Israeli Ground Forces enter Gaza

I think they achieved the saving of their state and territorial integrity in the face of Iraqi Western-backed aggression

 

Many different things, not all predictable, including:

A situation where, taking a page from Iran's example and in cooperation with it, the Arab countries refuse to accept or recognize the present state of Israel; develop their military and industrial capacities in cooperation with one another as well as others in the region and beyond, including Iran; give active support to popularly based organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, helping them financially, diplomatically, and militarily, instead of working against them; develop indigineous forms of government with sufficient popular support, relying on that support and not outside powers to prop them up; and, if it becomes necessary for them to defend themselves and their posture against any Israeli threats or attacks, they would do so adopting such tactics and strategies that is tailored to their strengths not weaknesses.

The actual "destruction of the Israeli army" is not even necessary. Imagine what happened to Israel, and its self-confidence, in the wake of its war with Hezbollah, and then multiply that times a hundred or more. Especially, in an environment when one of its leading opponents does have the means (if not the intention) to wipe it off the face of the planet. In these circumstances, Israel will be using its considerable influence in and among western countries, not to frustrate attempts to find an accomodation (including with Iran), but to expedite such attempts. The situation that I forsee would simply be untenable for Israel strategically, geopolitically, even economically and would lead it to seek a more lasting resolution than the ones it likes to impose by force alone.

They won't have the upper hand to such an extent to make them turn their hands from a solution that is just and to their interests. Besides, Iran would have a major role in this equation and while Iran is the most vociferous opponent of Israel right now, in geostrategic terms, Iran would benefit from a Jewish state in a Middle East which is otherwise filled with many Arab states, albeit an Israel that is not serving as an open invitation for foreign imperialism and meddling.

It does seem you like entering into the real of "fictional strategy games", but I am not sure any of what you said is either accurate or necessary ingredient to what I was saying!

 

"Nothing" as no significant political gains.

I was under the impression that, for the outcome proposed by IM to become reality, you would need more than just survive.

 

If you are attacked, i would assume that beating off your aggressors would be priority number one, not achieving significant political gains. In any event i would assume that the continued ability to lead one's nation is a significant political gain.

I was just confused as to how your comment on Iran-Iraq was relevant to the discussion, given that the war was caused by an Iraqi attack, and had nothing to do with any desire on Iran's part to further its political agenda.

 

I haven't come across this in the UK, nor have i seen it amongst Jordanians or Syrians. However i have noticed an air of superiority held by a significant minority of Arabs in Saudi Arabia, but maybe it's a misinterpretation of cultural norms on my part.

 

There are many revealing insights from the Iran-Iraq war, although none the ones taught to western audiences. The primary lesson of that war is that you can stand your ground and defeat a better armed opponent, even one that is supported directly and indireclty by pretty much all the major powers -- both from NATO and Warsaw Pact countries, the Arab League and beyond -- if you are relying on your people to fight. In that equation, the Iraq that Iran was fighting had all the advantages of Israel over its Arab enemies, including relative qualitative advantage over Iran in its military equipment, and a lot that Israel does not enjoy, while Iran had all the disadvantages of Israel's adversaries. Except, Iran's army was not a conscript force of iliterates with no real commitment to the cause for which they were fighting, and Iran's regime was not a group of self-imposed or foreign imposed rulers frightened at the first reversal in battle.

Anyway, I don't think the Iran-Iraq war -- which started shortly after Iran's revolution and ended 20 years ago when Iran's new state was still in its infancy -- needs to be brought into this discussion. Not except for the lesson I have mentioned.

 

Because you are so dense here you go:
http://middleeast.about.com/od/saudiarabia/a/me081128a.htm

 

Well vancity, talk about cowardice, you ignored my question again...
Why can't muslims handle Israel being allowed to exist. Especially since it is one of the smallest nations in the ME. Answer if you can, and be honest about it.

So why won't you answer this simple question? you keep avoiding it over and over again.

No strawman arguments needed, just answer the question. With some sources to back up your answer, if you can.

 

Since this is the "Let's answer questions which have nothing to do with the 'Israeli Ground Forces Enter Gaza' Thread", Scarecrow, I demand you answer these questions:

1. Who was better, Mike Tyson in his prime or anti-lock brakes?
2. Who would win in a fight, a gorilla or a shark?
3. What tastes better, Diet Coke or Spaghetti Bolognese?

