Criminalizing War does not Make it Go Away

Fresh on the heels of his statements in Ferguson, Missouri, Eric Holder has announced that he is launching a criminal investigation into the beheading of journalist, James Foley, by ISIS in Syria. For those of you who do not know, James Foley was taken prisoner by ISIS in northern Syria about two years ago. In the wake of airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq, the terrorist organization decided to execute an American hostage. As usual, the execution was by beheading and was recorded for all the world to see later on YouTube and Twitter. It was a particularly vicious beheading, using a knife instead of a sword or larger weapon.

The entire world was able to see the video. U.S. intelligence agencies have verified that the recording is legitimate and that Mr. Foley is dead. All of that notwithstanding, our Attorney General is going to "investigate" a "crime" committed by ISIS. It really begs a series of questions. What is your plan? Are you going to "arrest" the Caliphate soldier? Are you going to send a fleet of FBI agents over to Syria to capture him? Are we going to bring him to trial? What about his accomplices?

Asininity is usually the result of a failure to grasp the main concept behind a problem. Carrying around a fundamental misconception about an issue, and then wearing it like a badge of honor on your lapel, will always make you look foolish. The beheading of a journalist by Caliphate warriors on a foreign battlefield is an act of war. Indeed, it is a war crime. It is not a violation of U.S. federal law. While I am certain that our Congress could draft a series of laws making it unlawful to be at war with the United States, those laws are and would be laughable. Our enemies couldn't care less about our laws. Threatening to arrest them is not going to effect any change in their attitude.

The American Left, including the President and his Attorney General, have a fundamental misconception about the nature of conflict. War is not a tort. War is not a felony. It cannot be deterred by arresting the perpetrators and putting them in jail. It cannot be won by "investigating" and "extraditing" the enemy's leaders. Those who wish to treat war as a criminal matter cannot discern reality from fantasy.

And here is why there is a difference. Wars are fought over ideology, especially these wars in the middle east. There is a cause, and they recruit others to that cause, not for wealth and riches, but for dominance and control. Crimes are not motivated by ideology. Criminals do not recruit other criminals to follow them to the death for a great cause. The most violent criminals usually act alone and out of some deep mental sickness. They hide their misconduct because most of them do not want to get caught. While it is true that one could compare Jeffery Dahmer's sick actions to those of the Caliphate, their motivations are totally different.

In the final analysis, statements like the one Eric Holder made make us look weak and powerless. I have no doubt that Caliphate soldiers are sitting around as we speak mocking the United States and our leadership, in part because of statements like these. If we want to curb the violence or at least cause the Caliphate to slow its advance, they need to believe that we will violently extract from them a price that they are not willing to pay. Prison is simply never going to be a deterrent to Jihadis.

The Sad and Unavoidable Story of Ferguson

My wife told me the other day that she was glad I had avoided writing about the issues in Ferguson, Missouri. Basically, any story that includes Al Sharpton and the Black Panthers in its chapters is generally a story we switch off in our house. Unfortunately, the coverage is unavoidable and, sadly, most analysts have just fanned the flames. Here is what I know.

1.  We have a judicial system specifically set up to handle these issues - without prejudice.

There is no American that has all the facts here. We don't know whether the police officer who shot Michael Brown was acting in self defense or not. We don't know whether he is a racist or not. We don't know what his true motivations were. We only know that he shot a man dead. Likewise, we don't know what Michael Brown was doing or why. We just know that he is dead.

This is why we have a system of laws. Our laws, ideally, protect the citizenry from criminals, protect black men from the unjustified use of force, and protect the police when they have to use deadly force. All of this will be flushed out as part of the criminal justice process. If the police officer acted inappropriately, he will be charged. Then a jury will determine whether the use of force was justified. It does nothing to bring Michael Brown back, but we are a nation of laws, and we do not work outside the system to bring justice to wrongdoers. 

