Yom Kippur War

Snickers Man wrote: »

The point is that all of those actions were seen as the heroic sacrifices needed to achieve victory. With Victory being defined as the political outcome to the conflict.

Very often what matters most is perception. As a serving soldier in the US military you perhaps did not scoff as much as many people here at the sight of yoru comrade in his armoured vehicle on hearing that the US was withdrawing from Iraq shouting out "Who hoo! We're going home! We won!!"

The cynics among us might say that you're going home precisely because you didn't win. Your leaving behind a country wrecked by civil war, hopelessly divided and with more of its citizens embittered by than grateful for the actions of the US.

That exultant GI reminded me of a 20 year old thug mugging an infirm 95 year old, finding out that he wasn't carrying any money and saying "At least I owned that guy in the fight! Man, I gave him some shock and awe!"

But what's important is not whether or not the US "won" but that they believe they won. That is very important to them. Hence the insistence by many Republicans that Obama use the word "Victory" in his subsequent state of the Union address.

Back to Yom Kippur. The Egyptians think they won. They got back the Sinai. They put that down to the performance of their army during the Suez crossing.

Remember the event that Sadat was attending when he was assassinated? It was a ceremony to commemorate "the crossing". A full on military victory parade. I don't know whether the Egyptians still hold it but there's no doubt they convinced themselves that they had achieved a great victory.

The Palestinians are going to need something similar, sooner or later.

Snickers Man wrote: »

what have you ever done for Israel? Ever been there? Ever worked there?

I have, and I like to think that my knowledge of the country's history and situation is as good as anybody else's from round these parts and better than most.

I readily accept, as alandublin15 appears to intimate, that when many Irish people get hot and bothered about Israel/Palestine it is in fact their own local rivalries and preferences that are being acted out. Pro Palestinians are moved to apoplexy by the likes of Israeli apologists like Tom Cooney and Ian O'Doherty; pro Israelis are irritated by Richard Boyd Barrett and other trendy lefties. It's a simple trap to fall into.



It's not their raison d'etre but it's an inevitable consequence of their actions. Even their very existence. They had to expel the Palestinians from much of what was useful and productive and fertile in the country in order to build their own cities and settlements. You cannot gainsay that fact.

Their military strength has allowed them to establish a state of reasonable size but it has not been able to pacify the Palestinians. That is a simple recognition of the limitations of military power.

The only people who can pacify the Palestinians are themselves. When they feel they have earned enough on which to build a settlement, they will stop. Or at least, enough of them will so that the extremists can be marginalised and bypassed. You will always have recalcitrants, a "Continuity PLO" as it were, but these can be defeated if their support among the community they claim to represent withers away.

So how do you get them to stop? Israels answer is to go on handing them their arses. At least that's steady work for their military. Because that just means that they will have to continue doing that interminably.

Until it gets to the point, some may say it has got there already, where in fact Israel's 'raison d'etre' is indeed as you described.




Whoa!! Is that the dim flickering of a light bulb going on over your head? Hold that thought and then ask how you might "empower" the Palestinians to accept a settlement.

By making them feel they've earned it. By achieving a victory which earns them the right to be magnanimous. The Israelis will never let them do that, so Israel's friends are going to have to hold them down while the Palestinians land one on them.

Snickers Man wrote: »

More informed than some.



No need to go down that road. Various people's potted history of Palestine has been aired so many times on this board. I think the Palestinians were far more sinned against than sinners in that conflict; you clearly don't. We won't convince each other on that score but that's not important.

I'm talking about learning lessons from a more recent conflict that may actually lead to peace in Israel.




What's a major massacre? Something on the scale of Hiroshima/Nagasaki? That was deemed sufficient civilian sacrifice to bring to an end the war against Japan.

But nothing so grand as that would be needed in Israel. A tactical military defeat. Perhaps the forced evacuation of a few contentious settlements. Maybe resulting in a few Israeli deaths. Maybe in the capture of a few "prisoners of war" from those settlements, (which are illegal anyway) followed by their safe return in the event of a peace deal.

You've got to counter that with the calculation of how much Israeli blood and treasure is going to be spent following their current policy.

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's not a case of what I want. I'm a pasty faced Irish Catholic. I don't have a dog in that hunt. I am sympathetic towards the plight of the Palestinians, who have suffered the most grevious wrongs in this whole story, but realise that a settlement which recognises Israel's right to exist is in everybody's long-term interest there.

Yet all supporters of Israel seem to talk about is how to justify the status quo of continuing suppression, expulsion and criminalisation as if world unanimity on their right to keep this nonsense up will do them any good in the long run.

They have to make a deal with the Palestinians and the Palestinians have to be strong enough to make that deal not look like a capitulation.

Ergo, Israel will have to lose a battle to win the war.

Snickers Man wrote: »

I've made my case, repeatedly. Which is that this war is interminable because Israel wants it so and indeed, given its attitude, needs it to be so.

As indeed is this debate. I've made my case. Nothing to add. Let's pick it up again in 10 or 20 years when it will still be essentially the same.