Political Crossfire Forums

[Kane]

Ok, I've seen much done about how Israel is evil, Zionist, a Nazi state, etc etc. I have to ask: What should Israel do to please you?

My Opinion: Focus less on the military aspect and more on the diplomatic. Sure, a measured response to both incursions that took place from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would've been appropriate...but this Lebanese offensive went waaaay too far.

Israel sure as hell isn't going to make many friends in the region through heavy military aggression...so why not stick to diplomacy? The IDF is strong enough to repel any real military threat by any bordering nations...so why waste it on a terrorist organization that's likely to just re-group after this conflict is over? Military power doesn't get rid of these groups...it may diminish their ability to immediately respond and take a while to rebuild...but then your right back where you started.

While Diplomacy is slow...it allows long-term goals to come to fruition...

[FarPastGone]

I think the hope is that (as you said since they will re-group and not necessarily be able to respond immediatley) set in to place either a coalition of international forces in South Lebanon to control the situation or setup a buffer zone while the forces are re-grouping. Of course this is just my opinion, but I think the overly aggressive offensive is centered around the fact that hopefully there will be enough time for something to be put in to effect that insures Israeli's safety. However, I agree diplomacy should be sought out to solve this conflict, and do not understand the reasoning behind mass bombing civilian areas even if they are "possible" shelter to Hezbollah.

[Ssushi]

I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

[Kane]

Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

[thatisnotme]

Israel can never sleep in peace. It is surrounded by hostile Arab nations. The only way for survival is to keep a topnotch IDF in shape and readiness, and maintain permanent buffer zones between Israel and the Arabs.

[TNBiologist]

Israel needs to focus on the diplomatic and humanitarian aspect but must finish the military offensive they have started. To end their military offensive now will be viewed as week by countries/gruops that want to attack them. Send in the ground troops (it will mean loses on the IDF, hezbollah and civilian sides) to destroy weapons catches, rocket firing possitions, ect.. Once the military ground forces have completed this use those same ground forces that are in place to rebuild the infastructure of southern Labanon (schools, hospitals, power facilities) so the civilian population does not suffer more than it already has. This also helps to shed a good light on Israel in teh international community and maybe in the eyes of some of the Lebanonese population.

Once the infastructure is rebuild, Israel needs to pull its forces out and they need to be replaced with either a NATO force or a coalition force made up of Muslim and non-muslim countries to keep all sides from using the area as a military staging ground. NOT THE UN (the UN have been there for years and have shown they have no teeth to enforce policy).

[Duchifas]

Kane wrote: Ok, I've seen much done about how Israel is evil, Zionist, a Nazi state, etc etc. I have to ask: What should Israel do to please you?

My Opinion: Focus less on the military aspect and more on the diplomatic. Sure, a measured response to both incursions that took place from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would've been appropriate...but this Lebanese offensive went waaaay too far.

What's measured in your view? A day of bombing? Two days? A week? Only artillery shelling? What if a stray bomb hit Qana on the first and only day of the "measured" response? Would that still be measured?

What about the fact that in the six years since its withdrawal from Lebanon, Israel has responded with restraint to kidnappings and rocket shellings? Is it fair to call Israel's current response unmeasured in the context of six years of provocation it had to endure?

So what would be a measured response under the circumstances, Kane? As specifically as you can, please.

Before you start, let me give you a quick reminder. In 2001, after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. They are still in Hizbollah's hands, five years later. Israel's response was very measured. No progress has been achieved. Two years ago, Hizbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman. Israel negotiated with them, and exchanged him for hundreds of Arab prisoners. Now, Hizbollah kidnapped two more soldiers and killed 8, and fired rockets into Israeli towns.

So under these circumstances, what is a "measured" response? Remember, the measured response of 2001 did not work. And the diplomatic prisoner exchange of 2005 only gave Hizbollah more incentive to kidnap Israelis.

So now tell us, what would be a measured response.

Quote: Israel sure as hell isn't going to make many friends in the region through heavy military aggression...so why not stick to diplomacy?

