News What Does Israel Hope to Achieve with Ongoing Conflict?

[russ_watters]

Ultimately it's all about land as it has been since the creation of the state of Israel. The Palestinians legally own it, the Israelis illegally occupy it and the Israelis want to keep a large chunk of it forever more.

Israel knows it's only claim on the occupied lands is through force of arms but believes no doubt if they can hold the land long enough and make the Palestinians suffer enough eventually the Palestinians will settle for whatever crumbs Israel throws their way.

Your argument is self-contradictory. Israel already has more land than it wants, as evidenced by the fact that in recent years, they've been giving it away in exchange for peace - there is no reason for them to fight to get something they already have. So your argument does not address the question at all: your argument does not explain why Israel continues to fight, but rather tries to explain it as a self-contradictory self-reinforcing action.

If the fighting stopped today, Israel has all they want, right? So why keep fighting?

To 'morally' justify their treatment of the Palestinians the Israeli's have demonised them to their own people and to the world. Greatly exaggerating their potential to damage Israel whilst totally ignoring Palestinians cast iron grievances and painting them all as terrorists for resisting the illegal occupation of their lands.

But if Israel could just end the fighting on their own right now, then all that would be unnecessary, would it not?

To answer your question directly Israel needs to keep fighting from time to time to perpetuate the myth that it's existence is threatened by the Palestinians and to further it's goals in demoralising the Palestinians.

Same as the first one: why would Israel need to fight to provoke Hamas to justify fighting Hamas? It's a circular argument and a contradiction. If Israel didn't fight from time to time, would there be peace or would they continue to be under constant attack?

Your argument sounds more like a justification for the constant attacks on Israel by Israel's neighbors than an argument for why Israel is fighting...which is, of course my point in starting this thread! Israel fights because they are being attacked. Period. Efforts to stop the fighting must therefore be focused on Hamas's reasons for fighting, only.

 

[Art]

Your argument is self-contradictory. Israel already has more land than it wants, as evidenced by the fact that in recent years, they've been giving it away in exchange for peace - there is no reason for them to fight to get something they already have. So your argument does not address the question at all: your argument does not explain why Israel continues to fight, but rather tries to explain it as a self-contradictory self-reinforcing action.

If the fighting stopped today, Israel has all they want, right? So why keep fighting?
But if Israel could just end the fighting on their own right now, then all that would be unnecessary, would it not?
Same as the first one: why would Israel need to fight to provoke Hamas to justify fighting Hamas? It's a circular argument and a contradiction. If Israel didn't fight from time to time, would there be peace or would they continue to be under constant attack?

Your argument sounds more like a justification for the constant attacks on Israel by Israel's neighbors than an argument for why Israel is fighting...which is, of course my point in starting this thread! Israel fights because they are being attacked. Period. Efforts to stop the fighting must therefore be focused on Hamas's reasons for fighting, only.

Try reading my post again. You do not appear to have understood it at all as I have already addressed the points you make. To be honest I thought it was a fairly simple read so maybe you are deliberately miscomprehending it

One glaring error you made which seems to have set you off on totally the wrong course is your assertion that Israel already has all the land it wants. This is fundamentally wrong. Israel is illegally OCCUPYING the land it wants which is a very different thing, and which is why they need to continue to fight for it for all the reasons I mentioned.

 

[russ_watters]

Try reading my post again. You do not appear to have understood it at all, though to be honest I thought it was fairly simple.

Lol, ok. Nice talking with you as always!

 

[Art]

Lol, ok. Nice talking with you as always!

You asked a question in the OP, I answered it, you apparently didn't like the answer and couldn't think of a valid rebuttal and so instead of directly addressing a single point I made you tried to obfuscate instead. I find that irritating and a dishonest form of debate. Just as you selectively edited my post above when you quoted it to make it appear harsher than the original so you could feign humbrance and avoid having to address the points I made. So yes, nice talking with you as always.

btw This notion you have that the Palestinians are the aggressors is curious; in fact downright Orwellian. Do you not consider the military occupation of their land as a continuing act of aggression? Or the imprisonment in the Gaza Strip of 1.5 million people an act of aggression, or the assassination of their political leaders an act of aggression, or the building of ever more settlements on their land as an act of aggression, or the daily beatings and shootings the Palestinians suffer an act of aggression? Or the hundreds of checkpoints they must pass through each time they leave their homes to go to work a humiliating act of aggression? Or the thousands of Palestinians kidnapped and held prisoner without any charge or trial an act of aggression?

