On Thursday 28 March 2002 13:29, you wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Trent Shipley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2002 11:45 PM > Subject: Resolved: War is immoral. > > > However, as a conservative I do not for the life of me understand *WHY* > > Israelis would trade land for security when they already have the > > *F____NG* > > > security. > > I read this sentence a number of times, discounted the shouting and the F > word, and still cannot understand how this could be believed. In what > sense is Israel secure? There are regular attacks on its civilian > population, taking place in everyday places. Indeed, the whole purpose of > terrorism is to eliminate the sense of security. When one cannot even > gather for a Passover meal without looking over one's shoulder, I cannot > see how they are secure. > > In the broader picture, they are a country of about 6 million, surrounded > by more than a 100 million hostile people. Further, there is a natural > economic incentive for the rest of the world to quietly look away while > they are destroyed. Their economy is only 100 billion. The Arab economy > around them is over 1.1 trillion. Plus, the Arabs control over half of the > known oil reserves. The Arabs have made it clear that a "resolution" of > the situation in Israel would lead to better relations with the world. > > At the present time, they have military superiority. But, they are still > very vulnerable. They have to win _every_ conflict, the Arabs have to win > only once. > > So, in what possible sense is Israel secure? The only sense I seem them > secure is that there is a low probability they will all die in the next few > years.
There was an if-then element that you evidently missed. IF the the Palestinians unilaterally renounce terrorism AND agree to actually enforce that renunciation on the Palestinian populace THEN Israel will have security. (Virtually) no Israeli citizens will die from terrorism or acts of political agression with external origin. Besides the implied future conditional IF-THEN-WOULD rendered in future present there were additional implicit assumptions. Namely security can be distinguished from peace. Also, Israel (and Israelis) are much more interested in security than peace. (That is freedom from Palestinian terrorism and other agression and a very low probability of total military defeat. A cold detente with neighbors would be *almost* as good as cold normal relations.) > At the present time, they have military superiority. But, they are still > very vulnerable. They have to win _every_ conflict, the Arabs have to win > only once. This is not exactly true. Israel must never (catastrophically) loose any war. The Arabs only have to have total victory once. This would change only if Arabs somehow came to believe that Jews and/or Zionists had a natural right to some part of Israel/Palestine. It's not like I expect that to happen in my lifetime. It is important to realize that Israel could have peace without security. It would be even easier for Israel to have security without peace. In fact, it is my belief that a land-for-peace deal will *reduce* Israel's security for a few decades after it is implemented.
