Posts Tagged ‘Palestine’

ISRAEL: LOSE . . . LOSE? (PART SIX/SIX)

Monday, October 31st, 2011

. . . continued

Note: Given the enthusiastic response, the current series will remain in place for another week. To begin, please see Part One below, currently archived under “Military”.

Of further note, recent reports claim that, following the attempted assassination of its Ambassador in Washington, the government of Saudi Arabia has requested the government of the USA to destroy militarily Iranian nuclear facilities. Will the current occupant of the Oval Office oblige? Unlikely, unless his advisors, sensing an overwhelming probability of losing the upcoming presidential election, counsel him to display “strength and resolve” by doing so; “wagging the dog”. More likely, they will counsel him to rely on the Republicans’ incredible aptitude for ineptitude . . . think candidates Robert Dole and John McCain . . . to carry him to electoral victory.

Even should Mr. Obama oblige the Saudis, would defanging Iran bolster the Israeli cause? Would it transform Saudi enemies into newfound friends? Would it cause other Mohammedan Arabs to follow a path to peace?

Ironically, Americans’ removing the nuclear threat from Iran without wringing from the Saudis prior concessions in favor of Israel probably would embolden the Arabic enemies of Israel to press forward their strategy of isolating and strangling the Jewish State. Would Mr. Obama demand such concessions? Before answering, recall him bowing to the King of Saudi Arabia.

Employing Measurement
Whatever a plan, one should monitor whether its consequences are progressing towards fulfilling its targeted goal. In resolving problematic situations, measurement of progress is critical but, unfortunately, often neglected. Given the Middle Eastern situation-in-question, how could the Israelis measure progress?

Measurement comes in two forms; namely, qualitative and quantitative. The latter is preferable but not always practicable. Especially should Israel adopt Plan #5, there would be several axes for measurement, including military, political, economic, and social; some more amenable to quantitative measurement than others.

Militarily, measurement easily is quantifiable. To what extent, for example, would Israel have captured the territories targeted? To what extent would Israel have pacified those territories measures by numbers of hostile incidents, deaths, and injuries? To what extent would Israel have blunted the efforts of its other military enemies in terms of amounts of military expenditures as well as numbers of threatening actions and threatening rhetoric?

Politically and nationally, measurement tends towards the qualitative. Primarily, would the Jewish proclivity for internecine arguing seem to be damaging the military effort? Most nations recognize that, during a declared war, the government has the right, if not the obligation, to limit speech that might undermine its military effort. Accordingly, the Israeli government could declare a state of emergency and limit civil rights during active fighting and immediately thereafter. A question arises, however . . . Would Israelis accept surrender of internecine arguing in the short term in favor of victory over a mortal enemy in the long term?

Politically and internationally, measurement can be quantitative. How many other countries would have severed diplomatic ties with Israel or even have mounted an active campaign to isolate Israel further? As an aside, should Israel capture the Saudi oilfields, one wonders how long-lived such overt hostility would be? Money is a powerful contingent consequence; money moves the world.

Economically, measurement is mainly quantitative. In shekels, how much would the option chosen be affecting the Gross Domestic Product, balance of payments, and trading balance? What would be the trend?

Socially and nationally, measurement is largely qualitative. To what extent would the Israeli population seem to be bonding? To what extent, would Israelis seem to be supporting their own troops during a prolonged occupation? In that regard, the Israelis might consider borrowing a page from British history with an emphasis on positive control of the enemy (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

Socially and internationally, measurement, on the other hand, can be quantitative. How many other countries would be barring entry by Israeli citizens? How many foreigners would be boycotting Israel as a traveling destination? How many exchanges between foreigners and Israelis would be curtailed? In the context of Israeli control of the oilfields, On the other hand, again one wonders how long-lived such overt hostility likely would be?  As previously stated, money is a powerful contingent consequence; money moves the world.

