US troops to Gaza, a possible solution?

[gree0232]

Don:
We need to be very clear that being Culturally different is not the same as being as being alien. Arab fathers and mothers still love their children. Arab families are still trying to set conditions that make things better for their children. The logic the same, but what is different is how they will attempt to accomplish the same task with the same desired end state.

Westerners seem to be reflexively pro-Israeli because they are virtually a carbon copy of Western Governmental models and culture. Their military is trained under similar precepts, holds many of the same institutions and doctrine, and indeed uses much of the same equipment in much the same way. Their governments are recognized democracy, and the jurisprudence is decidedly Western in flavor. Even the Judeo-Christian history and the talk of Abraham seems familiar to many Westerner.

Conversely, the rest of the Middle East is synonymous with Mohammed. The forms of government blend religion, military, and political function in a way that is foreign to the West. Their dress and mannerisms are different, and their jurisprudence is often not only not independent but subject to both religious and political intervention (even in the moderate Gulf States).

Even the way the two regimes fight reinforces that familiarity. What could be more familiar than an F-16 dropping bombs on insurgents? What could be more different than making homemade rockets rather than relying on high-tech military/industrial complex?

What remains the same are National Interests. What changes in the relative tools and techniques that will be used to achieve those goals.

When you use a Western analysis as the basis of your reading on the Turkish PM’s displeasure, you failed entirely to take either his Culture or his Nation’s Interests into account. You have responded to that very valid point, but simply stating they are (not Western), which is all too often code for sub-human.
(Where the talk of birthday cakes comes in after that is beyond me?)

Second, you are really stretching to make blankets into military contraband. True, you need to equip you Army with supplies. However, once again, you fail entirely to take culture into account as you make a baseless accusation. Arab concepts of manhood will not allow women and children to remain cold and miserable. In fact, they might very well steal to ensure that this process is reversed.

Thrid. “The only thing that can change the conditions on the ground is a regime change in Gaza.”
Bull****.
Israel has been attacking Hamas for years, and somehow it keeps growing stronger. Is this success?

What will fundamentally change conditions on the ground is Israel acknowledging that hams is the legitimate government of Iraq, or an American intervention.

Forth. You are dead wrong on American intervention in the Middle East. The only two states whose militaries I have either not worked with or trained are Syria and Iran. We are already heavily engaged across the region.

Also, bear in mind, Al Qaeda was able to get a foot hold in Iraq because we disbanded it’s government with short sighted be-Bathification policies, let the Army drift away due to non-payment and finally dissolution. We were culturally arrogant, insulting, and our kinetic approach alienated and emasculated large swaths of the Iraqi people. Into that environment, while we slapping ourselves on the backs for such a wonderful job done, comes Al Qaeda whispering, “We have guns and bombs, and we will fight the invaders.”

So, you are right, we did bring Al Qaeda to Iraq. It was because we were culturally insensitive and overly kinetic. When we dropped both of those policies, it magically gets better.

That you are so handily asking for a return to kinetic responses, based on so much Cultural insensitivity, one has to wonder whether you want success of just more killing?

 

[donsutherland1]

Don:...

I believe you are replying to Moe's post, not mine.

 

[gree0232]

Don:
You are correct. (I can admit that on occasion.)

So much for tying the latest to earlier arguements in depth. I guess we win some and we lose some.

 

[donsutherland1]

Don:
You are correct. (I can admit that on occasion.)

So much for tying the latest to earlier arguements in depth. I guess we win some and we lose some.

Gree0232,

Anyone could make such an error. It's not a problem.

Also, in your response to Moe, you wrote, "When you use a Western analysis as the basis of your reading on the Turkish PM’s displeasure, you failed entirely to take either his Culture or his Nation’s Interests into account."

I believe one cannot apply one's own preferred framework in such cases. One needs to have an understanding of how a nation, based on its own history, culture, needs, etc., defines its interests. If a country views another nation's interests strictly as it would define them for his or her own state under given circumstances, that country could easily fall into a trap that feeds misunderstanding and possibly even leads to a clash of interests.

P.S. As you noted that you have been involved in training military personnel, you should probably PM the moderators for the appropriate military award as a "thank you" for your service.

