Assessing the Effectiveness of Israel's War on Terror

[motiv-8]

It's a dangerous thing when the hamster in this wheel starts walking.

We're all aware of Israel's latest military actions; the 2008 Gaza incursion and the 2006 Lebanon "war". We could argue night and day as to the validity of the engagements, but for the purpose of my inquiry and discussion we will assume that they were initiated by Israel as part of its "war on terror", to borrow an oft-maligned slogan.

Now, in the most realistic of political terms, Israel's primary concern as a state is to protect and provide for the needs of its citizens; to that end it engaged in military operations to ensure its people's security. I won't argue the immediate benefits; Hizbollah has not captured any more Israeli soldiers in the Bekaa, and Hamas rocket attacks were curtailed. However, here is where the real questioned posed by the topic title comes in. How effective were these operations in the grander scheme of stopping what Israel perceives as terrorism and promoting peace in and on its borders?

Another fact that we should all be aware of is that Israel agreed to the application of a "road map" to peace settlement during the Bush administration, itself indeed just a modified version of President Clinton's plans up to 2000 (a lamentable failure). How do these military engagements affect the road map? How have they influenced public perception in Israel? In Palestine and Lebanon? Do such actions help or hurt the long-term peace process?

I am of the opinion that while a state has an obligation to provide security, they must also provide very due attention to long-term prospects to afford security in the future. Therefore, these questions become very important. I am hoping for the participation of Israelis and of Arabs in the discussion, without the nationalist "Israel! yea!" attitudes, nor the "Go away Juice" attitudes. Now let's do this thing.

[knight of virtue and valor]

the thing is, theirs almost no way to "stop the terrorist actions". first of all their is the religious conflict, both religions don't exactly agree. not to mention both sides claim holy sites in the area. second is that both sides have a LONG history of honestly loathing each other. How to address these adversity is a huge challenge. I am happy to discuss it though.

[The Devil's Sergeant]

It amounts to mending fences. Israel can live with the status quo. When Hamas and Hezbullah get to frisky, Israel reaches out and swats them. They get condemned for it for sure, but nothing really changes in its relations with the rest of the world. It keeps the same proportion of friends and enemies.

[knight of virtue and valor]

I agree, Israel has to show that it just wont stand their and get bombed to hell.

[Vizsla]

In the best traditions of the armchair general I know no more than anyone else and possibly less and I have absolutely no intention of letting that stop me.

Lebanon and Gaza both seem like more of a war on Iran’s proxy forces than the war against terror.
The bombing of that suspicious site in Syria last year and the bombing of a weapons convoy in Sudan earlier this year are both warnings to Iran. The Sudanese convoy was further away from Israel than the Iranian nuclear sites. Iran has just upgraded its Russian made air defences which shows how concerned it is.
So maybe Israel is not chiefly concerned with The Roadmap.
It has bigger fish to fry before they get their swanky new air defences up and running.

[Каие]

It is not effective at all. All their actions tend to do is make more popular whoever it is they threaten or attack. This only serves as a reset button.

[Shmuel]

Isarel first objective is to ensure the safety and well being of it's civilians.
to this end Israel conducted 2 operations , in the last few years , the war in lebanon , whose purpose was to stop hezballah rocket attacks against Israel. since the lebaneese army and government are a joke , and cant control hezballah , israel had to stop them.
the second operation in gaza "cast lead" was meant to stop any further acts of terrorism by hamas and other groups , whose sole purpose is the destruction of israel .
regarding all those peace agreements , Israel tried that , Israel withdrew the settlement in gaza in hopse that some peace might be reached , however acts of terrorism continued.
no county in the world would have waited to act so long , as Isarel did, sderot was shelled for the last decade, and it's in Israel .
hamas sees itself as the government of the paletstinian people , in that case any rocket attack by hamas is a decleration of war against Isarel. and Isarel has every right to react to threats made by those who wish the destruction of the country.
I do believe that Israel effectiveness in the war on terror is very high , hezballah sttoped firing rockets, and when some rockets were shot at israel a few months ago , nassralla quickly denied involvment in those actions , regarding hamas , the intensity of the rocket fire dropped drasticlly.

[mrcrusty]

Not particularly effective no.

While it does help short term matters, motiv-8 said to discuss in terms of long term future for Israel. Terrorist organisations such as Hamas do deserve to be stomped out. However, there are too many civilian causalities in the Middle East as a result of Israel's invasions, operations, or whatever.

All this causes is a generation of Palestinians growing up in a world where they have personally lost family due to Israeli incursions. Couple that with the fact that Hamas is at the helm, and you're essentially killing Hamas terrorists now, but you're encouraging the growth of Hamas terrorists for the future.

It's a matter of changing the opinions of the Palestinian public in general, getting them to the point where they have a moderate government, willing to flesh out a real peace with Israel rather then just launch rockets all day long. Israel sure ain't helping though, just going in, killing the baddies and go home "victorious" (not to mention a few hundred innocent civilians too). Coz that does jack all for long term stability.

