IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New A solution is offered to the war in the Middle East
Not sure if I agree with everything he says, but he seems to make a very convincing case for Israel to launch a massive attack against the leaders of Palestine and the other terrorists in the region.

[link|http://www.weeklystandard.com/magazine/mag_6_47_01/krauthammer_feat_6_47_01.asp|An editorial by Charles Krauthammer]
"When it crosses my mind to do something, I don't ask why, I ask why not. And usually there's no reason not to, so I just go ahead. It's given me the strangest collection of hats"
New Prediction, more than a solution.
And I'm surprised its taken the Israeli's this long to get to that point.

Unless something happens soon, it's very accurate.

(And it shows that an "effective" UN might not be any more useful than the "ineffective" 'League of Nations'.

Addison
New But, it won't bring peace.
You may be right that it is a prediction.

But, let's face it, it is not a balanced opinion. It's more of a rationalization for a policy of "All your lands are belong to us!". For example, the effect of the ever developing "settlements" in increasing friction is not mentioned. Only the difficulty of defending them during the 3 day blitzkrieg. Is it possible the Palestinian's apparently intense hate has no basis at all? Are they all such sheep? Israel has the power in the region and is as much to blame for the state of affairs as the Palestinians. They have not tamed their zealots and expect the Palestinians to tame theirs.

If Arafat is the big problem, let the "Assassins 'R' Us" IDF take the bastard out, just like did other Palestinian leaders. Surely Israel can take the heat of world opinion for a few days. I don't believe that would change a thing. Another martyr, right?

The die is cast. The extremists on both sides are at the helm. The only peace they can have is the peace of the grave. Too bad.
Alex

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
New What will?
You may be right that it is a prediction.
But, let's face it, it is not a balanced opinion. It's more of a rationalization for a policy of "All your lands are belong to us!".


Which is it?

If I'm right, then its not SUPPOSED to be balanced. "The Bills will win the Super Bowl because all the defensive backs broke their legs in a bus accident yesterday" isn't *balanced*, its a *prediction*.

And that's what it is, a predicition. Along with the reasons for said predicition.

What will bring peace? That's the rebuttal question.

Israel has the power in the region and is as much to blame for the state of affairs as the Palestinians. They have not tamed their zealots and expect the Palestinians to tame theirs.

As to the actual affairs, I think there's a strong case that whatever their other sins, the Israeli's *did* enter into negotiation in fairly good faith. The evidence is incredibly strong that the Palestinians didn't. (For one, the fact that Israel agreed to almost all their demands, and Arafat didn't shake hands then and there?).

Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless to get them to stop.

Germany in WWI - they weren't totally defeated. Notice what had to be done to get Germany and Japan to FINALLY give up in WWII.

There's a fundamental problem I have with the mindset of a "safe house" - if they get over that line, they can't be shot, etc. It does work both ways - but right now the Palestinians are going after civillians. The Israeli's are attempting to target the terrorists.

They're being more restrained than I likely would in a similar situation.

Live by the sword, die by the sword - and its double-edged. The Israeli's have mostly proven that they are willing to lay it down - for instance, with Egypt.

If you disagree with that... what would you do?

Addison
New Always an excellent question..
And y'know? I almost.. do see your point re an unending series of restrained.. (hey! I don't really want to do this..but) half-measures as has succeeded only in coalescing the opposition (simultaneously stilling the many divergent voices within - who might have led to some accommodation If..not silenced by the need for unity - which [da capo])

Given the overall state of maturity of homo-sap thus far - it's possible that we Cannot today get beyond the logic you mention (and I'm not even being sarcastic). A brilliant and thorough strike - yes, and all which that suggests - might be the last resort before matters escalate and involve larger powers: acting no more wisely because *We* aren't any wiser.

(But the larger powers can decimate even more of the world, after entering the 'spasm war' mindset. The men in white gloves at The Green Table.. Again.)