 

[gree0232]

Don:
In all honesty, I think we agree on more than we disagree, as I know we both want a safe and secure Israel. How we get to that point is where we disagree.

As for military service, and especially in a debate forum, one must be very careful with 'service'. I am very much aware that I am not the US Army. The views I present here are my own, and should in no way be taken as representation of the US Military's stance except when explicitely stated as so.

I have learned a great deal from military service, I have gone into parts of the world that many Americans shudder just to think about and then gone into the worst places in those dark areas. I have seen tactical situations, operational considerations, and difficulty and rewards of effective policy making at the strategic level. Most people would probably be rather uncomfortable if they knew the full extent of how much personalities and personal relationships can effect the destiny of Nations.

I have seen situations that can only solved with a gun, and I have been exhorted to use violence in others that were solved with a cup of tea and the willingness to listen.

What I have also learned from service is that it must truely be selfless to be effective, and that violence, though sometimes necessary, is rarely the right answer. When it is used, it should be used only with a full understanding of its intent and its effects. Unfortunately, that is rarely the case.

The upshot of all that? I'd rather be Eric than a veteran.

 

[moe]

Hello gree.

Oh that's ok you can blame don if want to for my posts. :mrgreen:

You did not see the post that Tashah made concerning what I am trying to say. Tashah is an Israeli and I hardly think she considers herself sub human. I guess I just am not wording it properly. No body is trying to call anybody an alien or a sub human. In fact it is the cultural difference that is the central point here. Different cultures wage war in different manners and degrees.

As to at least the US view concerning Israel much of the support began with the previous generation religious right. There was a time we practiced what we called replacement theology. That Israel was totally cast aside by God and the Christian church had replaced her. In those days we in the church did not give three hoots about Israel and simply believed that they were suffering from Gods displeasure. This was quite awhile back when I was still a kid. I am 53 now.

Anyway then teachings began to arise publicly from the Book of Revelation that Israel was significant in bringing about the second coming of Christ. We needed Israel to build the third temple. Having the Arabs upset the applecart and destroy Israel before this event simply would not do. Thus we began pushing for and electing pro Israeli politicians. Many Christians in the states were falling all over themselves when Israel recaptured the temple mount. Many of our parents from that time are now passed away and the support of Israel has taken on a different light. Today we see them as having the right exist in peace in their own land.

The government also saw an important ally in Israel so we had a combined force in motion that became very powerful backed by American Jewish money. There were other factors involved of course.

Perhaps you are not familiar with the the 70's and 80's terrorist attacks that swept Europe or the Iranian assassination squads that targeted Iranian dissidents in Europe after the fall of the Iranian shah. History learned does not have the same impact as history lived. That has much to do with the difference of F-16's dropping bombs on insurgents. Israel became the west's proxy force to fight terrorism in the Middle East.

I made no comment on the Turkish prime minister. The reference to the birthday cake comes from the Reagan era and the Iran Contra scandal. While publicly promoting a hard stand against no negotiations with terrorists behind the scenes the Reagan administration was trying to cultivate a relationship with the Iranians to help provide weapons to the Contras. They wanted the weapons to come out of Iran so America could appear as not involved in the process of arming the Contras. One of the peace gestures the administration made was to send Ayatollah Khomeini a birthday cake and a copy of the Koran.

As to the blankets, I believe the present actions of the Hamas damage your argument. If Hamas was so concerned about the well being of women and children they would not be taking part in actions that they know for a fact will bring heavy retaliation upon those same people. If this were a cultural issue I would agree with you. But it is not based on culture. It is based on fanaticism. When dealing with fanaticism otherwise sane people begin doing very insane things.

I stand by my statement that regime change in Gaza is necessary. It was necessary in Iraq and Afghanistan before any real changes could take place. Much of the rise of Hamas has more to do with fall of the PLO than with Israel. The PLO became corrupt. The people suffered what else were they supposed to do? Not like they have a whole bunch of political choices and disagreement with the powers that be are usually settled by a bullet to the back of the head. Plus Hamas is backed by Iranian capital. If we could find away to effectively block the money and arms from Iran, Hamas would shrivel up and blow away.

