Policies are predominantly wrong because any given position in the complex adaptive system has myriad options, and any one option is likely to not be the best option. Complex adaptive systems resist policies but develop through painfully long series of micro-moves. At every stage, situation changes and needs adaptive response. Policies, on the contrary, tend to be fixed and self-perpetuating; otherwise, they are derogatory called ad hoc solutions and don’t amount to policies.
It follows, that whatever a government does, it likely does wrong. Bismarck weaved the most excellent policies, but they laid a foundation for the two world wars. The League of Nations was a great idea, but it legalized the inaction which allowed Germany to re-arm. Partitioning states to satisfy both political camps seemed a viable strategy, but partitioned Vietnam fought a bloody war, and other cases proved equally unsustainable. Bleeding the communists in Afghanistan was a nice thing to do, but the aid to mujahedeen created the Islamic terrorist threat. It is not an overgeneralization to say that all policies are wrong. There are no examples of fruitful policies under the heaven.
Policies differ from methods. Working is good, though no work plausibly makes an average person billionaire; work is method, enrichment is a policy. Methods are useful in themselves while policies serve external goals. Methods can be described as derivative of policies, or as very short-term policies. Occupation of Iraq with the aim of making it democratic is a policy – wrong; punishing raid with the immediate aim of removing Saddam is a method – right. Method is a historically standard modus operandi: countries attack when threatened, punish offenders when they can, and secure their own habitat. Almost everyone agree on methods: both Jews and Arabs believe that offenders must be punished; punishment is a method. Methods have only immediate goals.
Methods rely on very short actions and are unlikely to create the Bradbury’s Butterfly effect of unforeseeable remote consequences. Most often, methods reinstate or secure status quo ante. Less frequently, methods prevent the unforeseeable developments: European settlers massacred Red Indians so that no significant minority is left to claim their ancestral lands.
How absurd it is to imagine a lion that enters a camp of gazelles to teach them manners, self-defense, or agriculture. No, lions are satisfied with the immediate goal of satiation – if at the gazelle’s expense. Peace process is of the same stock. Israel tried rejecting the Palestinian demands, succumbing to them, and every option in between. Nothing worked – because policies never work. The Middle East’s ecosystem is a textbook example of complex adaptive system. Any policy would be wrong here. Who could honestly predict that Arafat would refuse statehood which Barak gave him on the silver plate? Who knew Nasser’s mind in 1967, when he wanted to attack Israel? We don’t know whether Iran develops nuclear weapons or merely defends its right to conduct nuclear enrichment. There are myriad inherently unknown variables in the peace process equation. If Israeli Arabs are loyal, that calls for one solution; if they are not, the solution must be entirely different. If Palestinian Arabs want to live in peace with Israel, that’s one situation; if Gaza’s refugees would never accept a Jewish state, that’s a totally different situation. Would Egypt pursue a hostile peace with Israel, or would its Muslim radicals come to power and opt for a war?
Mid-term economic planning proved a communist failure, but democratic states plan something incredibly more complex than economy – human societies. The peace process will invariably fail. The only solution to Israeli-Arab conflict is to stop seeking a solution. Jews settled in the Middle East’s equivalent of inner town slums. Former residents can be sent to jails – or refugee camps – but they will keep coming back. If Jews lack a resolve for the biblically mandated solution, the only alternative is living through a smoldering conflict for centuries. That’s completely acceptable.
Many more Israelis are killed in car accidents than in terrorist acts.
"Bleeding the communists in Afghanistan was a nice thing to do, but the aid to mujahedeen created the Islamic terrorist threat."
Foolish. I hope you don't actually believe that such a singular act, the arming of the mujahadeen to fight the Russians, was the singular cause and creation of Islamic militancy or ability to carry out terrorist acts. It certainly gave them quite a boost, having all those weapons and what not, but they were well on their way to being a threat to the world. Major acts of Islamic terrorism before 1979's arming of the mujahadeen:
1972 Munich Massacre
TWA Flight 841
The Entebbe incident
Rome Airport attacks, 12/17, 1973
Iranian hostage crisis of '79 (entirely unassociated with Afghanistan)
Many many many more. I'm not saying the arming of those mujahadeens was insignificant, but I would hardly claim it was the "cause" of what we see in today's world.
http://www.israelibyday.com
A beautifully argued piece, however what is your point?
-
1) It is OK to genocide or at least intern Gazan people?
or
2) Otherwise, Jews must get out of Israel?
or
3) Just keep doing what is being done, i.e. a calculated response (where response = attack * "X") to every attack?
-
My own advice would be to make each calculated response only slightly greater ("X" = 110%) than the attack. In the meantime spy technology and ABM technology will provide more precise methods for delivering vengeance to the perpetrators of attacks, and of defending the populace against those attacks.
It is not only okay, but also a religious duty to expel Arabs from Israel - and that includes Gaza, South Lebanon, etc
Sure, there is no implication that Islamic terrorism was non-existent before Afghanistan. In fact, Obadiah argues elsewhere that terrorism is as old as warfare. Afghanistan, undoubtedly, gave a major, perhaps the major boost to Islamic terrorism.
