TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Israel Beats Pal. Intifada
Israel Beats Pal. Intifada
Israel's Intifada Victory
By Charles Krauthammer
While no one was looking, something historic happened in the Middle East. The Palestinian intifada is over, and the Palestinians have lost.
For Israel, the victory is bitter. The past four years of terrorism have killed almost 1,000 Israelis and maimed thousands of others. But Israel has won strategically. The intent of the intifada was to demoralize Israel, destroy its economy, bring it to its knees, and thus force it to withdraw and surrender to Palestinian demands, just as Israel withdrew in defeat from southern Lebanon in May 2000.
That did not happen. Israel's economy was certainly wounded, but it is growing again. Tourism had dwindled to almost nothing at the height of the intifada, but tourists are returning. And the Israelis were never demoralized. They kept living their lives, the young people in particular returning to cafes and discos and buses just hours after a horrific bombing. Israelis turned out to be a lot tougher and braver than the Palestinians had imagined.
The end of the intifada does not mean the end of terrorism. There was terrorism before the intifada and there will be terrorism to come. What has happened, however, is an end to systematic, regular, debilitating, unstoppable terror � terror as a reliable weapon. At the height of the intifada, there were nine suicide attacks in Israel killing 85 Israelis in just one month (March 2002). In the past three months there have been none.
The overall level of violence has been reduced by more than 70 percent. How did Israel do it? By ignoring its critics and launching a two-pronged campaign of self-defense.
First, Israel targeted terrorist leaders � attacks so hypocritically denounced by Westerners who, at the same time, cheer the hunt for, and demand the head of, Osama bin Laden. The top echelon of Hamas and other terrorist groups has been either arrested, killed or driven underground. The others are now so afraid of Israeli precision and intelligence � the last Hamas operative to be killed by missile was riding a motorcycle � that they are forced to devote much of their time and energy to self-protection and concealment.
Second, the fence. Only about a quarter of the separation fence has been built, but its effect is unmistakable. The northern part is already complete, and attacks in northern Israel have dwindled to almost nothing.
This success does not just save innocent lives; it changes the strategic equation of the whole conflict.
Yasser Arafat started the intifada in September 2000, just weeks after he had rejected, at Camp David, Israel's offer of withdrawal, settlement evacuation, sharing of Jerusalem and establishment of a Palestinian state. Arafat wanted all that, of course, but without having to make peace and recognize a Jewish state. Hence the terror campaign � to force Israel to give it all up unilaterally.
Arafat failed, spectacularly. The violence did not bring Israel to its knees. Instead, it created chaos, lawlessness and economic disaster in the Palestinian areas. The Palestinians know the ruin that Arafat has brought, and they are beginning to protest it. He promised them blood and victory; he delivered on the blood.
Even more important, they have lost their place at the table. Israel is now defining a new equilibrium that will reign for years to come � the separation fence is unilaterally drawing the line that separates Israelis and Palestinians. The Palestinians were offered the chance to negotiate that frontier at Camp David and chose war instead. Now they are paying the price.
It stands to reason. It is the height of absurdity to launch a terrorist war against Israel, then demand the right to determine the nature and route of the barrier built to prevent that very terrorism.
These new strategic realities are not just creating a new equilibrium, they are creating the first hope for peace since Arafat officially tore up the Oslo accords four years ago. Once Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and has completed the fence, terrorism as a strategic option will be effectively dead. The only way for the Palestinians to achieve statehood and dignity, and to determine the contours of their own state, will be to negotiate a final peace based on genuine coexistence with a Jewish state.
It could be a year, five years or a generation until the Palestinians come to that realization. The pity is that so many, Arab and Israeli, will have had to die before then.
anyone played that new 1080 snowboarding game for gamecube? it's cool
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi anyone played that new 1080 snowboarding game for gamecube? it's cool |
Hmm, I must admit that there hasn't been any big news regarding Israel or Palestine in quite a while...even the IP threads kinda died down...
Now that Israel doesn't have to spend as much time dealing with the Palestinian terrorists, they can turn their efforts to other things. Like dealing with Iran.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok Now that Israel doesn't have to spend as much time dealing with the Palestinian terrorists, they can turn their efforts to other things. Like dealing with Iran. |
as for the article:
I'd still be a bit hesitant to call it over just yet.
