SHN speech: one year anniversary of Imad Mogniyeh (16-2-2009)

[HooKs]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

I second that. This is a rare kind of discussion, respectful and open, which reminds me too of a happier time when many discussions on this forum were like that. Nowadays, you only have to read the first post of a thread, or even just it's title, to be able to accurately predict 90% of the posts that will follow. Keep it up you two. I won't enter too much into it but will remain in my seat among the other spectators.

I just have three questions for 4U, none of which are meant to convey sarcasm, cynicism, criticism, or an implied judgment of what you are saying. First, how are decisions made in Israel? Is there a secret central command of some sort that keeps this strategy of theirs, which guarantees they will eternally be in conflict* with their neighbors, the central and dominant strategy regardless of democratic currents? Secondly, what in your mind would be the rational decision for Israel to make? It sounds to me like your analysis makes it sound like the only rational thing for Israel to do is to follow the same strategy they are following now, just to have a chance at surviving the water crisis in the future. If this is the case, how will we resolve this issue once Israel has been defeated? Finally, is there a plan within HA to convince the other Lebanese of those things which to HA are beyond any reasonable doubt?

*conflict, in strictly realist terms, refers not just to actual, but also the potential for conflict, existing at any given time

Find the answer also in red below:

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

There was a broad blueprint of the goals needed to be attained by the State of Israel, and the means to achieve those goals. Israel’s decision makers are mostly behind the scenes unknowns to the outside worlds. Mainly super wealthy and fanatic religious people. They have great influence on the decisions that will affect the future of the state and the preservation of the superiority of the Jewish race. Regardless of who’s elected the general outlines to be followed are preset.
Israel is an expansionist state, meaning that its borders are not definite, nor will they ever be. As the need arises for new land, the philosophy is to grab what’s needed at any cost. An example of that is the water grab, which I will attempt to answer at the end of my post.
Your second question is ambiguous because it assumes the State of Israel to be rational. It is not. All their decisions are based on their need as a nation to survive or so they claim.
Their rational course of action now would be to find a way to coexist with the Palestinians by giving them their lands back, treat them respectfully, and attempt to repay them for all the misery and agony they caused them in the course of 60 years of occupation. Give Lebanon back its land and water, and stop invading our airspace and respect our sovereignty, finally return the Golan Heights to Syria without any conditions. None of those will happen because of their arrogance and their belief that they’re god’s chosen people. They started their ******* nation relying on brute force and intimidation, and that course served them well until 2000. Since than they are attempting to adjust to the challenges they encounter by maintaining their old ways and are failing miserably at it. They will not learn until it’s too late for them, and it’s already too late. As I said in a previous post, Israel is the only nation on the planet built around its army and not the opposite. This by itself is indication enough of the direction they need to constantly seek. Wars and conflicts are what maintain the integrity of the state, without them the need for the army becomes obsolete which in terms means the dissolve of the state.

The water shortage that Israel faces now, and will face in the future will be enormous to say the least. In the future all wars will be fought for water, not only in the Middle East but across the globe. As a nation, Israel is in dire need of water resources that it does not have and cannot have unless it occupies neighboring land. This is not fictionist tale, but a reality. The Initial map of Israel expanded to include the Litani river because the founding fathers foresaw the future needs of the state. The Litani will always be their wet dream and the object of their futuristic plans. As I said in my previous post, their motto is well known, grab the land, take the water, than negotiate the return of the land and keep the water rights. It happened with Jordan, it’s meant to happen with Syria and Lebanon if they have their way.
I’ll give you a simple example relating to your last statement. In my last few posts I stated many facts and used logical thinking presenting my ideas. If there were any questions, I attempted to answer them honestly, directly, logically, and factually. By doing so I may have removed, or lessened the doubt that some people had when they thought about them. If I have reached one member on this forum and convinced him/her of what I was attempting to say, I consider that a major achievement. That member will take that knowledge and relay it to others who may have the same doubts.
HA is always trying to reach out and explain things as they are to all Lebanese, if you listen carefully to SHN’s speeches, you’d realize the huge amount of information they contain trying to explain to all who care to listen. Regretfully, they are used as means to attack us and twisted around to undermine their sincerity. HA is not an infallible party, we make many mistakes but always try to learn from them and rectify our actions to project our learning process.

