IDF vs NATO

[Smaragdadler]

...In CMx1 there was a possibility to use anti-aircraft guns in both ways - to shoot at the incoming planes and to shoot at ground targets. It's a pity it isn't done in such way in CMSF (it isn't done at all, no protection from air danger - they don't have MANPADs in Syria or what?)...

That's right. It especially takes out the fun for pbem, considering the time one has to invest for it.

I better don't say anything about 'tango'...

[Lethaface]

Unfortunately (?) Hamas was elected in a democratic way. The elections were one of the most 'honest' among the middle east, as they were heavily controlled by international inspectors. One can't just remove an elected government, it would blow the whole point of the West and even Israel.

Israel must take away the reason for Palestinians to vote for Hamas.

From my personal standpoint, Israel is continually blowing up any chances for negotiating because they are constantly making the situation worse. New settlements, etc etc.

The Palestinians can't sort their own **** out at the moment. If there is one thing that is obvious, it is that.

[flamingknives]

Bolteg:

The code for static tanks is the same as that for moving tanks. BFC can flip the code toggle for movement before the scenario starts. There is no code for immobilising infantry weapons (i.e. non vehicles). While you could code them in as small, immobile vehicles, that would also stop you putting them on roof tops, which would annoy some people, you couldn't transport them away, which would annoy others and also apply to ATGs and you couldn't resupply them, which would annoy others still.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I really like John Kettler's "CMSF Armageddon" idea, particularly if it is based around the concept of a full scale coalition war scenario in the Middle East. It would be particularly fun to have an option to choose which side some of the smaller states (eg Jordan, Saudi Arabia) or even larger states like Egypt are actually on (depending on whether there has been a revolution in those countries or not) This would let you pit M1A1s against each other and against Merkavas.

The NATO mod is also one I would buy and I would also buy a European conflict version of the game set in the present day/near future. Think of all the fun you could have with NATO troops fighting to defend Eastern Europe and driving into Russia, or, for that matter, Russian forces driving into Germany and perhaps other parts of Western Europe. You could also have an option of Ukranian forces allied to NATO in this scenario. You could also try the old Lehman doctrine and invade Siberia

I would definately buy CMSF modules on the lines of both the above.

[Khane]

Hi Vark,

your comments ...could be applied to any books on any historical period

Absolutely, that is why I wrote the "truth" about this conflict (or any other) is not to be found in any book

Any person, I believe, seeking the 'truth' by reading 'history books' are condemning themselves to a hopeless quest, or are suffering from cognitive dissonance about the truths they contain...My bookshelves are groaning under the weight of history books

For years I was addicted to the search for "historical truth", reading tons of books from all political views (well, to be honest much more from the historians that I knew would reinforce my convictions ) but one day, not long ago I just threw all of them until the last one into the recycling bin. They will be more useful as recycling material than on my bookshelf and believe me from the piles of history books I had this was not a minor contribution to the recycling process.

Even this morning I almost succumbed to this old addiction; while surfing the net I watched on Youtube a very interesting talk by Howard Zinn called "Myths of the Good Wars (Three 'Holy' Wars)" during which he recommended a book called "The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb" by Gar Alperovitz. After a few minutes I almost ordered the book so I could "finally know the truth behind the decision of dropping a A bomb on Hiroshima"...but by the end I decided not to do so: it was very frustrating but I remembered that no matter what is written in this book, it will not bring me one inch closer to the knowledge of the historical truth even if I believe that the author is right. I guess that I will get that book sometime soon but not to discover the "truth".

Thank you very much for the link to the Globe and Mail article. I will read it later when I will be back home.

ended up loving and hating the country in equal measure

You sound like many Israelis

[Bolteg]

Unfortunately (?) Hamas was elected in a democratic way. The elections were one of the most 'honest' among the middle east, as they were heavily controlled by international inspectors. One can't just remove an elected government

I'm not proposing a colour revolution a la Ukrainian or Georgian or Kirgizian one, I'm saying that as long as both sides stop acting like pricks, there will be bloodshed - in case of the Palestinian side, they should stop supporting those who agitate to commit terror acts and who's aim is to eliminate Israel as a country.

From my personal standpoint, Israel is continually blowing up any chances for negotiating because they are constantly making the situation worse. New settlements, etc etc.

