Israel at 66

Posted on May 14, 2014 by Martin van Creveld

By most accounts the state of Israel, which celebrated its 66^th birthday last week is a good place to live in. A hundred years ago there were some sixty thousand Jews in what Israelis, following Old Testament usage, like to call Ha-Aretz, “The Land.” Currently there are some six million. No other country, not even the United States or any developing country, has seen such a tremendous increase in such a short time.

According to various international sources, per capita GDP—probably the best available index of relative wealth—stands at about $ 33,000 per year. That is 64 percent of the U.S figure. Considering that, as far as the best available estimates allow, a century ago the equivalent figure was just 4 percent, that is not a bad performance. Moreover, as tourists will notice, the Israeli shekel, while not quite freely convertible, has become as hard as stone. $ 33,000 put Israel in place 25 out of 194 countries on this earth, just behind New Zealand but ahead of quite some other members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Considering its size, in terms of computer science, material science, medical science, the number of patents taken out each year, the number of new books published, the number of museums, and, recently the number of Nobel laureates Israel has nothing to be ashamed of.

The demographic picture is also interesting. Israel attracts immigrants—considering the size of its population, it occupies place number four among 36 “developed” countries. Not only do immigrants provide labor, but they may help create an open-minded country with a vibrant, multifaceted, culture. The percentage of those who live in wedlock is relatively high, that of divorces low; this preference for family life may explain why the suicide rate is also quite low. The number of children per woman is much higher than the average in OECD countries. The life expectancy of both men and women is also higher. Though many orthodox men and many Arab women do not work, overall participation in the labor forces is higher than the OECD average.

But who said Israel should be compared with developed countries of roughly similar size such as Sweden, Switzerland, or the Netherlands? After all, it is located neither in Western Europe, nor in North America, nor in happy Oceania. Instead, its founders have chosen one of the least stable, most turbulent, regions on earth. Considering these facts, and also that it used to be a colonial country that only gained its independence in 1948, perhaps a better comparison would be with the world’s remaining 160 or so “developing” countries. Such a comparison will show that Israel towers head and shoulders over practically all the rest. The more so in view of the fact that it has never known a single day when it was officially at peace with all its neighbors; and the more so in view of the fact that, of all the 100-plus countries that gained their independence since World War II, only India, Malta and Israel have always maintained their democracy.

To be sure, there are problems. By and large, though, they are the problems of rich developed countries, not of poor developing ones. At one time Israel used to be a socialist society with an exceptionally low Gini coefficient (the graph that measures economic inequality among different parts of the population). This started changing in the mid-1980s, leading up to the present situation where the gaps between rich and poor are said to be larger than anywhere else except the U.S. The environment is not protected too well—it took public opinion and the government quite a while to realize how important this issue is. The level of educational achievement, as distinct from the average number of years spent at school, is not among the highest either. Like so many other developed countries Israel is attracting large numbers of illegal immigrants who enter it in search of work and with whom it does not quite know what to do.

The most important problems of all are defense on one hand and the occupied territories on the other. The continuing need for defense is reflected in the country’s exceptionally powerful armed forces. Those forces consume about 7 percent of GDP compared with about 4.5 percent in the U.S, 4.4 in Russia, and around 1 percent in most European countries. They pack an enormous punch that might well be the envy of much larger forces.

In these on-line directories you will get info of try this shop viagra cheap no prescription any sorts of vets, from exotic animal veterinarian to laboratory animal practitioner. Some of order tadalafil no prescription the more established businesses work in technologies and services that precede LLLT, such as topical treatments, weaves and hair replacement industry that makes billions of dollars per year in pure profit. Modifying the Course of the Disease: Certain http://amerikabulteni.com/2013/01/09/zero-dark-thirty-filmi-ciaden-oscara-derin-mudahale-mi/ sildenafil generic viagra drugs can modify the course of MS by delaying relapses or reducing the severity of a relapses or slowing disease progression . These symptoms will disappear after cialis generic viagra sometime.

Yet things have changed. From 1948 to 1973 inclusive Israel was a beleaguered fortress that stumbled from one major war to the next. Since then the existential threat has receded to the point where, in spite of much foolish talk about Iran’s nuclear program, it barely any longer exists. To be sure, there is some terrorism, whether in the form of knifings, shootings, suicide bombers, and the like or in that of rockets coming across the border. Another war against Hezbollah, Hamas, or both cannot be ruled out. Such a war, however, would probably not amount to much more than pinpricks.

That leaves the major, major problem of the occupied territories. What brought the territories under Israeli rule back in 1967 was an Arab threat that was perceived as existential and led to a preemptive war. Thanks to the leadership and courage displayed first by Menahem Begin and then by Ariel Sharon, Israel has rid itself of most of them. Most of the time, the border with those areas is reasonably quiet. Had it been completely quiet, then those Israelis, and there are many, who favor a withdrawal from other territories would have had a much, much easier time persuading the rest.

Several Israeli prime ministers have made unsuccessful attempts to achieve peace with Syria which would include the return of the Golan Heights to that country. Just who is to blame for the failure of those attempts need not concern us here; as long as the Syrian civil war continues, there will be nobody to negotiate with. That leaves the West Bank and the Arab-inhabited parts of East Jerusalem. How many people live in those areas is not clear. Almost three million, says the Palestinian Authority. Rather less than 2 million, say some Israeli demographers. Either way, the situation whereby Israel keeps such large numbers of Palestinians under its rule is intolerable—not militarily, but politically, socially, psychologically, legally, and, last not least, morally. As the growth of Jewish terrorism proves, in the long run it may very well lead to civil war. One might compare Israel to a policeman who is chained to a criminal. “I am free,” he keeps shouting; “but he [the criminal] is not.”

How to break the stalemate? Netanyahu, whom many consider both a liar and a coward, will not do so. If only because the Right will prevent such a move, neither will the Left. What is needed is another Rabin, another Begin, another Sharon or even another Olmert (during his term as prime minister, he was planning to give up at least part of the West Bank). It was not that the times called for them; it was they who changed or tried to change the times. At the moment no such figure may be seen on the horizon.

But then hasn’t Ha-Aretz always been the land where miracles sometimes happen?

Hand-to-Hand Combat: A Short History

Posted on April 16, 2014 by Martin van Creveld

Not long ago, I was approached by an Austrian-German-Dutch producer who wanted me to participate in a TV program he was preparing about Krav Maga (Hebrew: “touch combat”) as practiced in the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Doing a Google search I was surprised at the number of references to it, not only in Hebrew but in various other languages as well. It turned out that Israeli instructors in the field are active in many countries and that their services are in demand. Given the obvious public interest in the subject, I thought a short survey of its role in the history of war in general, and in the Israeli military in particular, would not be out of place here.

The term “touch,” or hand-to-hand, or close, combat is misleading. In reality it comprises two very different things. One is combat without weapons, as in various kinds of martial arts; the other, combat conducted at such close quarters as to enable the combatants to look into the whites of each other’s eyes, as the saying goes. To avoid confusion the two must be kept separate.

Martial arts have been practiced for thousands of years. They may, indeed, go back all the way to our ape-like ancestors. Ancient Egyptian soldiers engaged in regular wrestling matches which were sometimes attended by the Pharaoh in person. The window from which Ramses III (ca. 1187-56 B.C) watched the bouts still exists. In the Iliad, boxing is mentioned. The champion, a certain Epheios, was the same man who later built the Trojan horse. During classical and Hellenistic times martial arts, including wrestling, boxing and pankration, a form that allowed the use of both arms and legs, formed an important part of sport. At Olympia, the site of the famous games, the statue of Agon, contest or struggle, stood right next to that of Ares, the god of war.

Martial art training took place in the palaestra, or gym. Opinion on its relevance to, and usefulness for, war was divided. The great comic poet Aristophanes claimed it was the secret behind the victory of his Athenian compatriots over the Persians at Marathon in 490 B.C. One second-century A.D Greek author, Lucian, devoted an entire treatise to the subject, concluding that martial arts training helped citizens defend their cities and maintain their independence. Many others, both writers and commanders, disagreed. They believed that war required not all kinds of leaps, kicks and holds but the ability to face steel and bloody slaughter. The Romans tended to look down on it. The orator, statesman and soldier Marcus Tullius Cicero even named it as one of the causes of Greek “degeneracy.” Echoes of this debate can still be heard today as many armies make their troops engage in wrestling and boxing matches or else play rough team games such as American football.

Unarmed combat is close by definition. So is combat with edged weapons such as swords, spears, battle axes, and halberds. In general, technological progress has caused fighting to take place at greater and greater ranges. Never more so than after the introduction of firearms around 1500. To that extent, both unarmed combat and hand-to-hand fighting became more and more of an anachronism—as may also be seen from the declining percentage of bayonet wounds. During World War I the latter only accounted for less than 1 percent of all casualties. However, unarmed combat and hand-to-hand fighting did retain some role in trench fighting (World War I), commando operations, etc.

In the 1920s, the viagra prescription free http://deeprootsmag.org/item3843.html Allied Merke Institute introduced the Thermocap, a cone-head-like device that sat on the patient’s body. These capsules also have anti-oxidant properties which make them the most reliable and natural remedies to treat any kind levitra canadian pharmacy deeprootsmag.org of sexual weaknesses. In most cases, off-label prescriptions are only written when a person isn’t responding well to the insulin (insulin resistance). order cheap viagra An authentic drug is an important source for a person suffering from ED to participate actively in a sexual encounter. prix viagra pfizer

In Israel before it gained its independence in 1948 “face-to-face” combat, as it was called, was taught in the various paramilitary organizations such as FOSH and PALMACH. One reason for this was the need to compensate for the lack of weapons; another, the fact that such arts could be practiced in the open under the guise of “sport” without interference from the British Mandatory authorities. Later this tradition was carried over into the IDF. However, since unarmed combat was seen mainly as a substitute for the real thing its status was low. As late as 1973 Egyptian intelligence, analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the Israeli soldier, concluded that he was intelligent and resourceful, but afraid of hand-to-hand combat. To this day many soldiers are afraid to train in the field; leading to a strong, some would say too strong, emphasis on safety measures.

Both in Israel and elsewhere, what changed the equation was the rise to prominence, after 1990 or so, of various forms of anti-terrorism, counterinsurgency, etc. Two factors were involved. First, operations of this kind differ from conventional ones in that they are often conducted at extremely close range. Soldiers on- and off duty must know how to defend themselves against attempts to kidnap them or snatch away their weapons; conversely, you cannot kill a terrorist with the aid of a cannon at fifteen kilometers distance. Second, many operations have to be conducted amidst the population, with the result that avoiding civilian casualties becomes supremely important. As with the police, often it is a question of using minimum, not maximum, force; of disarming and capturing the opponent, not killing him.

In the IDF today, “touch combat” instructors are selected from those who join the service with some experience in the field and given the appropriate training. It is taught at three levels. First, there is the low-level training received by most soldiers (including female soldiers, to help them resist sexual assault either by their own comrades or by others). Second comes the training given to all combat troops. Third is that given to special units involved in commando and anti-terrorist activities. Competitions, both individual and collective, are held. There are also exchange visits with experts from foreign armies. Many former IDF instructors have set up their own schools both in Israel and abroad.

As the demand for Israeli instructors shows, “touch combat” as taught in the IDF is held in high regard in many countries around the world. However, three reservations are in place. First, it is not clear whether such a thing as a unique Israeli style of “touch combat” really exists. Since it is said to mix many different styles, from jiu-jitsu to kickboxing, one would be surprised to learn that it does. Second, even within the IDF, there seems to be no single style all instructors use. To the contrary: as training is becoming increasingly outsourced, each instructor, now operating as a civilian, tends to develop his own style. One which, he claims, is superior to all the rest.

Last not least, in a world dominated by technology the possibilities of “touch combat,” or whatever it is called, remain limited. For some it is a sport. For others, especially police officers and anti-terrorist commandos, it is an essential part of their skills. However, it is neither war nor a substitute for it.