If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote:
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. Well, no, that's what it means. It is a counter-productive thing and everyone who does it is contributing to the animosity that fuels the next round of violence from the other side. 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. Clearly there is a moral difference. I will say this much with you: Attacking civilians to achieve political ends is purely evil. Fighting back to try to stop it is not in and of itself evil. However, if after many years time has shown that the only effect is a lot of corpses, then continuing that course starts to become less and less defensible, at least to me. But none of this really matters in terms of finding a solution. You are not going to solve anything by trying to convince anyone that they are evil. So it's a waste of time. 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. Definitely that is not anyone's need. Really nobody's need has anything to do with the other party. For instance, I don't "need" my neighbor to turn down his radio, I need to not be disturbed by the sound. Once we realize that, then we are open to a whole bunch of alternate solutions. Maybe we can split the cost of soundproofing. Maybe he can buy headphones. Maybe he can move his speakers or put them on top of something padded that reduces the transmission of vibrations. Likewise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Only a sick fringe of each side believes that the other needs to be pushed into the sea. Most people on both sides just want security and economic stability and cultural independence. 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? Again, history tells us that things do not work this way. Much of the money (though very little of the grunt-level personnel) comes from outside, but the terrorists get significant support from Abdul Sixpack in the occupied territories. He is willing to send a few bucks their way, and maybe even to strap on an explosive belt, if he has become sufficiently outraged with what he sees around him. But otherwise, given the choice, he would rather have a happy and productive life. Sure there is a core of radicalized people who have become sick with rage or just pure sociopathy who would take advantage of newfound freedom to hurt the Israelis. But they will burn themselves out eventually - without the outrage, support will die off. Suicide bombers will stop volunteering. Non-suicide attackers will stop finding it worth the risk, given the increasing abstraction of the issue. And outside entities that funnel in money won't have the shocking footage to point to when they're passing around the hat. 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. Well, I really think it has come to the point where large parts of the Israeli military have dehumanized Palestinians in their minds. They may make some calculations based on public relations factors but I don't see these people valuing life on the other side of the barbed wire fence the same way they value it on theirs. None which is to say anything about the valuations made by their opponents. Part of this is of course what's necessary in order to function as a soldier when you may sometimes have orders to kill. But this has dragged on long enough that the dehumanization has become endemic. I have had very disturbing conversations with recent members of the Israeli army in which they looked me in the eye and equated Palestinians, as a class, with animals. This is not the path to reconciliation. 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. You mean, they should come over from Dartmouth and stand on street corners pontificating about the glories of liberal democratic society? I don't think that's going to get very far. Without schools and other tangible benefits to go along with the message, it's going to be too abstract for anyone to take seriously. And if those schools keep getting knocked down, it's just going to reinforce the message of helplessness and outrage that's at the root of the breadth of Palestinian support for pointless destructive activities. 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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
The Reid wrote:
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. A strategy yes, but one usually stops short of doing what the opponent wants you to do, unless it makes sense, which in this case it doesn't. Not until the Palestinians show some good faith instead of hysteria. 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. And the alternative is what? Doing nothing? Allowing busloads of civilians to get continually blown-up? Make the exercise easier for the terrorists? 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. On one level yes, but it's a vague level that doesn't distinguish much. Moral equality is irrelevant, your fighting a war, you need strategy that will get the desired results. Where is the Isreali endgame? The endgame is security. The endgame is that Palestinians will at some point grow tired of relegating themselves to the backwaters of the civilized world. They'll eventually understand that they can't achieve the impossible by doing the unthinkable. A free trade zone in that general area with Israel could be an amazing success story. People in that part of the world are quick-witted and have been trading for millennia. It's a natural. But no, hatred is so much more seductive, isn't it? Especially when egged-on by so many. Heroic hyperbole at its best, but totally unrealistic and terribly counter-productive. How can democracy take root in such hysteria? How can good trading practices flourish? Lots of help will be needed. 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? All evidence points to the contrary. Do nothing and they'll take advantage of perceived weakness. They aren't called terroristws for their expertise in needlepoint. