SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (32607)6/19/2002 10:27:04 AM
From: Win Smith  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
The murder rate in the US is about 6.8 per 100,000 people in 1998. Since Israel has about 6 million people, that would amount to about 400 per year, or 8 per week.

The Times has a graphic up this morning showing that it's getting close. 176 so far this year. nytimes.com

On the general suicide topic, it's not totally unheard of for various military operations to send out near suicidal missions, though it'd be pretty hard to fathom in the current US military. Here's one take from early on:

Thomas Friedman in his New York Times column of September 25 characterizes the new type of terrorist as evil, educated, and suicidal. Of course, the terrorists don't characterize themselves as "evil" or even "suicidal." A brief anecdote. After a few years of being involved in building and testing nuclear weapons (from 1950 on, at Los Alamos), I began to work on North American air defense, and in the mid-1950s joined several panels of the President's Science Advisory Committee (PSAC)—among them the Strategic Military Panel. This panel met two days each month until the demise of PSAC in 1973. I had already spent a month in Korea and Japan during the Korean War. I never understood why it was a source of comfort for some US strategists that the Soviet Union had not mastered in-flight aerial refueling of bombers; most people seemed to feel more secure in the knowledge that Soviet bombers armed with nuclear weapons would not have fuel to return home after a nuclear attack on the United States. I argued that I, for one, would be quite willing to participate in a one-way retaliatory nuclear strike on the Soviet Union, and I regard myself as rational—not suicidal. nybooks.com

While trying to track down if J. Edgar Hoover actually manage to get himself awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor (mercifully, he didn't even come close) , I found this site with the official citations: army.mil . A lot of these guys could, looking from the outside, be called suicidal. They were certainly heroic, but if you look at the citations with *'s in front, in many cases, the self-preservation instinct was highly supressed. Just picking out a random link, the second listing under G's from WWII:

GALT, WILLIAM WYLIE

Rank and organization: Captain, U.S. Army, 168th Infantry, 34th Infantry Division. Place and date: At Villa Crocetta, Italy, 29 May 1944. Entered service at: Stanford, Mont. Birth: Geyser, Mont. G.O. No.: 1, 1 February 1945. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity above and beyond the call of duty. Capt. Galt, Battalion S3, at a particularly critical period following 2 unsuccessful attacks by his battalion, of his own volition went forward and ascertained just how critical the situation was. He volunteered, at the risk of his life, personally to lead the battalion against the objective. When the lone remaining tank destroyer refused to go forward, Capt. Galt jumped on the tank destroyer and ordered it to precede the attack. As the tank destroyer moved forward, followed by a company of riflemen, Capt. Galt manned the .30-caliber machinegun in the turret of the tank destroyer, located and directed fire on an enemy 77mm. anti-tank gun, and destroyed it. Nearing the enemy positions, Capt. Galt stood fully exposed in the turret, ceaselessly firing his machinegun and tossing hand grenades into the enemy zigzag series of trenches despite the hail of sniper and machinegun bullets ricocheting off the tank destroyer. As the tank destroyer moved, Capt. Galt so maneuvered it that 40 of the enemy were trapped in one trench. When they refused to surrender, Capt. Galt pressed the trigger of the machinegun and dispatched every one of them. A few minutes later an 88mm shell struck the tank destroyer and Capt. Galt fell mortally wounded across his machinegun. He had personally killed 40 Germans and wounded many more. Capt. Galt pitted his judgment and superb courage against overwhelming odds, exemplifying the highest measure of devotion to his country and the finest traditions of the U.S. Army.


A little farther down on that page:

GONSALVES, HAROLD

Rank and organization: Private First Class, U.S. Marine Corps Reserve. Born: 28 January 1926, Alameda, Calif. Accredited to: California. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while serving as Acting Scout Sergeant with the 4th Battalion, 15th Marines, 6th Marine Division, during action against enemy Japanese forces on Okinawa Shima in the Ryukyu Chain, 15 April 1945. Undaunted by the powerfully organized opposition encountered on Motobu Peninsula during the fierce assault waged by his battalion against the Japanese stronghold at Mount Yaetake, Pfc. Gonsalves repeatedly braved the terrific enemy bombardment to aid his forward observation team in directing well-placed artillery fire. When his commanding officer determined to move into the front lines in order to register a more effective bombardment in the enemy's defensive position, he unhesitatingly advanced uphill with the officer and another Marine despite a slashing barrage of enemy mortar and rifle fire. As they reached the front and a Japanese grenade fell close within the group, instantly Pfc. Gonsalves dived on the deadly missile, absorbing the exploding charge in his own body and thereby protecting the others from serious and perhaps fatal wounds. Stouthearted and indomitable, Pfc. Gonsalves readily yielded his own chances of survival that his fellow marines might carry on the relentless battle against a fanatic enemy and his cool decision, prompt action and valiant spirit of self-sacrifice in the face of certain death reflect the highest credit upon himself and upon the U.S. Naval Service.


It's hard to read too many of these, and I'm not trying to equate these guys to Palestinian "martyrs". But armies in general have been known to use kids in the ranks to take advantage of Wilhelm Stekel's aphorism, immortalized by Salinger.

