Foreign Affairs Discussion Group Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Dayuhan who wrote (61651)	12/14/2002 1:01:59 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) of 281500

It is all very well to regret that the more moderate Nashishibis could not have gained power during the rebellion of the late ‘30’s, but when has a moderate leader ever gained ascendancy over a people inflamed by long-simmering rebellion? The populace didn’t become radical because the Mufti gained ascendancy over the Nashishibis, the Mufti gained ascendancy because the populace was fired up and wanted a leader with a radical message. It's not that simple. There's a feedback loop between the demagogue and his followers. A good demagogue hardly needs a majority to get started. For example, Peter Drucker (in his memoirs), noted that the Nazis were cresting in popular support in 1933; they didn't achieve a majority then and Drucker thought their support would have lessened if they hadn't got in. Once they were in, they made sure that opponents were eliminated and only they controlled the message. Similarly, the Mufti's consolidation of power had little to do with uninaimous popular support, but with using his position to intimidate and assassinate the opposition and control the message. BTW, when the Mufti wanted a riot, the incediary line was not "prevent Jewish sovereignty" but "the infidels will destroy the Dome of the Rock". Political education was not on the Mufti's program. Do you think the story today would have been any different if the Israeli’s had “taken out” Arafat sometime back in the ‘70s? Very possibly. The inability to make the transition from terrorist to statesman has plainly been Arafat's personal failing. Do you think we really have seen the result of the only possible leadership of the Palestinians? Is it truly their desire to be led by corrupt thugs forever?

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next