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Or with help. Yes, with massive help. But in the end they must want to change. That time isn't here, or they would have already. 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. Grievances of the population. Did Israel not offer a large part of what the Palestinians wanted but were turned down anyway? Your comparisons with NI only go so far. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help Hitting them with rockets, hinders. Timing is everything. Right now, with such thriving popular hysteria? Hinders less than doing nothing. , 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. I don't agree. As long as each Israeli attack is in retaliation for a terrorist attack, they're above-board. Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Rewarding terrorism seems to be working in NI. Some of the terrorists are ministers now. Let the terrorists stop terrorizing and sure, I can see the day when some spokesman for Hamas will mellow-out and become an official of the new state. Change happens. But I think you're mixing things up by comparing Palestinian Terrorists to the IRA, or Palestinians to Northern Irish Catholics. It's tempting, but fraught with pitfalls. At some point rewarding Palestinian peace yes, will be advantageous. Let's hope that it's close in time. With Arafat at the helm I don't see it. With groups like Hamas garnering such tremendous popular support, I don't see it. In the meantime you deal with the terrorists in the manner they deserve. The Palestinian population comes to its senses and wants to really talk? They'll talk somehow. Terrorists become an impediment? Palestinians will do something about them. In the meantime you deal with it. Nex |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Miguel Cruz wrote:
Alan Pollock wrote: 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. Well, no, that's what it means. It is a counter-productive thing and everyone who does it is contributing to the animosity that fuels the next round of violence from the other side. Well there you go saying what you think, giving value to that neutral word 'escalation'. Now we Can talk. To my way of thinking, if terrorists represent the majority of a population then talks are impossible. If that's not the case, then escalation only deals punishing terrorists, and doesn't necessarily impact talks with the legal representatives of the Palestinian population. 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. Clearly there is a moral difference. I will say this much with you: Attacking civilians to achieve political ends is purely evil. Fighting back to try to stop it is not in and of itself evil. However, if after many years time has shown that the only effect is a lot of corpses, then continuing that course starts to become less and less defensible, at least to me. Okay, I get your train of thought. IMO it's up to the Palestinian people and their reps to stop the terrorists from acting, and not the retaliating nation that has its civilians purposely killed. But none of this really matters in terms of finding a solution. You are not going to solve anything by trying to convince anyone that they are evil. So it's a waste of time. The terrorists don't need convincing, they need something stronger. It's the Palestinian _populace_ that needs to understand what's in their best interest. It's the populace that needs to see how mass hysteria prevents them from living freely, getting educated, gaining wealth, and leading happy lives. 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. Definitely that is not anyone's need. Really nobody's need has anything to do with the other party. For instance, I don't "need" my neighbor to turn down his radio, I need to not be disturbed by the sound. Once we realize that, then we are open to a whole bunch of alternate solutions. Maybe we can split the cost of soundproofing. Maybe he can buy headphones. Maybe he can move his speakers or put them on top of something padded that reduces the transmission of vibrations. After the terrorists are hounded from the area by Palestinians, or quietly become middle-class and merge into the population to deal with their Own lives for a change yes, the sky's the limit. There isn't much law there now. You don't coddle those whose aim it is to keep hysteria alive. Likewise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Only a sick fringe of each side believes that the other needs to be pushed into the sea. Most people on both sides just want security and economic stability and cultural independence. You fail to mention the hysterical hatred on the Palestinian side that supports - no, feeds - the terrorists both in the physical sense and in the emotional. It prevents the acceptance of good deals. At this point, it practically ensures that if a deal is struck, nothing at all will again ignite the hysteria, the public killings of their own, the terror of Palestinians by Palestinians. It's sad, and wrong to equate this with the situation in Israel. I know you didn't, but many do in an attempt to be 'fair.' 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? Much of the money (though very little of the grunt-level personnel) comes from outside, but the terrorists get significant support from Abdul Sixpack in the occupied territories. He is willing to send a few bucks their way, and maybe even to strap on an explosive belt, if he has become sufficiently outraged with what he sees around him. But otherwise, given the choice, he would rather have a happy and productive life. Given the choice. Sure there is a core of radicalized people who have become sick with rage or just pure sociopathy who would take advantage of newfound freedom to hurt the Israelis. But they will burn themselves out eventually - without the outrage, support will die off. Suicide bombers will stop volunteering. Non-suicide attackers will stop finding it worth the risk, given the increasing abstraction of the issue. And outside entities that funnel in money won't have the shocking footage to point to when they're passing around the hat. That'd be a happy day. But it's not going to happen because Israel shows weakness, or lies down belly-up. It'll happen because Palestinian just-plain-folks will get fed-up with the tyranny these groups exert over them and their futures. Meanwhile those who want to support Palestinian terrorism will always do so, not because of any 'shocking footage', but for their own reasons. 