Political Crossfire Forums

[loquitor]

respectfully, what would you do if you were the head of israel? sit down w/ the head of hez (the local one or the guy in iran)? we can go around all day long about tactics etc but seriously, what realistic options do the israelis have? should they chalk up the border incursion and kidnapping of their soldiers as just a cost of doing business in the neighborhood? should they be "comfortable" w/ hez poised to lob rockets?

isnt the declared goal or hez and/or its backers the destruction of israel?

i dont have an answer but i'd like to know what you folks think (not "feel"). because in all candor, this whole business about the military tactics and strategy sounds like mental masturbation. so, what would you do? i ask this question as a folow up to the heading of this thread.

[ToonArmyIsComing]

loquitor wrote: respectfully, what would you do if you were the head of israel? sit down w/ the head of hez (the local one or the guy in iran)? we can go around all day long about tactics etc but seriously, what realistic options do the israelis have? should they chalk up the border incursion and kidnapping of their soldiers as just a cost of doing business in the neighborhood? should they be "comfortable" w/ hez poised to lob rockets?

isnt the declared goal or hez and/or its backers the destruction of israel?

i dont have an answer but i'd like to know what you folks think (not "feel"). because in all candor, this whole business about the military tactics and strategy sounds like mental masturbation. so, what would you do? i ask this question as a folow up to the heading of this thread.

You see that's the exact mentality that is causing the problem: everything is done for HERE and NOW because that is increasingly becoming the nature of democracies [including the Jewish democracy] around the world. There is very little vision for the long term and everything is done to uphold the status quo or revise it slightly without anything fundamental being done.

[loquitor]

toon, perhaps i've taken too many to the head over the years. but your response to the query eludes me. if i understand, the current dispute/war/whatever we label it is short term in your view. ok. but the question remains unanswered and perhaps i should have stated it differently: how do we avoid a repeat?

maybe the question is unanswerable; after all, the problem has been going on in one form or another for centuries.

[Nico]

loquitor wrote: toon, perhaps i've taken too many to the head over the years. but your response to the query eludes me. if i understand, the current dispute/war/whatever we label it is short term in your view. ok. but the question remains unanswered and perhaps i should have stated it differently: how do we avoid a repeat?

maybe the question is unanswerable; after all, the problem has been going on in one form or another for centuries.

Are you familiar with alsace-lorraine? For many years this was a part of France that didn't think of itself as french. there was a proud pro-german history. Eventually however during world war two, the nazis did some very bad things in Alsace. now many would consider it a very french place to be.



The point is that the status quo exists because of ill-will, not good will. there is so little of the latter I don't know if anyone would recognise it. So you have the option of just doing the same thing that's always been done, exercising dominance to the detriment of everything, or adjusting totally to win over not the people who are across the border right this minute, but those who will be there in 20 years.
rockets just get longer range every year, so there's no point in chasing the launcher, but the will of the guy operating it. If he respects Israel as an ally he's far less likely to pull the trigger than if he respects them as an enemy.

[Duchifas]

Nico wrote: loquitor wrote: toon, perhaps i've taken too many to the head over the years. but your response to the query eludes me. if i understand, the current dispute/war/whatever we label it is short term in your view. ok. but the question remains unanswered and perhaps i should have stated it differently: how do we avoid a repeat?

maybe the question is unanswerable; after all, the problem has been going on in one form or another for centuries.

Are you familiar with alsace-lorraine? For many years this was a part of France that didn't think of itself as french. there was a proud pro-german history. Eventually however during world war two, the nazis did some very bad things in Alsace. now many would consider it a very french place to be.



The point is that the status quo exists because of ill-will, not good will. there is so little of the latter I don't know if anyone would recognise it. So you have the option of just doing the same thing that's always been done, exercising dominance to the detriment of everything, or adjusting totally to win over not the people who are across the border right this minute, but those who will be there in 20 years.
rockets just get longer range every year, so there's no point in chasing the launcher, but the will of the guy operating it. If he respects Israel as an ally he's far less likely to pull the trigger than if he respects them as an enemy.

Did the Alsace-Lorraineans deny the right of Germany to exist?

It amazes me that apparently reasonable people can analogize to completely irrelevant and inapplicable situations.

The guy operating the rocket launcher in Lebanon is about as amenable to changing his attitude towards Israel as an SS trooper would be amenable to liking Jews. Israel withdrew from Lebanon, yet the attacks continued from Hezbollah. What is the purpose of Hezbollah amassing tens of thousands of rockets over the last six years? To defend against Israeli occupation? What occupation? The UN certified that Israel complied with every requirement. Yet, Hezbollah has consistently attacked Israel.

The point is very simple. You absolutely CANNOT make peace with people who at the core deny your right to exist. You can negotiate a border dispute. You can negotiate water rights. You can mend up differences and address grievances. But you cannot make peace with people who deny your right to exist. That's just a fundamental reality, a reality that has proven itself very conclusively in the "peace process" between Israel and Palestinians. There was no peace there. Peace was just the name of the process. The substance of the process was nowhere close to peace. All the hopes and predictions were fake. They were based on fundamental misunderstanding of reality.