Because Israel has been trying diplomacy, and on the Palestinian track that gave Israel suicide bombings in buses and cafes, and rockets landing on kindergartens. On the Lebanon track, the diplomatic track led Hizbollah to expect that every time they kidnap Israelis, they can extract an exhorbitant price for them. So why not stick to diplomacy? Well, because much more than not gaining Israel friends, it actually encourages its enemies to attack it. That's why.

Quote: The IDF is strong enough to repel any real military threat by any bordering nations...so why waste it on a terrorist organization that's likely to just re-group after this conflict is over?

The myth that the IDF is strong enough to repel any military threat was destroyed when Hizbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon in 2000. Once that myth has been destroyed, Hizbollah and Hamas took the appropriate lessons and figured that the IDF might is useless unless it is supported by political will to fight. Thus, Hamas unleashed a terror war against Israeli civilians to undermine their will to fight. For years buses were blowing up, even thogh the IDF is strong enough for anything. Rockets are still landing from Gaza, even though IDF is strong enough for anything.

This leads to the simple conclusion that IDF's deterrent power is utterly useless, unless it is demonstrated. This is what is now happening in Lebanon. Israel needs to re-convince its neighbors that if they provoke it hard enough, IDF's might will be exercised. They could not be convinced of that when Israel used restraint or diplomacy. They just didn't view Israeli threats credibly. Therefore, the use of military force in Lebanon right now, while tragic, is a good thing. Next time Hizbollah thinks of provoking Israel, it will have a good reminder of what will happen. Thus, future casualties will be avoided.

Quote: Military power doesn't get rid of these groups...it may diminish their ability to immediately respond and take a while to rebuild...but then your right back where you started.

As stated above, diplomacy (withdrawal, restraint, negotiation) has gotten Israel nowhere. Israel pulled out of Lebanon completely, yet, Lebanon was not rid of Hizbollah. Instead, Hizbollah is stronger than ever. Therefore, Israel has to go for the next best thing, the second best choice -- severely diminish Hizbollah's ability to harm Israel.

Yes, that approach does not sound as appealing as the Left's constant cliches (give peace another chance, war is not the answer, violence begets violence) but it has a basis in reality.

Quote: While Diplomacy is slow...it allows long-term goals to come to fruition...

Diplomacy is not only slow, in some cases it is futile. Military has its place, and so does diplomacy. Like military might, diplomacy does not succeed everywhere. Particularly when the other side is hellbent on your destruction and does not recognize your right to exist. By definition, negotiation with such people is more than likely to be futile or harmful.

[thatisnotme]

>>What other country, when attacked in an unprovoked aggression across a recognized international frontier, is then put on a countdown clock by the world, given a limited time window in which to fight back, regardless of whether it has restored its own security?

What other country sustains 1,500 indiscriminate rocket attacks into its cities -- every one designed to kill, maim and terrorize civilians -- and is then vilified by the world when it tries to destroy the enemy's infrastructure and strongholds with precision-guided munitions that sometimes have the unintended but unavoidable consequence of collateral civilian death and suffering?


To hear the world pass judgment on the Israel-Hezbollah war as it unfolds is to live in an Orwellian moral universe. With a few significant exceptions (the leadership of the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada and a very few others), the world -- governments, the media, U.N. bureaucrats -- has completely lost its moral bearings.<<

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/27/AR2006072701725.html?sub=AR

[Ssushi]

Kane wrote: Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel
b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course
c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks
d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway
e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

[thatisnotme]

Ssushi wrote: Kane wrote: Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel
b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course
c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks
d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway
e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

Simpler than that, the Arabs have to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Once they cross that threshold, peace will come.

[Duchifas]

Ssushi wrote: a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel

Too vague. Can you give some tangible, practical and concrete guidelines on how to get along with a neighbor that does not recognize your right to exist and seeks your destruction. Remember, vague cliches are easy. Give some real, concrete tips, please. And explain why they would work.

Quote: b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course

Of course. Israel pulled out to the original border with Lebanon, which was followed by attacks from Hizbollah. Israel pulled out of Gaza, which was followed by daily rocket barrages.

So, please explain why Israel should keep withdrawing until the neighbors tangibly demonstrate that relations will actually improve with further withdrawals.

