Instantman points to this WaPo article that has an interesting image in it. It’s a map of Israel that he says makes no distinction between Israel proper and the occupied territories.

He overstates it a bit. There is a thin black line separating the West Bank and Gaza from the rest, and they are separately labeled, but he’s right in the sense that they’re not cross hatched or differently colored–presbyopics have to put on their glasses to see the difference.

I’m figuring that they just got it from a Palestinian text book, and changed the name of the map from “Palestine” to “Israel” for domestic consumption. Those lazy WaPo reporters…

[Update at 1:21PM PDT]

Whoops, somebody at the Post must read weblogs. They’ve taken it down.

Steyn is, as usual, a must read.

There’s a thread over at Charles Johnson’s site about this article in the LA Times.

As I point out in his comments section, I think that the concern over nuclear winter is overblown. That theory has been pretty throughly discredited, at least as originally propounded by Sagan et al. No one really knows what the effects of a massive nuclear war would be, but if it’s unlikely that a Soviet-US exchange would cause one, it’s hard to see how Israel alone could. However, Israel is certainly capable of making glowing parking lots out of places like Baghdad, Riyadh and even Mecca.

To the commentator who suggested that the West Bank itself might be a nuclear target, there are a number of reasons that this would be unlikely. The Israelis wants that territory for itself, and won’t want to have to clean up a radioactive mess. They’d prefer to keep everything intact.

Which brings up a disconcerting thought. Have they developed a neutron bomb?

These posts are getting depressing. I’ll try to shift the subject back to space a little later today.

President Chirac assures us that France is not anti-Semitic.

Who said it was, Jacques? It’s just the government that is. You know, like the French ambassador to Britain who called Israel a [expletive deleted] little country, and as far as I can tell, still has his job?

President Chirac assures us that France is not anti-Semitic.

Who said it was, Jacques? It’s just the government that is. You know, like the French ambassador to Britain who called Israel a [expletive deleted] little country, and as far as I can tell, still has his job?

President Chirac assures us that France is not anti-Semitic.

Who said it was, Jacques? It’s just the government that is. You know, like the French ambassador to Britain who called Israel a [expletive deleted] little country, and as far as I can tell, still has his job?

In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.

I find the analogy extremely strained.

He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.

The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.

In a commentary on my post yesterday about the world war in which we find ourselves (if, unlike the dominant media, we’re sufficiently perspicacious), fellow blogger Rich Hailey points out that the technological asymmetry between the West (and particularly the U.S.) and the Arab powers may not be as advantageous to us as we hope, by comparing the situation to the War Between The States, in which the North, a burgeoning industrial power, had fits defeating the South, a confederacy of rural, agrarian states.

I find the analogy extremely strained.

He points out having Lincoln as the difference, but there are many differences. The South had technology available to them, and knew how to use it–they even ramped up their own industrial production. Their problem was that they didn’t have a navy with which to defeat the northern blockade, and after the Emancipation Proclamation, they could no longer hope for Britain as an ally.

But the main reason they put up such a good fight for so long was not because of fanatical bravery and devotion to their cause (though they had that in abundance)–it was vastly superior generalship, until Grant was put in charge. And while the South had some brilliant generals, this is more of a commentary on the poor quality of those of the Union, most notably McClellan, who threw away opportunity after opportunity to follow up a battlefield victory with the destruction of Lee’s army, instead always failing to follow through and pursue.

Somehow, at least based on what we’ve seen from Iraq in the Gulf War, and more recently in Afghanistan, I suspect that we’ll also have an asymmetry in military leadership, as well as in technological and industrial resources. Except, this time, unlike the Union, it will vastly favor the U.S. government.

The Arabs have shown themselves to occasionally be very good at tactics (e.g., hijacking airliners and crashing them into buildings), and blunderingly idiotic at strategy. It’s possible they’ll learn, but based on the rhetoric coming out of the region, it seems unlikely.