Wars are rarely cold

Israel-Syria military escalation is driven by mutual fear, recalling the Cold War arms race. The Cold War ended peacefully while the similar fear-induced conflicts from WWI to the Six-Day War ended up in military engagement. The difference is crucial for understanding foreign relations: fear versus crushing fear. The first response to fear is strengthening oneself. Then, if the enemy is not deterred he should be preempted; thus the Six-Day War. The prolonged state of fear, especially combined with one’s increasing strength, provokes wars; Russia and Germany plunged into the WWI.

It was entirely different with Cold War. Tens of thousands of nuclear warheads made the war prohibitively destructive; the fear of enemy was crushing. Theoretically, crushing fear can lead to desperate attack. That hardly happens in practice for whatever is crushed, cannot rebound.

Israel fears Syrian military buildup on the Golan Heights. Syria fears Israel’s military exercises near the Golan Heights and political instability in Israel. Israel fears hundreds of Syria’s mid-range missiles and tens of thousands of short-range rockets capable of showering Israel in spite of her missile defenses. Syria fears Israeli attack against its missile sites and other military installations. That cycle of mutual fear cannot be discharged by diplomatic efforts. It should be escalated beyond the other party’s tolerance. Israel should declare the immediate nuclear annihilation of Syria in response to its rocket shower on Israel.

Assad believes he can get the Golan Heights back without winning the war, just like Egypt got the Sinai though lost the war in 1973. Threat of regional destabilization will put the US pressure on Israel to cede the Golan Heights to Syria. Assad, therefore, can start a war to lose it. Olmert needs a major victorious war for his career. Iran wants a war in the Middle East to defuse attention to its nuclear program. IDF needs a war with conventional enemy to recover its reputation losses in fighting guerrillas. The stage is set for a senseless war that everyone needs.

The concept of crushing fear fully applies to the Palestinians. The British quashed Palestinian insurrection in 1930s by overwhelming retaliation which included razing of towns, mass killings, and other orthodox military measures. Instead of provoking Arab insurgents with tales of Palestinian statehood, Israel should crush the hopes of Palestinians: kill every high bureaucrat and member of the PA parliament, ban political associations, shoot suspected guerrillas, and transfer the population. Palestine with a hope is better for Israel than a hopeless Palestinian state.

Erick S

I like the nuclear idea, though I doubt that I prefer one corrupted state over another.

If the Palestinians are abolished, the Syrians destroyed, and the Iranians reduced to ashes, Israel will still remain a rotten place.

If only there was something pure here worth preserving.

Reply to this comment

Ray Bright Subscribed to comments via email

Please explain the last sentence:

“Palestine with a hope is better for Israel than a hopeless Palestinian state”.

Is not what we have now exactly the “Palestine with a hope”? I don’t understand this in the context of the article.
Also, why is a hopeless Palestinian state so bad for Israel?
Perhaps it is good. Perhaps when Palestinians have their own failed state, everybody will bud-off, and let them fade into insignificance?

Also,

This seems to costly:
“Israel should declare the immediate nuclear annihilation of Syria in response to its rocket shower on Israel.”

Can not Syria be destroyed completely with just conventional weapons? Would this not be a much lower cost in terms of international relations?

Ray you overestimate the amount of ordnance the IDF possesses.
We cannot carpet-bomb Syria like the U.S.

Jay

Absolutely, Erick.

================================================

PS: I apologize to the regular commenters for their having to witness my jab at the admin and Mr. Shoher, but no apology is extended to that ugly duo.

PPS: I don’t find the place where I can unsubscribe to this damned discussion.

Erick,
I don’t think carpet bombing is necessary. If each Syrian rocket is instantly answered (let’s say within 15 minutes) by an Israeli conventional rocket aimed in such way as to cause most disruption, it will be a bad business for Syria. Their rockets are likely to be much less accurate. Most of are likely to not cause harm. On the other hand the Israeli rockets, will very likely reach their aim most of the time.
So here is a scenario:
5 Syrian rocket fall on Israel, 1 of them hits someone, perhaps 2 people are dead, 10 people are hurt. That’s too bad. The price: 15 minutes there is no light in Damascus, Assad’s presidential palace is ruble, the Bath party head quarters are a crater, and 200 top officials are dead.

How long do you think Syrians will enjoy this game? I don’t think we need nukes for that.

Same with Egypt by the way. Assam dam can be broken with some bunker busters, no need for nukes.
————————————–
I suggest that the nukes should be used in Mecca!
It’s a challenge to the Muhammadans: If Allah exists, he will protect Mecca. If Kaba survives, the nukes, then we will all convert to Islam. If on the other hand Kaba is melted into some radioactive glass, then perhaps Allah is just another Bronze Age myth. You can now give up your Allah and and let’s be friends.

You’re talking about some border skirmish Ray. We’re talking about a war. Syria will not be taken out, and its high command will not be annihilated, in 15 minutes.

