Another Round Begins in The Middle East

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by GePap
Over its entire history Israel has generally chosen to respond to its neighbors through military force under the mentality you espouse. Has violence directed towards Israel been in a downward decline?

False.

Israel attempted and even succeeded creating dialogue with non-radical arab and palestinian groups.
Sadly they proved to be a minority.

NO. The historical record belies your assumed logic. In 1978 and 1982 Israel used massive amounts of direct military force to crush Palestinian militants carrying out attacks against it from Lebanon. It succeeded in crushing the PLA forces there.

Yes it did

Twenty years later, it must now face a far stronger, better armed, more disciplined, and more politically connected force in Hezbullah, a greater threat than the PLA ever was.

False on most counts, and also a misdirection.

Hezbullah has yet to unleash the same amount of world wide terrorism on Israel as Fatah has in the 70s. Fatah was armed and trained with USSR help, and was a very formidable force. It had elite commando groups, and controlled Lebanon far more than Hezbullah.

As mere example, the late deceased Imad Mughnyah, the brightest tactical and strategical military boss of Hezbullah, was originally a fateh Force 17 specialist and one of Arafat's body guards.

In any case, this point is absolutely a misdirection of judgement - which brings me on to my next point:

And Hezbullah was what the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Iranian Revolution together brought about.

Hezbullah's existance is the result of Iranian intelligence setting up agents of influence and a radius of control in surrounding shiite areas.

Hezbullah's current might there, is the result of Syrian blood-politics in Lebanon, which, during the 90s, made Hezbullah the representative of Syrian interests there.

One should be reminded that Syria was also the prime backer of Fatah when it formed a stronghold in Lebanon. As far as I'm aware of, Syrian presense in Lebanon was thought to be a wise stabilizing move, supported by the US govt. in the 70s, against Israeli warnings.

Israel responded with an iron fist to the first intifadah. Instaed of moving then to create a deal, it chose to crush the Palestinians. End result? The birth of the Islamist groups, like Hamas, who were able to grow as Israel crushed the socialist inspired Palestinian groups in the territories.

Hamas was born one the 1st day of the intifada, following precedences like Islamic Palestinian Jihad, the first palestinian radical Islamic movement. And they were set up by... that's right, Iranian agents of influence.

The rise of Islamist groups has more to do with the Israeli policy promoting Islamic charities (assuming it would reduce nationalist pro-fatah sentiment) who were all peaceful at the time.

A major factor inthe rise of Hamas was the cultivation of the image of the Islamic martyr, and the Shaheed spirit institutionalized in the official Palestinian Authority education system, media, and the government controlled mosques.

Arafat's claim to fame was his ability to create several opposing factions who competed for his blessing, and performed his will, against Israel and one against the other. Hamas was just another "pawn" in that... a "pawn" that outgrew its master.

There are more than two alternatives. Your lack of imagination on the subject is astounding.

The abundance of imagination and fiction in your posts, more than makes up for that

[TCO]

Pay attention to me, Siro.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Edan


Maybe?

Palestinian Authority officials in Ramallah said Saturday that they were prepared to assume control over the Gaza Strip if Israel succeeds in overthrowing the Hamas government.

"Yes, we are fully prepared to return to the Gaza Strip," a top PA official told The Jerusalem Post. "We believe the people there are fed up with Hamas and want to see a new government."

I'm definitely not an expert on Palestinian internal politics or how the average Palestinian on the street feels about Fatah but I can't help but wonder how much credibility Fatah would have if they got Gaza back because Israel handed it to them.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by TCO
I'm interested in what Siro, Eli and any other Isr. (except don't bring Panag) think about:

1. The more extreme bellicose American statements.

2. What is the eventual end-state of Isr.? It seems like an unstable equilibrium...

The reason i didn't answer 1 is that I don't know what you mean. I can give my opinion on explicit examples.

2 is a hard question that requires much pondering upon.
You also have to qualify the scope of it.
Do you mean the end state with regards to hamas?
To the pals in general?
To the entire area?
Am I limited to a realistic solution in the next 2-5 years, or are we talking about the end state in 10-20 years?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I believe he means to the Palestinian issue in general... as the Pals are growing at a breakneck pace and soon their population will eclipse Israel's.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Sprayber


I'm definitely not an expert on Palestinian internal politics or how the average Palestinian on the street feels about Fatah but I can't help but wonder how much credibility Fatah would have if they got Gaza back because Israel handed it to them.

I imagine that would indeed be a real problem.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I believe he means to the Palestinian issue in general... as the Pals are growing at a breakneck pace and soon their population will eclipse Israel's.

their growing rate is sort of their own problem. i hope they learn to build sky scrapers

though it is less severe in the west bank due to negative emigration, less religious environment, and the fact that the palestinian census is usually bloated for political reasons.

[GePap]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Events on the ground seem to argue against your conclusion. Regardless of you contention otherwise, Hamas participated and won a majority of seats in the legistlative elections of 2006 and later that same year following the resignation of Palestinian PM Ahmed Qurei formed a full government on March 20, 2006. Finally after a brief civil war in 07, Hamas expelled Fatah and assumed full control over the Gaza strip. That sounds like a government to me even if they would like to be in control over the West Bank as well.

Yes, Hamas expelled Fatah, but Fatah =/ the PLA. That is the functional difference.

The 2006 elections were elections for the PLA government, where Hamas won the Parliment, but Fatah remained in charge of the Presidency. Hamas has not proclaimed itself a seperate entity from the PLA, whcih would mean having to break the Palestinian constitution. So the break between Hamas and Fatah is one between factions, each saying that the other has violated the Palestinian constitution, but both still at least accepting the idea that there is only one rightfull Palestinian government.

