Even with nukes not in the picture, conventional warfare is deterrent enough in that no state-actor would take Israel on and expect to win. Thus, we are back to non-state-actors pecking away to no avail…

Guerilla warfare and state-actors supporting non-state militants is nothing new. I’d argue that we’re in the status-quo when it comes to that. As for nuclear proliferation, every shred of evidence I can find leads me to believe that you’re worry over the ’spread’ of nuclear stuffs is misplaced. What makes you think that non-state actors can or are getting their hands on something like a suitcase nuke? I don’t think it’s impossible, but the odds are stacked against them. Not to mention that those with the nukes don’t want the detonation trail leading back to them.

I’m not so sure that offering 9/11 up as an instance where the US was ‘touched’ in a truly significant way has a place in what we’re talking about. If anything, it’s the same sort of thing as rockets falling on Sderot. Granted, the latter is far more expected and something Israelis have become accustomed to. If anything 9/11 stands out for the US merely because ‘we’ had never been hit like that. Still, it was not a major hit and 3,000 dead with a few square blocks being disintegrated out of pure luck is nowhere near what the US has done because of this attack. Normally, there is a general rule where actors hit each other about as hard as they’ve been hit…proportional response. 9/11 was a peck in a major US urban center that hurt the US but did not threaten its existence in any way. What the US has done in response has hurt everyone, including the US. It’s ironic, but I’d also argue it’s what Bin Laden, et al. were looking for the US to do. Sadly ironic.

I’m not saying that 9/11’s or terrorist attacks in general are tolerable, but in as much as they threaten the US or Israel, it is very minimal. I would argue, as I hinted at above, that the US response (as with some of Israel’s responses) does more damage than the original terrorist attack.

“The Israeli government has the same responsibility to its citizens.”

I agree. However, Israel is not a benign actor in this. If your Canadian situation happened and the US was not antagonizing or doing anything questionable (i.e. establishing settlements in Quebec in a strategic network of locations) then the response would be swift and justified. Israel responses tend to generate more of the same…and vice versa….and the cycle continues. Israel has more responsibility to Israeli’s than merely responding to attacks…

“And yet, placing Lebanese and Palestinian civilians directly in harm’s way during conflicts with the IDF has been utterly routine for “resistance” groups almost since day one.”

Not sure what you mean here. Lebanon and Palestinian areas are tightly packed population centers…at least where Israel tends to respond militarily. There are instances of militants hiding in schools or mosques, but people sleeping in their beds in a housing complex where a HAMAS leader also lives are hardly being put there in harm’s way on purpose. They just live there. Then, Israel drops a 500lb bomb and levels the flats. Israel targets the HAMAS leader, and usually Israel is ok with collateral damage, but sometimes they kill far more than they’re looking to and they are the one’s selecting the targets. I mean, they could have killed Sheikh Ahmed Yassin in his home, but they chose to send a rocket at his wheelchair. That got him and minimized damage.

I wasn’t suggesting that Israel lay down its weapons with my US analogy. Just saying that they have enough military power to take care of everyone if they were willing to run amok like the US has in places like Iraq. Luckily, Israelis are smarter than that. I more or less agree with what you’re saying with the notion of HAMAS et al laying down their weapons.

As for choice in Palestine, it’s not as easy as you make it out to be. There is some responsibility in the populace, but violence and death have a way of influencing people to play along…as I’m sure you know. Perhaps empowering Palestinians by working with them to eliminate the violent types would get us somewhere…but until that happens, who knows what will happen beyond more of the same.

As for you Sean, I’m not sure what you mean. Where is the death penalty an effective deterrent? Suicide bombers who were killed would be martyred all the same as well. : )

No, I think with the collapse of the Soviet Union, we’ve more or less entered a world where deterrence doesn’t broadly apply (Though it’s arguable that India and Pakistan are in a situation that in some ways resembles the stalemate between the US and the Soviet Union). Proliferation abounds, both from the disintegration of Russian control over their arsenal as well as the A.Q. Khan’s of the world, who’re more than happy to share their technology. Throw into the mix the troubling links between North Korea and Syria (just what was it that the Israelis hit in Syria a few months ago?) and the proclivity of so many governments to use terrorist cells as their primary means of carrying out warfare and it becomes very difficult to see how we can ever get back to a stable MAD situation.

Additionally, I heartily disagree with you that we could “remove our military entirely and rest assured that no one would touch us.” At the risk of sounding cliche, I remember 9/11, and neither the US military nor the threat of nuclear retaliation seemed to figure into anyone’s calculations. And while rockets hitting Sderot on a daily basis don’t really constitute a threat to Israel’s continued existence, it’s inconceivable that they can be seen as anything except intolerable.

