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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (61662)	12/16/2002 4:46:04 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

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. Very true, but in order for a demagogue to have any followers, let alone a sufficient number to make a serious bid for power, certain social conditions generally have to exist. Hitler would never have come close to power if not for the state of economic and social collapse prevailing in Germany at the time. 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. I never said that he had unanimous popular support. I said that without the atmosphere of fear, dislocation, and direct threat of a minority immigrant population declaring sovereignty, the Mufti and others of his ilk would not have had any power to consolidate. Certainly they exploited these emotions, but they did not create them. 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. It is worth noting, perhaps, that the riots of 1921, at least, were not planned by Arab leaders, but were triggered by a clash between two rival Jewish groups. The 1929 clashes did involve the sort of rhetoric you mention, but they were also triggered by an attempt by Zionist groups to take control of the Wailing Wall, to which the Arabs responded in typically extreme fashion. The Mufti made the most of the provocation, but the Zionist handed it to him. Period accounts that I’ve read suggest that the extremists on the Zionist side were also quite ready, even eager, for confrontation at this point. The inability to make the transition from terrorist to statesman has plainly been Arafat's personal failing. Absolutely. But do you think that if Arafat had been “taken out”, a statesman would have taken over? Do you think that if the Israelis “took out” Arafat tomorrow, a statesman would take over? I doubt it. 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? The only possible leadership, no. The one likely for the near future, probably yes. When they insist on having a statesman they’ll get one. I’m not holding my breath.