This is why Hamas does not claim itself to be a different government from the PLA structure.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

Well observers say that Hamas did not want a fullscale conflict.

Their goals possibly included
1) attempt to violently re-negociate better terms of a second truce
2) let out steam for inside activists
3) appear brave and mighty, in face of (what they thought would be) meek Israeli response.
4) take off the mind of the populace of the lack of progress on issues such as prisoners, welfare etc.

I'm not sure what Hamas was thinking. News reports seem to say that they figured with the elections coming up there wouldn't be such a harsh response but it would be curious that they would think such a thing when you have a good chance of a hardliner winning in Israel. With the response that Israel chose, my opinion is that it will evolve into something else. If you don't destroy Hamas, You will make them stronger. Unless the Palestinian people finally get get tired of all the bloodshed and try leaders that might take them down a different path. I'm not holding my breath on that. Your options are more limited than they were last week.

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

their growing rate is sort of their own problem. i hope they learn to build sky scrapers

They need to be building below ground, not above it

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
their growing rate is sort of their own problem. i hope they learn to build sky scrapers

though it is less severe in the west bank due to negative emigration, less religious environment, and the fact that the palestinian census is usually bloated for political reasons.

Well look at it this way. There are already few jobs (and I'm sure a decent deal of that is due to instability), you add more unemployed young males and what do you think they are going to gravitate to?

[Zevico]

Gepap:
You argue that Hamas, having refused to attack Israeli targets (is this the case?), has not violated the cease-fire.
Your argument proceeds on the basis that Israel, in making a cease-fire with Hamas, treated it as a faction, rather than as the Gaza Strips' de-facto government, and that consequently violations by other factions in Gaza are not violations towards the ceasefire.

Where is information as to the terms of the agreement available? News articles I have seen don't enter into such fine distinctions. Have the Israelis made any admissions to this effect? Has Hamas?

[David Floyd]

Then when they gain more recruits by this approach and eventually smuggle in a nuke into your cities, partially by the supply of recruits and sympathizers they build up, don't ask how did that happen.

So, basically your point is that, when the terrorists commit overt, violent acts, rather than responding with military and/or police force, we should seek a different solution for fear of escalation?

Need I remind you who started it in the first place? Isn't it morally incumbent upon those committed terrorist acts to STOP, much more so than it is incumbent upon (in this case) Israel to temper their response?

GePap,

Over its entire history Israel has generally chosen to respond to its neighbors through military force under the mentality you espouse. Has violence directed towards Israel been in a downward decline?

Direct attacks by foreign powers have certainly been on the decline, because, through the application of military force, Israel has not only defended itself but beat the **** out of every nation-state in the region, all the while maintaining a record of never actually starting a war against a foreign nation. And don't tell me that Israel started it in 1967 by launching pre-emptive airstrikes. That's bull**** and everyone knows it.

NO. The historical record belies your assumed logic. In 1978 and 1982 Israel used massive amounts of direct military force to crush Palestinian militants carrying out attacks against it from Lebanon. It succeeded in crushing the PLA forces there. Twenty years later, it must now face a far stronger, better armed, more disciplined, and more politically connected force in Hezbullah, a greater threat than the PLA ever was. And Hezbullah was what the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon and the Iranian Revolution together brought about.

So your point is that after Israel SUCCESSFULLY used military power in the 1970s/1980s to ensure it's security, because a somewhat related-yet-different threat has sprung up, all of a sudden military power is definitely not the answer? Come on, that doesn't make sense.

Of course Israel should pursue diplomatic alternatives when possible, but at the same time Israel has been systematically screwed by Hamas, Hezbollah, the PLO, and the nation states of the region (including Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia). Excuse them for not having much faith in proven liars.

Israel responded with an iron fist to the first intifadah. Instaed of moving then to create a deal, it chose to crush the Palestinians. End result? The birth of the Islamist groups, like Hamas, who were able to grow as Israel crushed the socialist inspired Palestinian terrorist groups in the territories.

There, I went ahead and fixed that for you.

The great advances in Israeli security have come from diplomacy.

That's funny, I thought the greatest advances in Israeli security came in 1948, 1955, 1967, and 1973 - you know, when Israel resoundingly defeated every combination of nation-states that attacked.

We all know that you have a warped moral compass in the best of days DF.

That's nice, but also not the point. Are you seriously saying that the Palestinian people don't bear some responsibility for allowing terrorists to operate in their midst? Surely the moral solution would be to either actively aid in the destruction of terrorist groups, or at the very least refuse to provide aid, food, and shelter to them.

No, its isn't, because life is never fair. You live by the sword, you die by the sword. It is an old saying. Hamas choses violence, so it will have to face violence against it. That is simple, and clear. The problem is, Israel ls choses violence as well. That old saying is as true for the leaders of Israel as it is for those of Hamas. The sheer imbalance of power means that the leaders in Israel have far more choices, and are likely to face less retirbution, but in the end, retribution is what they will face in some form.

Yes, of course Israel could choose not to respond with "violent" - ie, military/police measures. Surely you aren't naive enough to think that turning the other cheek would actually discourage terrorism.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov

The reason i didn't answer 1 is that I don't know what you mean. I can give my opinion on explicit examples.

2 is a hard question that requires much pondering upon.
You also have to qualify the scope of it.
Do you mean the end state with regards to hamas?
To the pals in general?
To the entire area?
Am I limited to a realistic solution in the next 2-5 years, or are we talking about the end state in 10-20 years?

1. On number one, my statements and Drakes. Push into sea, evict Pals, etc. Not only asking if this is a reasonable course of action but if it makes you feel better or worse to get such counsel.

2. More long term.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Need I remind you who started it in the first place?

The Zionists in 1947/48?