Discussion
Qwert1e said:
I think the answer is "none whatsoever". They are simply hoping that through passage of time they'll be able to argue "... but we can't give it back now; our people live there".
Or we have a God given right, or we paid them off, or it was never populated in the first place. Take your pick. Grumfutock said:
However Egypt, Syria and Jordan would not be able to mass the troops for that without being seen by Israel and the necessary actions taken. Very, very unlikely that any of them could manage a Yom Kippur surprise attack again. So once that is accepted they would be able to trade space for time. Concentrating force and defeating each opposition in order.
And yes the settlements are about a greater Israel. However I am damn sure that they would rather lose a few settlements on the Golan Heights than Tel Aviv.
So the internal settlements are providing safety, even though they are a key reason for the continued Hamas attacks and major impediment to peace ? And yes the settlements are about a greater Israel. However I am damn sure that they would rather lose a few settlements on the Golan Heights than Tel Aviv.
Israel clearly needs help to see the benefit of stopping and clearing the settlements is greater than the possible alternative, sanctions, international pariah state, internal political survival etc.
Israel and the Israeli government will continue to build illegal settlements; Only once the Drawbacks outweigh the benefits will Israel stop.
The strategic imperative is no longer valid, as a surprise large scale conventional land attack is nigh on impossible with current satellite surveillance and ELINT.
Grumfutock said:
And yes the settlements are about a greater Israel. However I am damn sure that they would rather lose a few settlements on the Golan Heights than Tel Aviv.
Come on, they're giving away land in the Golan for settlement. See here. I'm sure I read that there's a university campus planned. It's a land grab, pure and simple. Once you've settled a buffer zone, it can't function as a buffer zone: you've got to fight for it, rather than fight in it. While there is a buffer zone for the buffer zone, we've seen how easily the peacekeepers (brave, but very lightly armed) can get rolled up by a relatively lightweight attacker.
Countdown said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Grumfutock said:
I would point out that part of the deal between Egypt and Israel is that they can only have very limited troops in the Sinai and that is monitored by a Multinational force of observers. So in the context of a buffer it is still very valid as no surprise attack can come from there.
Agreed, but internal "settlement buffers" are pointless and provide no strategic benefit at all, besides providing propaganda material for Hamas.That whole peace deal thing can work rather well, when both sides actually want it.
Let's be honest about the reason for the Settlements. It's not for any military strategic purpose. It's to create a "Greater Israel"... "from the Nile to the Euphrates" as some Zionists hope. Netanyahu supports this, Likud supports this, the Zionists want this. But it can't be done straight away, so it has to be done gradually, little by little.
Maybe they are just taking a leaf out of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan
It all comes across as terribly underhand by the Israeli authorities doesn't it. But we can rest assured that even senior Fatah Officials today wouldn't participate in long term takeover plans don't we?
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Israel and the Israeli government will continue to build illegal settlements; Only once the Drawbacks outweigh the benefits will Israel stop.
The strategic imperative is no longer valid, as a surprise large scale conventional land attack is nigh on impossible with current satellite surveillance and ELINT.
And yet the need for space is still there. Let us say that there is a repeat of Yom Kippur. Now of course it is very unlikely that surprise would be achieved however that would still leave Israel impossibly stretched. They could not fight them all at the same time and would need to try and contain most areas whilst concentrating and defeating each force in turn, exactly like they did in 73. Remember that in 73 they faced troops or combat support from: Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Jordan, Algeria, Cuba, Morocco and Tunisia. They were out numbered over 2-1 in men, tanks and artillery.The strategic imperative is no longer valid, as a surprise large scale conventional land attack is nigh on impossible with current satellite surveillance and ELINT.
So I would suggest that space is very much still important for them, with or without good INT. Remember that from the western most part of the West Bank to the centre of Tel Aviv is around 24 miles. Now I don't care how much INT you have, that is a distance that can be covered in no time if only held by a screening force.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
And yes the settlements are about a greater Israel. However I am damn sure that they would rather lose a few settlements on the Golan Heights than Tel Aviv.
Come on, they're giving away land in the Golan for settlement. See here. I'm sure I read that there's a university campus planned. It's a land grab, pure and simple. Once you've settled a buffer zone, it can't function as a buffer zone: you've got to fight for it, rather than fight in it. While there is a buffer zone for the buffer zone, we've seen how easily the peacekeepers (brave, but very lightly armed) can get rolled up by a relatively lightweight attacker.
If they surrender the West Bank and Gaza then they have the enemy 24 miles from Tel Aviv. That would put it in range of a bloke with a sling shot! Now after over a decade of missile strikes do you honestly think that is going to happen? Seriously?
enioldjoe said:
Those naughty people in charge of Israel!
Maybe they are just taking a leaf out of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan
It all comes across as terribly underhand by the Israeli authorities doesn't it. But we can rest assured that even senior Fatah Officials today wouldn't participate in long term takeover plans don't we?
Which is all well and good. If only they would come out and admit it (although I guess Bibi already has.......)Maybe they are just taking a leaf out of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan
It all comes across as terribly underhand by the Israeli authorities doesn't it. But we can rest assured that even senior Fatah Officials today wouldn't participate in long term takeover plans don't we?