As to being dead wrong about the middle east, These countries that you have worked in. What are their positions on Israel? Do they trade with them? Are the borders open and the Arabs and Israeli's freely travel back and forth on holiday or visiting friends and relatives or are there isolation policies in place?

The rest of your post I agree with. Bear in mind most of us do not support a kill them all let God sort them out policy. Most of us would like to see a just peace with two independent states in place working towards normalizing relations and trade. Many Arabs worked in Israel before the border closings. It was the terrorists that caused this. Gaza the West bank Lebanon etc these are not Israeli artillery and bomb ranges. These are areas that have been used as staging areas for attacks against Israeli citizens. Again, where is a the concern for the well being of women and children in such tactics? Now you want us to recognize those same forces that have brought all this turmoil about as legitimate political bodies? You want us to put American troops there and increase the risk to our own people? You stated that you have worked with various militaries with the exception of Iran and Syria. The reasons you have not worked with those regimes is obvious. Can you agree that Hamas is an extension of the Iranian military? A proxy force? What makes you think that you/we can work with them?

Moe

 

[gree0232]

Moe:
I have to admit that I am impressed with your thoughts on this, but of course, I am Irish, so I’ll have to disagree.

Part of what you wrote is accurate. Hamas erred badly in starting the war with Israel. I believe it to be a policy choice made of frustration and wishful thinking rather than calculation. They may have though they were Hezbollah, and the Israel would make a head long rush again into the teeth of a prepared defense without proper preparation. That of course, relied almost entirely on Israeli stupidity and I have worked with the IDF. Whatever they are, and they are many things, stupid is not one of them.

As smart as the IDF may be, that does not mean their politicians are as able. When the action kicked off, and even now with hindsight, what was the Israeli goal? To deter Hamas from firing rockets, or to crush Hamas (which nothing short of re-occupation would do). The initial round of bombings may have been justified and may even have turned the Palestinian frustration on Hamas for provoking such a response. As the initial assault was a surprise, the casualties would have been mostly Hamas. Instead, they pushed on. A ground invasion soon followed and the bombing became much more general and far less security focused. At that point the policy became far more than deterrence but was never pressed seriously enough to remove Hamas. Worse, the majority of the casualties inflicted were civilians simply caught in the cross fire for no definable policy objective.

If Hamas was stupid for starting a war (and they were), Israel was just as stupid for fighting a war with no clearly defined objective and needlessly spilling blood.

You are also both right and wrong about history. Living through history can leave indelible impressions on people. However, we do not remain the same people. The eyes of a child see things far different than the eyes of a father or mother. There are patterns set that can become part of the national consciousness, but these are both put in place and ultimately torn down by leaders. 50 years ago, Germany was the basis of all evil, and not five years later they were our greatest ally against a brand new hitherto unacknowledged evil. (And Americans love to apply the label of evil to whatever we happen to be facing for some reason.) Communist China was also evil, until Nixon and Kissinger cut a deal.

The idea with history is to learn from it, even when we experience it. Not even two years ago our own leaders, my bosses, were painting our enemies as monolithic block of, ironically, ‘terrorists’. How did we get beyond this? Leadership. Iraq without GEN Petreaus would be a very bad place today. It was his leadership that got us off our FOB’s and out among the people. It was his leadership that told us to save our weapons and be judicious. It was his leadership that partnered us with Iraqi forces and made mentorship and respect the center piece of our operations. This is also the same man that fundamentally re-wrote our counter-insurgency doctrine in a way that made people the center of gravity rather than terrain. (And that was no small feat when you are facing the combined leadership of the US government while doing it).

On a smaller scale there are case studies like COL McMasters’ defeat of the Takferin in Talafar (Northern Iraq). You could not find a more polarized place on Earth when he showed up. In the middle of the toxic ooze was a committed insurgent force that was based on a highly extremist doctrine and hell bent on maintaining their control by any means necessary (with open supply lines from Syria too boot). COL McMasters had one US brigade. After 15 months, the Takferin were destroyed with minimal violence (some of his techniques were actually employed in Gaza), there was a functioning local government, Iraqi Security Forces moved freely, and services were being restored to around the city.

