The Only Solution Is Military

[NewsGuy]

Published in today's New York Post, and reprinted here courtesy of Daniel Pipes, the author:

The Only Solution Is Military


'We are in a war," Israel's Prime Minister Ariel Sharon said last week, referring to his country's fight with the Palestinians. The Palestinians agree: "This is war," responded Al-Fatah's commander on the West Bank, Husayn Shaykh.

In fact, Israelis and Palestinians have already been at war for over a year, but their leaders finally acknowledging this fact makes it easier squarely to assess the situation. War has clearly-established patterns, and these provide insights into the Levantine situation:

· What each side seeks - to achieve victory and avoid defeat - is primarily psychological in nature. Victory consists of imposing one's will on the enemy (Israel wants its neighbors to leave it alone; the Palestinians want to destroy Israel) by convincing it that his cause is hopeless. Defeat means accepting that one's cause is hopeless.

· Will, fortitude and morale are often more important for victory than are objective factors such as the economy, technology, arsenal, the number of casualties or votes at the United Nations. In many cases, these latter count mainly in so far as they affect a combatant's mood.

· Resolution occurs when one party realizes it can no longer pursue its aims and gives them up. This usually follows its unambiguous vanquishment, either a military collapse (as in World War II) or internal rot (as in the Cold War).

"In every case I can think of," writes strategist Michael Ledeen, "peace has come about at the end of a war in which there was a winner and a loser. The winner imposed terms on the loser, and those terms were called 'peace.' "

Resolution can follow from other reasons - e.g., when a bigger enemy turns up. Worried about the common German menace, Britain and France buried their historic enmity in 1904.

· Stalemate, conversely, keeps conflict alive by letting both sides hope to win another day. The Germans lost too narrowly to give up in their first attempt to dominate Europe (World War I), so they tried again (World War II), when they got decisively defeated and give up.

Many unresolved conflicts loom in today's world. The Korean War ended inconclusively in 1953; a half century later, another round remains likely - unless the North Korean regime collapses first. The Iran-Iraq conflict ended in 1988 with neither side feeling defeated, so more hostilities are likely - again, unless one regime first disappears.

So too in the Arab-Israeli conflict: The Arabs lost many rounds (1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1982) but never felt defeated, so they keep coming back to try again.

· Diplomacy rarely ends conflicts. Hardly a single major interstate conflict has concluded due to some one's clever schema. The idea that a "peace process" can take the place of the dirty work of war is a conceit.

Again, to quote Ledeen, "Peace cannot be accomplished simply because some visiting envoy, with or without an advanced degree in negotiating from the Harvard Business School, sits everyone down around a table so they can all reason together." The oft-heard mantra that "there is no military solution" (repeated recently, for example, by former Sen. George J. Mitchell), in short, has things exactly wrong.

Applying these rules of war to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict offers some useful insights. Palestinians were winning until about a year ago, now Israel is.

Until Prime Minister Ariel Sharon took over, Israel was politically divided and militarily demoralized, avoiding reality and indulging in escapism (like "post-Zionism"). Meanwhile, Palestinians exulted in their successes. Smelling victory, they showed impressive stamina and great capacity for self-sacrifice.

A year later, circumstances have flipped. Palestinian violence had the unintended effect of uniting, mobilizing and fortifying Israelis. "Specialists in terrorism have been surprised - some of us are even amazed," admits Ely Karmon of the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, "by the endurance, the patience, the relative calm of the Israeli public to what has happened in last year and a half."

Contrarily, the Palestinians' morale is plummeting and despair is setting as Yasser Arafat's ruinous leadership locks them into a conflict they cannot win.

History teaches that what appears to be endless carnage does come to an end when one side gives up. It appears increasingly likely that the Palestinians are approaching that point, suggesting that if Israel persists in its present policies it will get closer to victory.

[Negev]

the arabs have already been using a military solution for 50 years. it's time that israel understand that and respond with a real military solution also.

the only way to stop arab terrorism is to make sure that arabs cannot get close enough to israelis to harm them.

the harvard business school negotiators won't ever come up with a civilized solution because we are talking about arab terrorists who cannot possibly understand civilized methods. only fire power, like the u.s. is using in afghanistan.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by Negev
the only way to stop arab terrorism is to make sure that arabs cannot get close enough to israelis to harm them.

