| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine |
| Lessons from Israel's Success in War on Palestinian Terror |
| 2004-09-22 |
| Rather than calling the terrorism assault a war, Israelis reflexively adopted the misleading Palestinian term intifada--implying an unarmed civilian uprising against an armed occupation. In fact, this was a war by armed Palestinians aimed mostly at Israeli civilians and launched after Israel had agreed to end the occupation--an anti-intifada. Meanwhile, European and even American leaders were still passionately courting Arafat. In one particularly degrading episode, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright literally ran after Arafat as he stormed out of cease-fire talks in Paris in October 2000 and begged him to return to the table. Washington didn't even place Hamas and Hezbollah on its list of terrorist organizations until November 2001. Rather, most of the international community held Israel responsible for weakening Arafat and his ability to restrain terrorism. Conventional wisdom insisted that the Fatah movement was different from Hamas and that "political" Hamas was different from "military" Hamas. This is the disaster Sharon faced when he assumed the premiership in March 2001. To respond effectively, he first had to convince Israelis that negotiating under fire would only encourage terrorism and that a military solution for terrorism did indeed exist. And so, one of Sharon's first acts in office was to meet with the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) general staff and demand a plan for victory. Toughness, but... Still, he didn't immediately go to war. The Lebanon fiasco of the early '80s had taught him the danger of initiating a military campaign without the support of both the mainstream left and the U.S. administration. (By contrast, Sharon didn't waste time wooing France and other European Union countries that wouldn't support the war on terrorism no matter what Israel did.) This is the first lesson Sharon could teach democratic leaders facing a war against terrorism: Insure domestic consensus and the support of vital allies. ... intelligent distinctions between necessary allies and phony ones. And the vital importance of domestic support. Sharon imposed on himself a regimen of single-mindedness and patience. He concentrated almost exclusively on security, leaving the country's economy and its foreign relations--with the exception of relations with the Bush administration--to other ministers. Nor did he allow himself to be distracted by divisive domestic issues like the secular-religious divide. wouldn't that be helpful here as well? What's the point of fomenting domestic divisions when we're at war? By becoming the first Likud leader to endorse a Palestinian state, Sharon broke with his own party's ideology and recast himself as a consensus politician. And he established a national unity government with the Labor Party. He acted liked the leader of a nation at war, not a party at war. Amen. Let's hope Bush figures this out in Phase II. Biden, McCain, Hagel, George Will, WFBuckley et al must be on board this time around. Screw the Euroweenies; get your own party and moderate Dems on board. And recognize the vital importance of Russia and India in Phase II of this war. |
| Posted by:lex |
| #10 A case of: "Our shit is stuff and your stuff is shit." ??? I always think of the following tune when you hit this topic, so enjoy... Praying For Time These are the days of the open hand They will not be the last Look around now These are the days of the beggars and the choosers This is the year of the hungry man Whose place is in the past Hand in hand with ignorance And legitimate excuses The rich declare themselves poor And most of us are not sure If we have too much But we'll take our chances 'Cause God's stopped keeping score I guess somewhere along the way He must have let us all out to play Turned his back and all God's children Crept out the back door And it's hard to love, there's so much to hate Hanging on to hope When there is no hope to speak of And the wounded skies above say it's much too much too late Well maybe we should all be praying for time These are the days of the empty hand Oh you hold on to what you can And charity is a coat you wear twice a year This is the year of the guilty man Your television takes a stand And you find that what was over there is over here So you scream from behind your door Say what's mine is mine and not yours I may have too much but I'll take my chances 'Cause God's stopped keeping score And you cling to the things they sold you Did you cover your eyes when they told you That he can't come back 'Cause he has no children to come back for It's hard to love there's so much to hate Hanging on to hope when there is no hope to speak of And the wounded skies above say it's much too late So maybe we should all be praying for time |
| Posted by: .com 2004-09-22 9:44:04 PM |
