollah and whomever is going to stay attacks while their sponsors are undergoing secret or public talks? And, what makes you think they won't turn around and either find other sponsors or a new organization will emerge? And, why are you continually blaming Israel for the hatred that Arabs use to unite themselves over for political puposes rather than just get on with life?

Again with putting words in my mouth. I've made a clear distinction between vacating land so an armed rabble can take over and helping establishing some kind of authority. You either just don't get it or you're just playing dumb. In any case, I'm not going down that road again.

Good. So we agree that Israel should never ever give up or vacate or return land unless they have a 100% guarantee for their safety involved.

They deal with the parties they have to, be it Iran, Syria, the Lebanese Government, or even Hizbullah and hamas. You play the cards you're dealt and try to make the best of it.

Uh huh. Israel has found the best way is to simply kill people who hate them. Now, possibly the people who wish to kill them will find the price too high as per the Hezbolah leader's recent comments.

How about a security guarantee: we won't bomb you if you ease off with the help to Hizbullah? That's a possibility. I'm sure actual foreign interlocuters could come up with more, if given the chance.

Oh really? Now you are advocating the bombing of an entire coutnry for their support for a fringe group? So, let's go bomb the hell out of Edmonton for having unruley Oilers fans.

Hizbullah is a pivotal political player on the Lebanese landscape. It has two ministers in the cabinet, 14 seats in Lebanon's 128-seat parliament, and a base of support numbering in the millions. So it operates a s a state within a state. As such, they have interests to protect. Seems to me the best way to deal with such a organization is to resolve that duality, even if that means recognizing. Radical ideologies thrive on marginalization and locking Hizbullah out helps them more than it harms.

Yes. they are trying to resolve that duality. If the Lebanese drive them out as a liability then Israel can speak with the Lebanese, if Hezbollah wins then they can then deal with them as an entity. What you are proposing is something akin to China holding high level talks with the Klu Klux Klan instead of the US government.

If you want there to be no terrorists, wouldn't it make sense to remove the reasons for terrorism, to the extent that is possible at least?

Like introducing democracy, letting people decide their future and giving them a say in their lives and government. A pro Irani statement if I ever heard one. Kudos!

[Black Dog]

Unlike you and your fantsy world I see reality. You think that Hamas, Hezbollah and whomever is going to stay attacks while their sponsors are undergoing secret or public talks?

As a matter of fact I do. And history backs me up.

And, what makes you think they won't turn around and either find other sponsors or a new organization will emerge?

Nothing. But some variables you can't control. You play the cards you're dealt. But you don't walk away from the table unless you are guaranteed a full house with every deal.

And, why are you continually blaming Israel for the hatred that Arabs use to unite themselves over for political puposes rather than just get on with life?

Where did I do this? I blamed, if you will, Israel for making a number of strategic and tactical errors that contributed to the situation. I don't believe I've ever scapegoated them for the internal problems of Arab states.

Good. So we agree that Israel should never ever give up or vacate or return land unless they have a 100% guarantee for their safety involved.

Nothing is 100 per cent. But (since you're fond of school yeard analogies) take your bal and go home if you're not sure you'll win the game.

Uh huh. Israel has found the best way is to simply kill people who hate them.

Hasn't stopped the hate and it hasn't stopped the killing. Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

So Israel can keep grinding away, killing others and having its citizens killed in return, or it can go all out and emulate Stalin or Saddam in order to secure its people (at the cost of its soul) or it can do its best to come to an agreement with its neighbours, even the one's that hate it. Out of all those courses of action, the third seems to be the best hope for peacve. And don't worry: if it fails, they still have the option of killing lots of people.

Now, possibly the people who wish to kill them will find the price too high as per the Hezbolah leader's recent comments.

You still don't get what he was doing there, do you? In any case, if Israel's enemies hate Israel as much as you say, then the price wouldn't matter. They'll fight to the very end. On the other hand, if they can be deterred by the threat of overwhelming force, they are rational and thus can be dealt with in other ways. Which is it? Irrational, and therefore undetterable, Jew-haters or rational political actors?

