Ben Gurion: "We are the aggressors"

[ForeverYoung436]

"...BTW, no family."

I beg your forgiveness, PF... no personal offense was intended with that role-playing in support of the Israeli position. You and I are polar opposites in the matter of Israel and Palestine and may tangle from time to time but many of the veterans here perceive you to be a person of merit and value and heart and my own very brief observation points me in much the same direction, insofar as personal evaluation is concerned. In future, if and as we tangle on this issue, please - never - take such play-acting or other firmness personally. Please.

I disagree. I have 3 uncles, 3 aunts, 7 cousins and their growing families living in Israel proper (most of whom are leftist), and Tinmore doesn't view them as being civilian, because of a philosophy which isn't based on reality. He claims that they can be killed, along with their babies, because they aren't "protected persons" under international law. Any person with that attitude isn't a good person. He doesn't view Goldstein's massacre in the Tomb of Abraham and a Seder Passover meal full of family members being blown up, under the same prism. Therefore, I don't take his opinions or views seriously.

 

[Kondor3]

Coyote...

You serve-up truly excellent moral arguments, and I would not dream of attempting to counter those.

What I am saying is that the desperate plight of the Jews over time and their re-empowerment after a 1900-year -long hiatus has moved beyond the realm of morals.

We are talking about survival of a People with a 1900 year-long history of persecution and slaughter.

Survival.

Survival trumps morals every time.

You and I and everyone here are the descendants of people who did some really nasty and immoral things to survive over the centuries.

It's the Jews' turn in the barrel... it's time for them to harden their hearts, if they are to survive.

That process is already underway.

When your back is against the wall, morals don't matter as much as they did before.

I think that's where they are now, and, frankly, I can't fault them for heading in that direction.

This is no longer about what's fair... it's about what it takes to survive.

 

[Kondor3]

"...And the acquisition of land through the threat or use of force is illegal."

The Jews have no place to go if they lose this.

Their backs are against the wall.

When your back is against the wall, you don't care anywhere near as much about legality or morality as you might during a happier or less threatening time.

You do what you must to survive, and worry about settling-up later.

That's where I think the collective Jewish-Israeli mindset is at.

The Law has failed them hundreds of times over the years, and they've lost faith in it.

 

[CMike]

Israel has acted extremely morally.

It has put it's own soldiers at risk in order to pinpoint terrorists.


The other side intentionally targets civilians. They are savages.

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

"...You are so funny, Israel has only a 65 year history..."

That's why I'm here, Sherri... to be a source of amusement for you.

Israel and Judaism are inseparable. That history goes back at least 3,000 years and maybe more, and in that land, no less. Your Palestinians, however, are merely the descendants of the miscellany that drifted-in slowly over the centuries to fill the vacuum that they left behind, and they have no identity to speak of except that invented by Yassar Arafat in the past few decades, never mind a 3,000 -year-old history.

"...demographics and justice are on their side..."

It will be difficult to alter demographics without having land to live on or a pot to piss in. Look at the map. They're out of time. The end will come for them long before any forlorn hope of altering demographics are ever realized. As to 'justice', well, ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them over the past 1900 years, or the past 65, for that matter.

You're also quite correct that the so-called Occupation will end. We merely differ about the manner of that ending. The map tells the story.

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

 

[P F Tinmore]

"...BTW, no family."

I beg your forgiveness, PF... no personal offense was intended with that role-playing in support of the Israeli position. You and I are polar opposites in the matter of Israel and Palestine and may tangle from time to time but many of the veterans here perceive you to be a person of merit and value and heart and my own very brief observation points me in much the same direction, insofar as personal evaluation is concerned. In future, if and as we tangle on this issue, please - never - take such play-acting or other firmness personally. Please.

I disagree. I have 3 uncles, 3 aunts, 7 cousins and their growing families living in Israel proper (most of whom are leftist), and Tinmore doesn't view them as being civilian, because of a philosophy which isn't based on reality. He claims that they can be killed, along with their babies, because they aren't "protected persons" under international law. Any person with that attitude isn't a good person. He doesn't view Goldstein's massacre in the Tomb of Abraham and a Seder Passover meal full of family members being blown up, under the same prism. Therefore, I don't take his opinions or views seriously.

