Israel has never lost a conventional war, or won a guerilla war

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


again?

I only did it once, smart ass.

[lord of the mark]

Re: Re: Israel has never lost a conventional war, or won a guerilla war

Originally posted by Eli


Read : surrender.

Not surrender - take what you want, (what adds to security) get out of the rest. DOnt hold on to things that dont add to security for "bargaining purposes" - there aint gonna be bargaining with these killers.

Israel cannot win IN the West Bank cities and camps. Tanks are vulnerable in urban warfare, airpower of limited use. This fact is NOT altered by the lack of anyone to negotiate with, the current impossibilty of a political solution. The fact of war does mean that every tactic of war makes sense.

Israel can only win by shifting the conflict. This means WITHDRAWL, NOT for political reasons, (since the withdrawls involved would not satisfy even arab moderates) but for STRATEGIC reasons. Get out of the places hardest to defend. Then build a wall around the west bank. With barbed wire, mines, electronic sensors, watch towers, etc. Right wing israelis wont like this since it will mean giving up dozens of settlements. Tough luck. Arabs wont like it, since it will cut off the west bank from Jerusalem, and will likely leave Israel in control of places like Ariel,Maaleh Adumim, and Gush Etzion. Tough luck.
It will be argued that walls wont stop missiles or katyusha rockets. Air power can respond to those. It will never be perfect enough to stop all terrorist acts. No, but it will make the situation livable. On the Lebanese border there are still rocket attacks and occasional terr acts, but the situation is manageble.

Your main point is that the new borders will be more defendable, thus reducing the number of casulaties, and you bring Lebanon as an example.
First, air power cannot respond to missiles like in Lebanon. The Palestinians will shoot missiles from their cities, and fast Israeli response to stop the firing will cause hundreds of casualties and therefore immediate escalation to the most lethal level of the conflict, when the Palestinians use everything they have.

As far as i can tell, the pals ARE using everything they have, already.

But this is not really important, the main problem is the huge mistake you make, by wishing the situation in Judea and Samaria to be like in south Lebanon.
The withdrawal from Lebanon was the biggest mistake Israel made in the last decade, even bigger than not stopping the Oslo process during 96.
Yes, we no longer lose 100 soldiers every year but it is clear, if you try to listen to Nasralla, or Palestinian terror organization leaders that a situation like in South Lebanon is their goal. Nasralla is the first Arab leader that ever defeated Israel and caused the IDF to flee.

If you get out of places that dont add to israeli security, youre not fleeing. You are only giving them a victory if YOU define it as such. As you point out, this is NOT a final, political solution. You DO leave the Pals unsatisified, BUT you deprive them of leverage. Their leverage is to kill Jews, to get what they coudnt get at Camp David. Make it harder for them to kill Jews, without giving them what they want, and you've beaten them.

But, this is far from being the main problem.
Two years of quiet in south Lebanon gave Hizballah the time to arm itself with 8000-10000 rockets. Most of them are Katyushas, but at least 2000 are long range rockets that can get to Haifa and even Hadera. And, they still have a casus belli, just like the Palestinians will have if Israel withdraws.
The Hizballah is a terrorist organization, and it's leader is personally involved(his son was killed by Sayeret Egoz). Do you really think that eventually, tommorow or in 10 years those missiles will not be used. And when 2000 missiles will rain on Haifa, the mistake will be clear.

If this is the case, why isnt IDF attacking them in Lebanon? Evidently someone doesnt think they're an imminent threat.
In any case, Israel can control shipments into the west bank more easily than into Lebanon.

In any case where did I say that withdrawl and building a wall means NEVER raiding back into the territories? But constant presence in the territories, a commitment to Israel maintaining order there, or a belief that Israel can conjure up a Pal leadership willing to do so, seems hopeless. Putting resources where they are more likely to bring some benefit makes more sense.

LOTM

[Chris 62]

Since Paikis loves pictures:











Tell me again why the Israelis should give in to that punk Arafat on ANYTHING.

[Eli]

Re: Re: Re: Israel has never lost a conventional war, or won a guerilla war

Originally posted by lord of the mark
Not surrender - take what you want, (what adds to security) get out of the rest. DOnt hold on to things that dont add to security for "bargaining purposes" - there aint gonna be bargaining with these killers.

You create the same situation like in Lebanon. There will be quiet, and you will know that they are arming themselves but you wont be able to stop it because then the whole world will start with the "agressor" whining.

