As to your assertion that the penchant of many of the Middle Eastern elites for a “might is right” approach (whether in their own use or in their “respect” for it when applied by others), I think there is a common thread that must be adequately taken into account and that is the role and effect of “Islam” in assessing this aspect of the attitudes, policies and behaviors of the nations (and sub-national actors) in the region.

I purposely use quotes to both account for my admitted lack of expertise in the intricacies of its theology etc. and to rather use it generically to encompass those cultural (even tribal), political, religious, customs etc. that appear to me at least to be involved in one way or the other (whether “legitimately” through recognized organs of Islam (or a given branch) or as is so often asserted since 9/11, as “hijacked” by various individuals and groups who use it as a legitimizing “cover” and recruiting tool for other baser motives).

I suppose it is not that surprising that this aspect gets relatively little attention, whether substantively or certainly by the media given the hyper-sensitivity that usually is evident in that region and beyond when even the word “Islam” is used. I believe there has been a very effective campaign waged by various Islamic groups (for example in America by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) and the Arab American Institute (AAI)) that has largely silenced or at least suppressed and “neutered” this critical aspect of the discussion.

Thus in the specific context of the Israeli discussion, I think it impossible to fully discuss much less understand the complexity etc. if we do not recognize (whether some in their post-modernity believe in such “superstitions”) the importance of the sectarian issues.

In its latter day conflicts with Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas and Gaza, the IDF’s casualty aversion and its adversaries use of civilian buildings has lead to high latitude for use of airpower in civilian areas, and even in some cases encouragement of striking select civilian targets for sybolic “effects.” Though EBO was tarnished in Lebanon, Cast Lead was not much of an improvement.

The US, on the other hand, has just appointed Mattis, who abolished the doctrine and terminology of EBO from JFCOM, to CENTCOM. I have trouble seeing the Israelis purging it from their way of war, particularly given its domestic political advantages.

If you will fight the temptation to assess these matters throught the lens of partisan politics and in particular look into the progressive “movement” you may see things are a bit more complicated than your post suggests. Further but in the same vein, your post likening the “tea party movement to McCarthyism yells me you are letting your own biases cloud your ability to evaluate what is actually occurring (as opposed to how the media and our current masters spin it).

Those who merely see these matters as the usual partisan bickering and “pay back” as your posts reflect are missing the substAntive aspects that represent paradigm shifts. I would also note that while I think some of the tactics of McCarthy and his ilk were wrong, history has proven that there was indeed fire amidst the rhetorical smoke.

Those who conflate progressivism with “liberalism,” “marxism,” and otber such “isms” whether seriously or, as you appear to do in the manner of Saul Alinsky, to make light of and marginalize a contrary view demonstrate a rather shallow appreciation of what is really taking place.

Progressives = 5th column destroying America? By “progressive”, do you mean “liberal”? How about “pinko”? This is a bit McCarthy, isn’t it?

With respect to this approach in the Middle East, I think it is not necessarily the “Arab people” in general that live by or respond to the “might it is right” philosophy as it the elites (sectarian, governmental, terrorist, and/or other factions) who live (and die) by it. The “Arab people” in general are usually not the intended (or desired) targets of this approach but rather usually end up the true victims of the actions of their ruling or influential elites either as collateral damage or as a “lever” to force compliance or concessions from a given elite that derives its power from popular support.

All humans understand force, but we understand other things, too, and force is, in Arab cultures as in European ones, an expression of, or instrumental to, politics. So while diplomacy should never ignore, and indeed should be founded upon, an understanding of force and its utility, it cannot be beholden to those considerations alone. I don’t think you can explain events such as the 1979 treaty or the failure of the peace process since the ’90s purely in terms of Arab peoples receiving enough or insufficient coercive discipline from the IDF.

The recent flotilla fiasco is an example of an understanding of IO and public perceptions by Middle Easterners. They knew that even if their objective of “breaking the blockade” would be militarily refuted, they could influence regional diplomacy and global perceptions enough to put pressure on Israel. If the people in FGM only understood force, they would have considered sending vessels with little but axes, knives and metal rods (and, even if we give the IDF the benefit of the doubt, no more than a handful of small arms) against the Israeli navy totally naive and pointless.

It is my guess that people who employ IO also understand and themselves can be made susceptible to IO…

And certainly I understand why – my point was that Americans were never in the same position as Israel, being geographically distant and historically removed from the Middle East, and so the huge differences between Middle Eastern culture and their own are not readily apparent, which is not so with the Israelis, where proximity, history, and the violent character of relations make it difficult to see beyond the differences.

Whether accurate or not, this is why many Israelis have the view, as one of my good friends in the IDF had put it, due to its relative isolation in the region and the historic, political, cultural and sectarian chasm between it and its neighbors Israel cannot be content with “an eye for an eye” but instead must exact an “eye for a tooth.”