Oh really? Now you are advocating the bombing of an entire coutnry for their support for a fringe group? So, let's go bomb the hell out of Edmonton for having unruley Oilers fans.

Uh...Hizbullah is not a fringe group. And I have to believe you're just being difficult at this poin, since you've already advocated the bombing of an entire coutnry for their support for a fringe group. Anyway I don't think Israel is much of a conventional military threat to Iran. Iran is definitely not a threat to Israel in any military sense. Both are aware of that bit of calculus.

Anyway I was just tossing ideas around. I don't think bombing Iran would be a solution. For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that I have all the answers and that if I don't, the concepts I advance have no value. That's false, and merely demonstartes a failure of imagination on your part.

Yes. they are trying to resolve that duality. If the Lebanese drive them out as a liability then Israel can speak with the Lebanese, if Hezbollah wins then they can then deal with them as an entity. What you are proposing is something akin to China holding high level talks with the Klu Klux Klan instead of the US government.

So now you're saying the problem is Hizbullah (remember: "they only want Israel destroyeD and how do you deal with people like that? OMG! oNOZ!") isn't legit enough to deal with? So: if, say, Hizbullah's was integrated into the Lebaese army and government, you'd have no issues with holding talks with them?

Like introducing democracy, letting people decide their future and giving them a say in their lives and government. A pro Irani statement if I ever heard one. Kudos!

Problem is, one can't introduce democracy. the Middle East is not a cocktail party.

[KrustyKidd]

Hasn't stopped the hate and it hasn't stopped the killing. Who was it that said the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?

If you recall, this was a new action that was totally unexpected by Hezbollah who also said they would not have done what they did if they thought this would have been the reaction.

Nothing is 100 per cent. But (since you're fond of school yeard analogies) take your bal and go home if you're not sure you'll win the game.

Nothing is for sure except if they give up land to people, it must be in return for peace, not an opportunity for the others to gain a better tactical position to attack from. That is a 100% argument and not a schoolyard analogy.

Where did I do this? I blamed, if you will, Israel for making a number of strategic and tactical errors that contributed to the situation. I don't believe I've ever scapegoated them for the internal problems of Arab states.

Get real. You continually critique Iarael while giving all the other parties a free pass. Now, to be fair this is a thread on Israel but, please, to be balanced, blame Hezbollah for wanting to wipe Isrel off the earth, and then Iran, Syria and so on. Then, you juandiced view of Israel's actions become a more reasonable response to those threats.

Anyway I was just tossing ideas around.

Yes, that is obvious.

I don't think bombing Iran would be a solution. For some reason, you seem to be under the impression that I have all the answers and that if I don't, the concepts I advance have no value. That's false, and merely demonstartes a failure of imagination on your part.

Have all the answers? I won't say what I think you are as it would definitely lower me to your sarcastic level but, when you put so much faith in your argument of Israel needing to negotiate with so many parties that it makes you head swim, you overlook the fact that Iran won't even negotiate in faith with the UN much less Israel. With Lebanon having zip for effective goverment in dealing with Hezbollah, Israel is perfectly within their right to deal with this threat themselves. If, for any reason, anybody wants to negotiate I'm sure Israel would listen.

You still don't get what he was doing there, do you? In any case, if Israel's enemies hate Israel as much as you say, then the price wouldn't matter. They'll fight to the very end. On the other hand, if they can be deterred by the threat of overwhelming force, they are rational and thus can be dealt with in other ways. Which is it? Irrational, and therefore undetterable, Jew-haters or rational political actors?

Rational. Now, after kicking ass, Hazbolah will back off and, rethink their position. Or, they will rearm. If nothing was done, they would be continueing to grow stronger and arm in preparation to attack so nothing lost for sure but, a certainty of being attacks was dealt with. Now possibly there are negotiations being carried out in concert wsith all this, we don't know but, the immediate threat of Hezbollah was dealt with.

Uh...Hizbullah is not a fringe group. And I have to believe you're just being difficult at this poin, since you've already advocated the bombing of an entire coutnry for their support for a fringe group.

