Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: teevee who wrote (12393)	12/2/2001 12:53:21 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 281500

<< 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. 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"! << 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? Terrorism worked for Hitler and the Taliban, but eventually the civilized world rose up to defeat tyrants of terrorism.

To: teevee who wrote (12393)	12/2/2001 1:45:45 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 281500

Isn't that how the state of Israel arose? Why would a Palestinian State born of terrorism be any less legitimate? No, it's not. Terrorism was the favored method of the Arabs from day one. The majority policy of the Palmach was restraint because the Zionists still hoped to work with their Arab neighbors. The Irgun, who favored fighting fire with fire were a minority movement. They were swiftly brought to heel in April 1948 by Ben Gurion when he ordered the sinking of the Altalena after Begin refused to turn it over to him. Arafat occasionally holstered the Islamicists, but never brought them to heel. He always wanted to use them to pursue a policy of terrorism with plausible deniability. Any opportunity for an Arafat "Altalena" moment has come and gone. The Islamicists are on top now. History has proved terrorism to be an effective method to achieve independance and statehood. There is a distinction to be made between guerilla campaigns that target military and government targets, vs. wholesale terrorist campaigns that slaughter civilians. What kind of regimes have terrorist campaigns begotten? Also, even following that playbook, you have to know when to reign in your extremists and negotiate a deal. (Cf. Michael Collins and the Irish Free State.) The Arabs in this century have again and again scorned their pragmatists, while honoring maximalists who pursue ruinous campaigns for some impossible goal. They are still blaming everybody but themselves for the results.