Israel at war...

[El Guapo]

What do you think will happen with this?

My guess is that Israel winds up in a war with Syria, Lebanon and Palestine. I don't see how this can de-escalate right now. Lebanon and Israel have a very long history and have been on the verge of combat for some time. It seems the spark has now ignited the powder keg. How can it be put out?

[The_Tick]

Time for us to pull out of the Middle East.

When it is all over we can shake hands with the winner and get us some cheap oil.

[creekster]

Israel hasn't really been fighting with Lebabnon, just with hezbollah and Syrians that are in Lebabnon. A distinction without a huge difference, at this point, I suppose, as many lebanese have long ago moved away. Nonetheless a disinction worth making, IMO.

[El Guapo]

Originally Posted by creekster

Israel hasn't really been fighting with Lebabnon, just with hezbollah and Syrians that are in Lebabnon. A distinction without a huge difference, at this point, I suppose, as many lebanese have long ago moved away. Nonetheless a disinction worth making, IMO.

It is an important distinction, and I should have been a bit more careful. I think the real threat right now is that Israel's fight with Hezbollah could destabalize the Lebanese government and really cause chaos. I have no answer, just many concerns.

[realtall]

Just as a general comment, I don't think that the Palestinians want peace. Its as simple as that. Everytime that they get dangerously close to it they manage to crank the violence up by a kidnapping an Israeli or a bombing a bus or a wedding. Those who have the power(Hezbollah, Hamas) to stop this would rather have war then peace. The hatred is that great.

[non sequitur]

Originally Posted by realtall

I don't think that the Palestinians want peace. Its as simple as that. Everytime that they get dangerously close to it they manage to crank the violence up by a kidnapping an Israeli or a bombing a bus or a wedding. Those who have the power(Hezbollah, Hamas) to stop this would rather have war then peace. The hatred is that great.

I'm not too sure the Israeli's want peace either. I'm still trying to remember why we have Israel's back when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East. I'm to the point where I'm ready to cut ties with Israel and tell them they're on their own.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by non sequitur

I'm not too sure the Israeli's want peace either. I'm still trying to remember why we have Israel's back when it comes to conflicts in the Middle East. I'm to the point where I'm ready to cut ties with Israel and tell them they're on their own.

Yeah I don't know that any of them do. I have gone back and forth on my feelings about what is happening there for a long time. On the one hand I want them to resolve their differences and I want bloodshed to be avoided.

On the other hand, this notion that you can broker peace between sides that have so many gripes, hatreds and greivences (both real and percieved) is a notion that has only taken root in the last 30 or so years and I'm not convinced any longer that it is possible. We commit ourselves to "peace keeping missions" and dipolmacy toward this end but does it ever work? Are we peace keepers anywhere that would not dissolve into civil war once we leave?

Now I think there are many other good reasons to try to keep the whole middle east from being on fire, but, I wonder can we? There is no country called Flanders. There is no Venetian state, nor a Wales nor a Confederate States of America. The most lasting peace, historically, has come from two groups or nations (loosely defined) having a blood letting and one of them WINNING. The winner them sets the rules and keeps the loser from threatening him for a while. Sometimes the loser gets assimilated and other times it dissapears all together. I'm not sure that this modern idea that every group who wants their own state is somehow entitled to one. I think if you want one you get it the way everyone else has: through struggle.

Anyway, the rest of the middle east is hopelessly outgunned in a conflict with Israel. This is the reason arabs blow up buses and cafes rather than march on Jersalem. It is not for a lack of desire that they don't do this, just a lack of ability. This also relates to why it is a no brainer to be in Israel's side. The arab world in the last 50 years has twice united and tried to wipe Isreal off the map, not the other way around. None of these arab states (I believe) acknowledges Israel as a nation. They can't of course because your average arab does not. Israel is often brutal but what should they do? I think in this choice of two skunks they are the lesser of two evils.

