Israeli Dopers, What's the Deal?

So invade Lebanon, because that worked out so well before. :rolleyes:

No wonder our two countries are such strong allies. Our leaders read from the same idiot playbook. Not saying Israel doesn’t have a right to be pissed, or that these actions by Hamas and Hizbollah aren’t provocative and deserve a response, but jeez, Paul of Saudi and others were right: Way to play right into the hands of your enemies. This invasion of Lebanon should keep Hizbollah in fresh recruits for the next decade. Perhaps diplomacy might work if someone actually tried it, but I guess it feels better to keep pissing into the wind. Why I as a non-Jewish American should give a damn about either side is increasingly unclear to me.

Did you actually read my whole post!? Or are you conveniently avoiding the parts about trying gradually to get out of Lebanon, then Gaza, only to get our heels bitten from both places.
Anyway, what’s your solution to a country being unprovokedly attacked by another sovereign nation (and don’t give me the Lebnon != Hizballah BS, please)?

I’m confused, too. Noone Special had a coherent post laying out an explanation which no one has in any way or part refuted. What is Israel supposed to do? Wasn’t the whole purpose of pulling out of the Gaza Strip to mollify everyone? And after they do that, they get attacked more? Our advice to them at this point is to sit on their hands and keep taking it? How about they give up some more land? I’m sure that’ll do it.

So you do think this will somehow help? How?

As for what to do, I would propose something other than this. It seems like simple response to external stimuli. The Israelis are dancing to Hezboallah’s tune. That is not good.

Which I would agree with, if the last year hadn’t been exactly an attempt to try “something other than this.” We tried. We got our backs stabbed for the effort

Perhaps, but sometimes there is only one thing you can do, and you must accept the positive and the negative aspects of the outcome both.
I think the only way here was, yes, give Hizballah their expected response-by-force, but on a scale decidedly grander than they expected.
Whether this will work remains to be seen.

I got a hundred riyals that says it won’t work.

I’m not so sure… Stress and pressure tend to send people to extemes of what they already thought, not to change their minds. And the Lebanese know full well that Hizballah is (among other things) a Proxy for Syria – which many if not most hate with a passion. The real question is whether there was, pre-current-events, a silent majority fed up with Hizballah or not. Following some Lebanese websites, blogs and even official proclamation gives me the impression that the answer may not be as clear cut as you seem to think.

And how much is 100 Riyals in Shekels, anyway?:slight_smile:

New Shekels? About 122.

Of course that would be about 166 liters of petrol at our prices.

showoff :stuck_out_tongue: :smiley:

I can’t tell you how much it pleases me on so many levels that an Israeli and a Saudi* are joking about betting on the results of a war.

  • I know, not born there, but allow me this moment, OK?

You are forgetting about the…cough syrup…incident. :slight_smile:


(Sputters) But… but… but… I never said I agreed to the wager! 166 liters of petrol!? I’ll go broke! :slight_smile:

More seriously, I’d really feel uncomfortable making a wager as to the result of a war – even if I weren’t involved in it. It just seems wrong to bet over the lives of people dying. :frowning: But I’m certainly amenable to discussing and debating with anybody who’s prepared to look straight at the issues, such as Paul

Emphasis on the “joking” rather than the “betting on a war”. What I was sayin’ is that I’m glad this thread is so light-hearted, when it could have been a trainwreck by now. That’s all I’m sayin’.

Watch, it turns into a trainwreck just to spite me.

You wanted a trainwreck? You got a trainwreck.

Two Israelis were taken. Two Israeli combatants. An Israeli tank and some soldiers were harassed/killed/destroyed (affix adjectives where appropriate, please). They are labelled “terrorists”.

Israel fires missiles off into the city, killing noncombatants. They’re NOT terrorists.
How does one reconcile this ignorance of the accepted definition of “terrorism” that deals with attacking noncombatants?

First, you are ignoring the fact that the Israeli sodiers killed and taken had rushed to the frontier to inspect what was going on as a result of an unprovoked rocket attack on several Israeli civilian communities.

As to *our *tactics in Lebanon, I give you the Lebanese people themselves (From here):

There is your difference, in a nutshell

Excellent. Just the viewpoint I was going for.