Finally, the middle-east may prove to be that oft-predicted crucible, via which homo-sap outgrows the old vindictive Gods still ruling his instinctive center, and decides that:

They cannot All be Right! so maybe we are Wrong to believe in the entire Idea of.. 'a single answer to all Questions'.


(or some reasonable facsimile)


As to now: I have *no idea*. Crap-shoot of all crap-shoots. But we shall hear endless prescriptions from the usual sources and agendas. Right up to P- hour.
New Simple, really.
I think it's fairly easy to see how the situation will evolve without changes. And the solution is simple too.

But first, some preliminaries.

1. The people doing the bombings of Israelies aren't the PA police and political leaders that Israel is targeting with their preemptive attacks/assasinations/missile attacks/whatever you want to call them. The suicide bombers are incited by and controlled by extremists who aren't under Arafat's control. Israel's actions are counterproductive to its own interests.

2. The Israelies can't "win" a military conflict with the Palestinians, and neither can the Palestinians with the Israelies. A war with enough forces involved to cause either Israel to cease to exist or to cause the Palestinians to cease to live in the occupied territories isn't in the interest of either side and won't happen. Coexistence is going to have to be part of the solution.

3. Israel has no control over how long any "quick" war against its opposition lasts. Remember that its invasion of Lebanon was supposed to be a quick operation too - it lasted 10 years. If Israel decided to take Krauthammer's and Kelley's advice (quick war, kick the terrorists out, etc., etc.), there would be great pressure in Israel to keep control over the territory after they "won", especially if there were many Israeli casualties. They couldn't just declare victory and go home and hope the situation wouldn't revert to what's going on now (and likely worse). Look at Lebanon. Look at Cyprus. Look at Northern Ireland.

4. An attack by Israel on Palestinian areas would lead to even more widespread criticism and condemnation of Israel by the world. The US has laws against using US-supplied defensive arms in offensive actions, so there would be pressure in Congress to cut-off aid, apply sanctions, etc. Such efforts may well fail, but it would certainly endanger US aid and investment in Israel, further damaging Israel's economy. It would be counterproductive.

With all these factors, and more I haven't listed, it would be foolhardy, IMO, for Israel to think that there's a military solution to its conflict with the Palestinians. It will just lead to more death and anger and frustration and revenge and put a real solution even farther off. Israel and the Palestinians have to find a negotiated solution.

"How?"

Simple.

Carrots and sticks must be provided to both sides. They must see that there are rewards for coming to a peaceful settlement, just as was the case with Israel and Egypt. And there must be a stick of restricted trading rights or something similar to let them know that there are costs for not coming to an agreement.

Israel and the Palestinians must get support in the world community (the US, Arab states and some European countries in particular) for, e.g, a fund to promote economic development on the West Bank and Gaza. The people must know that there are concrete benefits for compromise.

And, as someone here said a while back, Israel must find a way to quit regarding the Palestinians as a monolithic block and start dividing its attention from responding to extremists to supporting moderates and centrists. Not by looking for Israeli toadies, but by putting forth concrete proposals which can be acted on unilaterally and sticking with them even in the face of suicide bombings and inflamitory rhetoric because it's the right thing to do for Israel's sake.

Will finding a way to negotiate be pain-free? No. But its a much more sensible thing to do than muddle along the same path with the same tired rhetoric while hundreds or thousands more die. It's clear, it's simple, and it's what has to happen eventually.

For those who disagree, consider other examples throughout the world. East Timor. Kashmir. Cyprus. Northern Ireland. Chechnya. Macedonia. And on and on. A military solution can't be imposed on people on the ground without their consent. It may take years, but eventually negotiation happens to end conflicts. And each side has to compromise. Israel and Palestine isn't any different.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Not that simple.
As you know.

Carrots and sticks must be provided to both sides. They must see that there are rewards for coming to a peaceful settlement, just as was the case with Israel and Egypt.

Ok. You're in charge of getting the Arab countries to withdraw support for the terrorists? :)

Sure, that's the way to do it. But Israel *did* attempt a peaceful settlement, offered to meet most, if not all, of the demands. So... Its not that simple.

