What is Israel hoping to achieve in the long run?

[Che Guava]

I don't think the Israeli leadership is really thinking about the long-term, the whole conflict was spurred by something sudden that required some immediate action. I personally think that the reaction was a bit of overkill, but I don't blame Israelis for wanting to prevent the spread of this kind of behaviour.

The important time is now: the mission to clear southern lebanon is well uderway, we've seen the reaction of the major players and the international community and we can make some educated guesses as to the possible outcomes. It's up to the israelis (and thier allies) to decide how things will end, and that will probably have the most significant impact on future events and how we'll be writing about this in the history books.

 

[dgfred]

well, as an israeli, i can tell you what, WE THE PEOPLE, want.

thats PEACE.
nothing more. nothing less.

i agree that the current heavy military situation helps breed more of the same evil dudes.
there is no option that i can see to end the CURRENT situation.
and we are concerted, first and foremost, with NOW.

it is MY belief that they have absolutely diffring views on the values of life and power.
hence i believe they need a show of brutal force to bring them to thier knees, before they consider "backing off"
reasonable people would try a peaceful solution.
they are not.

in the longrun, i believe that economic prosperity is the way to restore peace.
well-off, well-fed, people, WITH THINGS TO LOSE, will think more than twice before allowing terrorists to - keep rockets - launch them - dig tunnels - train, in their homes.
they would be busy WORKING.

how to get there?
i have absolutely NO FRIGGIN' idea.

Nice post , I see 'things' the same way and also don't really have
an idea how to get there. Economic prosperity will be the answer, but how
to do it?????

 

[Little Raven]

it is MY belief that they have absolutely diffring views on the values of life and power.
hence i believe they need a show of brutal force to bring them to thier knees, before they consider "backing off"
reasonable people would try a peaceful solution.
they are not.

A show of brutal force? Just how brutal are we talking, here?

The French Resistance took everything the Nazis could throw at them and kept on punching. General Massu stuck 2 million Algerians into concentration camps and tortured thousands to death without breaking the FLN. Russia has reduced Chechnya to a wasteland of ruins and graves, and yet they fight on.

It'll have to be one hell of a show.

 

[zulu9812]

I don't think the Israeli leadership is really thinking about the long-term, the whole conflict was spurred by something sudden that required some immediate action.

That's par the course, really. Politicians like to be seen to be doing something, even if that something is remarkebly ill-advised.

 

[Richard Cribb]

I would add to those observations the all too familiar:

"We'll keep you safe and bomb the living daylights out of the enemy. Even if it doesn't actually solve your problem, and even if it's totally disproportionate, don't worry. We'll look good and you'll feel safe (at least until the next time we need to bomb the sh!t out of them and make us look good and you feel safe)."

It's not entirely appropriate to this spat here, but it's ever present in this conflict. Brits and Americans should certainly be familiar with it too.

Good, even if trivial observation.

You need to state whose history it is that is being revised.

Not for my sake, and this is one of the reasons why I stay out of such threads.
You can bet your right arm that the minute after you ever presented something that clashes with the hegemonic opinion, some little Rollo will come whining about bias or revisionism (Also please note that the last mentioned word also carries a possibly odious connotation).

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Has their ever been a day in human history when there wasnt a war going on, somewhere? I doubt it. [/bracing for the 100 examples of exactly that which will be immediately posted by the history buffs]

Ah, most of 1873 I would journey to say.

 

[soul_warrior]

"We'll keep you safe and bomb the living daylights out of the enemy. Even if it doesn't actually solve your problem, and even if it's totally disproportionate, don't worry. We'll look good and you'll feel safe (at least until the next time we need to bomb the sh!t out of them and make us look good and you feel safe).".

and i like cakes too

You need to state whose history it is that is being revised.

israel's ofcourse.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ah, most of 1873 I would journey to say.

D'OH! But I dont believe it, Im as certain that there was a war happening somewhere in 1873, as I am that Im wearing boxer shorts.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

It's not a question of who is responsible. It's a question of who has most to gain, and to that I answer Israel. If they "shell out" instead of "shell", they should gain happier neighbours.
It worked for USA in Germany, it could work here too.

Cant believe I missed this gem earlier You believe that Israel should embark on a sort of Marshall Plan for its Middle Eastern neighbors? Sheesh And what do you propose Israel do about the fact that its neighbors are dedictaed to its destruction?

 

[Paradigne]

Gee I thought all they had to do was give up the Gaza strip and all would be forgiven... oh wait, they did that and it didn't help.

 

[Rambuchan]

Satirical wise crack are so much better when you accurately refer to the subject you're sending up you know... Tis the very nature of good satire... Anyway, it was quite a little tickle.

