Topic: Israel: Operation Protective Edge - page 26. (Read 14685 times)

this.

I don't think the current Israeli administration is interested in territorial concessions no matter what sort of security you offer them.

Israel doesn't retake territory. Israel gave up the entire Sinai Peninsula and Gaza already. It hasn't retaken any territory. Israel is the only country told to give back territory it won in defensive wars.

Why? So they can then use those weapons to retake the territory as soon as one extremist lobs a few missiles at them? I can understand Israel wanting to defend itself, but throwing more American money at them when they've proven any pull-outs they agree to are always temporary, and dropped at the first sign of any violence from Palestinians, is not the way to go about this. Both parties need to be brought to the table to find a real resolution. I don't know what that resolution is, but throwing more American money away with armaments to Israel in exchange for temporary territorial concessions isn't it.

I kind of repeated myself, didn't I? I think it was important enough to repeat.

But what do you personally think of my plan? I think it is time to give Israel true security guarantees in exchange for territorial concessions.

Israel largely isn't in the West Bank because of security concerns; thus offering them "security guarantees" wouldn't do much to promote their withdrawal.

Israel would be between 6 to 10 miles wide if it withdrew from the West Bank. But giving them 2 nuclear-powered attack submarines to defend their Mediterranean coast, and F-22 and F-35 fighter jets to defend themselves from attacks coming from Gaza and from Lebanon might make them reconsider having a military presence in the West Bank.

What Isreal and Hamas are doing right now is everything to guarantee insecurity. For the region, and to a lesser extent, the wider world.

I think the only smart ones are the people of the west bank and those in isreal who have tried to stay out of it..
but if this keeps going things will spill over and the entire region will be further destabilized. This will only end up hurting Israel's cause in the long run and may even threaten its existence.

I say this because you cannot use Nuclear weapons to fight extremism and Killing them and their families only creates more extremists. you can keep dropping bombs but unless you are willing to commit genocide, you will run out of bombs before they run out of extremists.

more weapons is not the answer unless you want to give deterrents to all sides.

what Hamas is doing is bankrupting israel both morally and financially. what isreal is doing is creating more extremists.

neither side is right in this conflict.. they are both wrong.. yet looking through the prism of their own ideology, both sides believe they are right.

Israel largely isn't in the West Bank because of security concerns; thus offering them "security guarantees" wouldn't do much to promote their withdrawal.

Israel needs security guarantees. I would personally like to see Israel get 2 Los Angeles Class submarines, 10 F-22s, and 20 F-35s in exchange for pulling out of the West Bank. Receiving these advanced weapons systems would be contingent on Israel immediately withdrawing all settlers from the West Bank.

I agree that a two state solution is the only solution... but it wouldn't work unless both sides adopt secularism and religious pluralism.

the reason I say this is because you just cant have two nationalistic and fundamentalist societies living stones throw from each other and not expect them to clash.
each has an ideology that denies the right to existence of the other.

Muslims, Christians and Jews can live together side by side ... but only when they accept that each others beliefs and rights are equally valid..

this works perfectly fine outside of a nationalistic context.... like for example in a country where they are all in the minority.
but in a country where one belief system is the majority and religion is intimately intertwined with politics and nationalism, it simply doesn't work.

sad but true.. but for there to be lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis there needs to be a strong outside force that governs with impartiality and allows each side to be fairly represented. A completely unbiased force that protects the Israelis and the Palestinians whenever there is a skirmish.

sadly though there is no such force... I doubt the US or UN would even entertain the idea of getting involved at that level.

so in the absence of an outside force. the force must come from within. there must be a strong will from within the communities to both liberalise and reform.

in other words.. the people don't get along... and nobody is going to make them get along... so the only option is to try harder to get along... and reject violence in all its forms.

can you tell the Jews who have been fighting since they first landed in Palestine to stop fighting?... can you tell the Palestinians who have been fighting ever since the Jews showed up to stop fighting?...

WHO KNOWS.

when left to their own devices, they have been at it since David and Goliath a few thousand years ago.
only this time... Isreal is Goliath and Palestine is David.

It has more to do with power groupings and how coalitions have to be formed within Israel and the desire to simply occupy the land regardless of the security challenges that doing so creates. All the proof one needs is Israel's continued refusal to halt settlement expansion despite the fact that the Michell Report clearly indicated it as one of the single largest contributing factors to instability that led to the Second Intifada. (that's also why Bush's Road Map for Peace plan had Israel halting settlement expansion as its first phase of a peace process).

"Security" concerns are an obfuscation tactic that has long been used by Israeli administrations to divert attention away from other relevant issues and as an excuse to act militarily during times in which they are losing ground diplomatically.

Problem is the Arab league, they don't want peace so they ask for unfair concession in negotiation then blame Israel...

It doesn't really have too much to do with security. If it did, a two state solution would have been hammered out years ago. The only Palestinian winners of the status quo are those who seek to promote further violence against Israel. Other big winners of continued conflict include Salafi jihadist groups and al Qaeda. Also: conflict generally isn't good for security.

An analysis of legal / illegal in this scenario has nothing to do with religion. Because that has worked so well in the past.Only someone who doesn't care about Israeli security would suggest such a thing.

Problem is not Israel but the Arab league, if they wanted peace they would not let this anarchy in Gaza and west bank. Who will Arab government demonize for their fail if there is peace with Israel ?

Bunch of muslim apologists in this thread. Hopefully Israel does it right this time and increases that body count exponentially.

Any solution I can think of to this conflict, isn't worth Israel taking at the moment. As far as I can tell, why would Israel want to change the status quo when basically all they have to do is deal with a barrage of rocket attacks every year or two, with minimal Israeli casualites? The alternative is an extreme risk to their security (compared to now).

Egypt should take Gaza and Jordan west bank

I understand that it is not realistic currently, but I think Israel should withdraw from the West Bank and the Arab League should put its troops in Gaza and the West Bank to patrol them after Israel leaves the West Bank. What is more likely to happen is UN troops will go into the West Bank the way UN troops patrolled the Israel-Lebanon border after the war of 2006.