The American Spectator

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 1:03PM

Philip, this comment is directly on target. I was listening to Zbigniew Brzezinski the other day -- one of the most liberal foreign policy guys say that our involvement in the Hamas/Israel dispute should be one of constantly trying to lower the heat since it will probably never be solved. Furthermore, Israel must respond with force rather than take a "measured" action. I do think, however, that a dialog with Hamas is necessary since most of the Israeli military support comes from us.

What do you think about a carrot-stick arrangement in dealing with the Palestinians? Have foreign aid attached to their behavior in reducing the number of rocket attacks. In marketing, there is a principle that you can't change people's opinions, but you can change their behavior. I'd be interested in your thoughts on this.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 1:10PM

Bob: Read the HAMAS Charter and let us know , based on that, how you can justify not advocating for their destruction?

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 1:21PM

I sometimes wonder if Machiavelli is laughing at us from hell.

I know darn well what HE would recommend: Just drop a few daisy cutters on densely populated Palestinian areas and make clear that every rocket attack will be followed up by another one of these. Would civilians die? Yep - that is the point, make absolutely clear that there is no future in the Hamas tactics and they will stop. He would then say that not doing this was a false mercy, as it allowed the war to drag on forever, causing more casualties on both sides than a simple one-off massacre of civilians would cause.

I am not calling for this - but I do think it's about time the Palestinian people paid the price for their support of Hamas. Bob's proposal is a reasonable start - but no blather about distinguishing between aid to the Palestinian people and aid to Hamas - cut it all off. And don't let any aid get there from anybody else, either. Make clear to the Palestinian people that this is the price for electing Hamas, and more to the point for allowing Hamas to blow off rockets from your neighborhood.

Otherwise, Israel is sooner or later going to be left with the Machiavelli option. Arab dictators such as Saddam Hussein or Hafez al-Assad of course would have taken this option a long time ago, leaving a superficial peace and causing the left to admire their 'competence'.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 1:22PM

Vince, read carefully what I said. I believe in "responding with force" and not "being measured". I also think it is unrealistic to believe we can destroy Hamas -- only keep them in check. Israel has a right to defend itself from rocket attacks, and should do so with convincing strength. Since I don't believe we can absolutely destroy Hamas, I do like to keep open the option of trying to get them to change their minds over the next 50 years or so.

WendyG| 12.31.08 @ 1:29PM

There is NO way to negotiate with Hamas. They are killers who want Israel destroyed and as many Jews dead as they can kill. It's folly and/or naiveté to think otherwise. To understand how these animals operate read the recent stories and look at the recent pictures (if you can stomach it) that are emerging from the recent attack in India. These killers are all the same. They did not just murder innocents, they sexually abused them in horrific ways, mutilated their genitalia, etc. There are similar pictures of Israelis who got lost in Palestinian territory. No carrot, no stick, will work, against such ingrained hate.

The US stood by while Hamas rose. Bush's lowest moment IMO. That said he at least gave Israel some latitude to attack it's enemies, and he never met with Arafat. Unlike Clinton, who genuflected to Arafat.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 1:47PM

Wendy, armed conflict does not behave like Robert's Rules. When I served in Vietnam, we did some things to the enemy that would appall you. You are naive to believe that in the heat of war any side is totally clean. That said, the people on our side were not rewarded for that behavior.

Unlike you, I believe in using all tools for conflict resolution. If you are going to use force, then you use overwhelming force. Opening up a dialog may not help, but the vast majority of time it does not hurt. That was one of the things Patreaus did in Iraq with the Anbar Awakening -- and it helped. Before that, we did not talk to those people and things only got worse.

WendyG| 12.31.08 @ 2:09PM

Bob, you appear to refuse to acknowledge the special brand of evil that is Islamofascism.

Ever behead anyone in Vietnam Bob? Ever bash a child's head against a rock, killing it, forcing it's mother to watch? (You might be interested to know that the animal who did that was recently let out of prison and is considered a hero in the Arab world.) Do you know the Palestinians crucify or hang "spies?' In the public square, and then disembowel them for all to see. Sans a trial of course.

Dialogues do hurt. They embolden the enemy and weaken us. They imply moral equivalency.

We did not negotiate with the Nazis. We destroyed them.

Andrew| 12.31.08 @ 2:17PM

"Just drop a few daisy cutters on densely populated Palestinian areas and make clear that every rocket attack will be followed up by another one of these. Would civilians die? Yep - that is the point, make absolutely clear that there is no future in the Hamas tactics and they will stop. "

Um, the Israelis are already doing that; they're blowing up apartment buildings and universities in the current attack. I don't know how many times we have to go through this -- you can't fight terrorists in the same way that we fought the Nazis in WWII or the British in the Revolutionary War. The same tactics that work in fighting a country do not work in fighting a decentralized terrorist network. It would be nice if those tactics did work, but they don't.

