How should Israel defend itself?

kryogen

Its anti missile defense system defends itself pretty well in fairness. Israel should defend itself by seeking a real peace with the Palestinians, stop doing HAMAS pr work for them, it should seek co-operation with the Palestinians rather then conquest.

Give the Palestinians their own recognized state, let them use the mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem as its capital. The way they are going will bring no peace whatsoever and is a poor defence of their citizens and country. They are only fuelling bigger fires of hate and animosity toward themselves with their actions.

AbusesToilets

I don't think a two state solution will ever work. Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem. The proposed Palestinian state would be completely lacking in resources, not to mention Hamas is unlikely to accept peace with Israel.

kikidelvin

England should take a lot of the blame for what is going on now,had they not given in to the violence of the Zionists and broken their promises to the Palestinians .I do not think there would be any disputes over land etc.and everyone could get on with their lives in peace.

obplayer

kikidelvin wrote: »

England should take a lot of the blame for what is going on now,had they not given in to the violence of the Zionists and broken their promises to the Palestinians .I do not think there would be any disputes over land etc.and everyone could get on with their lives in peace.

And as has been said before and will doubtless be said, wearily, again, that is done. The Middle East is where it is. The question is, again, where do they go from here?

Azwaldo55

kryogen wrote: »

Its anti missile defense system defends itself pretty well in fairness. Israel should defend itself by seeking a real peace with the Palestinians, stop doing HAMAS pr work for them, it should seek co-operation with the Palestinians rather then conquest.

Give the Palestinians their own recognized state, let them use the mostly Palestinian East Jerusalem as its capital. The way they are going will bring no peace whatsoever and is a poor defence of their citizens and country. They are only fuelling bigger fires of hate and animosity toward themselves with their actions.

If they withdrew from the West Bank it would also become a launch pad for rockets.

Control of the Jordan Valley is strategically vital for Israel.

Without the West Bank as a buffer then Israel is about 10 miles wide at its narrowest point.

From a military point of view Israel would be impossible to defend.



Historically Megiddo in Northern Israel was the gateway into the coastal plain to get around the Jordan Valley which functioned as the equivalent of the Maginot Line hence the description of the Battle of Armageddon happening at the end of time when Israel is surrounded by armies as numerous as the sand of the seashore.



You cannot understand the Israeli mindset without understanding the need for strategic borders to defend their territory from being overrun.

kryogen

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I don't think a two state solution will ever work. Israel is never going to give up Jerusalem. The proposed Palestinian state would be completely lacking in resources, not to mention Hamas is unlikely to accept peace with Israel.

Hamas would be unlikely to accept a peace with Israel, especially at the start. It would however win the public opinion battle imo, it would encourage the Palestinian people to turn against Hamas, it gives them something else to cling to and to relate it to Irish politics, it forces the militants to move to the centre or be marginalised. Will they still be a thorn in the side, capable of causing havoc? Of course, in the same way the IRA would now. It would remove the need for a lot of it though and the ordinary people would be far more likely to throw their support behind a peace process. It is not something that would happen overnight.

It requires Israel to give up some of its claim on Jerusalem, which naturally they would be hugely opposed to, but such is compromise.

If they are serious about wanting a peace it would be a huge gesture, a two state system removes the excuse for attacking Israel, it removes the justification if all parties (politically) agree to move ahead in a diplomatic, peaceful manner, working out issues instead of relying on force.

No solution is perfect, but some are clearly only going to fan the flames of fury further, again to bring it back to Irish matters, Bloody Sunday created an awful lot more IRA volunteers and turned a lot of public opinion, both at home and internationally against the British. Diffusing and making armed resistance less attractive to people is the only way forward for peace, people need to be given a viable alternative to fighting with weapons.

Azwaldo55

kryogen wrote: »

Hamas would be unlikely to accept a peace with Israel, especially at the start. It would however win the public opinion battle imo, it would encourage the Palestinian people to turn against Hamas, it gives them something else to cling to and to relate it to Irish politics, it forces the militants to move to the centre or be marginalised. Will they still be a thorn in the side, capable of causing havoc? Of course, in the same way the IRA would now. It would remove the need for a lot of it though and the ordinary people would be far more likely to throw their support behind a peace process. It is not something that would happen overnight.

It requires Israel to give up some of its claim on Jerusalem, which naturally they would be hugely opposed to, but such is compromise.

If they are serious about wanting a peace it would be a huge gesture, a two state system removes the excuse for attacking Israel, it removes the justification if all parties (politically) agree to move ahead in a diplomatic, peaceful manner, working out issues instead of relying on force.

No solution is perfect, but some are clearly only going to fan the flames of fury further, again to bring it back to Irish matters, Bloody Sunday created an awful lot more IRA volunteers and turned a lot of public opinion, both at home and internationally against the British. Diffusing and making armed resistance less attractive to people is the only way forward for peace, people need to be given a viable alternative to fighting with weapons.