But if this tranquality remains for another three months I will agree with the author, this war has been won.
I am sure the security fence onec completed entirely will bring a dawn of an even longer peace and will serve as the icon of Israeli triumph (so basically all the world will hate it 
).
| quote: |
| Originally posted by imokruok Now that Israel doesn't have to spend as much time dealing with the Palestinian terrorists, they can turn their efforts to other things. Like dealing with Iran. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by tathi anyone played that new 1080 snowboarding game for gamecube? it's cool |
I know I wasn't looking for this infatada thing.
| quote: |
| Israel's Intifada Victory |
OooOOH IRAN!
get a farking clue...Iran is one of the most pro-US Mid East countries out there. sure, they dont supply us with all our necessary oil needs, but thats prolly a good thing.
whilst we were bombing them and creating a hostage crisis from Iraq (read: Iraq, 1980), they since have been trying to internationalize and figure out why so many drugs and otherwise unnecessary shit were pouring through their borders from the Afg and onto their soil.
pardon political offiliations, but the Saudis may be our 'buddies' on the International scale, but Iranians are doing the most for change - yet with the opposition of all other ME countries|
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert What a laugh. The combat has died down for now. As in all Protracted Social Conflicts the conflict has its ups and downs. But the conflict will not end until the fundamental causes of why the fighting occurs are addressed. And Israel has no intentions of doing that. In the long run Israel will lose because of some fundamental basic and unavoidable facts. 1) its population is declining relative to that of its neighbours. The arab birthrate is skyrocketing compared to that of the Jews and there is no mass migration of Russian Jews on the horizon to address it. In fact many of the people who migrated to Israel are looking to leave, why live in a warzone where the government spends money on defence when you can live in another country which spends money on welfare. 2) it is poor people rather than rich people who are more likely to want to fight because they have less to lose from violence. Because they largely are denied to work in Israel, Palestinian poverty is increased and will increase even more as the population increases. 3) the Palestinians are more willing to die. 4) Iran will inevitably get nuclear weapons and will have the capacity to deliver them to Israel with rockets from Pakistan or North Korea, thus eliminating Israels middle-east nuclear monopoly. 5) Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened by their inevitable victory over the USA in Iraq and will turn their attention to other states in the middle east: like Israel. They see the americans beaten in Fallujah, and Fallujah to them resembles Gaza. The Palestinians have been largely deprived of access to sophisticated weaponry, thus resorting to suicide bombing but with the collapse of Iraq brings the potential access to real weapons to fight Israel like RPG's and machine guns. 6) The governments of the Middle-east are far more pro-western than their people. For example the government of Egypt would never have signed a peace treaty with Israel if it was a democracy. A large slice of the arab population, straight out hate Israel, viewing the Jews as European invaders, and democratisation of the midddle east will not lead to peace but greater ethnic identification with the Palestinians who truth be told have been largely abandoned by the arab governments in the past. The real war in the middle east is yet to begin |
Hi rupert.
How are you?
Good, anyway just wanted to prove you wrong.
And I'm not even going to do it by arguing politics with you.
Lets begin...
