Will Israel's Strikes Escalate to Full-Scale War?

[Yonoz]

it seems to be overlooked that it is often necessary to "hide among civilians" for militia/insurgents because of the nature conflict.

Well then, isn't it just as necessary for a military to risk harming these civilians in order to protect its own civilians?

i haven't read anything credible that claims these militias/insurgents are trying to hide among civilians just because it fuels a campaign of propaganda

It's mostly because they believed Israel won't attack, the propaganda doesn't really matter since they just make it up anyway.

to protect Israelis, Israel has often accepted a high likelihood of human collateral damage in attacking enemy militia.

Since you only hear about the cases in which the attacks were authorized, I can only ask you to believe me when I say the IDF and Israeli leadership do not decide to attack unless there is intelligence of an impending attack of which the target is a crucial part.

the idea of saving Palestinian lives by putting Israeli service-men's lives at risk (raiding an apartment to arrest/kill someone instead of bombing the building) isn't something Israeli security forces seem to be overly concern with at times (understandably so) but this can be short sighted.

Again, you're ill-informed. Targets are arrested when possible, partly due to the fact more can be gained by interrogating them. In most cases they reside in densely populated areas so getting in and out involves a major incursion - which would probably claim many more casualties from both sides. In places such as Gaza and most refugee camps, the risk is too high due to unknowns such as explosive charges and the vicinity of many other armed fighters. Decisions that involve civilian casualties are taken very carefuly, and there's an on-going debate in Israeli society as to their value - which is why there are legal advisors present at every step. Unfortunately, the decision-making isn't transparent due to the sensitive information it involves.

It seems when combatting terrorism, you can be too successful. This conflict is on many fronts, one of which is world public opinion. It seems to be the only front we're losing.
I can't blame anyone for being disinformed. It's natural to sympthise with the losing side - I do it myself (in real life debates with Israelis I usually take the other side). Attention-seeking reporters and eager "specialists" don't make it easier to see our side of the picture - somewhat infuriating for Israelis watching foreign news channels on cable or abroad. It's because of this many Israelis have long stopped caring what the world thinks, and personally I'm starting to feel the same. We just want to live here peacefuly. Hopefully, Hizbullah won't succeed in halting the planned pullout from the West Bank. It would be harder to achieve public consensus for that since the same rockets fired daily from Gaza would hit Israel's largest suburbs if fired from the West Bank, not to mention what Iranian and Syrian supplied weapons could do.

 

[darius]

The problem I have with Israel is that people stay in their countires and countries are made in the course of generations by fighting for your homeland. Countries are not made by buying them. I really do not like Arab terrorists and islamic militants but if someone threw me out of my country or I was made a refugee in my own homeland, and the world is on the side with the money and power, I probably would be throwing rocks out of desperation. I think both sides are equally blameable. World attention is taken away from more urgent worldissues that need to be immediately addressed because of the conflict there. If it were not for the oil, no one would give a damn about the region. And I often I wish that oil would run out and countries like Saudi Arabia and such would finally have to rely on their brains to be productive like the rest of us and not on oil money.

 

[Office_Shredder]

The problem I have with Israel is that people stay in their countires and countires are made in the course of generations by fighting for your homeland. Countries are not made by buying them. I really do not like Arab terrorists and islamic militants but if someone threw me out of my country or I was made a refugee in my own homeland, and the world is on the side with the money and power, I probably would be throwing rocks out of desperation.

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900

 

[darius]

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900

This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations. They are tied to the land over hundreds of years. Except of course the New World countries. And as soon as the money generated by oil runs out in these countries, so will the source of funding for Islamic militants.

 

[Office_Shredder]

This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations. They are tied to the land over hundreds of years. Except of course the New World countries. And as soon as the money generated by oil runs out in these countries, so will the source of funding for Islamic militants.

100 years IS generations dude. Like, five of them.

And most palestinians AREN'T tied to the land. It was the Zionists who built the land up from a desert wasteland, who built the cities, who created the infrastructure, who even freed it from British control.

The Palestinians DIDN'T have their own country before Israel, they were just controlled by another country. And then it was the Zionists actions that got Palestine their own state.

 

[Yonoz]

Darius, I propose you read a little about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Historical_roots".

 

[darius]

But the Paliestinians lived there, and have been living there for hundreds of years. By the way I do not support either side. I am sorry for my comments. I do not believe in quibbling about politics and I wondered why I even bothered to write this on a physics forum. If those people cannot make peace among themselves, I propose the world should leave them to their own so they either come to terms with each other or self destruct. Regardless of what is said here, the world opinion is not going to change regarding what is going on there and I know people around the world are tired about hearing about a never resolvable conflict. Good bye.

