What 's will happen If Israel loses the current war?

Answer 1

Israel won't lose. There's a bestseller out, it's called the Bible. Read the last chapter.

Answer 2

The problem is that we take Israels side no matter what. Thus, the west continually alienates the Arabic people. How do we solve the problem? We must no longer give Israel a blank check to have free reign in the region. Because at the moment they can do what they want, provoke the Arabs, and have the security that America and the west will defend them if they are dragged into war.

Answer 3

If Israel loses the war, then the drinks are on me! It's "Party Time"!

Answer 4

LOL as if it could ever happen, the only way it could ever be possible would be by total annihilation because it would have thrown a nuclear bomb in a nearby country. Otherwise, it has too many friends to possibly loose a war.

Answer 5

Stop Killing:
http://fromisraeltolebanon.info/

Do you think the Israeli military response inside Lebanon is justified?
Yes 44% 451124 votes
No 56% 572822 votes
Total: 1023946 votes
http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/26119.exclude.html

Answer 6

israel will loss this war becouse they dont fight hezbollah but they fight all lebanons who r ready to give their life for their lands
but israelian love life and they fear from death that is why they will loss the war against the true justice of lebanon

Answer 7

It's unlikely that the rest of the world will permit the conflict to have a "winner" or a "loser" in the traditional sense.

Answer 8

Unfortunately, that is not going to happen. But if by some miracle it does, then I will smile for the rest of my days.

Answer 9

firstly, it is not a "war." it is a bombardment and partial incursion/invasion of/into a sovereign nation. it is as much a "war" as the completely unprovoked and unjustified unilateral - well, with the laughable "coalition of the willing" - invasion and occupation of a sovereign iraq by the u.s.

some quick background on the current conflict: the hezbollah, while widely popular in lebanon, is not the government of lebanon. due to its wide support, and due to the relative ineffectiveness of the lebanese government, even if the lebanese government wanted to rid lebanon of the hezbollah, it would not be able to do so. the hezbollah, kidnapped two israeli soldiers with the stated intent to negotiate a "prisoner" swap with israel. israel has thousands of uncharged, indefinitely held palestinian and lebanese prisoners under its jurisdiction. israel has, in numerous occasions in the past, negotiated prisoner swaps in this manner. this time, in "retaliation" for a non-lebanese-government entity’s "kidnapping" of two members of its occupation forces, it has decided to destroy the very infrastructure of lebanese society, destroying airports, roads, bridges, power plants, water plants, food manufacturing plants, etc., in direct contravention of international laws. these are, in fact, "crimes against humanity" under u.n. laws. thus far, there have been about 400 lebanese civilian fatalities, with presumed thousands wounded. in comparison, israeli fatalities have numbered less than 1/10th of lebanese fatalities. israeli government states that it must take these aggressive steps to protect itself from missile attacks from a hostile enemy. it does not bother to state that those missiles are in retaliation for its own initial massive bombardment of lebanon. meanwhile, as all this ensues, capturing the singularly focused attention of the world corporate press, israel has been mounting a significant incursion into the gaza strip.

concerning the possibility that israel could "lose" the current conflict, i would surmise that there would be as much chance of that as there would be of dick cheney being human -- essentially none.

israel is strategically of paramount importance to the interests of the u.s.' ruling elite, and, as such, if for no other than for strictly practical reasons, would never be permitted to be defeated/marginalized. the existence and relative military prowess of israel in the middle east is a source of major instability in the region, which is precisely what u.s. rulers in fact desire, directly contrary to stated policies (this is by no means the only example of a situation in which there exists a diametrically opposed relationship between stated policy and true agenda).

moreover, israel is one of the world's foremost military powers, generally regarded to be among the top five. israel itself considers the capabilities of its military second only to the u.s., even beyond those of china, russia, all western european states.

that it is only a viable state thanks to direct u.s. taxpayer funded "aid," close to some $10 billion per year, by far more than to any other country, not including billions more in "loans" which are subsequently forgiven, seems to most to be merely academic. equally as academic seems to be the fact that the entire military infrastructure of the israel military is essentially u.s. sourced.

without allowing this answer to become too laborious, in short, as current global conditions and relations dictate, israel and its military can reasonably be seen as an extension of the u.s. and its military, and as the u.s. is the dominant world power bar none, an israeli "defeat" is unforeseeable.

of course, occupation is an entirely different matter, and, should israel decide to fully invade lebanon on the ground, it will in short time incur the same kind of rebellion that eventually led to its last withdrawl. after all, no power will ever be able to rule a united people who refuse its rule, short of effectively total extermination.

keep in mind, though, that truth is rarely seen leaving politicians’ lips (and of course relayed unfiltered via corporate "news"). israel is not, all logic should indicate, especially considering that it had negotiated prisoner exchanges many times in the past, punishing lebanon over two soldiers. it would just as soon kill the two soldiers itself if doing so would further israel’s agenda - the ultimate annexation of the entire occupied territories. why it’s attacking lebanon, in that case, is debatable. to weaken the lebanese government? its economy? to weaken the hezbollah enough to better maintain control over it (israel would certainly not want hezbollah’s total demise, as then there would be less to fear for the israeli public, less justification for its tough policies toward its neighboring states)? to divert world attention away from its clamp down in the gaza strip and elsewhere in the occupied territories? to implicate iran as an accomplice of lebanon’s “nefarious, terrorist tendencies,” thus further setting iran up for military action by the u.s.? again, debatable.

point is, if, as eminently possible, the attack of lebanon is simply a distraction, considering that israel doesn’t have the fondest memories of its last attempt at occupation of lebanon, it may not be unreasonable to not expect this to expand into a ground war.

Answer 10

It will perpetuate the terrorist activities all over the world.