A question of definition

Submitted by Jon (France), Mar 29, 2006 at 10:18

Perhaps the problem Mr. Pipes perceives is one of definition. I posit that the implicit idea is to force, in a reasonably devious way, the creation of a Palestinian state, then war becomes, in extreme circumstances, perfectly feasible and therefore winning it equally a feasible option.

Winning such a war would entail, as "traditionally", the destruction of opposing forces, their command structures both political and military, and perhaps clerical as well and can offer opportunities for a reasonable level of poorly chosen collateral damage.

All this is difficult to do without a defined "partner", with whom no negotiations are required, so even Hamas could, should, would qualify.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".