That is why all these analogies from Alsace or from Northern Ireland are ridiculously irrelevant when applied to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Alsatians have never denied the right of Germany or France to exist. That's why they can live in peace with both, even though there was much bad history. The Irish have never denied the right of the British to exist, they just wanted them out of Ireland. That's why coexistence was possible when Britain made compromises.

That is not the case in the Middle East. To deny that significant elements in the Arab world deny Israel's right to exist is to deny reality. To hope that peace can be achieved before that obstacle is overcome is sheer idiocy. And to presume that Israel can convince its enemies of its right to exist by compromising and negotiating with them shows a lack of even basic understanding of human mentality.

[Nico]

Duchifas, in the time Israel has existed there has been a change in the arab world. it's not a carbon copy of 1948 any longer, and just comparing every enemy to the SS does no-one any favours.

Since 1948 even the PLO itself has recognised Israel.

Israel now has full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania and trade relations with Qatar. If a person's passport shows any evidence of travel to Israel, barring a diplomatic passport, they are forbidden entry to the Sultanate of Oman, among other Arab and Muslim states. [2]

On October 1, 1994, the Gulf States publicly announced their support for a review of the Arab boycott, in effect abolishing the secondary and tertiary boycotts against Israel. Israel has diplomatic relations with 9 non-Arab Muslim states and with 32 of the 43 Sub-Saharan African states that are not members of the Arab League. Israel established relations with the People's Republic of China and India in 1992. Sino-Israeli and Indo-Israeli relations have blossomed ever since. In 2000, Israel became India's second largest military equipment supplier, with military transactions signed or in the pipeline exceeding 3 billion USD.

Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, diplomats have been discussing the possibility of improved relations between Israel and Iraq. However, then-Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi said in 2004 that Iraq would not establish ties with Israel. [3]

In 2005, Saudi Arabia announced the end of its ban on Israeli goods and services, mostly due to its application to the World Trade Organization, where one member country cannot have a total ban on another. The Saudis have yet to offer full political recognition.

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

It's a long way from perfect but it demonstrates that even the Arab world isn't stagnant when it comes to Israel, although your view of them seems to be one which is not subject to review.

If Israel can [and it has] change the stance of one nation through diplomacy, it can do it with 2 or 200.
to presume that every enemy of israel is implacable is not realistic.

[Duchifas]

Nico wrote: Duchifas, in the time Israel has existed there has been a change in the arab world. it's not a carbon copy of 1948 any longer, and just comparing every enemy to the SS does no-one any favours.

I am not comparing every enemy. The situation somewhat changed, but some things remain constant. Find me even one post where I talk in harsh terms about Egypt or Jordan. You can't. Because I recognize when change happens.

The problem here is that you fail to recognize when change does not happen, no matter how much you want it to. Thus, you are projecting your own hopes and preferences onto reality, without realizing that reality is much uglier. Hizbollah is not Egypt and not Jordan. They seek Israel's destruction no less than in 1948. Get up to speed, Nico.

Quote: Since 1948 even the PLO itself has recognised Israel.

We saw how they realized it when Israeli buses started blowing up every other day. After his recognition, Arafat continued a war of terror against Israel, using advantage of autonomy. I think it is time for you to admit that PLO recognition of Israel was strategic maneuver designed to fool Israel and the West. PLO's true face came out in the terror war they started after Camp David. If you place any value on their "recognition" of Israel after that, then you are delusional. PLO and Palestinians have not changed for the better. If anything, they have become more emboldened to destroy Israel.

Quote: Israel now has full diplomatic relations with Egypt, Jordan and Mauritania and trade relations with Qatar. If a person's passport shows any evidence of travel to Israel, barring a diplomatic passport, they are forbidden entry to the Sultanate of Oman, among other Arab and Muslim states.

On October 1, 1994, the Gulf States publicly announced their support for a review of the Arab boycott, in effect abolishing the secondary and tertiary boycotts against Israel. Israel has diplomatic relations with 9 non-Arab Muslim states and with 32 of the 43 Sub-Saharan African states that are not members of the Arab League. Israel established relations with the People's Republic of China and India in 1992. Sino-Israeli and Indo-Israeli relations have blossomed ever since. In 2000, Israel became India's second largest military equipment supplier, with military transactions signed or in the pipeline exceeding 3 billion USD.

Following the invasion of Iraq in 2003, diplomats have been discussing the possibility of improved relations between Israel and Iraq. However, then-Iraqi PM Iyad Allawi said in 2004 that Iraq would not establish ties with Israel. [3]

In 2005, Saudi Arabia announced the end of its ban on Israeli goods and services, mostly due to its application to the World Trade Organization, where one member country cannot have a total ban on another. The Saudis have yet to offer full political recognition.
[/color]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Israel

It's a long way from perfect but it demonstrates that even the Arab world isn't stagnant when it comes to Israel, although your view of them seems to be one which is not subject to review.

If Israel can [and it has] change the stance of one nation through diplomacy, it can do it with 2 or 200.
to presume that every enemy of israel is implacable is not realistic.

