Seeking Peace Instead of Victory

[Jake_Ellison]

For those who don't know what happened a few years ago:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_...engagement_plan

Since that day, Hamas has taken over the city of Gaza and the Gaza Strip, and they are using its infrastructure and the aid being sent to it from around the world to manufacture and launch rockets into Israel, for the sole purpose of causing terror among the civilians who live in Israel proper. (not in territories that were occupied in '67, but areas they could only claim by claiming the whole of Israel)

While I was glad to finally hear some great news from the region: Israel hits over 100 targets (all Police stations destroyed in Gaza), I worry about whether Olmert will have the courage to see this through, and reduce Hamas in Gaza to what the Nazis were reduced to in Berlin, in the spring of 1945.

Watching his press conference this Saturday evening (Jerusalem time), I think he plans to keep up the offensive for now, so I decided to create a new topic to discuss :

1. the strategic goals, tactics Israel should choose, their chances of succeeding in them etc.

(Unfortunately the press conference didn't present any such goals, as far as I could tell, it was just a rundown of the events.-I did tune in late though)

2. The causes of why this offensive is again necessary, despite (well I think "because of" fits better than "despite", actulally) Israel having given up all territory it could be expected to give up years ago, in Gaza.

[The Wrath]

My 2 cents:

While Israel has a moral right to defend itself, I think a large-scale bombing like this is a huge strategic mistake. The blockade has served only to increase support for Hamas, and this isn't going to make the situation any better. This will just allow Hamas to say "see, we were right all along."

[Jake_Ellison]

My 2 cents:

While Israel has a moral right to defend itself, I think a large-scale bombing like this is a huge strategic mistake. The blockade has served only to increase support for Hamas, and this isn't going to make the situation any better. This will just allow Hamas to say "see, we were right all along."

If it stops now, then I agree, that's exactly what it will do. I also agree that the blockade was a bad tactic to use against rockets being fired. (It's like giving out a modest fine to a gang of murderous bank robbers.)

However, if the air strikes continue (on an increasing scale), until they stop firing rockets, and promise never to resume the violence, then this strategy will have solved the problem.

[The Wrath]

Since 1967, the strategy of the rejectionist Arabs has been to win over world opinion by causing Israel to overreact. It works. It is in the interests of Palestinian terrorist groups to provoke Israel into killing scores of Palestinians. This sort of operation simply causes more moral condemnation of Israel and more support of Palestinian groups. Hamas will not be defeated by this strategy, unless Israel is willing to exterminate the majority of Gaza's population.

Putting aside moral concerns about such an operation, it would be about the worst thing--strategically speaking--that Israel could do. Sure, it might relegate Hamas to the ranks of the irrelevant, but it will also raise such anti-Israel sentiment across the Middle East and the rest of the world, the likes of which we have never seen. Leaders of Arab governments already use anti-Israeli sentiment to demagogue their populations...think what it would be like if Israel waged a campaign like that.

While it is unrealistic to expect Israel to keep offering olive branches to Hamas, it is equally unrealistic to expect it to wage an all-out war in Gaza, since doing so is a good way to ensure decades more of conflict with the Arab world. I don't claim to know what the proper solution is...but I know that, if this is the best option, then Israel is pretty screwed.

[fletch]

Since 1967, the strategy of the rejectionist Arabs has been to win over world opinion by causing Israel to overreact. It works. It is in the interests of Palestinian terrorist groups to provoke Israel into killing scores of Palestinians. This sort of operation simply causes more moral condemnation of Israel and more support of Palestinian groups. Hamas will not be defeated by this strategy, unless Israel is willing to exterminate the majority of Gaza's population.

