It's a thing. Comes from ignoring a guy that spent his time talking about a final solution.
I am very well aware where it comes from. But it is nevertheless irrational in this case. There are times when words do need to spur you to action but the line needs to be drawn somewhere. Imminence is a good place. Otherwise you get things like war in Iraq. Look, if there is a guy on the street with nothing but a pile of rocks shouting that he intends to destroy your government, do you have a right to do whatever you want to him just because he said that? Relative power has to come into the picture there too. Their capacity to actually carry out their threats does matter a lot in evaluating a threat. You should take all words seriously as warnings of what might occur. Ignoring them entirely can be seen as a crime in hindsight. But you can’t act on just anything that people say otherwise you’d have to lock up half the people in the world.
Seeing how you brought up the always popular "if you treated them better, they wouldn't become terrorists" theory just a few pages ago... ?
Honestly there’s a lot more truth in that line of reasoning than you are willing to give credit for. In fact pretty much the whole world believes it or at least says that they believe it. Even the US government constantly says bringing peace and democracy and economic advancement to other nations is a means of deterring terrorism. Many analysts have written time and again that there is a direct corollary between the chaos created in Iraq and the number of recruits insurgent organizations are gaining. The lack of order in Afghanistan is considered to be a big component of how Al Qaeda came to power. Most people don think this is that controversial.
In the short term, no, there’s not going to be an immediate correlation between any particular action that brings greater peace and prosperity and the number of terrorist acts you will receive. But over the long term? I believe it does. But then you say “But we left alone for six years and now look…” or something along those lines. But really what is six years? If I am a particular person that hates you because you killed my family or something I’m not likely to change my opinion within six years or sixty years. So how long for a population to change it’s overriding perspective? Over a few generations, yes I think opinions do start to change. People who can’t afford to ever give up their hate die of old age. Overall the average person primarily just wants to find their own opportunities for happiness. They don’t want to risk being blown up in missile attacks or forced to flee their homes and they don’t want their children to be sent off to war. Help to foster an environment where these ordinary people have more power and influence over the institutions within their society and yes I believe violence will decline. I believe terrorism will decline. But not if you are creating a situation where the average person in the society has nothing to gain and no prospects and no hope for happiness. Then terrorism won’t decline, people who are desperate and see no other prospect for peace in this life will put their faith in the afterlife and fight against something they consider evil knowing full well that they’ll die hoping to be rewarded in the hereafter.
Obviously, you can do other things besides "treat them better" that will help as well and might speed up the process. One very good idea would be to arrest and try openly in a non-biased court the people who commit or conspire to commit terrorists acts. That will reduce the number of people who hate you who immediately have the power to cause you harm while at the same time spreading truth to the people.
I don't pull that Noam Chomsky crap (one of his favorite tricks - "if I were an uneducated anti-semite Arab, I would think the following"),
I’ve read some Chomsky but not a whole lot but so far I have not encountered him making an argument of this style….
One of the biggest weaknesses in the modern discourse I feel stems from the idea that you have to pick a point of view and stick with it come hell or high water. All facts and ideas you present to the reader must be centralized around pounding home your particular perspective. If you present contradictory evidence even as a hypothetical or just to ensure that everyone is working from the same page you are accused of being noncommittal. God forbid if you actually change your mind about a point no matter how subtle or tangential to your main point. You’ll be labeled a “Flip-Flop” or “Wishy-washy”.
It’s frankly a little terrifying to me how everyone is being trained to be liar in their writing. Present only that subset of the big picture as which completely supports your assertions and nothing more. That’s lies of omission.
But anyway since it is so very important for you to have clear distinct statements of what I currently believe I’ll spell it all out for you and everyone else on this thread and be done with it:
Israel Good Guys or Bad Guys / Hezbollah Good Guys or Bad Guys/ Palestinians … etc.
Irrelevant question. I’ll let historians decide 50 or 100 years from now decide which side should be considered the good guys. I know, however, that as soon as you say “You guys are the bad guys” and then try to share some points with them, they’ve already stopped listening to you so you are wasting your time. I’d like the level of communication to be raised above the Saturday morning cartoon series level so I’m not going to make statements about that.
Israel’s Goals
I don’t understand them. I don’t follow the idea that their goal is war without end or genocide. I think you need more evidence than is available to show any such point. Individuals might hold those goals, but the bulk of the people within any nation do not. And governments are answerable to the people at least to some extent. Thus I think that I accept the often repeated position that Israel just wants to be left alone in peace. However, I think that their actions are exactly the wrong ones to obtain those goals. Hence, I don’t understand them. Perhaps when we have more historical records we can understand the motivations of the current leadership better. For now it’s rather mysterious.
Israel’s Fight For Its Very Survival
If the idea has any merit at all it must be from taking a very very long and broad view of the conflict of the Middle East. Israel could very well threaten to destroy the world if they ever felt their existence was really and truly at immediate risk. The idea that rockets and kidnappings from Lebanon could destroy Israel is just a nonstarter. I suspect this line is often just invoked as a tactic to justify any action that Israel should like to make. Much like the US invoked first the threat of England, then Native Americans, then Soviet’s, then Communists/Socialists, then Third World Countries, then “Liberals”, and now Terrorism. All of these things were called “threats to our very existence” in their day. Some of them were threats but to a much lesser extent then the rhetoric would have us believe and usually not threats to the populace but threats to the institutions that hold the real power. Countries do this all the time. But it always constitutes lying to their people.
