A STRONGER ISRAEL

Elite opinion believes Israel will lose “long-term” whatever happens in the next weeks. Not necessarily.

By Victor Davis Hanson, NRO

In postmodern wars, we are told, there is no victory, no defeat, no aggressors, no defenders, just a tragedy of conflicting agendas. But in such a mindless and amoral landscape, Israel in fact is on its way to emerging in a far better position after the Gaza war than before.

Analysts of the current fighting in Gaza have assured us that even if Israel weakens Hamas, such a short-term victory will hardly lead to long-term strategic success – but they don’t define “long-term.” In this line of thinking, supposedly in a few weeks Israel will only find itself more isolated than ever. It will grow even more unpopular in Europe and will perhaps, for the first time, lose its patron, America – while gaining an enraged host of Arab and Islamic enemies. Meanwhile, Hamas will gain stature, rebuild, and slowly wear Israel down.

 

But if we compare the Gaza war with Israel’s past wars, that pessimistic scenario hardly rings true. Unlike in the existential wars of 1948, 1956, 1967, and 1973, Israel faces no coalition of powerful conventional enemies. Syria’s military is wrecked. Iraq is devouring itself. Egypt is bankrupt and in no mood for war. Its military government is more worried about Hamas than about Israel. Jordan has no wish to attack Israel. The Gulf States are likewise more afraid of the axis of Iran, Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Muslim Brotherhood than of Israel – a change of mentality that has no historical precedent. In short, never since the birth of the Jewish state have the traditional enemies surrounding Israel been in such military and political disarray. Never have powerful Arab states quietly hoped that Israel would destroy an Islamist terrorist organization that they fear more than they fear the Jewish state.

But is not asymmetrical warfare the true threat to Israel? The West, after all, has had little success in achieving long-term victories over terrorist groups and insurgents – remember Afghanistan and Iraq. How can tiny Israel find security against enemies who seem to gain political clout and legitimacy as they incur ever greater losses, especially when there is only a set number of casualties that an affluent, Western Israel can afford, before public support for the war collapses? How can the Israelis fight a war that the world media portray as genocide against the innocents?

In fact, most of these suppositions are simplistic. The U.S., for example, defeated assorted Islamic insurgents in what was largely an optional war in Iraq; a small token peacekeeping force might have kept Nouri al-Maliki from hounding Sunni politicians, and otherwise kept the peace. Israel’s recent counterinsurgency wars have rendered both the Palestinians on the West Bank and pro-Iranian Hezbollah militants in Lebanon less, not more, dangerous. Hamas, not Israel, would not wish to repeat the last three weeks.

Oddly, Hezbollah, an erstwhile ally of Hamas, has been largely quiet during the Gaza war. Why, when the use of its vast missile arsenal, in conjunction with Hamas’s rocketry, might in theory have overwhelmed Israel’s missile defenses? The answer is probably the huge amount of damage suffered by Hezbollah in the 2006 war in Lebanon, and its inability to protect its remaining assets from yet another overwhelming Israeli air response. Had Hamas’s rockets hit their targets, perhaps Hezbollah would have joined in. But for now, 2014 looks to them a lot like 2006.

In the current asymmetrical war, Israel has found a method of inflicting as much damage on Hamas as it finds politically and strategically useful without suffering intolerable losses. And because the war is seen as existential – aiming rockets at a civilian population will do that – Israeli public opinion will largely support the effort to retaliate.

As long as Israel does not seek to reoccupy Gaza, it can inflict enough damage on the Hamas leadership, and on both the tunnels and the missile stockpiles, to win four or five years of quiet. In the Middle East, that sort of calm qualifies as victory.And the more the world sees of the elaborate tunnels and vast missile arsenals that an impoverished Hamas had built with other people’s money, and the more these military assets proved entirely futile in actual war, the more Hamas appears not just foolish but incompetent, if not ridiculous, as well.

After all the acrimony dies down, Gazans will understand that there was a correlation between blown-up houses, on the one hand, and, on the other, tunnel entrances, weapon depots, and the habitat of the Hamas leadership. Even the Hamas totalitarians will not be able to keep that fact hidden. As the rubble is cleared away, too many Gazans will ask of their Hamas leaders whether the supposedly brilliant strategy of asymmetrical warfare was worth it. Hamas’s intended war – blanketing Israel with thousands of rockets that would send video clips around the world of hundreds of thousands of Jews trembling in fear in shelters – failed in its first hours. The air campaign was about as successful as the tunnel war, which was supposed to allow hit teams to enter Israel to kidnap and kill, with gruesome videos posted all over the Internet. Both strategies largely failed almost upon implementation.