I am not sure that moral condemnation by ones enemies is a good reason to avoid the actions necessary here, or anywhere. Can Israel really be more reviled in the Arab world than it already is? It is Hamas in Gaza that wants war with Israel, Israel should give it to them. It should lay siege to the entire area, tightening the noose street by street. Unarmed civilians should be allowed to gather their possessions and flee across Israel to be relocated permanently in the West Bank. Those loyal to Hamas who do not surrender will be killed. When Gaza falls to the Israeli army, they bulldoze it, fumigate it, and make it a permanent part of the Israeli state. The Palestinians can live behind the walls in the West Bank.

While it is unrealistic to expect Israel to keep offering olive branches to Hamas, it is equally unrealistic to expect it to wage an all-out war in Gaza, since doing so is a good way to ensure decades more of conflict with the Arab world.

Their current stance has done nothing but bring them decades of conflict with the Arab world. Any attempt to appease the Arab world will only lengthen the conflict. The only avenue to peace is through victory.

[Maximus]

Their current stance has done nothing but bring them decades of conflict with the Arab world. Any attempt to appease the Arab world will only lengthen the conflict. The only avenue to peace is through victory.

Absolutely. Peace through superior firepower. And, the will to use it.

[The Wrath]

I am not sure that moral condemnation by ones enemies is a good reason to avoid the actions necessary here, or anywhere.

It's not the moral condemnation that matters, but the resulting lack of security.

Can Israel really be more reviled in the Arab world than it already is?

Absolutely. Don't forget that Israel is at peace with the whole Arab world, with the exceptions of Syria, Iran (well, not technically Arab, but still Muslim), and certain Palestinian factions. It also has normal diplomatic relations with both Jordan and Egypt, and it is certainly in Israel's interest for those relations not to become sour.

It is Hamas in Gaza that wants war with Israel, Israel should give it to them. It should lay siege to the entire area, tightening the noose street by street.

This is very simplistic. It sounds nice, but just isn't practical. Such a strategy will only increase hostility towards Israel. If you think Israel has to put up with a lot of terrorism now, just wait until they carpet bomb Gaza. It might not be so bad for a while, but you'd end up seeing an increase of foreign funding to the Palestinian groups, Lebanese Hizballah, etc., not to mention less patience from the rest of the world. I know, I know, world opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the result of that opinion.

Unarmed civilians should be allowed to gather their possessions and flee across Israel to be relocated permanently in the West Bank. Those loyal to Hamas who do not surrender will be killed.

So, what you're saying is that members of Hamas just need to show up to border checkpoints without weapons, then they will be allowed to go to the West Bank where they will have time to regroup?

When Gaza falls to the Israeli army, they bulldoze it, fumigate it, and make it a permanent part of the Israeli state.

The only Israelis who think this is a reasonable strategy are the religious nutjobs that kind of resemble a Jewish Taliban. Once again, if you think Israel's security is precarious now, just wait until you see what happens after they carry out this strategy. Whatever support Israel has will vanish and hostility towards it will increase tenfold.

The Palestinians can live behind the walls in the West Bank.

Well, ultimately, I would love for there to be a peaceful Palestinian state that can exist without walls. Even so, you make it sound like that will end terrorism against Israel. It won't. Hamas still exists in the West Bank.

Their current stance has done nothing but bring them decades of conflict with the Arab world. Any attempt to appease the Arab world will only lengthen the conflict. The only avenue to peace is through victory.

And since when does defeat mean the Arabs will stop trying to destroy Israel? Do I need to recount all the times that Israel has handed the Arab world its own ass on a silver platter? The rejectionist Arabs are, quite possibly, the only people in all of recorded history who suffer resounding defeats and then immediately demand the unconditional surrender of the victor. "Peace through superior firepower" hasn't worked. Egypt and Syria even launched the Yom Kippur war knowing that they were going to lose. They have admitted this. Why did they do it? To bring international attention to their complaints. I will note, for the record, that Egypt signed a peace accord with Israel in exchange for the Sinai. That doesn't mean that a land-for-peace deal would work with Hamas, but I just use it as an example in which all-out war was not necessary for Israel to gain peace from one of its primary antagonists.

