"And it's all happened before, in the first diaspora that left Palestine without a Jewish population in 1948 when the modern state of Israel was created:" [followed by a citation to a history that refers to the Jewish population of Palestine in the 11th century]
This seems a bit odd. My impression is that Jews moved around a bit in the 900 intervening years, and particularly between l'affaire Dreyfus and the Holocaust. Surely they wouldn't have bothered to create a modern state of Israel if there weren't at least two Jews in residence, one to be president, and one for prime minister. They could have taken turns being the army.
On the larger point: My impression of the numbers is something like 6 million Israelis vs. 300 million hostile Arabs-and-others. The numbers have always been that lopsided, and Israel has always won. Logistics, competence, technology, and luck have always been on its side. None of that has changed -- not even the luck: Between its intelligence service and its readiness to preempt, Israel's luck is mostly home-made.
Drawing bombers, instead of soldiers, from the pool of 300 million does not make the military situation worse for Israel. There are fewer potential bombers than soldiers. Almost all potential bombers could be soldiers. As a bomber, the recruit will do less damage to Israel's ability to defend itself, and will deprive the Arab world of a soldier, worker, and parent. A bomber, once dead, leaves Arafat's headquarters naked to Israeli raids like the ones that (so far) have ended the bombings. A soldier on the attack can (try to) prevent Israel from defeating Arafat and his allies.
Suicide bombing is a powerful tool for destroying civil life, and it might be used to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. Certainly any movement that practices or encourages it must be eradicated. But that does not make the technique itself a weapon of mass destruction. It is less efficient than boot infantry, and the "martyrs in millions" just aren't there.
Arthur
· 7 years ago
"but unless there's a major shift in attitudes"
That shift is to be expected. After all, whenever somebody invents a new attack, somebody else finds a new defence. It is called adaptation. I expect that devising an effective defence against suicide bombers will entail a major shift in attitudes...but when the issue is survival, people are willing to do things they wouldn't otherwise consider.
wjt
· 7 years ago
I agree with Richard Bennett: suicide bombings present a strategic threat. They're demoralizing not just because of the sheer randomness of attack and the unsettling of everyday life, but precisely because there's no defense. I don't know if Sharon's "disproportionate" response means he's desperate. Instead, he's just doing what he's always done. Besides, in a war -- as this surely is -- the idea is to smash the other side. That said, I'm not quite sure what his ultimate strategy is. I can only hope that he plans on building a very large wall between Israel and Palestine.
Richard Bennett
· 7 years ago
There hasn't been a suicide bombing in a few days, and there are two theories going around to explain this: 1) the incursion has wrecked the suicide bomber infrastructure, and nobody can supply the necessary hardware; and 2) the whole point of the suicide bombing campaign was to provoke Sharon into a military action that would create sympathy for the Palestinian side by it's disproportionate nature. He's gone nuts, so the Palestinians can step back and go: "see what he's doing to us, poor, innocent little Arabs without a tank to our name!"
I don't know which is right, but it doesn't appear to me that it's all that hard to make a suicide-bomber backpack, which lends support to theory number two.
Taro Tokyo
· 7 years ago
Where's the "Can Do" attitude? How long can suicide bombing thrive if we crack down on Iraq, Iran, and Syria? Of course, there are other supporters like the Saudis and the EU but my guess is that the open embrace of this tactic is not as enthusiastic nor as sustainable as it's boosters would have us believe. The Kamikaze, effective as they were, signaled the last act of a desperate cause. The switch to young girls, seems like a terrifying new development but it may mean the opposite.
Anonymous
· 7 years ago
I don't know that support from other countries is all that vital to suicide bombers; there's enough money in the Arab world to pay off their families, even if we were to crack down on Iraq and the others. How much does a little C4 or a fertilizer bomb cost, anyway?
It seems to me that this is a tactic that's very hard to thwart, as long as you have people willing to die for their cause. "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't uniquely American after all.
William T. Quick
· 7 years ago
I don't know about "Give me liberty or give me death," but I think that "Give me liberty or let me strap on a Semtex waistcoat and blow my intestines all over a wedding filled with little girls" seems kinda exceptional to me.
All Comments
This seems a bit odd. My impression is that Jews moved around a bit in the 900 intervening years, and particularly between l'affaire Dreyfus and the Holocaust. Surely they wouldn't have bothered to create a modern state of Israel if there weren't at least two Jews in residence, one to be president, and one for prime minister. They could have taken turns being the army.
On the larger point: My impression of the numbers is something like 6 million Israelis vs. 300 million hostile Arabs-and-others. The numbers have always been that lopsided, and Israel has always won. Logistics, competence, technology, and luck have always been on its side. None of that has changed -- not even the luck: Between its intelligence service and its readiness to preempt, Israel's luck is mostly home-made.
Drawing bombers, instead of soldiers, from the pool of 300 million does not make the military situation worse for Israel. There are fewer potential bombers than soldiers. Almost all potential bombers could be soldiers. As a bomber, the recruit will do less damage to Israel's ability to defend itself, and will deprive the Arab world of a soldier, worker, and parent. A bomber, once dead, leaves Arafat's headquarters naked to Israeli raids like the ones that (so far) have ended the bombings. A soldier on the attack can (try to) prevent Israel from defeating Arafat and his allies.
Suicide bombing is a powerful tool for destroying civil life, and it might be used to deliver a weapon of mass destruction. Certainly any movement that practices or encourages it must be eradicated. But that does not make the technique itself a weapon of mass destruction. It is less efficient than boot infantry, and the "martyrs in millions" just aren't there.
That shift is to be expected. After all, whenever somebody invents a new attack, somebody else finds a new defence. It is called adaptation. I expect that devising an effective defence against suicide bombers will entail a major shift in attitudes...but when the issue is survival, people are willing to do things they wouldn't otherwise consider.
I don't know which is right, but it doesn't appear to me that it's all that hard to make a suicide-bomber backpack, which lends support to theory number two.
It seems to me that this is a tactic that's very hard to thwart, as long as you have people willing to die for their cause. "Give me liberty or give me death" isn't uniquely American after all.