Quote: c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks

Huh? What's a free-zone? And what do you mean 50% from their land? Israel is 15 miles wide near West Bank. In order to create safety from missile attacks, it would need to relocate itself to the sea. What 50% are you talking about?

Quote: d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway

Only after Britain gives up their nuclear weapons. First, British have more nukes than Israel, so proportionately speaking, they make the world that much less safer. Second, I don't see who Britain needs to protect itself from these days. Third, USA supports Britain.

So I think Israel should get rid of its nukes, but only after Britain sets the example.

Quote: e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

One more time, please be more concrete. "Get on better" is rather meaningless.

Quote: I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

There are no ABC solutions to the Middle East conflict. There are ridiculous ones, and less ridiculous ones. Care to guess which category your "suggestions" fall into?

[thatisnotme]

I did give Ssushi a simpler plan, he should be eating his hat.

[Kane]

Duchifas wrote: Kane wrote: Ok, I've seen much done about how Israel is evil, Zionist, a Nazi state, etc etc. I have to ask: What should Israel do to please you?

My Opinion: Focus less on the military aspect and more on the diplomatic. Sure, a measured response to both incursions that took place from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would've been appropriate...but this Lebanese offensive went waaaay too far.

What's measured in your view? A day of bombing? Two days? A week? Only artillery shelling? What if a stray bomb hit Qana on the first and only day of the "measured" response? Would that still be measured?

What about the fact that in the six years since its withdrawal from Lebanon, Israel has responded with restraint to kidnappings and rocket shellings? Is it fair to call Israel's current response unmeasured in the context of six years of provocation it had to endure?

So what would be a measured response under the circumstances, Kane? As specifically as you can, please.

A measured response would've not discriminated against the Northern Part of Lebanon...where most people had negative perceptions about Hezbollah. A measured response wouldn't have negated any military power the Lebanese actually held...and then demand that those forces go down to Southern Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah demise. A measured response would have not held an entire country guilty for the select actions of a few.

Duchifas wrote:
Before you start, let me give you a quick reminder. In 2001, after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. They are still in Hizbollah's hands, five years later. Israel's response was very measured. No progress has been achieved. Two years ago, Hizbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman. Israel negotiated with them, and exchanged him for hundreds of Arab prisoners. Now, Hizbollah kidnapped two more soldiers and killed 8, and fired rockets into Israeli towns.

So under these circumstances, what is a "measured" response? Remember, the measured response of 2001 did not work. And the diplomatic prisoner exchange of 2005 only gave Hizbollah more incentive to kidnap Israelis.

So now tell us, what would be a measured response.

See above.

Duchifas wrote:
Quote: Israel sure as hell isn't going to make many friends in the region through heavy military aggression...so why not stick to diplomacy?

Because Israel has been trying diplomacy, and on the Palestinian track that gave Israel suicide bombings in buses and cafes, and rockets landing on kindergartens. On the Lebanon track, the diplomatic track led Hizbollah to expect that every time they kidnap Israelis, they can extract an exhorbitant price for them. So why not stick to diplomacy? Well, because much more than not gaining Israel friends, it actually encourages its enemies to attack it. That's why.

And military strikes don't?

Duchifas wrote:
Quote: The IDF is strong enough to repel any real military threat by any bordering nations...so why waste it on a terrorist organization that's likely to just re-group after this conflict is over?

The myth that the IDF is strong enough to repel any military threat was destroyed when Hizbollah kicked Israel out of Lebanon in 2000. Once that myth has been destroyed, Hizbollah and Hamas took the appropriate lessons and figured that the IDF might is useless unless it is supported by political will to fight. Thus, Hamas unleashed a terror war against Israeli civilians to undermine their will to fight. For years buses were blowing up, even thogh the IDF is strong enough for anything. Rockets are still landing from Gaza, even though IDF is strong enough for anything.

This leads to the simple conclusion that IDF's deterrent power is utterly useless, unless it is demonstrated. This is what is now happening in Lebanon. Israel needs to re-convince its neighbors that if they provoke it hard enough, IDF's might will be exercised. They could not be convinced of that when Israel used restraint or diplomacy. They just didn't view Israeli threats credibly. Therefore, the use of military force in Lebanon right now, while tragic, is a good thing. Next time Hizbollah thinks of provoking Israel, it will have a good reminder of what will happen. Thus, future casualties will be avoided.