I hope you will not avoid answering my questions over and over. If your answers are satisfactory i will post some more questions totally unrelated to this thread, and demand that you answer those too.

 

do not get twisted: ISRAEL BROKE THE CEASEFIRE FIRST

 

And continues to pock mark the occupied territories with more settlement building...

 

What does this have to do with spaghetti?

 

The inevitable result of Israeli "actions":

"Strike on Gaza school 'kills 40'"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7814054.stm

 

Another inevitable result of Israeli "actions". The next generation of bombers:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/01/05/gaza.children/index.html

 

Simply because IM suggested that arabs could force Israel's hand through a war of attrition.
While this kind of strategy proved to be enough in maintaining the status-quo during the Iran-Iraq war, it was certainly not enough in order to achieve the military success necessary in order to determine the kind of political change which IM envisions for the creation of the Palestinian Confederation.

Yeah, beating off the agressors is priority number one, but during the war Iran's goal became "slightly" more ambitious, quite similar (in terms of way of thinking) to IM's projects. Khomeini sought to export his Islamic revolution westward into Iraq, especially on the majority Shi'a Arabs living in the country. And, in the end, it was Iran who had enough of the "attrition war" and asked for truce.
In 1982, after iranians recovered most of their teritory, Saddam suggested a truce. Saudi Arabia backed the plan and even offered 70 billions $ to be paid by the gulf states on behalf of Iraq as reparations for Iran. Iran said no, demanding the removal of the Saddam Hussein regime, the repatriation of the shia expelled from Iraq before the war and $150 billion in war reparations. the iranian chief of staff declared they will "continue the war until Saddam Hussein is overthrown so that we can pray at Karbala and Jerusalem". And Khomeini's opinion on a possible truce : "There are no conditions. The only condition is that the regime in Baghdad must fall and must be replaced by an Islamic Republic."
When iranians enter Iraq in 1982, the slogan was "War, War until Victory" and "The Road to Jerusalem Goes through Baghdad".

You tell me how that turned out.

And this is relevant for several reasons :

1. It shows the worth of such pompous claims from certain people.

2. It also shows that the only thing someone should learn from the iranian experience is not to get involved in this kind of war of attrition. Had Iran accepted the truce in 1982 and have resisted the temptation to pump their chests simply out of pride, they would have avoided six more bloody years, including the use of chemical weapons. Because the Iran leaders had this kind of mentality, almost one million people died for nothing.

Maybe the Iraq-Iran war does not have much to do with the thread, but since the arabs and palestinians are advised by certain someone to learn from Iran, I think it has.

 

Here is a video from October, but it shows Hamas firing mortar rounds to Israel from UN school:

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmXXUOs27lI&annotation_id=annotation_616713&feature=iv"]YouTube - Mortar Bombs Shot from UN School in Gaza 29 Oct. 2007[/ame]

Don't tell me it's not a possibility that it couldn't happen again.

 

We've also had two instances of this in Belgium. Attempted arson at a synagogue in Vorst and the home of a Jewish family in Antwerp. Antwerp police have doubled patrols in the Jewish neighbourhood.

 

Maybe that's why?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090106/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians

 

Is this before or after 1948 that you are referring to ? If this is true, which you still have provided no evidence for it is still a red herring and has nothing to do with the oppression of the Palestinians.

 

Uh, I was asking you about your "new balance of power". That's not anything new, that's just the old "balance of power" because it was the policy of every arab state until 1977. It got them nowhere and several of them also had the backing of the Soviet Union. And most of them still continue to shun Israel.

Nasser's regime had wide popular support and Syria was also extremely hostile to Israel. The kind of government you like seem to be those willing to fight with Israel, so I believe those qualify.
If not, remember's the pro-Nasser movement in 1967, when Nasser announced his resignation following the defeat in the war.

That's cool and the only coherent idea you expressed until now.

That's kinda interesting. So the arab countries should actively support, even by military means, organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas whose main part-time activity seems to be firing rockets into Israel and they still are the ones "defending themselves from Israel", right ?
And, btw, what are those "strategies tailored to their strengths" ? Simply supporting Hamas and Hezbollah to harass Israel is not going to get you your confederation. The predictable outcome of this is that Israel will strike back directly in the arab territory where the 2 organizations operate. In this case there are 2 possibilities : the new arab government do nothing and everything continues as before. Or, they attack Israel again. In which case there are again 2 options : try to fight Israel in a modern manner, with mechanized units, like they did in 1967 and 1973 and failed ; or try to overwhelm Israel by sheer numbers, a la WW1, like Iran tried to do against Iraq. That strategy didn't help you conquer Bagdad, right ?
I don't see other strategies capable of inflicting such a defeat on Israel in order to make accept the peace in the terms you propose.
And what about the hundreds of thousand of people who would get mowed down in the process ?

