War between Israel -v- Iran & Co (merged threads)

[Fabius Maximus]

one that's been waged for 3 generations: Palestinian people vs. Israel.

Who will win? That's the ultimate question for any discussion about war. Not who SHOULD win, or DESERVES to win, or who has the best soldiers, tactics, or equipment. Just the bottom line.

Here's one forecast, explicit with supporting logic:

"The Fate of Israel" by Fabius Maximus

Part two in a series of articles about grand strategy in a 4GW Era.
Demonstrates the difficultly of distinguishing strong from weak in 4GW,
and that choosing the wrong grand strategy can be terminal for a state.

http://www.d-n-i.net/fcs/fabius_fate_of_israel.htm

[Strickland]

The Palestinians should adopt a strategy consistent with that which the west promotes, yet the Israelis find unacceptable in an attempt to demonstrate the reality of the conflict. If the Palestinians pursued a policy of "one man one vote" within the framework of a single-unfied Israel, they would surely win a substantial number of seats in the Knesset simply due to their large population in comparison to the Israelis. This would demonstrate their desire to seek peaceful resolution through the ballot box and representative government, something desirable to the west; however, unacceptable to the Israelis. This strategy would put increased pressure on the Israelis, and thus create a new enthusiasm to create a lasting peace.

[Stratiotes]

I think both sides will continue to play out the eye-for-eye MAD strategy - each side becoming ever more intent on destroying the other. At best, a coexistence of perpetual war.

I agree with the Major that, if left to majority rule, the outcome might be different. But, I think the Israelis will never allow majority rule. Each new act from either side just feeds the hatred and it will not win unless one side decides to concede to the other - a scenario that is effectively impossible to conceive of.

[Merv Benson]

There is substantial evidence that the Palestian Authority grossly fudgeed the numbers on the Palestinian census. The numbers may have been off by a factor of 2 million. Notwithstanding that, what the Major has suggested is actually Hamas's position on a Palestian state from the Jordon to the Ocean. Their problem is that they do not control much of that space and it is unlikely that the Israelis will give them that opportunity.

[Strickland]

If democracy is truly our aim, then we cannot fail to recognize Hamas in Palestine, Dawa and SCIRI in Iraq, the MMA in Pakistan, potentially the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or Ahmedinejad in Iran. Our policy cannot be - "democracy as long as you elect who we want." Maybe we should start asking ourselves why these groups are so popular?

[Stu-6]

I went with the two states. I am assuming that Israel will be able to truly disengage from the West Bank. The path Israel has been on for most of the last 40 years would most likely lead to is ultimate destruction, however resent efforts, such as the withdraw from Gaza, suggest that they might be able to change course. If that happens then the Palestinians would in time establish a viable state. I would imagine that if the two states formed like this they would for sometime refuse to recognize each other, at least in any meaningful way.

[Stratiotes]

I'm trying to think of similar "arrangements" in the past that might support one or the others - Pakistan and India come to mind as possibly supporting the 2-nations response. I still find it difficult to imagine even a mild détente there but I'm willing to entertain that I might be wrong - I certainly hope I am.

Vietnam seems to fit the one-will-overcome-the-other response. North/South Korea seems to fit the perpetual war idea - if the past 50 years are enough to assume "perpetual." But both of those are rather special cases which could change given a collapse of the system feeding the animosity in one or the other - as it did in East/West Germany. So, just brainstorming a bit, what are some others and how would they be similar and give us some indication of what is possible/impossible?

[Jones_RE]

Query what a breakdown in order by both sides might look like: rogue settlements staying on the wrong side of the fence, various palestinian militias claiming different towns/neighborhoods, etc. You'd have a very complex geopolitical map (it's there now, really) populated by violent amateurs.

Isreal has been at war, or nearly so, since before its inception. The underlying problems are religious, political AND economic - military force one way or the other won't really solve them. I.e. even should Hamas (or some entity) wipe Isreal off the map the region itself will still be a chaotic, violent mess. And there's always the danger that five hundred years afterwards more Jews will decide to resettle the place again. Likewise, even if the Palestinians themselves were to agree to a ceasefire (or be killed, driven off, etc) there are still plenty of other Arab Muslims around the world who'd have no problem attacking Israel and trying to eliminate it - or just get revenge or whatever.

If the Isrealis *really* want a grand strategy, it will have to be moral, religious and psychological. The war rests in their immediate enemies' heads and not in Kalashnikovs or bomb factories. Note that the USA defeated the American Indians not just through blood, but through destruction of their belief systems - few modern Native Americans even speak their own language, let alone believe in any kind of resistance to the US.