In terms of domestic politics, Israel has rarely been more united – akin to the United States right after 9/11. The Israeli Left and Right agree that no modern Western state can exist under periodic clouds of rockets and missiles. Similarly, the attrition of Hamas only plays into the hands of the Palestinian Authority, which understandably stayed out of the war and did not incite the West Bank to stage simultaneous attacks. Like it or not, after the Gaza war, Israel will be dealing in the near future with Palestinians who do not always think preemptive rocket and tunnel attacks work to their own strategic advantage.

In terms of economics, Israel is no longer subject to carbon-fuel blackmail. It will soon become a major exporter of natural gas, and political realities will reflect that commercial importance. If one cynically believes that much of the global tilt to the Palestinians began as an aftershock from the 1973 oil embargoes, then Israeli exports may soon be reflected in more favorable politics.

Is Israel politically isolated? It certainly seems that way, if one looks at the response to the Gaza war among Western journalists, academics, politicians, and popular culture. But public opinion in the United States remains staunchly pro-Israel in spite of the American elite culture’s romance with Hamas and the Palestinians. Moreover, the Democratic party is facing its own increasing existential crisis, as its establishment pro-Israel donors and politicians are appalled by the increasingly anti-Israel tones of its ever more radical base. After the Gaza war, some major Democratic supporters of Israel will quietly make the necessary adjustments, in recognition that both their party and the Obama administration seem to prefer Hamas to democratic Israel. The upcoming 2014 midterm election does not favor candidates who are anti-Israel, but rather pro-Israeli conservatives. After 2016 there is unlikely to be a president who shares the incoherent views of Barack Obama on the Middle East. Fairly or not, it appears that the administration is trying to hide its pro-Hamas sympathies and is doing so unprofessionally and ineptly.

Europe, of course, remains mostly hostile to Israel, a hatred that predates the Gaza war. But the current demonstrations of virulent anti-Semitic hatred do not reflect well on the European Union. At present, it appears that European nations either cannot or will not confront their own fascistic Islamic radicals, which leaves open the question of whether the Islamist message of the streets resonates with Europeans.The European hostility to Israel does not stem just from events on the ground in Gaza, but is more a reflection of Europe’s inability to deal with its 20th-century past. Demonization, the more virulent the better, of Israelis seems to ease guilt over the Holocaust – as if to imply that, while the genocide was regrettable, there was something innately savage in Jewish culture, now manifested in Gaza, that might understandably have incited past generations of more radical Europeans. Otherwise, Europeans simply mask with trendy ideology the more materialistic assessment that demography, oil, and the fear of terrorism weigh in favor of allying with the Palestinians. Either way, European anti-Semitism is a bankrupt ideology, one that manifests itself in sympathy for an undemocratic, misogynistic, homophobic, and religiously intolerant Hamas, along with selective unconcern with the many occupations, refugees, divided cities, and walled borders that exist in the wide world outside the Middle East.

The U.N. will emerge after the war in an even sorrier state. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has offered mostly platitudes and buffooneries. Certainly, he would never take his own advice if North Korea were to move in the manner of Hamas. Hamas’s use of U.N. facilities to hide arsenals could not have occurred without U.N. complicity. What little credibility the U.N. had in the Middle East before the war is mostly shredded.

Iran is watching the war, and its surrogate is not doing well. There is no particular reason why an Israeli anti-missile system could not knock down an Iranian missile. Nor is Hezbollah as fiery in deed as in word these days. The message to Iran is that Israel will fight back in whatever way it finds appropriate against its enemy of the moment.

Gaza is a military and political minefield. But if Israel continues on its present course, it will emerge far better off than Hamas and better off than it was before Hamas began its missile barrage. And in the Middle East, that is about as close to victory as one gets. The future for Israel is not bleak, just as it is not bleak for any nation that chooses to defend itself from savage enemies that seek its destruction.

 NRO contributor Victor Davis Hanson is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and the author, most recently, of The Savior Generals.