I think you are misinterpreting my position. I do not advocate any violence. The only reason I reference the law on protected persons is that Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign is based on the false premise that the Palestinians target civilians.

The Palestinians are not terrorists. That is merely political name calling.

 

[toastman]

"...You are so funny, Israel has only a 65 year history..."

That's why I'm here, Sherri... to be a source of amusement for you.

Israel and Judaism are inseparable. That history goes back at least 3,000 years and maybe more, and in that land, no less. Your Palestinians, however, are merely the descendants of the miscellany that drifted-in slowly over the centuries to fill the vacuum that they left behind, and they have no identity to speak of except that invented by Yassar Arafat in the past few decades, never mind a 3,000 -year-old history.

"...demographics and justice are on their side..."

It will be difficult to alter demographics without having land to live on or a pot to piss in. Look at the map. They're out of time. The end will come for them long before any forlorn hope of altering demographics are ever realized. As to 'justice', well, ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them over the past 1900 years, or the past 65, for that matter.

You're also quite correct that the so-called Occupation will end. We merely differ about the manner of that ending. The map tells the story.

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

It's time to wake up from your dream

What a bunch of drivel !

 

[toastman]

I beg your forgiveness, PF... no personal offense was intended with that role-playing in support of the Israeli position. You and I are polar opposites in the matter of Israel and Palestine and may tangle from time to time but many of the veterans here perceive you to be a person of merit and value and heart and my own very brief observation points me in much the same direction, insofar as personal evaluation is concerned. In future, if and as we tangle on this issue, please - never - take such play-acting or other firmness personally. Please.

I disagree. I have 3 uncles, 3 aunts, 7 cousins and their growing families living in Israel proper (most of whom are leftist), and Tinmore doesn't view them as being civilian, because of a philosophy which isn't based on reality. He claims that they can be killed, along with their babies, because they aren't "protected persons" under international law. Any person with that attitude isn't a good person. He doesn't view Goldstein's massacre in the Tomb of Abraham and a Seder Passover meal full of family members being blown up, under the same prism. Therefore, I don't take his opinions or views seriously.

I think you are misinterpreting my position. I do not advocate any violence. The only reason I reference the law on protected persons is that Israel's terrorist propaganda campaign is based on the false premise that the Palestinians target civilians.

The Palestinians are not terrorists. That is merely political name calling.

List of Palestinian suicide attacks - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why do you lie so much ?

 

[Hossfly]

"...You are so funny, Israel has only a 65 year history..."

That's why I'm here, Sherri... to be a source of amusement for you.

Israel and Judaism are inseparable. That history goes back at least 3,000 years and maybe more, and in that land, no less. Your Palestinians, however, are merely the descendants of the miscellany that drifted-in slowly over the centuries to fill the vacuum that they left behind, and they have no identity to speak of except that invented by Yassar Arafat in the past few decades, never mind a 3,000 -year-old history.

"...demographics and justice are on their side..."

It will be difficult to alter demographics without having land to live on or a pot to piss in. Look at the map. They're out of time. The end will come for them long before any forlorn hope of altering demographics are ever realized. As to 'justice', well, ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them over the past 1900 years, or the past 65, for that matter.

You're also quite correct that the so-called Occupation will end. We merely differ about the manner of that ending. The map tells the story.

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

 

[toastman]

That's why I'm here, Sherri... to be a source of amusement for you.

Israel and Judaism are inseparable. That history goes back at least 3,000 years and maybe more, and in that land, no less. Your Palestinians, however, are merely the descendants of the miscellany that drifted-in slowly over the centuries to fill the vacuum that they left behind, and they have no identity to speak of except that invented by Yassar Arafat in the past few decades, never mind a 3,000 -year-old history.



It will be difficult to alter demographics without having land to live on or a pot to piss in. Look at the map. They're out of time. The end will come for them long before any forlorn hope of altering demographics are ever realized. As to 'justice', well, ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them over the past 1900 years, or the past 65, for that matter.

You're also quite correct that the so-called Occupation will end. We merely differ about the manner of that ending. The map tells the story.