 

[Aegis]

You need to state whose history it is that is being revised.

Ah, that would be World History. The kind that doesn’t change because all of the world is watching. The sentiment that the Zionist’s ethnic cleansing is what dragged the Arab world into war with them is a crock. Way to blame the wrong party.

The Arabs did not go to war with Israel because they disapproved how the Israelis treated the Palestinians. They went to war with Israel because they disapproved the formation of a Jewish state and they were on a mission to wipe that nation off the face of the planet. That statement continues until this very day and is repeated by several nations, Syria and Iran most recently.

 

[Paradigne]

Satirical wise crack are so much better when you accurately refer to the subject you're sending up you know... Tis the very nature of good satire... Anyway, it was quite a little tickle.

Thanks and sorry... to many threads, to many wars, not enough coffee...

 

[Rambuchan]

Ah, that would be World History. The kind that doesn’t change because all of the world is watching. The sentiment that the Zionist’s ethnic cleansing is what dragged the Arab world into war with them is a crock. Way to blame the wrong party.

The Arabs did not go to war with Israel because they disapproved how the Israelis treated the Palestinians. They went to war with Israel because they disapproved the formation of a Jewish state and they were on a mission to wipe that nation off the face of the planet. That statement continues until this very day and is repeated by several nations, Syria and Iran most recently.

I like your funky, twisted knickers.

I lost count of the errors and ommissions in such a few lines. To name a few:

~ "world history"? Now what the hell is that when it's at home?
~ No mention of "chosen people"
~ No mention of "occupation"
~ No mention of "homeland"
~ What about those lovely dusty religious texts?
~ What about the wider world's hegemons?

Anyway, I admire your effort to try and state what it's all about in such a few lines. I wish it was that simple and that I was willing to enter into epic post tennis matches to try and unveil it here (or indeed anywhere).

Paradigne: Coffee or no coffee, you had a bash at a lighter take. Which is refreshing

 

[Aegis]

I like your funky, twisted knickers.

I lost count of the errors and ommissions in such a few lines. To name a few:

~ "world history"? Now what the hell is that when it's at home?
~ No mention of "chosen people"
~ No mention of "occupation"
~ No mention of "homeland"
~ What about those lovely dusty religious texts?
~ What about the wider world's hegemons?

The writer said it was Israel’s fault that the Arab countries attacked them because they were treating the Palestinians like trash, while the truth is that the Arab nations simply sought Israel’s destruction, simply because it existed. He didn't blame the UN for forming the state, nor blame the Arab states for initiating the attack, he put the blam squarely on the shoulders of the Israelis and justified their attack by painting the Israelis as monsters.

Everything you just mentioned is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned, because it simply is not pertinent to the discrepancy.

a) Israeli nation is formed

b) Arab nations get pissed off and attack.

Anyway, I admire your effort to try and state what it's all about in such a few lines. I wish it was that simple and that I was willing to enter into epic post tennis matches to try and unveil it here (or indeed anywhere).

Why try to overcomplicate a discussion over specific events with details that are not pertinent? It just bogs down the discussion and it goes off on many different tangents.

 

[Rambuchan]

The writer said it was Israel’s fault that the Arab countries attacked them because they were treating the Palestinians like trash, while the truth is that the Arab nations simply sought Israel’s destruction, simply because it existed.

Everything you just mentioned is irrelevant, as far as I am concerned, because it simply is not pertinent to the discrepancy.

Why try to overcomplicate a discussion over specific events with details that are not pertinent?

Sorry, I thought you were laying out your grand history of the Middle East conflict there (which I happen to disagree with). I didn't realise that you were just dealing with the discrepancy. My bad for making a mountain out of molehill.

 

[Aegis]

No problem. On second thought, the things you listed are pertinent, however they are already taken into consideration.

The Arabs attacked. Why? Because of the outrage over the chosen people/occupation/homeland etc. I suppose what I'm trying to say is, it was implied.

 

[eyrei]

I think the Israelis want to show that they will not tolerate attacks on their cities, but more importantly, they want to find evidence that Iran and Syria are supplying these rockets.

 

[Little Raven]

I think the Israelis want to show that they will not tolerate attacks on their cities, but more importantly, they want to find evidence that Iran and Syria are supplying these rockets.

Don't they have that already? And why is it so important?

 

[eyrei]

Don't they have that already? And why is it so important?

I don't think they have irrefutable proof, that would hold up in a diplomatic venue like the UN. It is important because they want Syria to be punished, and Iran to be kept from having nuclear technology. It would show how untrustworthy these governments are...