Seeking Peace Instead of Victory

[Sir Andrew]

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.

That's true, only as long as Side A cares more about appeasing Sides B-F than scoring a touchdown.

In my opinion, they're getting as much done while Bush still leads Side C and they'll see where they stand when Obama takes office.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've been following the news regarding this latest outbreak of violence in the Middle East between Israel and Gaza, and it is very clear that Israel was minding its own business and then got barraged with rockets from Gaza.

The Palestinians just hate the Jews because of their ideology -- militant Islam -- and they will not leave the rest of the world alone to live their lives. Israel is a handy target to them, and if Israel went to full-scale war and took over those territories things would be so much for the better. Militant Islam and any state based on that ideology has no right to exist, precisely because it is not a peaceful ideology of live and let live. Militant Islam will not be satisfied until they force their way on everyone in the world, especially Israel.

In short, Israel should not stop its current retribution until Hamas agrees that it will not throw even a pebble in the direction of Israel.

[Jake_Ellison]

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.

One thing every concrete example one can think of, simple or complicated, has in common with all the others is this: actions that are lead by principles (integrations of human knowledge) are generally more effective than a set of what you call "points", drawn out of thin air. The reason why I am ignoring those points is because you are not providing the principles you're suggesting Israel's leaders should act on: you are just providing us with a series of guesses, while both fletch and I are applying, for better or for worse, principles.

I don't claim to know whether I am applying all the right ones, nor do I think that I have the information the IDF has, but at least I am trying to look at history, integrate the things I know about past wars fought against similar ideologies, and then come up with a general idea of what works and what doesn't in war.

Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.-Ayn Rand

So you're right, unless you can come up with something that is an abstract integration of knowledge, which applied to the concrete situation in Israel supports your suggestions, you should stop posting on the issue.

Edited December 28, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[The Wrath]

One thing every concrete example one can think of, simple or complicated, has in common with all the others is this: actions that are lead by principles (integrations of human knowledge) are generally more effective than a set of what you call "points", drawn out of thin air. The reason why I am ignoring those points is because you are not providing the principles you're suggesting Israel's leaders should act on: you are just providing us with a series of guesses, while both fletch and I are applying, for better or for worse, principles.

I don't claim to know whether I am applying all the right ones, nor do I think that I have the information the IDF has, but at least I am trying to look at history, integrate the things I know about past wars fought against similar ideologies, and then come up with a general idea of what works and what doesn't in war.

Concrete problems cannot even be grasped, let alone judged or solved, without reference to abstract principles.-Ayn Rand

So you're right, unless you can come up with something that is an abstract integration of knowledge, which applied to the concrete situation in Israel supports your suggestions, you should stop posting on the issue.

I am not drawing points out of thin air. I am taking examples from the history of the Middle East, analysis from Middle East experts (see the paragraphs I cited to Barry Rubin above) and applying them to the curent situation. The "principle" I am operating under is the long-term security interests of Israel. I am operating under the principle that it should be more important for a country to protect its own people, rather than to cause as much pain as possible to the enemy. Sometimes they go hand in hand. Not always. Case in point: Egypt. You are operating under the assumption that it is better to obliterate one particular enemy, even if that will, in the long run, cause you more pain when other enemies become emboldened and united against you.

Reply to the points I have made in previous posts, or this conversation is over.

[The Wrath]

I'm going to go ahead and submit an addendum to my previous posts:

I do not blame Israel for the deaths of civilians in Gaza. I blame Hamas. I recognize that Israel has the right to do what is in its best interests, without regards for whatever innocents may suffer, because I think the innocent suffering falls on the hands of the aggressor: Hamas.

In fact, here is a comment I just posted in response to an article on The Economist's website:

Jacques:

This is not an issue of whether or not Israeli lives are more important than Palestinian lives. It is an issue of whether or not Israel has a right to defend itself. There is a good argument that this is a strategic miscalculation but, in general, I do not believe that a country under attack should concern itself with the deaths of enemy civilians.

In this case, the blood for any innocent life that is lost is on the hands of Hamas. Hamas, and the other terrorist groups in the Levant, have consistently practiced a sort of anti-hedonistic calculus, whereby lives lost on either side of the conflict benefit the terrorist groups. They attack Israel with relative impunity, because they know that Israel will react with strikes of its own and that Israel will be blamed for civilian deaths.