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. Well, I really think it has come to the point where large parts of the Israeli military have dehumanized Palestinians in their minds. They may make some calculations based on public relations factors but I don't see these people valuing life on the other side of the barbed wire fence the same way they value it on theirs. None which is to say anything about the valuations made by their opponents. In their minds? Isn't this what some Palestinians would have you believe? That the Israelis are inhuman, they've dehumanized their opponents and so on. This kind of 'reasoning' (actually 'emoting' would be a better word) allows many Palestinians and even some westerners to call the Israelis Nazis and feel good about it. Part of this is of course what's necessary in order to function as a soldier when you may sometimes have orders to kill. But this has dragged on long enough that the dehumanization has become endemic. I have had very disturbing conversations with recent members of the Israeli army in which they looked me in the eye and equated Palestinians, as a class, with animals. This is not the path to reconciliation. Anecdotal. For what it's worth, it's worth nothing. I value your experience, but it's not representative. (Moreover, other factors pertain: I can think of two 'animalizing' influences off the top of my head: mass hysteria, and terrorism - and both are temporary) 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. You mean, they should come over from Dartmouth and stand on street corners pontificating about the glories of liberal democratic society? I don't think that's going to get very far. Without schools and other tangible benefits to go along with the message, it's going to be too abstract for anyone to take seriously. And if those schools keep getting knocked down, it's just going to reinforce the message of helplessness and outrage that's at the root of the breadth of Palestinian support for pointless destructive activities. Which is why it must change from within. No country on earth can change what's in Palestinian hearts; only they can get fed-up with their terrorist 'representatives.' I don't think one can really link the destruction of buildings harboring terrorist activities with a fear that all new buildings will be demolished. That would mean that very nearly all sizeable Palestinian buildings were engaged in directly supporting terrorist acts. Nex |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote in message ...
Miguel Cruz wrote: Alan Pollock wrote: 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. Well, no, that's what it means. It is a counter-productive thing and everyone who does it is contributing to the animosity that fuels the next round of violence from the other side. Well there you go saying what you think, giving value to that neutral word 'escalation'. Now we Can talk. To my way of thinking, if terrorists represent the majority of a population then talks are impossible. If that's not the case, then escalation only deals punishing terrorists, and doesn't necessarily impact talks with the legal representatives of the Palestinian population. You need to tell us what you meqn by the word "terrorist". From the context of your contributions it just seems to mean "person I don't like". By most standards Arafat is just as much the legal representative of the Palestinian people as George Bush is of the US people. 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. Clearly there is a moral difference. I will say this much with you: Attacking civilians to achieve political ends is purely evil. Fighting back to try to stop it is not in and of itself evil. However, if after many years time has shown that the only effect is a lot of corpses, then continuing that course starts to become less and less defensible, at least to me. Okay, I get your train of thought. IMO it's up to the Palestinian people and their reps to stop the terrorists from acting, and not the retaliating nation that has its civilians purposely killed. In Palestinain eyes it is they who are retaliating, against an occupying power. It is not in their power to resist in the fashion of a conventional army in the field, and hence they fight a guerilla campaign much as all resistance occurs - hitting whatever targets they can, be they military, quasi-military ("settlements" or civilian. Naturally killings of innocents are to be deplored, but it is not evident that these are the exclusive preserve of Palestinians. But none of this really matters in terms of finding a solution. You are not going to solve anything by trying to convince anyone that they are evil. So it's a waste of time. The terrorists don't need convincing, they need something stronger. It's the Palestinian _populace_ that needs to understand what's in their best interest. It's the populace that needs to see how mass hysteria prevents them from living freely, getting educated, gaining wealth, and leading happy lives. Well that's not at all evident. It seems to me that what is preventing the Palestinian people from leading happy lives is the brutal military occupation of their land, which continues relentlessly, day after day more as land is taken for settlements, roads, fences etc. This is not a recent phenomenon, it has happened ceaselessly for decades, whether the Palestinians subscribed to peace processess or not. In fact the current situation can be partly attributed to the failure of Israel to meet its commitments at Oslo and continue building on stolen land. It is the perception of the Palestinians that negotiation and peaceful means have led them nowhere that leads to desperation and violence. They seem to have no choice that will bring peace, short of upping sticks and emigrating. That seems to be the only solution that is acceptable to Israel, and by extension the US. 