Unfortunately, it looks like you're right about that.

The only problem is that building a defensible international border would require uprooting some Israeli settlements and uprooting some Palestinian settlements, so that the border would be straight enough to supervise properly.

It's still worth doing, but very expensive and politically difficult, because no doubt Arab countries like Syria and France would make a lot of noise at the UN and try to pass their ultimate resolution, which would try to call for an international military coalition against Israel.

[takeo]

you are right about that. a military solution will convince the palestinians?
Well, actually the palestinians don't seem defeated, of course with such language you will only encourage more palestinians to fight israel, and they will never give up, as its their own land, their own lifes who are at stake.
the autor is crazy, he asks for a new korean war because the northkoreans were not defeated (ignoring the fact there there has been peace now for 50 years). Actually israel will never be able to defeat the Arabs, as there are just too many Arab countries, and if they unite, and israel persists with the military solution, it could be well israel who will be defeated.
a defensable border as you call it, will only be achieved by leaving the occupied territories, as this is the only peace palestinians will and should accept. Any other solution would be a military one, which meaning constant fear for terrorism, constant war or cold war with all your neighbours, un-condamnation, more weapons for your ennemies, and again, such a war could take years, but Israel will be the looser in any case.
besides the autor shows bias: "the neighbours leaving Israel alone": OK, sure, but first israel needs to leave its neighbours alone!!!
A military solution has only in a few wars brought peace, (as in WWI and II) but if it is your goal of fighting an entire people you will never accomplish. the fact why germany is peacefull today is because they are not occupied and because they have a strong economy and germans feel good in their situation. So if israel wants peace, it has to stop occupation, simple as that! in Vietnam the war didn't stop untill the US left Vietnam, now the relations between vietnam and the uS have much improoved. A "military solution" would mean still 1000's of americans dying in a country everyone hates them. the cold war wasn't won with a military solution either, was it? Or do you think the uS needs still to defeat Russia and China and provoke a nuclear war?
By the way the example of iraq and iran is a good one: none, was militarily defeated and today they are starting to have closer ties, in the face of the common ennemy(the result of bush' "axis of evil-speech)

[McSceptic]

It's been a war since Israel was founded 50 years ago. Sometimes it flares up sometimes it just smoulders.

The lead article quoted is seeing things in rather traditional diplomatic terms. In most cases losing a war doesn't mean that your country is lost forever, but in the case of the Palestinans and Israelis it really is existential. If one side admits defear, then they're gone. Under those circumstances I doubt some neat 19th Century peace-treaty is possible.

PS Even if Israel redraws its borders into something more sensible, it's still only going to be about the size of Burkino Faso. (would you bet on that horse?) And a small organism always has a relatively larger surface area (border) than a large one.

[watcher]

Originally posted by takeo
you are right about that. a military solution will convince the palestinians?
Well, actually the palestinians don't seem defeated, of course with such language you will only encourage more palestinians to fight israel, and they will never give up, as its their own land, their own lifes who are at stake.

"palestinians" have their own lands, Israel has their Land and lives at stake with "palestinians" sitting on Israel with a desire to push Israel to the sea. Israel will not stand for that!

Originally posted by takeo
the autor is crazy, he asks for a new korean war because the northkoreans were not defeated (ignoring the fact there there has been peace now for 50 years). Actually israel will never be able to defeat the Arabs, as there are just too many Arab countries, and if they unite, and israel persists with the military solution, it could be well israel who will be defeated.

If that's the case than Israel would have been defeated in any of those wars against Israel... but that's not the case hence the relative quiet for fear of again losing another war to Israel.

Originally posted by takeo
a defensable border as you call it, will only be achieved by leaving the occupied territories, as this is the only peace palestinians will and should accept. Any other solution would be a military one, which meaning constant fear for terrorism, constant war or cold war with all your neighbours, un-condamnation, more weapons for your ennemies, and again, such a war could take years, but Israel will be the looser in any case.
besides the autor shows bias: "the neighbours leaving Israel alone": OK, sure, but first israel needs to leave its neighbours alone!!!

If these "palestinians" want to keep calling these territories occupied territories for the sake of making war on Israel then they should Leave these occupied territories and Leave Israel altogether! Enough of the murders! Enough of the hate! Go back to your own countries if you can't act civilized in Israel! Israel leaves its neighbors alone Israel is just continuing its defensive stance so no need to worry unless you want to attack again.