OK, please feel free to correct me, if I'm mistaking, but didn't Israel banned all the settlers in the Gaza strip several years ago? And is trying to do the same with the settlemetns on the West bank? I remember seeing footages of clashes of IDF and police versus the settlers from time to time. For example, the fresh one

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135242.html

Yup, after readin it - here:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced the settlement freeze last month as a bid to restart stalled peace talks with the Palestinians. Settlers and their supporters have resisted the move, attempting to block the entry of inspectors to settlements and staging protests across the country.

There is no code for immobilising infantry weapons (i.e. non vehicles).

I see.. But wouldn't it be possible to make a static gun as a "vehicle", but veery soft skinned and that has a speed of zero km/h?

While you could code them in as small, immobile vehicles, that would also stop you putting them on roof tops, which would annoy some people, you couldn't transport them away, which would annoy others and also apply to ATGs and you couldn't resupply them, which would annoy others still.

Well, putting anti-tank guns on the rooftop is not the most widely method of their usage.

ATGs couldn't be ressuplied in CMx1, tanks and technicals can't be ressuplied in CMSF (or can they?.. I might be mistaking), so the biggest whine the players could have about them is that they are static. In my opinion, it's still better than no ATGs at all.

[Lethaface]

@Bolteg, I feel very free to correct you The temporary 'Freezing' of building new settlements in PARTS of gaza is something, but it is a very little something. I bet the freeze will be suspended after a rocket is fired.

Please have a look at how happy Obama & Clinton were about the Israeli policy recently - not. Actually, Israel is aiding settlement buildup since very long time. It is a government strategy / policy. Now and then they say they will 'freeze' building new villages, but most of the time that is just after a large building project has been approved so there are also no need for new area's anymore, for some time. The freezing is actually almost not at all effective.

It is true that Sharon has removed quite a number of illegal villages some time ago. However this was not enough, for the Palestinians, and I guess it should only be enough if Israel LEAVES Gaza to Gazans. Not only 75% of it. The Gaza strip & westbank are for significant part occupied by Israeli colonists. Both places weren't to big to begin with. Especially if compared to the 1967 borders, those that are internationally recognized as the most 'appropriate' ones. According to my information Hamas is willing to accept Israel when they retreat back to the 1967 borders. However of course they will never approve it en public as it will diminish their bargaining power.

Anyway it is good to talk about this subject without anyone overheating

Bolteg, if you are interested please invest some more time in this subject. In my opinion Israel is just securing it's strategic goals by any means necessary, claiming to be the civilized side in this and they are only protecting their civilians. Although there is some truth in 'protecting', the larger part of it is just old cheap methods of acquiring land of other people. They do have a very healthy press/propaganda machine and a lot of lobbying organizations world wide that are intended to let us in the west think it's all good there.

I think you have been partly blinded by their excellent PR, as was I once long ago.

[Khane]

The Gaza strip & westbank are for significant part occupied by Israeli colonists

The Gaza strip ? How many Israeli settlers and settlements are there in the Gaza strip ?

[Bolteg]

I bet the freeze will be suspended after a rocket is fired.

Then don't fire a rocket. I mean, I can probably understand a fight against military assets, attacks on soldiers - maybe, just maybe. But firing a rocket blindly in the general direction of a city or bombing purely civilian objects - this is an act of terrorism. This, by the way, goes to Israel also - the attacks on some of the objects that were destroyed in 2006 in Lebanon were not necessary.

It is true that Sharon has removed quite a number of illegal villages some time ago. However this was not enough, for the Palestinians, and I guess it should only be enough if Israel LEAVES Gaza to Gazans. Not only 75% of it.

One must start with something, right? As you have said:

But the only realistic mindset, is the mindset that emphasis the need for Israel to undertakes positive action. They are partly responsible for the current FUBAR and are the only key holder to its solution.

I see such ban as a positive action towards Palestinians.

According to my information Hamas is willing to accept Israel when they retreat back to the 1967 borders. However of course they will never approve it en public as it will diminish their bargaining power.

To be honest, I kinda doubt this. These guys are not moderates, they will see such retreat as an sign of weakness and their path as a true one, that gave them fruits. Now, if there had been someone in the power who would actually really stop harrasing Israel after such retreat, I'd be all for it.

Bolteg, if you are interested please invest some more time in this subject.

Some years ago I tried to do a research for myself to figure out what exactly has happened and happens in the Balkans - "who's right and who's not", in other words. After some time I threw this idea in the garbage bin - it is a giant clusterf*ck and simply isn't black and white (although my sympathies are still on the Serb's side).