Where is the international outcry against Hamas? Where are the demands that Hamas recognize Israel's right to exist? If Hamas were to confirm Israel's right to security within recognized borders, do you genuinely think that Israel would continue its strikes into Gaza?

Civilian deaths are always tragic. But the blame should fall on the aggressor: Hamas.

I am merely questioning whether this is a wise move, strategically. Because, for whatever reason, the conflicts in the Middle East have proven to be the exception to the rule of "defeat" causing a certain people or movement to abandon its previous goals.

[fletch]

I am merely questioning whether this is a wise move, strategically.

That remains to be seen. But Hamas has demonstrated that it has no interest in peace. Israel has to act. It can pursue its own safety and its own interests, or worry about what others might think. Is a long term relationship with neighbors like Egypt and Jordan important? Yes. But is it so important that you allow your citizens to continue to live in constant fear of attack in their own homes? I dont think so.

[The Wrath]

That remains to be seen. But Hamas has demonstrated that it has no interest in peace. Israel has to act. It can pursue its own safety and its own interests, or worry about what others might think. Is a long term relationship with neighbors like Egypt and Jordan important? Yes. But is it so important that you allow your citizens to continue to live in constant fear of attack in their own homes? I dont think so.

I don't really disagree with anything you're saying here. Our differences boil down to whether or not the opinions of others can have actual effects, on the ground. I think they can. As for the Egypt/Jordan question, I also agree. But I think a question that has to be asked is this:

Will decimating Hamas, at the expense of alienating moderate Arab allies, end up as a net loss for security?

My personal opinion is that, yes, it will. Everything that Hamas does is absolutely deplorable, and Israel absolutely needs to do something about it. I just think there needs to be a cost/benefit analysis. If defeating Hamas means alienating the only 2 Arab states with which Israel has normal diplomatic ties, I think the costs outweigh the benefits.

[fletch]

Will decimating Hamas, at the expense of alienating moderate Arab allies, end up as a net loss for security?

I dont know that Israel can count Egypt and Jordan as allies. At best ,they are non-aggressive neighbors. If push came to shove and Israel were attacked, neither of those two nations would lift a finger to help. They would probably secretly aid the attacker. It might be that Israel has been following the policy of trying to get along with nice Arabs while trying to get rid of the bad ones. Their efforts have brought them no closer to peace, nor has it lessened their 'most reviled nation on earth' status. Maybe they should stop listening to Mideast 'experts' and do what they need to do to survive. They should pursue what is in their interest and let the chips fall where they may.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Maybe they should stop listening to Mideast 'experts' and do what they need to do to survive. They should pursue what is in their interest and let the chips fall where they may.

Most so called Mid-East experts want appeasement with the Militant Muslims believing that this will bring peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only way to deal with those who want to wipe you off the face of the earth is to act in self-defense -- even preemptively -- to kill them before they kill you. Just as an individual has the right to self-defense, so does Israel; and just as a gun toten maniac has no right to go around shooting his neighbors, Hamas has no right to attack Israel. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is to let Israel defend itself openly, with praise from the West, and let the Militant Muslims understand that his way will lead to death -- his own -- and to hell with them for being that way.

All of this talk that the Arabs will be upset over the acts of self-defense by Israel is upon them and them alone. I personally don't give a damn that they are upset by Israel's existence -- they should learn not to be savages.

[The Wrath]

I dont know that Israel can count Egypt and Jordan as allies. At best ,they are non-aggressive neighbors. If push came to shove and Israel were attacked, neither of those two nations would lift a finger to help. They would probably secretly aid the attacker. It might be that Israel has been following the policy of trying to get along with nice Arabs while trying to get rid of the bad ones. Their efforts have brought them no closer to peace, nor has it lessened their 'most reviled nation on earth' status. Maybe they should stop listening to Mideast 'experts' and do what they need to do to survive. They should pursue what is in their interest and let the chips fall where they may.

This post only speaks to your general ignorance of the situation, especially if you think Jordan is providing covert support to Levantine terrorist groups. Egypt is perhaps best described as non-aggressive, but Jordan is absolutely an ally of Israel. And their efforts have not brought them closer to peace? Are you joking? What do you call their peace treaty with Egypt? They were damn close to peace with Syria and the PLO, before Arafat fucked it all up.

Also...you are still ignoring the fact that "what they need to do to survive" is the basis of my argument. How many times to I have to say "I think this is a strategic error" before people will quit accusing me of moral equivocation and favoring appeasement?

