[RACooper]

Originally posted by James
RACooper,

Ahhh . .. see . . . now that was a mistake. I have rather carefully refrained from commenting on your IQ How can you criticise Rudey when you are just as likely to make an objective issue personal?

And I actually am serious. Lets look at it totally from the view point of Israel and the security of their nation. Lets also take a historical military context , which you should know better than I.

They have militarily won the battle. There are no more set piece engagements. There are no more direct confrontations of regular army. They are facing a situation where the enemy have melted into the subject population to the point of being indivisible from them.

The population gives them a base to hide in and supplies them with both an inexhaustible supply of personel as well as weapons and consumables.

Two historical examples.

IF you will recall the Napoleanic Wars, one of the major problems that Napolean had was that he fought war in the European way where he defeated the enemies armies but left those countries with the capacity and man-power to field other armies within a very short time period.

This would oblige him to have to fight them again and again essentially paying for the same ground multiple times until he and France were so worn down they collapsed. (I am simplifying, obviously).

In other words Napolean and France eventually lost.

If you recollect Caesar's Gallic Commentaries you will recall that Gaul united and fought Caesar even after being first defeated and in the face of amazing clemency from Caesar. Can't blame them, they perceived him as a foreign invader.

Caesar eventually turned to harsh measures. Tribes that attacked him were reduced to nothing. Most of the men of military age were killed, the lands themselves were burned.

At the final decisive battle of Uxellodunum Caesar spared the surrendering soliders' lives but as an example cut off both hands of somewhere near four thousand of them and distributed those handlless people all over Gaul as a reminder.

IT effectively ended the Gallic Wars and Gaul was so pacified that it didn't even need a garrison.

Israel has tried harsh security measures, it has tried clemency and it has failed to maintain secuirty for its people.

What would you do RAcooper if you were the leader of Israel and your people were dying?

Its an academic discussion for us, but its a matter of life and death for them.

Well lets see... first off Napleon didn't lose because he left the civilian population alive.. in fact when they (the French) adopted harsh tactics to deal with the "geurillas" (it's were the word comes from) they actually exacerbated the problem and ignited more breakouts of insurgency and weakened their diplomatic position with "defeated" nations. No the real cause of Napleon's defeat stemmed from his extending his reach to far while ignoring the mounting pressure from Allies that knew that they had to pick away at Napoleonic France instead of confronting it head on until they were ready... economics and diplomacy, coupled with the depletion of French manpower, defeated Napoleon (simplifying as well).

As for Caesar... Romans always used the idea of the heavy stick to pacify regions; sometimes successfully, other times laying the ground work for centuries anti-Roman insurgancy. Rome was actually most successful with the stick-and-carrot aproach not the heavy stick. See in Gual the Romans turned the militaryistic elements of Gallic culture to their benefit... after defeating the Guals the Romans actuall co-opted them into Roman society through the military - if you look back to that period the size of the Roman Army actually doubled with an influx of Guals willing to fight for personal glory as their ancestors did and ended being absorbed into Roman society on all levels within three generations... The Romans allowed the Guals to tie-in their future and society into Rome's, ultimately leading to the Pax Romana.

Now as for what I would do... hmm perhaps undermine the anti-Israeli movement by ensuring that the Palestinians identify with Isreal's future as their own... because as long as they see their only positive future involving the demise of Israel, neither side can win. So to begin with: conspicuiouly reward Palestinians that help or serve Israel; provide "humanitarian" services to the Palestinians of a higher quality than they can currently provide themselves; make sure that the law applies equally to both Israeli and Palestinian - no favouritism either officially or unofficially; and remove restrictions on "loyal" or "friendly" Palestinians in Israeli society (education, military, government). These examples are taken from what Romans did typically to try and pacify or induct a region into the Pax Romana... unfortunately then as now it requires considerable effort and patience - a quality that many politicans and media seem to lack.... but then again the Romans were never able to solve the problems in the region either...