Originally posted by takeo
A military solution has only in a few wars brought peace, (as in WWI and II) but if it is your goal of fighting an entire people you will never accomplish. the fact why germany is peacefull today is because they are not occupied and because they have a strong economy and germans feel good in their situation.

Understand this when Israel was pushed to other lands from the land of Israel which became renamed "palestine" it was never Israels desire to leave! Israel occupied other lands because they were forced to! When they were in germany, germany was strong just jealous that Jews looked better than themselves hence the campaigns of propaganda and the vile murderous acts that followed... The horrifying holocaust!

Originally posted by takeo
So if israel wants peace, it has to stop occupation, simple as that!

Israel will live again in Israel... Simple as that! If "palestine" doesn't want to live peaceably then they have to stop occupying Israel! Their own countries will better suit them since they hate Israel so much, despite the fact that they go to hospitals in Israel for the better care. If they didn't have their host what would they do for hospital care? You can't say it's bad because these "palestinians" risk their lives to rush checkpoints to get there. By the way those deaths are on their own heads not Israels for the fact there's too much bloodthirsty terrorist activity from "palestine" Israel can't risk any innocent lives.

Originally posted by takeo
in Vietnam the war didn't stop untill the US left Vietnam, now the relations between vietnam and the uS have much improoved. A "military solution" would mean still 1000's of americans dying in a country everyone hates them. the cold war wasn't won with a military solution either, was it? Or do you think the uS needs still to defeat Russia and China and provoke a nuclear war?
By the way the example of iraq and iran is a good one: none, was militarily defeated and today they are starting to have closer ties, in the face of the common ennemy(the result of bush' "axis of evil-speech)

Those other countries and their wars don't apply to this matter... we're talking about Israel being attacked from within by these people under the name of "palestine" in which Israel was renamed.

[Right defender]

Hi all,

I was very surprised when I have read this theme, i want first to show you some forgotten facts …

1- the author says that "So too in the Arab-Israeli conflict: The Arabs lost many rounds (1948-49, 1956, 1967, 1970, 1973, 1982) but never felt defeated, so they keep coming back to try again"

Is the author kidding????

Yeah, Israel won many rounds in 1984, 1967

But the question is what about the other wars,
In 1956 the English- French – Israeli troops made aggression on Egypt as a reply due to Egypt's nationalization to Suez Canal, and these troops were supposed to get rid of Nasser and Nasser's policy ….

But the resulting of the war was that "Nasser was alive" and the canal became 100 % Egyptian so how the author considered that as a victory to Israel!

Nasser's command to his troops to withdraw was to protect them as they would
Actually lose, and he depended on the resistance of the people in Port Said and to change the war into a political war and he succeeded and he achieved his aims and the aggressive troops withdraw in a critical situation …

I don’t know what the author meant by 1970 war???

The war of 1973 war "yom Kippur war"
How come? Israel was victorious!

The Egyptian and Syrian army began their war to restore their occupied land in 1967, and they succeeded, this war was a shock to the Israelis and the entire world is a reliable witness to this war …

Egyptian army could successfully cross out the Suez Canal and could destroy the defensive Israeli line (the legend) as the Israeli preferred to call …

The resulting of this war is that Egypt had restored all the occupied land in 1967 and on the other hand, Syrian army had made a great progress and it could cost the Israeli army a painful loss.

War of 1982 is not a war, in fact it was a war from one side, how could the author consider the massacres there as a war, but if we consider it as a war

The resulting of this war is that " the Israeli army withdraw from Lebanon in the the night and in a priceless way that's because of the resistance of "Hezbollah" organization.

This is the first point …
The second point …
I think the main problem of the Israel-Arab conflict is that Israelis don't understand the nature of this conflict …
Israeli had 50 years of existence here in this important area of the world but all over the 50 years , no progress occurs with their neighbors Arabs , they could not understand that violence against them will harm them before harming Arabs ,
Military solution never solves a problem, that's clear
Let me ask you a question, if I breakdown your house and I killed your kids then I raped your wife, what will be your reaction hence???

Sure if I was the strongest person on the world, you will do all you can do to kill me or to harm me.
You will consider your resistance to me as a heroically action, and you will do your best to take revenge even though you paid your life to do that,
That's simply the Arabs feeling, they feel that Israel had occupied their land and had killed their people.

