Robert,
<< Why would a Palestinian State born of terrorism be any less legitimate? >>
I think that President Bush is not interested in "legitimate" or other buzz words. The Taliban HAD a legitimate government in Afghanstan. What matters to me, and it should to most reasonable Americans, is the protection of America and the rest of the civilized world, from terrorist thugs, who want to destroy civilization as we know it.
Many people felt precisely that way about the zionists in the middle east before caving into terrorism and forming the state of Israel.
Who cares if a terrorist Palestinian State is legitimate? If they harbor many different groups of terrorists, some of whom were involved in the attacks against America, and certainly Israel, we don't care about "legitimate", we just care about "gone"!
Does that also apply to Isreal? I didn't hear any uproar when Mossad murdered the Nordic head of the UN a few decades ago because of his pro Palistinian/arab stance.
<< History has proved terrorism to be an effective method to achieve independance and statehood. >>
Do you feel that terrorism (the deliberate murdering of innocent families) should be the preferred way to achieve statehood?
Obviously, I do not, however, If he were still alive, you could ask the same question of the first prime minister of Israel, and perhaps even the current one.
Terrorism worked for Hitler and the Taliban, but eventually the civilized world rose up to defeat tyrants of terrorism.
History proves its the application of terrorism, not terrorism itself that may succeed or fail in its goals. It was obviously successful for Israel and if we look back far enough, for America too. Also, don't forget that often, "what goes around, comes around", especially in the middle east. |