In the past you have made much of the Hamas charter which refuses to recognise Israel. In fact this is often cited as the primary reason why Hamas can never be negotiated with and yet in the usual double standards applied to the ME there is never a word said about the Likud Party which says explicitly in it's charter they will never recognise a Palestinian state. What is the difference between these two charters which makes one a pariah and the other a legitimate candidate for gov't?

 

[Cyrus]

Russ, you need to reread what Art has posted here. Thinking Isreal is simply a victim here is absurd, and shows a lact of understanding of facts. There is plenty of blame for Israel too.

Saying: "Israel fights because they are being attacked. Period. Efforts to stop the fighting must therefore be focused on Hamas's reasons for fighting, only."

Is pure nonsense and also blatantly false. Please gather more facts.

 

[ThomasT]

To those who see Israel as an agressor in the ongoing fighting in their region of the world, I ask a straightforward question: What does Israel seek to gain via their continued fighting?

Those who enforced the establishment of the state of Israel were the initial aggressors. The concomitant Palestinian loss of life and homes is the initial cause of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. The problem has been aggravated by Palestinian retaliations, and Israeli retaliations to those retaliations, and increasing restrictions on Palestinians' freedoms and the resulting material deprivations that Palestinians have been forced to endure.

What Israel seeks is the continuation of the state of Israel more or less as it currently exists. What Palestinians' seek is a restoration of personal and civic freedom.

The restoration of pre-Israel, Palestinian freedom would lead to the end of the state of Israel. In order to ensure its continued existence, then, Israel has been forced, and must continue, to play the role of the oppressor of the Palestinian people.

If this is an accurate synopsis of the situation, then the mutually exclusive desires of both sides would seem to preclude a just, and also peaceful, resolution to the problem in the foreseeable future.

However, the long-term prognosis might be a bit different considering certain demographic trends. But that's a topic for another thread.

 

[Gokul43201]

Here's a news clip from earlier today: http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/02/21/israel.lebanon/index.html

JERUSALEM (CNN) -- A woman was injured Saturday when a rocket landed in northern Israel, a spokesman for the Israeli police said.

The Israel Defense Forces fired artillery toward the source of the fire, an army spokesman said, but he could not say from where the rocket originated.
...
The Israeli army fired artillery toward the village of Qlayleh, close to the port city of Tyre, according to the Lebanese army...

The Lebanese army also claimed that the rockets from Lebanon never reached Israel, but let's skip that point for now. Assume that the rocket did, in fact land in Israel and injure Israelis.

Given this, do you believe Israel's response was productive? It sounds to me (and I may be misreading this, or this may be an example of poor reporting, but it seems) like the Israeli military was doing no better than firing back in the general direction of the incoming fire, which was possibly at a Lebanese village several miles away. Is this really the best thought out response for a situation like this? Seems highly counterproductive to risk so much collateral so cheaply.

Is it really unfair or unrealistic to expect them to do any better? And if you think it is not (unfair), do you have any suggestions for alternative courses of response (over the extremely short term; I'm not asking about long term ideas like dismantling settlements)?

 

[mgb_phys]

That doesn't make it any less of a non sequitur. We see that kind of logic in other forums all the time:

So modern educated Americans can't be persuaded to hate/fear Muslims for political ends.
Like in the 50s they couldn't be persuaded to hate/fear communists for the same reason.
Or the Jews/Irish/Italians a century earlier.

People don't change - there wasn't suddenly a major change in brain chemistry at the renaissance or enlightenment, or industrial revolution or with the internet that stopped people being led like sheep.

