The same old tactic, Little Hawk, first put words into my mouth then take me to task over them - pathetic.

"I would not reply to a "punch in the shoulder" by immediately chopping the other guy's head off with an ax or shooting him dead with a revolver, which appears to be what you are recommending." - Little Hawk

OK then Little Hawk where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of chopping off heads? Where in whatever I have said has there been any mention of shooting people dead? I did however mention this:

"my response will be that they will end up flat on their backs, in such a way that it will take them a very long time to get up"

Ever seen anybody who has had their head chopped off get up Little Hawk?

Ever seen anybody who has been shot dead with a revolver get up Little Hawk?

Very funny Barry - now go back and read what the premise under discussion here actually is. Perhaps Barry you can tell us how long, when faced with an external threat that Israel can afford to remain fully mobilised before the country ceases to function and suffers long term economical affects. I'll give you a clue Baz, it's what drove Israeli decisions and actions in the "Six Day War"

Now then let's take a look at what Little Hawk sees as being something vaguely approaching realistic and natural from an Israeli viewpoint.

1) "I would protect the borders of Israel and the people of Israel with every force at my command."

Realistic - That they already do.

2) "I would continue maintaining an elite military sufficient to deter Arab states from open war."

Realistic - That they already do in spite of the fact that both my enemies and my own forces are conscripted with their standing force levels being much superior in numbers to mine. I therefore have to convince my enemy that my fewer numbers can punch very much above their weight. I also must, at all cost, in any given situation, keep the initiative.

3a) "I would not make land invasions of Lebanon or anyone else, but I would defend my own border areas vigorously against any attacker."

3b) "If rocket attacks were made from Lebanon, I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets."

I've lumped these two together Little Hawk because to follow what you suggest would be a completely ineffective response to the scale and type of attacks that you claim to be defending vigorously against. Part b above, I would like confirmation, from you, on this. You seriously advocate attacking those people launching the rockets (Over 1000 per day at one stage by the way) with artillery and airstrikes in the full understanding and knowledge that those firing those rockets are doing so from selected sensitive locations surrounded by civilians. That is what you would do?

You make no mention that under the terms of the UN brokered cease-fire Hezbollah should have by now disarmed - no action has been taken on this by either the Lebanese Government, Lebanese Army, the UN or Syria. Under the terms of the same cease-fire agreement an arms embargo should have been put in place to starve Hezbollah of resupply of rockets and other weapons - no action has been taken on this, in fact since this measure was set Hezbollah's supplies of rockets and offensive weapons have never been higher.

Now faced with such circumstances, little hawk, your best defence is to push those firing the rockets back to a range where they can no longer reach your territory.

4) "I would not make pre-emptive attacks on other nations."

So in all seriousness you would wait for them to attack you, then respond. Hmm? Now would that response be in the form of vigorous defence of your border with every force at your command? Or would that response be "in a reasonably proportionate manner"?

Had the Israeli's followed your course of action Little Hawk they would have been wiped out in 1967.

The requirement for pre-emptive attacks was born with the nuclear weapon. As both a strategy and tactic it has been around, and has been accepted, by all for a long time.

5a) "I would negotiate a gradual return of the occupied lands in the Golan Heights and the West Bank, and I would gradually move the Israeli settlers out of the occupied areas, compensating them (the settlers) fully for whatever losses they suffered in that process, so that they would be able to re-establish themselves in Israel itself."

5b) "I would not keep expanding Israeli settlements on occupied land taken in Arab-Israeli conflicts, nor would I build a security wall in those areas. I might very well build a security wall along the Israeli borders themselves, however."


I would rather hope that this would extend right across the board Little Hawk - That it would also apply to the Arab side as well as the Israeli one. In which case the following should be returned to Israel as part of this process:

- Gaza (captured from Israel and annexed by Egypt in 1948);

- The whole of the West Bank of the Jordan (Captured from Israel and annexed by Jordan in 1948 - true enough they did relinquish their claim to it in 1988, according to the UN the current status of the West Bank is that of a territory "owned" by no-one at present);

- The area around the Sea of Galilee and the on the Golan defined by the 1923 Paulet-Newcombe line (Captured from Israel and annexed by Syria in 1948).

Now you're talking Little Hawk - If that is what you are actually advocating - or as usual should all the give in these negotiations be on the Israeli side.

But Israel unilaterally gave relinguished all claim to Gaza, abandoned its settlements there and handed the area over to the Palestinian Authority on the condition that indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel would not be launched from Gaza. The PA accepted this deal. Now tell us Little Hawk, did the indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population of Israel cease? Or did they continue as before? Did Israel respond to such attacks with, how did you advocate it - "I would reply to those attacks with artillery and airstrikes aimed at the people launching the rockets" - this they did and I sort of remember that at the time you objected strongly to them doing that - Now it's OK? Make up your mind chum, you can't have it both ways.

6) "I would openly declare to the world that yes, I do have nuclear weapons...approximately this many...and I am ready to use them anytime on anyone who launches a nuclear attack on Israel...or a conventional attack that appears to endanger the national survival of Israel (a successful Arab invasion, in other words...which is quite unlikely to occur, given the superiority of the Israeli forces on the battlefield)."

Yes I'd go along with that. Very pleased to see that you acknowledge precisely the threat that is posed to Israel by her neighbours - that of total destruction. It would work very well for neighbouring Governments, but totally ineffective as a deterrant to the terrorist organisations that those Governments support? How would this scenario be dealt with:

Iran secretly obtains nuclear weapons. It then supplies a couple of fairly low yield weapons to either Hezbollah or Hamas, who then smuggle them into Israel. Two cities are targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa. The bombs are detonated, what does Israel do? How does it respond, taking it for granted that after such an attck they are capable of responding? Now tell me what would make this unlikely, nay impossible to happen?. Please don't witter on about loss of Palestinian lives and effects of fall-out on neighbouring Arab countries, the Iranians couldn't give a fig about their own population let alone a bunch of strangers 1000 kilometers away.