Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bilow who wrote (32571)	6/18/2002 9:38:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

It's common for sides in a war to make this sort of exaggeration of the other side's goals. It's just not a realistic appraisal. What's not realistic about it? The Palestinians want to remove the state of Israel from the Middle Easy. Sure there are some of them that well settle for less, but how would comming to some sort of agreement with the more moderate Palestinians bring about peace? Can you even indentify any moderate Palestinians that have any real power? And if it were realistic, then the Israeli Jews had better start looking at buying land somewhere else.) The Palestinians don't pose that level of threat to Israel. The suicide bombings are horrible but the murder rate counting them is still probably less then that the murder rate in the US. Its definitly less then the murder rate in many American cities. And if the Palestinians ever do start killing enough Israeli civilans to pose a serious threat to the state of Israel then Israel will get more serious about using its force and the US would be less likely to try and reign Israel in. Military weapons are not power, at least not any more. Similarly, money is also not power. They are both power. Not the only forms of power but they are power. Power of course isn't as important if you don't have the determination to use it, but Israel will use it rather then letting itself be destroyed if it comes to that. Military power no longer equates to the ability to decide how a piece of territory is governed. I'd agree that it is not the only decisive factor, and that it is probably less decisive then it has been in the past, but the only reason it has not been decisive enough is that the Palestinians have not been enough of a threat to overcome the combination of Israel scruples and Israeli fear of a negative world reaction or a new Arab Israeli war. Is the Palestinians escalate the conflict at some point that restrain would go away. I don't think the Israelis would, or would have to kill 10% of the Palestinians but you could easily see more then 1% of them dead. I hope it doesn't come to that. The force required might be a bit more like this - onwar.com or maybe a good deal more but probably not 10% of the Palestinian population. Such use of force would not resolve the issue completly (to do that might require the 10% plus ethnic cleansing or might not even be possible) but it would put a lid on things for awhile. In Vietnam the US's power allowed us to runtinely win battles. We did not win the war because we were less determined to win then our opponent. We just didn't care about it as much. Israel is in a situation of protecting itself not some dictator it set up on the other side of the globe. Letting Eastern Europe go did also not make Russia less secure. It can be argued it made the government of the USSR less secure because Russians saw that the communists could be kicked out, but it probably wasn't seen by the communist government as being a step that would reduce their hold on power in Russia. Actually eastern Europe is a perfect example. It was kept in the Soviet orbit by force for decades. When it finally left that orbit it was because force was not used. If force was used then Eastern Europe would not have left the Soviet orbit when it did. It might have left by now, but if so it would only have been because of the decay of the Soviet Union. My point is that the techniques that victors used to pacify the defeated in the 19th century are no longer available to Israel. The wild west is over. That's what "never again" means. The Israelis will have to negotiate with the Palestinians without taking into account differences in military power between them. I disagree but not completly. I agree that the military power is less useful in negotiations. If Israel gets to a situation where they have someone to negotiate with (someone who is willing to negotiate in good faith and who has the power to stop the violence, without these things negotiation is pointless) then the difference in military power will not be a decisive factor in the negotiations. At least not to the point where Israel could think about dictating terms. But it will probably still have some effect on the negotiations, at least to the extent of determining what issues are really on the table. Tim

To: Bilow who wrote (32571)	6/18/2002 10:26:43 PM
From: slacker711	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

My point is that the techniques that victors used to pacify the defeated in the 19th century are no longer available to Israel. The wild west is over. That's what "never again" means. Just an observation....but "never" is an awfully long time. If suicide bombing becomes a viable tactic for various groups to achieve their goals, I dont think it will be long before ethnic cleansing becomes part of the response. I have trouble understanding why you think Arafat (or any of the other likely leaders of Palestine) would ever want to participate in a state with the Israelis. They may want their own state or they may want the destruction of Israel....but I dont see any evidence that they would support a one-state solution. Slacker

To: Bilow who wrote (32571)	6/21/2002 2:28:37 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

You are quite wrong. The destruction of Israel and the driving of Jews out of Palestine are goals articulated in the PLO charter, and reiterated by sundry players since the creation of Israel was imminent. The Israelis (or world Jewry) did not make it up. As for claiming that such rhetoric is always insubstantial, that is how people treated the worst passages of Mein Kampf, but it turned out not only that Hitler meant what he said, but went further than was necessary on his original platform. Why should any Jew or Israeli consider you either impartial or knowledgeable, when you start out shooting yourself in the foot like that? Military might is power, provided one has the will to use it. In a fight like this, the Palestinians are providing the rationale for driving them out of the occupied territories. Israel is hesitating to do it, since it would be a humanitarian and foreign policy disaster, but it cannot tolerate this rate of suicide bombings forever. Every bombing brings the day of reckoning closer, especially with Sharon in power. Given this reality, any less violent means of pacification will soon look justified to the international community, at least enough for Israel to get away with it. Thus far, the occupation has been comparatively light, or the terrorists would not be able to function so boldly. If the Palestinian Authority cannot enforce peace and root out the terrorists, Israel will. We are looking at the likelihood of a complete militarization of administration of the territories for the foreseeable future, unless Arafat or someone else can cause the provocations to cease. The Palestinians do not have the stature to be full negotiation partners, at this point. No one trusts them, and they have shown that when offered most of what they want, they are merely encouraged to start trouble for the remaining 5 or 10 percent. They cannot have sovereignty any time soon. The best they will get is autonomy, with the possibility of renegotiation in the future. In other words, they have worsened their bargaining position, and as outrages mount, whatever remaining leverage they have is draining from the situation........