[Jake_Ellison]

Putting aside moral concerns about such an operation, it would be about the worst thing--strategically speaking--that Israel could do. Sure, it might relegate Hamas to the ranks of the irrelevant, but it will also raise such anti-Israel sentiment across the Middle East and the rest of the world, the likes of which we have never seen. Leaders of Arab governments already use anti-Israeli sentiment to demagogue their populations...think what it would be like if Israel waged a campaign like that.

I think the only way to decide upon a course of action in any matter is by analyzing the available information. In matters such as war our main source of information is history.

What, in human history, leads you to believe that appeasement or restraint against an enemy who is ideologically conditioned to attack you (and is in fact attacking you at the present time), is the right course of action? When has such an enemy been stopped, unless they were facing the certain knowledge that any attack would mean their total destruction?

These calls for restraint, coming from Europe and America are completely baseless. Not a single western politician has offered a single rational argument to why preserving the status-quo is in Israel's best interest. Their only argument is the threat of withholding aid (from America), and cutting off trade (from Europe), and that may work to convince Israel, but it is the most vile tactic to use against an ally (to protect an enemy), the most self-defeating act they could perform. I'd say it is time for Israel to call their bluff, and prove once and for all that both the Europeans bureaucrats and the American politicians are powerless to carry out such absurd threats.

As far as the Arabs are concerned, what they think is completely irrelevant: they live in dictatorships, and their dictators are fully aware of the consequences of attacking Israel, so they will never do it.

[The Wrath]

I think the only way to decide upon a course of action in any matter is by analyzing the available information. In matters such as war our main source of information is history.

What, in human history, leads you to believe that appeasement or restraint against an enemy who is ideologically conditioned to attack you (and is in fact attacking you at the present time), is the right course of action? When has such an enemy been stopped, unless they were facing the certain knowledge that any attack would mean their total destruction?

First of all, I am not advocating appeasement. Secondly, are you just going to ignore the example I just gave of Egypt? Thirdly, are you going to ignore the countless examples of the rejectionist Arabs being humiliated and still not throwing in the towel?

These calls for restraint, coming from Europe and America are completely baseless. Not a single western politician has offered a single rational argument to why preserving the status-quo is in Israel's best interest. Their only argument is the threat of withholding aid (from America), and cutting off trade (from Europe), and that may work to convince Israel, but it is the most vile tactic to use against an ally (to protect an enemy), the most self-defeating act they could perform. I'd say it is time for Israel to call their bluff, and prove once and for all that both the Europeans bureaucrats and the American politicians are powerless to carry out such absurd threats.

As far as the Arabs are concerned, what they think is completely irrelevant: they live in dictatorships, and their dictators are fully aware of the consequences of attacking Israel, so they will never do it.

You are completely missing my point. From a strategic point of view, whether or not Western politicians are right to condemn Israel is irrelevant. It does Israel no good if they stand up to the rest of the world and say "we've got it right and you're all wrong," if the result is a further decrease in security.

Your statement that the opinions of the Arabs are "irrelevant" only speaks to your lack of serious thought on this issue. Israel's own security depends on keeping good relations with the moderates in the region and on not going out of its way to piss off the rest. Unless you're going to argue that Israel should militarily conquer the rest of the Middle East (which it can't do, anyway), then your statement that Arab opinion "doesn't matter" is simplistic and unfounded. I also love your statement about how Arab leaders would never attack Israel, because they know what the consequences are. How many times to I have to point out Israel's past wars? Did you forget to read my point about the Yom Kippur war?

Edited December 28, 2008 by The Wrath

[Jake_Ellison]

The only Israelis who think this is a reasonable strategy are the religious nutjobs that kind of resemble a Jewish Taliban.

Really? Any beheadings in stadiums in Tel-Aviv , any destruction of ancient monuments, because they are against God, in Jerusalem? Any training camps from which suicide bombers are sent to fly planes into buildings? Any women being beaten in public if they are caught without a male escort?

How exactly do they resemble the Taliban?

