Hi twfowler; Re: "Can you find any example of a country where the majority gives up power to a minority that hates it while it still has a predominance of military power not just within the country but in the entire region." The Jews are not a majority in the region, or even in the territory they occupy, probably. If the region of concern were the tiny gerrymandered country of Israel, then I'd agree with you here. But trying to analyze Israel in terms of the postage stamp sized piece of strangely shaped land it occupies, as if it were on the moon instead of in the Middle East, is silly. The same analysis you're using would have applied to the white regions of South Africa, but that didn't fly either.
Re: "You seem to think moral support is so important. We also provide that." The US support for Israel is in money, military and vetoes at the UN. These are very important things to Israel. When Israel is forced to use ethnic cleansing to make their citizens safe the US will eventually pull that support. It's only a matter of time. In order to survive, Israel has to obtain the support of every US administration from here to 10 years after never. That is too long a time to avoid being unlucky. By the way, some time ago I posted a list of veto usage at the UN, and showed that in every other time a great power used the veto against world opinion, the great power was eventually thwarted in its ambition: "The facts are simple. When the whole world, other than one or two superpowers, wants something, the whole world eventually gets it. Superpower status is not as good as superhero status. This is one of the many reasons that the Palestinians think that eventually they will win. I agree. There are some fights that are so lopsided that the outcome is obvious. Morality is not the issue. Power is. The world majority eventually gets its way." #reply-17328127
Re: "The heavy weapons are good to keep the cross border terror from happening." This is an interesting statement, especially in the light of the WTC cross border terrorism incident, as well as in the light of Israel's experience. I won't comment further.
Re: "South Africa still exists the country is the same with a different government. All of the groups within South Africa considered themselves South African. It was one country in the hearts and minds of its people as well as on the maps so there was no realistic equivilent of giving up land for peace."
(1) South Africa no longer has white rule. Israel will also eventually no longer have Jewish rule. What they call the resulting country doesn't matter. States rename themselves all the time.
(2) That the South Africans now consider themselves as one people is not something that was evident before the whites gave up power. Similarly, the Israeli situation is also not obvious, yet. Watch what happens when the combined country of Israel / Palestine begins doing stuff like fielding a combined athletic team at the Olympics or competing in international soccer. Both sides will suddenly discover that they're all citizens of the "Holy Land" or whatever they choose to call the country.
(3) The South Africans did try to give up land for peace. That was what the Bantustans were. And you're right, it was not a realistic attempt. Israel's attempt to give up land for peace is similarly doomed.
As for the likelihood of the Palestinians building stuff that can shoot aircraft down, that subject is interesting enough in itself that I'll put the links in a separate post.
-- Carl |