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

How can a Christian woman who reads the bible, and posts quotes from the Bible, not acknowledge the fact that Israel existed 3000 years ago. I guess she only believes the parts of the Bible that she wants to .

 

[RoccoR]

Kondor3, et al,

There will be many that agree.

"...The object is to live together in a lasting peace, not to disperse in order to avoid an endless confrontation..."

Rocco, I admire your style, and you are absolutely correct, from the perspective of the humanist, that this should be the object of the exercise.

Unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, it is now far too late for such idealistic, neutral and pluralistic outcomes - they have been unattainable for many years now - 1967 comes to mind as a likely Turning Point, after which such outcomes had been rendered all but impossible.

(COMMENT)

This is the silent, but prevailing opinion held by many. They don't want to sound pessimistic in the outlook, but it is always there.

So... IF that is true (it is too late, by decades)... THEN... we are compelled to seek the best solution that can still be accomplished under the circumstances.

It is my opinion that the capture of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights were game-changers; forever altering and dramatically reducing the chances for a peaceful coexistence.

And, after Intifada I and II, I don't see much chance for the return of Recently Annexed Lands in the West Bank or Gaza, either.

(COMMENT)

Clearly, these were defining moments in the history of the conflict. But in order to achieve a goal as complicated as the ultimate peace in this regional issue, a dynamic leader make an appearance, one capable of making an historic change in the paradigm. One side or the other is going to have to make a sacrifice. And I agree, neither people are ready to set forward with that offering.

If, in the long run, avoiding confrontation through dispersal may be all that remains as a practical alternative to the status quo, then that's what we shall have.

And, frankly, I think we're 'almost there', in this context.

And that's not even taking into account the Vae Victus effect.

(COMMENT)

In the Roman Senate, when Cato the Elder would finish his oratory, he would render the floor to Caesar with these parting words: Delenda est Carthago! He believed as many do, that in the final analysis, there are some cases that only the total destruction of the enemy will lead to a lasting peace. That any who escape - will only rise again to re-ignite the blood feud. There are many - today - beginning to whisper: Delenda est Philistia!.

I could be wrong, of course, but I sense that I'm not.

(COMMENT)

As I say, many would agree that your insight has some accuracy.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[SherriMunnerlyn]

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

How can a Christian woman who reads the bible, and posts quotes from the Bible, not acknowledge the fact that Israel existed 3000 years ago. I guess she only believes the parts of the Bible that she wants to .

Israel was created in 1948, you need to educate yourself about the history of our world.

 

[Coyote]

That's why I'm here, Sherri... to be a source of amusement for you.

Israel and Judaism are inseparable. That history goes back at least 3,000 years and maybe more, and in that land, no less. Your Palestinians, however, are merely the descendants of the miscellany that drifted-in slowly over the centuries to fill the vacuum that they left behind, and they have no identity to speak of except that invented by Yassar Arafat in the past few decades, never mind a 3,000 -year-old history.



It will be difficult to alter demographics without having land to live on or a pot to piss in. Look at the map. They're out of time. The end will come for them long before any forlorn hope of altering demographics are ever realized. As to 'justice', well, ask the Jews how well that has worked out for them over the past 1900 years, or the past 65, for that matter.

You're also quite correct that the so-called Occupation will end. We merely differ about the manner of that ending. The map tells the story.

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

No.

65 years ago is accurate.

It was a nation recreated from the story of a nation that once existed 3000 years ago.

It is not by any means a nation that is 3000 years old regardless of what it calls itself.

 

[toastman]

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

How can a Christian woman who reads the bible, and posts quotes from the Bible, not acknowledge the fact that Israel existed 3000 years ago. I guess she only believes the parts of the Bible that she wants to .

Israel was created in 1948, you need to educate yourself about the history of our world.

Modern Israel was created in 1948.
Does it not mention Israel in the bible, Sherri ?