I mention these, because the situation on the ground in Israel/Palestine is polarized (though not nearly to the same extent). The people on both sides have plenty to blame square and justly on the others. There is also a strong desire for peace on both sides. The question is how do we get to that peace? Finger pointing will not get us there. Attempting to justify either bombs or rockets will not get us there. Demanding that either the Israeli government or Hamas capitulate will not get us there.

Only sound policy based on realistic analysis with declared end states and intentions will get us there. The situation in Israel/Palestine is a leadership problem. A leader can set policy to achieve success, and people will follow it. If you are politician worried about the history books seeing you as weak or unjust, the simple fact remains that if you are the leader who brings equitable and just peace to the ME, your name will be emblazoned forever in history.

Doing the right thing matters. Making the hard calls matters. Malice toward none matters. Just ask Abraham Lincoln. And who was the guy before or after him? And why don’t we know his name as well?

 

[moe]

Hi gree

I find myself in agreement with much of your post. The other things I give you the benefit of the doubt because in this case you are the one living history while I am learning from it. But I also have reservations of a different type concerning direct US involvement in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

1. As you have already mentioned we are heavily engaged across the region. Our forces are stretched thin. If we have a serious incident in another area outside the middle east we are in trouble.
2. Even with all the recent success in Iraq we still have a long row to hoe there. This is a nation in it's infancy surrounded by wolves. If we pull out to much to soon all will be for naught.
3. Right now the heavy financial drain on military upkeep is more than the nation can bear but bear it we must. But another operation would only increase that cost.
4. We are in deep trouble at home. We need to remain focused on our present overseas commitments but we can not add to them at this present time. It does us no good to be nation building abroad when our own nation is falling apart.
5.Afghanistan is on the radar again and growing and it is going eat up it's fair share of much needed resources.
6 We need to rebuild our current military as in replace lost equipment and retrain personal using lessons learned from recent operations involving tactics such as you have mentioned that actually work.
7. Our service people are really going the extra 20 miles in the Middle East. Hats off and God bless each and every one of them but this repeated tours over and over have to stop simply for the health and well being of our young men and women in service. We as a nation owe them big time. We already have what has been called generation X. We do not need to add generation PTSD to that. Our primary responsibility is and always should be to our own nation and the well being of it's citizens.

But, we are talking about what ifs here so let me run this by you. How about an all volunteer US peace keeping force using Israeli naval, army and air equipment as primary support? By this I mean that if things really got deep you would call on Israeli naval, air and artillery for fire support but no ground troops. That would be US responsibility to go in on the ground. The area is not that big relatively speaking. provide our forces with enough US helicopters for transport and fire support, Bradley's, a few Abrams. etc. A well rounded able but compact force.

An all volunteer force would mean nobody sent them there but rather they chose to go there. They went there because they believed in what they were doing. A requirement should be no new guys. You have to have had at least 1 tour in combat or a combat area with no disciplinary actions against them while they were serving. Open the offer to the National Guard units and recent retiree's that have served in the Middle East. For the Guard and retiree's offer an incentive like say automatically advanced 1 pay grade [permanent] if accepted into the force plus 1 day service in the unit equals 1.5 days of service towards advancement and retirement. Form the unit at home with say a 60 day training/refresher in urban warfare and anti terror tactics before they ship out to the border areas

How does that sound to you?

Moe

 

[gree0232]

Moe:
I will answer in order.
1. If we have a serious problem anywhere else in the world, there are no spare combat forces to meet it on the ground. There are plenty of Air Force squadrons and Naval Vessels available. This is our current strategic deterrence and there are plenty of countries out there that do not want to tangle with these forces. A US presence in Gaza, as a stability force, could be done with a single Brigade Combat Team. If this were part of a larger Peace initiative, then the effort would quickly pay for itself as it would fundamentally change the views of the US across the ME.