I did not. You waffled between saying Hezbollah was forcing support from an unwilling Lebanese people to having lots of support. In any case, to Israel, the point was moot. If the Lebanese people are helping Hezbollah then they are in cahoots . In any case, if Lebannon cannot deal with Hezbollah to stop them from attacking them then Israel must do what it can to defend itself.

So now you're saying the problem is Hizbullah (remember: "they only want Israel destroyeD and how do you deal with people like that? OMG! oNOZ!") isn't legit enough to deal with? So: if, say, Hizbullah's was integrated into the Lebaese army and government, you'd have no issues with holding talks with them?

No. If they werer the government rather than a party within it they would be eligible for Israel to hold talk with. As I said, at present, holding talks with Hezbollah would be like North Korea holding talks with the KKK believing they spoke for the US government.

Problem is, one can't introduce democracy. the Middle East is not a cocktail party.

Well you can sure create the conditions for it. The voter turnout in Iraq blows the negative argument out of the water.

[Higgly]

Realistically, Palestine is no more. It's idiotic to want to bring a Palestinian state into existence in two tiny parcels of arid land. What was Palestine is now largely made up of Jordan and Israel. The only sensible thing to do is give Gaza to Egypt and make the inhabitants Egyptian citizens, and for Jordan to absord the remainder of Palestine and give them citizenship.

What an odd thing to say given your constant whining about leaders who want to wipe Israel off the map. What's sauce for the goose...

I've seen mention here somewhere of Israel's 1982 bombardment of Lebanon but no reference to the 17,000 civilians that the IDF slaughtered(under Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin). Even Ehud Barak was forced to admit publicly that Hezbolla came into existence as a direct result of Israel's brutality during that little adventure.

Here it is 5 years after 9/11 and we are still remembering the 2,500 killed by the terrorist attacks. How do you think the Lebanese feel about their thousands of dead and the country who did it to them?

And as far as Hezbollah goes, I think it needs to be noted here that they did not start to fire rockets into Israel until the IDF started bombing Lebanon. Imagine what the Lebanese were thinking when that started to happen.

I get a kick out of the leaflets the IDF dropped telling people to get out. The last time Israel invaded it took them 20 years to leave. And when they did there were idiots inside Israel saying they had given up land for peace. The Lebanese know all too well that there are a lot of people in Israel who consider south Lebanon a part of Eretz Israel that should belong to Israel. The Lebanese have seen what happened to the Palestinians who left their homes in 1948.

Funny how soon we forget what Israel has done in our rush to point fingers at her enemies.

[Figleaf]

Funny how soon we forget what Israel has done in our rush to point fingers at her enemies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Liberty_incident

[M.Dancer]

I've seen mention here somewhere of Israel's 1982 bombardment of Lebanon but no reference to the 17,000 civilians that the IDF slaughtered(under Ariel Sharon and Menachem Begin). Even Ehud Barak was forced to admit publicly that Hezbolla came into existence as a direct result of Israel's brutality during that little adventure.

Might be because like a lot of things that israel is blamed for, it's a bollock salad with half truth dressing.

The total death toll was around 17,000 including upwards of 9000 plo fighter.......

It is estimated that around 17,825 Arabs were killed during the war. There are different estimates of the proportion of civilians killed. Beirut newspaper An Nahar estimated that 5,515 people, military and civilian, were killed in the Beirut area only during the conflict, and 9,797 military personnel (PLO, Syrian, and others) and 2,513 civilians were killed outside of the Beirut area.[7] Approximately 675 Israeli soldiers were killed

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_Lebanon_War#Casualties

[JerrySeinfeld]

Actually there is a Palesitian state. It's call Jordan which is majority palestinian.

It used to be alot bigger before King Hussein joined Nasser in 1967 in their fight against Israel and lost.

When will these morons learn, you can't attack someone, then lose, then complain about the consequenses.

Israel needs to grow...dramaticall...to about the size of...oh...say Southern Lebanon and Syria.

These placs should be wiped off the map. Oh wait - that's their stance on ISRAEL!!

There is no confusion about the good guys and the bad guys here: it's obvious. The good guys are Israel and the bad guys are the violent jew-hating annihalists.