 

[kyleb]

Your argument is self-contradictory. Israel already has more land than it wants, as evidenced by the fact that in recent years, they've been giving it away in exchange for peace...

Rather, you argument contradicts reality. Israel simply withdrew to the boarders of Gaza while continually expanding settlements in the West Bank. Granted, our government and mainstream media hyped the former to no end while effectively ignoring the latter, but Israel hasn't been making any bids for peace. Rather, Israel has been playing such shell games along with everything else they must do to avoid avoid peace.

Peace requires either giving up Israel's conquest over the West Bank so that Palestine can finally exist as a sovereign nation along side Israel, or giving Palestinians Israeli citizenship, and Israel has no interest in either option. The latter would dissolve the ethnic nationalist nature of Israel which the vast majority of Israelis adore, while the former is opposed for various reasons. Some misinterpret their scripture to believe continuing this conquest will bring Divine Salvation, some worship the money and power it brings them, while the the majority of the rest are simply mislead to point their fingers at anyone but themselves. The same motivations hold true for supporters of this conquest in the US and elsewhere. Which reasons motivate you?

 

[Cyrus]

Here, Russ

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4752349n

 

[kyleb]

That 60 Minutes peace does sum up the problem reasonably well. For the answer in more simple terms, I recommend checking the charter of the party of the incoming Prime Minster:

Likud - Platform
...

Settlements

The Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Gaza are the realization of Zionist values. Settlement of the land is a clear expression of the unassailable right of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and constitutes an important asset in the defense of the vital interests of the State of Israel. The Likud will continue to strengthen and develop these communities and will prevent their uprooting.
...

Self-Rule

The Government of Israel flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan river.
...

http://www.knesset.gov.il/elections/knesset15/elikud_m.htm

Granted, some of the other parties aren't so forthright with such positions, but such policy is what has been driving Israel's conquest over what little is left of Palestine since the beginning, regardless of what party heads the government.

 

[Count Iblis]

What does Israel seek to gain via their continued fighting?

Israel seeks to gain peace while holding on to as much as possible of the occupied West Bank and perhaps the Golan Heights.


This means that they think it is possible to continue to bulldoze the homes of Palestinians to make room for expanding settlements, while at the same time not to have to deal with terrorism like they are facing now.


Apparently, the Israelis think that living under occupation, having to tolerate foreign strangers taking away your property, etc. does not lead to anger and ultimately to terrorism. They think that law and order should work under these condition because, surely, the Palestinians would notify the Israeli occupiers when they think their neighbor is planning some action against the occupier.


Now, the fact is that the Israeli theory based on wishful thinking about the behavior of a population under occupation has been debunked by their own observations. The Israelis, however, still insist that their flawed theory is correct. They theorize that the reason why their theory doesn't apply is the fault of the Palestinians. They seem to be an unnatural kind of people, more susceptible to using violence, sort of natural terrorists. This then justifies the use of harsh military action. By bombing them into submission, they may become "normal" people and then all will be well.

 

[tiny-tim]

wishful thinking …

Apparently, the Israelis think that living under occupation, having to tolerate foreign strangers taking away your property, etc. does not lead to anger and ultimately to terrorism. They think that law and order should work under these condition because, surely, the Palestinians would notify the Israeli occupiers when they think their neighbor is planning some action against the occupier.

Now, the fact is that the Israeli theory based on wishful thinking about the behavior of a population under occupation has been debunked by their own observations. The Israelis, however, still insist that their flawed theory is correct. They theorize that the reason why their theory doesn't apply is the fault of the Palestinians. They seem to be an unnatural kind of people, more susceptible to using violence, sort of natural terrorists. This then justifies the use of harsh military action. By bombing them into submission, they may become "normal" people and then all will be well.

But the Israelis don't think that.

They don't have such a theory.

You're just making this all up, aren't you?

 

[kyleb]

So, Tim, what is your argument; that Israelis know anger and terrorism are the natural reaction to brutal occupation and colonization of others homeland though overwhelming military force, but deceptively cast fault on Palestinians anyway?