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. Definitely that is not anyone's need. Really nobody's need has anything to do with the other party. For instance, I don't "need" my neighbor to turn down his radio, I need to not be disturbed by the sound. Once we realize that, then we are open to a whole bunch of alternate solutions. Maybe we can split the cost of soundproofing. Maybe he can buy headphones. Maybe he can move his speakers or put them on top of something padded that reduces the transmission of vibrations. After the terrorists are hounded from the area by Palestinians, or quietly become middle-class and merge into the population to deal with their Own lives for a change yes, the sky's the limit. There isn't much law there now. You don't coddle those whose aim it is to keep hysteria alive. The hysteria is kept alive by the Israelis, as it serves their purpose to provide a pretext for stealing land. Unfortunately they also steal land with lesser pretext, so the way to peace for the Palestinians is not clear. Likewise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Only a sick fringe of each side believes that the other needs to be pushed into the sea. Most people on both sides just want security and economic stability and cultural independence. You fail to mention the hysterical hatred on the Palestinian side that supports - no, feeds - the terrorists both in the physical sense and in the emotional. It prevents the acceptance of good deals. There have been none offered, so you are merely speculating. At this point, it practically ensures that if a deal is struck, nothing at all will again ignite the hysteria, the public killings of their own, the terror of Palestinians by Palestinians. It's sad, and wrong to equate this with the situation in Israel. I know you didn't, but many do in an attempt to be 'fair.' 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? Much of the money (though very little of the grunt-level personnel) comes from outside, but the terrorists get significant support from Abdul Sixpack in the occupied territories. He is willing to send a few bucks their way, and maybe even to strap on an explosive belt, if he has become sufficiently outraged with what he sees around him. But otherwise, given the choice, he would rather have a happy and productive life. Given the choice. Sure there is a core of radicalized people who have become sick with rage or just pure sociopathy who would take advantage of newfound freedom to hurt the Israelis. But they will burn themselves out eventually - without the outrage, support will die off. Suicide bombers will stop volunteering. Non-suicide attackers will stop finding it worth the risk, given the increasing abstraction of the issue. And outside entities that funnel in money won't have the shocking footage to point to when they're passing around the hat. That'd be a happy day. But it's not going to happen because Israel shows weakness, or lies down belly-up. It'll happen because Palestinian just-plain-folks will get fed-up with the tyranny these groups exert over them and their futures. Meanwhile those who want to support Palestinian terrorism will always do so, not because of any 'shocking footage', but for their own reasons. You have no evidence to show that the life of Palestinians in the long run would improve if their intifada ended. On the contrary - it was the lack of change fo rthe better during the years following Oslo that led to the desperation that now leads to violence. 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. Well, I really think it has come to the point where large parts of the Israeli military have dehumanized Palestinians in their minds. They may make some calculations based on public relations factors but I don't see these people valuing life on the other side of the barbed wire fence the same way they value it on theirs. None which is to say anything about the valuations made by their opponents. In their minds? Isn't this what some Palestinians would have you believe? That the Israelis are inhuman, they've dehumanized their opponents and so on. This kind of 'reasoning' (actually 'emoting' would be a better word) allows many Palestinians and even some westerners to call the Israelis Nazis and feel good about it. No - what leads people to equate Israelis with Nazis is the emergence of a brutal racist state. The degree may differ, but the elements are the same. Part of this is of course what's necessary in order to function as a soldier when you may sometimes have orders to kill. But this has dragged on long enough that the dehumanization has become endemic. I have had very disturbing conversations with recent members of the Israeli army in which they looked me in the eye and equated Palestinians, as a class, with animals. This is not the path to reconciliation. Anecdotal. For what it's worth, it's worth nothing. I value your experience, but it's not representative. Evidence? (Moreover, other factors pertain: I can think of two 'animalizing' influences off the top of my head: mass hysteria, and terrorism - and both are temporary) Meaning what? 