How? We've already relegated to the idea that after this military confrontation either Hezbollah will strengthen again or some other group will take it's place...

Duchifas wrote:
Quote: Military power doesn't get rid of these groups...it may diminish their ability to immediately respond and take a while to rebuild...but then your right back where you started.

As stated above, diplomacy (withdrawal, restraint, negotiation) has gotten Israel nowhere. Israel pulled out of Lebanon completely, yet, Lebanon was not rid of Hizbollah. Instead, Hizbollah is stronger than ever. Therefore, Israel has to go for the next best thing, the second best choice -- severely diminish Hizbollah's ability to harm Israel.

Yes, that approach does not sound as appealing as the Left's constant cliches (give peace another chance, war is not the answer, violence begets violence) but it has a basis in reality.

It has short term goals and aims that in the long run, will only eventually lead back to the same situation. Middle Eastern outrage at Israel hasn't decreased since this event...it's increasing. To use the military tactic of suppression on a group of people willing to use Suicide Bombers seems useless because they clearly don't care about living as it is.

Duchifas wrote:
Quote: While Diplomacy is slow...it allows long-term goals to come to fruition...

Diplomacy is not only slow, in some cases it is futile. Military has its place, and so does diplomacy. Like military might, diplomacy does not succeed everywhere. Particularly when the other side is hellbent on your destruction and does not recognize your right to exist. By definition, negotiation with such people is more than likely to be futile or harmful.

I would say that all the military actions of the past 40 years have been futile as it has only lead up to this point...(With the exception to the direct military threat posed by other states in the region during a couple wars).

[Kane]

thatisnotme wrote: Ssushi wrote: Kane wrote: Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel
b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course
c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks
d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway
e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

Simpler than that, the Arabs have to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Once they cross that threshold, peace will come.

Don't forget the Persians! :wink:

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. You can argue into the sun about how Israel stole land however many years ago but it will not change the fact that you have a rather large country in it's place now. Not only does the destruction or even the relocation of such a country seem highly illogical, it's just downright stupid.

But with that, Israel needs to restrain itself with regards to countries that have any chance at brokering peace deals or ensuring Israeli security along their borders.

[MoscowMatt]

Kane wrote: Ok, I've seen much done about how Israel is evil, Zionist, a Nazi state, etc etc. I have to ask: What should Israel do to please you?

My Opinion: Focus less on the military aspect and more on the diplomatic. Sure, a measured response to both incursions that took place from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would've been appropriate...but this Lebanese offensive went waaaay too far.

Israel sure as hell isn't going to make many friends in the region through heavy military aggression...so why not stick to diplomacy? The IDF is strong enough to repel any real military threat by any bordering nations...so why waste it on a terrorist organization that's likely to just re-group after this conflict is over? Military power doesn't get rid of these groups...it may diminish their ability to immediately respond and take a while to rebuild...but then your right back where you started.

While Diplomacy is slow...it allows long-term goals to come to fruition...

If diplomacy is the answer then why do the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas feel the need to pick up guns? Surely by your logic they should negotiate for what they want. Why put the onus on Israel??

[thatisnotme]

Kane wrote: thatisnotme wrote: Ssushi wrote: Kane wrote: Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel
b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course
c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks
d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway
e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

Simpler than that, the Arabs have to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Once they cross that threshold, peace will come.

Don't forget the Persians! :wink:

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. You can argue into the sun about how Israel stole land however many years ago but it will not change the fact that you have a rather large country in it's place now. Not only does the destruction or even the relocation of such a country seem highly illogical, it's just downright stupid.

But with that, Israel needs to restrain itself with regards to countries that have any chance at brokering peace deals or ensuring Israeli security along their borders.

Impossible for Israel to broker a peace with countries who don't accept the existence of Israel. All Israel can do is to have the IDF ready for combat, establish buffer zones so that its civilians can get some protection. Other than that, there is little to do until the Arabs lay down their arm struggle and start to build their own country, instead of dreaming to push the Jews into the sea. After 60 years, they should realize that more deaths will not accomplish anything, except more deaths.

