On December 01 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote: i'm sure i can dig up neuropsych research that will show you the strength of the retributive impulse in the vast majority of people. it's a very low level reaction, and thus strong. i'm not saying you guys are all rednecks or something. it is just that, this type of "they did something very terrible so they deserve whatever it is that's due" moral thinking is very common and easy to fall into. it clearly does not resolve the current situation, and would not even account for the disproportionate level of human suffering on the palestine side.
of course, this argument can be made against palestinians too. but that's even less likely to succeed. israel always has the option of redeeming itself though. a good faithed image campaign, momentous granting of freedom of movement and commerce for palestine, etc.
You know the whole freedom of movement thing would be a great idea if there wasn't such a large and motivated population of Palestinians who would revel at the chance to blow themselves up in Israel.
Minor problem. Would be kind of like the United States recruiting immigrants from Al Qaeda.
if palestinians can get jobs by traveling to israel, the vast majority of those migrants will be looking for jobs rather than causing trouble. it will maybe be painful for a few years, but there is no other way of stabilizing the situation while also providing a long term bridge.
since you are american, maybe you can think of it this way. the palestinian situation is kind of like a ghetto gone bad, by gone bad, we mean it has developed a gang problem. the solution is not to bomb the ghetto and further disrupt things in order to hunt down gangster kids, it is rather the much harder problem of revitalizing that group of the population.
okay, maybe not the best analogy to convince americans, but hey, this is why american involvement in this situation hasn't been very productive lol! just read up on retributive vs restorative justice.
Unfortunately, in this case Harlem wants the entire city of New York. Lol! In your solution, the Israelis have to die ("it will maybe be painful for a few years"). See how Israel is against that? Yeah. Is it Israel's responsibility to stabilize the region? Because nobody else in the area gives two shits about Palestine. Pretty sad when the Israelis are both your only friend and only enemy.
I fully understand the concepts of retributive vs restorative justice, and the former irks me. However this is not a case of justice, this is a case of "Oh well Israel should let Palestinians do whatever the hell they want because it will help them!"
israel is not under any existential crisis. except maybe if they let this situation fester some more.
i don't see how "israel" would die. a few cases of sabotage maybe, but after that the terrorists should lose even the palestinians, if israel does not bend its will for integration. and you should not assume palestinian attitudes cannot change, when even the most hated colonial masters have been living with former slaves in peace for a long time.
as i see it, you and other members of the peanut gallery are mostly reacting against what you see as liberal bias supporting palestine, white washing terrorist conduct etc. this is missing the bigger picture of trying to solve the situation.
Nobody has said that Palestinians can't change. I'm saying that the immediate cost of massive terrorist attacks isn't worth for Israel.
Open the borders. OK then Now all of the people who are blindly firing rockets can go fire them off in Israel itself. Lets see how ineffective they are at point blank range. Can you now understand why Israel doesn't want that?
Unregulated borders is an unrealistic request for Israel, or any other country in the region.
nowhere have i said "unregulated borders." i was talking about the harsh sanctions and restrictions on both personnel and material movement. the exact process of how to open things up will obviously be decided by the situation as it evolves, but the long term goal should be clear. i also said they should make this the central message they give to palestinians so there is more hope for the moderates.
On December 01 2012 09:49 KwarK wrote: I took his post as some kind of vague implication that because Hamas are Arabs it's easy for us stupid bigots to believe that they are terrorists because it fits our simple narrative of turban wearing, suicide bombing Jihadists whereas he has access to a much higher truth. It's a complete nonsense. The silent majority does not believe that all terrorists are Arabs, at least not in my country.
Silent Majority was a phrase coined by the Reagan Campaign as he campaigned for his first presidency. It refers to what he said was the the majority of americans that he described as convicted by faith and for a christian moral america.
Non conservatives basically use it to refer to christian fundamentalist in politics. This would be your stereotypical fat, on a scooter, believes in jebus types that are typically too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.
On December 01 2012 10:05 oneofthem wrote: i'm sure i can dig up neuropsych research that will show you the strength of the retributive impulse in the vast majority of people. it's a very low level reaction, and thus strong. i'm not saying you guys are all rednecks or something. it is just that, this type of "they did something very terrible so they deserve whatever it is that's due" moral thinking is very common and easy to fall into. it clearly does not resolve the current situation, and would not even account for the disproportionate level of human suffering on the palestine side.
of course, this argument can be made against palestinians too. but that's even less likely to succeed. israel always has the option of redeeming itself though. a good faithed image campaign, momentous granting of freedom of movement and commerce for palestine, etc.
