While his conclusion may rely on perception, I think he’s correct that there is an inherent bias (at least in Judeo-Christian nations) which mitigates against the use of overwhelming force against a “weaker” foe.
IMO, Israel should mobilize, establish defensible borders deep within the West Bank, and build their wall. Or reoccupy the territories and reestablish a military government, and get on with the decades long process of building a civilized society. “Public opinion” aside, I think the author would suggest that Israel herself cannot generate the will to use this level of overwhelming force against an “unequal” enemy.
Equality you should view in terms of the threat, not hardware. If the Palestinians approach a point where they are perceived as threatening Israel’s existence, they will be “equal” and force will be unleashed. Personally, while they are winning now I think they’ll overplay their hand, the author doesn’t.
I think you can view our refusal to decisively cut the Ho Chi Minh trail on the ground, or invade the north, or complete our defeat of Sadaam in the Gulf War in this perspective, American unwillingness to use overwhelming force on an “unequal”, in terms of threat, foe.
I think this is a factor in what seem to me to be an anemic attempt to root out the sources of terror worldwide. As 9/11 fades, the threat diminishes, and our will erodes. I’d prefer to see us to begin taking action now, without another attack elevating our enemies to our level.
I don't think the problem is public opinion, it's a sense of fairness embedded within our society.
But I am reminded of the old addage "don't bring a knife to a gunfight". In my sense of fairness, if you bring a knife with the intent to murder and get shot instead, it's fair. This is what the Palestinians have done. We used overwhelming force on Yugoslavia and Afghanistan both -- without much condemnation. People understood. But in the case of the Jewish state, the outcry against even moderate defensive measures is prophetically biased against the Jewish state.
Van Creveld: “Never” is too much of a word. Nothing lasts forever. But history proves that walls work. The Roman wall – the Limus(?) – worked for hundreds of years... the Great Chinese Wall worked, not forever, but for hundreds of years... the wall in Korea has been working for fity years... the wall between Turks and Greeks in Cyprus is working.... the Berlin Wall worked beautifully.... Unfortunately, the Israeli army insists against all military logic on being present on both sides of the wall. We could formally finish the problem at least in Gaza, in 48 hours, by getting out and building a proper wall. And then of course, if anybody tries to climb over the wall we kill him.
This military genius was completely wrong about the effectiveness of a wall. Nasrallah/Hizb'Allah has proven this. Even back in 2002 I was posting that a wall would not keep out missiles and artillery and mortar rounds. Hizb'Allah has neutralized walls, damaged Israel's economy with the primitive Katushya rockets it deploys.
I will admit I got lulled to sleep for a while by the effectiveness of the West Bank fence/wall in stopping suicide bombers. When (if) Olmert gives away broad parts of the West Bank is when Iran will bring in Katushyas and anti tank missiles