| quote: |
| Originally posted by rupert What a laugh. The combat has died down for now. As in all Protracted Social Conflicts the conflict has its ups and downs. But the conflict will not end until the fundamental causes of why the fighting occurs are addressed. And Israel has no intentions of doing that. |
| quote: |
1) its population is declining relative to that of its neighbours. The arab birthrate is skyrocketing compared to that of the Jews and there is no mass migration of Russian Jews on the horizon to address it. In fact many of the people who migrated to Israel are looking to leave, why live in a warzone where the government spends money on defence when you can live in another country which spends money on welfare. |
| quote: |
2) it is poor people rather than rich people who are more likely to want to fight because they have less to lose from violence. Because they largely are denied to work in Israel, Palestinian poverty is increased and will increase even more as the population increases. |
| quote: |
3) the Palestinians are more willing to die. |
| quote: |
4) Iran will inevitably get nuclear weapons and will have the capacity to deliver them to Israel with rockets from Pakistan or North Korea, thus eliminating Israels middle-east nuclear monopoly. |
| quote: |
5) Islamic fundamentalists will be emboldened by their inevitable victory over the USA in Iraq and will turn their attention to other states in the middle east: like Israel. |
| quote: |
6) The governments of the Middle-east are far more pro-western than their people. For example the government of Egypt would never have signed a peace treaty with Israel if it was a democracy. A large slice of the arab population, straight out hate Israel, viewing the Jews as European invaders, and democratisation of the midddle east will not lead to peace but greater ethnic identification with the Palestinians who truth be told have been largely abandoned by the arab governments in the past. |
| quote: |
| The real war in the middle east is yet to begin |
Funny you should say the intifada is over...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mi...ast/3845069.stm
| quote: |
| 1)its population is declining relative to that of its neighbours. The arab birthrate is skyrocketing compared to that of the Jews and there is no mass migration of Russian Jews on the horizon to address it |
| quote: |
| 4) Iran will inevitably get nuclear weapons and will have the capacity to deliver them to Israel with rockets from Pakistan or North Korea, thus eliminating Israels middle-east nuclear monopoly. |
| quote: |
| democratisation of the midddle east will not lead to peace |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley and if they dont realise that, they will become a poor shitty country, like France... |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Georgey, my good longtime friend! How have you been oh buddy-buddy? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Yoepus Georgey, my good longtime friend! How have you been oh buddy-buddy? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by George Smiley Not bad, been watching Euro 04 and feeling quite xenophobic to certain European nationalities! |
Where to start,
The population issue is essential for two reasons. Throughout history conflict has been closely associated with surges in population. Population pressure forces nations or ethnic groups into predatory behaviour in order to survive. Competition over resources, predation and fear of attack/miscalculation are invariably the source of conflict and war, ethnicity and religion are secondary and are used as a justification for agressive behaviour.
The middle east is currently undergoing an enormous population surge whereas most of the rest of the developed world has an ageing population. A population that outruns the capacity of the government and economy to support it is in serious trouble. People dont just sit around idly they look for someone to blame. Racial hatred, revolutions are intrinsically linked to economic conditions.
The converse of the population issue is that a state in order to be secure needs to feel it has advantages relative to its neighbours. Great power status is linked to population, military strength and the capacity of the economy to support that military. See the work of Paul Kennedy.
A growing population that can be supported by its economy means an increase in the taxpayer base and more importantly gives the government more soldiers.
As a general rule the side which has the greatest military technology wins. But superiority in numbers, a larger economic base and home ground advantage are better . Numerous examples demonstrate this.
Germany started WW2 with the most modern war machine in the world easily conquering all of Europe. However the German army was ground into the dust by the Soviet Union. The German army like the USA and Israel placed great store in training, the best equipment and high morale. But it was annihilated by the Soviet Union which had a vastly larger resource and economic base than the Germans and vastly superior numbers. The Western allies may have supplied material support but most Soviet equipment was home made. World War 2 was won on the Eastern front. See the work of John Mearscheimer Tragedy of Great Power Politics.
A better example is Algeria. The French colonists like the Israelis thought they could have a little slice of Europe in the Middle East. They thought wrong. France had measurably greater military technology than the Algerians. Despite hundreds of thousands of Algerians slaughtered, the Algerians won. There are no French presence in Algeria now.
Lebanon. In an effort to smash the PLO and the Syrian army Israel invaded Lebanon in the early eighties. Israels superior airpower smashed the armies of Syria and destroyed the PLO presence in Lebanon for good. It defeated those groups because it had superior technology and the PLO and Syria fought on Israels terms. Israel still lost the war in Lebanon because Hizbullah refused to fight on Israels terms. Despite killing vastly more Lebanese, the Israeli army is not set up to fight a prolonged counter insurgency war, it is set up to fight Clausewitzian wars ( wars between states, with war being conflict by other means) Without the goodwill and active support from the population Clausewitzian armies cannot beat insurgencies. For a recent example see the conflict in Chechnya where a Russian army has never beaten irregular forces. For reference see Lieven's Chechnya: Tombstone of Russian Power.
Insurgencies are typically waged by poor people because rich people have more to lose by fighting. This point is demonstrated by the terrorist groups ETA and the real IRA who operate in wealthy countries and have wage a low scale insurgency for a long time but who have low levels of active support. All in all very few people have died because those terrorist groups have difficulty mobilising support from their constituent population. They might be sympathetic to the cause but self interest ie holding down a job and paying the bills means only the most fanatical become terrorists. Compare them to the FARC and the Tamil tigers. Being an insurgent makes sense because the guerrilla is unlikely to have well paid employment.