You know the whole freedom of movement thing would be a great idea if there wasn't such a large and motivated population of Palestinians who would revel at the chance to blow themselves up in Israel.
Minor problem. Would be kind of like the United States recruiting immigrants from Al Qaeda.
if palestinians can get jobs by traveling to israel, the vast majority of those migrants will be looking for jobs rather than causing trouble. it will maybe be painful for a few years, but there is no other way of stabilizing the situation while also providing a long term bridge.
since you are american, maybe you can think of it this way. the palestinian situation is kind of like a ghetto gone bad, by gone bad, we mean it has developed a gang problem. the solution is not to bomb the ghetto and further disrupt things in order to hunt down gangster kids, it is rather the much harder problem of revitalizing that group of the population.
okay, maybe not the best analogy to convince americans, but hey, this is why american involvement in this situation hasn't been very productive lol! just read up on retributive vs restorative justice.
Unfortunately, in this case Harlem wants the entire city of New York. Lol! In your solution, the Israelis have to die ("it will maybe be painful for a few years"). See how Israel is against that? Yeah. Is it Israel's responsibility to stabilize the region? Because nobody else in the area gives two shits about Palestine. Pretty sad when the Israelis are both your only friend and only enemy.
I fully understand the concepts of retributive vs restorative justice, and the former irks me. However this is not a case of justice, this is a case of "Oh well Israel should let Palestinians do whatever the hell they want because it will help them!"
israel is not under any existential crisis. except maybe if they let this situation fester some more.
i don't see how "israel" would die. a few cases of sabotage maybe, but after that the terrorists should lose even the palestinians, if israel does not bend its will for integration. and you should not assume palestinian attitudes cannot change, when even the most hated colonial masters have been living with former slaves in peace for a long time.
as i see it, you and other members of the peanut gallery are mostly reacting against what you see as liberal bias supporting palestine, white washing terrorist conduct etc. this is missing the bigger picture of trying to solve the situation.
Nobody has said that Palestinians can't change. I'm saying that the immediate cost of massive terrorist attacks isn't worth for Israel.
Open the borders. OK then Now all of the people who are blindly firing rockets can go fire them off in Israel itself. Lets see how ineffective they are at point blank range. Can you now understand why Israel doesn't want that?
Unregulated borders is an unrealistic request for Israel, or any other country in the region.
nowhere have i said "unregulated borders." i was talking about the harsh sanctions and restrictions on both personnel and material movement. the exact process of how to open things up will obviously be decided by the situation as it evolves, but the long term goal should be clear. i also said they should make this the central message they give to palestinians so there is more hope for the moderates.
can you come up with a better long term solution?
Well your original post said freedom of movement and commerce. You didn't(and still haven't) detailed the degree of either. Should it be as difficult as getting a green card from Mexico to the US? Or should it be as easy as moving between EU members?
It's a great idea, but without any specifics it sounds like a pipe dream, and rightly so. There is a MASSIVE security risk in decreasing the regulation on travel and commerce. Why should Israel take this risk? They have nothing to gain and everything to lose. Should they do it because the Palestinians have some magical claim to the land?
The bottom line is that Israel has no obligation as a nation to cede ANYTHING to Palestine. Is there a humanitarian concern? Yes, and Israel more than fulfills this expectation.
talks of historical duties are just silly, i'm sorry. they are an artifact and distraction.
there is however a real human rights issue at stake here, just as there is in some of the u.s. border crossing cases. like it or not, land control of the type you imagine is not a natural right.
as for freedom of commerce etc, don't see why anyone has any claim of restriction on that. but, as a matter of practicality, sure, something like the u.s. mexico relation isn't bad for starters.
On December 01 2012 09:49 KwarK wrote: I took his post as some kind of vague implication that because Hamas are Arabs it's easy for us stupid bigots to believe that they are terrorists because it fits our simple narrative of turban wearing, suicide bombing Jihadists whereas he has access to a much higher truth. It's a complete nonsense. The silent majority does not believe that all terrorists are Arabs, at least not in my country.
Silent Majority was a phrase coined by the Reagan Campaign as he campaigned for his first presidency. It refers to what he said was the the majority of americans that he described as convicted by faith and for a christian moral america.
Non conservatives basically use it to refer to christian fundamentalist in politics. This would be your stereotypical fat, on a scooter, believes in jebus types that are typically too stupid to be allowed to reproduce.