The training of mujahideen in Afghanistan brought Islamic terrorism to a new level of refined international criminality, only achievable through the know-how of the CIA masters and suppliers. It didn't change the efforts or goals of Islam, only the capabilities, and this knowledge was undoubtedly shared across the Islamic spectrum.
_______________________________________
Unfortunately this entry seems to answer my question on the last entry. And the answer is basically a resignation or submission to the status quo. Only, those who engineered the status quo have no intention of making it permanent or static (and neither does the Arab third party). It is quite fluid and its movement is in one direction. Therefore, any embrace of or tacit resignation to the status quo (or encouragement of others to embrace it) is not only unacceptable, but is also an open submission to far worse designs.
VL: Well spoken about the Mujahdeen.
Bar: 110% is too low. If put in percent, a retaliation 1000% more powerful can be a deterrant.
If put in words - make it disproportionally painful for the enemy.
Erik: I guess there are fundamentalist Jews, just like there are fundamentalist Christians, Muslims etc. Fundamentalism is not OK in this era.
Mahommed specified that revenge for murder could be extracted by cash payment or (if terms not met) by a revenge killing of one of the murderer's tribe. In this way he stopped the escalation that so frequently followed a murder in an anarchic society. I suggest that solution.
Take it as known that tit-for-tat killings would end up with no Jews and less than 1% of Muslims dead. The answer is, bargain with relatives for cash (lots of it) and do not be a target.
Bar, OK is defined by the people who are willing to fight for their beliefs. Fundamentalists are willing to die to shape the world according to their views.
And that is quite OK with me.
Erik: "fundamentalist" is, according to wiktionary, One who reduces religion to strict interpretation of core or original texts.
-
You are perhaps thinking of the pejorative definition of the word. someone that is stupid, poorly informed, and mentally unstable.
-
As I understood it, the Israeli practice of destroying the family/tribal homes of suicide bombers has proven an efficient method for reducing the count of such attacks. My proposal is merely an extension of that principal.
The interesting question is how much does Israel really need the support of the "world opinion". Can Israel just move all Arabs (or at least all disloyal Arabs )out of Land of Israel? Or will this result in some unbearable international consequences which in term would lead to destruction of Israel?
=
The traditional "moral" solution is not possible. As Jews and Arabs are right now, they cannot live together in one country, nor is there any need for that, as Arabs have plenty other countries where they can live in their culture, religion and language.
Question is if it is possible to clearly communicate this reality to the world, atleast securing the world's neutrality if not support.
It is possible that the extreme ill-will generated by such action (removing all Arabs from the land) will result in such strong universal condemnation that Israel will be destroyed.
Alternately, perhaps the opposite is true.
So you're advising to destroy their homes, buying them out, killing them, surrendering, or just reading about things in wiktionary until the world problems will be solved?
Don't answer that. You don't know the answer. You'll just say something irrelevant trying to show off how smart you are instead.
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/new-fundamentalism.htm
Eric,
Was your post addressed to me?
I am surprised by the tone of your message. Indeed I don't know the answer, and I am surprised that you assume that I am advising anything. I am simply inquiring. Solutions are more likely to be found when people chose to inquire together rather than attack each other. We have enough enemies as it is, we don't need to attack each others:)
No, Ray. I wasn't addressing you
Your post appeared in the middle later on.
It was a response to Bar.
Eric: Don't the Moslems provide something called "umma", which is some sort of protective agreement? So they would understand living under someone else's "umma".
-
So why can't Israel declare non-jews to be "umma" in Israel? That way you don't have to let them vote, Israel can remain a sectarian state forever, and you don't have to lose their labour.
-
You don't throw them out of Israel, not because of worries about "world" opinion, but because it is wrong. You don't respond to violence with greater violence, but "an eye for an eye" (or a suitable, agreed cash equivalent.)
Bar,
I think you are talking about dhimmi status. This is like treating non-muslims as second class non-citizens. Umma means nation and usually means the community of believers, aka muslims.
Dhimmi status is much worse than non-citizens. Dhimmi are discriminated in many personal rights.
Israel needs to annex all so-called territories, grand legal resisdent status (not citizenship) to Arabs willing to live in peace and obey the laws and deport all the others.
The waiting for world approval is stupid, for it will never come as long as any non Muslim state exist in the ME.
Israel is doing so much for the sake of the world opinion, and the results are miserable. Most of the world is anti-Israeli.
Perhaps if Israel would just do whatever it must do, it would not be any worse than it is. Or perhaps it even would be better? It is really hard to know.
Perhaps Arabs would accept us more if we were more like them?
Dhimmi it is, I stand corrected.
-
I have seen in print how Moslems laud that (Dhimmi) institution, so I don't see how Muslims can object to being subject to Dhimmi. Muslims expect others to happily accept Dhimmi status, so why should they not welcome it for themselves?
-
And of course it is fair that the Dhimmi Moslems pay the Jizma poll tax, because it would be the Israelis who would have to supply the soldiers to defend them from Israel's many external enemies.:)