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. You mean, they should come over from Dartmouth and stand on street corners pontificating about the glories of liberal democratic society? I don't think that's going to get very far. Without schools and other tangible benefits to go along with the message, it's going to be too abstract for anyone to take seriously. And if those schools keep getting knocked down, it's just going to reinforce the message of helplessness and outrage that's at the root of the breadth of Palestinian support for pointless destructive activities. Which is why it must change from within. No country on earth can change what's in Palestinian hearts; only they can get fed-up with their terrorist 'representatives.' I don't think one can really link the destruction of buildings harboring terrorist activities with a fear that all new buildings will be demolished. That would mean that very nearly all sizeable Palestinian buildings were engaged in directly supporting terrorist acts. Nex You keep talking about "terrorists" without explaining what you mean. Without a definition I'm afraid the impression is that you are just spouting propaganda. Now you have enlisted "buildings" into the army of "terrorists" - what next - Palestinians are not allowed to breathe, since "terrorists" need oxygen? J |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Following up to Alan Pollock
A free trade zone in that general area with Israel could be an amazing success story. People in that part of the world are quick-witted and have been trading for millennia. It's a natural. that's a constructive idea All evidence points to the contrary. Do nothing and they'll take advantage of perceived weakness. They aren't called terroristws for their expertise in needlepoint. you don't do nothing, you try and contain without provoking even more violence, the situation is now so bad however that things will not calm down easily or quickly IMHO. 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. I don't agree. As long as each Israeli attack is in retaliation for a terrorist attack, they're above-board. You miss my point. It does not matter if its above board or fair, what matters is does it achieve the overall objective of less violence? Let the terrorists stop terrorizing and sure, I can see the day when some spokesman for Hamas will mellow-out and become an official of the new state. Change happens. But I think you're mixing things up by comparing Palestinian Terrorists to the IRA, or Palestinians to Northern Irish Catholics. It's tempting, but fraught with pitfalls. It was a tightrope in NI, appointing people as ministers while they would not renounce violence. Palestine is miles from that but steps must move in the right direction. At some point rewarding Palestinian peace yes, will be advantageous. Let's hope that it's close in time. With Arafat at the helm I don't see it. With groups like Hamas garnering such tremendous popular support, I don't see it. so can you reduce that support with tank rounds? In the meantime you deal with the terrorists in the manner they deserve. No! You deal with the terrorists in the way that most nearly gets what you want. The Palestinian population comes to its senses and wants to really talk? They'll talk somehow. Terrorists become an impediment? Palestinians will do something about them. In the meantime you deal with it. Nex It wont happen by magic. It wont happen out of the barrel of a gun. Terrorists cannot be defeated on the battlefield. Forget all the above! Think of Israeli policy as a business plan. You set your strategy. After x months you review. Profits down, sales down What do you do, more of the same or a new strategy? -- 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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote in message ...
The Reid wrote: 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. A strategy yes, but one usually stops short of doing what the opponent wants you to do, unless it makes sense, which in this case it doesn't. Not until the Palestinians show some good faith instead of hysteria. They're not showing 'hysteria', they're showing desperation. They have tried talking, giving concessions, living in the world's biggest prison, and all the time the land confiscations and military oppression continued. They see themselves as having nothing left to lose. That's a bad place to put someone, if you want to have a cozy agreement with them. 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. And the alternative is what? Doing nothing? Allowing busloads of civilians to get continually blown-up? Make the exercise easier for the terrorists? There you go again - the "t" word - what does it mean? Does a murderer stop being a murderer when he puts on an Israeli army uniform? 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. On one level yes, but it's a vague level that doesn't distinguish much. Moral equality is irrelevant, your fighting a war, you need strategy that will get the desired results. Where is the Isreali endgame? The endgame is security. The endgame is that Palestinians will at some point grow tired of relegating themselves to the backwaters of the civilized world. They'll eventually understand that they can't achieve the impossible by doing the unthinkable. The problem is that the only terms Israel will accept are terms that amount to the dissolution of any meaningful Palestinian homeland. No Palestinian can accept such terms, any more than an Israeli could accept the dissolution of Israel qnd the return of the Israelis to Germany and Russia. A free trade zone in that general area with Israel could be an amazing success story. People in that part of the world are quick-witted and have been trading for millennia. It's a natural. But no, hatred is so much more seductive, isn't it? Especially when egged-on by so many. Heroic hyperbole at its best, but totally unrealistic and terribly counter-productive. How can democracy take root in such hysteria? How can good trading practices flourish? Lots of help will be needed. So to end this 'hysteria' you propose ... oh yes!! let's blow up people's homes, dig up their orchards, smear excrement on the walls of their schools, watch them die like dogs in the road at checkpoints while preventing them from reaching help. Not likely to work, is it? 