Subject:
|
Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 21:22:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
536 times
|
| |
|
|
richard marchetti wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
> > I agree that desperation is an aspect of the Palestinian mindset,
> > however, I really feel that the core of the Palestinian resistance is
> > not acting out of desperation. It is acting out of pure desire for
> > power, based on a power structure which can only be supported by
> > violence.
>
> And this so-called power gives them what precisely? World attention?
> It took years for that to happen -- and even now a guy like Arafat is
> suspected of not having very much real power even with his own people
> anyway. I remain very unconvinced about this "power" motive -- and even if
> it is a motive for a very elite few, it's more sideshow than main attraction
> stuff. I am far more willing to believe that they are merely desperate.
> Gotta keep your eye on the bouncing ball...
>
> Think of this as applying Occam's Razor to the possible motives of the
> participants. They have been the underdogs for many years --do I need to
> discern a motive beyond desperation to explain their behavior?
I agree that desperation is what is driving _most_ of the Palestinians.
However, a small number have achieved positions of power (not really
Arafat, though he certainly has some power) due to their ability to lead
and incite rebellion. These people, having tasted "the good life" of
having power, will be less than willing to give it up. Some of these
folks will be able to transition into positions of power in a peaceful
environment, but I maintain that most of these people in power are just
bullies. They don't have the real skills to interact successfully in a
peaceful environment.
If desperation was the primary factor in these environments, then I
don't think Northern Ireland would have the violence that it has. They
have a basically peaceful environment, where for the most part,
everyone's rights are respected. Yet they still feel a need to throw
rocks at school kids. Why? How would desperation explain that? If you
agree that desperation is not the factor in NI, then what makes it
different from the ME?
> > I also note that one problem with stopping the drug war by legalizing
> > drugs would not end drug violence because again, there is a power
> > structure built on violence).
>
> This did not follow at all in my mind, but...
>
> Are we talking about gangs in the U.S. or the millionaire farmer's abroad?
> In either case, I am pretty sure that stripped of a profit
> motive, the possible power struggles go away. Or maybe I am just not getting
> what you are expressing here...
Both the local gangs and the foreign gangs.
> > One problem is Afghanistan doesn't have a modern infrastructure and
> > mindset to rebuild like Germany and Japan did.
>
> Is this a "superior" attitude I detect? What? Are the people of this
> country not "boot-strappers" enough for you or something?
When I look at the countries which have the most stable peace, I pretty
much just see "modern" countries. While I do feel that a less "modern"
country can be perfectly liveable, there are certain modern things which
do make life better, and make it better for more than just the
leadership. I am willing to claim some superiority over Afghanistan.
> > The whole situation is an incredibly difficult thing to break. If the
> > Israeli army just stops shooting back, what will happen? If the Israeli
> > army stops trying to capture terrorists and destroy bomb labs, what will
> > happen? Non violence will not win a secure Israel (remember, there are
> > Arab nations who refuse to acknowledge Israel).
>
> Exactly in the same manner that a de facto Palestinian state was not
> acknowledged by the westerners that allowed the creation of the State of
> Israel in the first place. But whatever...
I would agree that there were problems with how Israel was formed. I
would ask though what a group of people is supposed to do who feel they
are unwanted anywhere? Now I also agree that the Palestinians are almost
in the same position now, but at least they have friends pulling for
them. Which Israel does now, and did to some extent then, but remember,
Israel was formed in the shadow of the holocaust, under the realization
that sure, when things became convenient, countries like the US stepped
in to help the Jews, but where were they early on? Ultimately, the only
way to guarantee rights for yourself is to be willing to die for them
(which is exactly what our country was founded on).
This is what makes the ME such a mess. I think most people accept that
the Israeli people need someplace to call home. The same is true for the
Palestinians. The question is how to resolve the conflicting claims.
> FWIW, I don't happen to like the characterization of Palestinian fighters as
> "terrorists." Whatever else these violent people may be, I think we can at
> least acknowledge that they see themselves as being in a state of war. They
> act consistently in the manner of people at war with those of another
> country. I do not condone their actions, but I think calling people
> "terrorists" goes too far in the direction of creating an "us" and "them"
> mentality that accomplishes nothing and may actually serve to cloud the
> obvious responsibility of others in a conflict -- such as the Israelis and
> ourselves (in the U.S. specifically) by extension.
Some of the Palestinians act reasonably consistently with a state of
war. The suicide bombers don't. At least not in my book. What do we call
them otherwise? We need to be careful about how we divide people, but we
must be willing to label certain people and actions as repugnant. What
we do need to be is more willing to label Israeli people and actions as
repugnant.
One thing I would really love to see is a good breakdown of the
casualties. The categories I would like to see:
- Israeli settlers (with a reasonable definition thereof) killed by
suicide bombs
- Israeli civilians killed by suicide bombs
- Israeli soldiers and police killed by suicide bombs
- Israeli rescue workers killed by suicide bombs
- the same for those killed by snipers
- the same for those killed in cross fire
- Israeli soldiers and police killed in battle
- all the above categories for Palestinians
I'm sure I've missed some. With such detailed numbers, we could better
evaluate what is really going on. I think these numbers would show that
a higher percentage of the Israeli casualties are "innocent". On the
other hand, one does have to temper this by the fact that obviously in a
battle between an Israeli armored squadron and a horse of Palestinian
rock throwers, the casualties will be rather lopsided.
> No one is innocent.
Even babies?
> > This is why I wonder if there is any solution possible at all in any of
> > these situations. I think about these situations, and look at why we
> > don't have them in the US, and the only conclusion I come to is that we
> > don't see these problems in the US because we essentially wiped out the
> > natives.
>
> Right. And even the surviving few do not have the means or case law to
> support their struggle.
>
> We are SO proud, aren't we...?
I'm not happy with the means, but I can't reject the relative peace in
which we live. I wish I could see a good example of a peaceful nation
being formed without dependence on annihilation of the enemy, but I
don't see one, at least not a significant one.
Frank
|
|
Message has 4 Replies:
 | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| (...) (URL) only shows the Israeli casualties though... I don't know where to find the Palestinian side. Also all these are easy to verify (cnn, ruiters), unlike some of the PA claims. Dan (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| (...) Define "significant", please. 'Cause I can remember *a lot* of peaceful nations that resulted from the acceptance of their independance by a theoretically much stronger enemy, rather than its anihilation. Browse through a map of Europe and you (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| (...) Well, actually I reject the notion that desperation is not a factor in N.I. Peace is one issue, freedom is another. I am not sure I can condone a state of peace maintained at the expense of freedom and self-rule -- is one expected to be happy (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| (...) Most people might agree. Why do they need a homeland? I'm leaning toward believing that the very notion of 'homeland' is a divisive instrument. Maybe we should seek to eliminate that idea globally. (...) I think that terror is a tool (...) (22 years ago, 4-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
| (...) And this so-called power gives them what precisely? World attention? It took years for that to happen -- and even now a guy like Arafat is suspected of not having very much real power even with his own people anyway. I remain very unconvinced (...) (22 years ago, 3-Apr-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
93 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
