Subject:
|
Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 25 Apr 2002 09:02:34 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
601 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dan Boger writes:
> I agree that you can't always hold the people responsible to what the
> leaders do, but wouldn't you agree that sometimes when it's clear that the
> leader is doing what the people want, the people _should_ be held
> responsible?
I have to question your evidence of such desire on the part of the people.
Here in the Bay Area of California I often express myself as I see fit, I
feel free and safe to do so. When I lived in a suburbs of Chicago I felt
less free to discuss my views with my neighbors who made it pretty clear to
me that their views clashed with my own. Feeling very much in the minority,
I kept my opinions to myself -- there being no pressing need to make enemies
of persons who while I did not agree with them in terms of politics or
religion seemed like "decent" persons otherwise. Overall, I think it's
pretty hard to know when people agree or disagree with the actions of their
"leaders." Of course I speak as someone who feels almost entirely
disenfranchised by the american political system -- there are scant few
persons in office anywhere in this country whose views I agree with to any
great extent.
In the end you can hold people accountable only for their own actions and
not the actions of those who purport to represent or lead them.
Let me put it this way: if during the holocaust it could be shown that a
man was directly responsible for the killing of persons in the concentration
camps I have no objection to this person being held responsible for his
crimes. I feel radically differently if someone would want to hold the
baker in town just as culpable because he baked the bread that fed the man
that committed the overt criminal acts. See?
> just that there was a continious jewish settlement in parts of Israel since
> then...
This is immaterial if you agree that even given the existence of such a
settlement, which is undoubtedly a matter of dispute itself, that such a
settlement lacked the necessary political power to assert itself esp. on the
occasions when they had been conquored. Anyway, I think we agree that this
argument although perhaps meaningful to a Jew of faith, means little to
anyone else. And, of course, there is no way we can create peace in the
world if everyone is to fulfill their usually xenophobic and control driven
religious dogmas.
> hmmmm. you might have to expand on that... If I understand what you mean
> here, you're saying that the Palestinians and the Israelies are the same
> nation, which I disagree...
I am saying that they are ill-tempered neighbors that cannot seem to get
along for very long. Any aggression on the part of either side usually
erupts into a very big mess. This is basically predicating peace upon the
actions of the worst members of both societies. Any thug Israeli in the
armed forces has carte blanche to take out a few Palestinians, while any
nutcase Palestinian guy with a backpack bomb can kill innocent Israelis with
impunity.
The situation is bleak to say the least. And I don't think the parties
involved can be expected to make peace by themselves at this point. Some
kind of respected intermediary must be found, and peace must be maintained
at all costs. No single act of violence should be allowed to break the
peace. Both sides should work cooperatively to treat breakers of the peace
as criminals. I can only hope that a real livable agreement would forestall
any further nonsense on either side. I guess only an actual peace and an
actual agreement would tell the tale though...
> the way I see it is simple - both Israel and the PA want their own
> country. Both think they deserve self-rule, autonomy, etc... I've no
> problem with that.
I appreciate that you feel this way. I get the funny feeling that the devil
is in the details though, right?
> What I have a problem with is that apparently, Arafat
> (and that may or may not reflect the palestinian people) wants that country
> to be the whole of Israel... and the Israelis can't accept that (for
> obvious reasons, I think?). I beileve Israel is willing to co-exists with a
> "Palestine", and I don't see the same willingness no the other side.
Honestly, Dan, do you really think Sharon was the guy to put into office to
make peace? I am no admirer of Arafat's, be assured of that. I just think
that both of these guys should be tried for crimes against humanity.
As for what Israelis think -- it is my understanding that there is a whole
spectrum of different views ranging from radical to conservative. I don't
believe that there is a single coherent viewpoint. If there is, I suppose I
have to assume that viewpoint is spearheaded by Sharon. Or would that be a
false presumption? I guess this was my first point, see above.
-- Hop-Frog
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Peace in the Mid-East?
|
| (...) I agree that you can't always hold the people responsible to what the leaders do, but wouldn't you agree that sometimes when it's clear that the leader is doing what the people want, the people _should_ be held responsible? (...) nod... but (...) (23 years ago, 24-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
|
|
|
|