DISCUSSION

Science and Resolution
This series addressing the plight of Israel presented a scientifically-compatible approach to solving societal problems . . . an approach equally applicable to personal ones. Firstly, analyze the situation-in-question in terms of Context then Antecedents-Behaviors-Consequences . . . the ABC’s. Secondly, resolve the situation-in-question by Defining the Problem, Targeting a Goal, Designing a Plan, and Measuring Progress.

Final Comments About Israel
Jewish Israel is losing. Mohammedan Arabia is winning.

Must Israel adopt a new strategy? Need Arabia only maintain the old one?

To win the peace, must Israel give war a chance? Must Israel strike soon while the proverbial iron remains hot?

Conversely, what can Israel gain by waiting? Further isolation? Withdrawal of American support? A nuclear-armed Iran? Do such developments sound enticing?

There’s an American flag dating from 1775 that reads, “Don’t Tread On Me.” Might it be a warning that the Israelis should consider borrowing? Might it be one that Americans themselves should consider resurrecting?

ISRAEL: LOSE . . . LOSE? (PART FIVE/SIX)

Monday, October 24th, 2011

SOLUTION (continued)

“Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?”
– The Shadow

In the context of international affairs, who knows what events really are occurring, let alone what thoughts are in the minds of those involved? For outsiders to analyze diplomatic situations-in-question then to offer solutions might seem akin to the proverbial blind men feeling different parts of an elephant. Isn’t it a job for insiders only?

Not necessarily, especially when you consider that each individual, whether inside or outside, knows only what he knows. In fact, the consequence of viewing the outside from the inside might be impaired discrimination (www.inescapableconsequences.com) of the proverbial forest from the trees. Ironically, an outsider might do better.

While acknowledging the limitations imposed by the improbability of any one group or person, inside or outside, knowing all the independent variables, the penultimate posting in this series offers five planning options available to Israel. (Note: Visitors who would like to propose alternative plans might consider sending them to contact@inationonfire.com.) The five options are the following:

#1) Total Surrender. Surrender totally by dissolving the Jewish State, by annexing it to the so-called Occupied Territories, and by submitting to rule by an Arabic majority under whatever form of government that it chooses. Would Hamas be merciful? Conversely, would total surrender equal total subjugation . . . or what the Arabs might call “subjewgation”? Worse, would total surrender equal total annihilation?

Possibly, but there is “world-opinion”, isn’t there? Would the rest of the world stand by as it did previously, allowing the subjugation and even slaughter of the then-former-Israeli Jews? Not likely, at least not without a loud whimper.

What about the currently anti-Israeli “human rights groups”? Mightn’t they object albeit not too strenuously? Certainly, the homicidal faithful among Hamas would give these “do-gooders” a hearing, wouldn’t they? After all, haven’t these groups been supporting Hamas against Israel for years?

Alright, but mightn’t the anti-Israeli United Nations deliberate a resolution condemning the use of “disproportionate force” by the Mohammedan Arabs. On the other hand, while the anti-Israeli delegates debate for the cameras, would the blood of erstwhile Jewish Israelis be coloring the Mediterranean Sea red?

#2) Conversion. No, not Jewish conversion to Mohammedanism but Mohammedan conversion to a radically revised interpretation of The Koran. Truly, it would mean rewriting what to the Mohammedans is the sacred word of the one-and-only God spoken through the Angel Gabriel. Even so, wouldn’t it be possible to convince most Arabs to surrender their devotion to the current Koranic version with its promoting intolerance and violence? To adopt a new, sanitized version promoting tolerance and peace as well as acceptance as respected equals of those now regarded as unforgivable infidels . . . infidels such as all Jews, all Christians, and especially all atheists?

Couldn’t the Israelis present an argument sufficiently compelling to achieve such a conversion? Yet, even if they could, how long would those accepting such a radically revised viewpoint of The Koran survive? How many fatawa would be issued against the converts?