I'm sorry, but your points are a load of rubbish.

First, having the means to wipe off Israel is irellevant for this issue. Russia, for instance, had the means to wipe US off the map. That is not going to get them back Alaska, nor did it help them to score many points against US over the last years. Particularly, the attacks on Yugoslavia and Iraq, which Russia strongly opposed, but still occured. The nuclear weapons serve as deterrent for an enemy aggression, but they have never been used as a method of blackmail in any political gamble and it's unlikely they will ever be.
Israel opposes the Iranian nuclear program more as a matter of prestige, not because they piss their pants at the idea.

The Hezbollah war - you have used that as an argument why any arab country could defeat Israel. That's total bullshit. The thing you ignore is that a guerilla war and a conventional war are completely different things. In order to win, a conventional army needs to defeat the enemy. A guerilla needs only not to lose.
This is like saying that, because they lost to Vietcong, the US could be taken out by Mexico. Actually, the effect of that defeat was that US Army re-analysed their strategies and 15 years later they simply pulverized Saddam's army. The defeat in Vietnam did not cripple the american army - it made it more efficient because it showed them their weakneses and how to fix them.

What means "multiply the effect of the Hezbollah war one hundred times more" ? What kind of event would lead to such effect ?

To me it looks like you simply speak in riddles half the time because you are afraid to depict yourself as a war-mongering person - which is what you seem to be. No offence.

Oh, I get it. Palestinians should get what they want, but only as much as Iran is willing to give them.
Oh, well, iranians seem to have their own counterparts of Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their cronies. Who would have thought ?
And I believed you were genuinely interested in the well-being of the palestinian people.

 

But not necessarily the kind you have in mind.

The status quo ante. With provision for Iraq to pay Iran reparations.

Iraqi forces, which had invaded and driven into Iran, and were driven out. While I don't find the situations comparable in the sense you are comparing them, I think the status quo ante would suit the Palestinians fine. If they are promised reparations to boot, the better.

The more "ambitious goal" you refer to is not exactly analogous to what I suggest for the Palestine/Israel issue. As my suggestion is one that can be arrived at through negotiations, albeit negotiations that are at arms length, while Iran esssentially wanted an unconditional surrender.

Iran accepted a UN resolution which Iraq had already accepted. Of course, we accepted it when it appeared that we might not be able to achieve our objectives, at a point in the conflict when another party (the US) was getting actively involved in the war on Iraq's side -- and when Iraq's repeated use of chemical weapons had begun to take their toll on troop morale etc.

There was nothing "pompous" in Iran's demands, even if they went unmet. And the reasons they went unmet are ones which I have contemplated and taken into account in the strategy I have outlined here, which incidentally is not what you appear to imagine.

Iran arguably had the option to accept a favorable truce in 1982, but what options are genuinely available to the Palestinians except to surrender? Or except being told to chase a mirage, while the strategic environment around them is being changed to favor Israel even more?

No. Almost one million people died because of another reason. A reason that underlies the anger of many Iranians at those who were responsible for cheering Saddam to invade Iran; for arming him to the teeth; for financing him to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in gifts and loans (loans which were never to be repaid); for turning a blind eye on his repeated use of chemical weapons against Iran; and for starting to get involved directly, with a naval armada sent to Iran's shores to help Saddam and those financing him at the time, even shooting down an Iranian civilian airliner.

The only lesson from the Iran-Iraq war is in opposite of what you want to suggest. I have already dealt with that in a previous message.

 

"John Ging, the director of the U.N. Relief and Works Agency in Gaza, called for an independent investigation into the attacks. "

Sorry, not going to believe a thing Israel says about this incident. They have a pretty sordid track record of covering up their atrocities in a similar manner. Let's hear what an independent investigation has to say, especially as another UN school was hit on Monday:

"An Israeli missile struck a different U.N. school on Monday night, killing three young Palestinian men. About 400 Palestinians had taken refuge in the school, and about 15,000 have gathered in schools throughout the strip, Ging said."