 

[muadib2k]

This is a mere hundred years. I mean people live in their countries over generations

Prior to the Roman empire (thousands of years ago) there was a country by the name of Israel situated in the same area where the modern state of Israel is. And thousands of years ago (thousands of years prior to creation of Islam), Jerusalem was the capital city.

Can anybody name a single historical Palestinian city ?

That is not to say that Palestinians have never lived in the region, but that there is clear evidance to the existence of an israeli country in that area that dates back 5000-6000 years.

 

[Astronuc]

This would be true, except the creation of the state of Israel began around 1900

Not quite.

There were Jew leaders who called for the return of the Jews to Palestine for decades before Theodor Herzl (1860-1904, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_Hertzl) wrote his influential pamphlet, The Jewish State. But Herzl's work pushed the formation of a political movement to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. The first Zionist Congress, convened by Herzl, was held in Basel, Switzerland, in 1897. Herzl was less attached to Palestine than some other "Zionists", and considered at one stage the creation of a Jewish state in what is now Uganda.

There was consideration of a restored Jewish state. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896herzl.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_state
http://www.mideastweb.org/israeldeclaration.htm
http://www.newdemocracyworld.org/state.htm

However, Palestine and much of the middle east was under the control of the Ottoman empire until after World War I (aka The Great War).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoman_Empire

The Allied Powers, led by Britain, France, Russia, and later also Italy and the United States, defeated the Central Powers, led by Germany, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I
The Ottoman Empire was on the losing side, and under pressure from Russia, the OE receded from Europe - which had been happening for some time (viz the Balkan Wars - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Wars) .

Of course, the reader must keep in the mind the interpretations and perspectives (pro or con) of the writers at the various sites.

 

[Astronuc]

That is not to say that Palestinians have never lived in the region, but that there is clear evidance to the existence of an israeli country in that area that dates back 5000-6000 years.

Not in the context of the modern nation or country, and I believe one problem with some of the discussion is that people are applying modern concepts retrospectively.

There were city states and surrounding populations, and there tribes, clans, coalitions, . . . Some tribes were nomadic and while others became established in specific locations. That has been one source of conflict throughout history - two or more populations competing for the same natural resource.

For some context -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine#Boundaries_and_name
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Palestine - read caveats regarding accuracy and objectivity of this article.

 

[muadib2k]

Not in the context of the modern nation or country, and I believe one problem with some of the discussion is that people are applying modern concepts retrospectively

No I agree with you that it is not in the same contex of a modern day state, that was not what I was trying to convey. I was simply trying to show that "Zionists" simply do not claim that area of the world based on events in the past few hundreds of years, but (in part) based on historical ties going back several thousands of years.

 

[Astronuc]

I was simply trying to show that "Zionists" simply do not claim that area of the world based on events in the past few hundreds of years, but (in part) based on historical ties going back several thousands of years.

Yes, I would agree with this assessment. But there are also parallel attempts on the part of others for historical claims by Palestinians to the same area. Before Abraham settled in the area, there were other tribes present.

The historical facts are mired in literature which is a mix of subjective and objective writing - so the facts are not so clear.

And it is irrelevant to the current situation. What happened historically should not prevent people from living in peace - except for the fact that some people chose to harm to other human beings - and that is the problem.

 

[muadib2k]

And it is irrelevant to the current situation. What happened historically should not prevent people from living in peace - except for the fact that some people chose to harm to other human beings - and that is the problem..

Ideally, in a perfect world, I would agree with that statement. In fact, the world would be a much better place if that were true. However the problem, in my personal opionion, is that there is a complete lack of desire by some elements, and even countries, in the region to compromise.

In general (key word here) the world, Israel including, accepts the right of palestinians to live and share that area of the world. Some elements, Hamas and Hizbollah are some, refuse to accept the right of Israel to exist. They use both historical arguments (of questionable validity) and religious arguments (and religion in itself relies very heavily on history) to make their claims.

 

[Yonoz]

Pardon me if I re-emphasize that the current Lebanese conflict is related, but does not necessarily have all that much to do with the Palestinian problem. They associate themselves with it because they use the prestige and frequent excuses for shows of force to gain political power in Lebanon and funding from their benefactors, Iran and Syria. This last pair cares for the Palestinians like I care for cockroaches.

 

[devil-fire]

Well then, isn't it just as necessary for a military to risk harming these civilians in order to protect its own civilians?

i totally agree, this is core function of any state or government (edit), to defend its self.