Originally Posted by emotion

Great discussion! This subject is the most important, vital and relevant when discussing HA weapons and the defense strategy Lebanon should have. Without knowing your enemy you can't and DON'T have the right to call for a disarmament of the resistance.

For those who doubt that Israel got exactly what it wanted from Jordan and especially Egypt with the so called peace treaties should do a follow up on Menachim Begin's "Capsule Theory" wich is a policy that Ben Gurion advocated and has been implemented since the Begin-Dayan government. The most important gain Israel got from the peace-treaty with Egypt was the neutralisation (that's actually an understatement) of a regional superpower, a key-country or as Ben Gurion himself put it "the main enemy" and "the gate to the entire arab world". Once Egypt was taken out of the war-cycle an all-arab war against Israel was thus ruled out. This isolation policy strongly weakened the arab states in general and the palestinians in perticular and the fight against Israel was from now on to be taken mainly by the arab peoples own hands, leading to the subsequent formation of several resistance groups one of them beeing HA.

As put simply by Kissinger at the time: there can be no war without Egypt, and no peace without Syria!

Allow me to tell you that Kissinger, when he said that, he was using the exact words of the Israeli leadership. The stress is on underlined part, the second one is most probably his personal addition!

[HooKs]

Originally Posted by Positive Balance

I second that. This is a rare kind of discussion, respectful and open, which reminds me too of a happier time when many discussions on this forum were like that. Nowadays, you only have to read the first post of a thread, or even just it's title, to be able to accurately predict 90% of the posts that will follow. Keep it up you two. I won't enter too much into it but will remain in my seat among the other spectators.

I just have three questions for 4U, none of which are meant to convey sarcasm, cynicism, criticism, or an implied judgment of what you are saying. First, how are decisions made in Israel? Is there a secret central command of some sort that keeps this strategy of theirs, which guarantees they will eternally be in conflict* with their neighbors, the central and dominant strategy regardless of democratic currents? Secondly, what in your mind would be the rational decision for Israel to make? It sounds to me like your analysis makes it sound like the only rational thing for Israel to do is to follow the same strategy they are following now, just to have a chance at surviving the water crisis in the future. If this is the case, how will we resolve this issue once Israel has been defeated? Finally, is there a plan within HA to convince the other Lebanese of those things which to HA are beyond any reasonable doubt?

*conflict, in strictly realist terms, refers not just to actual, but also the potential for conflict, existing at any given time

Oh i wanted to recommend for u a read but forgot to include it in the previous post. Here it is:

Benyamin Neuberger - “National Security and Democracy: Tensions and Dilemmas,” in Democracy and National Security in Israel.

I hope you find it, it is an interesting read and will definitely provide you with answers and exciting info.

Regards

[emotion]

Hooks, I have a problem with finding your recomended read on the net. Were can I put my hands on it?

[HooKs]

Originally Posted by emotion

Hooks, I have a problem with finding your recomended read on the net. Were can I put my hands on it?

If you did not find it on the net, then most probably its not available in english online.

Don't know, but try to find the book, Democracy and National Security in Israel. You will have to buy it.. or,

here is a suggestion.. if you have any of your friends studying at a university where they have Israeli Studies section/department, let him/her locate it in the library of the department and photocopy it for you.

There are tons of literature on Israeli decision making, security system, democracy, politics, religion and state, army, intelligence, etc. All by Israeli academics, researchers, and retired politicians and army officers.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

Again, you’re very mistaken Tai. You’re thinking in terms of materialistic gain and loss, you have to go to the strategic level to understand the meaning of the peace treaties. Egypt was forced to have a demilitarized zone in the Sinai basically assuring Israel a zero chance of Egypt ever attempting to wage war on Israel.

Hi, me back, 4U

How can I be wrong when you confirm with own arguments that I am not? The key flaw in your above statement is your "conditional chance" of Egypt attempting to wage war on Israel. Seen from the Israelis "strategical" point of view, it is indeed a big advantage to not have Egyptian forces stationed close to its borders, "just in case.. if in the future, etc..".