Right now, there's no outside pressure on the PLO to play fair, and to behave.

Nor does there look to be any. So, yes, its an answer, but one that's not realistic given the current situation and recent history.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

sticking with them even in the face of suicide bombings and inflamitory rhetoric because it's the right thing to do for Israel's sake.

How many of your family will you sacrifice for the greater good, before you say "screw it, lets take the sonsabitches out"? that's what you're suggesting as the "simple" answer - the Israelis smile and have their civillians slaughtered.

(that happened a few years back with other Jews, and it didn't work out well, either).

But its a much more sensible thing to do than muddle along the same path with the same tired rhetoric while hundreds or thousands more die. It's clear, it's simple, and it's what has to happen eventually.

But you're dealing with people who *are not looking to be sensible*. That's the massive failure with your "simple" solution. Bluke is a bit strident, but he does have pretty much the PLO's intent down. No Israel. Period.

How do you "negotiate" with someone like that?

1. The people doing the bombings of Israelies aren't the PA police and political leaders that Israel is targeting with their preemptive attacks/assasinations/missile attacks/whatever you want to call them. The suicide bombers are incited by and controlled by extremists who aren't under Arafat's control. Israel's actions are counterproductive to its own interests.

I'll presume you're in the same boat as me, and don't know that for certain, as I don't know for certain that's bullshit. :) But its my suspicion. Arafat's *got* control of lots of things. He's the "leader".

I've been impressed with what I know of Israel intelligence. I'm not positive they've been 100% correct.. but from what I've seen, I'll take their word that these leaders they're taking out are exactly that. (Granted, that's a SWAG on my part).

2. The Israelies can't "win" a military conflict with the Palestinians, and neither can the Palestinians with the Israelies.

They didn't win at the bargaining table either. Sometimes it takes more.

I can't find my copy of [link|http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0453005802/qid=999149256/sr=1-1/ref=sc_b_1/002-1655860-7507259|Not For Glory]. But [link|http://www.winternet.com/~joelr/|Rosenberg] has a incredibly good quote, I'll have to try and paraphrase..

"You cannot teach them that they cannot spit in your face.
You cannot teach them not to throw a bomb and burn your sister and her unborn baby.
You cannot teach them any of those things.

However, you CAN teach them that those actions are VERY UNSAFE".

And I think that sums up the Israeli attitude remarkably. (Its a sci-fi book about the survivors of Israel)

So no, its really not that simple. the Palestinians are *not* willing to bargain, not yet.

The Arab countries that *are* bargaining with Israel... did so with the imminent threat of the IDF.

Its far more complicated than saying "Ok, back to the table AGAIN.."..

When I said "How" - part of that implied was "What are you going to do differently?"

And that's what I don't have a clue how to do it. But so far I'd say that in *my* opinion, the Israelis have been remarkable restrained. (Heard on NRP, some palestinians were relating their attack by IDF attack helicopters (after they were blasting at an Army base with belt-fed heavy machine guns) that it was "unfair" and "disproportionate".. Well, shit. somebody shoots weaponry at me, (or think of it firing at you and your family) - what is the "proportionate" response? This was an exact quote that staggered me: "we only have kalishnikovs... they've got helicopters!")

(then don't SHOOT at them. If you Do, that's darwinism at work).

Addison
New No time for point by point rebuttal...
There is some validity to your view. But I believe it's wrong in general, but I don't think we're going to convince each other. :-)

But on one point I must comment.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

Not in 1973 they weren't.

[link|http://campus.northpark.edu/history/WebChron/MiddleEast/YomKippurWar.html|Yom Kippur War] is a decent quick summary.

The path leading up to the Yom Kippur war had two major factors. First, there was a failure to resolve territorial disputes arising from the Arab-Israeli War of 1967. These disputes involved the return of the Sinai to Egypt and the return of the Golan Heights to Syria. UN Resolution 242 and Egyptian President Sadat\ufffds peace initiative failed to bring peace. Sadat wanted to sign an agreement with Israel provided the Israelis returned all the occupied territories, but Israel refused to withdraw to the pre-1967 armistice lines. Since no progress was being made toward peace, Sadat was convinced that to change things and gain legitimacy at home, he must initiate a war with limited objectives.