Alright, what about simply a slightly more tolerant and less violent interpretation of The Koran? Parts of the writings of Mohammed do seem to allow for some forbearance, especially for believers in The Book. Moreover, historically on occasion, Mohammedans such as the Moguls in pre-British India did embrace more moderate points of view, at least for periods of time. Couldn’t it happen again? Now? In the Middle East? For an answer, ask the Muslim Brotherhood. Ask Hamas. Ask Hezbollah. Ask the Taliban. Ask al-Qaeda. Ask Iranian President Amadinejad.

Wait! After President Ataturk, didn’t Turkey remain secularized for decades? Absolutely, under the threat, occasionally exercised, of a Turkish military sworn to uphold such secularization. Today, Prime Minister Erdogan, a former self-proclaimed “Islamist”, has dispossessed the military of that secular oath. He is moving Turkey increasingly towards theocracy nationally and military hostility against Israel internationally.

Even so, where there’s life, there’s hope, isn’t there? Doesn’t hope spring eternal in the human breast . . .  at least as long as that breast hasn’t been pierced by a slug from an AK-47?

#3) Stall. Continue the current game of verbal yo-yo while Israelis hope that time and chance will tilt the equilibrium away from the current downward slide . . . a slide towards their survival having become a lost cause. One might wonder, though, with a re-election of Mr. Obama, what would be the consequences for Israel of even a partial abandonment by the USA? For how long would Israel be able to maintain the charade that Arabs ever will negotiate in good faith?

Furthermore, if the consequence of continued stalling is continued downward sliding, how many Israelis would want to remain in the Jewish homeland? How many would try to flee? Which other countries would accept them? Have Jews forgotten the infamous voyage of the damned in 1939 aboard the S.S. St. Louis when Chancellor Adolf Hitler demonstrated his claim that no one wanted Jews and that Germany merely was doing what everyone else wanted to do but didn’t have the fortitude? It couldn’t happen again, could it?

#4) Appeasement. Give the “Palestinians” essentially everything that they demand short of all Israel itself, including a presence in Jerusalem. Oh, oh! In 2000, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak tried to do just that. Overwhelmed, Yasser Arafat, nevertheless, rejected the offer of virtually total appeasement, reportedly with the statement that, if he accepted it, he would be assassinated immediately. For Mr. Arafat, it was all Israel or nothing. Even so, does that episode represent sufficient proof that the “Palestinians” don’t want a nation based upon the borders before 1967 . . . that they still want it all?

Admittedly, from a historical perspective, yielding solid territory in exchange for gaseous promises tends to end badly for those who do the yielding. With the ousting of Egyptian President Mubarak, might Israel be about to taste the bitter fruit of having planted the tree of appeasement in Sinai? If so, will the taste portend the consequences of ceding more territory, this time to people who actively support Hamas? Still, who would deny that Mahmoud Abbas is a match for the Islamic terrorists already controlling Gaza? Wouldn’t you bet your life on Mr. Abbas? The Israelis would be.

#5) Total war. A former advisor to Prime Minister Netanyahu, in a recent article, offered the following, two Arabic quotes:
1) “When people see a strong horse and a weak horse, by nature they will like the strong horse.”
2) “A falling camel attracts many knives.”
– Michael Prell, The Washington Times (National Edition), 29 August 2011, page 37

All Arabic states but Egypt and Jordan, by their own choice, remain at war with Israel. Accordingly, Israel militarily attacking those states would represent merely a quantitative change not a qualitative one. By doing so, Israel could reclaim much of the Biblical lands, if not all.

Secondly, Israel could eject all “Palestinians” now referred to as “Israeli Arabs”. Although their detractors likely would label Israelis as Nazis, Israel hardly would be the first nation to have ejected “Palestinians” from within its borders. According to the UN Refugee Agency, others have included Iraq, Jordan, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Meanwhile, aren’t these same “Israeli Arabs”, at this moment, waving “Palestinian” flags while demonstrating in support of Mr. Abbas’s pursuing a statehood to be declared by the multitude of enemies of Israel at the United Nations . . . a tactic opposed by Israel? Could their actions reasonably be construed as those of a “fifth column”?