That said, and as discussed more fully below, our system is imperfect and substantial justice is often denied to those who are most vulnerable. I am not a young black man, and I do not pretend to have any experience to mirror that of the young black men in our cities who grow up suspicious of police and government. I can say, having litigated many civil rights cases, that justice is usually imperfect and often eludes everyone, including minorities. My thought on the matter is that we simply have too many laws in this country and we need to reform the way sentences are meted out. That is a topic for another post, however.

2.  "Statements" from police, politicians and prosecutors need to stop.

I am deeply offended as a lawyer when I see overzealous prosecutors give press conferences that sound more like sermons, passionately demonizing the accused and exalting the virtues of the victim. Very few people are demons and even fewer are angels. The prosecutor represents the people and the justice system - not the victim. When prosecutors politicize these types of tragedies, they do nothing but bring shame to the system, the victim, and themselves. 

Likewise, the President of the United States does not need to ever make any comment on an ongoing criminal investigation that will almost certainly lead to indictments. Mr. Obama doesn't have all the facts either. Neither does Eric Holder. Statements made about a case that has not yet been brought will do nothing but poison the jury pool, interfere with the investigation, and will ultimately do more to corrupt the process than it will do to ensure justice.

Finally, the police do not need to be putting evidence into the public view while the investigation is ongoing. Of course the media wants it, but that's simply too bad. Selectively releasing evidence to the public does more to harm the process than just about anything else. It also creates suspicion and sullies the integrity of the legal process.

3.  Police do not need grenade launchers.

This entire debacle has, thankfully, started a dialogue that is long overdue. As one commentator put it, police do a bad job soldiering and soldiers do a bad job policing. We live in a free society. Curfews, like the one imposed last night, restrict our movements as free people and are, in my opinion, unacceptable. However, it can be even worse. When you place SWAT teams armed with MRAPS and machine guns in the streets to enforce the curfew, it is no longer about restoring civil order, it is about implementing martial law. Again, this is totally unacceptable. It should be resisted and condemned by all free people, without regard to race, color or creed.

As two wars have wound down, Police have been purchasing used military equipment at deep discounts. The New York Times had an excellent article last week on the militarization of our police, including a run down of the types of weaponry being used. Some police forces deploy grenade launchers. Let me say that again, grenade launchers. What we are witnessing is a classic case of "use it or lose it" when it comes to funding for these militarized police units. Quite simply, in order to justify the extraordinary expenditures required to buy, for example, an MRAP armored vehicle, the police must show that it is being utilized. This leads to the indiscriminate use of militarized police units in situations where a couple of guys in a cruiser would do the job.

Certainly, there is a need for SWAT teams, especially in our large cities. However, police captains and "law and order" politicians justify the overuse of these teams under the guise of officer safety, which is just wrong. It is argued, that police need to use "overwhelming force" to ensure officer safety, and the safety of the targets of the police raid. The problem is, in the vast majority of cases, "overwhelming force" is not necessary and when it is used, it quickly morphs into "excessive force." Throwing a flash-bang grenade into a toddler's bed while raiding a couple of marijuana users, for example, is excessive. Sending 30 police officers dressed like Spetznatz to bust through the door of a frat house where underage drinking is taking place, in another example, is excessive. I challenge anyone to disagree with me on that. The ubiquitous use of overwhelming and excessive force terrifies the very citizens the police are there to protect. This leads to further distrust, especially in minority communities, creating a vicious cycle:  more distrust equals more violence, which in turn justifies more force, which requires larger weapons, which leads to more distrust. Then the cycle starts over, escalating each time.

Just like anything else with government, if you let them have it, they will use it and sometimes abuse it. Let's just hope that when that grenade launcher is used, there are no kids in the way. 

The Legitimate Use of Force

Every culture has its own philosophy on the justifiable use of force. The sheer number of writings on the topic is obviously massive, but most of them have one thing in common: The use of force is justified in the defense of one's self or in the defense of another. In addition, the victim, whether that be you or the person in whose defense you are acting, must not be himself acting in an immoral or improper manner. In other words, the victim must have clean hands.