I wish you would have stopped at "Christian fundamentalist in politics." Stereotyping doesn't lend itself to fair and honest debate T.T;
I can tell you that I am a Christian who holds a fundamentalist view of the Bible. I'm not fat, I don't ride a scooter, and saying that I am to stupid to reproduce isn't very nice.
Some of the worst terrorist attacks in my country were carried out by crazy white doods. So yeah, I definitely don't believe that all terrorists are Arabs (or that all Arabs are terrorists).
On November 02 2011 00:44 konadora wrote: uh, what kind of stupid law is that that forces a government to cut financial ties to a global organisation because of one country? on what basis?
On December 01 2012 06:22 HomeWorld wrote: [quote] Please stop using the word "terrorists" at your own discretion. It's not the case. Their actions are to be condemned but also you have to realize that they have no other choices (as no one gives them any), so can you blame them for that ?
I don't know why I still respond to you as every post I give you is an act of charity where I bestow knowledge upon you but whatever. There are no shortage of military targets within Israel that they could attack, their conscious decision to attack civilian targets makes them terrorists. If they fired rockets at army bases then they would be guerrillas rather than terrorists.
I think it's hard for us to understand the morality in a situation as complex as this. If Germany had succeeded in invading England, and German settlements followed, would your people have cared at all if you were hitting civilians or military? I think we both know the answer.
We do know the answer. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resistance_during_World_War_II Not a whole lot of mention of people blowing up buses full of native civilians to further the cause. It's mostly just you know, actions with like, tactical objectives and stuff. I know it's hard to understand, but resistance is different than terrorism. Resistance has a chance of achieving a goal of national independence. Terrorism does not.
Unless there was an occupation of England, this post is irrelevant to me. How about the Burning of Dresden, friend? I think even your country got a piece of that one.
What was it, 25000 civilians killed? What was the tactical objective for that one again?
Dresden was burned by men in uniform. Irrelevant to your point. It was a war crime rather than an act of terrorism.
It is exactly my point. Men in uniform? That's your point? Geez, why didn't someone tell Hamas if they just wear some uniforms they can exterminate as many civilians as they want!
So what is your point? Terrorists are terrorists until they can actually afford a better military structure that can supply uniforms to all?
They don't choose to not wear uniforms because they can't afford them. They choose not to wear uniforms because they do not wish to be bound by the rules and accountability which apply to states, they choose terrorism over military resistance. If Hamas put its men in uniform and attacked Israel then a war between Israel and Palestine could occur with every man in uniform on both sides being a legitimate target. But rather than choose to take that route Hamas prefers to attack dressed as civilians from civilian areas and take the propaganda victory when the IDF is forced to respond.
I am honestly amazed that I am having to explain the difference between an agent of the state and a terrorist group to people. These are not difficult concepts.
Come on Kwark, this must be the worst of all your 18k posts on TL... and you are usually so reasonable too! Like the Palestinians could chose to fight in uniforms? Don't you understand that this is a massively asymmetrical war. In a straight up fight against the Israeli forces, the Palestinians would get slaughtered (that is, even worse than they are getting slaughtered now).
We have more or less all the casualties on one side in this war, civilian as well as military, this must mean something to you guys?
This is terrorism:
If you are unwilling to engage your enemy in conventional warfare then you have the option of becoming insurgents and attacking their military. At no point are you forced into firing rockets into civilian areas or blowing up buses, that's something people choose to do, it's terrorism. A basic guide for those who don't know Military kills military = war Military kills civilian = war crime Paramilitary kills military = resistance Paramilitary kills civilian = terrorism
Terrorism is not going to win them the war, no matter how asymmetrical it is.
Palestine fighting the israeli army is just nonsense. The palestinian's hands are tied. If they aim for military targets, they accomplish nothing, because their budget is just a fraction of Israel's, so any damage they cause would be easily replaced, and noone would care. This is what Israel wants. They want Palestine to focus on things that they deem expendable, first of all, military vehicles or facilities, and secondly, military units. When Palestine targets civilians, it adds more fuel to the fire, which is counterproductive for Palestine, but the main purpose is obviously not to get enemies. The purpose is first of all to force the israeli ppl to question their government, and secondly to make sure that the world doesn't forget about them. Like I said, if Palestine targeted the military, noone would care, and their situation would never be able to change. That's why they are doing this. Other than surrendering their land, this is their only option.