As far as i can tell, the pals ARE using everything they have, already.

They're not. Maybe in the next days, but not now. They have few dozens of Kassam 2s in the West Bank and at least some Katyushas. I know of fears in the IDF that they will try to conquer a settlement and take the residents hostage, this is something that wasnt done ever.
And I'm not talking about what they have now, but what they will have couple years after the withdrawal.

If you get out of places that dont add to israeli security, youre not fleeing. You are only giving them a victory if YOU define it as such. As you point out, this is NOT a final, political solution. You DO leave the Pals unsatisified, BUT you deprive them of leverage. Their leverage is to kill Jews, to get what they coudnt get at Camp David. Make it harder for them to kill Jews, without giving them what they want, and you've beaten them.

Make it harder for them to kill Jews now, but create a threat to your existance in the future?
So there will be terror on much smaller scale than it is now, but what will happen in 10 years when they crash a plane into the Azrieli center and you'll want to retaliate?

If this is the case, why isnt IDF attacking them in Lebanon?

Because any attack that will not destroy their infrastructure is pointless. And an attack that does that will cause a war with Syria and maybe Iran, not to mention the 8000 missiles that will fall on the Galilee.
Israel fears the Hizballah because any serious conflict with it will cause huge civilian casualties.

Evidently someone doesnt think they're an imminent threat.

Evidently, someone knows that serious conflict with them will seriously damage Israel. Nasrallah won, Israel will not go to war with him only to remove this threat. He and only he can decide when to drag Israel to a bloody conflict.

In any case, Israel can control shipments into the west bank more easily than into Lebanon.

But still not effectively enough. We stop maybe 5-10% of the Pal weapon shipments.

In any case where did I say that withdrawl and building a wall means NEVER raiding back into the territories? But constant presence in the territories, a commitment to Israel maintaining order there, or a belief that Israel can conjure up a Pal leadership willing to do so, seems hopeless.

You know what will happen? The same thing that happened after the Oslo agreements.
The Pals will not attack Israel but will gather weapons, and attack on them to get rid of those weapons will mean escalation. The Israeli leaders will just want to end their cadency(sp?) peacefully, just like Rabin wanted and since there will be no public demand for attack(since Israel is not attacked) we will let it pass. And one day you will wake up, with someone's hand holding you in a very sensitive spot and pushing slowly.

Putting resources where they are more likely to bring some benefit makes more sense.

Not long range benefit.

[Giancarlo]

Chris62 you are excellent. You just gave the opposition to what the Israelis are doing a reason to zip there mouths.

To all of those who oppose what Israel is doing:
Take a look at the people who are dead. And also take notice that 14 people were killed just recently. Understand what Israel is doing is the same thing what the Spanish Government is doing towards the ETA... uprooting and incinerating it.

[Rasputin]

i wonder if it is posible to do that G, can they possibly uproot them all and stop the suicide attacsk, , unfortunatly i think not israel in a no win situation

[Sirotnikov]

LOTM - that's an old map.

I'm used to a different map where more territory is allocated to the Pals.

[Tom201]

Originally posted by Giancarlo
Chris62 you are excellent. You just gave the opposition to what the Israelis are doing a reason to zip there mouths.

Year, we have some cruel pictures, lets pass them around and than lets nuke those bastards. Hu? We maybe hit the wrong ppl.? Our actions are not justified? How dare u criticise what your government is doing, hrm, take a look at the picture again....
zip your moths and obey our orders... fight the axis of evil yeehaa

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tom201


Year, we have some cruel pictures, lets pass them around and than lets nuke those bastards. Hu? We maybe hit the wrong ppl.? Our actions are not justified? How dare u criticise what your government is doing, hrm, take a look at the picture again....
zip your moths and obey our orders... fight the axis of evil yeehaa

Sorry I only speak english. I cannot understand what you just said.... it is too incoherent to be understood.

I will try to make sense of what you just said... it is the oppositions (those who oppose Israel) holier than thou attitude that just pisses me off. The strike against the terrorist Arafat was 100% justified by those massacred by the civilian targetting Hamas, Hezbollah and Martys Brigade. Arafat did nothing.

And Israel like every other civil nation does not target unarmed civilians. That is the major problem with the oppositions opinion.