Of course, that's probably a pipe dream.... shame.

[Stalins Ghost]

Not very effective at all I would say. Each new attack levels a house full of people the survivors of which will go on to support resistence movements. If they want to solve the problem they need to get to the root of the problem, not continually try to cut the heads off the weeds that break the soil.

[Centurion-Lucius-Vorenus]

It's Failed completely. Since the Camp David Accords the chance for peace has been looking further and further off. Israel has embroiled itself in several Asymmetric wars and gained a clear victory in none of them. In the most recent wars against Hezbollah and Hamas, Operations designed to liquidate both organizations or at least remove them from being any sort of respectable force have actually increased the strength of those organizations. While it appears that they were bloodied up during the actual fighting, and they indeed were, they only emerge stronger because their rule is solidified due to the death and destruction the wars cause.

[PacSubCom]

It's successful, though you can only realize that if you look at what its purposes are.

First, Israel's wider goal is not defeating terror (which everybody realizes is impossible), but conquest. They want the important land and the resources, while putting the Palestinians into a big concentration camp with a high wall around it and more or less forget about them, or, if possible, get them out of the country altogether. This is what Israel's elite wants. The ultra-right wing wants to kill them off. The West is okay with all of this because Israel is a steadfast ally in the vital Near East, and they get away with it because nobody cares about brown people.

Second, their "war on terror" is, like everywhere else, an excuse to push for any unrelated policies they want to see through anyway, going from geopolitical power games to intimidation of minorities to the economic annihilation of large parts of their population. Suddenly everything goes, because you sheep swallow the lies that you're in real danger while they are fing you. In Israel's case, it's the subjugation of the Palestinians.

And it works splendidly. They don't want peace, they really welcome the violence. Their "wars" are obvious one sided massacres. The Palestinians could as well line up against the wall and wait for the bullets, and that's no wonder, as Israel enjoys total military and economic superiority. And it is a client of The West, which is the organization that essentially rules the known universe.

Everybody knows what solves the problem, and that is a two-state solution which gives the Palestinians a real chance to become prosperous, and not only the bones Israel likes to throw them. Like they do in all of their "peace proposals", knowing they are unacceptable.

[Orko]

First, Israel's wider goal is not defeating terror (which everybody realizes is impossible), but conquest. They want the important land and the resources, while putting the Palestinians into a big concentration camp with a high wall around it and more or less forget about them, or, if possible, get them out of the country altogether. This is what Israel's elite wants. The ultra-right wing wants to kill them off. The West is okay with all of this because Israel is a steadfast ally in the vital Near East, and they get away with it

first, Israel's goal is not conquest. otherwise the west bank and Gaza would ahve been annexed, and Israel already retreated from Gaza 4 years ago.
secondly, "concentration camps" will be a wrong word because they were not concentrated there. and the wall was built against terrorist attacks(it worked. it reduced the terror attacks completely). calling it "concentration camp" is like calling the great wall of china a concentration camp, or calling Hadrian's wall a concentration camp.

nobody cares about brown people.

great! continue blame everything for racism and you might even win!

Second, their "war on terror" is, like everywhere else, an excuse to push for any unrelated policies they want to see through anyway, going from geopolitical power games to intimidation of minorities to the economic annihilation of large parts of their population. Suddenly everything goes, because you sheep swallow the lies that you're in real danger while they are fing you. In Israel's case, it's the subjugation of the Palestinians.

do you even know what kind of policies and methods Israel uses?

And it works splendidly. They don't want peace, they really welcome the violence. Their "wars" are obvious one sided massacres. The Palestinians could as well line up against the wall and wait for the bullets, and that's no wonder, as Israel enjoys total military and economic superiority. And it is a client of The West, which is the organization that essentially rules the known universe.

there is no country or organization called "the west". it is a term invented during the cold war to describe the pro-American and capitalist bloc.
and BTW:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel%...ngagement_plan

Everybody knows what solves the problem, and that is a two-state solution which gives the Palestinians a real chance to become prosperous,

I agree

and not only the bones Israel likes to throw them. Like they do in all of their "peace proposals", knowing they are unacceptable.

"unacceptable"? really? which one was?

[motiv-8]

Hmm.. Thank you, PacSubCom, for echoing the general feelings -- intentional or otherwise -- of a large proportion of non-Westerners on this subject. I'm interested to see what the response will be.

[Göteborgare]

That is not the general feelings of a large proportion of non-westeners.
It is the general feelings of a large proportion of all human beings.

[Heathen Hammer]

How effective were these operations in the grander scheme of stopping what Israel perceives as terrorism and promoting peace in and on its borders?

Not effective at all, since Israel is terrorist as well, and does not promote peace (unless you can call siege some form of peace).

[Bovril]

Now, in the most realistic of political terms, Israel's primary concern as a state is to protect and provide for the needs of its citizens; to that end it engaged in military operations to ensure its people's security.