The second factor leading up to the war was the assurance Israel\ufffds general staff felt that Israel was safe from Arab attack for the indefinite future. Therefore, Israel felt no reason to trade territory for peace. Israel felt this way because of the Israel Defense Force\ufffds strength, the disarray of the Arab world, and the large buffer zone around Israel formed by the Sinai, the West Bank, and the Golan Heights. Thus in spite of Sadat\ufffds threats of war throughout 1972 and much of 1973, Israel\ufffds commanders were unprepared for the October attack of Egypt and Syria. They misinterpreted the buildup of armed forces along the canal as military exercises instead of an attack.

The surprise attack on two fronts from Egypt and Syria began on October 6, 1973, which was Yom Kippur, the holiest day of the year for the Jewish people. Egypt\ufffds forces swiftly crossed the Suez Canal and overran the Bar-Lev line. Syria moved into the Golan Heights and nearly reached the 1967 border with Israel (overlooking the Hula Basin). Israel was outnumbered in the north nearly 12 to 1 (there were 1,100 Syrian tanks versus 157 Israeli tanks); therefore, the first few days of the war saw Israeli counterattacks fail as Israel suffered hundreds of casualties and lost nearly 150 planes.

The tide of the war began to turn on October 10. The Syrians were pushed back and Israel advanced into Syria proper. The Soviet Union responded by sending airlifts to Damascus and Cairo, which were answered on October 12 and 13 by massive US airlifts to Israel. Israeli forces crossed the Suez Canal and surrounded the Egyptian Third Army on October 21.

[...]

The war\ufffds repercussions were far-reaching. An estimated 8,500 Arab soldiers were killed, and economic losses equaled the GNP for one year. The war also increased the Arabs\ufffd dependency on the Soviet Union. Approximately 6,000 Israeli soldiers were killed or wounded in 18 days, and Israel\ufffds losses were equivalent to their annual GNP. The image of an invincible Israeli army from the 1967 war was destroyed, Arab confidence was increased, and Israel became more dependent on the US for military, diplomatic, and economic aid. Internationally, the war emboldened the organization of petroleum exporting countries to double its oil prices. The US experienced gasoline shortages because of an embargo placed on countries that assisted Israel. The rise in oil prices began a trend of worldwide inflation and a recession in 1974-1975.


The 1973 war wasn't as lopsided as the 1967 war. Another timeline is [link|http://history.acusd.edu/gen/20th/nixon-mideast.html|here].

And I recall reading a story in Time magazine about the war in which it was claimed that Israel had nuclear weapons on standby in case things got worse. They certainly viewed it at the time as a serious threat to their existence, as did the US.

Israel had huge losses, as did Egypt and Syria. It wasn't a simple "sound trouncing" inflicted on Egypt by Israel.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Then at least indicate WHICH point you think is wrong.
There is some validity to your view. But I believe it's wrong in general, but I don't think we're going to convince each other. :-)

Which "view"?

* What I observe to be the Israeli mindset.
* My likely actions in a similar situation
* My view on the PLO's motivation and history.
* Specific details of how I understand the IDF to work.
* Questions as to how it could be fixed.

Which of those is wrong?

Its rather rude to lump all that together with "you're wrong, but I'm not going to even tell you what you're wrong about or why".

If you think so, say about what.

And you might note - Egypt came to their understanding with Israel after being soundly trounced.

Not in 1973 they weren't.

No, you're right, they weren't AS soundly trounced then - BUT neither did they recover what they'd lost in the '67 war, correct?

When they were trounced.

And *that* is what brought them to the bargaining table - the failure to win with force of arms.

Right now the PLO is still willing to only use force.

Nothing you said shows how to *change* that, much less "Simply" negotiate.

