Interesting scenario

[Goofball]

Oh what is Israel to do? Israel is under attack!! What is Israel to do? What is Israel to do?

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel is has been subjected to continuous terrorist attacks against its civilian population?

Really? I am not being facetious here. I am asking you this seriously. Is that your belief?

Is the situation so ass backwards that the settlements have become a defensive line against terrorism instead of the cause of the terrorism?

No, it's so ass backwards that the settlements are both a catalyst for and a defence against terrorism.

It's a lose/lose.

Can we really expect Israel to suddenly hand over all its ill-gotten gains when Hamas/PLFP/Hezbollah are disarmed?

I can't answer that. As soon as it looked like Israel might be doing just that, the terrorists and the states that sponsored them caused the situation to be untenable as far as a lasting peace was concerned. Now we'll probably never know.

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Pulling out from illegal settlements is not an act of goodwill, its simply the right thing to do.

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

[Banquo's Ghost]

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

Actually, we need to be aware that the Kadima proposal (initiated by PM Sharon) for unilateral withdrawal was not a goodwill gesture but an act of arrogance. Essentially, Israel was saying 'we will define the borders' regardless of UN resolutions, international will and most importantly, Palestinian agreement.

Both acts of un-negotiated withdrawal (South Lebanon and Gaza) have come back to haunt Ehud Olmert, so much so that not only is unilateral withdrawal off the agenda now, but he is likely to lose his defence minister, Chief of Staff and probably his own job.

You can't solve the palestinian problem by ignoring it, which is what the unilateral withdrawal was hoping to achieve. There has to be a negotiated settlement for everyone's sakes.

There is however, a huge opportunity growing. Israel for all its faults, is still a vibrant democracy and now the war is quiet, serious questions are being asked by the people. Olmert is almost certainly doomed, and Kadima, being a single issue party will die off. The question is: will Netanyahu and the hawks come back on a promise to 'finish the job' or will Labour grow a backbone and present an alternative to the Israeli people that they haven't had since Rabin was shot - time to negotiate for peace, even if it means talking to terrorists?

The Israeli people have a period of introspection before them - they have seen that the IDF is not all powerful, and that it cannot adequately protect them from terror. Many mothers in Israel are mourning brave soldiers, and Lebanon, their best friend in the region is a hollow ruin. And nothing has been gained.

Maybe, just maybe, they will decide they want to try peace and negotiation over endless war and imposition of unilateral solutions.

I would hope that the US administration, whose unflinching, unquestioning support has tended to convince chicken-hawks like Olmert to make the arrogant mistakes we have just seen, might take the opportunity to advise the new PM (even if its Netanyahu, who is a canny operator, and it might just need a hawk to reassure the people) towards staged negotiation, whilst continuing to guarantee Israel's protection (in the strategic not tactical sense).

And I would further hope that the Palestinian authority would make sure not to spit in the face of such negotiations as Arafat fatally did.

Although I expect we'll be back to tit-for-tat hubris for a good while yet.

[Pannonian]

Actually, we need to be aware that the Kadima proposal (initiated by PM Sharon) for unilateral withdrawal was not a goodwill gesture but an act of arrogance. Essentially, Israel was saying 'we will define the borders' regardless of UN resolutions, international will and most importantly, Palestinian agreement.

In case anyone has missed the point, the failure of the policy and the continuation of conflict lies not in the withdrawals, but their unilateralism. I doubt if the Israelis or their backers will learn that lesson though, preferring to perpetuate the myth of "Israel alone".

[Don Corleone]

Well, no matter how I answer this, Tribesman has some 'stick up your bottom' retort coming my way, including a call of 'chicken' if I don't answer. So, if I'm going to be damned no matter what I say, I may as well say something I'd be proud to be damned over...

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

IF Turkey has proof that Kurdish seperatists indeed launched a raid on Turkey, out of Iraq into Turkey, then retreated across the border, then they have the right to go into Iraq after them. If the US, acting as the extra govermental authority maintaing the border in Northern Iraq (and I actually don't think we are) refuses to refute the evidence or turn the suspects over, then Turkey would have the right to come into Iraq, even if it means American casualties. Likewise, if Iran can provide irrefutable evidence and the US refuses to act on it (rebut or cooperate) they would have a right to take action. However, prior to acting, Turkey and Iran would be right to present their evidence to UN Security council, and it would certainly help if they had a UN resolution calling for the disarmament of the PKKK to help justify their actions. Oh wait, those pesky UN resolutions aren't supposed to be enforced, sorry... forgot about that part.