August 6, 2014 | 24 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

24 Comments / 24 Comments

  1. @ NormanF:

    There was not a city that made peace with the children of Israel, save the Hivites the inhabitants of Gibeon; they took all in battle. Joshua Chapter 11:19

  2. NormanF Said:

    The Jebusites tricked the Jews into making a covenant with them by pretending they came from a far-away nation.

    The Gibeonites had to pretend that they were from far lands in order to make peace with Joshua. When the Jews realized that they had been fooled, Joshua pressed the Gibeonites into servitude.

    Nevertheless, Joshua 11:19-20 states that no town sought peace with the Jews because G-d hardened their hearts. The case of the Gibeonites supports the general principle that Jews must not leave any aborigines in the land they conquer. Presumably, the aborigines belonged to the six or seven tribes specifically proscribed, but in any case none of the previous inhabitants could remain in the land. The peace, therefore, could only be one of exile: the natives could leave our land peacefully or be killed. G-d, however, did not want the peaceful option. He hardened their hearts so that the Jews would exterminate them.

    How do we know that the aborigines must have sought peace before the start of hostilities? In Joshua 13:13, and elsewhere, it says that several native clans remained in the land. The Jews, the author laments, did not drive them out. He does not entertain the possibility of peace with them because by that time the option of peace has already closed, since the Jews had started their conquest. The option to expel rather than exterminate exists only for towns beyond the Land of Israel proper. We can expel natives in expansionist wars, but must exterminate them inside our own borders, says the Tanach.

  3. @ yamit82:

    The Jebusites tricked the Jews into making a covenant with them by pretending they came from a far-away nation. When the Jews uncovered their treachery, they could not go back on their word but the enemy was forced to serve the Jews as “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” Nothing in the Torah commands the Jew to spare a cruel enemy – certainly not one like Hamas who does not abide by the rules of war or show respect for agreements.

  4. Feiglin could be PM if he sounded more like this:
    We hate Gaza

    Many people ask how we feel about photos of dead Gazan civilians, especially children? “I feel nothing.”

    “A valid argument can be constructed that such deaths were unavoidable once Hamas embarked on its military opposition to Jewish state. Hamas caused them to be killed, and Jews acted like automatons: threatened, we reacted. In that sense, we had no free will in the question of whether to attack the Gazans: Hamas left us no options. No free will means no guilt.”

    The killing in Gaza is sanctioned religiously. Nations in the Land of Israel have three choices: submission and unquestionable loyalty, exile, or death. The choice is valid only before battle: presumably, their post-battle choice would not be honest, but just a temporary ruse.

  5. Feiglin could be PM if he sounded more like this:
    We hate Gaza

    Many people ask how we feel about photos of dead Gazan civilians, especially children. I feel nothing.

    A valid argument can be constructed that such deaths were unavoidable once Hamas embarked on its military opposition to Jewish state. Hamas caused them to be killed, and Jews acted like automatons: threatened, we reacted. In that sense, we had no free will in the question of whether to attack the Gazans: Hamas left us no options. No free will means no guilt.

    But there’s a deeper moral dimension: human beings are entitled to hate those who hate them. When Palestinian children watch Mickey Mouse shows about killing Jews, when Gazan kids participate in Hamas demonstrations dressed as suicide bombers, when Arab teenagers do in fact become suicide bombers—I have no problem at all seeing them killed.

    Palestinian Arabs challenge the God of Israel; by their very actions they assert that God’s promises to Jews are false. For this desecration, they deserve to be killed.

    It doesn’t matter in the slightest that those who died haven’t killed any Jews yet, or perhaps will never kill any. They are members of an enemy nation. Like in Sodom, they had a choice, the option to leave the place of evil. Even inside Gaza Strip, there are plenty of empty spaces where the proverbial good Arabs could have escaped the anti-Israeli regime. They didn’t. Moreover, they have voted either for Hamas or Fatah terrorists, which are the same thing to us.

    Children don’t bear their parents’ guilt only inside communities. On a national level, they still do. That’s why Amalek was exterminated for the sins of its remote ancestors. And don’t tell me that Amalek is no more: time and again, the Scripture speaks of it being killed, yet it emerges again. Amalek is alive, and can be easily identified by its determination to murder Jews. Children who live due to their parents who are Hamas voters are responsible for Hamas actions.

    The killing in Gaza is sanctioned religiously. Nations in the Land of Israel have three choices: submission and unquestionable loyalty, exile, or death. The choice is valid only before battle: presumably, their post-battle choice would not be honest, but just a temporary ruse.

