So, if Israel is wrong, what should Israel do?

If Israel's attack is wrong, excessive, or misguided, what should Israel do?

I'm not asking for vague "try diplomacy" or "negotiate" answers. I mean, should they repay Lebanon and fund its government to increase its policing?

Should it turn over all weapons and disarm?

Should it offer Hezbollah ten prisoners for each jewish one?

Saying 'try diplomacy' as the solution is about as good a plan as saying America should 'win Iraq'.

So, what should Israel do?

The bombing in civilian areas has been horribly brutal and completely counterproductive.

By any civilized military standards, the current operation is a disaster and should be ended.

A 15 to 1 civilian to combatant killed ratio is entirely unacceptable.

Seems like a big infantry operation could lead to more bloodshed, not less.

Well-planned airmobile assaults is what they should do if they need to take out specific targets.

Indiscriminate bombing is not accomplishing the mission and is in fact counterproductive.

Once again, 15 to 1 civilian to combatant killed ratio is unacceptable by any civilized standards of conduct.

whose numbers are bolstered by Iranian "volunteers" (and most likely Syrian as well) would lose entirely too many people in a ground offensive.

So, they tell the people in areas they are about to bomb, that they are about to bomb them. I would say that Hezbollah in violating the rules of war by hiding among the civilian population is just as responsible for that civilian death toll.

does?

If I saw strange armed men or leaflets I would leave. For some reason the lebanese civilians who died, didn't. Or couldn't.

I'm not talking about an all-out invasion.

Certainly involves some different risks, but entirely preferable,to what they are doing now, which is a disaster.

Are you telling me you consider 15 to 1 an acceptable figure?

Is indiscriminate bombing acceptable because Israeli infantry is not at risk?

That was the theory when Germany invaded Poland. I expect a bit different philosophy from Israel, which is suppposed to be a civilzed nation.

than reducing Lebanese deaths.

To me, indiscriminate bombing seems to be counterproductive, but Israel may be more concerned with ensuring their soldiers' safety than Lebanese civilians' safety.

You have to remember, we're looking at this from a different angle than the Israeli government.

Israel would not exist. It is the only thing that holds them together.

Israel exists for many reasons, but hate isn't one of them. Hate threatens Israel's existence--both Israeli hatred and the hatred towards Israelis.

I'm not sure I get your point.

However, in many ways Isreal was born out of hate. It wasn't hatred by Jews but for Jews that lead to the atrocities of WWII. Aftwerward, it was a combination of hate and guilt that lead to the formation of Isreal as we know it today. Of course, in the creation of modern Isreal, the Allies reneged on promises made to the Paletinians of their own homeland. I think the reason the Jews won out over the Palestinians was a desire by most allied leaders to get as many non-Christians out of their countries as possible. As there were fewer Muslims than Jews in most western countries it was an obvious, if bigoted, decision.

Off topic, I would like to point out to all the people here screaming about Jews and Muslims that Christians have killed more of each than they have each other by far. Maybe it's time to forget these squabbles over a few square meters of land and work together toward your common interests.

like you're the hater.

would convince a Jew from Russia to move to Jerusalem in 1900. Seems to me that if the Jews hated the Arabs so damn much, we would have tried to establish Israel in New Zealand.

Jerusalem has special significance in the Jewish religion. It is considered the center of the "promised land" by the faithful. "Next year in Jerusalem" was the hopeful phrase of the diaspora. There was every reason for Jews worldwide to want to return to their Biblical roots--Arabs or not.

I mean, if we hate the Arabs so much, why not just move to New York City? Philly? London? Toronto? Adelaide? Not too many Arabs there in 1900.

Even assuming lastknowngood is right, and Israelis/Jews (those who immigrated prior to the founding of Israel, and those who already lived there) hate Arabs with all our might, wouldn't the presence of Israel where it is today indicate that love of that land was/is a more powerful force than anti-Arab hate?

I said love of the land was the motivator not anti-Arab hate. You asked why, if they hated Arabs, they didn't go somewhere else. I said the land--the promised land. That is the overriding factor.

Where ever did you pick up such interesting thoughts.... :eyes:

Disappear you coward. You won't have the balls to respond to any of these posts. Idiot.

Israelis are united by their hate of the other. The Muslims who are as close to being Jewish as you can be theologically, they were each born out of the sons of Abraham and their directives about clothing and food and how you interact with each other are almost identical. The western powers after WWII decided to have a final solution of their own, give Jews somewhere to go and design and produce enemies for them and they would all run to defend the mythological Israel. People are dieing because fundamentalist of both religions are emphasizing the 10% difference in the religions and not the 90% agreement. And sitting outside watching the death and destruction are the dominionist Christians cheering for the second coming of Christ and the end of the world.

1. Immediately stop the barbaric bombing campaign, and make only accurate counter-battery fire along the border as needed.

2. Agree to a cease fire.

2. Talk to Hezbollah through a third party--Syria or Jordan. They wanted to arrange a swap of prisoners. That was their plan. Sharon had done a deal before. Do a deal, one is there to be had. I don't know what the prisoner ratio in the Sharon deal was, but something similar would work.