So to make peace with them you have to give them a hope to live on it, you have to express your kind feeling to them, and you have to show that you came in peace and you want peace, then you'll feel the peace reaction from Arabs.

To all Israelis, did any one of you ask him self what will be his feeling if he was a Palestinian?

What will be your reaction when you live in a siege?
What will be you reaction when you go to school while a tank is watching you?
What will be your reaction when you see your father dying due to the bullets of the occupation army?
What will be your reaction when you see your leader imprisoned in his place?
What will be your reaction when soldier of occupation army hits your dignity?
What will be your reaction when you're prevented to pray in your holy place?
What will be your reaction when the settlements residents kill your dear friend?
What will be your reaction when you live in a tent that's because the occupation army destroys your home with pretence of "save needs"?
What will be your reaction when you can't find job, live in poverty, can’t find medicine to heal you kid?
What will be your reaction when you …. And you … and you …. ?

That's simply a part of the Palestinian people every day, what can they present to your world?
Why don't you ask yourself, why a person in his youth stage sacrifices himself to kill people whom he doesn't know and they don't know him?
The circumstances that surrender the Palestinian life will change them to heroes; I myself consider those who live in these circumstances as heroes…

Why do you always blame Arabs and Muslims and all your neighbors without blaming yourself?

To make peace you have to pay, peace is for all, and violence will be for all ….
The third point …
Israel has a 6 millions people; Arabs are 230 millions people, so how can the military solutions solve this problem?
How come? If these 230 people use stones only to war Israel, sure they will win, and the history is a reliable witness.

Thanks for reading, please think well, you'll not lose any thing if you do?
Just think and you'll get the right way ….

Finally, peace is upon you …

[victot]

right defender:

umm, look up 1973 yom kippur war on the net, as well as 1956 war...
israel has always claimed victory in both of those wars, though they weren't as clean and clear as some other israeli/arab wars...

also, you are correct that the creation of the jewish state of israel was unfortunate for the palestinians... though i do think there is a validity and beauty to the idea of jews returning to zion and what not... though if i were a palestinian at the time being kicked off my land, i probably wouldnt see the jewish point of view of it...

anyway, i do think that if there weren't so many palestinians who were hell bent on hurting israel, there wouldn't be a need to have the army in there, doing what they are doing... why do you think the army is in there?

anyways, to the palestinians, imagine what the israelis are feeling, when their childen are blown up in a pizzeria while eating a pizza... then seeing on the news thousands of palestininas chanting with happiness that these israeli children, (your children) were killed...
how much sympathy if you were an israeli would give to the palestinians?
the argument goes both ways...
i hope both sides can see it like that soon

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by victot
...if i were a palestinian at the time being kicked off my land, i probably wouldnt see the jewish point of view of it...

But if you were an Arab selling your empty and dry land to the Jews at prices that were inflated 10 times more than they were worth (as was the case when some new Jews arrived in Palestine), you probably would be very happy.

The vast majority of land that is now Israel was bought and paid for with cash, and most of the rest was voluntarily vacated by the Arabs who left their lands when ordererd to do so in 1948 by the invading Arab armies.

[victot]

well, it's my understanding that the jews did not purchase most of the land of israel in 1948... since i am currently taking a course in the whole arab/israeli thing, i fancy myself the expert on things that my teacher has specifcly mentioned!! heh
according to my course notes,


17 MAY 1939: WHITE PAPER


1) CEILING OF 75,000 ON JEWISH IMMIGRATION


2) SEVERE LIMITATIONS ON LAND PURCHASING


3) INDEPENDENT PALESTINIAN STATE; MAJORITY (ARAB) RULE IN NEXT 10 YEARS, ARAB-JEWISH RELATIONS PERMITTING

when it was noticed that the jews had started purchasing a lot fo the land, the arabs complained to the british, who signed this white paper thing. look up on the net white paper act...