Once again, if you think Israel's security is precarious now, just wait until you see what happens after they carry out this strategy.

How about telling us what would happen? (and tell us why you think so as well, instead of making predictions about the future without giving a single clue as to what makes you think that is what will happen)

[The Wrath]

Really? Any beheadings in stadiums in Tel-Aviv , any destruction of ancient monuments, because they are against God, in Jerusalem? Any training camps from which suicide bombers are sent to fly planes into buildings? Any women being beaten in public if they are caught without a male escort?

How exactly do they resemble the Taliban?

It's a bit of an exaggeration, but their desire to fuse religion with politics resembles that of the Taliban.

How about telling us what would happen? (and tell us why you think so as well, instead of making predictions about the future without giving a single clue as to what makes you think that is what will happen)

Are you going to respond to any of the examples I've given in my last two posts? I'm not going to predict the specifics about what happen, because such predictions are always wrong. Who would have predicted that the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand would have set off a world war? I have given ample reason for my opinion that your suggested strategy would result in a decrease in security, and if you choose to not respond to the reasoning I provided in my posts, then that is your problem, not mine.

And since when does defeat mean the Arabs will stop trying to destroy Israel? Do I need to recount all the times that Israel has handed the Arab world its own ass on a silver platter? The rejectionist Arabs are, quite possibly, the only people in all of recorded history who suffer resounding defeats and then immediately demand the unconditional surrender of the victor. "Peace through superior firepower" hasn't worked. Egypt and Syria even launched the Yom Kippur war knowing that they were going to lose. They have admitted this. Why did they do it? To bring international attention to their complaints. I will note, for the record, that Egypt signed a peace accord with Israel in exchange for the Sinai. That doesn't mean that a land-for-peace deal would work with Hamas, but I just use it as an example in which all-out war was not necessary for Israel to gain peace from one of its primary antagonists.

Perhaps this part of my post was invisible. Allow me to repost it for all to see.

Edited December 28, 2008 by The Wrath

[fletch]

It's not the moral condemnation that matters, but the resulting lack of security.

What security do they have now? Israel is an armed camp in a perpetual state of war, threatened by its neighbors with annihilation, under constant attack, who have to fear the simple act of going to a nightclub, a café, or boarding a bus, and has to build walls around itself to keep the barbarians out. Is that the security you want to keep as the status quo?

The only Israelis who think this is a reasonable strategy are the religious nutjobs that kind of resemble a Jewish Taliban. Once again, if you think Israel's security is precarious now, just wait until you see what happens after they carry out this strategy. Whatever support Israel has will vanish and hostility towards it will increase tenfold.

How will that hostility manifest itself? Will the Arabs be pissed? Sure, but what the hell are they going to do about it? It reminds me of some of the arguments made against the US going into Afghanistan and Iraq--"The Arabs will hate us even more than they do now." "It was the presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia that made Bin Laden attack us in the first place." If we go into Iraq, they are really going to be mad." Well, it didnt happen. If Israel wipes out the Palestinians, the Arabs will march in the street, chant death to America and Israel, burn a bunch of flags, then go back to their routine of bowing to Mecca fifty times a day. If these irrational, stone-aged mystics had any real love for the Palestinians, they would welcome them into their own Arab land as brothers. They do not. Theirs is not a love of Palestinians, but a hatred for Israel.

[The Wrath]

What security do they have now? Israel is an armed camp in a perpetual state of war, threatened by its neighbors with annihilation, under constant attack, who have to fear the simple act of going to a nightclub, a café, or boarding a bus, and has to build walls around itself to keep the barbarians out. Is that the security you want to keep as the status quo?

I'm not suggesting that they keep the status quo, and I have already stated that I don't know what the solution is. I am just offering the opinion that the strategy of obliterating Gaza is likely to make it much, much worse.

How will that hostility manifest itself? Will the Arabs be pissed? Sure, but what the hell are they going to do about it?

