Why didn't the US resort to peaceful diplomacy with Saddam?
Because Saddam was not a man of any integrity or morals. There is another oh so important asymmetry in the Israel/Pal conflict, and that is that modern Israel is radically more in tune with moral behaviour than are the Islamic states it has has neighbors. Mike & others are correct in noting that if the Arabs had accepted partition in 1948, the ME would be a land of great prosperity today (oil, brains, tourism). The idea of a Jewish homeland in the ME following WWII was not wrong IMO. Many screwups in the implementation and aftermath, but I support the concept.
Israel is not seeking to destroy any Arab state, and indeed, Israel has a large Arab population, while no Arab state currently supports such a Jewish population, having expelled them long ago. We should clearly keep this asymmetry front and center for the beneficial contemplation of all Arab states. On the otherhand, we should be more evenhanded in condemning the various minority Jewish groups who still view God as their Real Estate Agent while also condemning the Muslim world for seeing Allah as their General.
Did peaceful protest work for the slaves in the US or was there a war somewhere along the way? How about throwing out the Romans? How long was apartheid in place, 'peacefully' before it was finally overcome and should multiple generations have to live through it before the PR takes hold?
Part of my "sympathy" for Pals and "understanding" of terrorism comes from having lived in southern Africa through those times. Yes, the blacks down there did achieve some of their goals through violence, which the whites would not have granted without that violence. Were the blacks terrorists or patriots? Not an easy answer AFAIK. |
