Hamas: We won't negotiate peace with Israel

[S2]

Parihaka Reply

"I don't believe the blitzkrieg was total war, but the defence of the Reich was."

The French, Dutch, Russians and Poles might argue otherwise.

[Parihaka]

"I don't believe the blitzkrieg was total war, but the defence of the Reich was."

The French, Dutch, Russians and Poles might argue otherwise.

Their cities weren't burnt-out shells, their armies were defeated but the officers of the conquering armies could dine out, drink the best wine and watch a movie of their conquests at the cinema in Paris, Amsterdam and Warsaw.
By the time of the invasion of Germany, germanies cities were in the main simply piles of rubble. Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong, but I don't really consider that to have begun in the WTO until Stalingrad, with a nod to the London docks.

[S2]

Parihaka Reply

"Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong..."

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think, though, we may be arguing at cross purposes. Some likely suggest that total war doesn't ensue until or unless an entire population and economy is mobilized. Fair enough.

I'd contend, though, that it's possible to prosecute total war thoroughly and rapidly before such is possible or even perceived necessary. I'd also argue that destroying the war-making potential of a nation by utterly decapitating its military arm neuters the need to proceed with dismantling the entire society.

For Israel, that might entail the complete destruction of the Syrian army and air force. Whether a subsequent occupation might be necessary is difficult to determine. Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten-or so Franz Halder might suggest.;)

Should resistance continue despite the total destruction of a nation's armed forces then that's another matter.

What's important from my perspective is whether a nation applies all of its existing war-making potential from the outset to achieve the strategic dismemberment of its adversary(ies). I'm not sure whether that includes weapons of mass destruction or not. It may.

[Parihaka]

"Perhaps I've got the definition of total war wrong..."

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I think, though, we may be arguing at cross purposes. Some likely suggest that total war doesn't ensue until or unless an entire population and economy is mobilized. Fair enough.

I'd contend, though, that it's possible to prosecute total war thoroughly and rapidly before such is possible or even perceived necessary. I'd also argue that destroying the war-making potential of a nation by utterly decapitating its military arm neuters the need to proceed with dismantling the entire society.

For Israel, that might entail the complete destruction of the Syrian army and air force. Whether a subsequent occupation might be necessary is difficult to determine. Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten-or so Franz Halder might suggest.;)

Should resistance continue despite the total destruction of a nation's armed forces then that's another matter.

What's important from my perspective is whether a nation applies all of its existing war-making potential from the outset to achieve the strategic dismemberment of its adversary(ies). I'm not sure whether that includes weapons of mass destruction or not. It may.

Steve, I'm going to do this in open forum because that is where we both happen to be and also because that is my natural inclination. One of my heroes is Sir James Bruce, 8th Earl of Elgin. I hesitate to mention him because doing so causes pain to our ethnic Chinese and Chinese members because of the summer palace, though I regard that as one of his greatest works, despite the pain it caused both him and modern day Chinese. That action is the finest example I have yet found of the dilemma of, in the words of Patrick O'Brians fictional character Jack Aubrey, the "lesser of two weevils".

I am not a military man, I have not nor will ever face the dilemma of combat nor the decisions thereof. I have faced hard decisions which have lead to the deaths of other people but only by accident, not design.

What I am is an oral historian, not by profession but by choice, and in another world a diplomat: unfortunately in this place and in this time such attributes are regarded as passé.
As such I can not see the world as black and white, I must judge each person as the sum of their actions and my knowledge thereof.

For these reasons I see your argument for the quick and surgical destruction of an enemy without the destruction of their support base as valid but unlikely: "Sometimes a population (such as the Russians) simply don't know when they've been beaten".
Much more likely is that each individual member of that society must be treated with individually, armies defeated and cities occupied be damned.

Also I see your arguments in our other matter as valid and just, but find myself unable to execute: I will not commit in this case to total warfare. Your ultimatum I will ignore, I value you too much to remove your skills and the powers thereof; whether, when and if you choose to utilize them is your choice.

[Mirko R]

I think Israel and Palestine both need new representation both sides are too jaded and dug in, they will not compromise and what they want conflicts with what the other wants. It is a shitty situation, but ultimatums will not solve it. What will is the people seeing each other as fellow humans and not the enemy. Both people's have been wronged tremendously throughout history, but not all of that can be made right in one second, its time to accept the situation for what it is and try to make it better. Hamas is only half the problem, and the lesser half, considering how much Israel is responsible for almost every aspect of life in the occupied territories.