JEWISH LAND OWNERSHIP IN PALESTINE

early 1800s-1914
Jews owned 420,600 ÷ 27 Million Dunums = 1.56% of Palestine

1946
1,624,000 ÷ 27 M = 6%
though you are right, the land was purchased at inflated prices
i don't think it's a historical fact that jews had purchased most of the land, but if you can show me a legitimate source from the net which mentions that the jews had purchased the vast majority of the land, maybe ill think differant...

also, when you say the arabs left their land becasue they were ordered to by the arab armies...
first off, it's my understnading that although that is something which is widely claimed by jewish sources, it's my understanding that there may not be any evidence to support this,
and even if it is true, fleeing the land that you've lived on for generations in fear of beign killed, and then not being allowed back wouldnt endear me to the people who came and caused the situation, then who took over the land and wouldnt let me back home...
i really can't see the moral justification to the whole refugee thing in claiming that it was the arab armies who encouraged the palestinians to leave their land... if they left because their lives were in danger, what's the point in arguing that it was other arab countries who encouraged it, if that is even true at all?

i heard that for the most part, the jews expelled people in villages who were helping the invading arab armies.
i heard from this video on the whole thing, that there was this one village who was attacked, and some arabs were killed, and the palestinian media reported that all the women in the village were raped, even though the villagers said that although 20 some odd palestinians from the village were executed, there were no rapes. On the video, they interviewed the palestinian media guy, he said he thought that if he mentioned in the reports that the women were raped, the other arab countries would roar into palestine and help defeat the jews.
The media guy then said it was probably the biggest strategic mistaek of the 1948 war, because once it was reported that the jews had raped the women from the villages, once the village got news that the jews were coming to attack the village, the villagers would all flee in panic. heh
that's my understanding what the cause was for a good lot of refugees.
my teacher says the refugee thing was caused by a combination of things. (all of which stemming form 1 way or another of the jeds going there)

[NewsGuy]

I am not sure that there are many "objective" sources for this information becuase record keeping was simply not all that good in the mid 1850's when the repurchase of land in Ottoman Palestine began.

Still, here's what my research shows:

Sir Moses Montefiore (1784-1885) made the first known land purchase, buying prange groves in Jaffa.

At the time, most of the land was owned by the State (The Turks), and the "Hibbat Zion" movement called on Baron Maurice de Hirsch (1831-1896) for financial assistance to purchase land for Jewish immigrants.

Baron Benjamin (Edmond James) de Rothschild (1845-1934) was also enlisted in this cause after being petitioned by the leaders of Rishon Lezion, one of the First Aliya villages.

The best-known settlements sponsored by Rothschild are Metulla, Zikhron Ya'akov, Rishon Lezion, and Rosh Pina. Metulla (est. 1896) is an example of a purchase that had the further advantages of controlling water sources and establishing the northern limit of Jewish settlement.

Around 1900, two central agencies were formed. First was the Jewish National Fund (JNF), or Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael in Hebrew, founded on December 29, 1901, whose charter specified land purchase in Eretz Israel - redemption of the land - as the organization's sole pursuit. In 1904 and 1908 purchases were made in Lower Galilee, Judea, and the Lake Kinneret region

The second redemption agency founded by the Zionist Organization was the Palestine Land Development Company (PLDP), established in 1908 by Otto Warburg and Arthur Ruppin to purchase land for the JNF. In urban development, his efforts were cardinal in the founding of Tel Aviv and the purchase of land in Haifa and Jerusalem, where neighborhoods were established.

During the British mandate, afer the Balfour declaration, the Jewish institutional redeemers continued to work with increased vigor, both on rural land acquisition and urban settlement. Examples of urban projects are the "garden neighborhoods" of Jerusalem, the Allenby Street area in Tel Aviv, several neighborhoods in Haifa and various localities on the coastal plain.

Baron Edmond de Rothschild re-entered the field in 1923 by founding the Palestine Jewish Colonization Association (PICA), which carried on his work under his son, James Armand de Rothschild (1878-1957). By 1930, PICA had amassed 5,200 hectares in various parts of the country, on which it established 50 settlements that reflected the diverse models that had evolved by this time: villages (such as Pardess Hanna, Binyamina and Givat Ada, all named for members of the Rothschild family), kibbutzim, moshavim and urban localities such as Bnei Brak and Herzliya

In 1934, a 5,600-hectare concession was acquired, from two Arab families in Syria, to drain and settle the Huleh Valley in the eastern Upper Galilee "panhandle." The JNF, by purchasing additional land in the northern Huleh Valley, achieved virtual contiguity between Metulla and Rosh Pina.