So no, I don't think I'm wrong - the PLO wants to fight. The initial story was about the Israeli's finally going ahead and fighting - and trying to knock the fight out of them.

I see that as a perfectly reasonable prediction.... and futher, given the failures at the bargaining table, I'm not certain its an unreasonable idea.

Again, how would you get the PLO to the bargaining table, and make them use good faith?

Addison
New Sorry I haven't been clear.
By "simple" I mean it's clear what must be done. A new type of solution doesn't need to be found, but rather the same old tired approach of negotiations with visible tangible rewards and disincentives must be used.

Which "view"?

The view that Israel's policy of blowing up people is reasonable and understandable.

And *that* is what brought [Egypt] the bargaining table - the failure to win with force of arms.

Many argue that it's Sadat that brought Israel to the table via the 1973 war, not the other way around. See the link above.

Again, how would you get the PLO to the bargaining table, and make them use good faith?

Neither side is negotiating in good faith at the moment. It's not all the PA's fault.

Carrots and Sticks have to be used, just as in the past. Someone, maybe the US, has to talk to both sides - Israel and the PA - with a substantial package of incentives and disincentives to get them to discuss what they'll accept and not accept. Outside parties like the US has to find a way to help build consensus.

It's a "simple" process. Is it easy? No. I don't have a magic formula, but I know what process has to be used. Blowing up people (by either side) isn't going to solve the problem.

Finally, I think this came up earlier in this thread... Here's a counterpoint on Barak's offer to the PA earlier this year:

[link|http://www.palestinemonitor.org/mustafa/notbarakproposal.htm|Why Palestinians could not accept Barak's proposal] It's possible to have honest disagreements about how generous the Barak proposal was and whether it would have made a viable Palestinian state possible.

I think I've said my peace on this topic.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Thanks.
Much clearer now.

The view that Israel's policy of blowing up people is reasonable and understandable.

Gotcha. Well, that's of course debatable. But under the circumstances, I'd be doing something similar. I'm not much of a "turn the other cheek" kind of guy. :)

Many argue that it's Sadat that brought Israel to the table via the 1973 war, not the other way around. See the link above.

Possibly - but even so - it was the failure of force of arms (IMO) to "win" that caused the negotiation. Sometimes, its not an option. (the ob-WWII reference - both Japan and Germany tried to "negotiate" before all was lost (Hitler after he had most of Europe, initially). Would negotiation there have been in the best interests? (intentionally not specifing who or what's best interest).

Neither side is negotiating in good faith at the moment. It's not all the PA's fault.

All? No. Israel's done some damn stupid things. Right now, though, the PA is not interested in any negotiations, and so I will assign the current blame on them, mostly. Bluke's quotes are not very incorrect about the skewed view that their leaders have preached and told the people under them, while Israelis have had a much more "balanched" view available to them, IMO.

Someone, maybe the US, has to talk to both sides - Israel and the PA - with a substantial package of incentives and disincentives to get them to discuss what they'll accept and not accept. Outside parties like the US has to find a way to help build consensus.

(Why is it the US's problem? :))

By "simple" I mean it's clear what must be done. A new type of solution doesn't need to be found, but rather the same old tired approach of negotiations with visible tangible rewards and disincentives must be used.

I still don't see it as that simple. I don't know what 3rd parties are (able) to offer each side, in order to get concensus. The PA will be happy with the removal of Israel, but needless to say, I don't think Israel will accept. :)

I don't know what the US can offer. Adding to the problem is the other countries in the middle east, willing to offer support in proxy for the PA... And those countries (right now) aren't available for stick use from the US (since we depend on the oil, etc).

Addison
New Quite rational
Rational but wrong.

The problem is that this conflict is, at it's heart, a religious war. It is the desire of many Muslims to see Israel eradicated. Several of those who wish Israel's demise are religious leaders with fanatical followers.

The PLO, Hamas and other groups in the area are more religious than governmental. Trying to apply rationallity to religious "reasoning" is an exercise in futility. The PLO charter specifically requires the destruction of Israel as a nation.