I have a feeling that it's the same with Palestine vs Israel situation. I sometimes read discussions (sometimes a very heated ones, sometimes they are civilized) between Israelis and people who back the Palestinians, my knowledge is based on the information I got out of such conversations (normally I don't participate in those). And the most important thing I got out of them is that it all depends on the person and his point of view - some "fact" can be seen in absolutely different light by two guys.

n my opinion Israel is just securing it's strategic goals by any means necessary, claiming to be the civilized side in this and they are only protecting their civilians.

Well, they are more civilized side - the way Hamas dealt with Fath (spelling?), the wide usage of suicide bombers, flag burnings, the cheerings of usual people in the streets after the planes crashed into the World trade center - no, such things don't give points for being civilized in my book.

They do have a very healthy press/propaganda machine and a lot of lobbying organizations world wide that are intended to let us in the west think it's all good there.I think you have been partly blinded by their excellent PR, as was I once long ago.

I'm not from the west. I'm Russian, who was born in one of the Soviet Union's republic that after its collapse became Lithuanian republic. I live in European Union, yes, but in Eastern Europe, and local media isn't very pro-Israel, so to ssay, nor do we have Jewish lobbyist. More over, the sentiment amongst the usual crowd here isn't very pro-Jewish also (I'm talking from my first-hand experience).

And I don't watch any of the Western news channel, be it BBC, CNN or Foxnews (I don't watch TV at all), so I wouldn't be so sure about the propaganda working on me part.

In case you're wondering where I get the news - I work with numerous local newspapers (as I said, they aren't pro-Israel) and I frequently read big international forums where people from all over the world post news (usually military-related), there you can hear every interested side of the situation.

[Yair Iny]

Lethaface, I agree with your overall sentiment regarding settlements, but factually, Israel withdrew from the entire Gaza strip and destroyed all settlements that were inside it. There are no soldiers or settlers there at all. The army has basically made some parts of it that are close to the border fence a no-mans-land, and Israel maintains full control of the borders around Gaza with Egypt's cooperation.

[Lethaface]

Yair Iny,

Thanks for the factual update! I directly believe you, perhaps I should have only mentioned the west-bank as that is where my knowledge of settlers policy is based on (and the past). A nice proof of how easy it is to twist the facts unintended!

@Bolteg,

With 'West' I ment actually ment the nations that are in power to actually sanction Israel. This should actually include parts of South-America, parts of Asia, South-Africa, larger parts of East Europe and in some ways Russia.

I fully agree that the Israeli's are the most civilized of the two. However, as their culture is more like mine then is the Paletinian culture, it is easy to feel more sentiment towards Israeli's then towards flag burning hatred screaming Palestinians.

Arabs as a whole seem more prone to visible and violent outrage amongst the people then most people in other parts of the world. Like firing your AK 47 in the air on a national celebration day. While I don't really understand that behavior, that doesn't mean there are no reasons for them to behave like they do. Somehow it is less shocking to see a bulldozer slowly dozing a house inhabited by family of a suicide bomber, but the effects are none the less shocking for those involved (to name one example).

To get back to the point, Palestinians do not posses guided missiles nor do they posses any other military hardware that is able to inflict damage or significant casualties among IDF, apart from suicide bombers and the like.

That doesn't mean I support the firing of rockets on civilian targets, but it is almost the only thing they can do and definitely the only thing that they can do with effect. For me it is not a clear cut to define Hamas violence as pure simple terrorism since they sort of have a (semi) nation and those are their only options for 'war'.

That AND the fact that the Israeli's are more 'civilized' as a society, makes me feel reinforced in my opinion that Israel should take (all) the first steps in this conflict, IF they feel like a peaceful solution.

Let me stress again, Hamas is in my opinion not a desirable government in any form. But it is the government the Palestinians chose to have; it is the government 'made in power' by the current FUBAR situation.

Arafat has negotiated for such a long time but in the end it didn't have any results for the people. So who can blame them for concluding that negotiations are not doing anything good for them?

[cabal23]

I really like John Kettler's "CMSF Armageddon" idea, particularly if it is based around the concept of a full scale coalition war scenario in the Middle East. It would be particularly fun to have an option to choose which side some of the smaller states (eg Jordan, Saudi Arabia) or even larger states like Egypt are actually on (depending on whether there has been a revolution in those countries or not) This would let you pit M1A1s against each other and against Merkavas.

The NATO mod is also one I would buy and I would also buy a European conflict version of the game set in the present day/near future. Think of all the fun you could have with NATO troops fighting to defend Eastern Europe and driving into Russia, or, for that matter, Russian forces driving into Germany and perhaps other parts of Western Europe. You could also have an option of Ukranian forces allied to NATO in this scenario. You could also try the old Lehman doctrine and invade Siberia

I would definately buy CMSF modules on the lines of both the above.