 

[toastman]

Israel became a nation only 65 years ago and Zionism was created in the 19th Century, so you saying Judaism and Israel are inseparable is a very shallow and uninformed statement to make. I simply do not believe in such a fiction. Palestinians are the indigenous people and their history and land ownership goes back thousands of years. We have Ottoman Empire land records to prove all of that, to show who owned the land in the 1800 to 1900s anyway. Demographics will make Palestinians the largest group in Israel/Palestine in a matter of just a few more years, if they are not already the majority. And from that point on, the Palestinian majority will grow larger day by day. A minority cannnot subjugate a majority population indefinitely. Their ability to control the Palestinians will ultimately fail. The majority will be Palestinians and they will demand equal rights and the right to vote. And noone will ever be able to call Israel or Palestine a Jewish nation again.

3000 years, Sherri. Not 65. Did you study history in school?

No.

65 years ago is accurate.

It was a nation recreated from the story of a nation that once existed 3000 years ago.

It is not by any means a nation that is 3000 years old regardless of what it calls itself.

Ok, history doesn't matter, gotcha !

 

[Coyote]

Kondor3, et al,

There will be many that agree.

"...The object is to live together in a lasting peace, not to disperse in order to avoid an endless confrontation..."

Rocco, I admire your style, and you are absolutely correct, from the perspective of the humanist, that this should be the object of the exercise.

Unfortunately, unless I miss my guess, it is now far too late for such idealistic, neutral and pluralistic outcomes - they have been unattainable for many years now - 1967 comes to mind as a likely Turning Point, after which such outcomes had been rendered all but impossible.

(COMMENT)

This is the silent, but prevailing opinion held by many. They don't want to sound pessimistic in the outlook, but it is always there.


(COMMENT)

Clearly, these were defining moments in the history of the conflict. But in order to achieve a goal as complicated as the ultimate peace in this regional issue, a dynamic leader make an appearance, one capable of making an historic change in the paradigm. One side or the other is going to have to make a sacrifice. And I agree, neither people are ready to set forward with that offering.

If, in the long run, avoiding confrontation through dispersal may be all that remains as a practical alternative to the status quo, then that's what we shall have.

And, frankly, I think we're 'almost there', in this context.

And that's not even taking into account the Vae Victus effect.

(COMMENT)

In the Roman Senate, when Cato the Elder would finish his oratory, he would render the floor to Caesar with these parting words: Delenda est Carthago! He believed as many do, that in the final analysis, there are some cases that only the total destruction of the enemy will lead to a lasting peace. That any who escape - will only rise again to re-ignite the blood feud. There are many - today - beginning to whisper: Delenda est Philistia!.

I could be wrong, of course, but I sense that I'm not.

(COMMENT)

As I say, many would agree that your insight has some accuracy.

Most Respectfully,
R

One or the other must make a sacrifice.

Or they both could.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I tend to speak in the minimalist form.

One or the other must make a sacrifice.

Or they both could.

(COMMENT)

Yes, both are a possibility; but not likely. It would be highly improbably that there would emerge to great personalities, each on the opposite side, that would grow to command the loyalty and following necessary to bring peace and a positive relationship to the region.

I am not suggesting that "compromise" be used in the same context as "sacrifice."

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Coyote]

Coyote, et al,

I tend to speak in the minimalist form.

One or the other must make a sacrifice.

Or they both could.

(COMMENT)

Yes, both are a possibility; but not likely. It would be highly improbably that there would emerge to great personalities, each on the opposite side, that would grow to command the loyalty and following necessary to bring peace and a positive relationship to the region.

I think it is more likely than moving 4 million people - I can't see that. I think Israel has the greater potential for a strong pragmatic leader who will make some sacrifices and compromises in order to force a deal that will be to their long term benefit. Holding onto the occupied territories is costly both politically, militarily and financially. It's a very high cost for a very few people (I'm thinking West Bank/Gaza) and the Israeli public itself is divided on maintaining it. Whether the Palestinians can or will accept it is much more questionable. A huge obstacle is settlements. Jeruselem and Right of Return are also issues and it might be that that is where the Palestinian leadership will have to give. I see more difficulty in getting the Palestinians to give but in absence of a strong leader it's possible that the other Arab countries can exert pressure and offer benefits.

I am not suggesting that "compromise" be used in the same context as "sacrifice."

Most Respectfully,
R

I'm not sure what you mean exactly?

