Full Force

Submitted by John R (United States), Jun 30, 2006 at 22:44

+++++The Bush administration sees the United States at war with Islamic radicalism; has not the time come for it to see other theaters of this same war – Russia's with the Chechen rebels, India's with the Kashmiri insurgents, Israel's with Hamas – as we see our own, and work for the defeat of the Islamists?++++++++

Islamic radicalism. This is really confusing me. As far as I know, the teachings of Islam is radical enough, therefore there is no such thing as Islamic radicalism. Islam itself is radical. Maybe by saying Islamic radicalism, you mean "Islam violence". Maybe by saying "moderate Islam" you mean those whose religion is Islam but does not take it seriously. The way I see it, if you believe in Islam, you believe in radicalism.

We are at war with Islam, Dan. The steps to help us is to identify who the enemy is, then admit it, then monitor it, and if we get into a war, contain it. If we are to succeed we have to do these.

However I say contain because I do not see, for example, Israel defeating Palestinians, Islams, totally by force so much so that Palestinians will give up fighting the Israelis or give up their desire or belief that the Israelis should be thrown out. I think the problem will hang around and can get serious should Israel put more war effort.

I certainly hope I am wrong, that you are correct, that the way to peace is to use enormous amount of force so the enemy gives up, but I do not see that and what makes you so sure. I remember all the suicide bombings, all the Palestinian violence escalated when the Isreali military stormed Palestinian places to kill the terrorists. Could it be that we simply produce more terrorists to dole out more revenge? Have we not tried using enormous force enough in the past to no success? Isn't this the reason why the United States government has been emphasizing containment, management, instead?

Anyway, why not try it your way or your way again. See what happens. It seems to me that the Israelis have been getting more forceful and aggressive these days, but the verdict is still out. Time must prove it because Israel might experience another round of suicide bombings and Islamic violence. Not to mention our homeland gets targeted too, like the Trade Towers, because Muslims there associate us with the Israelis. The criteria is not simple. We, the United States, must also not experience terrorism due to Israel's use of force, and that peace as a result of enormous amount of force is not only temporary.

Talk about siding with who. The Bush administration is not out and out supportive of Israel. I think they realize that if we show support for Israel 100%, we are risking terrorist attacks on our land. Hence, it seems the US govenment is neutral and is not aftraid to condemn any Israeli violence that are wrongfully executed.

++++++Instead, in the Israeli case at least, Washington urges understanding, restraint, compromise, management of the problem, and other half-hearted and doomed remedies. The result is an ever more exhilarated and aggressive Palestinian population that believes victory within reach.++++++++

I have said it before: The Bush government is neutral. That paragraph sort of proves it. I believe we are being careful. By saying understanding, restraint, compromise, it also implies US recognition and understanding of Palestinian or Arab grievances, as well as recognition that your way is only short sighted because it might just be a temporary solution.

+++Washington's mistaken approach goes back to the Oslo accords of 1993, when Yasir Arafat seemingly closed the existential conflict in writing to Bill Clinton that "The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security." But Arafat's assurances were fraudulent and the Arab effort to eliminate Israel remains very much in place.++++

Washington is mistaken? Let's see. I want to see your plan implemented. If it does not work out, your credibility dives. :-) If it works out, great, that is so encouraging because all one has to do to achieve peace is to use enourmous amount of force. I find it funny saying that because it would mean peace and nothing else, is a result of war, no diplomacy, understanding, etc. . But it must not work out just temporarily, meaning you use complete force, get peace in 3 months, then the violence ensues. For some reason I think this has happened before. Use force, peace for a while, then boom another round of violence follows, appears again, it takes time to recuperate and execute revenge, after which the usual Palestinian violence and defiance and hatred of Jews and determination to defeat them.

+++Israel, with U.S. support, must defeat this foul ambition. That implies inflicting a sense of defeat on the Palestinians, and winning their resignation to the permanent existence of a Jewish state in the Holy Land. Only then will the violence end.+++

Sense of defeat. You know for some reason I think what else should we do when the enemy's military force is a joke and it's economy so poor? Wipe the entire Palestinian population?

John R.

---

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".