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

FTA69

Medina is holier than Jerusalem in the Islamic Faith. Similarly, Islam does not "cancel out" Judaism, it is drawn heavily from Judaism and the two managed to co-exist for over a millennium before the foundation of the Israeli state changed the dynamic.

kryogen

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

I stopped reading here

You have no idea what I do or do not understand or know about the situation, or the history.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

Yahweh is worshiped by both Jews and Muslims.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

You fail to understand the centrality of Jerusalem/Al Quds.

The Temple Mount is the holiest Jewish place - the dwelling place of Yahweh - the Holy of Holies. Some say that the Ark of the Covenant itself is hidden somewhere beneath.

Holy is quite a subjective term. I imagine if there is a god he wouldn't be so petty as to want different tribes of humans killing each over over a mount.

When Jerusalem was captured in 1967 General Moshe Dayan, the one-eyed Israeli commander was urged by one of Israel's leading rabbis to blow up the gold domed Dome of the Rock so that the Temple destroyed by the Romans could be rebuilt.

So?

Today many religious Jews dream of doing precisely that. Some Jews suggest God has cursed Israel with war because the Temple has not be restored and the sacrifices are not being performed.

My granny says a fairy fort near us is cursed. That doesn't mean I am going to attack anyone that goes near it. We cannot base a war on superstition in this day and age.

For Muslims everywhere al Quds is holiest next to Mecca itself. This is after all where Muhammad ascended into Heaven and his foot print is left on the Rock.

The two faiths cannot share the Temple Mount since they cancel each other out.

For both faiths political borders and human treaties mean nothing next to divine commands.

Time and the passing of generations are as nothing to these faiths.

I agree both sides have their fanaticists but I think there are sensible people on both sides.

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Yahweh is worshiped by both Jews and Muslims.

And telling them that will change what exactly?

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Holy is quite a subjective term. I imagine if there is a god he wouldn't be so petty as to want different tribes of humans killing each over over a mount.

Their holy books say otherwise.

So?

A lesser man would have given in and blown it up.

My granny says a fairy fort near us is cursed. That doesn't mean I am going to attack anyone that goes near it. We cannot base a war on superstition in this day and age.

But we do. End of.

I agree both sides have their fanaticists but I think there are sensible people on both sides.

The fanatics call the shots.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

Their holy books say otherwise.



A lesser man would have given in and blown it up.



But we do. End of.



The fanatics call the shots.

Bye man. Hell is the absence of reasoning and my belief system (Science) states that fanatics are brainwashed.

steddyeddy

Azwaldo55 wrote: »

And telling them that will change what exactly?

Well surely they have the intelligence to extrapolate the implications of that. If they both worship the same god and the same god told them different things then maybe it's time to stop basing things on old books.

Azwaldo55

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well surely they have the intelligence to extrapolate the implications of that. If they both worship the same god and the same god told them different things then maybe it's time to stop basing things on old books.

No they don't. Minor differences in religious doctrine are enough to spark religious conflict. During the religious wars of the 17th century armies fought each other over whether bread and wine were real or representative of the flesh and blood of a 1st century carpenter in Galilee.

conorh91

kikidelvin wrote: »

Israel has been the eyes and ears of the U.S.in the middle east since it began its statehood.Which is why nothing will ever change until the U.S.decides to stop supporting Israel.

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

steddyeddy

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

I agree. I would be happy with them compromising and making restoration to the Palestinian people.

kikidelvin

conorh91 wrote: »

I'm not a supporter of Israel's recent attacks on Gaza, but I hope for the sake of the Middle East that the USA never stops supporting Israel.

Who will defend Israeli civilians if the US abandon Israel?

Do you honestly believe there wouldn't be absolute carnage among the civilian population in Israel, if Iran, and Syrian extremists, had a free run at them?

By all means lets punish israel, but not to the extent of obliterating its people.

How about the U.N.or N.A.T.O. protecting them if such a thing could happen, and you just mention civilians in the carnage would they still not have their soldiers .So no I do not believe this carnage would happen.:)

kikidelvin

Let the Orange men have it.

conorh91

kikidelvin wrote: »

How about the U.N.or N.A.T.O. protecting them if such a thing could happen

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

AbusesToilets

conorh91 wrote: »

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

johnnyskeleton

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

Together with the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc are no longer trying to drive them into the sea and are seeking peace in the middle east, while Iraq and Syria are stifled by civil war. The idea of Israel beif attacked on all sides is no longer the reality, although obviously Iran is still an uncertainty.

obplayer

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Together with the fact that Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon etc are no longer trying to drive them into the sea and are seeking peace in the middle east, while Iraq and Syria are stifled by civil war. The idea of Israel beif attacked on all sides is no longer the reality, although obviously Iran is still an uncertainty.

I agree but you have to take psychology into account. Israel was set up as a safe haven for a people who had been harried, often brutally by such things as pogroms, from pillar to post for many centuries and then ultimately slaughtered in their millions. Such things would induce a siege mentality in any group. Paranoids have enemies too.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

There is currently no clear framework for that to arise. After a promising beginning, the principle of R2P is still a vague, declaratory statement.