Thirdly, Israel could claim all the fields of natural gas off the Israeli coast then respond to sabotage with overwhelming military force. Wait! Shouldn’t Israel share those valuable resources with its enemies? After all, in the Middle East especially, niceness isn’t viewed as weakness, is it?

Fourthly, destroy however much of Iran is necessary to eliminate the threat of Mohammedan fanatics gaining a nuclear arsenal. You know the Iranians . . . the same fellows who were planning to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the USA by blowing up a restaurant in Washington. The rest of the world wouldn’t condemn Israel while privately breathing a sigh of relief as it did with the Israeli attacks on Iraqi and Syrian nuclear facilities, would it? By the way, isn’t Iran also building missiles that easily could reach the heart of Europe and other far-flung targets? Opposing Iran militarily isn’t more important than opposing Israel diplomatically, is it?

Fifthly, seize the oilfields in Saudi Arabia, whence came Osama-bin-Laden and al-Qaeda. Depose the autocratic monarchy that has promoted radical Mohammedanism around the world. Declare the area a semi-autonomous state under Israeli administration, possibly even using it as a homeland for the “Palestinians”and sharing the oil-generating wealth with them. As they say, money moves the world. Wait! No more OPEC? Isn’t a cartel composed of enemies of the West and in restraint of trade desirable, especially if it’s anti-Israeli? Perhaps, we could ask President Hugo Chavez of Venezuela; he’s neither Arabic nor Mohammedan.

ISRAEL: LOSE . . . LOSE? (PART FOUR/SIX)

Monday, October 17th, 2011

. . . continued

SOLUTION

In seeking a solution for Israel to resolve the situation-in-question, let’s try something unusual . . . Science. Specifically, let’s use an approach compatible with scientific methodology. Approaching problems-in-living, both societal and personal, in a scientifically-compatible manner allows for more accurate and precise analyses and more effective solutions (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

“Wait a moment!” one might say. “Science? Sounds like work.”

It does, and it is, but not too much. Still, for those who enjoy keeping their cognitive faculties unemployed, now is a good time to seek another site. On the other hand, for those who enjoy employing their cognitive faculties, the following offers some optional solutions, scientifically compatible, beginning with defining the problem:

Defining the Problem: Behavioral problems fall into one of the following, two categories: deficits or excesses. For Israelis the problem is a behavioral deficit . . .  a deficit in designing and putting into play an effective foreign policy in the face of a behavioral excess of hostility and aggression on the part of most Arabs and other Mohammedans.

Targeting a Goal: The goal targeted is The What. In this case, perhaps to have achieved a sound, stable, sustainable equilibrium militarily, politically, economically, and socially.

Designing a Plan: The plan designed is The How. It’s where the rubber meets the road, as they say.

An old adage goes, “Put two Jews into a room, and you’ll get three opinions.” Jews love to argue; for example, Jews disagree even over from which side to light the eight candles on a menorah during the annual festival of Chanukah. Perhaps, the trait comes from centuries of studying The Torah and The Talmud; maybe, it’s partly genetic. Whatever the case, it often renders this highly intelligent people too smart by half.

Whereas Israel may have a shortage of options, it has a surfeit of divisive opinions. In fact, Israel always has been a house deeply divided, even in the face of united genocide.

For Jews, it sometimes seems more important to win an argument than to win a war; and, make no mistake, Israel is at war. Even at this moment and undoubtedly in the next, intra-Israeli bickering intensifies as the “Palestinians” petition the rabidly anti-Israeli United Nations to recognize as an independent nation the territory that Israel allows them to hold; holdings known as the “Occupied Territories” . . . a questionable designation that depends upon one’s point of view. If Israelis continue their internecine, verbal discord, they likely will argue themselves to death. Each day, the jaws of the vise of time close upon their collective neck.