| #9 I also believe that less Rovian/fundamentalist politics would help significantly to build more support for the war. Stupid to push the Marriage Amendment now. Was it really necessary to piss off loyal supporters who happen not to be born-agains? I don't believe in god, and I'm as fiercely pro-war as anyone in this country. Do we really need to keep hearing the BS about how our (Bush's) religion o' peace is superior to their religion o' peace? Bravo, superbly well said, lex. I continue to maintain that this administration's overemphasis upon religiosity has not only served (inadvertently or not) to confirm terrorist claims of an American "Crusade" against the Arabs, but has also placed the United States in greater danger by painting it as a Christian nation. It is this constant overstressing of religion that cripples our ability to begin identifying Islam in general, and Salafist Wahhabism specifically, as a political ideology and not a religion. Without highlighting this critical militant agenda contained within Islamic doctrine, the war on terrorism will always be susceptible to being painted as a clash of religions instead of the proper extermination of violent mass murdering radicals that it really is. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2004-09-22 9:02:59 PM |
| #8 Yes, but I wasn't persuaded by the retreaters. One of the great defects of liberal thinking is the belief that one can make decisions based on complete, and completely accurate, information. Typical of an academic or journalist. Anyone with practical experience of governing or management knows that one never has enough info or sufficient time to thoroughly evaluate that info. In practical life, most decisions are judgment calls. |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-22 1:54:13 PM |
| #7 did you see the TNR piece on liberal hawks taking another look at the Iraq war? - they had Hitch, Berman, and a couple of others. A couple had retreated, Hitch was firm, and Berman was nuanced. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-22 10:36:03 AM |
| #6 Good man. Appreciate any lionks you have to other writers/articles/books |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-22 10:33:12 AM |
| #5 youre preaching to the choir on that lex, ive read Berman, and push his book wherever i can. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-22 10:00:49 AM |
| #4 There are plenty of strong, courageous, ferociously hawkish left-libs who could help this admin greatly in its efforts to build enduring support for the long twilight struggle: Hitchens, Paul Berman, even the pro-war French socialist intellectuals and pols like Bernard Kouchner of Medecins Sana Frontieres and Bernard Henri-Levy. Wouldn't it have been smarter to tone down the kulturkampf stuff and reach out to these influential and tireless advocates of an unstinting war against jihadist fascism? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-22 9:52:41 AM |
| #3 Good points all, LH, and I'd certainly agree that our natural tendency is toward complacency and a soft isolationism. But leadership matters, hugely, and only Kerry's complete incoherence and the idiocies of MikeyBoy et al disguise the fact that the admin's communications strategy is floundering right now. I also believe that less Rovian/fundamentalist politics would help significantly to build more support for the war. Stupid to push the Marriage Amendment now. Was it really necessary to piss off loyal supporters who happen not to be born-agains? I don't believe in god, and I'm as fiercely pro-war as anyone in this country. Do we really need to keep hearing the BS about how our (Bush's) religion o' peace is superior to their religion o' peace? |
| Posted by: lex 2004-09-22 9:44:20 AM |
| #2 Biden, McCain, Hagel, George Will, WFBuckley What direction to move to get all of them? Be less divisive at home to get Biden and McCain, and you distance further from Will and Buckley. Emphasize democratization, to get McCain and maybe Buckley and Biden, and you distance further from Will and Hagel. Get less ambitious about democratization, and shift towards a kind eye to would be autocrats like Putin, but away from euros, pick up Will,maybe Buckley, but not Biden or Hagel, and probably not McCain. Make nice to the Euros to pick up Biden and Hagel, lose Buckley, Will, maybe McCain. Frankly, while i have alot to criticize Bush about, I must sympathize with him to some degree. Its NOT just the admin that doesnt seem to be taking this seriously - the whole polity is lax in that regard. This isnt Israel. Which may have something to do with the fact that we DONT have the level of terror, the casualties, the constant attacks - or the mass conscript army with the elaborate reserve system. We're simply not endangered the way they are. |
| Posted by: Liberalhawk 2004-09-22 9:26:42 AM |
| #1 smoke the leadership with missiles and the cults fall apart....who'da thunk it? |
| Posted by: Frank G 2004-09-22 8:29:44 AM |