What does Isreal do now?

[system]

*Originally posted by december *
Given my pessimism, I would love to believe that you are correct when you write What I see (from a pro-Israel POV) is that their Arab neighbors have attacked them consistently from day 1 in 1948 to today. Can you expand on why you believe that Israel’s neighbors would change a behavior that has existed for 54 years? It seems a lot to hope for, given the history.

The last state on state war was 73.

None the frontline states, ex-Syria, have engaged in Israel destruction policies.

Even Syria has not seriously supported destroying Israel, for all their empty posturing (that being a criticism of their cynical exploitation of the issue).

The behavour of the recent decades suggests that if (a) you give the secularists their basic demands, and (b) give the general pop soemthing to lose --and they have almost nothing to lose now one can do ahead.

Is it 100%, no.

[december]

*Originally posted by Collounsbury *
**The last state on state war was 73. **

I consider the suicide bombings of the last 2 years to be acts of war. They are supported and encouraged by various Arab countries. I would classify these attacks as merely a different form of warfare.

[system]

*Originally posted by december *
**I consider the suicide bombings of the last 2 years to be acts of war. They are supported and encouraged by various Arab countries. I would classify these attacks as merely a different form of warfare. **

You can consider it what you bloody motherfucking want, but that don’t make it so.

It is indeed a different form of warfare, I have not advised SDMB readers to see the film The Battle of Algiers for nothing.

That is not the equivalent of 1973, and I do not see a real equivalence.

[Sam_Stone]

It’s easy to blame this on Sharon, but it must be remembered that Israel is a democracy, and that a government’s PRIMARY responsibility is the protection of its citizens.

Polls show that Israelis, if anything, are farther to the right than Sharon right now. You have to remember that in democracies the politicians are to some degree slaves to the will of the people. Especially during times of crisis, and especially those at the very top.

If Sharon doesn’t take a hard line with the Palestinians, he will lose the next election, and do you know who is going to take his place? Most likely, Benjamin Netanyahu. I don’t think Collounsbury will like that.

It’s easy to just say, “Sharon should stand back and not retaliate”, but it must be remembered that every attack on Israeli citizens is seen as a failure of the government in its fundamental duty. What you are asking for is essentially that Israel sacrifice Israeli citizens to a common good. How well would that play in the U.S. if, say, Maine was being attacked by angry Newfoundlanders?

And I’m starting to believe that Arafat doesn’t in fact control many of the terrorists operating in Palestine. But that’s a difference that makes no difference. The bottom line is that Israel is being attacked, and the Palestinians are either incapable or unwilling to stop it. For Israeli intents and purposes, it is a completely lawless state.

Given that, I only see two possibilities. One is complete isolation (“The big wall”) which would be economically devastating to the Palestinians, or a complete Israeli occupation with law and order being established under Israeli law and vigorous prosecution of Palestinian criminal behaviour. I don’t think that’ll fly either.

My fear is that this current situation will continue as-is until there is a new attack of much larger proportions. Sarin gas in a crowded area, biological attacks, airliner crashes, a huge bomb bringing down a building, something like that. Then we’re all going to watch a horrific spasm of violence which will end in the destruction of the Palestinians as an organized group. Either they will be forcibly removed from the occupied territories and dropped in the trans-Jordan region or somewhere else, or Israel will simply re-occupy the whole area permanently.

[jjimm]

Originally posted by Sam Stone
It’s easy to blame this on Sharon,

May I introduce you to Occam’s Razor?

but it must be remembered that Israel is a democracy, and that a government’s PRIMARY responsibility is the protection of its citizens.

Which is why I think, in the mid- to short-term, Sharon’s policies are going to backfire SO badly.

How well would that play in the U.S. if, say, Maine was being attacked by angry Newfoundlanders?