For the Israelis, it’s formulate a plan following the scientific guidelines of specificity, objectivity, and accountability or . . . . (You fill in the blank.).

With regard to formulating such a plan, the USA represents a key factor. Consider an Israel without American support.

Given that context, what behaviors should Israelis expect from an America with a Black president born and reared Mohammedan? A president with a wife who herself proudly proclaimed having no pride in being American? A president who, with that wife, for twenty years listened faithfully to vitriolic anti-Semitic, anti-White, and anti-American sermons by their chosen pastor, one Reverend Wright?

Yes, yes, all that was in the past. Yet, common wisdom holds that past is prologue.

Moreover, what behaviors should Israelis expect from patriotic, White Americans born and reared Christian? What if Mr. Obama should win a second term? Might he then claim that American support of Israel jeopardizes the American, national interest as well as international harmony and peace?

Would those patriotic American Christians, otherwise sympathetic towards Israel, reconsider their sympathies? Might they recall those wealthy Jews who lavishly and prominently supported and continue to support Mr. Obama’s presidential campaigns despite his apparent fondness for rabid anti-Semites? Might they recall that a substantial majority of the Jewish electorate voted for Mr. Obama; thereby, functionally endorsing his appreciation of the rants of Reverend Wright? Might they recall American-Jewish youths protesting hand-in-hand with Arabic youths against the Jewish homeland, reminiscent of Germanic Jews for Hitler in the 1920s and early 1930s?

Without support from Christian Americans, what’s a Jewish Israeli to do? Contrary to the time-honored and often successful, Jewish defense of talking and paying their way out of dangers, Israeli Jews now face Arabic enemies whose attitude seems more akin to that of the Germanic Nazis after 1940 than to that of American Ku Klux Klansmen in the 1920s. Ironically, today it’s the Mohammedan Arabs who borrow God’s ancient command to the Hebraic Israelites for total destruction of the enemy.

Meanwhile, Israeli soldiers refrain from returning lethal gunfire spewed by Arabic snipers . . . snipers who intentionally ensconce themselves amongst Arabic patients in Arabic hospitals and amongst Arabic children in Arabic schools . . . snipers who, thereby, demonstrate that using your enemy’s self-imposed “morality” against him can be a potent tactic. Let’s face facts . . . these Arabic militants and their sympathizers are not nice guys.

Never known as Mr. Nice Guy himself, the Communists’ hero, Mao Zedong, characterized all power as ultimately coming out the barrel of a gun. Mao was well placed to know of what he spoke, having slaughtered millions of his fellow, Chinese countrymen.

Oh well. As Uncle Joe Stalin, also a mass murderer, used to say, “One death is a tragedy . . . a million deaths, a statistic.” The consequence of such a point of view? Both Mao and Stalin won and lived while their enemies lost and died.

Ah, but wait! Hitler, no slouch himself when it came to murder, lost. True but Hitler had a severe deficit in patience. As they say, patience is the foremost virtue; pride, the foremost sin . . . and “The Leader”, as he called himself but in German, in which language it didn’t sound so silly, had an excess of pride. A deficit in patience and an excess of pride . . . a nasty combination as confirmed in 1945 by the smoldering ruins of Berlin, Cologne, Dresden, etc.; not to mention the self-inflicted slug in Adolf’s brain.

“What does all this have to do with Israel?” you should be asking.

After starting three, all-out wars, most Arabs would seem to agree with Mao and Stalin’s point of view. Furthermore, centuries ago, the Arabs traded their pride in conquest for shame in retreat. Even so, what they lost in pride, they gained in patience. As the aged boxer said while pulling himself off the canvass for the third time, “I ain’t no quitter!” Apparently, neither are the Arabs.

Okay, what’s the point? It’s not that the Israelis should imitate Mao and Stalin. It’s that the Arabs do. Conversely, many Israelis seem to believe that it’s better to lose by pursuing peace in the name of “social justice” than to win by waging war in the name of survival.