If rogue Canadian groups seeking to reclaim land in Maine that was ceded by the British were lobbing mortars and rockets into American cities, no one would think of that as a serious existential threat to the United States. On the other hand, it wouldn’t be tolerated for one moment and actions would be taken to bring it to an immediate halt. The Israeli government has the same responsibility to its citizens.

Civilian sacrifice when it comes to your enemy is one thing, killing your own civilians is another.Civilian sacrifice when it comes to your enemy is one thing, killing your own civilians is another.

And yet, placing Lebanese and Palestinian civilians directly in harm’s way during conflicts with the IDF has been utterly routine for “resistance” groups almost since day one.

Whether or not this would translate into being willing to immolate them in a nuclear attack, I don’t know. Suffice it to say, however, that I’m not impressed with the regard that the “resistance” shows toward innocents. More often, it seems, their corpses are useful puppets to drag around in front of the Western press.

I guess what it comes down to is that, despite all the legitimate criticisms of Israeli policy (I’m no fan of the settlers, for instance), I believe that if Israel laid down its weapons, it would slowly be destroyed. Conversely, if Hamas, Hizb’Allah, etc. laid down their weapons, then there’d be an opportunity for peace and for the Palestinian “government” could start spending its money on the people it ostensibly serves rather than throwing money at weapons to kill Jews.

Pointing to past injustices and treating the Palestinians as victims who have no choice but to take up armed resistance is to treat Palestinians as if they have no free will or agency. It is, in a sense, to dehumanize them and treat them as little more than brutes who can do naught but react. They have a choice. As I see it, the Palestinians are choosing war and it is the Palestinians who much choose peace.

I’m not suggesting that Israel uses nukes against suicide bombers. The ace-in-the-hole is merely stating, in my opinion, that Israel has nukes to rely on if its existence is indeed threatened. I would argue that the results of conventional warfare in the past are enough to have pushed many nations into peace with Israel, and I would imagine that the same people realize that a nuclear Israel is 100% insurmountable. A suicide bomber carrying a suitcase nuke presupposes that they can get their hands on one. That’s highly doubtful despite the problems in the former-USSR and the nuclear weapons/tech that is unaccounted for. As romantic as the notion seems to be, the reality is that most nuclear powers are pretty good at controlling and/or monitoring the flow of nuclear technology. There’s also the fact that a nuclear weapon is 100% traceable. Whether this means that the weapon was stolen or purchased may not matter in the end, but at the very least ‘we’ would know where it came from. I’m also hesitant to equate any of HAMAS’ or Hezb’Allah’s tactics with the use of nuclear weapons. Ditto for Iran. Arabs may be pissed off, but I’m sure that they’re fully aware that a nuclear blast in Israel means that Palestinians, Iraqis, Syrians, Kuwaitis, Qataris, Bahrainis, Saudis, Jordanians, Omanis, Emirati’s, et al. would feel the heat, so to speak. The wind blows from the west. Of the two, Hezb’Allah is the only one that has internationalized its actions. HAMAS is good about fighting local and regularly re-asserts its lack of desire to internationalize (yes, even with guys like Meshaal in Damascus). Iran is in no hurry to assure its destruction either. Civilian sacrifice when it comes to your enemy is one thing, killing your own civilians is another.

I’m not sure how you have current tabs on Israel’s nuclear arsenal, but I would be shocked if you were right in your assertion. Even the US arsenal is enough that we could remove our military completely and still rest assured that no one would touch us and risk nuclear attack. Of course, our military isn’t really in place for self-defense. At least, not entirely.

As always, good to hear from you.

Doesn’t this rather presuppose that deterrence still works? I mean, it’s not like Israel is facing an existential crisis from state actors so much as non-state actors who receive substantial financial and material support from a number of different state and non-state sources.

It’s highly doubtful that Israel would ever use its nuclear capabilities in any event short of ICBMs headed in its direction, in which case it would already be too late. A nuclear arsenal, however, is not particularly effective as an “ace-in-the-hole” when dealing with a suicide bomber carrying the proverbial “suitcase nuke” and whom is more than willing (as Hamas and Hizb’Allah tactics have repeatedly proven) to sacrifice civilians — Israeli and Arab — in the service of the cause.

Much like the US’s nuclear arsenal, Israel’s is something of a relic. It might’ve been useful when it was facing the threat of invasion, but most of its neighbors, save the Palestinian territories and those parts of Lebanon controlled by Hizb’Allah, seem to have given up the ambition of throwing the “Zionist Entity” into the sea by massed force of arms.