Israel’s Strategy
Pretty Bad. In Palestinian Territories they’ve built up support for Hamas and in Lebanon and the rest of the Arab world they’ve helped to create support for Hezbollah. And overall they’ve created an atmosphere where more aggression against them is likely. Israel’s strategy wasn’t nearly brutal enough to invoke any kind of change through wiping out their enemies nor passive enough to produce international sentiment in favor of Israel and encourage meaningful intervention in that way. The war in Lebanon was particularly hasty, poorly planned, and unjust. Yes, I think doing nothing would have been a better strategy, though negotiations would have been a better strategy still.
Hamas’s Goals / Hezbollah’s Goals
Clearly power is one of them. Their rhetoric aside everything they’ve done has proven to be manipulative in such a manner as to gain further influence amongst their people. Again, I can’t say what their long term goals really are right now, just as I don’t know Israel’s. I think it probably has something to do with creating more opportunities for their people in part. Taking them on the basis of their respective charters they want to destroy Israel. But anyone sane amongst them must know that that is never going to happen unless the rest of the world just falls asleep or something. Modern rhetoric in Hezbollah at least tends to support their more realistic perspective.
Arab’s Fight For Their Very Survival
Just the same power grabbing nonsense as on the other side. However, rhetoric aside, I think there is some very real truth to the depiction of the plight of the people in the Palestinian territories.
Hezbollah’s strategy
It’s working. They’re gaining more power.
Israel’s Complicity in the Plight of the Palestinian People
They aren’t the only cause but they are a substantive cause if only because they really do have the capacity to prevent a lot of the deaths right now just by changing certain economic policies.
Should Israel Withdraw Monetary Support From the Palestinians/ Do they have a right to do so
They do have a right to do so. They should not do so because continuing to support them would have a better outcome.
Should Other Nations have Withdrawn Monetary Support for the Palestinians
I don't think they are morally justified in doing so. If you're going to say you support democracy you have to walk the walk...
The Role of the UN
It is almost nonexistent. It really ought to be more substantive. Israel and the Arab Nations and the US all should really act through the UN whenever possible so as to build the institution’s credibility in the world. If we are to work toward long term solutions they should be founded on having a UN capable of serving as an interstate guardian of the rule of law.
UN Anti-Israel Bias:
I don’t believe it is as bad as its critics would have you believe. Israel’s power in a very significant area of the world makes it the automatic target of more world wide interest. Also I really think the US had made Israel a big part of it’s agenda and the UN although more independent now is significantly influenced by the US. And really I think the argument that “the guy over there is being a bigger jerk than I am, why aren’t you yelling at him?” is no kind of an argument for your right to be a jerk.
Israel’s Right To Exist
Honestly I think Hezbollah’s current rhetoric is pretty close. Israel does exist now and is damn likely to persist for the foreseeable future. It isn’t going to change unless there is a massive change in world wide sentiment and a feasible plan to deal with the economic implications of a relocation of significant populace. God doesn’t decree that some nations deserve to be and others don’t. It’s a historical accident. We deal with the hands we are dealt. Far too much energy has been wasted on the question of Israel’s “right” to exist. It would be better served dealing with the realities of the situation.
US Democrats and Republicans
Those few republicans who try to cast all Democrats as anti-Semites are absolutely in the wrong. It’s pretty incoherent too. Both sides right now have a number of people who support Israel’s actions. There are a number of Democrats who are more critical of Israel’s actions though rarely openly objecting to Israel’s basic premises. There’s pretty wide scale condemnation of Hezbollah’s actions all around, but I don’t find all of the criticism that obvious. Lots of Democrats do call for diplomacy. That, at least, I think is a very good thing. I feel it was absolutely absurd for anyone to demand that the Iraqi prime minister agree with our statements with regards to the Israel/Lebanon conflict before we would even talk to him. Considering how bad a mess there is there we shouldn’t be demanding anything from these people. We should be begging their forgiveness.
Media Coverage in the US
Very one sided. Very much anti-Hezbollah. Very much not challenges the world’s aggressive anti-Hamas stance. Israel’s perspective is the primary one we are given and there isn’t much in the way of historical context given in the news at all. It’s also a little bit ridiculous that the Israel/Lebanon war has gotten so much coverage when Iraq ought to still be a major point of concern to us.
The Current Cease Fire Breech
It seems to me that if Israel did have evidence that Hezbollah was smuggling weapons this would have been the perfect opportunity to bring their evidence to the United Nations and let them handle the situation thus bringing greater legitimacy to the peace process rather than undermining it.
What I don’t Believe
I don’t believe I know the best solution to all of the problems in the Middle East. It’s stupid and incoherent to demand that others be able to solve your problem before they are even allowed to communicate about it or criticize your own position. Yes some people make that demand, so I’m saying right now, I don’t intend to pull any five second so called “answers” out of my arse. Deal with it.
But I can tell you what I think any good solution will probably entail. I think it’s going to involve intelligent people on all sides talking to each other, coming up with proposals and trying things. I think it’s going to involve good people in all countries standing up for the rule of law and fighting for their opportunities to live in peace and happiness. I think it will involve putting more faith in the United Nations and acting in a manner that empowers it. I think it will involve dropping the pointless rhetoric used on both sides to divide populations rather than unite them. Lastly, I think it will involve creating circumstances where all states proceed at a reasonable pace of economic development.
All that might not be enough. I don’t know for sure. Maybe Israel will need to up and relocate. Maybe this will just lead to Armageddon like everyone says. But I’ve got to believe that trying these things is at least worth a shot.