Read "The War After Armageddon" by Ralph Peters, it details a war after the bombs have gone off and a new branch of the military is formed called the MOBIC (The Military Order of the Brother in Christ). It shows them in a less than stellar light working side by side with teh other branches (thought I was reading Christian propaganda for a few chapters but soon found out not so). It details the battles that take place to recapture the Christian Holy sites near Jerusalem. Fascinating read with a surprising ending. It also introduces the idea of the US's high tech advantage being marginalized by EMP technology(EMP mines would be deadly in to the US with our high tech tanks), drones, and vampire ATGM's supplied by the Chinese. It really got me thinking how so much more can be done with this game.

The IDF idea is also one I agree would flesh out the game. I don't buy all that talk that it is too "sensitive" of a subject to portray. I love how we can demonize the Syrians as being stupid enough to set of nukes on US soil, but we can't make a comment about the IDF without everyone going crazy. Last time I checked CMSF was fictional war scenario. So the IDF's entry into the fray would also be fictional. Get over yourselves and realize this is a game outside of reality. Possible? Yes. Likely? No. CMSF is just a piece of speculative fiction like the book I mentioned or Team Yankee. Keeping this in mind would avoid all these silly arguments about things better left to politicians.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Maybe the best solution would be for both sides to share the same land as equal citizens in a single state. Everybody would have the same rioights of citizenship eg social, educational, ecomnomic, poliitcal etc. However, given the hatred and extremism on both sides I do not see anyhting of this nature happening any time soon (if at all)

[LUCASWILLEN05]

So far as CMSF is concerned it is a (reasonably realistic) simulation game. We are looking at the military aspects of such a conflict as Cabal123 says amd taking on the role of a tactical commander in a hypothetical war. If we have a hypthetical Arab=Israeli war scenario set in the near future we can pick either side. From a gaming point of view having nations such as Egypt fighting on the Arab side would give the Isreali Merkavas a particularly hard time.

HAving the IDf as an optional module (like the Marines amd British) seems like the way to go to me. If you really feel you don;t like the Israelis that;s Ok, You don;t have to buy or, if you do, you can always play as the Arabs. Either way an IDF module would help increase understanding of the military aspects of the conflict.

[Sergei]

While all of this is very interesting, I fear that the fruits of this conversation will be lost if confined to CMSF forums for I do not believe that the gentlemen in charge of the peace process have time to read such long threads. May I suggest that you write down your ideas of how to bring peace to Middle East and send them to the following addresses:

PM Benyamin Netanyahu

Prime Minister's Office

3 Kaplan St. Hakirya

Jerusalem 91950

Israel

Mr. Mahmoud Abbas

President

President’s Office

The Palestinian Authority

Fax: +972 2 2963170 9

Isma’il Abd al Salam Ahmad Haniyeh

Prime Minister

Hamas de-Facto Administration in Gaza

Fax: +972 8 288 4815

[Bolteg]

Arabs as a whole seem more prone to visible and violent outrage amongst the people then most people in other parts of the world. Like firing your AK 47 in the air on a national celebration day. While I don't really understand that behavior, that doesn't mean there are no reasons for them to behave like they do.

You see, I have no problems if they want to shoot their rifles in the air to celebrate something, however I do have problems with the things I've mentioned earlier - bombings etc. Or are you trying to say that this is also a part of their culture?

About the reasons - everything has one. I'm sure killers of the whole Olympic team also had one; as had those who murdered women and children in Budenovsk and Beslan, this doesn't make it any less despicable.

Somehow it is less shocking to see a bulldozer slowly dozing a house inhabited by family of a suicide bomber, but the effects are none the less shocking for those involved (to name one example).

It is not shocking for me at all, if it's some shahid's house - should be not so selfish and think about his family before blowing himself up. It would be shocking if it had been innocent guy's house though.

To get back to the point, Palestinians do not posses guided missiles nor do they posses any other military hardware that is able to inflict damage or significant casualties among IDF, apart from suicide bombers and the like.

Nor do Talibs, however they manage alright with IEDs. Also, if they must use suicide bombers, why target civilians? To make them fear? That's a terror act right there.

That doesn't mean I support the firing of rockets on civilian targets, but it is almost the only thing they can do and definitely the only thing that they can do with effect.

And what exactly is this effect? The one effect that I'm aware of is that it's a certain that after some time all hell will break loose over their heads - "Cast Lead" is a good example of such effect. Do they really want this?