2. Iraqi is in far better shape than you might think. It is rapidly approaching the time when 19 year old kids with machine guns are more of a hindrance than a help. Iraqi Security forces need help with their logistics, and with combat enablers (military speak for systems used in combined arms operations). For somewhat obvious reasons we haven’t been keen on developing Iraq Artillery Battalions and fighter squadrons. As we pull back, Iraq must be able to defend itself against regional threats vs. just insurgent elements and that requires a more robust force package. The current environment is rapidly transitioning into a ‘fight’ for economic development to unlink the Iraqi budget from market driven oil profits, and the re-construction effort. This is just my opinion, but the number of Brigades in Iraq will begin to come down sooner rather than later.

3. The cost of Iraq and Afghanistan is supposed to be about $100 billion a year. Where the other $6-800 billion a year have been going is anybody’s guess. However, there is plenty of room to cut budgets without cutting our commitments. When the Air Force is asking for two different, brand new fighters and a new mid-range stealth bomber that is neither a fighter or a bomber the writing is on the wall. There are plenty of superfluous weapons programs out there that have no bearing on the current, much less any likely, combat scenario. Mr. Gates is actively seeking to redress this imbalance between budgets and realistic capabilities. The use of resources since 2001 by the pentagon is not something that will be viewed as helpful or productive by history.

4. The US is already committed to the ME. If we withdraw from the process entirely, cutting off our lifeline to Israel, would that help? Or would the situation get worse and demand our presence later at a much higher cost?

5. Afghanistan is indeed on the radar. There are more troops going, but conditions on the ground are already changing. By the time the additional troops arrive, they will be putting the finishing touches on the current policies. GEN Petreaus is once again taking a kinetic fight, and turning it into a regional involving the great powers of the region at the strategic level and where US forces are heavily engaged with the population rather than focused solely on killing at the tactical level. All signs on the ground point to wider dissatisfaction with Al Qaeda and its allies who have provoked both the Pakistani and US ground assaults and done very little for the people in return. A very different problem, that will nonetheless be solved more by pragmatism then by anything else.

6. Do you really think that our current leaders are not keeping our equipment maintained? Longer home station times, which are scheduled to grow longer, will increase this time. It got bad because the previous guy at the top kept insisting that there was no insurgency and that the end was in site and repeatedly shoved US combat forces back into the breach without adequate preparation as a series of stop gap measures that never ceased to be one measure after another. Mr. Gates is taking a longer more comprehensive approach to the problem.

7. If there was a Brigade sent to Gaza, I would volunteer for it. I suspect I would not be alone in this endeavor.

If America went in under the ‘protection’ of Israeli combat power, would we be seen as neutral on the ground? Do you honestly think that, even with a force in place, that Israel will immediately reposition its forces? The leadership for the Brigade may be voluntary, but at some point the simple reality of modern brigades means you cannot ask everyone whether they agree or not. (Though there would certainly be a screening to make sure we weren’t sending our own extremists there). That is why is called service and not a democracy ;o)

Of course the biggest issue is changing the conditions to make Israel feel safer and Hamas less likely to attack Israel. How do we mend the Hamas-PA split? How do we address the main issues and grievances without the reflexive calls to violence that have been present thus far? A US Brigade may not be the best approach, but it will help both sides feel safer, calmer, and it will set conditions where diplomacy is more likely to be both constrained by attempts to use violence to influence the process and likely to be successful.

 

[Tashah]

Somehow, I just can't picture Iran meekly acquiescing to a US military force in Gaza. As with Iraq, this would be another opportunity to bleed the US via proxy forces.

 

[gree0232]

Tashah:
The main differnce being that Iran shares a border with Iraq, and a shia majority within which to easily establish relations.

Hamas is less concerned with Iran then with Palestine. If the US force were invited in as a neutral peace keeping force by Hamas, would it matter if Iran objected?

 

[Tashah]

Tashah:
The main differnce being that Iran shares a border with Iraq, and a shia majority within which to easily establish relations.

I seem to recall hundreds of US Marine peacekeepers falling prey to Iranian proxy terrorism in Beirut. Just sayin.

 

[gree0232]

Tashah:
You are right, and I did consider it. However, the US wasn't exactly invited into Lebanon, and we went rather stupidly into a multi-sided civil war.

The conditions in Gaza are far different. The situation may be a non-firing civil war between Hamas and the PA, but geography has sort of separeted the two sides to the point that they can no longer fight one another.