[Kane]

MoscowMatt wrote: Kane wrote: Ok, I've seen much done about how Israel is evil, Zionist, a Nazi state, etc etc. I have to ask: What should Israel do to please you?

My Opinion: Focus less on the military aspect and more on the diplomatic. Sure, a measured response to both incursions that took place from the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon would've been appropriate...but this Lebanese offensive went waaaay too far.

Israel sure as hell isn't going to make many friends in the region through heavy military aggression...so why not stick to diplomacy? The IDF is strong enough to repel any real military threat by any bordering nations...so why waste it on a terrorist organization that's likely to just re-group after this conflict is over? Military power doesn't get rid of these groups...it may diminish their ability to immediately respond and take a while to rebuild...but then your right back where you started.

While Diplomacy is slow...it allows long-term goals to come to fruition...

If diplomacy is the answer then why do the likes of Hezbollah and Hamas feel the need to pick up guns? Surely by your logic they should negotiate for what they want. Why put the onus on Israel??

Diplomacy is only the answer when all parties enter in...

That said, this thread is titled "Question for all (Israel). I'm sticking to what Israel should do here and I'm not even beginning to examine what the other nations should do, though I have noted in the post above yours. If you want to examine the other side then make another thread. I haven't given you my perception of the entire situation, just of what I believe Israel should do for it's own benefit.

[Kane]

thatisnotme wrote: Kane wrote: thatisnotme wrote: Ssushi wrote: Kane wrote: Ssushi wrote: I think Israel's in a whole mess now that it's going to struggle to extract itself from. Iran and Syria view the current conflict as a East vs West battle ground and so does America. Neither side's backers (Iran/Syria or America) wants their war-candidate to either loose or back down. Defeat for anyone will be such a loss for their cause: Democracy/freedom (the 'New Middle East') or Islamic ideology.

Diplomacy will probably be seen by both camps as weakness, so a military victory is needed. Unfortunately, this is also an unviable solution...

Soooo...you suggest Israel should do what?

a) Try to get on better with their neighbours - We all need to do this but no one more than Israel
b) Pull back to their originally given borders - Of course
c) Engage the international community in the attempt to make a free-zone around their country (where necessary), using 50% from their land and 50% from the agressor nations - create safely from missile attacks
d) Relinquish their nuclear weapons - makes the whole world safer and realistically they give little protection to Israel, given that they are supported by the USA anyway
e) Try to get on better with their neighbours - They are a sole Jewish country surrounded by Muslims, trying to get on with them (at least on the government / political level) should provide some support from the governments it needs to create stability.

I know, easier said than done but if onyone here comes up with an ABC solution, I'll eat my hat...

Simpler than that, the Arabs have to accept that Israel has a right to exist. Once they cross that threshold, peace will come.

Don't forget the Persians! :wink:

But yes, I wholeheartedly agree with that statement. You can argue into the sun about how Israel stole land however many years ago but it will not change the fact that you have a rather large country in it's place now. Not only does the destruction or even the relocation of such a country seem highly illogical, it's just downright stupid.

But with that, Israel needs to restrain itself with regards to countries that have any chance at brokering peace deals or ensuring Israeli security along their borders.

Impossible for Israel to broker a peace with countries who don't accept the existence of Israel. All Israel can do is to have the IDF ready for combat, establish buffer zones so that its civilians can get some protection. Other than that, there is little to do until the Arabs lay down their arm struggle and start to build their own country, instead of dreaming to push the Jews into the sea. After 60 years, they should realize that more deaths will not accomplish anything, except more deaths.

Well, you could press harder with the diplomatic angle and less with the military...

Is this why the US needs to come in? Because we hold Diplomatic Political Clout?

[Duchifas]

Quote: A measured response would've not discriminated against the Northern Part of Lebanon...where most people had negative perceptions about Hezbollah. A measured response wouldn't have negated any military power the Lebanese actually held...and then demand that those forces go down to Southern Lebanon to ensure Hezbollah demise. A measured response would have not held an entire country guilty for the select actions of a few.