It is obviously extremely difficult to rush to the defense of others in every situation. There are some situations that cannot be resolved by force. There are some situations in which the force available is inadequate to defend the victim. There are situations, of course, in which the victim's hands are not entirely clean,  but the aggressor's force is disproportionate to the victim's trespass. Finally, there are always individual moral considerations. What one culture considers to be unclean hands, another may consider to be a great cause.

The world is now contemplating the use of force to stop The Caliphate currently exterminating Christians and some Muslims in Northern Iraq and Syria. To Western eyes, the Caliphate is engaged in a level of brutality that is nearly unparalleled in history. Legitimate comparisons to the Holocaust can be made. It is akin to the genocide the world saw from the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia. As I pointed out in my last article, they are crucifying men, women and children. They are cutting children in half in front of Anglican priests. They are burying families alive, all because of their ethnic and religious beliefs.

Rarely does the world express such universal outrage. This is because there are no circumstances under which The Caliphate's conduct could be justified. Likewise, there is no evidence that the victims in this case have provoked this purge or otherwise have unclean hands. The Iraqi government, such that it is, does not have clean hands. It systematically excluded Sunnis and Kurds from the government. It marginalized and refused to support other groups outside of their Shiite community. However, the force being used by The Caliphate is extreme and completely disproportionate to the discrimination the Shiite majority admittedly engaged in. Regardless, the children are innocent as are most of the civilians being slaughtered.

The moral justification to intervene on behalf of the victims of this genocide is undeniable, which leads to the question of whether the use of force is possible and would be effective. There is no question that a unified world, including the United States, has the raw power to attack and annihilate The Caliphate. However, whether attacking and annihilating The Caliphate would solve the problem of oppression and genocide in the Middle East is an entirely different matter. 

It is indisputable that war has been a way of life in the Middle East. It is indisputable that horrific attacks on civilians have also been a frequent occurrence throughout the region. The world stood by and watched as Saddam Hussein gassed the Kurds. The world stood by as both sides in the Iran - Iraq war used mustard gas on each other, killing thousands of women and children along with the soldiers. Sunnis in Iraq oppressed and tortured countless Shiite Iraqis for decades under the Hussein regime. In Syria, Bashar Al Assad and his father, Alawites, literally spent generations using secret police to oppress and torture both Sunnis and Shiites. Then, of course, there are the numerous bus bombings, mall bombings, airplane hijackings, kidnappings and beatings that have been a way of life for millions of Jews, Christians and Arabs living just about anywhere in the region.

It does not seem very likely that there is any military force that could adequately quell this sad history or otherwise change the course of events as they are unfolding. Radical Islam has been on the march. The "Arab Spring," while initially a beacon of  hope, quickly devolved into another opportunity for radical Islamists to seize power. They are now engaged in a civil war, and Christians, as well as women and children are getting caught in the crossfire. It is extremely sad, but absent the will to attack, conquer, and occupy the country, there is very little we can do. Moreover, unless we also have the will to occupy that part of the world in perpetuity, and force our liberal principles upon the residents, our efforts will be ultimately wasted.

So the world faces a difficult choice. We will either allow violent self determination that offends our sense of morality and deal with the consequences of that, or we will decide that using force to press more moderate values upon the rest of the world is acceptable. Every drop of blood spilled in pursuit of something in between, is spilled only to alleviate our guilt over not doing something more. It is not spilled to effect lasting change, however.

The Caliphate

The Islamic State of Iraq and Al Sham, commonly known as ISIS or ISIL, has been sweeping across the Middle East, seizing nearly half of Iraq and half of Syria. They have been extremely successful in displacing all Christians and other Muslims that do not convert to their narrow vision of Islamic Law. To reflect their new found success, ISIS changed its name to simply "Islamic State," and now call themselves "The Caliphate."

Most normal people have no idea what "Caliphate" means. Put simply, "the Caliphate" means "succession," as it relates to the teachings of Mohammed. A Caliph is a leader of the Caliphate. Historically, however, "Caliphate" has also meant a united Islamic state, incorporating all Muslims anywhere in the world, without regard to borders. What very few people recognize, is that this Caliphate is actually the second Caliphate. In order to understand the goals of this most recent movement, it is important to understand a little of the history.