So, let’s pretend this entire armed combat isn’t breaking out now.

What is a good fix for you? How can this situation be fixed before this skirmish/after this skirmish? Yes, it’s a rather big question.

I think that we, in the United States, hear a whole lot of propaganda from both sides. It makes it very hard to cut through and see what is actually going on.

Here is a question. You are Israel. Rockets are being fired into your territory for weeks. Two of your soldiers are kidnapped in Israeli territory and brought across the border.

What is the appropriate response?

Have you ever noticed that whenever Hamas or Hizbullah shoot rockets into Israel, these are normally said to be hitting ‘settlements’ and ‘villages’ but when Israel shoots into Lebanon, or Gaza or wherever, and no matter how densely populated, these are always ‘targets’.

Look at the kill ratio, its usually at least 3 to one in favour of Israel, and the latest shocker is the cars of refugees being hit killing two familes, 18 more dead, its said that the Israeli military is ‘investigating’ the incident…yeah riiiiight. just like it did when some of them shot unarmed protesters a few years back and no-one was brought to court, or when that British peace campaigner, waving a white flag, dressed in orange and rescuing children from the path of Israeli armour was coldly and deliberately shot through the neck, if it hadn’t been videotaped, and if it had not been for an inquiry in the UK that determined this person was unlawfully killed, the Israelis would have done nothing about it, and four years detention is hardly a realistic punishment for shooting an unarmed man with his hands in the air.

Since 2000 around 600 or slightly more, Palestinian children have died directly as a result of Israeli shooting, not through disease or accident, but by bombs, bullets etc
In the same period around 4000 Palestinians have died, the numbers of wounded are horrifying, well over 20,000, and yet there is supposed to be some form of peace ?

Torture of detainnees is so routine that Israeli courts have ruled on what it decides constitutes torture, and has ruled that in future torture of certain types should not take place, what the heck kind of judicial system is this that will allow ‘moderate physical pressure’ of the type that routinely breaks bones.

What is more disturbing is that it took years for the courts to make any ruling at all, even so, any number of reputable organisations still contend that torture still takes place as a matter of routine.

I do not imagine that hitting grain silos is going to hurt Hizbollah more than it will hurt the civilian population, and striking at the north end of Beiruts port, where the Christian Phalangists are currently settled is not going to win any allies there.

I do not have the answer about what the Israelis should do, but given that Hizbullah got 35% of the vote, what does Israel think its going to do when it says it will destroy that organisation ?

Are they really contemplating eliminating their support ?

Are Israelis gaining support in the places where it really matters, on their borders ?

Does anyone believe that their current tactics are likely to gain them more support, or perhaps provide ever more justification to the armed Arab groups ?

The British in India, and Ireland, and other countries did not manage to eliminate terrorism on territories they occupied, the Russians couldn’t do it in Afghanistan, the US/UK force in Iraq don’t seem to be able to stop terrorism with force, does anyone here seriously believe that the Israeli use of forece will reduce terrorism ?

The reason that the twin towers were destroyed has its roots directly in the way the US is precieved in the Arab world, the bombings in London were a result of that, and you can go on to Bali, Madrid, and now Mumbai.

It would be marvellous if the Arabs would simply disarm, if they would stop shooting rockets into Israel, but does anyone think it will happen as a result of Israeli incursion ?

What should be done ? Well tanks, bomb and guns will simply not work, if only it were that simple.

It depends whether you want a short or long term plan.
Sadly this situation has been going on for decades and there is no ‘quick fix’.

Once Hezbollah and Hamas (‘terrorists’ to Israel; ‘freedom fighters’ to many local Arabs) kidnapped Israeli soldiers, then both sides expect Israel to retaliate with missiles, bombs + tanks.
After various Arab civilians are killed, the Israeli Cabinet can say ‘we made a strong response - you can trust us’ and (on the other side) new recruits + funding pour into Hezbollah / Hamas.

Bear in mind that this conflict has deep historical roots, includes some of the most fanatical religious fundamentalists on the planet and already has plenty of historical atrocities to ‘avenge’.

And to answer your question:

The appropriate response is to release the hostages, arrest the kidnappers and put them on trial.