However, considered from the Egyptians angle, why should they care for wanting to have armed forces near Israel's borders anyway, when they per se have declared peace with Israel? Those people have signed a permanent peace in which they do not only declare that war against Israel is over for their part, they are furthermore confirming that also the will to fight future wars against Israel is now scraped for ever, or at least till further notice. Remember, this is the Egyptians perspective, irrespective of what we, the dudes over here, think of such agreement in terms of "cause betrayal, self deception, mud eating etc..". In short, when you declare that you don't want war anymore, demilitarized zones become an obsolete and insignificant factor in any following peace agreement. And this is valid for both sides. Even though the comparison doesn't really stand, the whole western Europe is a demilitarized zone. Demilitarization is the essence and prerequisite for permanent peace between bordering countries, and as such, I don't see how both the Israelis and the Egyptians could have reached a so called peace agreement without this basic premise.

Originally Posted by 4U2IMI8

In Jordan, like I stated in my previous most, the term were too ridiculous to mention from the land grab, to the water rights. In both cases the agreement was not in the best interest of neither Egypt nor Jordan as nations, but was meant to secure the ruling regimes in place as long as they respected it. A double edged sword giving Israel what it exactly wanted from both nations, and at the same time applying the infamous Zionist theory of separate and rule.
What Israel wanted from Egypt and Jordan, Israel got. At the same time other Arabic nations started falling into the peace trend which was advantageous to Israel in terms of economy and stability, yet disastrous to the Arab nations in terms of outrage amongst the citizens and the inception of resistance movements opposing the regimes.

However debatable the territorial gain the Israelis might have pinched from Jordan is, I will demonstrate how the economic relations clause in those peace treaties are of far more vital importance to an entity such as Israel. Keef ma baramta, Israel needs to maintain a steady curve of prosperity and economic development in order for the "promised land" to be able to keep attracting Jews from everywhere, and also to keep gluing the existent ones on spot. Without healthy economic dynamics this can not be achieved.

You wrote previously that the Israeli society is par excellence a militarized society on many levels, which I also agreed to. If wars feed many mouths and bellies in such society, what shall those consume at times of total peace? A significant portion of Israel's economy is nurtured by its military industries and the defense sector. Hear this, an excerpt from an article written by By Sharon Sadeh titled Israel's Beleaguered Defense Industry:


The growth of the Israeli defense industry was a combination of policy and circumstances. The realization that, despite the traumatic experience of the Holocaust, the Jewish state was still subjected to existential threats by the Muslim world, have led to the psychological as well as material institutionalization of the Centrality of Security concept. This perception has been strengthened by various arms embargoes and broken agreements inflicted by foreign suppliers.

Consequently, Israel's policymakers allowed a rapid expansion of the state-owned arms industries and their involvement in the production of indigenous state-of-the-art weapon systems. The industries became the largest manufacturing and technological sector in Israel, employing tens of thousands, most of them organized in strong unions, and contributing enormously to the Israeli military qualitative edge, the nation's diplomatic efforts and its economy.

The shift in the IDF's procurement policy, following the 1979 Camp David peace treaty with Egypt, effectively ended the industry's raison d'être. The growing dependence on American weaponry deprived the Israeli companies of their most important client and sales promoter, and forced them to rely on foreign customers to ensure sufficient revenues. This exposed them to the cyclical nature of the arms exports market and to fluctuations in the official rate of exchange.


Hence plays the military industry and the defense sector a major role in Israels economy. For a foreign body in a hostile environment that so far has relied on the concept of defense as a strategical propeller for its continuous development, peace treaties that do not blow life into its economic veins are therefore completely useless. Being at a state of Peace with its environment will therefore deprive Israel from one of its important engines, in addition to the western foreign economic and other facilities and aid packages it gets for being in a state of war.