Countdown said:
Hmmm you really want me to point out the obvious?Grumfutock said:
Abridged
I agree with you in regards to 1973, without the Golan heights and Sinai, Israel would have likely lost the war. The key difference now is the state of surveillance tech and the neighbours. Israel does not have the same situation with belligerent neighbours as 1973. Egypt is largely friendly, Jordan likewise. Lebanon / Hezbollah does not have the conventional military to threaten Israel strategically and Syria is in turmoil now. There is no viable threat now or in the near future justifying the buffers.Hamaz from the West bank or Gaza are not going to be rolling tanks, SPGs and APCs towards Tel Aviv any time soon; So why the requirement for "buffers" populated with Israelis ? It does seem counter intuitive, unless you consider the alternative. Which makes more sense, land grab.
For an effective buffer, either a total DMZ like Sinai or a heavily militarised zone along the lines of the North / South Korean border, which creates a strategic defensive position.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 19:30
QuantumTokoloshi said:
I agree with you in regards to 1973, without the Golan heights and Sinai, Israel would have likely have lost. The key difference now is the state of surveillance tech and the neighbours. Israel does not have the same situation with belligerent neighbours as 1973. Egypt is largely friendly, Jordan likewise. Lebanon / Hezbollah does not have the conventional military to threaten Israel strategically and Syria is in turmoil now. There is no viable threat now or in the near future justifying the buffers.
Hamaz from the West bank is not going to be rolling tanks, SPG and APCs towards Tel Aviv any time soon; So why the requirement for "buffers" populated with Israelis ? It does seem counter intuitive, unless you consider the alternative. Which makes more sense, land grab.
So you would prefer them to pull back and wait to see if things go bad again? I am thinking ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Libya etc. Now might be ok but if the last few years in Middle Eastern and Arab politics has taught us anything it is that the situation can change in a relative heart beat. Remember 25 miles to Tel Aviv! Do you honestly expect Israel to risk it?Hamaz from the West bank is not going to be rolling tanks, SPG and APCs towards Tel Aviv any time soon; So why the requirement for "buffers" populated with Israelis ? It does seem counter intuitive, unless you consider the alternative. Which makes more sense, land grab.
And there is no difference between buffer and land grab. It is the same thing.
Countdown said:
enioldjoe said:
Those naughty people in charge of Israel!
Maybe they are just taking a leaf out of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan
It all comes across as terribly underhand by the Israeli authorities doesn't it. But we can rest assured that even senior Fatah Officials today wouldn't participate in long term takeover plans don't we?
Which is all well and good. If only they would come out and admit it (although I guess Bibi already has.......)Maybe they are just taking a leaf out of the PLO's 1974 Phased Plan
It all comes across as terribly underhand by the Israeli authorities doesn't it. But we can rest assured that even senior Fatah Officials today wouldn't participate in long term takeover plans don't we?
. Do *you* accept there are these strategic goals on both sides with this issue?(I don't deny that what Mr Net has said true.)
Grumfutock said:
So you would prefer them to pull back and wait to see if things go bad again? I am thinking ISIS, Muslim Brotherhood, Libya etc. Now might be ok but if the last few years in Middle Eastern and Arab politics has taught us anything it is that the situation can change in a relative heart beat. Remember 25 miles to Tel Aviv! Do you honestly expect Israel to risk it?
Okay 25 miles ? So what ? Where are these threatening forces going come from ? The Med ? over land ? Are you seriously saying the Hamas will manage to land or acquire conventional forces in sufficient quantity to threaten Tel Aviv; without Israel knowing, thus the requirement for these buffer zones. Come on, that is as likely as Mexico attempting to invade the USA, to get Texas back.
Israel is a nuclear power now, unlike 1973, a small but significant fact that is not lost on any neighbours with pending invasion plans.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 19:47
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Okay 25 miles ? So what ? Where are these threatening forces going come from ? The Med ? over land ? Are you seriously saying the Hamas will manage to land or acquire conventional forces in sufficient quantity to threaten Tel Aviv; without Israel knowing, thus the requirement for these buffer zones.
Come on, that is as likely as Mexico attempting to invade the USA, to get Texas back.
Israel is a nuclear power now, unlike 1973, a small but significant fact.
Of course not. As we were discussing the Arab world and history I would think that it is obvious where it might come from. You are the one that has ruled out another Arab massing, not I. Come on, that is as likely as Mexico attempting to invade the USA, to get Texas back.
Israel is a nuclear power now, unlike 1973, a small but significant fact.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 19:40
Once again I will ask the question, having been bitten 3 times do you honestly think Israel will take the chance?
Joffery666 said:
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/.premium-1.613319?v=...
Not sure on the credibility of the source, but there's no reason to believe it hasn't happened with Israel's history of robbing land that doesn't belong to them..
It's a case of slowly but surely exterminating a group of people, without any mercy. [snip]...nonsense about Hitler removed...[/snip]
It's even more unbelievable how the US, UN, Nato, whoever the f
k they are, can just sit there and do nothing.