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? All evidence points to the contrary. Do nothing and they'll take advantage of perceived weakness. They aren't called terroristws for their expertise in needlepoint. Palestinians are going to have to change their own society themselves. Or with help. Yes, with massive help. But in the end they must want to change. That time isn't here, or they would have already. No, they can't. They can only change when a politician delivers something. Since that would depend on the Israelis giving something for the politician to deliver, then it can never happen, as the Israelis give nothing and demand everything. 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. Grievances of the population. Did Israel not offer a large part of what the Palestinians wanted but were turned down anyway? Your comparisons with NI only go so far. No, that is incorrect. Coddling Palestinian terrorists doesn't help Hitting them with rockets, hinders. Timing is everything. Right now, with such thriving popular hysteria? Hinders less than doing nothing. Stated without proof. , 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. I don't agree. As long as each Israeli attack is in retaliation for a terrorist attack, they're above-board. a) They aren't - they're largely pre-emptive. b) They're massively disproportionate and reckless Rewarding terrorism is no help at all. Rewarding terrorism seems to be working in NI. Some of the terrorists are ministers now. Let the terrorists stop terrorizing and sure, I can see the day when some spokesman for Hamas will mellow-out and become an official of the new state. Change happens. But I think you're mixing things up by comparing Palestinian Terrorists to the IRA, or Palestinians to Northern Irish Catholics. It's tempting, but fraught with pitfalls. At some point rewarding Palestinian peace yes, will be advantageous. Let's hope that it's close in time. With Arafat at the helm I don't see it. With groups like Hamas garnering such tremendous popular support, I don't see it. In the meantime you deal with the terrorists in the manner they deserve. The Palestinian population comes to its senses and wants to really talk? They'll talk somehow. Terrorists become an impediment? Palestinians will do something about them. In the meantime you deal with it. Nex Blah blah blah "terrorist" this, "terrorist" that - all meaningless name-calling. Start looking at facts and not labels and you can make progress. J. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
Alan Pollock wrote:
Miguel Cruz 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. Well, no, that's what it means. It is a counter-productive thing and everyone who does it is contributing to the animosity that fuels the next round of violence from the other side. Well there you go saying what you think, giving value to that neutral word 'escalation'. Now we Can talk. To my way of thinking, if terrorists represent the majority of a population then talks are impossible. The majority of Palestinians are obviously not terrorists, regardless of what some might say. Most people are just trying to eke out a living. If that's not the case, then escalation only deals punishing terrorists, and doesn't necessarily impact talks with the legal representatives of the Palestinian population. It does, because the retaliation is blunt and heavy-handed and thus creates resentment among the general population, who are then less and less supportive of leaders who advocate conciliatory positions. You then need progressively greater (and rarer) leaders in order to pull it off. It's come to the point where we're waiting for Abraham Lincoln to show up. The retaliation is blunt and heavy-handed because this sort of action is simply not an effective way to deal with large-scale homegrown terrorism. It's like using a pistol to stop a hive of angry bees from stinging you. Clearly there is a moral difference. I will say this much with you: Attacking civilians to achieve political ends is purely evil. Fighting back to try to stop it is not in and of itself evil. However, if after many years time has shown that the only effect is a lot of corpses, then continuing that course starts to become less and less defensible, at least to me. Okay, I get your train of thought. IMO it's up to the Palestinian people and their reps to stop the terrorists from acting, and not the retaliating nation that has its civilians purposely killed. That's a fair opinion. But the goal here is not to have the appropriate party make the appropriate first move in accordance with your opinion of who's right and wrong. The goal here is to stop the violence so people can live in peace. This requires sufficient wisdom and maturity to see beyond issues of face-saving and "but he started it!" The terrorists don't need convincing, they need something stronger. It's the Palestinian _populace_ that needs to understand what's in their best interest. It's the populace that needs to see how mass hysteria prevents them from living freely, getting educated, gaining wealth, and leading happy lives. And how do you propose to show them that? Before the intifadah they saw settlers moving in on their land, severe curtailments on movement, economic, and political rights, and their water being stolen out from under their feet. At this point you're not going to be able to teach this lesson by pointing at Israeli behavior in the typical Palestinian's memory. After the terrorists are hounded from the area by Palestinians, or quietly become middle-class and merge into the population to deal with their Own lives for a change yes, the sky's the limit. There isn't much law there now. You don't coddle those whose aim it is to keep hysteria alive. The terrorists will not be hounded out so long as they represent the only avenue they are provided with for vicarious expression of outrage. Likewise