They were stopped because they lived in refugee camps in the middle of those countries.
Not all of them where in camps, esp. in Jordan where they make up a large percentage of the population. (and where they were not "shipped back to Palestine"). But the Palestinians knew that they would be slaughtered if that was what it took to preserve the ruling regime.
I see.....you think that if Israel kills more people, the violence will stop. If it weren't for the fact that a lot of innocent people will die, I would love Israel to do just that.....in order to show you that you are wrong. People will fight to their death when they are fighting for their freedom.
Most people won't fight to the death. If Israel was actually brutal enough to say kill 10% of the Palestinians, most of the rest would flee and resistance from the few that remain would be pretty much broken. Its not going to happen and its a good thing that its not going to happen, but if you do get that level of power and brutality most or all of those who would otherwise oppose you die, flee, or give up. This has happened time and time again in history, including putting down religious fanatics. See the Roman and Mongol conquests for some examples. One good specific example is the Roman's putting down Israeli resistance. At Masada and elsewhere the Israelis fought to the death but that just meant that they died. After that the remainder of the population fell in line.
Its been going on for almost 50 years and you don't think there is a message to be had from the lack of progress
If the IRA was not resisted there would be even less progress. If the terrorist group thinks there will be no opposition and no price to pay for its violence then there is no incentive to negotiate unless the other side is prepared to give up on just about everything.
We gave up because we were losing. The underdog won. We had less at stake.
We didn't give up, we left. The South still existed after we left until it was crushed by tanks from the north. As for having less at stake Israel doesn't have less at stake. They are also fighting for their homes.
"In Afghanistan the terrorists behavior has been reduced by massive application of force."
They have? You haven't heard about the resurgent Taliban?
"Has been reduced" does not equal "has been eliminated".
The goal was to topple Iraq and put the country firmly on the road to democracy.
The first part is "wining the war", the second part is "winning the peace". Or in other words making things better because of winning the war and benefiting from that.
Instead, we have created a situation similar to the one with Israel and the Palestinians.
No its a situation that is rather different.
For the US military, its the worst possible scenario: fighting a war against guerilla terrorists, instead of a standing army, on enemy territory in a horrific climate! Its the worst of all worlds.
Hardly the worst of all possible worlds. The US military has been in worse situation on many occasions.
Tim |
