I didn’t propose that Luttwak’s theory be applied in the form of an indiscriminate carpet bombing. Indeed, I acknowledged in my original statement that, “I see many compelling instrumental [emphasis in the original] reasons for Israel to limits [sic] the scope and fury of its response.” My concern with war overall is that the West no longer believes that collateral damage is acceptable, which is a hell of a way to try to go about exerting pressure on an adversary.
Short of that approach, which is impossible for a number of reasons that I trust I needn’t articulate, Israel is left with the mere hope that the Palestinians will never figure out how to overcome Iron Dome. The reason that the peace process stalled is that the Israelis developed an almost completely effective strategy for eliminating suicide bombings: the Wall.
Anti-semitism refers to prejudice against people of a certain ethno-religious background. You are trying to draw a linkage, I think, between negative perceptions of the Israeli government or electorate and of lack of sympathy for its diplomatic position.
And just who, exactly, are “the weak” in this equation? The Israeli populace? The Palestinian populace?
We live in a culture that loves to gnash its teeth over every death. The same culture that hesitated to arm Bosnians while Serbia executed a successful campaign of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia-Herzegovina.
It is frankly ludicrous to abjure violence. We do it in Western society because we live safely in the care of school administrators and armed constabularies. In other words, we endorse “sanctioned” violence against “deviant” outliers.
By holding back, the parties to a conflict simply create more opportunities for the innocent to suffer.
Walzer’s Just and Unjust Wars is a terrible mess of a book that never bothers to sell the idea of the higher morality on which his prescriptions are based. That’s not culture, it’s oversight.
I’m not arguing that we should all live as Morgenthau prescribes; simply that Realist theory has valid lessons to teach us about war-making.
“Bad states” don’t pursue campaigns of ethnic cleansing simply because they’re run by bad men – they do it because that tactic has enjoyed proven success in places like the former Yugoslavia and Darfur. Khartoum didn’t accede to the independence of Southern Sudan because it was the right thing to do; it acceded because the South fought a successful guerilla war.
You believe that HAMAS would discontinue violence if Israel relied on a purely defensive strategy?
The pathway to long-term legitimacy and peace for Israel is either to (A) do everything it can to stand up a Palestinian State in the West Bank and Gaza and hope that, if there is sufficient success, the world will discount the legitimacy of Palestinian maximalist claims, or to (B) abandon the concept of the unitary Jewish state and accept a multi-ethnic democracy.
The real issue unfolding here is that people who think that Israel is to blame don’t believe it has a right to defend itself anyway – they want to see concessions, not “defensive maneuvers.”