Mohammed, the founder of Islam, was born in 570 A.D. in Mecca. In 615 A.D, Mohammed began teaching his religion, known at the time as Mohammedism. Ten years later, he dictated the Koran, the Muslim Bible. In 632 A.D., Mohammed died and was succeeded by Abu Bakr. Islam spread like a wildfire throughout the Middle East, displacing Christians and Jews within less than a decade. Bakr died in 635 and was replaced by Omar the First, who first started using the term Caliphate to mean all Muslims everywhere, converted or otherwise. He spread the Caliphate to Egypt and Syria, and moved the capital of the Caliphate to Damascus. Around this same time, the forced conversion of non-Muslims became a principle tenant of the faith.

While this was going on, the Roman Empire was collapsing. Rome had already fallen to the Germanic tribes in 476. The remnants of the empire, by this time a Christian empire, had move to the East, to places like Constantinople in modern day Turkey. The Emperor Constantine, a converted Christian, was able to hold the line against the Caliphate in the east during his reign, but his son, Justinian II, the last true Roman Emperor, was defeated by the Arabs in Cecilia in 693. The Caliphate gained a foothold in Europe and quickly spread Islam throughout Italy, Spain and controlled territories as far north and west as France. In 732, Charles Martel (a.ka."The Hammer") defeated the Arabs at the Battle of Tours, halting the western advance of Islam.

The Caliphs subsequently gave up their collective vision of conquering Europe and turned their attention back to the east. The capital was again moved to Baghdad, and Caliph Mahdi began the Islamic Inquisition. To put it in perspective, Islamic militants, dedicated to forcing the conversion of all Infidels had, by 732, conquered and occupied the entire Middle East, Spain, Italy, eastern Europe, northern Africa and southern France. The Roman Empire had been supplanted by the Caliphate.

In 900 A.D. European Christians began what would be a 500 year effort to eject Arab Muslims from Europe. The "Crusades," while typically viewed as an insensitive Papist folly, were viewed at the time as necessary to stop the forced conversion of Christians in Europe and throughout the world. Folly or not, if not for the Crusades, Islamic Law and the Caliphate likely would be the dominant form of governance in the world. European efforts culminated in 1492 with the "Reconquista," or "reconquering." While Columbus was sailing the ocean blue, Ferdinand and Isabella of Spain were also busy pushing Sharia Law out of Europe. They were successful. What followed was the infamous "Spanish Inquisition" which was originally put in place to convert Muslims who refused to leave Europe. It is obviously a dark chapter in western history, but it was no worse than the Islamic inquisition that took place a century before and is still taking place in the Middle East today.

The first Caliphate shattered into four opposing sects in 752, including the Shiites and Sunnis. The split had been brewing for a century and was the result of a dispute over succession. The Shiites believed that the Caliph must be from Mohammed's line or otherwise divinely chosen. The Sunnis believed that that Caliph should reflect the will of the people and be elected by other Muslims.

In any event, to understand the new Caliphate's goals, you first have to recongnize the enormous scope of the first Caliphate. Caliph's Omar and Mahdi intended to spread the Caliphate throughout the known world, by military force, using gruesome conversion techniques to drive out all other religions. 

The objectives have not changed. The new Caliphate intends to "raise the flag" of the Caliph in the White House, said one leader. They are, literally, crucifying children for failing to fast during Ramadan. If you don't believe that, look on YouTube. Last month, they buried two young women to their necks outside a village in Syria. They were accused of adultery. A truck load of stones were brought in for the villagers to use in accordance with Sharia Law to stone them. The villagers did not believe the women were guilty or, in any event, apparently no one would "cast the first stone." So, the Caliphate soldiers did it for them, in front of husbands, brothers and children. Again, see for yourself. The pictures were leaked on Twitter.