It might not be so bad for a while, but you'd end up seeing an increase of foreign funding to the Palestinian groups, Lebanese Hizballah, etc., not to mention less patience from the rest of the world. I know, I know, world opinion doesn't matter. What matters is the result of that opinion.

It also has normal diplomatic relations with both Jordan and Egypt, and it is certainly in Israel's interest for those relations not to become sour.

If Israel wipes out the Palestinians, the Arabs will march in the street, chant death to America and Israel, burn a bunch of flags, then go back to their routine of bowing to Mecca fifty times a day.

And increasing funds to Hizballah, and reconstituting networks in the West Bank, etc. Oh yeah, and there are several Palestinian rejectionist groups that follow secular ideologies.

If these irrational, stone-aged mystics had any real love for the Palestinians, they would welcome them into their own Arab land as brothers. They do not. Theirs is not a love of Palestinians, but a hatred for Israel.

Well, you're right here, but it turns out that that doesn't matter. The Arab governments couldn't care less about the Palestinians. But that doesn't mean they can't use the issue to demagogue their own populations and drum up support for their own regimes. They have to portray themselves as actively fighting the "Zionist entity," if they want to remain in power.

[Jake_Ellison]

Did you forget to read my point about the Yom Kippur war?

I started writing my answer to your previous post before you posted your answer to fletch, so I didn't have that point available.

However, I've read it now, and your conclusion is that the Arabs, unlike any people with evil ideology dominating them in the past, are for some reason invincible, so we might as well give up and try to get along with them no matter what they do.

You do not give a reason as to why they are so special, and the way you reach this conclusion is questionable: the Yom Kippur war was not a total defeat of the Arabs. At the time that was not possible, because of the Soviets.

An example of total defeat would be the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2. Such a defeat of Gaza is entirely within the reach of the IDF, and the Soviet Union is not there anymore to prevent them from finishing the job. Again, if you believe someone else will intervene, please name them and their means of defeating Israel. You should also add the reason why you think America will stand by and let it happen.(whoever this mighty attacker is)

[Mammon]

I think The Wrath hits on a good point. No matter what Israel does, it doesn't seem to help them any. I think a war of ideas need to waged first to diffuse the opinions that make that possible. I'm going to go on a limb here and suggest Israel do nothing, actually. Let the Palestinians attack them over and over again and they can reverse the sympathies, perhaps.

Of course it's not that simple.

If Israel destroys Gaza, their neighbors will destroy or attempt to destroy them. The case needs to be made against Palestine first before bombings should be brought to the table.

[fletch]

It also has normal diplomatic relations with both Jordan and Egypt, and it is certainly in Israel's interest for those relations not to become sour.

If that relationship relies upon Israel being an eternal punching bag for Hamas, then the relations with those countries are only of so much value. The people of Gaza have elected to power a group who seeks the destruction of Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself, and annihilate those who seek to destroy it. If suicide bombers and mortars were hitting the US every day from Mexico, I suspect you would be calling for the Marines and not worrying about what the Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans thought about it.

[The Wrath]

I started writing my answer to your previous post before you posted your answer to fletch, so I didn't have that point available.

Fair enough.

However, I've read it now, and your conclusion is that the Arabs, unlike any people with evil ideology dominating them in the past, are for some reason invincible, so we might as well give up and try to get along with them no matter what they do.

You do not give a reason as to why they are so special,

I recommend the book The Tragedy of the Middle East by Barry Rubin. One of the reasons he cites for the Middle East's continuing plight is that its rulers have been able to convince the people that correct ideology is more important than standard of life. Thus, as long as they keep repeating the mantra that all their troubles can be blamed on Israel and the West, they don't need to rectify their own internal problems. This is the reason why the Middle East remains more or less the only region on earth that does not--at least nominally--accept Western methods of government. Even other third world regions have learned enough to know that they at least have to put up a front of democratic government.

