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: Jacob Snyder who wrote (34930)7/24/2002 3:41:41 PM
From: Bilow  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 281500
 
Hi Jacob Snyder; Re: "1. Energy: a Manhattan Project-type program ..." Wishful thinking. As long as there is cheap oil available, a program to replace it with expensive alternatives is dead.

Re: "2. Palestine: forcing Israel to withdraw from almost all their West Bank settlements ..." This would be a good idea, but I doubt it's possible for the US to do this, particularly with the Israeli government as it is today. The Israelis will probably move on their own as soon as they get their fences built.

Re: "3. continuing to help Israel militarily defeat Hamas. There can be no compromise with them, they must be destroyed." We are doing nothing to help Israel now against Hamas, and I doubt that there is anything useful we can or will do in the future. For that matter, Hamas is not being defeated. Immigration into Israel is decreasing, and the US just came down on Israel for killing too many civilians. These are the stepping stones of Hamas policy. For them, the suicide bombing is working just fine.

Re: "4. encourage an exchange of populations ..." The fancy name for this "ethnic cleansing", and it's a war crime.

Re: "5. War On Terrorism: we need to use U.S. soldiers on the ground, in numbers as large as necessary, rather than using proxies, or we'll never find our enemies. ..." It's the US soldiers on the ground that motivate the local populations to support terrorism. Support for the US in Moslem countries is highest in those places that have the least US presence. Stationing lots of young American males with weapons in these countries will simply breed more support for terror. When there is a situation where we can quickly use our overwhelming military force to oppose another military force we should do so, but out army will never be worth a tinker's dam against civilians. In short, it is impossible for us to win the hearts and minds of people using weapons. We can use weapons to support the people who already have given us their hearts and minds, but against civilian populations that dislike us, the military is useless. What wins hearts and minds is stuff like Nike, Intel and McDonalds, where the real strength of the United States exists.

Re: "6. we need to get serious about addressing the underlying social/economic conditions in Islamic countries, that provides support for Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein and Hamas." This is true, but the way to do it is to allow them to export their products to us. Trying to use young men with guns to "dry up the ocean" that supports ill will against us is hopeless. What we need to do is to use the weapon that we used to destroy the Soviet Union, trade.

Time is on our side. Our culture is winning the war, which is why Osama and pals are so intent on moving the conflict from one of culture to one of weapons. We cannot win hearts and minds with weapons, not in the 21st century. We can only win hearts and minds with stuff like Coca Cola, Disney, Taco Bell and Santa Claus.

And if we sanctimoniously give lectures to the 3rd world about how they're poor because, for instance, the accounting systems they use for their companies lack visibility, all that will happen is that they will laugh at us.

The reason we're rich and they're poor, I believe is because of subtle reasons having to do with practical laws that enable business (as opposed to control business), like the uniform commercial code.

-- Carl



To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (34930)7/24/2002 6:48:09 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Jacob, could you address the internal contradictions in your proposals?

2. Palestine: forcing Israel to withdraw from almost all their West Bank settlements, including East Jerusalem. We have the leverage to do this, and it has been U.S. policy for a long time. We need to get serious about it. As long as Israel continues to place settlements throughout the West Bank, inside and between all Palestinian populations, the Palestinians will believe Israelis are not serious about Land-For-Peace. The Wall is doing this; when built it will be the de facto border of Israel, and the settlements outside it will wither.
3. continuing to help Israel militarily defeat Hamas. There can be no compromise with them, they must be destroyed.


Well, I'm glad you don't subscribe to the unrealistic idea that if Israel only withdrew from the territories, everything would be hunky-dory. However, considering that, as you say, Hamas is following the Hizbullah model, how would it be possible to do 2 before 3 has been completed? Withdrawing in the face of a militant Hamas (and a PA that is just as bad) would greatly increase the power and prestige of these organizations.

4. encourage an exchange of populations, so the demographic frontiers correspond to the military/political borders. Jews and Arabs will never get along under the same government. Arabs inside Israel will always be a hostile conquered people. That means, in addition to Israel withdrawing behind the border walls (creating a large ghetto), the Arab population inside Israel has to leave and give up the RightOfReturn. Whatever land Israel intends on keeping permanently, must have a near-100% Jewish population.


I have news for you, the Arabs inside Israel are not a hostile conquered population, they are citizens with equal rights under law. It is true that Arab Israelis suffer discrimination, but they are still far better off than they would be under any Arab government, and they have zero desire to move to the PA. They just don't say this out loud. But as Israel unilaterally builds its wall (which the Palestinians don't like because it's not following the Green Line exactly but is including the large border settlements), the Arab towns on the Green Line are consistently fighting to be included on the Israeli side.

Also, population transfer will be called "ethnic cleansing" if the Israelis do it. If the Palestinians do it, it will be called normal.