The Caliphate is now resurrecting the ancient Mahdi directive: "Leave, Convert, or Die." It is unlikely that the Caliphate will actually succeed in taking over the entire Middle East. Quite simply, the Shia do not want to be converted or killed, so there will almost certainly be a bloody civil war. That notwithstanding, our leaders would do well to understand the extraordinary resolve these people have. They will not be bargained with. They do, in fact, have global ambitions, even if they cannot, yet, project power. They are extremely well organized, and they know their own history - we do not. They know that their heritage is as the successor to the Roman Empire and that they had, at one point, conquered most of the known world. That undoubtedly provides them with the confidence and motivation to press their objectives. We underestimate them at our own peril. 

Airstrikes will not Change the Fate of Iraq

This morning, American bombers struck ISIS targets in Northern Iraq. This was the first airstrike in Iraq since 2011. For a little background, you can read a few of my earliest articles on Iraq, reposted below.

http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-5-reasons-isis-will-win-iraq_30.html
http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-we-lost-iraq.html
http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-democracy-fails.html

History has conclusively shown that airpower alone cannot defeat an enemy. It can have a decisive effect, but only if it is combined with substantial ground operations and an exit strategy. There is absolutely no evidence of any plan to combine our airstrikes with substantial ground operations, either American troops or Iraqi regulars. As a result, while airstrikes may slow the advance of ISIS, they will not be decisive.

Moreover, for the reasons outlined in my other articles, there is no will to win, no decisive military force in place, and no viable plan for peace in the aftermath. Pressing this engagement is, at best, ineffective and, at worst, another strategic blunder in a region of the world in which we tend to strategically blunder. It also prolongs what is almost certainly an inevitable result: Civil war in Iraq and then the continuation of perpetual war between Sunnis and Shiites in the broader Middle East. Genocide is almost always a component of civil war between these groups. The only way to stop the genocide has always been for the western powers to occupy large swaths of the Middle East, which we have decided as a nation not to do.

Finally, even if we were to successfully halt ISIS's advance and pave the way for a Shiite advance, and even if the Shiites successfully push ISIS back, the genocide will not end there. There will be old scores to settle and revenge to be had. The Shiite majority in Iraq has been only marginally less oppressive than the Sunnis. To believe that the Saddam remnants and ISIS will be allowed to peacefully retreat back to their homes in Tikrit is just naive. The bloodbath will continue, and the moral justification used to intervene in the first place will be visibly compromised in the eyes of the world when we do nothing later. 

Immediate Steps to Take if Putin Invades Ukraine

Several things have become clear in recent days. First, if there was ever any doubt that Putin is willing to invade Ukraine, those doubts can be put to rest. He has doubled his invasion force, at great expense. Most military analysts agree that he has sufficient force to invade and occupy Eastern Ukraine, but not take and hold Kiev. We will see...

It also has become clear that Putin is not going to be deterred from pursuing his original strategic objective, which is to have direct influence over Ukraine's political and foreign policy decisions. Allowing the West to have more influence over Ukraine than he does is unacceptable. He fears, rightfully so, that the West will eventually place weapons in Ukraine that could further marginalize Russia's military power in the region. He will never let this happen, and all of his decisions are in support of that principle.

My recommendation can be found here. http://libertyswindow.blogspot.com/2014/07/defending-putins-gambit.html. Unfortunately, there is no support for placing our own forces in Eastern Europe and it is quickly becoming too late anyway. Where the American Right is accused of relying too heavily on military force, the American Left relies too heavily on sanctions and marshaling world opinion against bad actors. The latter will have no effect on Putin. The world has already frowned on his forces shooting down a passenger airliner. He has responded by doubling his invasion force. The former, sanctions, have so far proved ineffective, but that does not have to be the case.

If Putin invades Ukraine, the ultimate objective should be to frustrate his operation and degrade his ability to continue to occupy Eastern Ukraine and Crimea. That means using indirect military force to aid guerrillas in Ukraine. It also mean attacking Russia's economy. 