Again, sorry to keep bringing the conversation back to Ireland, but I think one could parallel Sharon with Thatcher. Thatcher refused to negotiate with terror groups, she deemed them “criminals” rather than political prisoners (leading to the Hunger Strikes). Under Thatcher there was no hope of reconciliation. Under Major and now Blair, negotiation was entered into with the political wings of the terror groups, and they were slowly and haltingly (interspersed with occasional acts of violence) brought into a ceasefire and the political process.

And I’m starting to believe that Arafat doesn’t in fact control many of the terrorists operating in Palestine.

So do you now therefore feel that the attack and besieging of his compound, and the destruction of PA security installations is more, or less, constructive towards encouraging moderate Palestinians? Sharon has taken the attitude that “Arafat is a terrorist” and has worked his policies thus. However, for his many faults, it isn’t clear that Arafat is.

Either they will be forcibly removed from the occupied territories and dropped in the trans-Jordan region or somewhere else, or Israel will simply re-occupy the whole area permanently.

How can they reoccupy something they already occupy? Seriously though, this is the problem: from Sharon’s POV your two proposed scenarios do seem to be the only endpoints; to do anything else would be seen to concede defeat to terror. But as GD concensus established a few months ago, alas the thread appears to have been swallowed, the fact that a terrorist asks for something does not necessarily make that goal wrong. Which is why, again, I wish someone with the courage of Rabin were in charge.

[smiling_bandit]

"May I introduce you to Occam’s Razor? "

Except Occam’s razor doesn’t require us to take the simplistic answer, just the simplest one. As a matter of practicality, Sharon or no, Netanyahu or no, Israeli responses will get more and more nasty the more the body count rises. The fact remains that Israel has continuall kicked the ball in the Palestinian’s court. And the Palestinian’s won’t run with it. I’m not saying its always right, but as a practical measure, the Israeli’s can not, politically and socially, accept a peace (a peace they believe will lead to more violence against them) on the PA’s terms. The PA can get out of it on the Israeili’s terms, but they will not. No matter who runs the show in Tel Aviv, The policy has and will remained the same.

The Israelis have no trust at all for any ARab state. Period. (Well, maybe Jordan, but they are a bit weird even for the MidEast.) They wil not rust any settlement with Palestine on Paletine’s terms. It will not happen. The fact is, neither side really wants peace at the cost it will take: one side mortgaging its present or future.

As an aside, the Israelis did take the land legally. It may not have been nice, but it was legal and right.

[China_Guy]

smiling bandit, a cornerstone of international law, which is also proscribed within the geneva conventions and IIRC the UN charter, is that land taken by force can never be legitimized. There are many cases in modern history where land taken by force has been legitimized, but that is beside the point. Land taken in the various arab-israeli wars, the settlements, etc are not generally accepted as legal as they were taken by force. It does not matter if that land was taken in response to an attack or not, or who the aggressor was.

[sqweels]

As an aside, the Israelis did take the land legally. It may not have been nice, but it was legal and right.

Cite?

Are you talkjung about the Wes Bank and Gaza which was designated as Arabl territory in the UN partition plan?

The settlements are frequently referred to as “illegal” and this seems to be the consensus in the international community. When did they get to be legal?

And “right”? If Israel gets to keep the West Bank, then where are the Palestinians going to live? Is it “right” that they should live under permanant military occupation? Or is it “right” that they should all be expelled from their homes?

It’s one thing to oppupy enemy territory in time of war, its another thing to take away other people’s land and permanently deny them their right to national self-determination.

[zwaldd]

*Originally posted by sqweels *
**Are you talkjung about the Wes Bank and Gaza which was designated as Arabl territory in the UN partition plan?
**

Arabs rejected the partition plan and demonstrated their decision violently. The plan has not since been officially re-offered, so they don’t have any legal claim to the land. Had they accepted the plan, they may have a legitimate claim of ‘illegal seizure’.

*Originally posted by sqweels *
It’s one thing to oppupy enemy territory in time of war, its another thing to take away other people’s land and permanently deny them their right to national self-determination.

When did the war end? When did Palestinians surrender and agree to terms? When has Israel been guaranteed its safety by surrounding nations?