What they're doing is not right, but I blame the israeli government more, because they created this situation, and they are the only ones who have the power to stop it. You can't just expect Palestine to surrender, because there will always be ppl wanting to resist. Looking at history, they have every right to resist. Anyway, Hamas isn't some dictatorship that stole power and is keeping it through fear and intimidation. They have power because the ppl continously keeps giving them power and supporting them. To most of the arab world, Hamas are freedom fighters.
The main problem here is the greed of Israel and how they are abusing their superiority on the negotiation table. That's why they are scared of Palestine getting recognition in the UN, because most UN countries aren't blinded by zionism, and they will not tolerate their behaviour.
Israel could easily take over all of Palestine, but they haven't done that. Why? Because of good will? If they're doing it out of good will, then how do you explain that they have already claimed most of the Palestinian half of the land as "war retributions"? The reason why they haven't gone all the way is because if the world starts seeing them as conquerers, it would ruin their reputation.
I agree with most of what you say ninini, but I have two remarks.
1) The UN is not blind to Israels war crimes. It is just that Israel has "the one vote" - the support from the US who beats down any try to appeal to the international court of justice etc.
2) Why Israel doesn't colonize the entire Gaza strip and the West bank? It doesn't have anything to do with popularity in my opinion: Israel is already the second most mistrusted country in the world (after North Korea) according to recent polls. I think it has to do with the possibility to marginalize the Palestinians. If they were in the state of Israel, the Israeli would have to deal with a civil rights movement similar to the one in South Africa. Now they are in limbo, they don't live in a state.
This is not about arguing semantics. A terrorist is a terrorist, not a freedom fighter on the other side. You call yourself civilized yet allow yourselves to lower standards when being sympathetic with a lesser entity?
Yes, Palestine is much weaker then Israel, both militarily and economically. This is a fact. Their two likely avenues moving forward are yes again, most likely surrender (in relative terms) or terrorism. Is choosing terrorism understandable following the context in said conflict, and in accordance to majority of human behavior? Yes. Does that make it right? NO.
I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread. People like blinken are condoning suicide bombing and such because "they have no option left". They do. They can surrender and try to rebuild. Is Israel at fault here too? Yes. However, what is disgusting to me is that once people pick sides, they totally condemn one while condoning all actions on the other.
Our worth as a neutral observer is so we can look for, and discuss about pragmatic solutions for this conflict, yet you get these outspoken pro-Palestinians being emotionally invested into the topic such that they fail to look at the greater picture.
By rationalizing that there is no alternative left but to perform said actions, when there are in fact alternatives, is definitely condoning said actions.
On December 01 2012 11:49 Elroi wrote: I agree with most of what you say ninini, but I have two remarks.
1) The UN is not blind to Israels war crimes. It is just that Israel has "the one vote" - the support from the US who beats down any try to appeal to the international court of justice etc.
2) Why Israel doesn't colonize the entire Gaza strip and the West bank? It doesn't have anything to do with popularity in my opinion: Israel is already the second most mistrusted country in the world (after North Korea) according to recent polls. I think it has to do with the possibility to marginalize the Palestinians. If they were in the state of Israel, the Israeli would have to deal with a civil rights movement similar to the one in South Africa. Now they are in limbo, they don't live in a state.
That's one of the main reasons they don't colonize. The other is that most of the land in the West Bank/Gaza is completely worthless for Israel (or anyone else for that matter).
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: This is not about arguing semantics. A terrorist is a terrorist, not a freedom fighter on the other side. You call yourself civilized yet allow yourselves to lower standards when being sympathetic with a lesser entity?
Yes, Palestine is much weaker then Israel, both militarily and economically. This is a fact. Their two likely avenues moving forward are yes again, most likely surrender (in relative terms) or terrorism. Is choosing terrorism understandable following the context in said conflict, and in accordance to majority of human behavior? Yes. Does that make it right? NO.
I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread. People like blinken are condoning suicide bombing and such because "they have no option left". They do. They can surrender and try to rebuild. Is Israel at fault here too? Yes. However, what is disgusting to me is that once people pick sides, they totally condemn one while condoning all actions on the other.
Our worth as a neutral observer is so we can look for, and discuss about pragmatic solutions for this conflict, yet you get these outspoken pro-Palestinians being emotionally invested into the topic such that they fail to look at the greater picture.
Speaking of experience, I'm one of the most pro-americans you can find on this site (when it comes to foreign policies), so I have a high level of trust in their policies, and yet I mostly agree with Palestine here, despite being conditioned by media about Palestine terrorists for as long as I can remember.