For me it is not a clear cut to define Hamas violence as pure simple terrorism since they sort of have a (semi) nation and those are their only options for 'war'.

I'm not sure I understood you correctly because of the language barrier (I have small amount of practice in English, sorry).

Do you mean that these methods are their only way of fighting against Israel? I disagree then - there is no need to aim at civilians on purpose. They do have some sort of military bases, outposts etc? Why not fire at those?

That AND the fact that the Israeli's are more 'civilized' as a society, makes me feel reinforced in my opinion that Israel should take (all) the first steps in this conflict, IF they feel like a peaceful solution.

Which is what they did and are doing, as I already have said - the ban of settlements is a good example.

Let me stress again, Hamas is in my opinion not a desirable government in any form

With that I agree

But it is the government the Palestinians chose to have;.

"Reap what you sow".

They've democratically elected islamist radicals who declare their aim is to wipe Israel? They get their results - escalation of the situation that happened this year.

Arafat has negotiated for such a long time but in the end it didn't have any results for the people. So who can blame them for concluding that negotiations are not doing anything good for them?

I doubt that killing civilians is a better aproach to solve the situation

Next poster is the traitor.

Not fair, it took some time for me to read and write my response, there was no post of your at that time.

[Lethaface]

It is not shocking for me at all, if it's some shahid's house - should be not so selfish and think about his family before blowing himself up. It would be shocking if it had been innocent guy's house though.

In my opinion my mother would be total innocent if I blow myself up. Now they are going to demolish HER house? In my opinion that totally IS the innocent guy's (in this case woman's) house.

Nor do Talibs, however they manage alright with IEDs. Also, if they must use suicide bombers, why target civilians? To make them fear? That's a terror act right there.

The Talibs (And Iraqi insurgents) also use suicide bombings. Problem is that almost every insurgency is formed by splinter groups. They are in general not a truly cohesive, organised force. This may mean that some will target civilians and others do not. I agree with you in that in my opinion violence against civilians is ALWAYS wrong. However, it has proven to be effective at times (in the past).

The strategy of the underdog in asymetric warfare is generally not to win on short term. This is obviously impossible. But Hamas knows that shooting those futile rockets at Israel will provoke a response. It is this response that Hamas is seeking to gain it's victories from. First by proving that this response will never stop their ability to fight back (and so that they are strong in the eyes of the people.) Secondly they hope that Israel will make a mistake and will be internationally sanctioned. Third is that they aim to grow 'war weariness' upon the Israel population because all those responses don't seem to bring any effect.

For the same effect are suicide bombings used. They hope to scare the population and that it might be positive for Hamas if Israelis are scared.

It is not difficult to find volunteers for suicide bombings against civilian targets in a country where almost everyone has lost a deer family member. How reasonable would you be if your baby brother was (accidentally?) killed by a hellfire missile or 2000 lb Jdam?

Motives for revenge are probably a significant part of the problem of violence against civilians.

They do have some sort of military bases, outposts etc? Why not fire at those?

Who says they don't ALSO fire at those? Not that 'aiming' at them actually means they will land there. Again I would also like to see them only firing at military targets and think it is a better overall strategy, but then again i'm not part of Hamas. They will have their stupid but, in their eyes, valid reasons.

Which is what they did and are doing, as I already have said - the ban of settlements is a good example.

While there have been some good initiatives on the side of the Israelis, the failure of the whole peace process is in great part their responsibility. At the moment they seem to offer small gestures which realistically are only good for international approval, they don't make any significant effort in the 'peace process'. In my eyes that is also not the aim of the current government of Israel. The current government is quite hardcore.

"Reap what you sow"

I fully agree but I think the Israelis have (for a large part) sowed Hamas's seeds by the decennia's of the occupuation of the Palestians area. The fact that the Palestinians aren't really role models in their fight to become 'independent', doesn't make Israel free to do as she pleases. Israel has the moral responsibility of the current situation and should not point the finger anywhere else then herself. By doing so the Palestinians will, in my opinion, stop supporting the violent side of Hamas and will choose a wiser government which hopefully will be able to negotiate a two state solution (or ideally a one state solution.).

Since it is almost the end of the year, I think it is an appropriate wish

May the new year bring peace in the Middle East!

[Lethaface]

@Sergei,

Perhaps you could filter out the worthiest parts of everyones post and forward it to said addresses?