 

[Kondor3]

And that's not even taking into account the Vae Victus effect.

(COMMENT)

In the Roman Senate, when Cato the Elder would finish his oratory, he would render the floor to Caesar with these parting words: Delenda est Carthago! He believed as many do, that in the final analysis, there are some cases that only the total destruction of the enemy will lead to a lasting peace. That any who escape - will only rise again to re-ignite the blood feud. There are many - today - beginning to whisper: Delenda est Philistia!.

Four-O marks for the Classical Sidebar... good stuff...

Frankly, if I were an Israeli, I would be thinking much the same thing... not the killing of individuals but the dispersal of this Johnny-Come-Lately bunch back into the surrounding Arab countrysides in such a way so as to preclude their reemergence as a single polity.

More like Delenda est Philistia politia ...the Palestinian political entity must be destroyed; which is exactly what will happen if-and-when the payout and expulsion are completed.

 

[RoccoR]

Coyote, et al,

I tend to speak in the minimalist form.

Or they both could.

(COMMENT)

Yes, both are a possibility; but not likely. It would be highly improbably that there would emerge to great personalities, each on the opposite side, that would grow to command the loyalty and following necessary to bring peace and a positive relationship to the region.

I think it is more likely than moving 4 million people - I can't see that. I think Israel has the greater potential for a strong pragmatic leader who will make some sacrifices and compromises in order to force a deal that will be to their long term benefit. Holding onto the occupied territories is costly both politically, militarily and financially. It's a very high cost for a very few people (I'm thinking West Bank/Gaza) and the Israeli public itself is divided on maintaining it. Whether the Palestinians can or will accept it is much more questionable. A huge obstacle is settlements. Jeruselem and Right of Return are also issues and it might be that that is where the Palestinian leadership will have to give. I see more difficulty in getting the Palestinians to give but in absence of a strong leader it's possible that the other Arab countries can exert pressure and offer benefits.

(COMMENT)

As I said earlier, neither side hurts enough yet to make any meaningful progress towards good faith negotiations.

There is no question about the cost. Trying to annex the territory will be "politically, militarily and financially" a great burden. But to maintain the "occupation" is more cost effective.

Damn near everyone understood that the settlement issue was going to have reprocussions un the Rome Statutes [Para 2b(viii), Article 8, (War Crime)] and the Geneva Convention IV (Article 49) at some point. It would be almost impossible to justify the Israeli settlements in any ICC/ICJ proceedings. And that will be a loss, no only in political capital, but in terms of reparations and damages.

The Israeli has no intention of trying to move the 4M Arab/Palestinians. The want to set the conditions such that the Arab/Palestinian will eventually dissipate on their own, moving on to greener pastures (which might take another 100 years).

I am not suggesting that "compromise" be used in the same context as "sacrifice."

I'm not sure what you mean exactly?

(COMMENT)

Jerusalem is a psychological/heritage issue on one-hand, and a religious issue on another.

To the Arab/Palestinians call it a "Holy Site," but having been there, I can tell you they do not treat it as a "Holy Site" like the other in the Islamic world. The Arab/Palestinian wants it because they want it; not because it has any strategic importants or religions significants. Today, it has an intangible political value.

To compromise (either on the Israeli side or the Arab/Palestinian side) would be to strike a deal between the parties where each gives up part of their demand to the site.

To sacrifice (either on the Israeli side or the Arab/Palestinian side), would entail giving up that which has some intrinsic valuable or important (political, religious, or both) to one side or the other --- considered to be of more value or importance (the cause of peace); a higher cause that is enshrine by the sacrifice.

While compromise is in the lexicon of both the Arab/Palestinian and the Israel, and the process of negotiation has used the concept, it has (more often than not) come to no avail --- a series failed outcomes relative to a settlement between the two parties.

But neither party has the concept of "sacrifice" in their vocabulary.

Both sides believe that they can outlast the other, and thus, have no real incentive for peace. The Arab/Palestinian will play the role of the victim and essentially try to politically isolate Israel, while Israel will try to contain it opponent until it has exhausted its resources to sustain the effort.

Most Respectfully,
R