While I'm I have little doubt that describes a faction of Israeli including much of their leadership, I believe Count Iblis' summation is more fitting to the Israeli population in general.

Regardless, here is another example of what Israel is gaining though their ongoing conquest of Palestine:

Rights group demands freeze on West Bank quarries
By BEN HUBBARD – 3 days ago

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) — Israel is violating international law by exploiting rock and gravel from West Bank quarries for its own benefit, an Israeli human rights group charged Monday.

In a petition filed to Israel's Supreme Court, the Yesh Din group says 75 percent of the rock and gravel removed from 11 West Bank rock quarries is transferred to Israel. The group wants a halt to all Israeli mining activity in the West Bank.

The mining activities are "illegal and executed though brutal economic exploitation of occupied territory for the economic needs of the State of Israel, the occupying power," reads the petition.
...

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5ioi_0jtO9RjMwPNRoXNCndRPRq3gD96QJJ300

 

[tiny-tim]

wishful thinking …

So, Tim, what is your argument

uhh? my argument was very clear …

Count Iblis made up something against the Israelis, and then proceeded to criticize it.

 

[tiny-tim]

does the international law of usufruct prevent quarrying or mining?

Regardless, here is another example of what Israel is gaining though their ongoing conquest of Palestine:

This petition (full English translation http://www.google.com/search?client...the+High+Court+of+Justice"&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8") concerns the very unclear law on the application of usufruct to mining … something which the Civil Administrator's office "has never conducted a legal review of"

(it may even turn out that the Civil Administrator does not eventually oppose the petition)

Fortunately, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, and any infringement of Palestinian rights will be stopped by the courts, with compensation paid, if there is a breach of the international law of usufruct.

 

[russ_watters]

Cyrus - I hadn't seen the link you posted until last night...

Recent discussion has centered on Zionism. No doubt, Zionism exists, but for it to be a primary motivator of Israeli activities, the philosophy has to be a dominant one in Israel. Does anyone know what fraction of Israelis believe it as that woman does?

The 60 Minutes piece seems to argue that due to the settlements, the two state solution is now a practical impossibility. I don't see it that way. If Israel chooses to cede a piece of land to Palestinian control and that land has Israeli settlements on it, so what? Why should Israel even bother removing the Israelis on that land? Once control of the land is ceded, the settlements are no longer Israel's problem and the people on them can decide for themselves (with help from the PA, I'm sure...) whether to stay or go. They are relevant only if Israel chooses to make them relevant but there is no functional reason why they must.

Zionism does seem to provide a different contradiction for Israel, though: it appears to me that Israel as a country supports, in principle, the two state solution and giving up land for peace, but the problem is in deciding what land to give up.

Now the question of Zionism doesn't actually directly address the OP. The question asked is why do they fight. Zionism does not provide a motivation for fighting for Israel, it provides a motivation for Israel to seek peace with the current status quo of land ownership.

 

[ThomasT]

Recent discussion has centered on Zionism. No doubt, Zionism exists, but for it to be a primary motivator of Israeli activities, the philosophy has to be a dominant one in Israel.

It wouldn't have to be the philosophy or political orientation of the majority in order to be motivating the policy of the government.

The 60 Minutes piece seems to argue that due to the settlements, the two state solution is now a practical impossibility. I don't see it that way.
If Israel chooses to cede a piece of land to Palestinian control and that land has Israeli settlements on it, so what? Why should Israel even bother removing the Israelis on that land? Once control of the land is ceded, the settlements are no longer Israel's problem and the people on them can decide for themselves (with help from the PA, I'm sure...) whether to stay or go. They are relevant only if Israel chooses to make them relevant but there is no functional reason why they must.