The goal is the destruction of Israel.

The only carrot that will work is one that allows that goal to be realized. What stick could be applied to change this goal? Economic sanctions? Boycott? I don't think we are much of a trading partner with Palestine so I don't see what use these would be.

Reasonable people can compromise. When one group isn't reasonable . . .
Don Richards. Who can't think of anything entertaining for a .sig
New The same thing was said about Egypt and Jordan and ...
New The destruction of Israel is in their Government charter?
If you say so. I would have thought I'd have heard of it before now though.
Don Richards. Who can't think of anything entertaining for a .sig
New Only so much fits in a Subject line... :-)
I meant the bit about not being able to negotiate with people who want to destroy you.

I think the PLO Charter issue is a red herring.

[link|http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/31/albright.israel/|PLO affirms change in charter regarding Israel] is a CNN story from 1998.

Whether the Charter has or hasn't been "abrogated" or the offensive paragraphs "abolished" or not or whatever isn't an issue (to me) now. Palestinians aren't fighting Israel because a piece of paper tells them to. And, of course, they won't stop fighting simply because a piece of paper tells them to. It's clear that if the Charter was a binding document still in its offensive form then the US wouldn't have relations with the PA and Israel wouldn't have negotiated the Oslo Accords with Arafat.

Concrete steps to build trust must happen on both sides - pieces of paper won't count for much.

Cheers,
Scott.
New Prediction vs. balanced view
I guess you are saying that when making a prediction only "pro" points supporting the prediction are to be listed and none of the "cons". And so, Krauthammer need not be "balanced". "On the other hand..." is not required.

My point is that as a prediction, in the sense of foretelling the future, there may well be an Israeli blitzkrieg.

On the other hand, the justification for such action is terribly one-sided.

"Spit in your face" happens every day to the Palestinians going through IDF checkpoints. Palestinians have been living under an Isreali oppressor's heel, outside Israel, since they lost the 6-day war in 1967.

There are two sides to the problem.

The blood lust must continue until saner heads prevail.


Alex

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
New Re: Prediction vs. balanced view
I guess you are saying that when making a prediction only "pro" points supporting the prediction are to be listed and none of the "cons". And so, Krauthammer need not be "balanced". "On the other hand..." is not required.

Right.

My point is that as a prediction, in the sense of foretelling the future, there may well be an Israeli blitzkrieg.

On the other hand, the justification for such action is terribly one-sided.


I wouldn't say "one-sided" but yes.

If you're predicting the future, you say what you think will happen.

He illustrates what he thinks will happen, and why. Its the whole issue of "context" - putting yourself into the other person's shoes. Look at it from their perspective. (And then you can sometimes figure out HOW to balance the view, HOW to explain to them, etc).

But you cannot do that while "in their shoes". Doesn't work. IF they're not thinking it, attributing it to their thought process is erroneous.

Addison
New You're assuming that saner heads will prevail...
Bloodly unlikely, in my opinion.

I can predict it will get worse... but that's pretty much a given at this point. And all it takes is for one idiot to go off and the whole thing starts again.


It reminds me of Britian and the IRA.

New I'm *hoping* that saner heads will prevail, one day.
You've got a good point, of course. The situation is continuing to deteriorate.

Britain and the IRA, Russians and Chechens, Serbs and Croats, Serbs and Albanians, Serbs and Bosnians, Serbs and Kosovars, Macedonians and Albanians, Greeks and Turks on Cyprus, Indians and Pakistanis in Kashmir, Turks and Kurds, Iraqis and Kurds, Iranians and Kurds, all manner of African tribal purges, and the list goes on.

The Israelis and Palestinians are taking things to new levels of inhumanity.
Alex

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
New There 's the problem in a nutshell
Sanity is not a prerequiste for belief. Israelis believe Palestinians are the *enemy*. Palestinians believe Israelis are the *enemy*. Both sides have ample reason to adhere to that belief. How do you negotiate with an enemy, especially when you don't trust that enemy to be true to his word?
Don Richards. Who can't think of anything entertaining for a .sig
New "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless...
to get them to stop."