    Hate is the only common ground between the Israeli right and left, between the Jews of Yitzhar and northern Tel Aviv. They differ on every issue but hate the Arabs similarly. Liberalism aside, no leftist Jew wants to be threatened by Arabs within Israel or in the near abroad. Goodness is passive, only hate is actionable and unites the masses. When crossing Jordan, Joshua bin Nun rallied the Hebrews around common hatred and struggle with the natives rather than Shabbat or kashrut.

    It would be great to speak the words of Torah to leftist Jews, but that won’t work. At least, not the traditional words. The Torah fully recognizes human nature and sets nationalist, even exterminatory goals for Jews before they enter Canaan. The Hebrews might diverge on many matters but they equally wanted a country without hostile peoples. Not incidentally, the Hebrew word for neighbor is a cognate of evil: common hatred of outsiders builds nations. Then we can proceed to educating everyone about the Torah. In fact, they would ask for Torah in order to substantiate their nationalism and hatreds. No one wants to be just hateful, but seeks to rationalize and justify his hatred with suitable ideology or religion.

  6. Feiglin’s argument should have been presented like this:

    Gaza is Jewish Land Occupied By Arabs.

    Jewish rules of war: “Joshua bin Nun allegedly sent three letters to the Canaanite nations before the invasion: Whoever wants to leave, leave; whoever wants to make a treaty of tribute and servitude (PEACE!!!) , make the treaty; whoever wants to fight, fight.

    No fourth option is ever given. There are no second chances either for enemies who choose to fight us in Jewish wars.

  7. Feiglin’s argument should have been presented like this:

    Gaza is Jewish Land Occupied By Arabs.

    Jewish rules of war: “Joshua bin Nun allegedly sent three letters to the Canaanite nations before the invasion: Whoever wants to leave, leave; whoever wants to make a treaty of tribute and servitude (PEACE!!!) , make the treaty; whoever wants to fight, fight.

    No fourth option is ever given. There are no second chances either for enemies who choose to fight us in Jewish wars.

    Feiglin could be PM if he sounded more like this:
    We hate Gaza

    Many people ask how we feel about photos of dead Gazan civilians, especially children. I feel nothing.

    A valid argument can be constructed that such deaths were unavoidable once Hamas embarked on its military opposition to Jewish state. Hamas caused them to be killed, and Jews acted like automatons: threatened, we reacted. In that sense, we had no free will in the question of whether to attack the Gazans: Hamas left us no options. No free will means no guilt.

    But there’s a deeper moral dimension: human beings are entitled to hate those who hate them. When Palestinian children watch Mickey Mouse shows about killing Jews, when Gazan kids participate in Hamas demonstrations dressed as suicide bombers, when Arab teenagers do in fact become suicide bombers—I have no problem at all seeing them killed.

    Palestinian Arabs challenge the God of Israel; by their very actions they assert that God’s promises to Jews are false. For this desecration, they deserve to be killed.

    It doesn’t matter in the slightest that those who died haven’t killed any Jews yet, or perhaps will never kill any. They are members of an enemy nation. Like in Sodom, they had a choice, the option to leave the place of evil. Even inside Gaza Strip, there are plenty of empty spaces where the proverbial good Arabs could have escaped the anti-Israeli regime. They didn’t. Moreover, they have voted either for Hamas or Fatah terrorists, which are the same thing to us.

    Children don’t bear their parents’ guilt only inside communities. On a national level, they still do. That’s why Amalek was exterminated for the sins of its remote ancestors. And don’t tell me that Amalek is no more: time and again, the Scripture speaks of it being killed, yet it emerges again. Amalek is alive, and can be easily identified by its determination to murder Jews. Children who live due to their parents who are Hamas voters are responsible for Hamas actions.

    The killing in Gaza is sanctioned religiously. Nations in the Land of Israel have three choices: submission and unquestionable loyalty, exile, or death. The choice is valid only before battle: presumably, their post-battle choice would not be honest, but just a temporary ruse.

    Hate is the only common ground between the Israeli right and left, between the Jews of Yitzhar and northern Tel Aviv. They differ on every issue but hate the Arabs similarly. Liberalism aside, no leftist Jew wants to be threatened by Arabs within Israel or in the near abroad. Goodness is passive, only hate is actionable and unites the masses. When crossing Jordan, Joshua bin Nun rallied the Hebrews around common hatred and struggle with the natives rather than Shabbat or kashrut.