Dropping bombs on civilians won't stop Hamas. How do we know this? Because we've tried this twenty times before. So we're going to have to figure something else out. Okay?

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 2:32PM

No, they aren't. They are targeting rocket installations and hitting apartment buildings. Unless you know different in which case I'd want to see evidence.

Assad/Hussein would not bother with that - he would just find the biggest, most civilian-rich neighborhood he could and drop a daisycutter(if not a chemical warhead) right in the center of it. See: Hama, Halabja(and scores of other examples).

My other point is: now that Hamas is the duly elected government of "Palestine", Israel IS fighting another country - "Palestine"(or if preferred "the Palestinian Authority"). They can make clear that the collective punishments(I did not recommend civilian massacres) will continue until "Palestine" surrenders. If "Palestine" wants Israel to distinguish between them and the "decentralized terror network" Hamas, then they have a simple way to achieve that: not elect Hamas.

Bob| 12.31.08 @ 2:42PM

Wendy, you would not believe some of the things we did in Vietnam. Only know that it was the exception, and not the rule. That said, fighting the Nazi's was conventional warfare. Guerrilla conflicts cannot be won just with military action. You need to learn something about modern military strategy to understand what must be done. Read about what we did in Iraq with the surge. That was done with heavy negotiation among the tribes. If you haven't fought a guerrilla action, you may not have a sense of it.

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 3:06PM

As far as Bob's alleged relevant experience, I'm afraid this is the Internet and I take no arguments from authority. Comments about what I or other posters allegedly need to learn show nothing but the author's arrogance.

However, as far as the substance: I can say what I've read about the surge(my best source is The Strongest Tribe by Bing West, also Michael Yon's book and blogging, and the report of the division that turned around Ramadi, I forget its number).

Guerilla wars can indeed be won through military action alone, but not by means that Americans or Israelis are willing to employ. Obviously, Saddam's government did not face a massive guerilla insurgency despite having a much weaker military than Israel, let alone the US. Why? Because if you declared yourself to be a brave, bold insurgent in Saddam's Iraq, then Saddam would shoot you and your whole family, then take a joyride through your village and shoot everything that moves. Look at how Saddam put down the Shiite rebellion in the early 90's - here my source is "Moqtada" by Patrick Cockburn. Afterwards the Shia were so beaten down that there was no serious resistance to Saddam's rule for a decade even though a minimum of 75% of the country hated his guts.

As far as the surge - Bing West himself recently wrote a letter to Rich Lowry of NR saying damned if he knows what caused the Awakening. What I can say is, if it is damned if Bing West knows then it is definitely damned if I know or Bob or Wendy or anyone knows. It's not that we suddenly thought of talking to the tribes - we'd been doing that all along. Part of it was protecting those who agreed to fight with us. That was easier for us to do with Iraq under occupation than it could possibly be for Israel. But part of it seems to have been just sheer persistence. After a while, the average Sunni man on the street decided he didn't want to live like this. The average Gazan has not made this determination yet. I am recommending we sort of help that particular process along.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 3:09PM

Bob keeps missing the point and then dilluting the topic.

The topic is HAMASISTAN. They are raising their childern to be Jihadi warriors. The whole Palestinian society is sick. The point was reached a long time ago where their intention has been made crystal clear.

They seek the destruction of Israel and America... Gaza should be raized. Like I said elsewhere, the total land area of it is about half the size of Chicago.

It's intolerable that this little area of land be the source of so much trouble and is being used as a gateway by Iran for Iran's global agenda.

These people literally want to take over the world. And , more importantly, they think it's aleady a foregone conclusion that they will.

For our own protection we need to change their mind.

I would carpetbomb Gaza and then get a line of bulldozers and push all of it into the sea.

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 4:21PM

Vince - I agree Israel will sooner or later end up being faced with a choice of doing this or submitting to endless killing of its citizens, IF they don't step things up soon. It seems extreme to jump straight from what they are doing now to annihilating everyone in Gaza which is why I suggest that before doing that they do some traditional war-type collective reprisals. The electricity cutoff was the exact right kind of thing from my perspective - more of that is called for. Make sure the average Palestinian on the street understands that supporting Hamas isn't cost-free-that their life isn't going to get better, and will in fact get steadily worse, until they give up Jew-killing. Then maybe they'd shape up before they get wiped out.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 4:41PM

I am struck that no one brought up one four letter word--IRAN. Sooner or later we have to deal with this devil.

Jeremiah| 12.31.08 @ 4:47PM

I'd like someone here to name me one "war" since WWII that has been "won."

Wars don't work anymore. Technology has rendered them pointless.

If you believe that Israel is going to win this by dropping cluster bombs in Gaza, you're insane.

