| Submit your comments on this article |
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan |
| On the cusp of carnage? |
| 2014-11-16 |
| [Jpost]This is not an article for those of weak stomach. It is not for those who wish to be reassured that, in the end, things will be "okay." It offers no glimmer of optimism, nor any comforting prospect of some happy ending. Indeed, if the Jews are to preserve their political sovereignty, all it bodes for the foreseeable future is one of Churchillian "blood, toil, tears and sweat." Across every border Israel shares with its Arab neighbors, within its own borders, and far removed from them, a formidable range of threats -- from damaging economic sanctions and international isolation, through murderous terrorist attacks, jihadi insurgency and domestic insurrection, to the specter of weapons of mass destruction and a nuclear Iran -- is coalescing with disturbing speed into a multi-faceted menace that jeopardizes the survival of the Jewish nation-state to a degree arguably unprecedented since its inception. Successive governments have consistently misread the battlefield, and misled by the seductive deception of political correctness, they have embraced misguided policy principles, wildly at odds with the dictates of political realities. To understand this rather harsh condemnation, it is first necessary to realize that, in principle, there exist two archetypal and antithetical contexts of conflict -- in the first of which a policy of compromise and concession may well be appropriate, and another, in which such a course is disastrously inappropriate. In the first of such contexts, one's adversary interprets any concession as a genuine conciliatory initiative, and feels obliged to respond with a counter-concession. In this context, the process will move toward some amicable resolution of the conflict by a series of concessions and counter-concessions. In the alternate conflictual context, however, one's adversary does not interpret concessionary initiatives as conciliatory gestures, made in good faith, but as an indication of vulnerability and weakness, made under duress, portending defeat. Such initiatives will not elicit any reciprocal conciliatory gesture, but rather demands for further concessions. If one concedes to the demands, instead of enjoying a convergent process that leads toward peaceable resolution of differences, a divergent process will lead either to capitulation or to large-scale violence. In other words, once one side realizes that its adversary is acting in bad faith and can only be restrained by force; or the other side realizes it has extracted all the concessions it can by non-coercive means – meaning that further gains could only be won by force – problems worsen for the party seeking bilateral satisfaction. 'if you will not fight when victory is sure' If one happens to be in a situation that approximates the second context, but adopts a policy suited for the first, disaster is inevitable. Sadly, for more than two decades, this is precisely what Israeli governments – with varying degrees of myopic zeal and/or reluctant resignation – have done. Unless robust and resolute remedial measures are undertaken without delay, such disaster is inevitable. There can be little doubt that the Arab-Israeli conflict resembles the second context far more closely than the first. After all, every gut-wrenching concession Israel has made since the early 1990s has failed to produce any conciliatory response from its Arab adversaries. All it finds is greater intransigence and more obdurate insistence on further appeasement. |
| Posted by:g(r)omgoru |
| #3 Probably because Israel is surrounded by the equivalent of an ebola pandemic. |
| Posted by: JohnQC 2014-11-16 10:36 |
| #2 I posted this to the Ebola thread. No idea how the comment ended up here. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2014-11-16 10:06 |
| #1 So now that it's been rampaging for awhile, which is really more contagious Ebola or it's cousin Marburg? |
| Posted by: 3dc 2014-11-16 09:58 |