[Tom201]

Problems with understanding sarcasm?
Ok, I explain it to you:
It was a general sarcastic comment about the attitude of showing pictures to keep oposing voices silent. Like showing the plane crash into the wtc on tv over and over.
This attitude is imo bs. You cant justify everything on a 100% emotional basis.

And Israel like every other civil nation does not target unarmed civilians. That is the major problem with the oppositions opinion.

Given the results, it is reasonable to ask if Israel (or the US) is really doing their best to prevent accidents. Showing pictures and than saying u shouldnt opose Israel isnt really an argument.

[Natan]

Imran, that map is obviously of a proposal not an annexation - Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza, except for the annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1981.

However, I think they should consider starting to do so. I think it might be a good idea to evacuate Netzarim and Gush Katif in Gaza, build a fence in the north of the strip near Dugit and Ele Sinai, and then annex Gush Etzion. Israelis, Palestinians, and the world need to have some idea what this conflict is about, what Israel wants to defend, and where it is being forced to stay by terrorism. Troops withdrawn from defending Netzarim could be better used either on more mobile operations within the Gaza strip, or better yet, if the attacks stop from there, then patrolling the seam line to keep suicide bombers out of Israel. Also, Marwan Barghouthi should be shot immediately. Then, if Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub take his place, them too. You can't win this sort of conflict if you let yourself be intimidated.

[lord of the mark]

So eli, are you saying that missile attacks are unbeatable? Yet Hezbollah with all that leverage cant get Israel to disgorge Shabaa farms? Syria cant obtain what it wants in Ramat Golan, are they still building up for the future? I simply find it hard to believe that they have changed the conventional strategic equation that much. I also dont think the "aggressor" whining will matter that much if Israel responds with air attacks to a missile attack. The principle that air attacks are an appropriate response to a missile attack, even if that means air attacks on population centers, is too important for the worlds number one air power (the US)

I will admit however you have given me things to think about. I will try to learn more about the strategic alternatives we have discussed, but i remain pessimistic about the current course.

LOTM

[Saint Marcus]

I only did it once, smart ass.

Thrice now. At least.

First you went from a far right extremist to a moderate conservative.

then you went back to being a spanish nationalist and pro-franco.

and now again you moderated and turned pro-democracy.

plus you were anti-gay at first (and have been banned for it), and now you're suddenly pro-gay.


lot of changes



and about the pics of israeli casualties...I'm sure I can dig up just as many pictures of Palestinian casualties. Especcially the awful situation in the refugee camps.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Thank you for your map, imram. It confirms that the PA was offered 95% of the territories at Camp David, including land where many settlements exist. Most of the annexations are in areas immediately adjacent to (a rifle shot from?) heavily populated areas in metro Jerusalem and metro Tel Aviv, in pre-67 Israel. In addition, as your map does not make clear, there was discussion of compensating the Palestinians with land from pre-67 Israel. It is clear why President Clinton was so angered at the PA reaction to Camp David.

If I was Arafat I'd never take that proposal in a million years. Bull**** proposal, and Clinton was the idiot that thought it was fair

Imran, that map is obviously of a proposal not an annexation - Israel has never annexed the West Bank or Gaza, except for the annexation of eastern Jerusalem in 1981.

The settlements are basically annexations. The settlements are under Israeli control, and they won't allow Palestine to rule over them, I bet.

Also, Marwan Barghouthi should be shot immediately. Then, if Mohammed Dahlan and Jibril Rajoub take his place, them too. You can't win this sort of conflict if you let yourself be intimidated.

Fine... then we'll shoot Sharon and the rest of his hardline Likud friends. Two can play at that game .

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Tom201
Problems with understanding sarcasm?
Ok, I explain it to you:
It was a general sarcastic comment about the attitude of showing pictures to keep oposing voices silent. Like showing the plane crash into the wtc on tv over and over.
This attitude is imo bs. You cant justify everything on a 100% emotional basis.

So using your faulty judgement we can allow them to kill more teenagers who try to go to a cafe... or innocent people who try to get food at a supermarket... or people who are trying to walk on the street and live? Your attitude in imho is bs.

Given the results, it is reasonable to ask if Israel (or the US) is really doing their best to prevent accidents. Showing pictures and than saying u shouldnt opose Israel isnt really an argument.

And what argument are you presenting? That these people aren't dead and the pictures are really computer generated? Give me a damn break. The Hamas, and every other terrorist group including Arafat himself will spend every last day killing Israelis.