I strongly support Israel's right to defend itself; I'm sure that good police work is ultimately what protects them. Detecting, detaining, incarcerating, and preventing terrorists is not preferrable because of some ideological preference I have against "war," it's simply the only kind of defense against terrorism there is.

You want a good model for fighting terrorism?

Dump this goofy idea of a "global war on terror," which not even the stupidest person could take seriously, and adopt as a model or analogy the fight against organized crime in this country for the past four decades.

Terrorism is essentially just that: extremely virulent, dangerous organized crime.

ruth| 12.31.08 @ 5:25PM

Jeremiah, you surprise me. Ronald Reagan defeated the Soviet Union twenty years ago. Trust but Verify, remember?

Roy| 12.31.08 @ 6:12PM

Wars that have been won since WWII:
- Chinese civil war(Mao wins, Chiang loses)
-The Korean War(US/SK win, NK loses - not a total victory, but NK had to give up its ill gotten gains, and nothing short of war would have achieved that)
- The 1956 Suez war(decisively won by Israel, Britain and France)
- The Soviet Union's war on Hungary to reinstate their communist government(USSR wins)
- China's war on Tibet(China wins)
-Fidel Castro's war against the Cuban government(Fidel wins, Batista loses)
-China's 1962 war on India(China wins, India loses)
-The Six-Day war(Israel wins, Arabs lose)
-USSR invasion of Czechoslovakia(Soviets win, Czechs lose)
-Turkey's brief war with Greece over Cyprus(Turkey wins, Greece loses)
-The Vietnam war(NVA wins, US/South Vietnam lose)
-The India-Pakistan war over Bangladeshi independence(India/Bangladesh win, Pakistan loses)
-The Yom Kippur War(Israel wins, Egypt/Syria lose)
-Vietnamese war on Cambodia(Vietnam wins, Pol Pot loses)
-Tanzanian war on Uganda(Tanzania wins, Idi Amin loses)
-Falkland war(Britain wins, Argentina loses)
-US invasion of Grenada(US wins, Grenadan Communists lose)

Damn, I'm still in the early 80's, I could keep this up a while.

I have no idea what the phrase "technology has rendered war pointless" can even purport to mean. As long as one person says to another "do what I want or I'll shoot you" and the other person says "Well I'll shoot you first", there will be a such thing as war. Or as Plato might not have really said, but Gen MacArthur definitely did: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

Regardless of what model should be used for the US war on terror, Gaza is not Israeli territory, so Israel cannot use a "law enforcement" approach there. Gazans with the tacit approval of the Gazan government are blowing off rockets at Israel from sovereign Gazan territory. How do you expect to "detain" them?

I don't think Israel will or should win by dropping cluster bombs on Gaza - but I do think they could, just as Saddam used to. That I'm insane is an assertion, not an argument.

Thomas| 12.31.08 @ 7:20PM

I am afraid the the conflict between the Jewish inhabitants of the area now known as Palestine and the Arab inhabitants of the same area will never be settled by "diplomatic" means. There is a significant number of Arabs in the region who will settle for nothing other than the total destruction of the State of Israel and the banishment of all Jews from that land.

Many attempts have been made to negotiate a settlement that would allow both groups to live in peace, but all have failed. The UN set up the Palestinian Partition Plan in 1947 and it was rejected by the Arabs. In the '90's, Israel agreed to every demand put forth by Yassar Arafat, asking only that Arafat recognize Israel's right to exist. Arafat refused. In 2005, Israel, unilaterally, granted sovereignty to the Palestinian territories and forcibly removed the Jewish settlers from those areas. The Arabs responded by increasing attacks against the Jewish state.

I am afraid that there is really only one "solution to the problem in the Palestinian territories. And Hamas and the rest of the Arab inhabitants of Gaza may just force Israel to stringently pursue that solution.

As for war being no solution, that is patently false. War is the ultimate solution. There is no negotiation necessary when your opponent is dead.

VinceP1974| 12.31.08 @ 7:38PM

War is a solution.

These stupid Cease-Fires are not a solution.

United States - North African Terrorist Pirate States
Israel - Arabs
India - Pakistan

these were conflicts that lived on beyond the cease-fire

Whenever a Muslim nation is locked in conflict with a Non-Muslim one, it appears as if the Muslim nation will not let it go... they relentless pursue war whenever they are capiable.

The best way to resolves these sorts of conflicts is to allow the war to go on... until both sides agree on who is winner is.

The way things are going on now is that the UN jumps in to protect the Muslim country and then the conflict self-perpetuates forever and ever.

BD57| 12.31.08 @ 7:56PM

This is not a "political" conflict - not when one side's terms require the elimination of the other.

The "Palestinian" people should look to the various Arab nations which talked their ancestors into leaving their homes in 1948, promising a quick rout of the Jews after which they'd be able to move back home.

Those who launch wars and lose them don't get to dictate terms.