There is no question that we can provide arms to Ukraine. We don't have to hide it, either. In fact, it is probably better for Putin to see that we are visibly engaged in frustrating his ability to reach his objective. Guns, anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons can be operated by guerrillas with minimal training. Body armor, helmets, grenades and ammunition are also cheap and easy to distribute. While there is no doubt that Putin can successfully invade, occupation is an entirely different mission. Even a sympathetic population will tire of having their movements restricted, being confined to their homes, and being subjected to summary justice. It only takes a few missteps by the occupying forces to turn complacency into rage. An angry, well armed population exacts a much higher price on the occupiers.

In addition to arming a resistance, we can also attack Russia's economy. Russia is a petro-state. Its economy is based on oil and gas. As I said in my last article on this topic, we can leverage our relationship with China to at least delay its oil and gas deal with Russia. We can also use what little influence we have left in the Middle East to cut Russia's access to foreign oil markets. The more civilized arab states already dislike having Russia as a competitor in the market. It is possible that they would agree to help us ruin Russia's ability to bring oil to the market.

That same strategy would work in Europe, although it would be very painful to the Europeans. However, I simply cannot see Europeans justifying their purchase of blood oil from Russia after it invades Ukraine. The more brutal the resistance, the more difficult it will be to rationalize European financial support for Russian brutality. The day will come when Europe will have to take sides - sooner or later. We should convince them that the sooner the West ends Russia's ability to financially continue military operations, the sooner the energy pinch will be over.

We can also cut Russia's access to financial markets and banks. Russia is not unlike any other country in that it relies on public funding, loans and interest on savings to operate its government. Most of Russia's funding comes from overseas. Cutting access to funding cuts Putin's access to money needed to fund his war machine and his occupation. Eastern Ukraine and Crimea are the poorest regions of Eastern Europe. Putin will already have a headache trying to bring any measurable improvement to the people in those regions, regardless of the fact that they speak Russian. Without access to foreign markets and public funding, he will fail. 

If we can financially isolate Russia and then support a brutal and bloody resistance in Eastern Ukraine, Putin will have to eventually reevaluate his objectives. If he is bogged down in a fierce fight in Ukraine, he also won't have the money or the reserves to harass the rest of Eastern Europe. In the mean time, we can be placing significant military assets in Poland, Estonia and Lithuania, who would welcome the protection.

5 Reasons Peace Will Fail in Israel

Every U.S. President sets off on the same fool's errand at some point during his Presidency: "Bringing Peace to the Middle East." Every President has suffered the same failure. Peace in the Middle East has not ever been anything that could be made by decree or fiat. World leaders have tried for hundreds of years, drawing "borders" that no side recognizes, supporting leaders that no one wants. In the final analysis, the world will always fail to bring peace to the Middle East because it is not the world's conflict. It is a family feud that began 4,000 years ago.

1.  This is a Very Old Problem Between Families.

Islam, Christianity and Judaism are called the "religions of Abraham." This is because we all have the Biblical patriarch Abraham as our common ancestor. Christians are largely made up of people who are not ethnically Middle Eastern. However, Jews and Arabs share a relation by blood. 

According to Genesis, 4,000 years ago, Abraham and his wife, Sarah, could not conceive a child. Although God had promised Abraham that his descendants would be as numerous as the sands on the beach, Abraham decided to take matters into his own hands. He had sex with Sarah's Egyptian servant, Hagar, who bore him a child. The child was named Ishmael. Abraham loved Ishmael (and Hagar for that matter.) Nevertheless, God told Abraham that Ishmael would be a wild and warlike man, and that he too would have numerous descendants. God also told Abraham, much to his disbelief, that his 90 year old wife Sarah would bear him a child named Isaac. Abraham thought God was joking, but a year later, Isaac was born.

Sarah and Hagar, understandably, could not get along with one another. They were always vying for Abraham's attention and their children were growing into rivals. Abraham, at Sarah's bidding, sent Hagar and Ishmael away to live in the wilderness. However, God took pity on them and made a promise to Ishmael. It was simple, Ishmael would have many descendants, many more even than his half brother. His line would produce 10 kings who would go on to rule the nations of the Arabian Peninsula. They would, however, always be at war and never know peace.

