Re: "I don't think the Russian/Soviet Empire is a perfect analogy, but it does show that while atrocities might be needed to keep a hostile civilian population down, the atrocities do not have to rise to the level of genocide."
Find me a modern example where a small, distinct and hated ethnic group was able to hold down a population that had huge numbers of relatives in adjacent countries. There are damn few example at any time in history, and none in recent eras.
Re: "All the population figures really are not relevant unless the various countries are mobilizing as large of armies as they can create to send against Israel." Not true. You're still thinking in simple military terms. The problem for Israel is that all those big Moslem nations supply moral support. That's pretty much all that's necessary to support ongoing terror. This is a classic battle for the hearts and minds. Armies don't matter. The huge populations are useful for recruitment of individual terrorists, and to raise small amounts of money, but mostly it's about moral support.
Re: "But if you want to talk about populations of the outside supporters the US (population 275+ million) sends billions to Israel and sells it advanced heavy weapons." You're still thinking of this in classic military terms. The US provides nothing to any advantage to Israel except vetoes at the United Nations. If Israel starts ethnic cleansing, even that will go away, and Israel will fall 5 years afterwards. US money and military power is as useless against domestic terror as Israeli money and military power. This is asymmetric conflict. "Heavy weapons" are as useless as carriers and nuclear weapons against domestic (as opposed to cross border) terror. All the military power of the Soviet Union (or South Africa for that matter), didn't save the state.
Re: "I think that unless the PA gets heavy AA weapons they won't be able to do this. ... Its not like Iran has a lot of them for its own use let alone tons of them to give the Palestinians."
I don't think you're looking at the problem with enough imagination. First, you're making the assumption that Arafat really is in control of his people. I doubt this is true, and it's certainly not going to be true 20 years from now. Second, technology keeps advancing, even in Palestine. Already the Palestinians are making rockets. All it takes is one hobbiest to provide them with a design for guidance and say goodbye. Third, actually shooting down airliners isn't necessary. All they have to do is to threaten to shoot them down and the commercial activity will be halted. Fourth, Arafat doesn't need any support from the EU. He can get all the money he needs from the other Arab states. Haven't you seen all the complaints about Saudi Arabia giving money to suicide bombers?
Re: "Unless they are going to intervene militarily there contribution is minor. ..." You're still looking at this as a classic military confrontation. It's not that. It's a domestic uprising. To understand what is going on you will have to look at it from the point of view of domestic uprisings. It's always been the case that areas can rebel much more easily if they have ethnic / religious buddies nearby to support their cause. Sure the Soviet Union could keep the Lithuanians under control, but they never got the Moslems under control in Afghanistan. This is the fundamental reason why your Soviet Union analogy is flawed, though in addition the Israelis do not have a tradition of ruling in the Middle East, unlike the Russians in their corner of the globe.
Re: "If Israel ever faces the Chinese army in a land war in Asia it might have problems but no Arab country or even a coalition of all of them approaches that level of military power." Again, you're analyzing from a simplistic 19th century military point of view. Despite the fact that military power is still concentrated in the hands of what once were the colonial powers, there is despite this fact no more colonies. Examples of what colonial powers were able to get away with 200 years ago are great stories of man's inhumanity to man, or the white man's burden (depending on which sanctimonious point of view you prefer), but they're not applicable to the 21st century.
-- Carl |
