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 (61651)	12/14/2002 1:01:59 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to 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?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (61651)	12/14/2002 1:36:07 AM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Certainly if administration of the Colonial office as a whole had any pre-existing bias it was toward the Zionists, as Churchill’s remarks just before the riots (quoted in a recent post to Neocon; I assume you read it) make abundantly clear. That's not what my history books tell me (I'm currently reading Fromkin's Peace to End All Peace, have you read it?). The government in London favored the Zionists, while the Colonial Office cursed the troubles that this policy brought them. They tended to favor the undemanding Arabs, and wish they could have had the simple job of dealing only with them, instead of the demanding, socialist Zionists, and the conflicts that their presence set off. Churchill was pro-Zionist. The Colonial Office, with some exceptions, was not.