That means Hamas is in sole control of Gaza, and, with their permission, we would have to address issues with only Hamas. As Abbas has publically stated he wants what is best for the Palestinian people, and US troops acting as a buffer between Palestinian people and further war would be difficult to object to.

Additionally, the US troops are not in and of themselves a solution. They would have to be part of a much larger diplomatic package (already promised by Obama) where the US troops intent is to act as a cooling agent and keep rational heads and rational actions at the forefront of the project.

Again, it may not work, but the idea in floating an idea is to seek solutions based on current conditions. The idea is to set a desired endstate, and then drag everyone else down the road set toward that endstate. As everyone rips apart my 'stupid' idea or shows there are reasons, many valid and some not, why it won't work, the main challenge laid down by this idea is to find your own answers and potential solutions.

The main intention is that as good ideas are developed they can subsequently be turned into prudent policy.

I figured it would be more productive than finger pointing ;o)

 

[moe]

Are you at liberty to say if hamas has made any kind of gesture that they would be willing to consider such an option?

Moe

 

[moe]

Tashah:
The main differnce being that Iran shares a border with Iraq, and a shia majority within which to easily establish relations.

Hamas is less concerned with Iran then with Palestine. If the US force were invited in as a neutral peace keeping force by Hamas, would it matter if Iran objected?

What about if Israel objected? But if I remember correctly during the Lebanon operation a few years ago was there not talk of a peace keeping force then?

I went back to sea a few days before the actual attack ended so I never heard how it all wound down. But it never happened I guess.


By the way if I seem to disappear all of a sudden that will be what happened. Looking for a ship again right now. I really do not expect anything for at least a couple of more weeks but sometimes a job pop ups unexpectedly and they want you there ASAP so drop every thing and run.

Moe

 

[gree0232]

Moe:
Do you seriously think that Israel would object? Would they really stop an action meant to stabilize the situation and embarass the only country in the world whose opinion seems to matter to them (I mean this politically, not literally).

There is always lots of public talk that does not match private deal making. Why wouldn't Israel want to stabilize their Southern border in exactly the same manner they stabilized their border with Egypt?

 

[moe]

Moe:
Do you seriously think that Israel would object?

Politics is politics. Pride is pride. Remember your whole argument here is based on Hamas asking the US to take the job. Just because we have good relations with Israel does not mean that they think we are the ones that should handle their security for them. It is a very big responsibility. Israel has it's own political divisions to. I do think they would go for it. But I think they will play a little politics first.

Moe

 

[gree0232]

Moe:
Politics is played all the time. ;o) When push comes to shove though, fear of being called names or strenuously objected too is not a deterrent.

The main retort to Israel would then be, "OK, you don't want us here, what do you want?"

Thus far there has been precious little coming from Israel about how they intend to move toward peace. Doing nothing is a course of action, but it is a course of action that almost never suceeds and gives your enemies the initiative.

Have you seen any Israeli anywhere who is deterred by the fear of simply criticism? So why not base policy on its chances for success rather than attempt to placate people?

We should never be deaf to legitimate criticism, but neither should we base policy on a fear of generating criticism alone.

Abe Lincoln was heaviliy criticised at almost every point during the Civil War. In the end, he freed the slaves, and is remembered as one of our Nation's greatest leaders. It is no accident that Obama routinely sites Lincoln. How Lincoln handled his critics and detractors to husband the US through its most trying test provide lessons for everyone regardless of nationality.

 

[moe]

Israel is used to being called names and seen as the red headed step child nobody wants. Right now they are in an election process. Tashah posted that Hamas is in Egypt talking about the situation. Polls are being posted that things are not good for the local leaders in Gaza etc right now. Everything is in a state of flux. You made a very valid point in another thread about overestimating Hamas. If they pull another boner and piss off their own people even more we may not have to wait another year for Hamas to be replaced. There may be an internal uprising. But who will the successor be?

This may be a good time to shift gears against Hamas. Time to wave the olive branch again and see how they respond. But we do not know who is going to be running Israeli policy yet. Hamas may be willing to drop the destroy Israel clause if Israel agrees to pull back the borders. But I think that Israel is not to receptive to the idea of moving back to the 67 border.