The JNF, through the PLDC, purchased more than 70,000 hectares during the Mandate period, chiefly in the valleys - Jezreel, Zebulun, Jordan, Beit Shean, Huleh and Hefer - in the Haifa bay area and in the northern Negev .

Menachem Ussishkin, heading the JNF between 1923 and 1941, secured the land on which Rehovot, Hadera, and the ICA settlements in the Galilee and elsewhere were built, as well as most of the Jezreel Valley - 60,000 hectares in all.

JNF purchases of the Hefer Plain in the late 1920s created virtual contiguity in the coastal area from south of Rehovot to Haifa. By 1929, an almost uninterrupted chain of towns and villages stretched from Metulla in the north to Be'er Tuvia in the south.

In 1929, the Arabs started to massacre the Jews in Israel, most notably in Hebron. The Peel commission was formed to prevent more massacres and the British started to limit Jewish settlement.

The Peel commission split Palestine into 3 areas, one of them, Area C (the coastal strip, from Zikhron Ya'akov to a point north of Rehovot, plus the urban areas - corresponding roughly with the Peel Commission partition boundaries), where no restrictions were in effect.

To circumvent the rules, the land-redemption agencies established approximately 50 new localities in previously unsettled rural areas by erecting, overnight, settlements which included a stockade and a watchtower. A crucial step in securing the inclusion of the Negev in the Jewish state was the formation of 11 such settlements in this area on October 15, 1946, and another 7 in 1947.

* * *

Anyway, these land purchases were not as insignificant as the Arabs would like us to think.

[takeo]

One thing is for sure, israeli had 0% of the land in the Westbank and gaza, untill they expropriated more than half after the 1967 occupation.
but as well in the land that became Israel most lands were possessed by palestinians before the etnic cleansing of 1949: (which might be the real reason why Israel is so stubbornly opposed to solving the refugee-problem, because nowadays there are more Jews living in Israel than palestinian refugees, but the last ones could claim their land back if they can proove they were the legitimate owners before 1949)


"
By 1930, all the land capable of being cultivated by the indigeneous Palestinians with the resources available to them was already under cultivation (Frances Newton, Fifty Years in Palestine, Coldharbor, 1940, p. 253). Sir John Hope Simpson undertook a comprehensive study of Palestinian agricultural potential in 1930. He concluded that

"it has emerged quite definitely that there is at the present time and with the present methods of Arab cultivation no margin of land available for agricultural settlements by new immigrants"

(Palestine, Report on immigration, land settlement and development, Sir John Hope Simpson, cmnd 3686, His Majesty's Stationery Office, 1930).

By the end of the British Mandate in 1947, the total land area under cultivation by Palestinian farmers (excluding citrus) was 5,484,700 dunums, whereas the area cultivated by Jewish farmers was only 425,450 dunums. The expansion of the cultivated area offered in the Israeli repertoire is grossly exaggerated. The figures have been doctored by including, as reclaimed land, the huge areas of farmland left behind by the Palestinian refugees expelled by Israel in 1948.

Subcommittee II of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Palestinian Question, established in September 1947 issued a report in November 1947 which stated under item 63:

"The village statistics for 1945 prepared by the Palestine administration and showing the position as at 1 April 1945 furnish interesting data regarding land ownership in Palestine. The total Arab land ownership is given in dunums (4 dunums equals approximately 1 acre), as being 12,574,774, as against a total Jewish ownership of 1,491,699. [...] The following figures are of particular interest:
CATEGORY OF CROPS OWNERSHIP

Arabs Jews (in dunums)

Citrus 135,368 139,728
Bananas 1,843 1,079
Plantations 1,052,222 94,167
Taxable cereals (categories 9-13) 5,653,346 869,109
Taxable cereals (categories 14-15) 823,046 67,839
Item 64 of that same report stated:
"The above statistics of population and of land ownership prove conclusively that the Arabs constitute a majority of the population of the proposed Jewish State, and own the bulk of the land"
(Source: Doc. C74 UNSCOP Report to the UNGA, Documents on Palestine, vol. 1, pp. 165, PASSIA, December 1997)."

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by takeo
One thing is for sure, israeli had 0% of the land in the Westbank and gaza, untill they expropriated more than half after the 1967 occupation.

If those were the good old days and were so great, the Arabs should have accepted those territories in 1948 and stopped trying to ethnically cleanse Israel from its Jewish citizens.

