I say Israel is in the clear wrt. Lebanon in my book, because I'm willing to cut them some slack here. There may be points of genuine dispute, and it'll have to be ironed out, but after all, Israel undertook a unilateral action (true, forced), and so deserves the benefit of doubt. It makes no sense to pound on Israel in this case. From here on, the Hezbollah and the Syrians (Iranians etc.) are simply spoilers.
And making a big deal over 200 meters only goes to further illustrate Israel's hopelessly tiny size, in terms of military survival.
I strongly disagree with you Carl. If you are going to talk about size affecting security, then it is only true when you talk about meaningful differences. If the difference is between the size of France vs the size of Monaco - yes, it makes a difference. But if you are talking about the size of Monaco vs the size of Monaco +/- 200 meters, then NO it does not make any difference. Sort of like arguing "well we have this torpedo coming at us, and our wooden fishing boat is 15 feet long - Gosh I wish it was 15.5 feet long" - had you said "Gosh I wish it was a battleship 500 yards long", you'd have a point.
But my disagreement goes deeper. I simply do not believe that Israel's security is dependent on size (the idiotic argument made for keeping settler's outposts) - these few plots of land don't make a nickle's worth of a difference security-wise - Israel would have to take over all of Northern Africa in order to feel GEOGRAPHICALLY safe - if size were to matter. Rather, Israel's security lies in other things. First, it must remove the will to destroy it - or diminish it drastically (as I advocate, by removing the root causes - as these few parcels of stolen land, just as the "INsecurity zone" are the real source of danger). Second, in this day and age of WMD on the horizon, it won't matter one bit if Israel has 200 meters here or there. It is not territory. Israel must depend on intelligence services and crucially, must secure the cooperation of OTHER nation's security services, especially Arab ones - for awhile they had a good thing going with the PA in that regard. Third, Israel's security depends on having prosperous neighbors who see Israel as a valuable economic partner, where they have a web of mutual dependancy and are part of the neighborhood, not as a vicious colonial regime bent on keeping them subjugated and humiliated. Trade, not war. Fourth - give the Arabs something to lose - something tangible, not empty promises and sorry bantustans, for that will not wash - if they have a country of their own, they'll be too busy building and keeping up with the joneses to entertain the terrorist nonsense and risk it all to complete chaos. Fifth, Israel's security depends on having democratic secular neighbors who are not corrupt. Israel has done everything to undermine the secular alternative in Palestine, and the only thing left are the PIJ, Hamas, and other extremists. Sixth, Israel's security depends on good relations with the rest of the world, so that their trade and economic ties are not affected by questions of legitimacy, investment climate etc. Seventh, and this is extremely important, Israel's security depends on having a citizenry that is free to be creative and democratic and a good place to live - otherwise the best minds emigrate - you can't create such a state by engaging in crimes on a daily basis. This is all tough, and not all within Israeli power (f.ex. corruption of Arab regimes). But that's what Israeli security depends on far more than 200 meters here or there. It is really not about territory at the end of the day (pieces of dirt and stones). WMD are not going to be abolished by 200 meters security zone. It takes a lot, a great lot more than that. |