Most so called Mid-East experts want appeasement with the Militant Muslims believing that this will bring peace. Nothing could be further from the truth. The only way to deal with those who want to wipe you off the face of the earth is to act in self-defense -- even preemptively -- to kill them before they kill you. Just as an individual has the right to self-defense, so does Israel; and just as a gun toten maniac has no right to go around shooting his neighbors, Hamas has no right to attack Israel. The only way there will be peace in the Middle East is to let Israel defend itself openly, with praise from the West, and let the Militant Muslims understand that his way will lead to death -- his own -- and to hell with them for being that way.

The experts I'm referring to are ones who are very pro-Israel. Barry Rubin, Alan Dershowitz, etc. They don't favor appeasement. But they realize there are more effective ways at combating terrorism than just blowing everything up.

All of this talk that the Arabs will be upset over the acts of self-defense by Israel is upon them and them alone. I personally don't give a damn that they are upset by Israel's existence -- they should learn not to be savages.

You cannot possibly comprehend my posts and still think that this is a response to anything that I've said. Read my posts. Pay attention to the stance I have taken. Then respond. Why can all you people not understand that my concern IS NOT WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE REJECTIONIST ARABS?! My concern is with THE IMPACT THAT OPINION WILL HAVE ON ISRAEL'S SECURITY.

Edited December 29, 2008 by The Wrath

[Mammon]

I am merely questioning whether this is a wise move, strategically. Because, for whatever reason, the conflicts in the Middle East have proven to be the exception to the rule of "defeat" causing a certain people or movement to abandon its previous goals.

You've said several times that you don't know why they don't stop when they are defeated. I think I have a clue at least. I think it has to do with humiliation and it's place in Muslim culture. If you talk to any Muslim about the issues we are talking about, you might notice that they mention humiliation a lot. I've noticed it when talking to Muslim friends and co-workers. There is a feeling that, compared to the rest of the world they are slagging behind and aren't going anywhere. The feeling of desperation, hopelessness and humiliation is exploited by the idealogical leaders of the region like Yassar Arafat and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. It's the same kind of situation young Europeans were in after WWI, but combined with a different cultural context.

Your error, I think is in placing too much value on world opinion.

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.

I'm going to divert a little bit and address this issue specifically. Because TW mentioned it in the way he did, I think that illustrates an observation about Objectivist's and their views on foreign policy. I can sum up the thinking of many Objectivist's views on the subject as something like "The rest of the world be damned!" or "world opinion be damned!"

But I don't think that the people who say such things really take into account how interconnected the world is, and how globalization is shrinking our world and making us all highly interdependent on each other by spreading the division of labor around the globe. Why doesn't China destroy Taiwan? Because China and Taiwan are part of the same supply-chains for larger American, Japanese and European companies. If these emerging markets and developing countries show signs of political instability then investors leave their shores quickly. So it's within everyones interest to keep from killing each other. This why Pakistan and India's tensions have become diffused multiple times in recent history. No one wants to fight a war, they want to pick up the phone and help Americans figure out where their luggage got accidentally shipped to. We've got to worry about what the rest of the world does because the rest of the world produces so much of the value we enjoy on a daily basis. That includes Israel.

How does all of this have to do with Israel? Well, for starters, some of Israel's neighbors like Jordan have begun to get on the globalization ball. So some stability has been brought to the region. But for the most part the Arab and Muslim crowds don't have these kind of problems. They've got oil wealth, so they can do whatever they want. They don't have a stake in the world really.

This is why I think it would be best for everyone to just put the guns down and pick up the cranks in a factory or phones in an office. Get them to work together and collaborating and it will be for the best for everyone. The world, especially the Middle East has to be convinced of this, or else they will fall more behind and their problems will get worse.

In short; we can't forget about the rest of the world.

[Jake_Ellison]

The "principle" I am operating under is the long-term security interests of Israel. I am operating under the principle that it should be more important for a country to protect its own people, rather than to cause as much pain as possible to the enemy.

The first one isn't a principle. (well, it could be interpreted as one, if you are suggesting that leaving one's citizens to be killed in the short-term is good, because it helps the long-term security of the country)

The second one ("it should be more important for a country to protect its own people") is, and it refers to the role of the government : to protect its people. It doesn't however tell us how.

The third one is also a principle but it is an odd principle indeed to live by. You are suggesting that defense of the citizens and causing as much damage as possible to the enemy are opposites. I wonder what knowledge did you integrate to arrive at this conclusion. I think most Objectivists (and common sense) would suggest that the exact opposite is true: protecting one's country requires causing maximum damage to the enemy.