I'm perhaps not objective enough, nor do I appreciate interest upon my character by any Mr. M. Ossad

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Let us not forget the historical roots of the Arab-Isreali conflict, namely the attack, by the Arab States and the Palestinians on the newly formed state of Isreal in 1948. Whether the formation of the state of Israel as it was implemented had some flaws or could have been implemented in a manner that was more just to both sides. Israel does have a right of existance as is recognised by most states but it is equally true that the Palestinian people also need to have their rights recognised. The problem however is the hatred and extremism, perhaps on both sides and unti they are prepared to accept a compromise there can be no resolution to the conflict.

[Lethaface]

@Lucas,

I'm sorry but do you have any knowledge about the events of 1948 and before?

Israel was indeed attacked but there were plenty of Jewish 'terrorist' groups like 'Stern' that have literally shot the Palestinians of their land in 1948.

"Some flaws"??? (this is a joke right?)

If many countries decide that your country now belongs to me and that my brother empties an uzi on your house (just a small flaw, he normally never acts that way!) upon which your family flee's, is it then strange that your friends come back to 'attack' me?

:S :S :S

Anyways, I obviously totally disagree with the first part of your post. It is also factually flawed.

A citation from UNRWA Commissioner-General on the UN website (quite objective, albeit no one is 100%) from a lecture in Oxford:

http://www.un.org/unrwa/news/statements/2007/Oxford_5Mar07.html

You may wish to take a step back and to consider that beneath the headlines, statistics and dramatic fatalities, there is a striking historical continuity in the systematic approach to use overwhelming and disproportionate force in the name of security; to separate and exclude Palestinians from the mainstream; to eject them from their land; and to occupy Palestinian land. To segregate; to exclude; to eject and to occupy: that was the sequence of events in 1948. The very same sequence defines Palestinian reality today.

I'm sorry but I can't really react further on the first part of your post without becoming unpolite.

--

I think there is no real use in saying who was the 'bad' guy and has started it all. Both have been wrong, very wrong. It is now important who CAN make a difference. It takes two to tango, thats for sure. But first Israel has to allow the Palestine's outside the basement they are locked into.

Best wishes!

EDIT: Perhaps I was a little carried away, I don't mean that other Arab states had right to attack Israel in 1948. However it was to be expected. The attacks only made matters worse. As Sergei hinted this forum is perhaps not the best place to discuss this.

[Vark]

Lethaface, hundreds of Jews had been murdered in the 20's and 30's in staged riots or acts of terror, settling land that the Arabs had sold them the land rights to. Land they thought was unworkable and expected to make a profit from the stupid Jews who would return home after realising their mistake, until the Jews transformed it into prime real estate using the latest techniques of irrigation and planting crops. The Arabs then demanded that some of these areas be handed over to them in the post-war settlement! The Aliyas, where thousands of Jews travelled to Israel, in the pre-war period, are often ignored by the Palestinians, as is the fact that a third of 'Palestinians' displaced had specifically emigrated to Israel because there was work for them there.

The UN quote shows why that organisation is treated with so much suspicion by Israel. The mayor of Haifa begged the Arab population (one of the largest) to stay in 1948 but they listened to their leaders, who confident of victory told them to leave for a brief period. Instead of returning to claim all of Haifa, most of it developed by israeli's they lost everything when the Arab armies exhibited their usual incompetence and were soundly beaten. The much trumpeted tragedy of the Nakba, was really a self-inflicted wound and the disputes over Gaza, Jerusalem and the West Bank come about because the Arabs continually loose to the Israelis. I'm not excusing attrocities perpetrated by extreme Israeli groups, who took notions of self-defence and Zionist nationalistic destinty too far, but for the most part, the Arabs willingly left their homes, confident in returning to a Jew free land. They bet it all on the Arab Legion and five Arab armies and lost and have not stopped whinging since. Their 'suffering' has been ruthlessly exploited by surrounding Arab nations, all too eager to divert their own failings, by creating a series of myths and lies about the situation.

The Israelis pulled out of Lebanon and were rewarded by their efforts by Hizbullah rocket attacks and raids, they pulled out of Gaza and were rewarded by Hamas rockets and suicide attacks. Often these rockets were launched from the skeletons of the greenhouses the settlers had created and not destroyed when they left, these hated symbols of 'occupation' were trashed by the manipulated mobs instead of being kept to provide valuable hard-currency by exporting their produce. The much criticised Operation Cast Lead, in 2009, has stopped the rockets, the much criticised Wall has stopped suicide bombers and the much criticised 2006 operation stopped Hizbullah rocket attacks. Yes, one could argue, these solutions are only temporary and create new problems but they have achieved what they set out to do, namely to allow Israeli citizens to get on with their lives.