That may work to stop oppressors but not so for the oppressed. Indefatigable human spirit and all that.

You may recall the Battle of Britain and their "Finest Hour". Endless nights of intense bombings, living like rats under ground, etc. Perhaps, they were not beaten senseless.

"Live by the sword, die by the sword - and its double-edged. The Israeli's have mostly proven that they are willing to lay it down - for instance, with Egypt."


"Live by the sword, die by the sword." - sure, how can one disagree.

The Israeli peace with Egypt was in self interest. They had already pumped the Sinai oilfields dry and Egypt has a population of well over 100 million. Unlike Palestinian lands needed for defense and reestablishing ancient (i.e. Greater) Israel, they were not as much interested in Egyptian lands. And, they did not lay down any sword, they just promised not to use it against Egypt. Israel is armed to the teeth, nuclear arms included. Israel is living "by the sword".
Alex

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
New Re: "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless...
You may recall the Battle of Britain and their "Finest Hour". Endless nights of intense bombings, living like rats under ground, etc. Perhaps, they were not beaten senseless.

Actually, its an interesting point you bring up.

Historically, constant bombardment becomes something people get used to.

London, Germany, Japan.. When the raids were constant and overwhelming, people soon adjusted to that being the norm, and went about their lives as best they could. Strategic bombing of cities was a massive failure to cause morale problems.

But the few-and-far between raids....

Those same Brits who'd stiff upper lipped and all that, during the Blitz... were demoralized intensely by the V1 buzz-bombs. Huge efforts were put into their inteception, because of the morale effect they had. V2s were uninterceptable, and there wasn't the warning - but the effect of sudden, random, slight chances - nowhere near as dangerous as the constant raids was a massive morale sapper.

Israel is armed to the teeth, nuclear arms included. Israel is living "by the sword".

Well, yes. When you're surrounded by people screaming that they want to kill you, I don't blame you for arming yourself. :)

Addison
New Living by the sword.
Well, yes. When you're surrounded by people screaming that they want to kill you, I don't blame you for arming yourself. :)


I don't blame them for being armed either. These are dangerous times for them. But, if they don't work towards the goal of peace with their neighbors and disarmament, will they not die by the sword?

Where does that quote come from, anyway?
Alex

Life is a comedy for those who think and a tragedy for those who feel.
-- Anne Frank
     A solution is offered to the war in the Middle East - (DonRichards) - (22)
         Prediction, more than a solution. - (addison) - (21)
             But, it won't bring peace. - (a6l6e6x) - (20)
                 What will? - (addison) - (19)
                     Always an excellent question.. - (Ashton)
                     Simple, really. - (Another Scott) - (9)
                         Not that simple. - (addison) - (4)
                             No time for point by point rebuttal... - (Another Scott) - (3)
                                 Then at least indicate WHICH point you think is wrong. - (addison) - (2)
                                     Sorry I haven't been clear. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                                         Thanks. - (addison)
                         Quite rational - (Silverlock) - (3)
                             The same thing was said about Egypt and Jordan and ... -NT - (Another Scott) - (2)
                                 The destruction of Israel is in their Government charter? - (Silverlock) - (1)
                                     Only so much fits in a Subject line... :-) - (Another Scott)
                     Prediction vs. balanced view - (a6l6e6x) - (4)
                         Re: Prediction vs. balanced view - (addison)
                         You're assuming that saner heads will prevail... - (Simon_Jester) - (2)
                             I'm *hoping* that saner heads will prevail, one day. - (a6l6e6x) - (1)
                                 There 's the problem in a nutshell - (Silverlock)
                     "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (a6l6e6x) - (2)
                         Re: "Sometimes you've got to beat someone senseless... - (addison) - (1)
                             Living by the sword. - (a6l6e6x)

Put *that* in your pipe and smoke it!
71 ms