Of course, there's another posibility, that you are, in that third rule of yours, merely suggesting that self defense and destroying the enemy don't always go hand in hand. In that case you are not formulating a principle, you are merely rejecting mine, and then operating without one.

[fletch]

This post only speaks to your general ignorance of the situation, especially if you think Jordan is providing covert support to Levantine terrorist groups.

I didnt say that they were.

Egypt is perhaps best described as non-aggressive, but Jordan is absolutely an ally of Israel. And their efforts have not brought them closer to peace? Are you joking? What do you call their peace treaty with Egypt?

That was 30 years ago. What have all their concessions, land for peace deals etc., gotten them since. Zero.

They were damn close to peace with Syria and the PLO, before Arafat fucked it all up.

A peace agreement signed by Assad and Arafat--now who's being silly?

Also...you are still ignoring the fact that "what they need to do to survive" is the basis of my argument. How many times to I have to say "I think this is a strategic error" before people will quit accusing me of moral equivocation and favoring appeasement?

I am not ignoring anything you have said, nor is anyone else. I think it is fair to say that the rest of us believe that the Arabs will be pissed, but we dont feel that their (predictable and irrational) reaction is a basis for setting policy.

Why can all you people not understand that my concern IS NOT WITH THE OPINIONS OF THE REJECTIONIST ARABS?! My concern is with THE IMPACT THAT OPINION WILL HAVE ON ISRAEL'S SECURITY.

What Israel is seeking by their current action is security. They can not put at risk something that they do not have.

[Sir Andrew]

If defeating Hamas means alienating the only 2 Arab states with which Israel has normal diplomatic ties, I think the costs outweigh the benefits.

So in effect, you're saying the Israeli state should sacrifice its own citizens and immediate security for the diplomatic ties of two nations, that continued attacks from the Gaza strip and deaths of Israelis is an acceptable cost?

Allies who raise an issue every time you defend yourself are not allies. If the defeat of an acknowledged group of militants "alienates moderate Arab allies", what on earth makes them "allies", or even "moderate" if they defend militants? Because they sign a piece of paper?

Edited December 29, 2008 by Sir Andrew

[Jake_Ellison]

This is why I think it would be best for everyone to just put the guns down and pick up the cranks in a factory or phones in an office. Get them to work together and collaborating and it will be for the best for everyone. The world, especially the Middle East has to be convinced of this, or else they will fall more behind and their problems will get worse.

Ah, I wish you'd take just a half hour stroll 'round downtown Gaza, encouraging youngsters to put down their AK's and get a job. Now that would be educational.

Oh, and wear a nametag. I bet Hamas has Internet, so I'm sure they'll google Mammon and find it to be of Hebrew origin. Now that'd be a lesson in brotherly love for you.

How does that feel, defending people who would tare you to pieces in the streets just because your online nickname reminds them of another ethnic group? How does that mix with "Oh I'm just interpreting Objectivism differently"?

Those are rhetorical questions, I really don't need an answer.

[The Wrath]

The third one is also a principle but it is an odd principle indeed to live by. You are suggesting that defense of the citizens and causing as much damage as possible to the enemy are opposites. I wonder what knowledge did you integrate to arrive at this conclusion. I think most Objectivists (and common sense) would suggest that the exact opposite is true: protecting one's country requires causing maximum damage to the enemy.

Of course, there's another posibility, that you are, in that third rule of yours, merely suggesting that self defense and destroying the enemy don't always go hand in hand. In that case you are not formulating a principle, you are merely rejecting mine, and then operating without one.

I'm not saying they're opposites. I'm saying they don't always go hand in hand. Case in point: EGYPT.*

*I'm growing rather tired of having to note this example.

That was 30 years ago. What have all their concessions, land for peace deals etc., gotten them since. Zero. A peace agreement signed by Assad and Arafat--now who's being silly?

Um, their concession of the Sinai got them peace with their erstwhile worst enemy. Egypt had been Israel's worst enemy since the state was created in 1948. Giving them the Sinai and signing a peace accord has kept them out of conflict with Egypt for the past 3 decades.

I am not ignoring anything you have said, nor is anyone else. I think it is fair to say that the rest of us believe that the Arabs will be pissed, but we dont feel that their (predictable and irrational) reaction is a basis for setting policy.