They had plenty of time to live in peace, but most Palestinians' goal then, as it is now, was to murder each and every Jew living in Israel, in an ultimate grand-scale Jihad.

[takeo]

i agree it should have been a wise decision to accept the 1948 plan, even if it meant to hand over much land to Israel, yet it is not because their leaders made wrong decision and they fled the war (some were really forced to leave by Israel, but ok, let's forget about that) that those people should have been refused to come back to their houses and land. This was a wrong, illegal Israeli decision and a part of any peace-deal will be to solve this question, considering the sensibilities of both parts.

[takeo]

Also if israel did care so much about the 1948 plan (which was a good plan and equal partition between the new settlers and the original population) why didn't Israel made it reality when they had the full ability to do so?
But OK, this is history and Israel in its current recognised borders is a fact and has to be recognised by everyone, cannot be reversed anymore. But of course the two questions, first, most importantly the withdrawel from the occupied lands and second the solution for the refugee-problem created by Israel in 1949, are absolutely necessary if Israel wants to become a normal, recognised and peacefull state that is integrated in the region and in the world and doesn't have to fear constantly for the safety of the country and it's citizens.

[NewsGuy]

takeo,

"Also if israel did care so much about the 1948 plan (which was a good plan and equal partition between the new settlers and the original population) why didn't Israel made it reality when they had the full ability to do so?"

Israel did make it a reality, but then was attacked by the invading Arab armies. After the wars that the Arabs started, there were different facts on the ground.

You know, part of the reason not to start wars is there are serious consequences, often territorial consequences, llike in this case. The Arabs cannot imagine that they will start wars, lose, carry out terrorist attacks on innocent civilians and then everything will go back to the way to was before the war.




"But OK, this is history and Israel in its current recognised borders is a fact and has to be recognised by everyone, cannot be reversed anymore."

Right. And those borders will again expand if the Arabs keep on delaying peace.





"But of course the two questions, first, most importantly the withdrawel from the occupied lands and second the solution for the refugee-problem created by Israel in 1949."

Both of those issues were being discussed in the last decade of peace negotiations and Arafat destroyed the peace process before any progress could be made.

But the refugee problem is purely an Arab-created problem in 1948 and needs to be solved by those Palestinians going to live in their first Palestinian state of Jordan or any of the other 22 Arab states, where they can live as free people and can mass murder anyone they want in their own Arab countries and see where that gets them.

[cerulean]

I was on a trip this weekend so I saw some TV broadcasts I normally do not (I hardly ever watch TV). The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter was discussing how paltry the Palestinian weapons were in comparison to the IDF forces, in respect to the incursions into the refugee camps (no real mention of the purpose of this mission). I was shocked by the level of bias, but I guess I hadn't been exposed to it for a while so blatantly. On CNN, I heard a phrase like "violence on both sides," again without suitable explanation.

Whether it's in school or the court of world opinion, there seems to be a default position that any conflict is equally the fault of both sides.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by cerulean
The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) reporter was discussing how paltry the Palestinian weapons were in comparison to the IDF forces, in respect to the incursions into the refugee camps (no real mention of the purpose of this mission). I was shocked by the level of bias, but I guess I hadn't been exposed to it for a while so blatantly. On CNN, I heard a phrase like "violence on both sides," again without suitable explanation.


Yes, many media outlets are biased and uninformed.

In their eyes, the Palestinian propaganda has worked, becuase they see the Palestinians as some poor dispossessed people who are being occupied by some large army. They of course neglect to mention that Israel has pulled its army completely out of the Palestinians-controlled territories on several occasions, and still there was never an end of terrorism.

The media tends to speak of some mythical "cycle of violence" and this tends to lead to putting the blame on both sides. This is of course, Arab propaganda becuase there is no cylce of violence. It is a one-way situation where terrorists mass murder innocent people and then of course there is retaliation.

But I've also been thinking of this as compared to the India/Pakistan situation, where 98% of the residents of Kashmir, who are Muslims, want their land to be joined with Pakistan, and the Indian government disagrees and rules Kashmir with a military presence.

I personally, couldn't care less about Kashmir, and so I tend to see the reports of violence as a waste of time and that if 98% of the population want something, they will get it soon enough. If I read reports of many Indian casualties there, I might also say that they should just get out of Kashmir and hand it over.