"The mark of the immature man is that he wants to die nobly for a cause, while the mark of the mature man is that he wants to live humbly for one." - WILHELM STEKEL, quoted by J.D. Salinger in The Catcher in the Rye geocities.com



To: Bilow who wrote (32607)6/19/2002 11:47:14 AM
From: TimF  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
"Can you even indentify any moderate Palestinians that have any real power?"

I don't need to identify any such. My point does not require that negotiations be convenient for Israel. In fact, the Palestinians will gain more by making the negotiations inconvenient. Instead of pleasing a single strong man in control, the task that Israelis have is to convince the Palestinian people as a whole that there is no more reason to fight.


If the Palestinians have no representative (a "strong man" or a representative of a democratic government or whatever but someone who can negotiate in good faith and who has the power or influence to follow through on commitments made in the process of negotiations) that Israel can negotiate with they will not gain more in negotiations. They will not gain anything in negotiations. Either there will be no negotiations or they will be a sham.

This is not particular to Israel's situation, there is no point negotiating with someone who has no ability to follow through on his commitments.

And who would the Israelis use this force against? There is no Palestinian state. Military force is useless against civilians, except in violation of various international treaties. If Israel does go postal, they'll find themselves in the same position as South Africa, a world pariah. But we've argued this before. Are there any examples of a modern industrialized power doing this sort of ethnic cleansing? The only one I can think of is the Nazis in WW2, and I doubt that the Israelis will imitate them. "Never again." If they do, then the Israeli state will be dead in its heart, and the rest will follow soon after.

They would use force against any PLO, Hamas ect. members they could find. They might also use force against civilians. States will use force in violation of any treaty if they think there existence is at risk. The US would likely go postal if it faced 50 suicide bombers a day (your 1 a day scenario multiplied by the difference in population rounded off). It may even rise to ethnic cleansing, at least of the majority Palestinian areas that are closest to Jewish areas (this might include the Arab section of Jerusalem. Then maybe a "Berlin Wall" type barrier, with aggressive patrols on the Arab side of the wall to reduce attacks over the wall. It might go further and involve total ethnic cleansing of the West Bank or Gaza, or it might not go nearly as far, perhaps just a "Black September" style series of attacks. That worked pretty well for Jordan. Israel would probably have a bit less success (the attack would be easier because of Israel's greater power but perhaps a bit less successful). All of this assumes that the attacks rise to a level where Israel views itself as being in mortal danger. Short of such an escalation Israel would probably be much more restrained, but its military still would not be "useless".

More telling would be the South African situation, where the Boers also had nowhere else to go in the entire world, where they could preserve their culture.

The Boer's where a small minority maybe 10% to 15% of the population if you include non Boer whites. Jews are a strong majority excluding the West Bank and Gaza, and are I believe still a majority if you include those areas. Also the black South Africans had Nelson Mandela who the whites came to have some trust in and who had enough influence to make it reasonably possible that negotiating with him was more then a sham. The Palestinians have Arafat who is weak as a leader and never seems to negotiate in good faith. They also have Hamas who would probably reject any deal that Arafat makes and who are committed to the destruction of Israel. This makes the situations a bit different.

I don't think that the Palestinians are going to cease escalating the violence, short of a
deal where they substantially get their demands met.


At 40,000 terrorist victims a year (or over 10 9/11's a year in a country only a bit more then 1/50th of the US population) the Israelis escalate. If the US faced a similar risk from say Native Americans who resented the fact that the US conquered them in the 19th century then I think our constitutional protections would go out the window and you would see reservations that where more like concentration camps. I doubt it could get that bad. I don't think the Palestinians could pull it off and I'm not sure they would if they could but if it does happen then ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians will no longer be considered a fringe radical extremist view, but a serious option.

The Soviet Union couldn't be made secure either, for that matter, but don't you recall what a surprise it was when it fell without a global thermonuclear catastrophe? The expectations of genocide in the Middle East if the state of Israel falls are similarly fears unlikely to be realized. No amount of nuclear or conventional military power was able to keep the Soviet Union together

The use of force that fell far below genocide was usually enough to keep the Soviet Empire in Eastern Europe together. (a good example of moderate force with the threat of a lot more if it was needed keeping civilians down without genocide) No amount of force kept it together in the end because the empire had decayed at its core and no longer was willing or able to use even a more moderate level of force.

Like I said before, this is thinking inside the box.

"The box" deals with the real world opinions and attitudes that exist in this situation. Israel isn't going to negotiate away its existance. It might negotiate away land but not anything that if views as fatal to the state of Israel.

Throughout history I can think of no country that had the preponderance of money and military force, and that was not a small minority in the area under dispute negotiating away its own existence. Boers (even combined with white non Boers) where a small minority. Also they didn't negotiate away their country just who would rule it. Everyone involved though of themselves as South Africans not as two different nations in the same area.

Tim



To: Bilow who wrote (32607)6/19/2002 4:27:53 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
Carl, have you seen Steve den Beste's comments on the Israeli/Pal struggle and his "general theory of terrorism"? I'd be interested in your opinion.

denbeste.nu