The hypothesis that the Israeli policy is to gain and keep all or most of Mandate Palestine fits the data. The Israeli government could have facilitated a two-state solution. Now it might be too late. They're not going to 'cede control' of lands where so large a number of Israelis live -- and without the intervention of the US, there's not much that anybody can do about it. It's a war of attrition, and Israel has most of the resources. All they have to do is wait it out -- more and more settlers, a bit of violence here and there, more outposts, and the Palestinians are, eventually, squeezed out of Palestine altogether, or sqeezed into an area that can be contained and managed, with minimal allotment of resources and collateral damages, and with the help of the US, for the indefinite future.

Now the question of Zionism doesn't actually directly address the OP. The question asked is why do they fight.

Rather than taking the initiative for peace and dismantle outposts, and prohibit future settlements, I think the strategy is to react to the intermittent violence and use it as an excuse to keep the squeeze on. It makes sense, especially if a Zionist philosophy underlies Israeli policy. Obfuscate and delay, and, eventually, it really will be physically impossible to have a two-state solution -- unless one is ok with the needless killing of a lot of hard line Israeli settlers and Palestinians, and nobody should be ok with that.

 

[ThomasT]

Fortunately, Israel is a parliamentary democracy with an independent judiciary, and any infringement of Palestinian rights will be stopped by the courts, with compensation paid, if there is a breach of the international law of usufruct.

Unfortunately parliamentary democracies and courts don't always work the way they're supposed to. No branch of government is truly independent. If the true Israeli policy is to push Palestinians out, to gain and keep as much land as possible, then all branches of government will fall in line with this.

As happened wrt the US invasion and continued occupation of Iraq, there has been overwhelming popular support for getting out for a long time. It was an illegal, preemtive attack on a sovereign nation. But we did it, and we're still there. And, the Democratic Congress has facilitated this.

 

[kyleb]

Cyrus - I hadn't seen the link you posted until last night...

Zionism does seem to provide a different contradiction for Israel, though: it appears to me that Israel as a country supports, in principle, the two state solution...

Did you not see the Likud platform I quoted directly under Cyrus' post, or are you just being intentionally obtuse here?

 

[tiny-tim]

Israelis support the two-state solution

Zionism does seem to provide a different contradiction for Israel, though: it appears to me that Israel as a country supports, in principle, the two state solution...

Did you not see the Likud platform I quoted directly under Cyrus' post, or are you just being intentionally obtuse here?

There's nothing obtuse about stating a fact which is regularly supported by opnion polls.

And how does the Likud platform contradict russ's statement that Israel as a country supports, in principle, the two state solution?

Likud received only 21.3% of votes cast (21.6% of valid votes) in the election (see http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/History/M...n_Israel_February_2009.htm?DisplayMode=print"),

and so will have to share power with coalition partners who do support the two-state solution.

Both the Israeli public do, and the Israeli governement will (it hasn't been formed yet) support the two-state solution. ​

 

[ThomasT]

Both the Israeli public do, and the Israeli governement will (it hasn't been formed yet) support the two-state solution. ​

Of course the government will say that it supports a two-state solution. What sorts of actions could it take to show that it actually does want this? What is it necessary for the Israeli government to do to facilitate two autonomous states?

The Israeli government's actions thus far are in line with the hypothesis that its general policy is to remain in and further colonize territories that must be abandoned by them if a two-state solution is to become a reality rather than just a sound byte. Their actions indicate that their policy is to pursue a succession of 'long term interim agreements', during which Israeli settlement of Palestinian territories will be allowed and encouraged to continue, and which eventually will render a two-state solution impossible.

Meanwhile, as long as the Israeli government doesn't proactively pursue a two-state solution, then the restrictions on Palestinian freedom increase, and the de facto ethnic cleansing of Mandate Palestine continues.

 

[tiny-tim]

Meanwhile, as long as the Israeli government doesn't proactively pursue a two-state solution

They have been proactively pursuing it, but "it takes two", and neither Israel nor the West see a credible peace partner at the moment.

… the de facto ethnic cleansing of Mandate Palestine continues.

What ethnic cleansing is continuing?

The Palestinian population is actually increasing, and no Palestinians are being required to move to other areas.

What are you talking about?

 

[ThomasT]

They have been proactively pursuing it, but "it takes two", and neither Israel nor the West see a credible peace partner at the moment.