Well, I think that many people, including the media also see the Israeli/Palestinian problem in the same way. Unless someone actually cares about the Jewish people or the fact that there is only one Jewish state and also follows the news carefully, maybe it's just one blur of violence on both sides. And worse yet, the violence potentially threatens the world's oil supply, which is even more incentive to force the parties to stop the fighting, even if Israel and the Jewish people lose big chunks of their homeland.

I think many people and the media do, in fact, see it this way, which leads to the kinds of reports you are describing.

Having written this, I started a new thread here, which could be a good place to reply:

Israel's paralell universe
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthread.php3?postid=2315#post2315

[L@mplighterM]

It was interesting reading the taped transcripts regarding Nixon’s and Grahams discussions about the Jews controlling the media back in 1975.
Nothing is broadcasted for free not even the news. If enough people contacted the advertisers of CNN etc and let them know about their biased reporting and why you wont buy their product things would change. Money Rules.

India is about the only country in the region that could ally itself in a conflict between Israel and the Muslim countries. Kashmir was clearly inhabited by Hindus long before Mohammed came into the picture. India problem is similar to that of Israel’s in that they have to deal with radicals and terrorists and therefore both countries should be supported by the west.

I can’t recall one instance where Hindus have had their sight on world domination. On the contrary that is not the same with the Islamic Fundamentalists.

[L@mplighterM]

A long barreled .303 cal Enfield is a wonderful accurate long-range weapon, the short-barreled 303 is not very good for distance. Of course a M-15, M-16 or an AK-47 are beautiful pieces of equipment but they have limitations when it comes to accuracy (They are not snipers guns). For long-range target practice I would choose an old 303 any day for distance (there are better old rifles I’m just assuming it was an old 303)that the sniper used. Bullets (dum-dum) with the right grain and a scope (optional) could hit a target a 1000 feet away easily and make a mess. That’s not an outdated weapon.

It seems to me that the 7 soldiers weren’t prepared for a sniper, which to me shows lousy planning. Someone surprising you and shooting you point blank or detonating a bomb is a surprise close up attack and there’s really no way to prevent that.

Biased reporting regarding the conflict can be found worldwide. I wonder who the main shareholders are in many of the news organizations. The Canadian Tax payers of course fund CBC but there are plenty of others that are guilty of the same slanted view against Israel.

[McSceptic]

I’m surprised at the Israelis getting caught so flat-footed. The only effective response to a sniper is a counter-sniper, but I’ve read that sniping doctrine is not well developed among Israelis. Presumably there can’t be much of a hunting culture in the country (or much wildlife, any deer?). But this must be the same for the Palestinians, if they’d have thought ahead they’d have imported some 20mm anti-materiel rifles and static checkpoints (unless super-armoured) would have been a thing of the past.

It looks like the IDF just isn’t optimised for this kind of warfare. Is it’s street-fighting any better? That would be a major factor in its ability to execute any kind of military “solution”.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by McSceptic
It looks like the IDF just isn’t optimised for this kind of warfare. Is it’s street-fighting any better? That would be a major factor in its ability to execute any kind of military “solution”.

Actually, there are man weapons which are effective against snipers, including shelling the sniper position, and even using armed drones.

But the thing that no conventional force is equipped to deal with is waging war with one hand tied behind its back.

The same happened to the US in Vietnam, and the same in Lebanon. Armies are good at waging quick all-out wars, but not in waging a limited low-level guerilla war for prolonged amounts of time.

Israel needs to switch the war into a full-scale war that it is good at, rather than this nonesensical bombing of empty buildings.

The main problems are that Israel is not willing to deal politically with the world's criticism in the event that Palestinian civilians die accidentally, and also the political assualt being launched on Israel by the EU.

But the IDF needs to get over these roadblocks and get to work on its own terms.

[McSceptic]

Actually, a conventional army can win a guerilla war and the principles are well understood. But it requires crack troops (and therefore professionals) running alongside a hearts and minds campaign. The Israeli army hasn’t shown itself capable of that, but that may be down to a weakness in the political leadership.

Armed drones? LOL. The latest American toys are no substitute for a man who can shoot straight and understands stalking, and I’ve never heard of a platoon coming complete with its own dedicated artillery.

A switch to a full-scale war will require a great deal of street-fighting, that’s why I ask. Again, it is a specialist skill that has to be trained for.