And this is where I'm saying you're wrong. As I've said before, it doesn't matter what the Arabs think or feel. What matters is how those thoughts and feelings will cause them to act.

What Israel is seeking by their current action is security. They can not put at risk something that they do not have.

I'm not denying that Israel is seeking security. I just think this may not be the best way to go about it.

So in effect, you're saying the Israeli state should sacrifice its own citizens and immediate security for the diplomatic ties of two nations, that continued attacks from the Gaza strip and deaths of Israelis is an acceptable cost?

You can't just be concerned with the immediate effects. LONG TERM SECURITY is in the interests of everyone living inside Israel's borders. There's no reason to suppose that deaths now are any more horrible than deaths that occur a year from now. The only rational way for the country to act is to minimize its security risks OVER THE LONG TERM.

Allies who raise an issue every time you defend yourself are not allies. If the defeat of an acknowledged group of militants "alienates moderate Arab allies", what on earth makes them "allies", or even "moderate" if they defend militants? Because they sign a piece of paper?

So I guess France and Germany are no longer our allies, since they have been critical of our recent foreign policy. Got it.

[fletch]

I'm going to divert a little bit and address this issue specifically. Because TW mentioned it in the way he did, I think that illustrates an observation about Objectivist's and their views on foreign policy. I can sum up the thinking of many Objectivist's views on the subject as something like "The rest of the world be damned!" or "world opinion be damned!"

You have to keep in mind that there are whole sections of the globe whose opinions on virtually any topic are meaningless. There are many nations who not only do not have our interests in mind, but are actually hostile to them. They will oppose anything that benefits us, so there is no need to concern ourselves with most anything they say.

This is why I think it would be best for everyone to just put the guns down and pick up the cranks in a factory or phones in an office. Get them to work together and collaborating and it will be for the best for everyone.

That works great until you come across the guy who refuses to put down his gun. Unfortunately, there are people who would rather steal than produce, or who have no problem killing others to get what they want. These people have to be dealt with. In the context of this discussion, Israel is faced with exactly that choice. You dont make bargains with Hamas any more than you would with Al Quida. You destroy them before they destroy you.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

So I guess France and Germany are no longer our allies, since they have been critical of our recent foreign policy. Got it.

No, you don't get it. The US has a right to self-defense against militant Islam. While I don't think the current war is being fought properly, there is a difference between arguing against a tactic and arguing against enticing the enemy to do more terrorist activities. One could argue that by not going after the primary haven of Militant Islam -- i.e. Iran -- that the enemy is emboldened; however that is a different argument as to saying that the more we attack Militant Islam the more they will try to engage in terrorism. Militant Islam needs to be wiped out, because they manufacture grievances against the West (i.e. civilization) and then use that frustration to attack innocent people with terrorism.

The current battle between Israel and Gaza is a case in point. Is Israel supposed to let rockets rain down on their citizens because their Arab neighbors might get upset that Muslims are being killed? Well, if those Muslims had minded their own business and not taken military action against Israel, they would be free to live their lives in peace. But they don't want peace, and I think this is what you and others do not understand. Militant Islam will not be satisfied until Israel is totally destroyed -- and Israel ought not to give any credence to those voices saying they ought to act in restraint. No they shouldn't act in restraint -- they should wipe out Hamas and Hezbolah until these terrorist groups decide it isn't worth the effort of raising a voice or a pebble against Israel. The long-term security of the West can only come at the price of wiping out Militant Islam. That is the terms that Militant Islam has set up by their continued effort to bring disarray to civilization. They are savages and barbarians rattling swords at the gates -- and they need to be shown that we will not put up with that.

I'm all for Israel going into Gaza and wiping out Hamas and Hezbolah. Peace will not come at any lesser action on the part of civilization.

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm not saying they're opposites. I'm saying they don't always go hand in hand. Case in point: EGYPT.*

*I'm growing rather tired of having to note this example.

It's not a good point. Not finishing off Egypt after they attacked Israel didn't bring anything good to to anyone. Had the Israelis been able to nuke Cairo and Damascus in the sixties, everyone would've learned their lesson in the region, and today we'd most likely be living in a happy, terror-free world.

At least that's the conclusion I've been able to draw from any past experience with an aggressor, whether they're just a bully attacking someone in school or a state/group threatening someone throughout history. The only reason why you don't understand this is because you're not being an Objectivist (you're not applying Objectivist principles), you're being a pragmatist, or more precisely anti-conceptual. (you're unable to understand the nature of the situation in the middle-east, because you're looking at specific problems instead of the one source of the problem.)

