Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'

Jeremy wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote in message ...
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote:
The destruction of civilian homes harboring terrorists, or the homes of
suicide bombers? Fully in favor of that as long as they destroy the right
homes. Again, a mistake doesn't invalidate the policy.

At what point does a pattern of mistakes start to undermine it?


When it becomes obvious that mistakes are policy, or when those making the
mistakes are obviously badly-trained and/or stupid, or are running wild.

I think we reached that point a long time ago. Too bad that one of the
stupid wild people is Ariel Sharon.

What's particularly stupid is that Sharon is sacrificing Israeli lives
in the cause of a battle he cannot win. Eventually someone will have
to sit down and negotiate. It would be better for Israel if they could
negotiate with someone who represents a unified Palestinian position
with the support of the people. As long as Sharon insists on creating
misery and bitterness in the hearts of the Palestinians, and division
within their political circles, the killings will go on on both sides.


Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to
so much, but was still rejected.

Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side,
nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of victimhood
and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism and the
ridiculous attemps to justify it. Nex

Alan Pollock wrote:
Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed
to so much, but was still rejected.

Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side,
nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of
victimhood and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism
and the ridiculous attemps to justify it.

There seems to be no historical basis to believe the current approach will
ever stop the terrorists. So pressing forward in this vein seems basically
tantamount to gratuitous violence.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Following up to Alan Pollock

Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to
so much, but was still rejected.

but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter
productive, why keep escalating the violence?
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Alan Pollock

Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to
so much, but was still rejected.

but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter
productive, why keep escalating the violence?


Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first?

I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists,
and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that continually
target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase
'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the
terrorists are somehow morally equal.

But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall
violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next
time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the
'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for
them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to
change their own society themselves.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money.

Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex

On 11/9/03 7:32 pm, in article , "Alan
Pollock" wrote:

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Alan Pollock

Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed
to
so much, but was still rejected.

but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter
productive, why keep escalating the violence?


Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first?

Define "terrorist". Please refer to Irgun adn LEHI, the French Resistance,
the IRA, the Contras, the ANC and the American revolutionaries in your
answer.

Then re-read what you wrote below and see if it makes any sense.

I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists,
and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that continually
target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase
'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the
terrorists are somehow morally equal.

But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall
violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next
time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the
'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for
them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to
change their own society themselves.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money.

Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex

Alan Pollock wrote:

The Reid wrote:
Following up to Alan Pollock

Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel
agreed to
so much, but was still rejected.

but the methods used to stop the terrorism are counter
productive, why keep escalating the violence?


Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first?

I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're
terrorists,
and they're the ones doing the escalating. Going after groups that
continually
target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing. The old tired phrase
'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the
terrorists are somehow morally equal.

But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall
violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the
next
time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the
'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult
for
them is the logical, pragmatic response. Palestinians are going to have to
change their own society themselves.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of
money.

Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Nex


Thank you - splendidly said. Couldn't snip a word!

--
Best
Greg

On 11/9/03 5:23 pm, in article , "Alan
Pollock" wrote:

Jeremy wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote in message
...
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote:
The destruction of civilian homes harboring terrorists, or the homes of
suicide bombers? Fully in favor of that as long as they destroy the right
homes. Again, a mistake doesn't invalidate the policy.

At what point does a pattern of mistakes start to undermine it?


When it becomes obvious that mistakes are policy, or when those making the
mistakes are obviously badly-trained and/or stupid, or are running wild.

I think we reached that point a long time ago. Too bad that one of the
stupid wild people is Ariel Sharon.

What's particularly stupid is that Sharon is sacrificing Israeli lives
in the cause of a battle he cannot win. Eventually someone will have
to sit down and negotiate. It would be better for Israel if they could
negotiate with someone who represents a unified Palestinian position
with the support of the people. As long as Sharon insists on creating
misery and bitterness in the hearts of the Palestinians, and division
within their political circles, the killings will go on on both sides.


Disagree. Until the terrorists are stopped there can be no meaningful
negotiation. And let's not forget the previous accords where Israel agreed to
so much, but was still rejected.

Like what? If you're referring to Camp David, I suggest you read some more
about it. If you're referring to Taba, look at what was actually offered,
then remember that nothing was actually ratified by the Israeli parliament.
On the other hand, the Palestinian side offered to give up 78% of historic
Palestine and were rejected

Until there's a civilian government with balls on the Palestinian side,
nothing meaningful will be achieved imho. Hysteria, shrill cries of victimhood
and gross hyperbole don't equate strength. Nor does terrorism and the
ridiculous attemps to justify it. Nex

Are you talking about the Israelis here?

J

Following up to Alan Pollock

Which implicitly means accepting terrorism first?

I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're terrorists,
and they're the ones doing the escalating.

The Palestinians see it the other way round. It makes no
difference saying that they are terrorists, a strategy has to see
the issues from the mindset of the enemy too.