You are saying that just because the Palestinians are using terrorism to fight for their cause, it automatically makes the Palestinian cause bad. I'm agreeing that terrorism is wrong, but I believe that the Palestinian cause is good. I believe that they have been wronged by Israel and by the international community.
Besides, no matter how you look at it, both sides are at wrong, and it's not about who is the baddest of them all, it's about how you make this stop, and the truth is that only Israel can make this stop. They have the power, so they have to make the first step, which is something they refuse to do. Israel is obviously happy with the status-quo, as they have claimed all the land they want, while Palestine is desperate for change, wanting to get back what was once theirs. That's why they act differently.
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: This is not about arguing semantics. A terrorist is a terrorist, not a freedom fighter on the other side. You call yourself civilized yet allow yourselves to lower standards when being sympathetic with a lesser entity?
Yes, Palestine is much weaker then Israel, both militarily and economically. This is a fact. Their two likely avenues moving forward are yes again, most likely surrender (in relative terms) or terrorism. Is choosing terrorism understandable following the context in said conflict, and in accordance to majority of human behavior? Yes. Does that make it right? NO.
I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread. People like blinken are condoning suicide bombing and such because "they have no option left". They do. They can surrender and try to rebuild. Is Israel at fault here too? Yes. However, what is disgusting to me is that once people pick sides, they totally condemn one while condoning all actions on the other.
Our worth as a neutral observer is so we can look for, and discuss about pragmatic solutions for this conflict, yet you get these outspoken pro-Palestinians being emotionally invested into the topic such that they fail to look at the greater picture.
Speaking of experience, I'm one of the most pro-americans you can find on this site (when it comes to foreign policies), so I have a high level of trust in their policies, and yet I mostly agree with Palestine here, despite being conditioned by media about Palestine terrorists for as long as I can remember.
You are saying that just because the Palestinians are using terrorism to fight for their cause, it automatically makes the Palestinian cause bad. I'm agreeing that terrorism is wrong, but I believe that the Palestinian cause is good. I believe that they have been wronged by Israel and by the international community.
Besides, no matter how you look at it, both sides are at wrong, and it's not about who is the baddest of them all, it's about how you make this stop, and the truth is that only Israel can make this stop. They have the power, so they have to make the first step, which is something they refuse to do. Israel is obviously happy with the status-quo, as they have claimed all the land they want, while Palestine is desperate for change, wanting to get back what was once theirs. That's why they act differently.
I'm not sure which Palestinian cause you are talking about, but I definitely am for any peaceful two-state solution or similar resolution, with recognition being given to BOTH countries. Not just Palestine as a state, but the Arab world acknowledging that Israel is here to stay.
Yes, I fully agree that both sides are wrong and it is not about who's the baddest of them all and most importantly, it is about how to make it stop. Too bad quite a bit of the pro-Palestinian posts in this thread does not reflect that statement at all.
I however disagree that the "truth" is only Israel can make it stop. That is not pragmatic at all. Palestine has to make the first step, and put pressure on Israel to take the second. They are not in a position to demand or wait for any favorable changes. As can be seen from the UN recognition and subsequent settlement expansion.
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: This is not about arguing semantics. A terrorist is a terrorist, not a freedom fighter on the other side. You call yourself civilized yet allow yourselves to lower standards when being sympathetic with a lesser entity?
Yes, Palestine is much weaker then Israel, both militarily and economically. This is a fact. Their two likely avenues moving forward are yes again, most likely surrender (in relative terms) or terrorism. Is choosing terrorism understandable following the context in said conflict, and in accordance to majority of human behavior? Yes. Does that make it right? NO.
There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself.
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: I can't believe what I'm seeing in this thread. People like blinken are condoning suicide bombing and such because "they have no option left". They do. They can surrender and try to rebuild.
So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative.
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: Is Israel at fault here too? Yes. However, what is disgusting to me is that once people pick sides, they totally condemn one while condoning all actions on the other.
The only people I see doing that are some of the pro-Israel crowd that accepts everything they do as 100% legitimate. We don't generally have people defending terrorism here.
What we have are people arguing against the knee-jerk demonization of terrorism as the ultimate evil act. An act which, when you resort to it for any reason, is considered so morally reprehensible that anything your opponents do short of genocide in retaliation is now perfectly legitimate. That using terrorism is so wrong that if you have any other choice, no matter how terrible or unacceptable it is, then you are morally obligated to take it.