I hate to say this, but I think the only thing that will bring even temporary peace in the Middle east is yet another large scale conflict involving Israel and several arab states where Israel once again defeats them. Israel can't not act on what is happening to them. The arabs come from a from of reference that will not permit them to live peacefully next to Israel. The solution is not talk because they can't resolve their differences, they are too profound. The result is conflict on the level that will crush one side, and take away the taste for that level of death for at least a generation or two.

BTW, I would love to be wrong about the forgoing, but that view is the "realist" in me, not the idealist.

[Colly Wolly]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

Yeah I don't know that any of them do. I have gone back and forth on my feelings about what is happening there for a long time. On the one hand I want them to resolve their differences and I want bloodshed to be avoided.

On the other hand, this notion that you can broker peace between sides that have so many gripes, hatreds and greivences (both real and percieved) is a notion that has only taken root in the last 30 or so years and I'm not convinced any longer that it is possible. We commit ourselves to "peace keeping missions" and dipolmacy toward this end but does it ever work? Are we peace keepers anywhere that would not dissolve into civil war once we leave?

Now I think there are many other good reasons to try to keep the whole middle east from being on fire, but, I wonder can we? There is no country called Flanders. There is no Venetian state, nor a Wales nor a Confederate States of America. The most lasting peace, historically, has come from two groups or nations (loosely defined) having a blood letting and one of them WINNING. The winner them sets the rules and keeps the loser from threatening him for a while. Sometimes the loser gets assimilated and other times it dissapears all together. I'm not sure that this modern idea that every group who wants their own state is somehow entitled to one. I think if you want one you get it the way everyone else has: through struggle.

Anyway, the rest of the middle east is hopelessly outgunned in a conflict with Israel. This is the reason arabs blow up buses and cafes rather than march on Jersalem. It is not for a lack of desire that they don't do this, just a lack of ability. This also relates to why it is a no brainer to be in Israel's side. The arab world in the last 50 years has twice united and tried to wipe Isreal off the map, not the other way around. None of these arab states (I believe) acknowledges Israel as a nation. They can't of course because your average arab does not. Israel is often brutal but what should they do? I think in this choice of two skunks they are the lesser of two evils.

I hate to say this, but I think the only thing that will bring even temporary peace in the Middle east is yet another large scale conflict involving Israel and several arab states where Israel once again defeats them. Israel can't not act on what is happening to them. The arabs come from a from of reference that will not permit them to live peacefully next to Israel. The solution is not talk because they can't resolve their differences, they are too profound. The result is conflict on the level that will crush one side, and take away the taste for that level of death for at least a generation or two.

BTW, I would love to be wrong about the forgoing, but that view is the "realist" in me, not the idealist.

Pretty good analysis, Unless I am mistaken, Egypt and Jordan now recognize Israel and Saudia Arabia and other smaller Arab States refuse to fight. I guess they got tired of the ass-whuppings from the earlier wars and decided to make peace. It seems like it is now Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, and Iran against Israel, with Iraq having to bow out in the interim due to internal issues.

You are right, the other Arab states are hopelessly out-gunned. One has to wonder what it will take for these other states to realize they cant keep getting back up and then getting knocked in the mouth again. Egypt and Jordan have wised up. Hopefully the rest will as well. Israel is not going anywhere.

[MikeWaters]

in weak moments I imagine the Middle East as a sea of glass.

the first step is to set a deadline. In two years we will nuke all disputed holy sites. After the radiation has settled out and dissipated in a few hundred years, you can fight for it. But until then, STFU!

This whole thing reminds me of WWI (yes, I am that old). Some dude gets shot (or kidnapped) and it just multiplies. Israel hits Syria. Iran hits Israel. We hit Iran. N. Korea decides now is a good time to hit S. Korea and Japan. China goes to Taiwan. Who knows what could happen.

I think food storage is a good idea. As is bullet storage.

[creekster]

The conflcit in southern Lebanon and the Gaza strip is even more interesting this time becasue of the fact that we have a quarter of a million battle ready troops just over the horizon. What happens if the war goes badly for Israel? What happens if Iran gets involved? Or are we enough of a deterrent to stop some of those things from happening? WHta happens if Iran uses a dirty bomb against Israel? The fact that we are there could ratchet this thing up PDQ.