“Just give them what they want, then maybe they’ll be nice to us” is an historical, Jewish attitude adopted by many Jews and not just by Israeli Jews. If the Arabs aren’t nice, what then?

On the other hand, whereas all power ultimately may come out the barrel of a gun, it does so only if you use that gun or if your enemies believe that you will. Israelis may have really big guns in the form of nuclear weapons, but who believes that they will use them unless suffering actual annihilation . . . if then? Witness their recent, self-defeating restraint using conventional weapons in Lebanon and Gaza. With their military behavior more under the political control of “world-opinion” condemning use of so-called disproportionate force rather than under the control of winning battles, Israelis lost . . . continue to lose . . . and likely will continue to lose.

Is Israel salvageable? Is Israel doomed? Can any plan succeed?

Clearly, an Israeli strategy of reacting to antecedent events orchestrated by its enemies at times and places of their own choosing is a losing strategy. The so-called Arab Spring seems more likely to bring a violent storm with dark snow than a placid breeze with bright sunshine. With Mr. Mubarak now out of power in Egypt, for example, who’s to stop the Muslim Brotherhood from killing Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv as well as killing Egyptian Christians in Cairo?

“What about the peace treaty?” you might ask.

Peace treaty? What peace treaty? Have you forgotten Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain’s returning to Britain from Munich in 1938, waving his worthless piece of paper? Do you believe that the Egyptian military has forgotten its humiliating defeats of the past? Did the Germans?

If a deficit in patience is fatal . . . if ignorance with arrogance is fatal . . . if indecisiveness with delay is fatal, what isn’t fatal? Accuracy and precision, combined with knowledge and wisdom, and employed scientifically. That winning . . . in this case, lifesaving . . . combination should be reflected in designing a plan with specificity, objectivity, and accountability then putting that plan into play.

A Cognitive Exercise (continued)
If you elected to engage in the cognitive exercise from the previous posting, now is the time to review what you’d written for Problem and for Goal, comparing it to what’s offered in this posting. Afterwards, modify your own versions as you wish.

Then, review what you’d written for Plan and for Measurement, also revising them as you deem appropriate. The next posting in this series will offer a set of five plans. The sixth and final will offer a means for measurement and a brief discussion.

ISRAEL: LOSE . . . LOSE? (PART THREE/SIX)

Monday, October 10th, 2011

. . . continued

Now is the time to try men’s cognitive capabilities and women’s, too, for that matter. Parts One and Two of this series presented a scientifically-compatible analysis of the situation-in-question for Israelis. Those two parts described the context in which antecedents occasion behaviors . . . behaviors followed by consequences.. . . consequences that affected the future strength of those behaviors. The format is consistent with a basic scientific law describing behavior, the Law of Effect (Thorndike, 1911).

B = f(x) under c. Behavior is a function of its consequences under a given set of conditions. Most often, a behavior is preceded by an event that provides the occasion for the behavior to occur . . . an antecedent. In the context of driving a car, for example, a red signal occasions depressing the braking pedal. The antecedent derives its power to occasion the behavior from the consequence of the behavior; in this case, the decelerating then stopping of the car (www.inescapableconsequences.com). It’s as simple as the ABC’s.

A Cognitive Exercise
Analyses demand solutions. Take a few moments to imagine that you are a current advisor to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Let’s say that the Prime Minister asks you to offer him a set of possible solutions to the situation-in-question; then, to provide the one that you would recommend and to provide the rationale for your selection.

Start with the analysis already offered in Parts One and Two. Modify it as you wish. Then provide the possible solutions while adhering to the scientifically-compatible format of 1) defining the problem, 2) targeting the primary goal, 3) designing a plan to put into play, and 4) employing a system of measurement of progress towards the targeted goal. It’s best to reduce your thoughts to writing.

The next and penultimate posting will be the first step towards offering our own set of solutions. Hopefully, this cognitive exercise will give you a better sense of analyzing all kinds of problems-in-living scientifically . . . problems both societal and personal.