Going after groups that continually
target and kill innocent civilians is a good thing.

only if the outcome is less violence, currently it produces more
violence.

The old tired phrase
'cycle of violence' tends to validate the idea that the Israelis and the
terrorists are somehow morally equal.

It might be tired but it *is* a cycle of violence.

Moral equality is irrelevant, your fighting a war, you need
strategy that will get the desired results. Where is the Isreali
endgame?

Whatever you think, the Palestinians think they are right, so
bulldozing houses and tank assaults only throw more into the arms
of the extremists. How bad would northern Ireland have got if UK
had used Israeli tactics?

But if you mean escalation in the battle for the hearts and minds of the
Palestinian public, then pandering to them might temporarily forestall
violence, sure, for a few microseconds as a strategic posture until the next
time somthing irks them and all of a sudden terrorism again becomes the
'answer'. Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for
them is the logical, pragmatic response.

How can it be logical if it does not work?

Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves.

Or with help.

We only made progress in NI by fighting terrorism with policing
methods with military backup AND addressing the grievances.
Against a far less ruthless and less widely supported enemy with
a weaker grievance (although backed with some US money from
noraid) the IRA were very effective in the mainland bombing
campaign.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help

Hitting them with rockets, hinders.

, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of money.

Agreed, these are the areas where eventually the problems must be
unraveled and addressed, every tank round, bulldozer or rocket
just puts it further out of reach.

Rewarding terrorism is no help at all.

Rewarding terrorism seems to be working in NI. Some of the
terrorists are ministers now.
--
Mike Reid
"Art is the lie that reveals the truth" P.Picasso
UK walking "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Spain,cuisines and walking "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Alan Pollock wrote:
I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're
terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating.

Everyone who uses more violence than they did last time is escalating.

Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is
a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate
the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal.

This situation is not going to be solved through assignations of moral
quality. It's going to be solved one day when there exist some leaders that
are strong and pragmatic to throw that sort of talk out the window and come
up with a solution based on the needs of the two communities in that space.

Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is
the logical, pragmatic response.

What is logical about this? It doesn't work. It has never worked in any
other similar situation, except very temporarily. There is no reason to
think it would work here. After many years it is demonstrably a failure and
there is no evidence of a positive trend.

Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves.

The current setup rewards violence by Palestinians with moral superiority.
The Israelis have cast themselves as the oppressors, and play the part with
glee, and so any strike against them is a blow for justice in the eyes of
those who feel themselves downtrodden by a superior power. As long as this
persists, there will be no change.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of
money.

Those things would be great, however every time some developed-world money
goes into a school or road or airport it gets blown up by the Israeli army.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos and tales from around the world: http://travel.u.nu
Site remodeled 10-Sept-2003: Hundreds of new photos, easier navigation.

Miguel Cruz wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote:
I don't see going after terrorists as escalating anything. They're
terrorists, and they're the ones doing the escalating.

Everyone who uses more violence than they did last time is escalating.

Then the term 'escalation' is meaningless. Give it some value and we'll talk.

Going after groups that continually target and kill innocent civilians is
a good thing. The old tired phrase 'cycle of violence' tends to validate
the idea that the Israelis and the terrorists are somehow morally equal.

This situation is not going to be solved through assignations of moral
quality. It's going to be solved one day when there exist some leaders that
are strong and pragmatic to throw that sort of talk out the window and come
up with a solution based on the needs of the two communities in that space.

They're only assigned because some here don't seem to understand the
difference between targeting civilians and going after those who do. As for
solutions based on the needs of both communities who could disagree with that?
Unless the need of one community is the complete annihilation of the other.


Meanwhile going after terrorists and making it more difficult for them is
the logical, pragmatic response.

What is logical about this? It doesn't work. It has never worked in any
other similar situation, except very temporarily. There is no reason to
think it would work here. After many years it is demonstrably a failure and
there is no evidence of a positive trend.

How do you know there wouldn't be ten times more acts of terrorism if it was
all made more easy for them? If Israel did nothing, would there be less
terrorism? Do the terrorists say there would be less? Don't they say they
want to wipe Israel off the map?

Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves.

The current setup rewards violence by Palestinians with moral superiority.
The Israelis have cast themselves as the oppressors, and play the part with
glee, and so any strike against them is a blow for justice in the eyes of
those who feel themselves downtrodden by a superior power. As long as this
persists, there will be no change.

Bu there is moral superiority when you compare a group that kills innocent
civilians on purpose and those who try to eliminate those who do. The 'glee'
part is frivolous, Miguel, and it's irrelevant.

Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help, especially when Palestinian
society struggles with difficult but not impossible social and political
changes. The best help stable first-world nations can give is education in
democracy, rights and laws, backed-up by strictly-controlled gifts of
money.

Those things would be great, however every time some developed-world money
goes into a school or road or airport it gets blown up by the Israeli army.

Read my paragraph again. Nex