To compensate for those estimated losses, a state of peace will have to offer the Israelis something else in return: Normalization of the economical interaction with its neighbors. What has been evident thus far, in spite of its peace treaties with Jordan and Egypt, no economic relations worth mentioning did take place between those countries and Israel. The normal arab in those countries is still reluctant to swallow an Israeli grown Orange, and beyond few occasional and one-way bus trips to the pyramids or Tyra, Israelis are still "frozen out" in those arab markets.

Imagine now the same "peace" mistake repeated on the syrian and lebanese fronts. Say we, the syrians and the palestinians are able one day to come to some "Okey" agreement with the israelis. Say some, not all, our, the syrians and the palestinians conditions for peace are met and that the same goes for the Israelis on the other end. We all shake hands and kiss in front of cameras and with large smiles we tell them: Hi and welcome, let us exchange embassies and smoke the pipe of peace and eternal friendship... At home however, we let the average arab's anti-israeli nature take its natural course, and lay back and watch..

There will be no more cries à la "ya mama, we poor jews are threatened to be evaporated by those lebanese/syrians/iranians/jordanians/egyptians/palestinians", addressed at and to be quickly heard by the west's Jew-sensible ears. This means less and less emotional blackmail possibilities for Israel to use in order to get economic artificial oxygen pumped into its lungs. And in addition to the withering of Israels own domestic military sector that naturally would follow, the wheel of the Israeli economy will most probably come to a serious halt within a decade or two.. This, and we haven't even touched yet the demography factor.

[Abufijli]

Originally Posted by J.Hanna

4u, what exactly did israel get from egypt and jordon? you said the peace agreement gave israel what it wanted from them....what did it get other than peace? Egypt and Jordon are soverign, indpendent nations. Israel has never once violated their soveriegnties scince they signed the peace agreement. Please explain.

That is not entirely true, Israel has, on mnay occasions shot dead Egyptian and Jordanian border police. Their excuse is that they thought they were teghoghists, could be true, but that is a violation of their soverignty. Shooting at people across the border is a serious violation.

[Abufijli]

Originally Posted by taifoon

see the bold, here parts our routes of reasoning. That is totally wrong, friend.
The peace with Egypt and Jordan gave Israel nil, zero, nada nothing rien.. Save for worthless embassy exchange and occasional israeli tourist buses driving around the pyramids or Tyra, the economic interaction on wide scale which the israelis drooled for with these countries did never take place. This is a fact. For this, many Israeli extremists and pure blood zionists have been popping up on regular basis to remind the peace-for-land lobbyists of their vain efforts. Those who thought that a peace treaty on paper is capable to eradicate, in a puff, decades of fossilized arabic animosity against a foreign state like Israel, thought wrong. And since Israel's bets for peace was better economical outlooks via a hoped for interaction with those Egyptian and Jordanian markets, time has proved this didn't work.

By neutralising Egypt, and removing it from the Arab_Israeli conflict Israel made massive gains.

Egypt is the most powerful/populated Arab country, remove them from the equation and you have made your life a lot easier.

[Mar1K]

Originally Posted by Abufijli

By neutralising Egypt, and removing it from the Arab_Israeli conflict Israel made massive gains.

Egypt is the most powerful/populated Arab country, remove them from the equation and you have made your life a lot easier.

Correction, neutralising means Egypt is neutral when it's not. Mbarak is clearly on the Zionists side.

[taifoon]

Originally Posted by Abufijli

By neutralising Egypt, and removing it from the Arab_Israeli conflict Israel made massive gains.

Egypt is the most powerful/populated Arab country, remove them from the equation and you have made your life a lot easier.

Sure thing. But considering only this one fragment of the elephant in the dark, does not help draw the entire picture of that elephant. What use does Israel have of such an "out of equation" Egypt, if it gets peace with all the rest? This is what we are discussing here.

[emotion]

Originally Posted by taifoon

Sure thing. But considering only this one fragment of the elephant in the dark, does not help draw the entire picture of that elephant. What use does Israel have of such an "out of equation" Egypt, if it gets peace with all the rest? This is what we are discussing here.

They don't and never wanted peace with the rest. The whole purpose with taking Egypt out of the equation was to make the situation bearable/controlable so that they wont need to compromise on other fronts. Especially the palestinian one.