Subject:
|
Re: Conflict in the Middle East
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 Apr 2002 20:45:00 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
508 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> 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
To be fair, "they" also identify such a distinction, and "them" ain't
"us." I understand your point and agree with it in the abstract, but I
think it's a mistake to act as if all distinctions are arbitrary, fleeting,
or non-existent--even if they're fundamentally self-defeating. It is
sufficient for the two principal groups (ie, the Palestinians and Israelis)
to identify themselves as two distinct groups; as you correctly assert, no
side is expressly blameless in this matter, and neither side is wholly
"right" or wholly "wrong." As such, does it really matter who is "us" and
who is "them" at any given moment?
> 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.
>
> No one is innocent.
Nor is everyone equally blameworthy. I would suggest, for instance, that
the suicide bomber who blows up a civilian wedding reception is generally
less innocent than the children killed in his attack, just as I'd suggest
that the civilian families slain by helicopter missilefire are generally
more innocent than the people who ordered the gunships to attack. There is
a much finer graduation at play than 100% right vs. 100% wrong, or 100%
innocent vs. 100% culpable.
> > 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...?
Well, what's the answer? No one is thrilled that The White Devil royally
screwed The Red Man, but we can't do anything about it in retrospect. I'd
be delighted to hear a current-day remedy for the ills of the past, but I've
never heard a reasonable articulation of what that remedy might be.
Dave!
|
|
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 (...) (23 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
|
|
|
|