    It would be great to speak the words of Torah to leftist Jews, but that won’t work. At least, not the traditional words. The Torah fully recognizes human nature and sets nationalist, even exterminatory goals for Jews before they enter Canaan. The Hebrews might diverge on many matters but they equally wanted a country without hostile peoples. Not incidentally, the Hebrew word for neighbor is a cognate of evil: common hatred of outsiders builds nations. Then we can proceed to educating everyone about the Torah. In fact, they would ask for Torah in order to substantiate their nationalism and hatreds. No one wants to be just hateful, but seeks to rationalize and justify his hatred with suitable ideology or religion.

  8. @ NormanF:
    In reality Mr. Feiglin did not say anything about camps of any kind.
    It was the unJewish enemies that fabricated the subject. What happened is that Feiglin did not show being well trained to deal with “media” dogs.
    My suggestion is to generally use the “reservation” to clip back the dog wagers.

  9. @ SHmuel HaLevi 2:

    American reservations for the Indians. Let’s dispense with the dangerous notion the Arabs are capable of running their own affairs. They’re a danger to themselves as well as to others. Keeping them on a tight leash makes them behave.

  10. Mr. Feiglin needs serious coaching.
    Rather that implying that he is for the creation of camps in Gaza he should have promoted the all American idea.
    Feilgin should promote the idea of setting up to 483 “RESERVATIONS” in Gaza, modeled after the long in place American ones. Also to transfer into the “RESERVATIONS” all there by the charming method of “long marches”.
    Don blitzer may have liked the idea since it is after all the one him and his boss keep in place in the US.
    I say…

  11. @ yamit82:
    Last year sometime, I posted a YouTube video where a Muslim Egyptian woman was being interviewed. She spoke fluent and flawless Hebrew and she was actually advising the Israelis to do like the Egyptians and march on to the Knesset …
    Now, it appears that al sisi is becoming (?) an ally ???
    We are living in strange times indeed …
    So … Now it has been declared that there is a ceasefire and we are victorious… And polls show bb to be popular…
    In my mind this translates that there is a HUGE CHASM between clear sighted Israelis and deluded/unJews and their number might be about the same…
    I would say that Huston…there is a problem…

  12. the phoenix Said:

    I keep asking myself, so, if that is the case, WHY IS THERE NO CHANGE???
    (I feel like the proverbial kids in a road trip… “Are we there yet?”)

    I think today a majority of Americans are against Obama why is he still in office???/

    In most countries democracies or other I think most people are opposed to their governments yet they still are there …Why???

    Less than a week ago BB had popularity rating according to all polls here of 82-90% favorable. today about 62% exactly where he stood before the war began. 20% decline within a couple of days? The anomaly is the left who will never vote for him are keeping his numbers high his base is split.

  13. @ yamit82:
    Couldn’t agree more with your comment above.
    In view of the fact that shfanyahu and the Oslo crowd, are very well entrenched with no visible sign for a change, and since I am sure that the views that you share with us on this forum are shared by the majority, I keep asking myself, so, if that is the case, WHY IS THERE NO CHANGE???
    (I feel like the proverbial kids in a road trip… “Are we there yet?”)

  14. BethesdaDog Said:

    The leftists are trying to find some solace in the poll which finds weak support among the youngest segment of the adult population, but I don’t know that it was any different in the ’60?s and ’70?s. We can’t bank on finding the key to Jewish survivial on a spoiled and self-centered generation that is educated on current affairs by the likes of Jon Stewart.

    Since you have no real understanding what lies behind Jewish survival, it’s impossible to answer and relate to the rest of your comment.

    In the meantime, Israel will become stronger and less dependent on the United States.

    We do not Need America or anyone else!!!!

    “Behold! It is a nation that will dwell in solitude and not be reckoned among the nations.”(Num. 23:9)….. “Five of you will pursue a hundred, and a hundred of you will pursue ten thousand” (Leviticus 26:8).