(I'm saying anti-conceptual because you haven't explicitly rejected principles, like a pragmatist, you're just not using any, in this case.)

Ayn Rand believed that such people have a hard time explaining why they hold specific convictions, so I'm going to start asking "Why?" you are saying what you are saying. To begin with:

1. Why do you think Syria and Iran haven't attacked Israel during the Lebanon war, or during this conflict? After all in Lebanon around 1000 Arabs died, and now we're past 300? Why do you think more deaths in Gaza will be the cause of this major escalation on the part of these countries?

2. You said: "They were damn close to peace with Syria and the PLO, before Arafat fucked it all up."

Why did Arafat do that in your opinion?

Also, why do you think he was allowed to do that by both the Syrians and his own people, and in fact went on to lead the territories as a popular tyrant for years, until he died?

3. You are saying a prolonged siege of Gaza will cause the West to cast out Israel.

Why do you think they will do that?

Why haven't they done it yet (again, 1000 dead in Lebanon), but are going to do it now, with say two or three thousand dead at most in Gaza?

Edited December 30, 2008 by Jake_Ellison

[fletch]

Allies who raise an issue every time you defend yourself are not allies. If the defeat of an acknowledged group of militants "alienates moderate Arab allies", what on earth makes them "allies", or even "moderate" if they defend militants?

That is exactly right. If the simple act of defending oneself or retaliating for an unprovoked attack carried out by a group committed to your destruction causes an ally to turn its back on you, then they are not an ally.

[The Wrath]

Is Israel supposed to let rockets rain down on their citizens because their Arab neighbors might get upset that Muslims are being killed?

Oh my holy God. Having to repeatedly respond to this asinine strawman is making me wonder if it is an intentional misreading of everything I have said in this thread. I'm done responding to it. If you still don't get it, go back and read my posts.

Jake Ellison:

you're unable to understand the nature of the situation in the middle-east, because you're looking at specific problems instead of the one source of the problem.

Is this a joke? If there is one person in this thread who has repeatedly demonstrated his complete lack of knowledge about all things Middle Eastern, it is you. Your posts have demonstrated your total ignorance on anything pertaining to the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli dispute. Try reading something about it before getting drawn into debates.

Everyone else: Your strawmen have seriously worn down my nerves. No one in here is putting up any argument that even remotely draws on lessons learned from the conflicts in the Middle East over the past 60 years. You are taking bromides that sound like they came straight from Kahane Chai and applying them as though the world of international relations is a vacuum, in which the exact same strategies should always be applied in the exact same ways, no matter what the cultural context.

Keep reading your CapMag editorials and thinking that doing so means you understand the Middle East conflict, if it makes you feel smart. I'm done.

Edited December 30, 2008 by The Wrath

[Jake_Ellison]

Keep reading your CapMag editorials and thinking that doing so means you understand the Middle East conflict, if it makes you feel smart. I'm done.

I'm reading Ayn Rand (and quoting her). As far as being done, you're done having this conversation perhaps, but you're not done proving your original assertion that an assault on Hamas is an error on Israel's part.

As a matter of fact just two hours ago I posed a number of questions you have given no answer to in your posts. If your goal was to make a convincing argument in favor of your ideas, then you're not done: you've quit.

[The Wrath]

I'm reading Ayn Rand (and quoting her). As far as being done, you're done having this conversation perhaps, but you're not done proving your original assertion that an assault on Hamas is an error on Israel's part.

As a matter of fact just two hours ago I posed a number of questions you have given no answer to in your posts. If your goal was to make a convincing argument in favor of your ideas, then you're not done: you've quit.

Fine then, I quit, because it's not worth trying to prove my ideas to someone (i.e. you) who clearly has no idea what in the world he's talking about. And, last time I checked, Ayn Rand was not an expert on the Middle East...much less in the 21st century, since she was dead for the 19 years before it began.

[fletch]

I don't claim to know what the proper solution is....

If you were going to quit the conversation, perhaps this was the best place to do it.

[Jake_Ellison]

Fine then, I quit, because it's not worth trying to prove my ideas to someone (i.e. you) who clearly has no idea what in the world he's talking about. And, last time I checked, Ayn Rand was not an expert on the Middle East...much less in the 21st century, since she was dead for the 19 years before it began.

What changed in 19 years?