Gaza War Analysis

  • #76
Since this thread seems to have gone off track, we'll probably end up locking it, however....
Out of curiosity, will you lock it? or will you allow Evo that decision... perhaps that is an inapproriate question.


What do you think of my opinion that Israel may gain more by refusing to bomb schools and hospitals? It seems that they are trying a precarious balance between seeming agressive enough for their constituents and cafreful enough for the international community. Which way do you think the balance ought to tip?
 
  • #77
1,425
1
What peace means to the eyes of the Israelis isn't the same to the eyes of the Palestinians. A peace, as Israel sees it, cannot prevent it from continuing its policy of territorial expansion, which it has been doing by closing its eyes to Israeli settlement in captured territory and putting everyone before of a fait accompli, burying the idea to a return to pre-1967 boundaries. I suspect this is why the resolution attempt at Camp David failed; it was designed to give Israel this possibility, on top of granting it clear strategic advantages over what would have been Palestinian territory.

As has been made clear by Hamas, to some Palestinians peace means the total disappearance of Israel. The vast majority of the more realistic ones seem to be willing to accept nothing less than a full return to pre-1967 boundaries, although this is almost fantasy for the reason explained above.

As I see it, the two-state resolution is currently unachievable because of a strong conflict of interests between the two sides. I think the way this conflict will end will be very similar to how South Africa has abolished the Apartheid; the idea of a exclusively Jewish state will be dropped and the Palestinians will be integrated as Israeli citizens. Far from being the best solution for the Israelis, but it seems as though there will be a point where there won't be any other choice for real peace.
 
  • #78
mheslep
Gold Member
311
728
Perhaps, and that is something the newspapers have commented on a little. Your tone implies something that isn't quite right, though, so to clarify: Israel must occasionally show it's military strength in order to keep the terrorists on it's borders at bay. History has shown that when Israel's enemies sense weakness, they attack.
Well in what context do you mean? Arguably there might be the need to demonstrate willingness to use force esp. with a change in leadership, but surely not to demonstrate strength. Since the six day war, it has been abundantly clear that the IDF is far superior to any other organized military force in their neighbourhood. Para military groups like Hamas and Hezbollah clearly can do little of military consequence, typically they are only able to harass and kill individuals or small groups of civilians, though an Israeli 911 is always possible. I don't see that military action only for demonstration (on or near their own territory) helps the Israelis. For purposes of security, I venture it is more productive to pursue diplomatic means and defensive measures when possible (e.g. the wall), but when and if they reason that military force is required the only justifiable use is to completely eliminate the threat.
 
Last edited:
  • #79
BobG
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
185
81
As I see it, the two-state resolution is currently unachievable because of a strong conflict of interests between the two sides. I think the way this conflict will end will be very similar to how South Africa has abolished the Apartheid; the idea of a exclusively Jewish state will be dropped and the Palestinians will be integrated as Israeli citizens. Far from being the best solution for the Israelis, but it seems as though there will be a point where there won't be any other choice for real peace.
South Africa is the only ethnic civil war where peace was achieved by both groups sharing power in a democratic government. In fact, out of over 120 civil wars since the end of World War II, only 2 were ended by the opposing parties sharing power in a single democratic government (Mozambique was the other, but it's civil war was for political reasons vs ethnic differences). You might make a case for 4 others, but the peaceful resolutions achieved in Lebanon, Sudan, and Zimbabwe only held for around a decade and the jury is still out on Guatemala.

Since most of the even temporary successes were achieved after 1990, it would appear that the world does slowly get smarter and better, but I'd say the odds of successfully integrating Israelis and Palestinians into a single country are pretty long.

It would definitely be historic.
 
  • #80
Evo
Mentor
23,162
2,859
Locked.
 

Related Threads on Gaza War Analysis

  • Last Post
2
Replies
35
Views
6K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
126
Views
13K
  • Last Post
22
Replies
531
Views
58K
  • Last Post
12
Replies
287
Views
19K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
34
Views
3K
  • Last Post
6
Replies
128
Views
17K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
77
Views
6K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
98
Views
11K
Top