Research has causally linked conflict with the level of economic development. Studies of civil wars show that it is economic development rather than any other criteria which makes a region prone to conflict. See Collier and Hoeffler, Fearon and Laitin. Collier and Hoeffler's work can be accessed from the World Bank webpage.
The 9/11 hijackers are a poor example of insurgents. No doubt Bin Laden picked Saudis to fly the planes in order to drive a wedge between the USA and Saudi Arabia. It worked.
Superior technology does not guarantee military success. Humans are adaptive to their enemies, either they adopt their enemies tactics and equipment or they innovate and get around their enemies advantages. See the work of Keegan and also Unrestricted Warfare, by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui.
Nuclear weapons, F16's and cruise missilles are out of the reach of insurgents so they find new ways to attack. The best bang for the buck weapon devised is the suicide bomber. They are far cheaper to use than to train a soldier and they cause widespread mayhem and panic because they achieve suprise. That is why numerous insurgencies use them. Chechnya, Israel, Sri Lanka have all seen the use of suicide bombers.
The use of suicide bombers may be couched in religious terms but is in fact an economically efficient tactic of warfare. For the economics of suicide bombing see:
Rational Martyrs vs. Hard Targets: Evidence on the Tactical Use of Suicide Attacks by Eli Berman David D. Laitin
Willingness to die becomes an absolute key to success. In an insurgency the government troops are typically reluctant soldiers. They may want to serve their country but they would much prefer to minimise risks and get home to the wife and kids. The government places a higher value on the lives of its soldiers than does the insurgency. Accordingly government forces will use whatever tactics minimises the chance of dying which invariably plays right into the hands of the insurgents. Heavy bombardments, airstrikes are invariably used in counter insurgency operations. Despite any attempts to minimise civilian losses, houses get destroyed and non-combatants get killed. Indeed the insurgents may put them in harms way to make sure that they get hurt. This benefits the insurgents as they lead to more recruits down the track.
Democracy itself doesnt help stop wars and does not lead to a reduction in religious belief. The USA is one of the most religious countries in the world and the worlds most economically advanced. Democracy does mean however that the political leaders have to pay closer attention to the wants of the population. If the population wants war, it gets it. Both Britain, France and Germany had parliaments based on almost universal suffrage prior to World War 1. The governments and economic elites at the time were extremely loath to enter war but enter war they did because of fear.
The need for state security is a far greater determinant of state action than the nature of the regime in charge. Iran will get nuclear weapons eventually irrespective of what Israel does. Indeed their need for security means they must have them come what may. Pakistan bent all its will to get nuclear weapons when India got them, and it is developing rockets which can deliver them as far as Europe. Why would they need to do that? Rumour has it that the Pakistani nuclear research was partially funded by the Saudis and I know for a fact was financed by the illicit selling of nuclear technology to Iran. That was covered in a 4 Corners documentary on Australian television.
Israels attempt to support the Kurds as a wedge against Iran is fraught with extreme danger. The Kurds safest option is a federal Iraq. All Iraqs neigbours are loath to see Kurdish independance because this threatens their territorial integrity and therefore its survival. Syria, Turkey and Iran and the Kurds are motivated by fear. Security is paramount. If the Kurds see that belonging to Iraq doesnt make it safe for them they will try for independance. Islamic fundamentalists in contrast loath and despise the current middle east order. If Israel is training the Kurds and the Islamic fundamentalists know they will attack the Kurds both to attack their hated enemy and go to paradise and shake up the middle east order. Thus the Kurds will be forced to seek independance because a federal Iraq wont protect their interests. Kurds in Turkey, Syria and Iran make seek to join them and this would not be tolerated by their governments.
Turkey, currently an Israel ally will abandon Israel for supporting the Kurds.
Iraq is much like the Balkans prior to World War 1 with many powers with competing interests. Iraq is not an ethnically homogenous entity making it unstable which is no doubt why the Sunni fundamentalists have been attacking Shia religious centres. Obviously Iran does not want that to happen and is in all likelihood supporting the Shia in the south, much as the Israelis are supporting the Kurds in the north. The chances for political stability in that environment are slim.
Uncertainty breeds revolution, the chances of many Middle East states existing in their current form in 10 years cannot be guaranteed.
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.