If the US and Israel wanted an autonomous Palestinian state per the UN mandated divisions, then I have to think that there would be one. The US and Israel have the power to implement a two-state solution. That it hasn't been implemented is evidence to me that what the US and Israel are really seeking is something else.

I asked what you think it's necessary for Israel to do to facilitate two autonomous states -- one Palestine and one Israel. Exactly what 'proactive' steps has Israel taken toward this? The occupied territories are still occupied, the establishment of outposts, settlement of the West Bank, and restrictions on Palestinian liberty are increasing, not decreasing.

Official pronouncements by the US and Israeli governments notwithstanding, I really don't think that either government wants an autonomous Palestinian state.

 

[tiny-tim]

I repeat…

… the de facto ethnic cleansing of Mandate Palestine continues.
What ethnic cleansing is continuing?

The Palestinian population is actually increasing, and no Palestinians are being required to move to other areas.

What are you talking about?

 

[tiny-tim]

The US and Israel have the power to implement a two-state solution.

That's ridiculous … a permanent peaceful two-state solution requires the cooperation of the Palestinians.

The US and Israel have no power over the Palestinians …

they can't even stop them firing rockets at Israeli civilian targets

Exactly what 'proactive' steps has Israel taken toward this?

Complete withdrawal from the Gaza strip, for a start.

Partial withdrawal from much of the West Bank.

Providing the Palestinian police force with guns.

Numerous offers, and years of restraint, in the hope of peace.

The occupied territories are still occupied

Again, the Gaza strip isn't.

, the establishment of outposts, settlement of the West Bank, and restrictions on Palestinian liberty are increasing, not decreasing.

The longer certain Palestinian groups insist on killing as many Israeli civilians as they can, the more Israel is going to strengthen its negotiating position for the final round by these "facts on the ground".

If Palestinians genuinely want a permanent peaceful two-state solution as soon as possible, they should get out on the streets and demonstrate against these groups, not vote for them.

 

[nabki]

We all know how Palestinians went on a mass holiday in '48 to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, and how they forgot to return.
Then in '67, how some of the holiday goers relatives followed them to try and see why they didn't return.
Then, how Israel started promoting long vacations out of the country, and how they are lovingly showing Palestinians the downsides of owning a home in Jerusalem, such as the danger of having it bulldozed, or getting evicted because you didn't build it with one of those ever so hard to get permits you should have...
How those squatters in East Jerusalem have been squatting for thousands of years on land they claim as their own, but as everybody knows is actually park space. how inconsiderate.

Oh wait...

 

[tiny-tim]

The Jewish naqba

We all know how Palestinians went on a mass holiday in '48 to Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan, and how they forgot to return …

Jews like holidays too!

Don't forget the almost equal number of Jews who went on mass holidays from Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt and other Arab countries about the same time, and also forgot to return.

 

[Count Iblis]

The longer certain Palestinian groups insist on killing as many Israeli civilians as they can, the more Israel is going to strengthen its negotiating position for the final round by these "facts on the ground".

If Palestinians genuinely want a permanent peaceful two-state solution as soon as possible, they should get out on the streets and demonstrate against these groups, not vote for them.

If the US were occupied there surely would be groups who would resist that occupation, regardless of any temporary cease fire pending the full withdrawal of the occupying forces. The fact that any deal had been reached while under occupation would take away the broad consensus you would need for such a deal to be universially accepted among the population.


So, you have to admit that the Israelis really have a flawed theory about the behavior of a population under occupation like I wrote about in my previous post in this thread.

 

[tiny-tim]

wishful thinking …

So, you have to admit that the Israelis really have a flawed theory about the behavior of a population under occupation like I wrote about in my previous post in this thread.

theory? oh, you mean …

Now, the fact is that the Israeli theory based on wishful thinking about the behavior of a population under occupation has been debunked by their own observations. The Israelis, however, still insist that their flawed theory is correct. They theorize that …

The Israelis don't have such a theory.

You're just making this all up, aren't you?