Your protests to the contrary aside, this is not the perfect analogy to the Israel/Lebanon situation you seem to think it is. As far as I know, the Kurds aren't being armed by the US for these cross border raids, and I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years. What's more, the PKKK and PEJAC's goal is an autonomous state of Kurdistan, comprised of parts of Northern Iraq, Turkey and Iran. As far as I know, the Kurds have not called for the anhiliation of every last Turk and Persian on the planet nor have they declared that the establishment of Kurdistan would be the first step towards their ulitimate goal of imposing their will across the globe. Hamas/Hezbollah have stated both, and no, I'm not going to post my links all over again. You've ignored them three times already, Tribey.

[Andres]

Lebanon, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Israel...

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

You're making it too easy for him...

[Banquo's Ghost]

Besides, this topic is in grave danger of being diverted into an oft traveled direction (though Banquo, remind me to answer your charge, in another thread, that even a unilateral withdrawal can be seen as an act of agression, so long as it was Israel... is there ANYTHING they can do right in your book?)

You're right, the thread was drifting - apologies, Tribesman.

I look forward to our discussion, Don. I'm not sure how you concluded that I charged that unilateral policy by Israel was an act of agression. I noted it was one of arrogance, ie acting as if they are the only players whose actions matter. I understand the frustrations wherein that policy arose, and their ultimate source in Arafat's rejection of a flawed, but marginally acceptable starting point. Nonetheless, peace needs all the parties to be satisfied.

You seem to believe that I am somehow anti-Israel because I criticise their current actions. I am in fact, very pro-Israel, and because of that I want to see them achieve peace and recognition with their neighbours. I have visited there many times, have friends there, and helped a partner with a business development project in Haifa. When that town is rocketed, I see the faces of people I have worked with.

It is my opinion though, that successive administrations since Rabin was assassinated have made huge mistakes in trying to achieve peace through war. It hasn't worked, and won't work. Time to try something else?

I believe in telling friends when they are wrong. Sue me.

[Tribesman]

Just look at the case as written by Tribes. He's just being hypothetical and he asksk our opinions about a possible case, not a "real" one.

No its a real case from last wednesday and thursday , the main point being is it OK to shell civilian areas because there are terrorists there .
I initially omitted the groups involved and the countries to see if people would make a judgement on the actions alone without their predjudices over factions involved coming into play .

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

[Don Corleone]

I DO KNOW that they haven't been going on for 20 years.
But they have Don , the Pejac ones not the PKK ones , they started soon after the revolutionary groups split and the Shia gained the ascendancy , same as the Mujahadeen al khalk have been operating from Iraq in the same time frame .
The PKK cross border activity only really started to any extent with the creation of the terrorists safe havens 15 years ago .

I always know I've done a good job tapdancing on the landmine that is discussing current events with Tribesman when he focuses on a minor detail and not the major tenets of my argument. Whew!!!

[orangat]

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel is has been subjected to continuous terrorist attacks against its civilian population?
Really? I am not being facetious here. I am asking you this seriously. Is that your belief?

No, it's so ass backwards that the settlements are both a catalyst for and a defence against terrorism.
It's a lose/lose.

I can't answer that. As soon as it looked like Israel might be doing just that, the terrorists and the states that sponsored them caused the situation to be untenable as far as a lasting peace was concerned. Now we'll probably never know.

But let me ask you this: do you think there is any chance that Israel will ever make any unilateral gestures while hundreds of rockets per day rain down on their civilian population?

Actually, making any act of goodwill is "doing the right thing." Unless, I guess, it happens to be Israelis doing it. Then it's most likely just another Jewish ploy to kill more Arab babies.

If a neighbouring state overran 78% of your country and established over 400,000 illegal settlers in illegal settlements in the remaining 22% while stealing most of the water resources, where does that conquering state get the moral authority to defend itself against its neighbouring country?

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel hasn't always given back as good or almost always better than what it receives?