Personally, I think one can acknowledge militancy on either end and have plenty to say about the militancy of various Arab ‘resistance’ groups and not resort to the canard of “large-scale” militant Islam. There are 250 million Arabs in the Arabic-speaking Middle East. There are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world. Surely, if things were as “large-scale” as it is often stated, Israel and others would have their hands full of a lot more than what they’re dealing with now…..

Then, when you look at potential violence, 1.25 billion Arabic-speakers and their Muslim brethren can’t quite reach the power that a full-nuclear-launch on Israel’s end could. If they wanted to, I imagine Israel could turn every Muslim/Arabic-speaking urban center into a glass parking lot by morning. At the very least, 17 million Egyptians could be vaporized by morning–and that’s just Cairo and the Cairo Metropolitan area. Of course, this fact kind of begs the question as to why Israel is apparently paranoid of ever coming to an end as a nation-state. They have the ultimate ace-in-the-hole when it comes to violent negotiation.

But yes, I also wanted to point out that inaccurate rockets and even suicide bombs don’t really stack up to helicopter gunships, tanks, and F-16s.

“and they don’t teach their children that anyone who is non-Jewish is sub-human.”

Not all settlers for sure, but there are plenty who do. At least, the insinuation is there when Talmudic justification is thrown about to justify the control over a region for purely religious (Jewish) means. Perhaps not sub-human, but definitely sub-Jewish. It’s ironic.

“Jewish ideology does not historically breed hate propaganda against other groups.”

So, when did they start exactly?

“Islam, in its militant form (which Judaism has yet to evolve into on a large-scale)”

Um, you do know that Israel possesses nuclear weapons. That’s pretty large-scale in the ways of force-multipliers. That’s not even mentioning modern military weaponry versus Katyusha Rockets and other sub-standard weaponry.

“Let’s not kid ourselves about what the root of the Middle East’s problems are.”

True, it’s the British at the root. That’s what you meant, right?

“It comes down to two very different kinds of cultures/societies which are unable to live side-by-side.”

Inaccurate…historically and now.

“One of them is a modern, democratic culture and society which also uses primitive teachings to stake claim to a slither of land.”

A slither? Anyway, I know what you’re trying to say, but you’re ignoring the magnitude of importance to the dirt in that sliver of land to various peoples.

“The others are dictatorial, undemocratic, unruly, and unforgiving cultures and societies which are suffering under the greed of various autocrats and royals who stay in power off of fueling their people’s hatred of Israel, the Jews, and the West through State-controlled propaganda.”

And how did they get there? Are you arguing that this is some sort of Arab Determinism?

“The settlers are only a loose screw in all of this.”

Only one completely ignorant of Israeli politics could let this whopper through. No offense, but you need to read up on WHY the politics of settlers and the religious-right carry the power they do. In a nutshell, Israeli PM’s and their parties need to formulate a government. In order to do that, you must reach across political lines to provide enough carrots for others to join you in your government. One of the most consistent carrots, for the last 40 years, has been the continuation and expansion of Israeli settlements in what is generally understood to be Palestinian territory…or at least “where the Palestinians have been living for a while”. When you look at the strategic placement of these settlements and the military effort that goes into protecting them, it’s no wonder that Palestinians (or anyone really) would feel under siege.

Anyway, that’s my 2 shekels for now.

The mere choice of language when discussing this issue is grounds for criticism from either side.

I’m not a fan of settlers, either. Not because they use the “victim” card (please do some research), but because they do the exact opposite - they use the right to oppress card - i.e. they are religious zealots. Fortunately settlers aren’t as violent or militant as terrorists. They don’t send their kids out to bomb public places in the West Bank and they don’t teach their children that anyone who is non-Jewish is sub-human. Jewish ideology does not historically breed hate propaganda against other groups. In fact, Jewish ideology accepts Islam’s validity as a human religion. Islam, in its militant form (which Judaism has yet to evolve into on a large-scale), is exclusive and violent. Let’s not kid ourselves about what the root of the Middle East’s problems are.

The problems of the Middle East as they relate to Israel are this simple:
It comes down to two very different kinds of cultures/societies which are unable to live side-by-side. One of them is a modern, democratic culture and society which also uses primitive teachings to stake claim to a slither of land. The others are dictatorial, undemocratic, unruly, and unforgiving cultures and societies which are suffering under the greed of various autocrats and royals who stay in power off of fueling their people’s hatred of Israel, the Jews, and the West through State-controlled propaganda.

The settlers are only a loose screw in all of this.

It’s called Euthanasia.

Sickening.