How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

[coberst]

How did they accomplish the rarest of military feats?

The people, who made up Israel and considered for centuries to be non fighters, were surrounded on three sides and facing a far superior enemy “accomplished the rarest of military feats”, they shattered the enemy forces “within a given time and with an absence of blunder”.

Fighting that began in May of 1948 ended in January 1949 when an armistice was signed. The IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) realized that they had “won a state but not the peace”.

The major surprise was the performance of the “espresso” generation; given this name because they were considered to have discarded the traditional Jewish ideals while lazing about drinking espresso in the local cafes. It was this generation that, when challenged and well led, performed this “rarest of military feats”.

From what I have read there is a small (35%) absolute difference in the intellectual potential between extremes in normal humans. When we examine specific individuals we can detect a gigantic difference (1000%?) in accomplishment. When we compare Winston Churchill with the others we see this difference and when we compare the Israeli nation in this situation with other nations we see this difference.

The difference is illuminated not only when comparing one person with another or one nation with another but it is startling in the difference in accomplishment of humans in matters of technology versus matters of ‘reasoning together’.

We live in two very different worlds; a world of technical and technological order and clarity, and a world of personal and social disorder and confusion. We are increasingly able to solve problems in one domain and increasingly endangered by our inability to solve problems in the other.

Science solves puzzles. The logic of the paradigm insulates the professional group from problems that are unsolvable by that paradigm. One reason that science progresses so rapidly and with such assurance is because the logic of that paradigm allows the practitioners to work on problems that only their lack of ingenuity will keep them from solving.

Science uses instrumental rationality to solve puzzles. Instrumental rationality is a systematic process for reflecting upon the best action to take to reach an established end. The obvious question becomes ‘what mode of rationality is available for determining ends?’ Instrumental rationality appears to be of little use in determining such matters as “good” and “right”.

There is a striking difference between the logic of technical problems and that of dialectical problems. The principles, methods and standards for dealing with technical problems and problems of “real life” are as different as night and day. Real life problems cannot be solved using deductive and inductive reasoning.

In summary:

Humans differ greatly in achievement even though potential as measured by intellectual capacity is small.

Humans perform grandly in matters of technology but are wimps in performance in matters communication and reasoning together.

I find this to be a puzzlement? Do you have any answers?

Quotes from Practicing History by Barbara Tuchman

[Uberzensch]

...what?

What about those that communicate very well - through writing, painting, etc. - and those that can't use technology - VCR programming, computer, etc.? Where would they fit?

It seems to me that you overall problem is sadness that everyone is not GREAT. I think you'll have to come to the realization that while, yes, there is potential for many to achieve great things, there is also some individual effort needed to achieve.

Regardless, everyone will not succeed!

Additionally, I'm having trouble with your concept of "self-actualized, self-learners". What does that mean? What should they learn? Who decides if what they are leaning is valuable?

[Jozanny]

Isn't this subject rather too political for this sub-forum? I don't even know how to address the topic without correcting certain errors of assumption in the initial post. I would appreciate some guidance from the moderators.

I might also add that I find the premise of the OP here somewhat offensive, for reasons I will not address until I receive clarification.

[Scheherazade]

There is no reference to any current political events or matters so thread will remain open - until someone decides to make it political.

[Jozanny]

coberst,

Though I usually steer clear of grand pronouncements, I find the one above highly problematic in its reasoning, and not due to lack of empathy with the Zionist movement of the early 20th century.

You seem to be implying that *success* is in some manner determinate, perhaps due to genetics, or zeal, or belief in a cause. I am not going to do any research on the armstice and the UN resolutions on Israel's right to exist this evening, and I am dubious as to whether I should, but consider Hannibal.

He slaughtered entire Roman armies, and his military tactics to this day are taught at Westpoint. There is no question as to his military genius, but due to his lack of resources after his final great victory against the soon to be formidable Roman legions, he could not beseige the city to sue for peace between Rome and Carthage, hence, the exotic African civilization fell to the eventual world empire. I'd take it as a parable to recalibrate your point, and will cease to offer any further opinion, for now.

Again, I suggest looking at this Hitchens memoriam (http://www.slate.com/id/2219508/), in particular, the third paragraph, which points to the same caution as my above example.

In more general terms though, I am not sure a predisposition towards X, like the desire for a homeland, correlates with successful result Y simply because the predisposition can be said to exist; there is a whiff of eugenics about that notion, and eugenics has long been discredited, even though it lingers on in some pseudo-social theories.