The New York Times encapsulates the problem that much of the world has in its utter inability to distinguish between real peace and the illusory "peace process."
In a
hugely condescending editorial today, the august NYT states:As he prepares to take office as Israel’s next prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu is offering what sounds like a tantalizing commitment. He said that his government will be a “
partner for peace.”
“I will negotiate with the Palestinian Authority for peace,” he said.
We would like very much to take Mr. Netanyahu’s words at face value, and it would be a lot easier to do that if he had not worked so assiduously to build his reputation as a hard-liner with
deep misgivings about the very peace process he now claims to be willing to embrace. In this year’s election campaign, he
disparaged talks on a peace treaty with the Palestinians. Even now, he has not spelled out exactly what terms he is offering as a “peace partner.” He still cannot bring himself to endorse a two-state solution — which
we believe must be part of any serious regional peace effort.The logical fallacies here are staggering, and completely opaque to the NYT and similarly-thinking entities.
Even more egregiously, the Times proclaims:
If Mr. Netanyahu is serious about being a partner for peace, he will not get in the way of the militant group Hamas entering a Palestinian unity government with the rival Fatah faction — as long as that government is committed to preventing terrorism and accepts past agreements between Israel and the Palestinians. He will recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians — and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them. He also will not start a preventive war with Iran.
In other words, Israel must sacrifice its own peace and security for what the New York Times considers to be "peace." It is only a short distance from these self-righteous prescriptions to saying "Israel must allow itself to be destroyed in order to avoid any aggressive moves that might hurt our definition of peace."
Guess what? Syria and Israel have barely exchanged any bullets for decades. Even when Israel bombed Syria's nuclear reactor, a war didn't break out. And yet, somehow, there is no "peace treaty" between the two states! Things haven't been ideal, to be sure, but the clandestine Syrian support for Hezbollah would not be abated by a peace treaty, Syria will not suddenly love Israel because of a peace treaty, Israeli tourists will not flock to Syria after a peace treaty. All a "peace treaty" would accomplish is giving Syria a much greater tactical advantage for any future war(by owning the high ground of the Golan Heights and threatening Israel's water supply in the Kinneret) - a war that has not occured yet because Syria lacks that very advantage.
Why would anyone with two brain cells not see that this cold peace between Israel and Syria is the optimal solution?
This cold peace is the optimal model for "peace." It is ugly, it doesn't come close to the desired end state of Israel being treated like a normal country by its neighbors - but that end state will never occur. Ever. No matter what concessions Israel gives. Period.
Palestinian Arabs were offered a state multiple times. They refused, because the state they want will be by definition an existential threat to Israel. Therefore, such a state is not at all conducive to real "peace." Autonomy, economic reforms, gradual confidence building, a possible confederation with other Arab countries, allowing Palestinian Arabs "refugees" to become citizens in the nations they were born in - these and other moves would provide a type of "peace" that might not be ideal - but the constant insistence on the ideal is exactly what is preventing the optimal.
A Jewish state will never be accepted wholeheartedly by her neighbors, but it will be accepted grudgingly if Israel does not give in to stupid "peaceful" suggestions by idiots at the New York Times who consider a process more important than human lives.
(h/t
Soccer Dad)
Basically, there are two types of Iranian anti-armor missiles, both copies of Soviet technology. There is a TOW version (tube launched, optically sighted, wire guided) and a laser tracking version. While there may have indeed been some duds (even American manufactured TOW missles have a high failure rate), most likely it has to do with the steep learning curve and demanding training required to be effective with either missile. Not to mention the courage to stay up and in sight of an advancing tank in order to track, fire, and guide the missiles. Most likely, poorly motivated illiterate fanatics couldn’t use them effectively. Hizbollah poorly motivated illiterate fanatics could go to Syria for training, but nobody wants any Palestinians coming over for an extended stay.
Might be the lack of bathing and personal hygiene habits.
Anyway, in Lebanon, the IDF was surprised by the fact that the missiles were in the hands of the enemy, and didn’t adapt their tactics. Both types of missiles require a direct line of sight for engagement, unlike more sophisticated missiles that are video guided and can be “flown” their target.
One tactic of modern Armies since Napolean, not used by the IDF in Lebanon, but used to great effect in Gaza was the use of overwhelming artillery (and air) fire to demoralize the enemy. You can’t fight back against artillery, and even if it doesn’t kill anyone or break anything, it’s still hard to put up with for a few days. Or even hours.
The interesting thing about contemporary warfare, if the Allies suspected Germany was hiding munitions in the basement of a hospital, they wouldn’t have hesitated to reduce it to rubble just to find out for sure. The unwillingness of the IDF, and the US, to engage in Total War while their enemy is will eventually result in their defeat.