I am not talking about every enemy. I am not talking about Qatar, nor about Saudi Arabia. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am talking about people who vote for Hamas, and I am talking about people who launch thousands of rockets into Israeli towns.

To put Mauritania into the same basket as Hizbollah is foolish.

Answer a very simple question. What do you think motivates Hizbollah to attack Israel, even though Israel has withdrawn from Lebanon? Do you think Nasrallah is capable of making a genuine peace with Israel, after calling for its destruction all his life? Please don't give me the Arafat example. We all know how genuine that was.

[PoS]

Duchifas wrote: Israel withdrew from Lebanon, yet the attacks continued from Hezbollah. What is the purpose of Hezbollah amassing tens of thousands of rockets over the last six years? To defend against Israeli occupation? What occupation?

Two words: Shaba Farms

[Duchifas]

PoS wrote: Duchifas wrote: Israel withdrew from Lebanon, yet the attacks continued from Hezbollah. What is the purpose of Hezbollah amassing tens of thousands of rockets over the last six years? To defend against Israeli occupation? What occupation?

Two words: Shaba Farms

Two letters: UN.

[superskippy]

PoS wrote: Duchifas wrote: Israel withdrew from Lebanon, yet the attacks continued from Hezbollah. What is the purpose of Hezbollah amassing tens of thousands of rockets over the last six years? To defend against Israeli occupation? What occupation?

Two words: Shaba Farms

Something that in their entire history they have never owned. It's a made up reason to continue their attacks. Whatever we do with the farms if anything has to do with Syria.

[loquitor]

wow, i was told that this place is great place to exchange ideas, reason things out, and discuss policy. toon avoids a question for discussion consistent w/ the thread title and instead says that the questioner (as if he/she knows me) has a mental outlook consistent w/ the ME rubric that causes these "tensions". thanks for the insult.

next a moderator tries to impart an inapposite history lesson to which i would respond, "well, do you mean when france took alsace in 1648, lorraine in 1766, germany taking most of them both in 1871, losing them to france in after WW1, germany regaining them during WW2, and losing them again after WW2?"

if the answer is that you would not respond in an effort to gain your men back and discourage border - such as it is - incursions by using force and instead trying to win hearts and minds by reponding w/ friendship, fair enough. let's discuss that approach. sounds like you want to attack the conditions that lead to an armed militia. i agree w/ the mod that the approach to date has obviously failed. however, can't you resort to something other than a curbside psycho-analysis and a high handed and erroneous try at a history lesson?

if this gets me banned, so be it.

[brian_in_idaho]

Quote: [quote="SpartanPhalanxTodays flattening of those buildings in Qana, Lebanon, killing 54 civilians sadly will be just one example of the complete moral bankruptcy of America and its proxy Israel and is GUARANTEED to radicalise local and world opinion even more. If ANYONE could stop this insanity it is the United States, yet they continue to be complicit in the crimes being perpetrated by Israel.

And the world watches...... [/quote]

Quote: If ANYONE could stop this insanity it is the United States

Can you tell us how? I'm sure GWB, Condi Rice and a lot of other people would really like to know.

I support Israel's right to deal with Hezbollah, and even support her tactics, brutal as they may be to the Lebanese people. However, I doubt they will be effective. The only way I can see Hezbollah being stopped is for the Lebanese people to help route out these terrorist thugs at every opportunity. But first you need to turn the attitudes of the Lebanese people against them. How do you do so, and keep Hezbollah from launching terror attacks while doing so? Inquiring minds want to know...

[Nico]

loquitor wrote: wow, i was told that this place is great place to exchange ideas, reason things out, and discuss policy. toon avoids a question for discussion consistent w/ the thread title and instead says that the questioner (as if he/she knows me) has a mental outlook consistent w/ the ME rubric that causes these "tensions". thanks for the insult.

next a moderator tries to impart an inapposite history lesson to which i would respond, "well, do you mean when france took alsace in 1648, lorraine in 1766, germany taking most of them both in 1871, losing them to france in after WW1, germany regaining them during WW2, and losing them again after WW2?"

if the answer is that you would not respond in an effort to gain your men back and discourage border - such as it is - incursions by using force and instead trying to win hearts and minds by reponding w/ friendship, fair enough. let's discuss that approach. sounds like you want to attack the conditions that lead to an armed militia. i agree w/ the mod that the approach to date has obviously failed. however, can't you resort to something other than a curbside psycho-analysis and a high handed and erroneous try at a history lesson?

if this gets me banned, so be it.


What for? you haven't actually said anything that would constitute banning.
If I took offence at an expanded history diatribe I would have left a long time previously.

read the forum rules, abide, and bring your A game :wink:

PS, when I debate, I'm not a mod. I'm a mod when people forget the terms of their membership.



Now as to debate; re alsace lorraine. The context is that good faith is squandered, and this was true in ww2 alsace lorraine. The analogy isn't designed to be read any further than the simple context, as flogging it could take you back to as far back in history as you want. i'm not going to waste a page setting conditions for the reader when people are smart enough to understand the basic context.

[ffum]

TO ALL.

"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction".

Good or bad.