SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (135521)6/3/2004 9:18:25 PM
From: Ilaine  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
Well, it seems to me that the "cycle of violence" isn't really a continuing cycle.

It seems to me that at any point in time, it's more like this:

Begin blew up a hotel several decades ago.
Therefore, a Palestinian suicide bomber will blow up a pizza parlor in 2004.

An IDF soldier ran over Rachel Corrie in a bulldozer in 2003.
Therefore, a Palestinian gunman will shoot four Israeli children strapped into carseats, and their mother, in the head in 2004.

Now, I don't have any problem admitting that I am not Arab, nor Muslim, nor Israeli, nor Jew.

I am American, 100% American, part Cherokee, Chippewa, Cajun, Croatian, German, British and Irish. The most recent immigrant in my family came here around 1880. Christians, Deists, and Agnostics.

Or, as we say in the South, I don't have a dog in this fight.

Why does America take Israel's side? Honestly, because the Palestinians behave so badly.

I know, it's pathetic, the Israelis are so much better off, and the Palestinians are so poor and so wretched.

I wish I could root for the underdog, but I just can't.

It's because I believe in the Western calculation of justice.

Let's talk about homicide, which is just a fancy word for one human being killing another human being.

There are so many variations of how these things can happen, and so many variations on how to affix culpability and blame. It goes back to the Code of Hammurabi, four thousand years ago, almost as old as recorded time.

If one human being kills another human being with malice aforethought, that's a very different situation than an honest, innocent mistake.

If a lumberjack, for example, chops down a tree, and the tree falls on a fellow workman due to no fault of his own, there is no legal liability whatsoever.

Or if a truck driver has a stroke, and crushes a car, again, no legal liability whatsoever.

I remember quite well a case where a woman left work because she became suddenly sick with the flu, had an overwhelming urge to vomit, threw up in her lap at a red light, and lost control of her car and ran into the back of another car. No negligence, no liability.

Somewhere on the continuum of good vs. evil -

A man comes home to find another man having voluntary intercourse with his wife, and becomes enraged, and kills him.

A man comes home and finds a stranger raping his wife against her will, and becomes enraged, and kills him.

A man finds out that his daughter became pregnant by her boyfriend, and becomes enraged, and kills her.

A man discovers that his bride was not a virgin when he married her, and becomes enraged, and kills her.

A man finds out that his widowed mother is having voluntary intercourse with a widower, and becomes enraged, and kills her.

A man loses a wager, and becomes enraged, and kills the man he lost to.

A man loans money to another man, who refuses to pay it back, and becomes enraged and kills him.

A loan shark kills a man for not paying his debts.

A hit man kills a man for money.

A man is playing football, and knocks another man down during the game, and kills him.

A man plays a trick on a man with a bad heart, and surprises him, and the other man has a heart attack and dies.

A man leaves garbage out for the garbage collector, a dog rips open the bag at 3:00 a.m. and at 5:00 a.m. a jogger slips on the garbage, falls down, hits his head, and dies.

A man deliberately throws garbage on the street, and a jogger slips on it, falls down, hits his head, and dies.

A prosecutor hides evidence, an innocent man is convicted, and is executed.

A defense attorney negligently fails to find exculpatory evidence, his innocent client is convicted, and is executed.

A woman has a bad reaction to penicillin in the hospital, for the first time, and dies.

A woman does not tell her doctor that she is allergic to penicillin, has a bad reaction, and dies.

A woman does tell her doctor that she is allergic to penicillin, but he doesn't pay attention, so she has a bad reactionk and she dies.

There are billions of people in the world, and while there may not be billions of ways to die, there are many.

If you think they are all the same, well, we just don't have anything further to discuss.



To: Sarmad Y. Hermiz who wrote (135521)6/3/2004 9:27:35 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 281500
 
In any war, it is silly to ask, is this attack a "retaliation" for that attack? It's a useless question. There are attacks because there's a war.

More useful to ask, who started the war, what were the strategic goals of that side, what are the strategic goals of the other side, and who is winning.

Arafat started the intifada/terror war in September 2000. His goals were a) to make sure that the Palestinian guns all remained pointed at Israel, not at himself ("escaping by running ahead" one analyst called it), and b) to sweeten the deal he was being offered by negotiating with bombs and words at once, and c) perhaps, to get the sweeter deal without ever having to make a peace at all.

a) worked great. b) worked for a while - he got a better offer at Taba, but c) which seemed to be his real goal, is not working so well at all.

The intifada is a war, in which the Pals use sniping, ambush, IEDs, and most of all suicide bombings. The Israelis reply with checkpoints, fences, arrests, house demolitions and targeted assassinations.

Hamas has been pretty well shut down. The fence has just about stopped the suicide bombings, which were the Palestinian star weapon. Israeli raids keep the Palestinian militia on the defensive. Meantime, the Israeli economy is recovering, while the Palestinian, which has gone nowhere but down since 1994 anyway, is now a basket case. The West bank has collapsed into the "chaos of the weapons" with no law at all, not that Arafatastan ever had much.

Remind me what goals the Palestinians were fighting for that made them decide on a war rather than accept 97% of the West Bank at Taba?

Oh yes, Arafat is still in power and he never had to sign a peace. I guess he's happy then, but the Pals, not to mention the US, Egypt and Jordan, are not.

This report from Tulkarm says the intifada is pretty well over there

jrep.com

The intifada went on for a long time. 3 1/2 years is longer than the Arab Revolt of 1936 - 39. I have the impression that Abu Mazen and Abu Ala have really wanted to follow a different course since last year, but due to their inability to get rid of Arafat, everybody's stuck on the same course. So we wait for Arafat to die. Though frankly, the Israelis would do everybody a big favor if they killed him - but they don't feel like paying the price for it. At this point it would probably be more a favor for the Palestinians than for themselves, in reality.