Friday, July 21, 2006
Cease fires, and peace
There was a time when it would have been suicidal to threaten, much less attack, a nation with much stronger military power because one of the dangers to the attacker would be the prospect of being annihilated.
"World opinion," the U.N. and "peace movements" have eliminated that deterrent. An aggressor today knows that if his aggression fails, he will still be protected from the full retaliatory power and fury of those he attacked because there will be hand-wringers demanding a cease fire, negotiations and concessions.
One does have to wonder what the hell the UN actually thinks will happen if it is able to manufacture yet another cease fire between Israel and it's attacker of the moment. I guess it can claim a victory for the moment if the shooting stops, but in so doing it should also claim responsibility when the next flare up occurs.
After 50 years of conflict, isn't it clear that only one thing can end Israel's conflicts with its neighbors? Someone has to win a war.
7 Comments:
By 
GreenmanTim, at
Fri Jul 21, 11:54:00 AM:
Cease fires when the question is unresolved preserve the status quo (Korea) but tend to lead to heavily militerized borders and the likelihood of renewed conflict.
Cease fires can work when continued hostilities are unpopular, all combatants are exhausted and warring parties are looking for an honorable peace (Angola/Namibia 1988; War of 1812; Ireland, perhaps). Cease fires also work when one side is profoundly defeated and sues for terms (Sherman's negotiations with Johnson after Appomattox).
As for peace movements, without popular support it is difficult to maintain hostilities, even in fascist states.
In an ideological war where guerrilla and terror tactics are confronted with massive force, the best a cease fire can accomplish is to try and get non-combatants out of the way.
By OG DC, at
Fri Jul 21, 01:59:00 PM:
"After 50 years of conflict, isn't it clear that only one thing can end Israel's conflicts with its neighbors? Someone has to win a war."
This is profoundly, or more accurately, simply stupid. How many wars has Israel won in the region since 1948? Why is there still no peace?
You seem to be advocating genocide as the path to peace. There certainly are historical precedents for this, and a graveyard certainly is peaceful. But in light of Jewish history and the rise of modern Israel out of the ashes of the Holocaust, this is a horrifying assertion.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Fri Jul 21, 03:16:00 PM:
I am certainly not advocating genocide on anyone's part. Sowell's point, which I think is valid, is that the terrorist organizations have come to rely on the near certainty that, after they have targeted Israeli civilians and provoked a military response, the international community jumps in, attempts to broker a peace, and gives the oganization the opportunity to live to fight another day. We see calls for the same even now. As Sowell points out, this has negated the potential deterrant value of Israel's military superiority, and is a process that works to the advantage of terrorist organizations, and is, in the long run, destabilizing despite the fact that it is all done in the name of peace. My suggestion is that if the parties involved reach their own resolution, long term peace might actually be attainable. I think we might actually be on that path now, but its too soon to tell. Appeasement is not the answer, and never leads to peace.
In case it isn't clear from this or other postings, I am a staunch supporter of Isreal in this particular conflict, and hope the Israelis emerge with a decisive victory.
By allen, at
Fri Jul 21, 03:29:00 PM:
charlottesvillain, 3:16 PM
I appreciate your analysis, taking one small exception: Israel has not been permitted to “DECISIVELY’ win a war against its aggressive neighbors. In the years 1967 & 1973 (I will resist the temptation to say also 1956 & 1982) US policy and pressure prematurely ended combat, preventing the strategic defeat of Israel’s enemies.
By “decisive” I mean the breaking of the enemy’s will or means to fight, followed by the enemy’s suit for peace, unconditionally.
By Charlottesvillain, at
Fri Jul 21, 03:47:00 PM:
allen,
I'm not sure why you say you are taking exception. It sounds as though we are in aggreement on the issue here.
By allen, at
Fri Jul 21, 05:58:00 PM:
Please, pardon me.
With reference to all things related to diplomacy addressing Israel, I have become so cynical and nitpicking in my old age, that the absence of an adjective such as "decisive" gives me pause.
I am certain that we are singing from the same page.
Thanks for what you do here!
By 
, at
Fri Jul 21, 09:39:00 PM:
When the U.N. intervenes in a conflict war returns 78% of the time within 10 years. Without intervention, war returns 48% of the time. That doesn't necessarily mean that non-intervention is always the correct path, but it should lead one to examine more closely whether it is truly necessary and effective in each specific case. (i.e. Rwanda-Probably, Hizbollah/Israel- Probably not effective)
