Hi LindyBill; I love the contradictory statements in Tracinski's article. Take a good look at this logic:
In the 1930s, the French constructed the ultimate monument to the folly of a purely defensive strategy: the Maginot Line,
...
The best we can expect from this kind of defense is the result achieved by Israeli army and intelligence forces, who manage to stop about 80 percent of attempted suicide bombers (successes that are still dependent on the intelligence gathered from Israeli military incursions). Even this phenomenal success rate does not stop ordinary Israelis from being blown to bits in pizza restaurants, at bus stops, and during religious celebrations.
...
The only effective way to stop terrorism is to eliminate its sponsors, as we began to do in Afghanistan. But President Bush has just announced to Europe that he has no plans to invade Iraq. #reply-17580162
Does anyone really think that Israel's response to suicide bombings has been "purely defensive"?
If a country really feels the need to suffer more suicide bombings, a good way to start would be to invade and ineffectually (i.e. following the Geneva Convention) occupy another country that supports that sort of thing. That's how Israel caught the disease, not by being "defensive".
-- Carl
P.S. If Israel's response to suicide bombing has been "purely defensive", then where's this "Maginot Line" that the Israelis dug into the sand? It seems to me that Israel is just now, after 55 f'ing years, coming to realize that they're going to have to put up a fence.
If Israel does put up a fence, it will have the peace promoting effect of forcing their settlers out of places where they are easily attacked. But it will also give the Palestinians safe zones from which they can lob missiles and bullets into Israel. Israel's problem is that it does not now have, and never has had a (legal) military solution to what is essentially a policing problem. They can either violate the Geneva Convention with some sort of ethnic cleansing, or they can make the Palestinians happy.
Since Israel doesn't realize how truly ineffectual their military is (in the face of a civil insurrection), they insist on negotiating from a position of strength. This is in contradiction to the historical facts. Israel has had 55 years to beat the Palestinians into submission militarily, but no joy. Once Israel begs the Palestinians to negotiate, or at least agrees to negotiate from a position of equality, then peace can come to this area. As it is, the Israeli position of no negotiations until terrorism stops, while at the same time constantly invading Palestinian territory, is laughably ineffective. |
