Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that his argument here -- or, rather, his asserstion -- is unsupported by reason or relevant analogy. Seriously, what is his argument? If read carefully, I don't think you find one. He just idiotically asserts that the Pallies are strong because they are weak. Huh?
Note that all his analogies are to nations that were fighting foreign wars, and lost the will to fight against a determined enemy. The goal of war is indeed to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As for the Pallies, the only effective means they have found to fight Israel is by means of terror attacks directed against the hearth and home. The problem is that killing your enemy's women and children invariably strengthens his will to fight.
The Pallies would do much better (i.e. have some chance of weakening rather than strengthening their enemy's resolve) if they rigorously restricted their attacks only to Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza, but their fanatacism does not permit of such restraint. This, btw, is also their key weakness as military opponents of Israel: their potency depends entirely on maintaining hyper elevated levels of hatred and fanatacism against the Jews, and, one might add, the overwhelming obsession with victim hood that is the primary psychological feature of nearly all terrorists whatever their nationality or religion.
Such an extreme and debilitating psychological state is not stable under most circumstances. It has only been maintained so long among the Palestinians due to the support of their cause from the rest of the Arab world. Of course the Arab world has "supported their cause" by purposefully keeping them stuffed into squalid refugee camps, propagandizing them with hatred, keeping them focused on Israel rather than their own sorry state, and defending and underwritting the thugs and gangsters that "lead" them by driving them to destruction and siphoning off their resources to Swiss bank accounts.
Any change of affairs that would cause the Palestinians to more or less permanantly shift their focus away from the Jews, and toward their own prospects for a better way of life, will undercut the fanaticism that drives their will to fight. Say, for instance, that the U.S. topples Sadam and manages to establish a successful democracy in Iraq. Suppose that this triggers a democratic revolution in Iran. The Palestinians, I think, really do want a democracy in the end, and they have the unique experience in the Arab world of having been able to observe one, in Israel, at close hand. If other Arab or regional Islamic countries start to go democratic, one can expect the Palestinians to become jealous of someone besides the Jews. And once they begin to think in terms of putting their own interests ahead of destroying or damaging Israel, the war will be over.
Granted the Palestinians may win in the end by sustaining their fanatical attrition-warfare terrorism, and eventually destroying the Israeli economy -- and thus the Israelis' ability to field technologically state of the art military forces -- if you want to call that "winning". (Palestinian economic viability is dependent on Israel, and their "victory" would bequeath them a Somalia-like hell on earth.) But to say, as Martin does, that the Pallies will inevitably, or even probably, prevail is simply stupid.
It is not an easy thing to maintain that level of fanatacism. It takes hard work, and outside help. If the Arab world, for instance, ever decides to reconcile itself to the existance of Israel, and the Palestinians try to nevertheless maintain the conflict, they literally won't stand a chance. Their ability to damage Israel depends on many circumstances that are subject to change.
Whatever. It doesn't change the fact that his argument here -- or, rather, his asserstion -- is unsupported by reason or relevant analogy. Seriously, what is his argument? If read carefully, I don't think you find one. He just idiotically asserts that the Pallies are strong because they are weak. Huh?
My only point about his background, which is substantial, is that we shouldn’t dismiss him because we don’t like his conclusions. Some of my response is based on my general knowledge of his writings (I’ve posted one or two before, wish I could search by author and find them), so forgive me if I put words in his mouth, it’s half me.
Note that all his analogies are to nations that were fighting foreign wars, and lost the will to fight against a determined enemy. The goal of war is indeed to destroy the enemy's will to fight. As for the Pallies, the only effective means they have found to fight Israel is by means of terror attacks directed against the hearth and home. The problem is that killing your enemy's women and children invariably strengthens his will to fight.
Two wars, and Israel has yet to decide which to fight. Do they claim a big chunk of the West Bank, my preference? It’s a foreign war, it involves controlling population, and thought Israel hasn’t yet chosen to fight it (it’s time), they are losing it.
Both sides kill women and children, the Palestinian’s deliberately. Jewish deaths strengthen Palestinian resolve, regardless of cost. Palestinian deaths weaken Israel’s resolve. I disagree with the author, I don’t think it’s the inequality of force (think risk), it’s a function of a moral world view. But the reason doesn’t matter, in an exchange of children the Palis win.
The Pallies would do much better (i.e. have some chance of weakening rather than strengthening their enemy's resolve) if they rigorously restricted their attacks only to Israeli forces in the West Bank and Gaza, but their fanatacism does not permit of such restraint. This, btw, is also their key weakness as military opponents of Israel: their potency depends entirely on maintaining hyper elevated levels of hatred and fanatacism against the Jews, and, one might add, the overwhelming obsession with victim hood that is the primary psychological feature of nearly all terrorists whatever their nationality or religion.
It’s not restraint. They would get their *ss kicked and they know it. Victimhood plays well throughout the world.
Such an extreme and debilitating psychological state is not stable under most circumstances. It has only been maintained so long among the Palestinians due to the support of their cause from the rest of the Arab world. Of course the Arab world has "supported their cause" by purposefully keeping them stuffed into squalid refugee camps, propagandizing them with hatred, keeping them focused on Israel rather than their own sorry state, and defending and underwritting the thugs and gangsters that "lead" them by driving them to destruction and siphoning off their resources to Swiss bank accounts.
You’re right. Israel’s enemy no more resides in the territories than America’s resided in Afghanistan.
Any change of affairs that would cause the Palestinians to more or less permanantly shift their focus away from the Jews, and toward their own prospects for a better way of life, will undercut the fanaticism that drives their will to fight. Say, for instance, that the U.S. topples Sadam and manages to establish a successful democracy in Iraq. Suppose that this triggers a democratic revolution in Iran. The Palestinians, I think, really do want a democracy in the end, and they have the unique experience in the Arab world of having been able to observe one, in Israel, at close hand. If other Arab or regional Islamic countries start to go democratic, one can expect the Palestinians to become jealous of someone besides the Jews. And once they begin to think in terms of putting their own interests ahead of destroying or damaging Israel, the war will be over.
You know the Palestinians had a better, not perfect, life pre Oslo. The occupation at least provided for a safe, stable society. Israel agreed to give them a state. And some morons decided that, rather than allow democratic institutions and a political process to develop, then hold elections, then independence, it might be quicker to bring a known terrorist, with tens of thousands of lives to his credit, home (not really, Egypt) from Libya to run the place. IMO that’s the start of the tragedy. Dumb move, but the ultimate blame for that rests with the Palestinian people who support him.
Granted the Palestinians may win in the end by sustaining their fanatical attrition-warfare terrorism, and eventually destroying the Israeli economy -- and thus the Israelis' ability to field technologically state of the art military forces -- if you want to call that "winning". (Palestinian economic viability is dependent on Israel, and their "victory" would bequeath them a Somalia-like hell on earth.) But to` say, as Martin does, that the Pallies will inevitably, or even probably, prevail is simply stupid.
I wouldn’t grant that at all. IMO, they will overstep, a fatal flaw of tyrannies confronting democracies. They won’t win. And unlike the author, I don’t think the only successful conclusion for Israel rests with a wall on archaic borders.
It is not an easy thing to maintain that level of fanatacism. It takes hard work, and outside help. If the Arab world, for instance, ever decides to reconcile itself to the existance of Israel, and the Palestinians try to nevertheless maintain the conflict, they literally won't stand a chance. Their ability to damage Israel depends on many circumstances that are subject to change.
You’re right. The source of the problem rests in Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran. They’d hang the Palestinians out to dry in a minute, have a few times already.