I don't buy that Nadine. I can readily agree that some individuals or groups (ethnic, religious, whatever) may resort to violence more quickly, but there is always some motivation which (always??) includes failure of less drastic means.
Do you say this on evidence, or is it just a statement of faith? For example, what else did the Palestinians try before they turned to terrorism? Do include a study of the Mufti's career in your research - check out the riots of 1920 and 1929.
Conversely, a resort to violence and a resort to terrorism are not the same thing. George Washington was very weak against the British regulars, and he fought in ways they definitely thought were against the rules (shooting from behind trees, and all that), BUT Washington did not seize and kill British cilivian hostages as a nifty way to demoralize the British in America. Indeed, it was a major grievance with the American side that the British maintained Indian allies whose normal mode of war made no distiction between soldiers and civilians or between men and women and children.
Where I agree with you and Mike is that some not insignificant fraction of Arabs will not accept anything less than the exit of Jews (or at least total loss of power) from Palestine. ... IMO, it must be changed, or at least significantly fewer Arabs must hold that view, in order for peace to hold.
In the meantime, Israel can do things that discourage the Arabs from hoping to be able to dislodge Israel, as opposed to encouraging them. Looking back, did the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon encourage or discourage Arab hopes? |