This premise (that governments and populations share interests) seems to me extremely flawed. I don't think its possible for this discussion to proceed sensibly without adressing the issue of whether the Israeli government's interests are the same as the interests of the majority of its population.

[motiv-8]

Israel is a democracy -- that is how you assess such a thing.

Furthermore, the premise was not that governments and populations share interests -- the premise was that a state's primary concern was to provide for the security and prosperity of its citizens. These are distinct things.

[Bovril]

Israel is a democracy -- that is how you assess such a thing.

Israel has parliamentary and executive elections at regular intervals. That is demonstrably not the same thing as having a governemnt which pays heed to popular opinion, consists of representative members of the society, allows freedom of information about its activities, etc., etc.

Furthermore, the premise was not that governments and populations share interests -- the premise was that a state's primary concern was to provide for the security and prosperity of its citizens. These are distinct things.

This is a controversial point of political theory. It hardly goes without saying. Some regard parliamentary democracies as essentially investment based power systems due to the way elections are funded. Some say that the primary purpose of a government is to ensure life liberty and the pursuit of hapiness, and that governments that are antithetical to thsoe goals should be abolished. Some say the role of legitimate governments is to persue class war (in either direction: see Madison and Marx for opposite ends of the spectrum).

But from a factual point of view I think its pretty easy to argue that the Israeli government has a record of unconcern with the majority of Israelis' wellbeing when it comes to foreign policy, just like the US and UK in their invasion of Iraq. All three states know (because their intelligence services told them so) that their actions would increase the threat of terrorism.

Untill we treat the idea that governments should have regard for the safety of citizens (including, of course, soldiers) in their foreign policy as more of an ideal than a reality, discussions such as this one are likely to be somewhat warped.


My point is that I don't believe the Israeli government or any other government is fighting something that really deserves the name a "war on terror" (which is an absurd oxymoron if taken literally, as it often is).

[The Devil's Sergeant]

Israel is a democracy -- that is how you assess such a thing.

Furthermore, the premise was not that governments and populations share interests -- the premise was that a state's primary concern was to provide for the security and prosperity of its citizens. These are distinct things.

Israel is democracy bordered by lawless and lawful enemies. Lawful enemies are state actors, such the governments of Syria, Egypt and Jordan all of which have warred with Israel, but are still governments that have the same objective of security and prosperity. This is the framewore most people are used to. Though states sometimes war against each other, their ultimately do act on the primary concern of security and prosperity. Wars come to ends because of it. Treaties get signed and are enforced because of it.

But Israel also has lawless enemies. Hamas, PLO and so on were not/are not are not state actors and it is a mistake to treat them as such or expect them to act as state actors. THey don't hae the responsibilties of states.

In some was these non state actors are highly sensitive democratic organizations. They are carry out the will of the people.

The problem for Israel is this, how do they provide for security and prosperity which requires them to act out against real threats and attacks while at the same time change the will of the democratic will of it enemies.

Edit, I'm really tires so I hope that makes sense, which I swear in mind it did.

Also, I don't care to discuss or debate why Israel is hated so much. The question is always, where do we go from here?

[Göteborgare]

Israel is democracy

No.
Israel is not a Democracy.
In a democracy, everyone has the same rights.
In Israel, Jews and Arabs have different rights.
Arabs have to go around with ID's with Arab stamped in them.
Arabs are treated like second rate citizens.
While the Jews get many bonuses.


Israel is not a Democracy for everyone.

first, Israel's goal is not conquest. otherwise the west bank and Gaza would ahve been annexed, and Israel already retreated from Gaza 4 years ago.

Israels goal is conquest.
The West Bank is annexed.
The Settlements goal is to make a twostatesolution impossible.
They went out of Gaza because Gaza has nothing of value.
While the WB has water and many other things.

secondly, "concentration camps" will be a wrong word because they were not concentrated there.

They are concentrated there.
Or is concentration camps wrong to use for the Nazi ones too?
As all of the unwanted people werent focused there?

and the wall was built against terrorist attacks

No it wasnt.
It was built to annex as much land as possible under the disguise of terrorism.

it worked. it reduced the terror attacks completely

Because the groups found that suicides doesnt help them just makes them more hated in the world. Oh, and Fatah still commits suicide attacks, suck on that.

calling it "concentration camp" is like calling the great wall of china a concentration camp, or calling Hadrian's wall a concentration camp.

The Great Wall of China, or Hadrians Wall, wasnt made up of barbed wire, motion sensors, etc
It is a large concentrationcamp.

The Getthos in ww2 was as much concentrationcamps.

great! continue blame everything for racism and you might even win!

Great! Continue to think that racism has nothing to do with it and you might even win!

do you even know what kind of policies and methods Israel uses?

1. Kill Arabs.
2. Gain loot.

"unacceptable"? really? which one was?

Since none of them were actually real peace proposals, none of them were.