How has it has become so twisted that pulling out from illegal settlements is treated as a magnanimous gesture instead simply the right thing to do. The establishment of illegal settlements is simply a means to create a foothold for future expansion and to bolster Israeli propaganda that Palestinians are attacking Israeli 'neighbourhoods'.

[Goofball]

If a neighbouring state overran 78% of your country and established over 400,000 illegal settlers in illegal settlements in the remaining 22% while stealing most of the water resources, where does that conquering state get the moral authority to defend itself against its neighbouring country?

Are you honestly trying to deny that Israel hasn't always given back as good or almost always better than what it receives?

How has it has become so twisted that pulling out from illegal settlements is treated as a magnanimous gesture instead simply the right thing to do. The establishment of illegal settlements is simply a means to create a foothold for future expansion and to bolster Israeli propaganda that Palestinians are attacking Israeli 'neighbourhoods'.

I fear we are diverting Tribesman's thread and taking it in a direction he didn't want it to go, so I'll belay the discussion for now. Meet me in the next Israel/Palestine thread (we usually have one every other day at least, so we won't have to wait long) and I'll be happy to put the gloves on and step in the ring.

[Tribesman]

So, if I want to conquer Mexico, should I just send paramilitary units down there to take over a couple of appartment buildings and fire out of the buildings since I know no action can be taken against me?

Do you recall the Iranian embassy siege in London ? did they take no action , did they bomb the hell out of the neighbournood , did they just blow up the one building , or did they manage to ge rid of the terrorists and release the people by another method .
So was the response rational , proportionate and most importantly effective .

[Don Corleone]

So, if I want to conquer Mexico, should I just send paramilitary units down there to take over a couple of appartment buildings and fire out of the buildings since I know no action can be taken against me?

Do you recall the Iranian embassy siege in London ? did they take no action , did they bomb the hell out of the neighbournood , did they just blow up the one building , or did they manage to ge rid of the terrorists and release the people by another method .
So was the response rational , proportionate and most importantly effective .

Aha!!! But if you had asked the SAS commander for a 100% guarantee absolutely no civilians would be harmed before he started, it would still be held by the DRMLA. He couldn't have made that guarantee. Because he took reasonable precautions in planning Operation Nimrod, however, the risk of collateral damage was minimal and in this particular case, none came to pass.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

"Rational, proportionate, and most of all effective." -- Tribesy

I concur with 2 of 3.

A response should be rational. With violence, emotion too easily leads to its mis-application. Or, as has been said, revenge is a dish best served cold.

Effective is the sina quae non of the whole thing. I am not yet convinced that the only end result of controlled violence against a terrorist or guerilla organization is improved recruiting and morale for the irregulars ( a theme I get in this forum fairly frequently), but unintended counterproductive consequences are -- or should be -- cautionary. "Effective" should include more than just immediate effects.

Proportionate is my sticking point. Not because I believe that attacks against me and mine justify any and all forms of counter attack -- reducing Baghdad, Damascus, Tehran, Qum and Kabul to glass on 9/12/01 (as some including my dad suggested) would, for example, have been a bit much.

Nevertheless, too many people view "proportionate" as a synonym for reciprocal. Reciprocal is ...Terror/Guerilla group A kidnaps and kills 2 of my soldiers so my nation identifies a sub-leader and his driver and immolate the pair of them with a Hellfire as they drive to work. Reciprocal is an endless cycle of I can be just as mean as you...Nyah! It solves nothing.

For me, the correct "proportion" is to marshall my intelligence, scope out the threat, and then make concrete steps towards eradicating it. It does not mean wiping out the bystanders or persecuting everyone with moderate amounts of melanin in their skin tone. Some take that stance, and that too is out of "proportion."

Your principle on violence, that no killing of the innocent can be tolerated or accepted and that violence should be withheld if such harm is likely, Tribes', inevitably boils down to:

Violence is only justified in direct personal defense in response to and during a specific instance of aggresssion by another.

While laudable as a principle and in almost full conformity with the dictates of my own church, it is functionally impractical, as Don C. noted above. Such a standard is not even maintained in police work, much less on a formal or informal battlefield.

[Duke of Gloucester]

There is compromise between not taking any action just in case innocent people are killed and acting in a way that doesn't care whether innocent people die. It also might be interesting to have a definition of innocent.