On December 01 2012 12:49 fluidin wrote: Our worth as a neutral observer is so we can look for, and discuss about pragmatic solutions for this conflict
There aren't a lot of pragmatic solutions to this problem, period. There used to be, back before the hatred and reciprocity thereof was institutionalized and passed from generation to generation. But now, decades after the start, there's so much "he started it!" "no he started it!" and blind hatred on both sides that I don't think it's going to end with anything short of a nuclear weapon.
I know what isn't a pragmatic solution to the problem. Israel opposing Palestinian recognition in the UN. Israel settling more people in unfortunate places.
the more extreme elements of palestine are not doing the people there any favors. the terrorist tactic is pretty bad all around, but it's kind of like gun violence. when the combustible conditions are in place, you'll always get the bad actions just by virtue of how many angry people there are.
treating terrorism in isolation though, only contributes to the problem.
On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote: There's a difference between saying that something is right and saying that it's wrong. Everything that is not "right" is not automatically "wrong".
I do not think that it is right for the Palestinians to engage in acts of terror. However, I also don't think it's wrong for them to do so. They are in an untenable position, and it is really the only choice they have save, well, what you suggested (which I don't see as a legitimate option for reasons stated below).
Who am I to judge the morality of the actions of people trapped between two terrible alternatives? I'm not willing to judge people caught in an extreme situation for being wrong to take an extreme stand. Just as I'm not willing to judge a starving man who steals bread to feed himself.
You do know this also means you cannot judge the actions of the Israeli people as such right? I hope you are not going to argue that the extremity of their actions are different, and that one can be judged while the other shouldn't.
On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote: So the alternative is to... pick from the scraps of Israel's table? To essentially become a permanent underclass with little to any prospects for future improvement, no wealth to exploit (since their Israeli overlords got all of the decent land), no way to train the next generation to provide better lives for themselves, no real chance for anything beyond whatever the Israeli's decide to magnanimously give you in aid (which is little more than "enough to keep you from rioting and making a nuisance of yourselves")?
Given that option, one wonders why so many see terrorism as a viable alternative to essentially giving up on their future own future. </sarcasm> At least with terrorism, there's a chance things can get better.
So no, I don't see that as a viable alternative.
I absolutely do not believe this. There is always a chance to rise up from the ashes. Ironically, Israel did just that. The situation might be different, but who's to say there is no chance? This should always be preferable to terrorism. Heck, if you follow Buddhist teachings, allowing oneself to perish is heaps better than terrorism.
On December 01 2012 15:42 NicolBolas wrote: The only people I see doing that are some of the pro-Israel crowd that accepts everything they do as 100% legitimate. We don't generally have people defending terrorism here.
What we have are people arguing against the knee-jerk demonization of terrorism as the ultimate evil act. An act which, when you resort to it for any reason, is considered so morally reprehensible that anything your opponents do short of genocide in retaliation is now perfectly legitimate. That using terrorism is so wrong that if you have any other choice, no matter how terrible or unacceptable it is, then you are morally obligated to take it.
I don't get this one. Terrorism is not the ultimate evil act. It does however rank quite highly among those. And terrorism is not a legitimate choice. Look, I'm not saying that if I were put in their shoes I wouldn't do it. I'm saying that I disagree with your view that it's not wrong. It's wrong, they are doing a wrong thing, as is Israel. What is hard about this acknowledgement?
On December 01 2012 12:49 NicolBolas wrote: I know what isn't a pragmatic solution to the problem. Israel opposing Palestinian recognition in the UN. Israel settling more people in unfortunate places.
The ultimate solutions are annihilation of either Palestine as a state, or Israel. Or a two-state solution. I just hope it won't reach a state where the annihilation of Palestine or Israel BECOME the pragmatic solutions. Right now a two-state solution is still more probable.
On December 01 2012 15:51 oneofthem wrote: the more extreme elements of palestine are not doing the people there any favors. the terrorist tactic is pretty bad all around, but it's kind of like gun violence. when the combustible conditions are in place, you'll always get the bad actions just by virtue of how many angry people there are.
treating terrorism in isolation though, only contributes to the problem.
Yep, I'm actually pissed off with the extremist elements in Palestine. Do they not realise they are only contributing to more of their own people's deaths?
It is extremely selfish. By exacting personal revenge you cause other families to suffer. People who are more helpless than you.
EPT