Rubin contrasts this with Europe, which, for centuries, was just as much of a basket case as the Middle East is today. But, after 2 world wars, Europe was able to pull itself together to the point that various nations now exist in harmony, recognizing each other's borders, and respecting each other's harmony. Breaches of this peace have been very few and far between over the past 63 years. He argues that Europe pulled itself together because, unlike the Middle East, they realized that their problems were not all caused by external tormentors, and that they had internal problems that had to be rectified.

Why does the "external tormentor" excuse work in the Middle East when it didn't work in Europe? I don't know. I'd like to say it's because they have such a strong religious tradition but, then again, so does Europe. I don't know why, but the fact that it works is more important than why it works. As long as the Arab governments maintain the ability to blame all of their ills on Israel and the West, it won't matter how bad their internal situation is, because they will not do anything to change it. Waging a military campaign against Hamas in Gaza is one thing but it is an entirely different animal to expel the Arab population of Gaza and then annex it to Israel proper, which is what someone was suggesting. All that does is feed fuel to the fire and convince the Arab populations that Hamas was right about Israel's expansionist, imperialist goals.

and the way you reach this conclusion is questionable: the Yom Kippur war was not a total defeat of the Arabs. At the time that was not possible, because of the Soviets.

The Arabs have suffered total defeat in the past. This was certainly not as bad a defeat as the 1967 war, but the salient point is that Syria and Egypt knew that they would lose, but decided to launch the war anyway.

An example of total defeat would be the defeat of Nazi Germany in WW2.

You can't seriously mean to compare a modern (for the time), industrialized country with a relatively new ideology (Nazism) to a fundamentalist shithole with an ideology that has been ingrained for centuries.

Such a defeat of Gaza is entirely within the reach of the IDF, and the Soviet Union is not there anymore to prevent them from finishing the job. Again, if you believe someone else will intervene, please name them and their means of defeating Israel. You should also add the reason why you think America will stand by and let it happen.(whoever this mighty attacker is)

You are still missing the point. I'm not saying that organized armies are going to pour in and exterminate Israel's population. I'm saying that, long-term, such a strategy would result in a drastic decrease in security, because terrorist groups would be emboldened, they would receive more support from the general population, more recruits, and more funding from terrorist-sponsoring regimes, while Israel would receive less support from the rest of the world.

[The Wrath]

If that relationship relies upon Israel being an eternal punching bag for Hamas, then the relations with those countries are only of so much value.

Egypt and Jordan provide Israel its only 2 borders that are not under constant threat of invasion. I'd say they should go to great lengths to keep it that way, even if it means finding another way of fighting Hamas.

The people of Gaza have elected to power a group who seeks the destruction of Israel. Israel has the right to defend itself, and annihilate those who seek to destroy it.

Once again, you are completely missing the point. It isn't about whether or not Israel has the right to bomb Gaza back into the stone age. It's about whether or not doing so is in Israel's long-term security interests.

If suicide bombers and mortars were hitting the US every day from Mexico, I suspect you would be calling for the Marines and not worrying about what the Nicaraguans and Costa Ricans thought about it.

Firstly, suicide bombings are actually pretty rare. It's the rocket attacks that are the current concern.

Secondly, I cannot think of a more ridiculous comparison than the one you just made. On the one hand, you have the most powerful country in the history of the world with a population of 300 million people, dozens of major cities, strong allies in virtually every region of the world, and no other countries in the western hemisphere that possess nuclear weapons.

On the other hand, you have a country that is the size of a small New England state with less than 8 million people, 2 major cities, genocidal enemies on all sides, one nearby potentially hostile country (Pakistan) with nukes and another (Iran) seeking to build them.

[Jake_Ellison]

The Arabs have suffered total defeat in the past. This was certainly not as bad a defeat as the 1967 war, but the salient point is that Syria and Egypt knew that they would lose, but decided to launch the war anyway.