It's mostly because they believed Israel won't attack, the propaganda doesn't really matter since they just make it up anyway.

what i think your saying is that because israel will be resistant to attack targets that could involve a lot of unwanted casualties, these targets try to exploit this by living in densely populated areas. i don't think this is primarily why militia are usually in heavy urban areas. because militia don't go on tours of duty, they usually are in the same residence as before they became militia. as well, being in an urban area adds anonymity (this i think is key). basically i don't think the reasons why its hard to attack an enemy in this case is actually why the enemy uses that defense.

Targets are arrested when possible, partly due to the fact more can be gained by interrogating them. In most cases they reside in densely populated areas so getting in and out involves a major incursion - which would probably claim many more casualties from both sides. In places such as Gaza and most refugee camps, the risk is too high due to unknowns such as explosive charges and the vicinity of many other armed fighters. Decisions that involve civilian casualties are taken very carefuly, and there's an on-going debate in Israeli society as to their value - which is why there are legal advisors present at every step. Unfortunately, the decision-making isn't transparent due to the sensitive information it involves.

It seems when combatting terrorism, you can be too successful. This conflict is on many fronts, one of which is world public opinion. It seems to be the only front we're losing.

rereading this statement I am not sure i understand what you are implying. iv assumed that after its been concluded to attack a target the order of priority goes something like this 1st) attack the target 2nd) minimize friendly casualties 3rd) minimize collateral damage. if i understand your statement, your saying that minimizing friendly casualties and minimizing collateral casualties are being gradually reversed in priority? this sounds surprising to me.

 

[Yonoz]

what i think your saying is that because israel will be resistant to attack targets that could involve a lot of unwanted casualties, these targets try to exploit this by living in densely populated areas. i don't think this is primarily why militia are usually in heavy urban areas. because militia don't go on tours of duty, they usually are in the same residence as before they became militia. as well, being in an urban area adds anonymity (this i think is key). basically i don't think the reasons why its hard to attack an enemy in this case is actually why the enemy uses that defense.

I thought we were talking about Hizbullah's weapons and munitions hidden in homes - I'm not used to talking about the Hizbullah and Palestians in the same conversation... So, if we're discussing Hizbullah, then currently specific individuals aren't targeted. Starting this evening, after air force units have completed higher priority missions and the civilian population has been given ample warnings and enough time to leave, individual houses of known Hizbulla members are being bombed - of course no-one expects them to still be there. I don't think anyone person is worth the resources and command chain headache.
As for the Palestians, the next comment explains this better.

rereading this statement I am not sure i understand what you are implying. iv assumed that after its been concluded to attack a target the order of priority goes something like this 1st) attack the target 2nd) minimize friendly casualties 3rd) minimize collateral damage. if i understand your statement, your saying that minimizing friendly casualties and minimizing collateral casualties are being gradually reversed in priority? this sounds surprising to me.

What I mean to say is that the two often go hand in hand. It goes like this: individuals are targeted if they're constantly initiating acts of terror or if there is intelligence of an upcoming attack and there are no other options. Several plans are considered, and the result is presented to the appropriate authority for authorization. When possible, an arrest is carried out, because the target can be interrogated, used as a bargaining chip, and because it's the right thing to do. Usually the incursion needed to arrest the target is deemed too dangerous - in such cases an incursion would mean losses to both sides, and due to the technical and methodical superiority of the military the losses are usually heavier on the other side. If the target plans to carry out a major act of terror against Israeli civilians they probably will not care much for collateral damage and authorize bombing. Some plans simply are not authorized.

 

[darius]

Regarding having claims to a land I suppose by that logic the American Indians should claim the U.S. If one loves one's country one stays there and fights till the end for it, not departs and comes back after 2000 years and lays claims due to some claims in a religious book.

 

[kyleb]

Pardon me if I re-emphasize that the current Lebanese conflict is related, but does not necessarily have all that much to do with the Palestinian problem. They associate themselves with it because they use the prestige and frequent excuses for shows of force to gain political power in Lebanon and funding from their benefactors, Iran and Syria. This last pair cares for the Palestinians like I care for cockroaches.

Even if you don't believe the rest of the Muslim world has any at all concern for the Palestinian people; surely you can accept the fact that Palestinian land has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world?

 

[kyleb]

Regarding having claims to a land I suppose by that logic the American Indians should claim the U.S. If one loves one's country one stays there and fights till the end for it, not departs and comes back after 2000 years and lays claims due to some claims in a religious book.

Maybe my Native American brothers should go take back East Asia?

 

[Yonoz]

Even if you don't believe the rest of the Muslim world has any at all concern for the Palestinian people; surely you can accept the fact that Palestinian land has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world?

I believe many Muslims care for the Palestinian people - it's their leaders that abuse this.
I absolutely agree with that second part.

 

[kyleb]

Those facts are precisely the relationship between the current conflict in Lebanon and the continuing incursion and occupation of Palestinian land.