Final point, if the situation was reversed and the Arabs were superior, just how long would Israel last?

[Bigduke6]

Let's turn this conflict on its head a little bit. Instead of trying to figure out, why it is the Israelis or the Palestinians keep doing something to keep the peace progress from moving forward, maybe the question to ask is, who is it that benefits if this conflict keeps going on?

The answer is, I think, a whole lot of people, on both sides.

Israel is of course a noisy democracy, but they have one of the most developed military industrial complexes in the world, and that is jobs and money. The Israeli military has huge political power, and if peace suddenly were to break out, what would become of the IDF? Could parliament after parliament sustain all that spending? Could government after government keep the US cash spigot nice and open? What about all that security contracting - the walls, the airports, the cops, the bomb shelters, the defence drills, the fighter-capable airfields, the concrete gun pads on the short of the Dead Sea, the civilian buses hauling troops around during mobilisation exercises, never mind developing and deploying home-grown tanks, aircraft, and nukes - all that stuff costs money. I read somewhere that Israel devotes 20 per cent or so of its GDP to the military - I bet once you count in the US coin and the semi-military expenditures, about every other sheckel and pound spent in the Israeli economy, is somehow connected to Israel's priority of having a military too powerful for any combination of neighbours to defeat.

If we use the Boeing employee yardstick, then all of a sudden widespread Israeli support for being tough with the Palestinians, and always having the military solution on the table, becomes a whole lot more understandable. If there were a real peace, the Israeli economy could easily deflate by a third, maybe half, and Israel would be left with an economy geared for war in a location where all the neighbours work for cheaper than the Israelis, and don't want what the Israelis make. Hence the Boeing employee comparison: in a real sense, war and the threat of war is important to the livelihood of a majority of Israelis.

The Israeli politicians may not admit this, but they of course realize it. Every time any one of them tries to push peace, he/she is literally threatening the long-term income, and often careers, of many of the people that voted him/her into office. And at the same time if the Israeli politician is "tough" on the Palestinians, he may not be working towards peace, but OTOH it is a fair bet he one way or another is on track to score contracts and jobs for his electorate.

This I think could go a long way towards explaining why Israeli government after Israeli government seems unwilling to abandon the military option, or negotiate with peace as a top priority, and military security as a secondary priority. Military security, i.e. the industry of converting a massive chunk of the GDP into military force, is vital to the economic well-being of a massive chunk of the Israeli general public.

What's worse, this is only half of the equation; you look on the other side and surprise surprise there is an amazing portion of the anti-Israel world, that has a very personal economic stake in the non-resolution of the Palestinian Question.

First, there are the obvious suspects - the smugglers, the religiously agressive, the journalists, the populists politicians, - there must be millions of people from Morocco to Indonesia whose personal income is assisted, one way or another, by the fact that a Jewish Israeli state controls the Holy Land, and that the Muslims discplaced by the Israelis are the Palestinians.

But then there are the geopolitical players who benefit as well. How viable would Syrian authoritarian government, or Egyptian corrupt democratic government, be with their respective populations, if there wasn't the "Israeli threat" and the "Palestian Arab Brothers" to hold up as a rallying flag? Just look at Mubarak, one of the worst crooks in the region, he has stuffed the government with his goons and he wins election after election by cracking down on potential adversaries ahead of time. How long would Mubarak stay in power, if he wasn't a military man who fought the Israelis in his day?

How long could the Jordanian Royal family run their country like their own personal estate, if they were not able to tell any Jordanian willing to complain openly "See, the Royal family keeps things stable even with all these Palestinians in our territory, if only the Israelis would take them, but the Israelis won't."

Interestingly, it is arguable that the Israel-is-a-needed-enemy effect seems to telescope the further we get from the Holy Land. The Saudis and Iranians come to mind - both regimes justify the worst sort of police state activity, and justify it on the grounds that, basically, we are in a war with Israel over the Holy Land, so how can we be answerable to our populations right now?

Nor is this limited to Muslim countries. Forget the US Jewish vote; just start tracking how much US business - and every bit of it is giant corporation business - makes money because the US government funnels cash and military tech to Israel.

Nor should the "world terrorism" security industry be forgotten; every time a Palestinian kid throws a rock at an Israeli Hummer, that's one more incident the guys at Blackwater can use to sell their services "See, it's dangerous out there, those Muslims are nuts, you need us to protect you if you go anywhere near a Muslim country."

