Here's one for all you hawks out there (and when it comes to Israel, I'm a hawk, whatever anyone might want to believe otherwise about me). Andrew Roberts, a Conservative historian, as these things go, says it all in his article title (courtesy of The Tablet) "Defeat Hamas. There, I said It".
What it comes down to is that, in his view, superior technology, allied to a high level of ability to use that technology well, will always prevail. Or, in his better phraseology, "In the eternal battle between medieval hatred and Enlightenment technological know-how, the latter has always managed to contain the former." He also, openly, dubs Hamas (and by implication Hezbollah and their sponsors - you know who you are) a fascist organisation. No argument from me on that one. Although I marginally prefer the term "clerico-fascist". So much more insulting, don't you think: gets two desirable targets in one phrase.
I'm reminded of the aphorism attributed to Patton (probably not original with him, but who cares?): "No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He wins the war by making the other poor bastard die for his." And Israel has the technology, the flak jackets and the know-how to make the other poor bastard to die for his country/ideology. Especially when he's looking to be martyred. The best soldiers are those determined to stay alive to allow the other side to martyr themselves.
While he's at it, Roberts also takes to task those (especially those outside Israel) who see the result of Operation Pillar of Cloud as somehow a defeat for Israel. His point is that whatever Hamas try to say otherwise, they got clobbered, and they achieved very little while doing so, not even anything close to what might be termed a Pyrrhic victory (as the ancient King Pyrrhus is reputed to have said, complimented on another hugely costly victory over the Romans "If we are victorious in one more battle with the Romans, we shall be utterly ruined.").
By: Brian Goldfarb
44 minutes ago
11 comments:
The problem with this thesis is that the global war against Jews, personified by Israel, is a long term war of attrition that the fanatics are confident they will win, based on sheer numbers and broad-based financial resources. If the supply of money from Iran diminishes, there's always Qatar or another source that will step up because there's no better way to garner popular support in the Muslim world than by positioning yourself as a defender of Palestinian interests.
Hi Lynne! We seem to be following each other round the web: first Engage, now here, next...?
Seriously, Hitler thought the same, and where is he (or his direct legacy) now? Or, as my younger daughter put it, recalling her experience of being on the March of the Living and entering Auschwitz behind an Israeli flag, she felt as though we had won and Hitler and the Nazis had lost because, however diminished, we were and they weren't.
So far, over the relatively recent past (the past 500 years or so), the Enlightenment has won and the Medieval barbarians have lost. While I'm no fan of Roberts' historical writings (he's a Conservative and I'm not), I agree with him on this: provided we continue to believe in Enlightenment values and act on them, we will, collectively, continue to win, and that includes Israel.
To believe anything else is to sell the pass to the Barbarians, and I'm not ready to do that, now or ever.
I am not sure about the confidence of the fanatics. After all, their inability to win a war against Israel, which they have tried several times already, fills them with that permanent frustration they are unable to forget or to overcome.
They are nihilists, so for them, if they die, if their loved ones die, it's still a win for them as long as they kill a few Jews along the way.
I still read the posts at Engage, their just haven't been that many articles posted there of late.
Still I am sure that most of them prefer to live.
No matter, Lynne. Stay with us, I promise that barbarians are under-represented on this blog, unless, of course, we are talking Zionist barbarians.
I'm with those who think Hamas won. Both sides were showing off upgraded weapons. Israel's Iron dome is purely defensive, so it will never defeat Hamas. In the meantime Hamas rockets become more and more threatening. Rockets are the future of terrorism. They fly over walls, they don't require any infiltration into enemy territory. You have to think of Hamas in terms of the logic of terrorism. Terrorists never defeat a real army, but they can make their victim/enemies feel trapped in an endless conflict. Unless, the victim/enemies suddenly regain their moral clarity and resolve to use whatever force it takes to defeat the terrorists. Israel should use whatever force it takes to defeat Hamas. How much that is exactly is Hamas's decision.
Brian,
Do you have a good idea of what it is likely to take to oust Hamas from the Gaza Strip? It is likely to be very bloody and time consuming. And it is unlikely that Israel will be given the time needed to complete the job.
Now that I have actually read the article, I mostly agree with it. Roberts is correct in seeing this as an Israeli victory and he is right. He also notes that victory in an unconventional war is likely to be a long drawn out process that will take years as happened in Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka. One thing I disagree with is his proclaiming this a struggle between the Enlightenment and medieval hatred, that is nice propaganda, but proclaims that whoever has the superior technology will win. If that was true, the United States and its South Vietnamese ally would have prevail in Vietnam instead of the North Vietnamese and its Viet Cong ally.
Sorry to butt into the conversation, But don't you consider the American loss in Vietnam being a result of political defeatism rather than a military one? I am far from being an expert on Vietnam war, so this is just my personal notion, but it seems to be supported by some experts.
Post a Comment