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: Dayuhan who wrote (61498)	12/13/2002 3:29:08 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You seem to see evenhandedness as some form of grave disability. Isn’t evenhandedness something to be desired in what is supposed to be an impartial inquiry into the causes of violence? With "evenhandedness", as with "equality", there is a general confusion between opportunity and results. Just as unequal results do not prove prejudice, so judgements that lean more to one side than the other do not prove lack of evenhandedness. True evenhandedness is shown by impartiality, not by a final judgement that always splits the decision 50/50, regardless of circumstances. That is not what diplomats usually mean by the term. In the case of the Commission's findings on the 1921 riots, my history books tell me that the Colonial office did not seem to agree about the lack of incitement since the British threw Amin al-Husseini in jail for inciting the riots. If they had expelled him then instead of making him "Grand Mufti" who knows how differently history might have run? Leaders can make a big difference. Just look where Arafat's leadership has left the Palestinians.