Ok, so am I free to assume that a measured response would mean that Israel stay away from the North, while you would sanction complete freedom of military action in the South? Do I read you correctly?

Furthermore, what is to be done with Hizbollah strongholds in the North? South Beirut, Bekaa, etc?

Quote: Quote: Because Israel has been trying diplomacy, and on the Palestinian track that gave Israel suicide bombings in buses and cafes, and rockets landing on kindergartens. On the Lebanon track, the diplomatic track led Hizbollah to expect that every time they kidnap Israelis, they can extract an exhorbitant price for them. So why not stick to diplomacy? Well, because much more than not gaining Israel friends, it actually encourages its enemies to attack it. That's why.
And military strikes don't?

Military strikes, unlike diplomacy, have the benefit of limiting their capacity to harm Israel. Therein lies the difference between diplomacy and military response.

In any case, it is hard to discuss when you don't address my points. You asked why not diplomacy. I answered. Instead of addressing my answer, you come back with "but strikes also don't work." Uh, ok. Thanks.

Quote: How? We've already relegated to the idea that after this military confrontation either Hezbollah will strengthen again or some other group will take it's place...

We have? Interesting. Whatever.

If this military operation is successful, it will take Hizbollah years to regain its capabilities to harm Israel and Lebanon. That means a few years of relative peace. A temporary solution is better than a non-working solution (trying diplomacy on terrorists).

Quote: It has short term goals and aims that in the long run, will only eventually lead back to the same situation. Middle Eastern outrage at Israel hasn't decreased since this event...it's increasing. To use the military tactic of suppression on a group of people willing to use Suicide Bombers seems useless because they clearly don't care about living as it is.

Israel is not suppressing groups of people, Israel is defending its sovereign territory and citizens against aggression. Long term objectives are nice to ponder and speculate above, but it is ridiculous to ignore the short-term objectives of providing security for your citizens. Hezbollah amassed a rocket arsenal that has paralyzed Israel's North for three weeks already. No country can afford to speculate on long term effects of its activities, while its citizens are spending their summer in bomb shelters and its soldiers are being kidnapped. Can't you understand that?

Quote: I would say that all the military actions of the past 40 years have been futile as it has only lead up to this point...(With the exception to the direct military threat posed by other states in the region during a couple wars).

You can say that, and you are wrong. Military actions are what lead to peace. Egypt only came around to diplomacy after losing five wars to Israel. Jordan did similarly.

Before peace, those countries denied Israel's right to exist and threatened to wipe Israel out. If you think that they would have changed their attitude without getting their ass beaten into the sand, you are not living in our reality. There is time for military action and there is a time for diplomacy.

Diplomacy does not work on people who deny your right to exist and seek your destruction. Military action is the only reasonable option in such circumstances.

Diplomacy does work on people who do not deny you the right to exist and do not seek your destruction. Thus, if there were a dispute between Israel and Jordan, I would be the first to advocate trying diplomacy as hard as possible, for as long as possible. Jordanians as a nation, by their conduct over many years, have shown that they are willing to peacefully coexist with Israel. On that basic premise, their disputes can and should be resolved through negotiation and peaceful means.

Hizbollah is not Jordan. You CANNOT expect negotiation or diplomacy to be successful in resolving disputes with people who don't acknowledge your fundamental right to live. That's just how things work in the world.

[FreedomSpeech]

Duchifas wrote: Before you start, let me give you a quick reminder. In 2001, after Israel's withdrawal from Lebanon, Hezbollah kidnapped three Israeli soldiers. They are still in Hizbollah's hands, five years later. Israel's response was very measured. No progress has been achieved. Two years ago, Hizbollah kidnapped an Israeli businessman. Israel negotiated with them, and exchanged him for hundreds of Arab prisoners. Now, Hizbollah kidnapped two more soldiers and killed 8, and fired rockets into Israeli towns.
You are justifiying the Israeli aggression because of two "kidnapped" soldiers yet you can't justify Hizbollah's latest operation (capturing the 2 soldiers) although there are thousands of Arab prisoners in Israeli prisons (many of them are children and women - why would anyone put children in prison ??? )