Moe

 

[gree0232]

Israel is used to being called names and seen as the red headed step child nobody wants. Right now they are in an election process. Tashah posted that Hamas is in Egypt talking about the situation. Polls are being posted that things are not good for the local leaders in Gaza etc right now. Everything is in a state of flux. You made a very valid point in another thread about overestimating Hamas. If they pull another boner and piss off their own people even more we may not have to wait another year for Hamas to be replaced. There may be an internal uprising. But who will the successor be?

This may be a good time to shift gears against Hamas. Time to wave the olive branch again and see how they respond. But we do not know who is going to be running Israeli policy yet. Hamas may be willing to drop the destroy Israel clause if Israel agrees to pull back the borders. But I think that Israel is not to receptive to the idea of moving back to the 67 border.

Moe

Then Israel needs to prepare for a fight. They need to prepare themselves for both Hamas and the PLO to be subsummed by different more radical Palestnian groups.

Rockets may not work, but what about non-state actors attacking Israeli citizens in Mumbai again? Was that Hamas? Even if it were, would you be able to prove it and would F-16's be the solution?

The Palestinians will find a way to resist. Until and unless Israel takes serious steps toward the creation of Palestine, there will be war and the stronger Israel is in the middle the further out to extremes will be the eventual response.

The border may not need to be exactly on the 1967 lines, but the Israelis had better be prepared to give up something as a means of compensation for every settlement that changes the border.

 

[moe]

The Palestinians will find a way to resist. Until and unless Israel takes serious steps toward the creation of Palestine, there will be war and the stronger Israel is in the middle the further out to extremes will be the eventual response.

Agreed. It is an old strategy that worked in Europe in the 70's back in PLO days. Europe backed away from heavily supporting Israel adopting a safer middle of the road stance and no more PLO terror attacks in Europe.

Moe

 

[moe]

Hey gree

Check this out.

Polls show no clear lead in Israeli election

On the weekend Netanyahu popped up in the Golan Heights where he planted a tree and said that the roots of Israel would last forever on land that Syria lost in 1967 if he was elected.

Netanyahu's abrupt reversal of strategy had nothing to do with the electoral prospected of Tzipi Livni, whose Kadima Party might unexpectedly pip Likud at the finish line on Tuesday and make the foreign minister Israel's second female prime minister. Netanyahu's talk of never surrendering territory was directed solely at his own right wing constituency, which has lately become enamoured of the bellicose nationalist proclamations of Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu.

Moe

 

[donsutherland1]

Moe,

As Mr. Netanyahu would need to form a coalition, which would include at least some centrist elements, he likely is in no position to make such guarantees. If Syria were to accept something close to what it rejected in 2000 in return for full diplomatic relations with Israel, Mr. Netanyahu would find it very difficult to block such a development. Interestingly enough, Yisrael Beiteinu has not ruled out land concessions in exchange for peace. Mr. Netanyahu is positioning himself to the right of YB to try to consolidate Likud's prospects.

Mr. Netanyahu is likely to take a more gradual approach with respect to the Palestinian track. While he has not pledged to remove settlements, he has stated that he would limit them to natural growth. In other words, his Administration would not construct new settlements. He also explicitly refused to rule out the future creation of a Palestinian state.

My guess is that even as his campaign's prospects have faded in the closing days, he will probably garner enough votes to gain the chance to form the next Israeli government. If he becomes Prime Minister, I expect that he will govern more pragmatically than what some might expect given some of his campaign rhetoric, especially if he brings Labor into his government. He might try to exclude Kadima on grounds that Kadima was a Likud breakaway party with the hope that Kadima would not be able to survive exile from the government. But the math might not allow him to exclude Kadima. Kadima would also push a more flexible stance.

Ov

 

[moe]

Moe,

As Mr. Netanyahu would need to form a coalition, which would include at least some centrist elements,
Ov

Agreed. But my point here is to show what appears to be a major view in Israel itself. He is a front runner and these are the planks he is running on and it seems to have considerable support.

Time for a Tashah post to set things straight.:mrgreen:

Moe