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: neolib who wrote (191004)7/5/2006 7:48:39 PM
From: geode00  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 281500
 
The Israelis are going to go after the democratically elected leadership. I thought assassination was against US law. Should we just twiddle our thumbs or should the USA help in the killing?

We are in the democracy business after all but it's a lip service facade of a business and we don't really mean it not here, not anywhere.



To: neolib who wrote (191004)7/6/2006 12:53:49 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 281500
 
. Neither do we address the asymmetry in police/military action on the part of Israel, vs. terrorist actions on the part of the Pals. If Israel wants a given Pal in custody, the only difficulty for them is finding him. The capture or killing is not a problem for them, given the military might. But is the action any more legitimate, just because the Israeli government approves? The fact that the capture or killing is carried out by people in uniform with orders from a government having a known seat of power, does not in and of itself make the action any more legitimate than many of the Pal terrorists attacks, for the simple fact that Israel can and would dismantle any PAL government which issued formal documents resulting in uniformed members of that government mounting a concerted effort to invade Israel with the intent of capturing or killing any Israeli government/military figure wanted for some crime against the Pals. Until we acknowledge this asymmetry, and adapt our reactions to events in that region accordingly, we will make no progress in achieving peace.


If I understand this convoluted logic, what you are saying is: Might makes Wrong. Whatever the stronger power does cannot by definition be more legitimate than what the weaker power does, even if the stronger power acts according to the laws of diplomacy and war, and attempts to find compromises, while the weaker power breaks the laws of diplomacy and war, prefers terrorism by choice, and refuses all compromise.

What I would like to know is, does the word "legitimate" have any meaning left in your vocabulary? If so, what?