Yes sure, the Israeli politicians will deny it, they'll say "The life of one of our citizens isn't worth any compromise on the Palestianian Question," and the Palestian politicians will say "This is an issue of honour, religion, and the land of our Fathers, so compromise is out of the question."

But the bottom line I think is pretty clear if you are willing to see it: The Israeli-Palestianian confict is hugely profitable to a lot of people, and frankly most of the people in a position to dial down the confict, profit directly from the fact the conflict exists.

The logical solution would be, somehow, to make peace more profitable than this semi-war. The classic way this happens, historically, is that low level war is tolerated but then at some point a whole bunch of people die, and usually businesses lose money, and that either eliminates one of the sides of the conflict, or at least creates an imperative accepted by both sides that the conflict needs ending.

If I had to guess, I would say economic pressure on one of the sides is the most likely way out. If the Israeli economy were to collapse, you can bet there would be lots of pressure to stop spending all this money just so there are no serious concessions to the Palestinians.

If the American or Saudi/Gulf state economies were to collapse, that might just suck enough cash out of the conflict, to leave the Israelis and the Palestianians with no other option but to end their differences.

Escelation is another possibility; there is always the chance some one will figure out a way, and at the same time have a motive, to arm the Palestinians so that they can really hurt the Israelis.

But medium term, I think history is the best indicator of what will come next. This conflict is now 60 years old; barring something earth-shattering similar to the collapse of the Soviet Union but in the Middle East, we're just going to see more of the same.

The proper policy for every one else, of course, is to stay the Hell away. Don't try and fix what is permanently broken.

[flamingknives]

Did I mention how any thread involving Israel inevitably goes downhill?

I mean, I'd like to know if I can say "I told you so"

[Vark]

I disagree with the majority of what BigDuke has said, apart from the fact that most Arab states depend on their very existence on the Palestinian problem, but how is the thread going down hill? No one has resorted to ad-hominem attacks and most threads provide useful discussion material, the trouble with the issue is that just talking about it is sometimes classified as problem.

BigDuke, if the conflict did not exist the Israelis might develop even more world beating companies and have an even greater standard of living, perhaps each citizen might get to own six mobile phones! Their population might even get to enjoy their conscription free youth and not have to suffer the dislocation of their later lives caused by reserve service. The vast expenditure on military infrastructure could be then spent on tackling poverty, especially child poverty and sub-standard housing. Israel has suffered because of the constant war footing, they have made money from it because they adapt to the environment and are very successful at arms sales because they are successful at winning wars.

The reason for the military overmatch is because they are surrounded by enemies, potential or all too real, who seek to threaten their entire existence. Losing a war against Arab armies does not mean national humiliation and loss of territory but complete extinction and a certain Austrian corporal already tried that solution. That is why Israel will, I believe, never allow Iran to build a nuclear weapon, one holocaust is enough for that country.

[Lethaface]

Vark,

That Austrian corporal had a very different 'reason' for doing what he did. Problems around Jerusalem are not something new to say the least. Crusaders and Infidels, apart from Jesus being murdered by the Romans with Jewish influence

I didn't know of this particular Haifa incident but I am aware of anti-Jewish sentiments in the Middle East prior to 1948. As I said before, both 'sides' have did wrong, very wrong. Basically they have been bashing each others heads since long time. That incident you named happened under British occupation. Sometime ago it was 'cool' to conquer other countries and oppress the people. Imo the current problem started around the beginning of 1900 when the English made a deal about a country for Jewish people in the holy land. It was and is a given that this creation would cause a lot of 'friction' in the region. So has happened. I do not want to say that the arabs are so sweet, but neither are the Israelis.

Hence, I don't agree with your statement and especially the thing about creating a second holocaust. I think it is out of its place.It would be similar to suggesting that the state of Israel is now conducting a holocaust among the Palestinians.

Israel cannot possibly lose a conventional or nuclear war at this time, especially given the support of the US. In the very unlikely event they would, I doubt the Arabs would exterminate all Jewish inhabitants. Yes it will probably similar like Yugoslavia or even worse. But another holocaust, no. I find it improper to (ab)use the holocaust in this way.

If you murder someone and burn a flag of his country at the same time, it isn't really worse then someone murdering someone without burning a flag.

By the existence of extremists among its ranks you cannot judge a whole nation/people.

Bigduke,

Although the monetary incentives involved I doubt that this conflict is purely about money. However I'm sure it is of large influence, like it is in most mechanisms in this world. Money really talks as they say it does