Nothing wrong with the source. In so far as Israel can be said to have a conscience, Haaretz is its main voice. Israel was a US supported project -- in the early days -- probably to serve strategic interests. Not sure on the credibility of the source, but there's no reason to believe it hasn't happened with Israel's history of robbing land that doesn't belong to them..
It's a case of slowly but surely exterminating a group of people, without any mercy. [snip]...nonsense about Hitler removed...[/snip]
It's even more unbelievable how the US, UN, Nato, whoever the f
k they are, can just sit there and do nothing. Grumfutock said:
Of course not. As we were discussing the Arab world and history I would think that it is obvious where it might come from. You are the one that has ruled out another Arab massing, not I.
Once again I will ask the question, having been bitten 3 times do you honestly think Israel will take the chance?
Who then ?Once again I will ask the question, having been bitten 3 times do you honestly think Israel will take the chance?
Israel is now a nuclear power. The invasion force will be glowing in the dark before they got anywhere near Tel Aviv or even rolled a single track towards Israel. The world has changed since 73. A strategic conventional land attack by any or all of Israel's neighbours would result in nuclear annihilation. Nuclear changes the game. Israel even has a second strike capability courtesy of its submarine force, if the primary nuclear force is destroyed.
Why populate buffer zones with your own citizens then, are they merely cannon fodder ?
What you are arguing in regards to Israel, is similar to arguing the UK should have buffer zones in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, in case of a possible German invasion.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 20:10
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Who then ?
Israel is now a nuclear power. The invasion force will be glowing in the dark before they got anywhere near Tel Aviv or even rolled a single track towards Israel. The world has changed since 73. A strategic conventional land attack by any or all of Israel's neighbours would result in nuclear annihilation. Nuclear changes the game.
Why populate buffer zones with your own citizens then, are they merely cannon fodder ?
What you are arguing in regards to Israel, is similar to arguing the UK should have buffer zones in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, in case of a possible German invasion.
Yep because nukes have worked in the Ukraine. Even Israel isn't crazy enough to launch nukes before a conventional battle. It would only happen, and even then I am not sure, if they faced complete defeat and total annihilation. Israel is now a nuclear power. The invasion force will be glowing in the dark before they got anywhere near Tel Aviv or even rolled a single track towards Israel. The world has changed since 73. A strategic conventional land attack by any or all of Israel's neighbours would result in nuclear annihilation. Nuclear changes the game.
Why populate buffer zones with your own citizens then, are they merely cannon fodder ?
What you are arguing in regards to Israel, is similar to arguing the UK should have buffer zones in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, in case of a possible German invasion.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 19:59
How is Germany and the UK remotely like Israel? Whilst we have fought Germany twice we didn't keep France, Belgium etc as they were on our side. Might of been different if they hadn't. Although I would point out that after the second time we all (Allies) kept troops in Germany for 70 years.
Grumfutock said:
QuantumTokoloshi said:
Who then ?
Israel is now a nuclear power. The invasion force will be glowing in the dark before they got anywhere near Tel Aviv or even rolled a single track towards Israel. The world has changed since 73. A strategic conventional land attack by any or all of Israel's neighbours would result in nuclear annihilation. Nuclear changes the game.
Why populate buffer zones with your own citizens then, are they merely cannon fodder ?
What you are arguing in regards to Israel, is similar to arguing the UK should have buffer zones in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, in case of a possible German invasion.
Yep because nukes have worked in the Ukraine. Even Israel isn't crazy enough to launch nukes before a conventional battle. It would only happen, and even then I am not sure, if they faced complete defeat and total annihilation. Israel is now a nuclear power. The invasion force will be glowing in the dark before they got anywhere near Tel Aviv or even rolled a single track towards Israel. The world has changed since 73. A strategic conventional land attack by any or all of Israel's neighbours would result in nuclear annihilation. Nuclear changes the game.
Why populate buffer zones with your own citizens then, are they merely cannon fodder ?
What you are arguing in regards to Israel, is similar to arguing the UK should have buffer zones in France, Belgium and the Netherlands, in case of a possible German invasion.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 19:59
So you need buffer zones in case of strategic full scale conventional attack, coming from some undetermined location, but not Gaza, even if they are 25 miles away from Tel Aviv, but you still need the buffer zones.
The attackers will not plan to win the war, because if they do, Israel will nuke them. Thus you need buffer zones.
No comment.
Edited by QuantumTokoloshi on Sunday 31st August 20:26
enioldjoe said:
But you continue to bang this very one sided drum ( it seems to be a favourite comment), pointing the finger at Israel' s fault in this and yet fail to admit what's really going on with Fatah . Do *you* accept there are these strategic goals on both sides with this issue?
(I don't deny that what Mr Net has said true.)
Of course there are strategic goals on both sides. After all, this is the Middle East -- it's rare for anyone to forget, rarer still for anyone to forgive. . Do *you* accept there are these strategic goals on both sides with this issue?(I don't deny that what Mr Net has said true.)
The "Phased Plan" aka Ten Point Program was a disaster for the PLO, though, fragmenting it internally.
Attacked on one front, Israel can easily defend itself. Attacked from within and without, it's going to struggle. Now might be the last chance to settle.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff