Well, just to be contrary, is it so obvious a priori that such a policy would have no deterrent effect? I can imagine, for example, a would-be bomber who refrains from acting out of concern for the effects of such a policy on dear old Dad-- it's not wildly implausible. Human psychology being what it is, this isn't an argument for the deterrent effect, but it's some evidence that a deterrent effect might occur. Happily, the facts seem to be on the side of justice.
I can well imagine that the facts (to the extent they can be known) were on the other side, and this report was useful for domestic purposes in providing cover for carrying out a moderating policy to support Abu Mazen.
FL
I think the big issue is 2400 of these - its a pretty large N - is excessive for making that determination. After the first 100 they might have started to get a clue, and somewhere around 1200 it becomes like No Exit, but with bull dozers, uzis and a big sign saying saying that this isn't really hell, get a grip..
Well, it is better than if they'd concluded, "Water is dry."
And also better than if they'd concluded that advancing the rapture requires blowing up every Palestinian house west of the Jordan.
Things *could* be worse. (And will probably become so in short order.)
Am I reading Brad right? He's predicting that the Israeli government will be taken over by Republicans? Egads.
Why not - the Likudniks have already taken over the American government, so it's only fair.
...Kidding! Kidding!
Certainly it could be, and has been worse. I'm upset about how people play with truth, and other people's lives, and abuse their power, and all the rest of it. I'm just feeling too churlish to say, "well, thank goodness for this."
Labs, benton makes a good point. A priori doesn't have much to do with this. 2400 is the number since 1967; whatever plausibility this had, on whatever convenient conception of "human psychology" (something like: "hitting them harder makes them go away"), the point at which people could straightfacedly claim that it was working is long past.
Uhm, it's late, but I don't think it's the rapture that the Israeli government wants to hasten.
As for the effectiveness of the strategy, I'm in no way defending the policy, merely pointing out that knowing its effectiveness is quite difficult, for the same reasons that, say, knowing the deterrent effect of the death penalty is difficult (it's politically controversial and it involves many variables). But I'd have to know more about how the determination you cite came about in order to have much confidence in this. "Working," of course, doesn't mean "reduce infractions to 0," it means something like "provides a deterrent effect significant enough to justify the cost." Making that call requires some tricky counterfactuals.
Right, labs, but along the a priori lines, I think a case could be made that the destruction of homes is a counterintuitive strategy because the punishment is similar to the conditions which drove the Palestinians to be suicide bombers in the first place. "If they don't like what we're doing, we'll do more of it!" does not seem like a terrific deterrent. Also, the psychology angle seems implausible. The bombers are committing suicide for what they perceive as a greater cause. In that respect, specifically targeting the bomber's family in retribution is an appeal to the bomber's selfishness.
So, it's an appeal to the selfishness of a person willing to blow himself and others up for his people. Seems unlikely.
Moreover, while each instance of human conflict is unique in certain aspects, they also share many commonalities, and we have a whole history to draw upon.
Labs, maybe we should be using a neutral term: "The Nth+1 coming (for N=0 or 1)"
(and I don't think Sharon wants to hasten that, either)
Why not simplify to "The Nth coming (for N=1 or 2)"?
Somehow the "+1" aspect seems important.
There's the dispute about whether the next appearance is the original or the sequel, but I was thinking more about everyone flying up in the air at the big moment, leaving only the sinful behind. Do Jews believe this? I always think of Judaism as less weird than evangelican Christianity, but maybe that's just a prejudice of mine-- I was kind of hoping they'd have no room for the 'hoovered into eternity' bit.
I think not, mostly. Judaism is by and large very sketchy about the afterlife, at least they didn't tell me much about it. There is stuff about the "world to come" but I've never been quite clear on the entrance requirements. (I am, as you have probably figured, not Orthodox.)
That does not mean, though, that there aren't Jews who would probably be willing to do weird things to bring the Messiah. There are probably atheists who would be willing to do weird things to bring the Messiah.
Re: "There are probably atheists who would be willing to do weird thing to bring the Messiah."
Like create a God?