    “He shall drive the enemy before you and shall proclaim, ‘Destroy!’ Israel shall thus dwell securely, alone” (Deut. 33:27-28). Following is Or HaChaim (Ibid.): “Israel shall thus dwell securely”: When? When they are alone. “They shall dwell” naturally follows “He shall proclaim, ‘Destroy!’” G-d commanded Israel to annihilate every soul of the inhabitants of the land. By doing so, “Israel shall dwell securely, alone”.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYQ0sJWt7ac

  15. @ BethesdaDog:
    Oslo is alive an kicking. Many of the associates to the Oslo conundrum are still part of the GoI or nest near it.
    And there are plenty of rubber bullets, paint ball rifles and tasers as well. The “Jewish Section” of the General Security Service is robust and at work attacking Jews.
    Special Police groups in existence since Oslo remain budgeted and active destroying Jewish homes, farms, etc.
    Since the pre Oslo days Israel has never WON any War.
    I meant what I said about writing a complete manual. There I will go into all corners.
    We have been “cease firing” ever since.
    I must agree with you one one point. Bnei Abraham seem to have been unable to know peace…

  16. @ SHmuel HaLevi 2:

    When one decides to set up a state in a place like the Middle East, surrounded by the kinds of culture that exist around Israel, it probably makes little sense to speak of a real peace, of the type that you say existed before Oslo (or could have existed but for Oslo?). I don’t think Oslo has changed things one bit. I’m not sure I even understand the significance of Oslo, and why it made things worse. As long as Oslo is dead, which I think it essentially is, why does it have this effect? I guess I’m missing something. Please educate me on it; I might not understand the issue here. Would Israel still be holding onto Gaza if there had been no Oslo? Would it be part of Israel now, and perhaps J&S as well?

  17. I read this article a couple of days ago, and I’m glad you posted it,Ted. It puts a more positive note on what has transpired over the past month, instead of a lot of the gloom and doom we’re reading. Whenever I read Caroline Glick, I’m impressed by the power of her arguments and writing, but I find myself hoping that she’s wrong. I think there may very well be some positives to this, and VDH identifies them. Despite the hostility of the current administration, and the leftist elites in this country, and more than the elites in Europe, Israel still has the silent majority of America and still has impressive support in Congress. The leftists are trying to find some solace in the poll which finds weak support among the youngest segment of the adult population, but I don’t know that it was any different in the ’60’s and ’70’s. We can’t bank on finding the key to Jewish survivial on a spoiled and self-centered generation that is educated on current affairs by the likes of Jon Stewart. I think a lot of that generation will grow up over time, anyway. In the meantime, Israel will become stronger and less dependent on the United States. I’m still very concerned over what seems again like another incomplete campaign but it might be that is all that is necessary, for now. My main concern is whether there are any undiscovered tunnels and how fast Israel can develop a system to protect against the tunnels that is as effective as Iron Dome is with the rockets. Israel has come out of this with new allies–although not complete allies–in some of the most important Arab countries. I’d much rather have a limited alliance of the type Israel enjoys now with Egypt than a return to the hostility of ’67 and ’73. I see too many other things that Israel has to turn its attention to: Iran, possible threats from Lebanon (Hezbollah), Syria and Iraq (ISIS). I think (and I hope) that the fear of international isolation is way overblown. I don’t care if Spain and UK reconsider weapons sales. What in the world do they have to offer Israel anyway that it can’t make on its own? In the meantime, Israel will continue to build trade relationships with other countries, including Asia. I see reasons to be optimistic, despite some of the opinions to the country, including among the commenters here.

  18. Inside the Oslo era many terms have gained a brand new dimension. Take for example the word PEACE.
    Before Oslo, PEACE, meant absence of war and having a sense of tranquility.
    After Oslo, PEACE is what we have endured since then. War, violence, mayhem, boycotts, overt anti-Semitic attacks. etc.
    About Wars…
    Before Oslo but way before, Wars were either won or lost by the force of arms. Widespread changes ensued.
    After the advent in question and in our ball park, WARS are never lost, they all reach a memorable condition were all parties can claim to have won. That excellent condition is called “CEASE FIRE”. An unfathomable mumble jumble of “negotiated” thingies and huge money transfers into the pockets of the figures of merit… ensue while all prepare the ground for the inevitable next “CEASE FIRE”. And so on.
    I forgot: The sequential “CEASE FIRES” ending mayhem cycles are given specially obscure code names.
    I will work on this subject and publish a “CEASE FIRE” Strategic Manual later on.
    It will be called: “All you ever wanted to know about “CEASE FIRES” but are afraid to ask”.
    A real winner for you.