Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Victory means imposing one's will on the enemy

http://www.danielpipes.org/8309/my-peace-plan-an-israeli-victory
My peace plan is simple: Israel defeats its enemies.
Victory uniquely creates circumstances conducive to peace. Wars end, the 
historical record confirms, when one side concedes defeat and the other 
wins. This makes intuitive sense, for so long as both sides aspire to 
achieve their ambitions, fighting continues or it potentially can resume.
The goal of victory is not exactly something novel. Sun Tzu, the ancient 
Chinese strategist, advised that in war, "Let your great object be 
victory." Raimondo Montecuccoli, a seventeenth-century Austrian, said 
that "The objective in war is victory." Carl von Clausewitz, a 
nineteenth-century Prussian, added that "War is an act of violence to 
compel the enemy to fulfill our will." Winston Churchill told the 
British people: "You ask: what is our aim? I can answer in one word: 
Victory - victory - at all costs, victory, in spite of all terror, 
victory, however long and hard the road may be." Dwight D. Eisenhower 
observed that "In war, there is no substitute for victory." These 
insights from prior eras still hold, for however much weaponry changes, 
human nature remains the same.
Victory means imposing one's will on the enemy, compelling him to 
abandon his war goals. Germans, forced to surrender in World War I, 
retained the goal of dominating Europe and a few years later looked to 
Hitler to achieve this goal. Signed pieces of paper matter only if one 
side has cried "Uncle": The Vietnam War ostensibly concluded through 
diplomacy in 1973 but both sides continued to seek their war aims until 
the North won ultimate victory in 1975.
Willpower is the key: shooting down planes, destroying tanks, exhausting 
munitions, making soldiers flee, and seizing land are not decisive in 
themselves but must be accompanied by a psychological collapse. North 
Korea's loss in 1953, Saddam Hussein's in 1991, and the Iraqi Sunni loss 
in 2003 did not translate into despair. Conversely, the French gave up 
in Algeria in 1962, despite out-manning and out-gunning their foes, as 
did the Americans in Vietnam in 1975 and the Soviets in Afghanistan in 
1989. The Cold War ended without a fatality. In all these cases, the 
losers maintained large arsenals, armies, and functioning economies. But 
they ran out of will.
Likewise, the Arab-Israeli conflict will be resolved only when one side 
gives up.
Until now, through round after round of war, both sides have retained 
their goals. Israel fights to win acceptance by its enemies, while those 
enemies fight to eliminate Israel. Those goals are raw, unchanging, and 
mutually contradictory. Israel's acceptance or elimination are the only 
states of peace. Each observer must opt for one solution or the other. A 
civilized person will want Israel to win, for its goal is defensive, to 
protect an existing and flourishing country. Its enemies' goal of 
destruction amounts to pure barbarism.
For nearly 60 years, Arab rejectionists, now joined by Iranian and 
leftist counterparts, have tried to eliminate Israel through multiple 
strategies: they work to undermine its legitimacy intellectually, 
overwhelm it demographically, isolate it economically, restrain its 
defenses diplomatically, fight it conventionally, demoralize it with 
terror, and threaten to destroy it with WMDs. While the enemies of 
Israel have pursued their goals with energy and will, they have met few 
successes.
Ironically, Israelis over time responded to the incessant assault on 
their country by losing sight of the need to win. The right developed 
schemes to finesse victory, the center experimented with appeasement and 
unilateralism, and the left wallowed in guilt and self-recrimination. 
Exceedingly few Israelis understand the unfinished business of victory, 
of crushing the enemy's will and getting him to accept the permanence of 
the Jewish state.
Fortunately for Israel, it need only defeat the Palestinians, and not 
the entire Arab or Muslim population, which eventually will follow the 
Palestinian lead in accepting Israel. Fortunately too, although the 
Palestinians have built an awesome reputation for endurance, they can be 
beaten. If the Germans and Japanese could be forced to give up in 1945 
and the Americans in 1975, how can Palestinians be exempt from defeat?
Of course, Israel faces obstacles in achieving victory. The country is 
hemmed in generally by international expectations (from the United 
Nations Security Council, for example) and specifically by the policies 
of its main ally, the U.S. government. Therefore, if Jerusalem is to 
win, that starts with a change in policy in the United States and in 
other Western countries. Those governments should urge Israel to seek 
victory by convincing the Palestinians that they have lost.
This means undoing the perceptions of Israel's weakness that grew during 
the Oslo process (1993-2000) and then the twin withdrawals from Lebanon 
and Gaza (2000-05). Jerusalem appeared back on track during Ariel 
Sharon's first three years as prime minister, 2001-03 and his tough 
stance then marked real progress in Israel's war effort. Only when it 
became clear in late 2004 that Sharon really did plan to withdraw 
unilaterally from Gaza did the Palestinian mood revive and Israel 
stopped winning. Ehud Olmert's debilitating prime ministry has been only 
partially remedied by Binyamin Netanyahu over the past year.
Ironically, an Israeli victory would bring yet greater benefits to the 
Palestinians than to Israel. Israelis would benefit by being rid of an 
atavistic war, to be sure, but their country is a functioning, modern 
society. For Palestinians, in contrast, abandoning the fetid irredentist 
dream of eliminating their neighbor would finally offer them a chance to 
tend their own misbegotten garden, to develop their deeply deficient 
polity, economy, society, and culture.
Thus does my peace plan both end the war and bring unique benefits to 
all directly involved.

 all directly involved.
Un incredibile ammasso di imbecillita', un discorso del genere vale
per un genocidio tipo quello dei pellerossa.
Non vale una mazza per una etnia minoritaria, che occupa' un lembo di
arabia, circondata d'odio.
Non hanno capito un cazzo.
Hanno gia' vinto militarmente almeno 6 volte, ma stan perdendo la
guerra.
Why?

 Victory uniquely creates circumstances conducive to peace.
Ma come? Proprio ora che c'� la "pace economica"? :)
Namib 

 Ma come? Proprio ora che c'è la "pace economica"? :)
mah, la pace economica e' con i palestinesi, e l'articolista scrive, in 
conclusione:
For Palestinians, in contrast, abandoning the fetid irredentist dream of 
eliminating their neighbor would finally offer them a chance to tend 
their own misbegotten garden, to develop their deeply deficient polity, 
economy, society, and culture.
Non che l'autore sia in ottimi rapporti con il governo di Israele, 
peraltro. Ma IMHO offre alcuni spunti interessanti. Del genere ricordare 
chi ha vinto le guerre.
Una mia amica egiziana parla spesso del "rimosso del 1967" come della 
grande nevrosi della societa' araba. Non vogliono ammettere di aver 
perso una guerra e sognano impossibili riscatti.

 Victory uniquely creates circumstances conducive to peace.
Israele ha vinto sempre, ma le uniche paci le ha firmate quando ha
corso sul serio il rischio di perdere. La vittoria è la nemica
assoluta della pace, perchè la pace pone delle condizioni che il
vincitore, credendosi superiore al vinto, non rispetterà mai. Da qui i
coloni...