To my knowledge they were assured by the Soviets that it would never come to total defeat. And it never did. In fact they have lost very little in that conflict. If they found themselves in a war with Israel now, both regimes would be toppled as soon as they are defeated: both dictators will have lost everything, including their lives. So there's a huge difference, even if we don't bring up the hundreds of nukes Israel likely has as backup.

You can't seriously mean to compare a modern (for the time), industrialized country with a relatively new ideology (Nazism) to a fundamentalist shithole with an ideology that has been ingrained for centuries.

I think there's one relevant difference: the Nazis and Japanese fought to the last soldier, while these people tend to surrender to unarmed UAV's, and are about as organized as a trailer park after a tornado, once you drop a few bombs on them.

You're right, the comparison is a stretch.

You are still missing the point. I'm not saying that organized armies are going to pour in and exterminate Israel's population.

Then why are you bringing up Egypt and Syria, and their history of using those very armies when at an apparent disadvantage, in '67?

I'm saying that, long-term, such a strategy would result in a drastic decrease in security, because terrorist groups would be emboldened, they would receive more support from the general population, more recruits, and more funding from terrorist-sponsoring regimes, while Israel would receive less support from the rest of the world.

In my judgment logic dictates that those terror-groups will be emboldened by inaction, rather than the total defeat of Hamas in Gaza. Looking at history, my logic seems to apply at every turn.

If you believe responding with disproportionate violence to an attack emboldens an attacker, I believe you'll find that belief impossible to back up. Yo can try though, if you wish.

Also, Israel receives support of any significance only from the United States. For the sake of clarity, we should replace "support from the world" with "support from the US". I would argue that a long term cut in US aid to Israel is just not politically feasible in DC, no matter what happens. Few Members of Congress want to have it on their record that they voted in favor of leaving Israel to the wolves, so those 3 billion US$ or so /year are just about set in stone, and so is a military intervention in case Israel is in danger of being overwhelmed.

[fletch]

Once again, you are completely missing the point. It isn't about whether or not Israel has the right to bomb Gaza back into the stone age. It's about whether or not doing so is in Israel's long-term security interests.

No, what I am saying is that Israels long term security interests depend on Gaza, for one, not being a threat. Gazans want war, they have engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel should end the conflict once and for all and worry about mending relations later. The Egyptian and Jordanian borders will likely remain quiet regardless of what actions the Israelis take. Your error, I think is in placing too much value on world opinion. A swift, punishing defeat of Hamas will send the message to the world that the days of pandering, appeasement, concessions and withdrawl are over.

Firstly, suicide bombings are actually pretty rare.

Why is that, do you think?

Secondly, I cannot think of a more ridiculous comparison than the one you just made.

The comparison is valid. The difference, as you point out, is only a matter of scale.

[The Wrath]

To my knowledge they were assured by the Soviets that it would never come to total defeat. And it never did. In fact they have lost very little in that conflict. If they found themselves in a war with Israel now, both regimes would be toppled as soon as they are defeated: both dictators will have lost everything, including their lives. So there's a huge difference, even if we don't bring up the hundreds of nukes Israel likely has as backup.

The point you keep missing is that any such action would necessarily bring about a larger conflict that Israel is not equipped to win. This isn't to say that the Arab states would necessarily win. A more likely scenario is that everyone is worse off than before.

I think there's one relevant difference: the Nazis and Japanese fought to the last soldier, while these people tend to surrender to unarmed UAV's, and are about as organized as a trailer park after a tornado, once you drop a few bombs on them.

You're right, the comparison is a stretch.

Anyone who knows anything about Hizballah or Hamas would disagree with this. They are very organized. They are very committed. They do not surrender to UAVs.

Then why are you bringing up Egypt and Syria, and their history of using those very armies when at an apparent disadvantage, in '67?

The strategy of rejectionist Arabs has fundamentally shifted towards waging insurgent and terror wars, but the goals remain the same.

In my judgment logic dictates that those terror-groups will be emboldened by inaction, rather than the total defeat of Hamas in Gaza. Looking at history, my logic seems to apply at every turn.