 

[muadib2k]

Those facts are precisely the relationship between the current conflict in Lebanon and the continuing incursion and occupation of Palestinian land.

The current conflict was most likely initiated by Iran on the eve of the G8 summit. Iran is under a lot of stress due to its nuclear ambitions and the gathering of the G8 would have no doubt produced even more pressure. By activating a second front through its proxy in Lebanon, world focus is shifted away from its nuclear issues and onto the newly created conflict.

Believe it or not but Hamas and Hizbullah do not hold much love for each other as they belong to different sects of Islam (i.e. the same difference that currently fuels the civil war in Iraq and fueled the Iraq-Iran war).

 

[kyleb]

My point is that they all want to retain Palestinian control of the land which is being lost, and that is what fuels the aggression of such organizations as well as cooperation between them.

 

[Yonoz]

My point is that they all want to retain Palestinian control of the land which is being lost, and that is what fuels the aggression of such organizations as well as cooperation between them.

That's oversimplified IMO. Israel bothers these organisations more because it's a regional power that their masters oppose.
To undermine the stability of thew peace process, Iran pays Palestinian terror cells to attack the crossings that are the Gaza strip's lifeline. They do this because they know Israel will close the crossings and create instability in the strip.

 

[kyleb]

I contest that your use of prase "regional power" is greatly oversimplifying the situation considering the http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm" . That more than a regional power, it is widespread occupation with continuing expansion on land which has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world.

 

[Yonoz]

I contest that your use of prase "regional power" is greatly oversimplifying the situation considering the http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/03/v3_israel_palestinians/maps/html/settlements_checkpoints.stm" . That more than a regional power, it is widespread occupation with continuing expansion on land which has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world.

Israel pulled out of Lebanon 6 years ago, to an internationally recognised border. In return we got a hanging sword in the form of Hizbullah's rocket array. Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip and in return we get daily rockets on nearby towns and kibbutzim. These are not the actions of people who want to end the occupation. These actions are meant to halt the peace process, inflame the situation, reduce stability and plunge this region into war, from which Iran and Syria hope to emerge stronger.

 

[MeJennifer]

the peace process

There has not been any peace process there!

Peace process is just like soothing words, unreal, make believe.

 

[Gokul43201]

That more than a regional power, it is widespread occupation with continuing expansion on land which has cultural and religious significance to the Muslim world.

Continuing expansion?

In the last 15 or so years, we've had:

1. Rabin's signing of the Oslo Accords with the PLO in '93
2. Declaration of peace between Jordan and Israel in '94
3. Rejection of Oslo by Hamas; and a barrage of suicide bombings from them resulting in the election of the hardliner, Netanyahu
4. Withdrawal from the Hebron
5. Signing of the Wye River Memorandum giving greater power to the Palestinian Authority.
6. Barak initiates unilateral withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000
7. Barak's offer of Palestinian State on 90% of the West Bank and Gaza is rejected by Arafat during the Camp David talks
8. After failure of talks and subsequent Palestinian uprising (al-Aqsa), public sentiment turns against Barak
9. Sharon executes a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip in 2005, but also proposes building of West Bank Barrier which effectively reannexes nearly 10% of the WB from Palestinian control.

 

[kyleb]

I'm talking about the continuing destruction of Palestinian homes and the construction of Israel settlements, surely you are aware of at least a little of that happening within the last 15 or so years?

 

[Office_Shredder]

By continuing construction of Israel settlements, I assume you're referring to that time last year when they withdrew from all of them in the Gaza strip?

Or are you talking about that plan they have to withdraw from the supermajority of them in the West Bank?

 

[kyleb]

I'm talking about the land they contenue to expand upon there. Are you honestly not aware of even a little of that?

 

[muadib2k]

I'm talking about the continuing destruction of Palestinian homes

Maybe if Hamas did not store is weapons, stage war or fire missiles from civilian homes, those home would not be destroyed.

I'm talking about the land they contenue to expand upon there. Are you honestly not aware of even a little of that?

I'm aware that Sharon got on the wrong side of many Israelis when he forced hundreds of families to evacuate their settlements not too long ago.

 

[kyleb]

But again, what about the new settlements and continuing occupation; do you not care to consider how those actions are perceived by Muslims?

 

[muadib2k]

continuing occupation

continuing occupation? What was wrong with the Barak deal that arafat had to reject it ?

new settlements

could you please define "new settlements" and possibly name some ?.

 

[Bystander]

But again, what about the new settlements and continuing occupation; do you not care to consider how those actions are perceived by Muslims?

Given that breathing is perceived by M(o,u)sl(e,i)ms as unacceptable activity by Israelis, does it make a difference?