Ishmael's descendants in fact did rule the rest of Arabia for 4,000 years and were, in fact, more numerous than Isaac's descendants, the Jews. They have also, in fact, been at war with one another since the day Abraham threw Hagar from the tent. God went on to promise Isaac the land now known as Israel, but the passions, rivalries and disputes are very, very ancient.

The Koran teaches a slightly different version. Abraham had 8 sons instead of two and Ishmael was the one promised the land which is now known as Israel as his birthright. According to Muslim tradition, Isaac stole that birthright and the Israelites continue to occupy land that was given to Ishmael and his descendants by God.

The two sides have had 4000 years to resolve this family dispute over land. They have not yet done so and likely never will. If they do, I can promise you that it will not be because of anything Barack Obama or any other President or leader does. It will be when the two sides tire of fighting or one side wins, neither of which will ever happen.

2.  The Arabs Do Not Like the Palestinians Either.

The rest of Ishmael's descendants joke amongst each other about their dislike of the Palestinians. Palestinians have historically been outcasts from the rest of the arab world, even if the arabs would never admit that to a westerner. They have special epithets that they reserve for Palestinians, and none of the other arab states in the region have offered to take them in. In other words, the Palestinians are stuck where they are and, even if they were inclined to leave, there is no where for them to go.

3.  The Arabs Get Political Mileage out of the Conflict.

As discussed above, the descendants of Ishmael and the descendants of Isaac have never liked each other. There is no doubt that the descendants of Ishmael take a certain satisfaction in seeing Israel struggle with its neighbors. Israel's presence in Palestine provides each arab leader with an opportunity to focus attention away from their own failing policies and on a common enemy. If things get tough internally, they can rely on their more militant brethren to shoot missiles at the Jews and ignite pan-arabic anti-semitic passions.

As it so happens, many people in Europe still have a problem with Jews too. A blow up in the Middle East also brings with it European (and sometimes American) condemnation of the Jews. Further isolation is then achieved by lobbing missiles on Tel Aviv or kidnapping Israelis and waiting for a response. Instead of talking about Iran's nuclear ambitions, we are talking about Israelis "targeting civilians," who just happen to be guarding Hamas missiles.

4.  No One Can Win.

This is a conflict that cannot have a victor. The arabs fundamentally believe that Israel has no legitimate claim to a state anywhere in Arabia. They believe that Ishmael's birthright has been stolen, and they want it back. It would take a sea change in the fundamental tenants of Islam to bring about any concession on this ultimate point.

On the Jewish side, the same sentiments prevail. As the Hebrew God promised in Ezekiel, the Jews would be scattered amongst the nations as a punishment for their wickedness and their continued rejection of his law. However, they would also be gathered from the nations to return to the land He had promised to them. The Jews believe that God gave them that land and actually instructs them to return there. For many Jews, disobeying God's direct order to return is impossible. They are not going to leave.

That said, no one can win. Israel has the power to wipe out arabia with nuclear weaponry, but not without also being wiped out or at least suffering a radiological disaster of their own. As a result, this moderate to low level conflict, with measured Israeli responses, will continue ad infinitum.

5.  There is Nothing To Win Anyway.

The arabs wish to eradicate Israel. It is their stated objective. Israel intends to stay. The land over which they are fighting is not the cradle of civilization. It is not the Nile. It is not Eden. There is no oil there. They are fighting over an arid, narrow strip of land on the Red Sea. It takes remarkable effort to grow anything there, including trees and crops. It is the place that harbors the ominous Har Megiddo  and Valley of Jezreel where the battle of armageddon will be fought, if you believe such things. The only thing there worth having is the wealth that a few million industrious Jews created through hard work and, without the Jews, there would be no wealth of any kind left to loot. In other words, there is nothing to win except the eradication of the Jews. It is their sole objective to once again scatter the Jews among the nations.