in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. Only a sick fringe of each side believes that the other needs to be pushed into the sea. Most people on both sides just want security and economic stability and cultural independence. You fail to mention the hysterical hatred on the Palestinian side that supports - no, feeds - the terrorists both in the physical sense and in the emotional. This thinking exists on both sides. I do not mean to suggest that only the Israelis are guilty; far from it. The Palestinians are more desperate and angry, no doubt. They have less to eat, less to do, less freedom, and they watch their neighbors live in relative luxury. To be sure, Israel built itself up with a lot of hard work, but nonetheless for an 18-year-old Palestinian with no job and no prospects, a history lesson is slim comfort. It prevents the acceptance of good deals. At this point, it practically ensures that if a deal is struck, nothing at all will again ignite the hysteria, the public killings of their own, the terror of Palestinians by Palestinians. It's sad, and wrong to equate this with the situation in Israel. I know you didn't, but many do in an attempt to be 'fair.' I guess I see it somewhat different. Every time it seems like a deal is close, some Palestinians in the radical fringe commit another atrocity, and then Israel walks away from the table. This has happened so many times it is utterly predictable. And therefore Israel has made the entire process hostage to the craziest player, which is so idiotic I begin to wonder whether it's actually just convenient. Sure there is a core of radicalized people who have become sick with rage or just pure sociopathy who would take advantage of newfound freedom to hurt the Israelis. But they will burn themselves out eventually - without the outrage, support will die off. Suicide bombers will stop volunteering. Non-suicide attackers will stop finding it worth the risk, given the increasing abstraction of the issue. And outside entities that funnel in money won't have the shocking footage to point to when they're passing around the hat. That'd be a happy day. But it's not going to happen because Israel shows weakness, or lies down belly-up. The fact that so many people see dog-pack metaphor as applicable here definitely highlights the problem. It is not showing weakness to weather an attack or two in the name of long-term peace. To the contrary, it shows strength. It'll happen because Palestinian just-plain-folks will get fed-up with the tyranny these groups exert over them and their futures. Meanwhile those who want to support Palestinian terrorism will always do so, not because of any 'shocking footage', but for their own reasons. The ones who do it for their own reasons are pretty small in number. The people kicking in to the various charities and the like that funnel money down there are doing it because they feel they are serving the cause of justice. You may disagree over whether they are in fact serving justice, but I don't think you can disagree that they are trying to, to their way of thinking. Well, I really think it has come to the point where large parts of the Israeli military have dehumanized Palestinians in their minds. They may make some calculations based on public relations factors but I don't see these people valuing life on the other side of the barbed wire fence the same way they value it on theirs. None which is to say anything about the valuations made by their opponents. In their minds? Isn't this what some Palestinians would have you believe? The fact that some Palestinians have made the same observation doesn't make it true, or false. That the Israelis are inhuman, they've dehumanized their opponents and so on. I didn't say they were "inhuman." Simply put, the psychological impact of fighting against these people for so long, in such close conditions, with such violence, is that people start to dehumanize their opponents, or else go crazy. Part of this is of course what's necessary in order to function as a soldier when you may sometimes have orders to kill. But this has dragged on long enough that the dehumanization has become endemic. I have had very disturbing conversations with recent members of the Israeli army in which they looked me in the eye and equated Palestinians, as a class, with animals. This is not the path to reconciliation. Anecdotal. For what it's worth, it's worth nothing. I value your experience, but it's not representative. Well, maybe, maybe not. But it's the best I have to go on. I don't think one can really link the destruction of buildings harboring terrorist activities with a fear that all new buildings will be demolished. I think you can, given the number of destroyed buildings that in fact have not been shown to have harbored terrorist activities. Not to mention the number of multi-user buildings in which some tenants had no idea what other tenants were up to, and yet lost their homes or places of work. I have no idea what my neighbors here in Washington DC are up to, and if the government blows up my building, I'm not going to feel safe anywhere in the city - how do I know the same isn't going on in the next place I move to? That would mean that very nearly all sizeable Palestinian buildings were engaged in directly supporting terrorist acts. Buildings are fairly passive creatures. 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. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Britons and Germans 'rudest tourists'
I don't think this is going anywhere. To me, this is all looking like a particularly unruly dish of noodles, what with the intertwined quotes and counter-quotes. Also, I don't see any attitudes changing - not mine, nor anyone else's. I do see a horse that's close to falling, and I suggest we stop beating it. I do thank the few who participated in this mini sub-thread with me. Twas a slice, folks! Nex |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|