# News What does Israel Seek to Gain?

1. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

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?

Expanding: if the fighting stopped now and Hamas permanently ceased the launching of rockets and mortars at Israel, terrorist bombings, etc., and the current borders in the region were made permanent, what goals of Israel's would go unmet? What would be lost that they seek to gain?

Some potential answers (not that I think they are true...):
-Israel seeks the extermination of the Palestinian people.
-Israel seeks to continue feeding it's military industrial complex with American money.
-Israel seeks to annex Gaza and make it a permanent part of Israel.

My reason for asking the question is a simple piece of logic. If Israel has nothing to gain by continuing to fight, then there is only one logical reason why they are fighting: they are fighting because they are being attacked.

2. Feb 17, 2009

### mgb_phys

Taking the view that Isrealis are just like anyone else then it's probably down to a set of politicians wanting to be re-elected.
"vote for $PARTY_1, look how tough we are on terrorism.$PARTY_2 are a bunch of homosexuals/communists/pacifists/vegetarians that support terrorism."

3. Feb 17, 2009

### Skyhunter

They are in a no-win situation.

And it is their own fault.

4. Feb 17, 2009

### Gokul43201

Staff Emeritus
I can't comment on the question as posed, but I can imagine that aggressive actions against Palestine might serve the political interests of Israeli politicians seeking election/re-election.

Also, actions that do not appear to serve the broad, long-term interests of Israelis may still be perpetrated by members of the IDF at different levels along the Chain of Command, and this can become a big problem if there aren't sufficient checks and measures in place to prevent them.

PS: I see mgb's got my point #1 above.

5. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Ok, that's not bad (political self-interest of politicians). However, that does require the long-term forwarding of an undesirable and counterproductive - and perhaps even dishonest - political position. I would liken it to Bush leaving office last month with a 70% approval rating...

I don't consider that to be a very likely scenario - but it's a pretty good argument.

6. Feb 17, 2009

### mgb_phys

And this would be new in what way ?

7. Feb 17, 2009

### rootX

You can also put this question

I think it's irrelevant in this thread to consider the Palestine side but I don't even see why one would ignore one side and blame everything on the other (even if one is blaming Israel).

:rofl:

8. Feb 17, 2009

### mjsd

perhaps we can find some answers to this by simplifying the question and replacing the word "Israel" with "humans"...

also replace the "self-interest of politicians" with "self-interest of certain individuals" (most likely the very wealthy),...

then, common sense kicks in... we are fighting because we, humans, are selfish, and do not like to share without pre-conditions.

9. Feb 17, 2009

### rootX

Does that mean all countries are aggressive?

10. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Mostly the "long term" part...

This isn't an economic policy that can be difficult even for experts to judge and therefore easy to fool people into accepting for decades (social security....? imo). Peace vs war is a relatively straightforward issue and if there really is no benefit, but politicians are 'wagging the dog', arguments for it should eventually wear thin.

It's not impossible, but I don't see it as being all that reasonable or logical to believe it could be sustained and I don't see any evidence to suggest it is real.

Last edited: Feb 17, 2009
11. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

Perhaps you could start another thread with that question, then....

Actually, to me that seems a much more complicated question than the one I asked anyway.

12. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

That's too generic to be useful because, as rootx points out, not all countries are in perpetual states of war with their immediate neighbors. And also, there are many different kinds or manifestations of self-intererst. In fact, pinpointing the exact one is kinda the whole point of the thread! Ie, IMO, the particular self-interest that causes Israel to continue fighting is self preservation.

13. Feb 17, 2009

### mgb_phys

The Isreali government (past present and future) benefit because they have an external enemy to blame everything on and use as an excuse for anything they want to do. An anybody that objects is a terrorist-sympathiser/vegatarian etc

The Palestinian terrorist group of the day get to do whatever they want because they are sticking up for the poor oppressed peasants. anybody who talks about democracy is just a pawn of the facists oppressors.

The rest of the Arab world gets a common enemy to unite them, and as an ally a terrorist group that stops any of this democracy stuff from catching on.

The rest of the world gets a common ally that you can't say anything against - because that would be supporting terrorism, and a common enemy that you can blame anything from overprice airport drinks to new internet censorship laws on.

Everyone is a winner (except for a few dead peasants)

14. Feb 17, 2009

### Staff: Mentor

See the title of the thread: what do they want to do? What you are suggesting is more than a generation of national leaders using it for nothing more than an internal power ploy. That would be huge - it's far bigger and worse than the Cold War's effect on US politics.
I agree it is a powerful tool (see Bush), but it would be tough to keep that going for more than a couple of years (see Bush).

15. Feb 17, 2009

### mjsd

as Russ said there are many different manifestations, and warfare is only one of the by-products (albeit a very common one). Economic invasion, inciting uprising, drug trades are all effective tools as well to bring a country down from within.

What I was trying to say is that selfishness is the root of all problems. That's my definition of pinpointing the exact reasons. The political landscape, the personnels, the rhetorics and technologies may change in time, but human nature seems to be ever so stubborn.

Israel looks more like the "aggressor" because its so-called self-preservation has often over step the line in the views of many.

16. Feb 17, 2009

### mgb_phys

In politics there are no ends - just means

Anybody who disagrees with me is a heretic has worked for 1500years for a couple of continents.
Because we need it to defend against the French - worked for England for 800years

17. Feb 17, 2009

### mjsd

hahaha... so true.

but I think when you said
Everyone == elite few (mostly wealthy ppl)

18. Feb 17, 2009

### Moridin

Protecting the holy land from infidels. Naturally, we could justify the actions of Hamas by the same token: they are sending in rockets and suicide bombers to protect themselves against a far greater and more powerful enemy. Well, that is not exactly the point of terrorism. The point of terrorism seems to be to provoke as much retaliation as possible to sway the public opinion. Furthermore, just because we cannot understand the inner workings of the Israeli government does not mean that the position of self defense automatically wins.

19. Feb 17, 2009

### Moridin

The OP also makes the odd presupposition that any and all decisions made about Gaza and the Palestinians are intrinsically rational. Why would Israel need to have something to gain? Most religious fanatics do things that have no objective gains involved at all.

20. Feb 17, 2009

### rootX

While it's hard to disagree, it would be interesting to know how much of the time, right wing government dominated Israel since its independence or any Israel government attacked Palestine near election time or whenever it couldn't deal with the inside problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_Minister_of_Israel
See "List of Prime Ministers"