Looking at history, your logic applies at most turns. It does not apply in the modern Middle East.

If you believe responding with disproportionate violence to an attack emboldens an attacker, I believe you'll find that belief impossible to back up. Yo can try though, if you wish.

Also, Israel receives support of any significance only from the United States.

This is not entirely true. Israel has military deals with numerous countries in Europe, particularly Germany.

For the sake of clarity, we should replace "support from the world" with "support from the US". I would argue that a long term cut in US aid to Israel is just not politically feasible in DC, no matter what happens. Few Members of Congress want to have it on their record that they voted in favor of leaving Israel to the wolves, so those 3 billion US$ or so /year are just about set in stone, and so is a military intervention in case Israel is in danger of being overwhelmed.

I wouldn't be too sure about this. Especially considering the recent Democratic takeover of the government. No US politician is going to be outright anti-Israel, but I wouldn't be surprised to see our support for them decrease.

[The Wrath]

No, what I am saying is that Israels long term security interests depend on Gaza, for one, not being a threat. Gazans want war, they have engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel should end the conflict once and for all and worry about mending relations later. The Egyptian and Jordanian borders will likely remain quiet regardless of what actions the Israelis take. Your error, I think is in placing too much value on world opinion. A swift, punishing defeat of Hamas will send the message to the world that the days of pandering, appeasement, concessions and withdrawl are over.

I know it goes against traditional Objectivist foreign policy, but...world opinion does matter. No country, especially one in as precarious a state as Israel, can afford to piss off the rest of the world.

Why is that, do you think?

Because when they happen every day, they lose their shock value? Considering that media coverage is the primary goal of terrorism, I'd say that's one pretty good reason.

The comparison is valid. The difference, as you point out, is only a matter of scale.

Yeah, and it's a pretty damn big difference of scale. Nicaragua and Costa Rica aren't nearly as powerful as the Arab states, and we are far more powerful than Israel. It's like comparing a game between a two high school football teams to a game between a middle school football team and the NFL Superbowl champion.

[Jake_Ellison]

Looking at history, your logic applies at most turns. It does not apply in the modern Middle East.

Logic applies.

Principles apply.

What are yours?

[Jake_Ellison]

Yeah, and it's a pretty damn big difference of scale. Nicaragua and Costa Rica aren't nearly as powerful as the Arab states, and we are far more powerful than Israel. It's like comparing a game between a two high school football teams to a game between a middle school football team and the NFL Superbowl champion.

Actually, you're right, it is exactly like those two football games. In both cases the object of the game is the same: you have to score touchdowns and stop the other side from scoring. If any one of the four sides decided to change their set of principles, they would be in big trouble: even the NFL champions. And the USA (which I assume is supposed to be the NFL team here) is, my friend, in big trouble, precisely because we decided not to throw the ball forward anymore. If Israel chooses to follow suite, imagine the trouble they'll be in.

The principle stays the same, irrespective of the scale. Both in football and in warfare. Now all that's left is for you to name the principles which support your advice and predictions.

[The Wrath]

Okay man, this is getting ridiculous. You can't sit here and continue asking me to provide logic and evidence to support my stance, when you are ignoring every point I've made in my posts. Instead, you are taking little snippets of my posts and responding with Sean Hannity-ish talking points and mindless bromides. I will not respond to any more posts of this nature. If you want me to respond to you from now on, you'll need to address the specific points that I make. I invite you to back through my posts and show me why the specific examples I've given are wrong.

PS: The football example was only meant to demonstrate the difference in balance of power. The parallels you just drew don't really apply, considering that the real world of international relations isn't as simple as Side A vs. Side B. It looks more like Side A with moral and financial support from allies vs. Side B with moral and financial support from its own allies + Side B proxies that are allowed to participate in the same game against you at the same time as side B vs potential Sides C-F which each participate in the game according to their own interests and seek to prevent either Sides A or B from scoring a touchdown.