3. Begin talks with the Lebanese government about paying for the collateral damage done to non-military targets. As part of that discussion, get the Lebanese agree to use their army to keep Hezbollah inactive in a 20 mile buffer zone along the border.


If you would like the plan for a broader peace settlement, that's not much more complicated.

:hugs:
You got my vote.

mere existance?

I'd also worry about this spurring more hostage situations. . .

He negotiated through a third party. Hezbollah PUBLICLY STATED THEY WANTED TO ARRANGE AN EXCHANGE. Duh.

As for spurring more hostage situations, that's a red herring. There will be hostage situations as long as there hostilities. Israel will have to do a better job of protecting it's border patrols in the future, whether they make this deal or not.

You asked for and received a good summary of what Isreal could do differently. In responce you throw out an old canard which, coincidentally, was already answered in the previous post - through third parties. This shows how little you truly wanted an answer.

As for 1. yes they should stop, but if Israel is out to stop Hezbollah for good this time.... well...

2. They did that last time and the UN sat on it's hands and allowed Hezbollah to get even better armed and better equipped. A cease fire would be nice, but Hezbollah has a record at this point of attack, crying foul and wanting peace, then attacking again.

3. I agree absolutely. Also, I think if the Lebanese army is so weak it cannot control Hezbollah, Israel and/or the US and/or France should equip and train more Lebanese army personelle.

I also think that Iran and Syria should be called into account for funding and arming Hezbollah, thus they should bear some of the rebuilding costs.

1. If Israel is "out to stop Hezbollah for good this time" they are fools. They won't stop Hezbollah except by occupying all of Lebanon for generations. The question was "what should Israel do". What they should not do is try to tell themselves they can stop Hezbollah.

2. Baloney. Your facts leave a lot to be desired. The world wanted Syria inside Lebanon to keep Hezbollah in check, which they did for many years. Then Israel and the US began agitating to get Syria thrown out. Then there was no check on Hezbollah. You characterization of Hezbollah's record is laughable and pure propaganda.

4. As for Iran and Syria, you must be out of your mind. You really have bought the propaganda. Hezbollah is multi-faceted. They get funding from all over the world. Most of their expenditures are on social services inside Lebanon. Where their arms come from is uncertain. They may buy them from third parties, or get them from sympathetic non-government parties in Iran or Syria. If you've got money you can get arms.

If the Israeli's think like you, there is no hope for peace.

You are exactly right. And I second that other poster - PLEASE run for office!!!

I think these are good ideas:

I mean, should they repay Lebanon and fund its government to increase its policing?

Should it offer Hezbollah ten prisoners for each jewish one?

_______

Just think how surprised everyone would be if Israel started being more generous than anyone would expect. If they were disproportionate in the other direction. I think that that is the only way to really get things moving in the right direction. Israel has more to give - and more to lose if they don't.

Sounds like it should be possible.

Hezbollah are dicks. Why do I have to keep saying that?

What Israel is doing would be like if cops "solved" a bank hostage situation by lobbing in a handful of frag grenades. It will accomplish nothing good.

Honestly, how long is this tit-for-tat violence going to go on between the Israelis and Arabs -- with Arabs suffering far worse than the Israelis?

A former Knesset member was quoted in an article I read recently as saying we need a "new Marshall Plan" to "give the Arabs something to lose." He said that as long as they are beaten and brutalized and oppressed sitting in refugee camps, of course they will turn to violence.

Sadly, it's losing it.

Although I will say that the reports from north of Beirut bear little resemblance to those from the south of Beirut.

Too bad most don't. If the Palestinians reach a point when they have something tangible to lose, the casus belli against Israel disappears. The really sad thing it, it would take LESS money to make that happen than is currently being wasted on weapons, military, and reconstruction after debacles like the current one.

stronger force to replace the current UN Peacekeepers, UNIFIL.

The UN task force should have had the mission to go in and disarm Hezbollah. It would have been imperative to include forces in the task force from moderate Arab nations in the region, to give it the credibility the task force would undoubtedly need.

This is now being discussed, but it should have been the first thing done. If Israel had done this, they could have had the support of everyone on the security counsel, yet at the same time there may have been few to no civilian casualties.

Now people have died in Lebanon, and while it may sounds crazy, popular support for Hezbollah has increased. Hezbollah now manages to hide behind the massive civilian casualties the Israeli operation has produced; this would not have happened before. In fact, there may have been a strong backlash against Hezbollah, instead of a weaker backlash against Israel.

What Israel has done, has probably destroyed the opportunity for peace in this area, for a period of a long time. It is so unfortunate, because yet again another opportunity has been lost.

And tune out shitheads like John Bolton and Bibi Netanyahoo (sp?) and the whole blood thirsty neo-con crowd. They have done enough damage to 'satisfy their honor' so to speak. Now they need to find a graceful, cost effective exit. Every Lebanese civilain they kill gives 5 new Hezbola supporters. And they also will not benefit by fucking over the only arab democracy around.