Peacekeeping, which is a different issue, would effectively require Hamas and the Arab World to recognize Israel before peacekeeping could commence. That's just not going to happen.

Like it or not, Israel does need protection.

The USA is the only thing keeping Israel from mass destruction.

It is probably the only entity capable and willing in this regard.

What do you mean by "recognize Israel".

If you mean that Hamas, Fatah and the PA should recognize the reality of a State of Israel, based on it's Internationally recognized borders, the pre-67 borders, and a two-State reality , including Palestine and State of Israel, then that is already the situation. With the commencement of the Hamas/Fatah reconciliation and the formation of the Unity Government, under the PA, there is no question but that there is a recognition of the existance of a State of Israel.

Of course, if you mean that Palestinians, the Arab World and the International Community must recognize the Occupation and virtual Annexation [almost 50 years of occupation and settlements] of Palestinian Territories, against all International law, then you are asking the impossible.

What you would want then is the formalisation of the current situation, which will never be acceptable to the Palestinian people.

conorh91

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Pretty sure Israel's robust military, strong economy and most importantly, it's proven nuclear capacity are keeping it from mass destruction.

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

irishpancake wrote: »

What do you mean by "recognize Israel".

Of course, if you mean that Palestinians, the Arab World and the International Community must recognize the Occupation and virtual Annexation [almost 50 years of occupation and settlements] of Palestinian Territories, against all International law, then you are asking the impossible.

What you would want then is the formalisation of the current situation, which will never be acceptable to the Palestinian people.

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

Given that Israel is the one expanding into Palestinian territory and building colonies therein, I'm not getting its Israeli civillians that are in such need of protection or that its Israel in need of defence.

conorh91

Nodin wrote: »

Given that Israel is the one expanding into Palestinian territory and building colonies therein, I'm not getting its Israeli civillians that are in such need of protection or that its Israel in need of defence.

You're conflating two different issues.

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate.

Now, although the Israeli government is in breach of international law, civilians are always tangental to conflicts in law. The legitimate targets for retaliation in response to Israeli aggression are thus specific members IDF security forces.

So whilst on the one hand there is a legitimacy in principle to Palestinian rockets being fired on Israel, the firing of those rockets on Israeli civilians is in breach of international law. It is necessary for civilians to be protected from such attacks, even in circumstances where their government is an aggressor.

In other words, just because the Israeli government and the Palestinian "government" are belligerents, that fact alone does not downplay the civilians' needs for protection.

It just so happens that nobody in the international community will help defend Palestine. But that misfortune doesn't logically detract from the legitimacy of protecting Israeli civilians, e.g. by use of the Iron Dome.

Yes, Israeli civilians do need and deserve military protection from mass, indiscriminate warfare .

Accepting that is the an important step forwards.

irishpancake

conorh91 wrote: »

So then, you're claiming the US support for israel is of no consequence?

Which is it, does America's support matter or not?

OK… lets change the wording.

UN peacekeeping is, in effect, a non-runner until, or unless Israel and the Palestinian People can agree on where the borders lie.

Until then, we're back to an obligation to protect Israeli civilians by means other than UN peacekeeping. In my opinion, this necessitates US military support for Israeli defence.

Lets not forget that the UN is ultimately responsible for the Paliestinian Territory, including welfare and defence, having 'inherited' the 1922 British mandate. You can't blame Israel or the USA if the UN refuses to do its job properly.

But again, what is this "Israeli defence" defending??

What right do those Israeli Citizen Settlers, living illegally on Annexed Palestinian Territories, have to a defence?? They are on Palestinian lands, therefore Palestinian forces have every right, under International Law, to try to eject them, forcibly if necessary. These Settlers are not citizens of the lands they occupy by force and conquest.

In my opinion, this "Israeli defence" you cite is defending the Occupation/Annexed Borders of territories garnered by conquest and expelling of native populations, and imprisoning them in high security and closely guarded and blockaded open-air prisons.

The UN responsibility for the Palestinian Non-State is completely negated by the US's flagrant support for Israel's present position, it's "borders", it's "right to self-defence" within those occupied/annexed Palestinian lands, it's settler policy, it's support of Israel's denial of a right to return for Palestinians, it's equation of the threat from so-called "rockets" with the gigantic hardware given to Israel by the US/UK and Europe.

Nodin

conorh91 wrote: »

You're conflating two different issues.

There is no doubt that Palestinians need enhanced defences. Blame the UN for that. It's the UN who is responsible for defending Palestine under the 1922 mandate. .

The UN can do nothing without a UNSC vote. As the US has a permanent seat and a veto on the UNSC, there can be no UN intervention.

The UN did not exist in 1922.

conorh91 wrote: »

Now, although the Israeli government is in breach of international law, civilians are always tangental to conflicts in law. The legitimate targets for retaliation in response to Israeli aggression are thus specific members IDF security forces. .

I'm not arguing as to their validity as targets, I'm pointing out that the odds of them being victims are very remote, whilst its Palestinians who have to live in genuine risk.