Syria has thousands upon thousands of missiles, and Hezbollah has similar amounts stocked in Lebanon.
They could shower pretty much every important part of Israel, and the north, for weeks.
Without a decisive and ruthless ground assault that will target Damascus, this war will drag on for weeks, and will be devastating for Israel.
The ground assault itself will also carry harsh consequences: The urban combat will drag on, since Damascus is no village; Many soldiers will be killed, and the missiles will keep coming - From northern Syria and from Lebanon. This time, the IDF will not be able to conduct a full scale ground offensive in the Lebanese hills, which will provide Hezbollah with much more freedom of movement than last time.

Also, since the fighting will carry on, and Israel will be weakened - what if Egypt decides to take advantage of the situation? What if Iran decides to send equipment, soldiers and its pilots over here? Is this a risk worth taking? Iran is an enemy of the US, but Egypt is an ally.

It sounds like Obadiah is overreacting, but in fact - nuclear devastation is the quickest, and best way to conduct a war against Syria. It is also the only action that might instill fear in the heart of the enemy again, thus providing peace for a few more years.

The Mecca threat should be used regardless, but
do you really think Muslims will abandon their faith if Mecca is be melted in a thermonuclear blast?
There will be a crysis of faith, and then they will move-on - Strengthened. That’s how faiths work. The Gush-Katiff Pogrom, where scores of young Jews believed god will save them from the government, had a similar effect.

Erik,

Knocking down power,water, telephones, bridges, ports, radio and TV stations, government buildings, jails, etc, can be done without N-bomb. It would be too high price for Syria to pay for it’s adventure. They will have to stop or face complete chaos.

====
As for Mecca, without it there cannot be the 4th pillar of Islam, hajj. Without Hajj, you cannot be a Muslim.
Besides Islam much more than other religions relies on the sward. It was established by the sward, and unlike other religions, a total militarily defeat of their holy of the holies will make people doubt the “truth” of Mooo-Ham-Mad.

Joseph

Ray Bright — You seem a little more aggressive lately. Have you been eating meat? I agree about nukes for Syria; nukes for Mecca as reserve threat. If Damascus is melted, the threat would be real.

Ray, this is exactly what the Israeli Chief of staff had thought before the 2nd. Lebanese war.
Do I need to remind you of the outcome?
Syria just needs to hold on. If power lines, water supply, telephones and so forth are lost, and the population suffers, it doesn’t matter to them. They are not a weakling democratic state. They can hold on like that just long enough for a ceasefire to be forced on Israel - after which they will declare their great victory.

And we cannot go for anything but total annihilation of the Syrian power base. So, no go - Still nuke.

I hope I’m at least enlightening you about the grim reality of the situation

Joseph: Lol

Joseph,
There is no necessary link between veganism and pacifism. Veganism is a simple and natural expression of rational intelligence as well as reasonably developed aesthetic sense. Pacifism is on the other hand is the expression of dream-world idealism.
For your information Joseph, several world champions in Karate and other martial arts were vegan. Traditionally the most of medieval Japan’s Samurai’s were vegan, too. None of the above were pacifists. Israelis soldiers would be way more efficient (and the reserves less fat, lower cholesterol, lower blood pressure, and significantly higher blood oxygen!!!) should they be vegan. Everything else equal a vegan kicks meat-eaters a** any time.
=============
Erik,
In Lebanon Israel went into all kind of pains to not cause “unnecessary or extensive” suffering on “innocent” population. The amount of damage inflicted on Lebanon was significant, but much less than it could have been, should Israel be unrestrained.
Secondly, nobody can force ceasefire on Israel. And it is illogical to think that Israelis would use nuclear bomb, if they are too concerned with the “world opinion” to complete the “conventional” job.
Just think how restrained IDF was in Lebanon, they did not even bomb the Iranian embessy even thought there was a suspicion that the chief leader of Hisbulah was hiding in there.

It was a joke, Ray. Eating meat does raise tension and aggressiveness, though. The Bushi of old Japan ate comparatively much more meat and fish than the peasant and priestly classes — they could afford it. Even Japanese Buddhists eat fish because, obviously, they are an island nation with very limited space to grow beans, et cetera. * NFL … * Man oh man, that turkey is going to be good on Thursday. Enjoy the Tofurkey ! Happy Thanksgiving !!

Happy Thanksgiving Joseph

Ray, the scenario of attacking Syria is just as imaginary as a nuclear strike on it.
So as long as we’re debating theoretical scenarios which will never happen, let’s not be realistic, yes? In theory, the most efficient way to neutralize Syria is a nuclear strike. Obadiah knows it, and I know it. We already explained why.

In reality, Israeli weakling leadership will not strike Syria with conventional weapons to any serious degree. At least not one that will actually get the job done. The enemy, though, will use the exact strategy that I described, to wreak havoc on Israeli cities and settlements.
Attacking infrastructure is useless against totalitarian Muslim countries, and is the equivalent of shattering glass windows in a wall and hoping that it will collapse.

And what is this “nobody can force ceasefire on Israel”?
Every war Israel ever was in proves the opposite. Ceasefires were always forced on Israel at the moment it was winning. Certainly, a ceasefire will not be forced on the Muslim enemy if it holds the advantage. I bet the world will just sigh in relief when this country is overrun. Maybe I will too.
If nobody could force a ceasefire on us, then we could also use nukes freely. These conditions come hand in hand.