[Ethan Anderson]

In the last fifty years, is there any topic more divisive than Israel? Does anyone ever change their views on either side of this one? Or is there some upside to splitting Erato in two that I'm missing?

[This message has been edited by Ethan Anderson (edited July 21, 2006).]

[Quincy Lehr]

Dick,

If you can't see that the Palestinians are a dispossessed people, you're beyond hope... (And by the way, "Palestine.")

But I think Ethan has a point in the context of a poetry board. This is the sort of discussion where all and sundry can get foam-flecked pretty quickly (in part because there is no easy solution), so I'm going to bow out. Disagreements with anything I've posted will be read, but I, for one, don't plan on replying in this context.

Quincy

[Mark Allinson]

Well, yes, of course such a topic will polarise the community.

But doesn't just about any topic on this board?

And some of the most heated polarisations I have seen here derive from such apparently "cool" topics as initial caps on lines of poetry.

But this issue of "a dispossessed people" is interesting. Just how long can a people legitimately struggle through violent means to redress a dispossession?

No one doubts, for instance, that the American Indian cultures were dispossessed of their traditional lands by European settlement. But can the descendents of these dispossessed peoples legitimately start hurling bombs on U.S. cities? Surely if the principle is legitimate in the Middle East, it must be admiited everywhere.

My genetic makeup suggests that I have a strong Anglo-saxon strain. Can I legitimately organise a bombing campaign against Norman symbols of oppression for their 1000 year old dispossession of my people?




[This message has been edited by Mark Allinson (edited July 21, 2006).]

[Mark Granier]

No one would argue, for instance, that the American Indian cultures were dispossessed of their traditional lands by European settlement. But can the descendents of these dispossessed peoples legitimately start hurling bombs on U.S. cities? Surely if the principle is legitimate in the Middle East, it must be admiited everywhere.

Mark, that is staggeringly simplistic. American Indians were tragically betrayed and brutalised by European AND 'American' governments; the history reads like an open wound. But (to my knowledge anyway) these days they are not told where they can or cannot work; nor do they have concrete walls partitioning them from their places of work. Nor do Native American people have to undergo humiliating daily queues and searches at checkpoints. Were they subjected to such treatment (and worse) I don't know what their response might be. I would think it makes a world of difference to see soldiers (who are liable to view you with suspicion) on your own streets. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland, and am, if anything, anti-nationalist. But I've been to Belfast a few times and even to a blow-in like me the army presence could feel sinister.

[Jason Kerr]

The commentary of people living in relative peace and prosperity on those plagued for generations by war is like funeral attendees who don't realize it's time to shut up and go home.

They mean well, and they should leave it at that.

[This message has been edited by Jason Kerr (edited July 22, 2006).]

[Roger Slater]

Originally posted by Mark Granier:
Mark, that is staggeringly simplistic. American Indians were tragically betrayed and brutalised by European AND 'American' governments; the history reads like an open wound. But (to my knowledge anyway) these days they are not told where they can or cannot work; nor do they have concrete walls partitioning them from their places of work. Nor do Native American people have to undergo humiliating daily queues and searches at checkpoints. Were they subjected to such treatment (and worse) I don't know what their response might be. I would think it makes a world of difference to see soldiers (who are liable to view you with suspicion) on your own streets. I was brought up in the Republic of Ireland, and am, if anything, anti-nationalist. But I've been to Belfast a few times and even to a blow-in like me the army presence could feel sinister.

But if Native Americans were known with some frequency to lobs shells from the reservation, or to go into city buses with explosives in their backpacks, I suspect that some sort of security measures would be taken. What your remarks suggest to me is that the Native Americans have been so defeated and conquered that they have given up any form of resistance, and in so doing, they have eliminated any temptation to subject them to oppressive security measures. Still, Native Americans do suffer from indignities even today, as do many American groups, and are at least the worst-off among them (say, childrten living with rats, abusive parents, and social service agencies that ignore their plight), entitled to blow up buses or bomb wedding receptions?

And who's to judge? Can we say it's wrong for Iraqi insurgents to kill citizens lining up for jobs that will pay them subsistance wages, but it's okay for Palestinians to do the same? And why wasn't 9/11 a permissible venture in view of the fact that, let's face it, the US has acted rather disgracefully from time to time? And how about bombing abortion clinics and killing doctors if you truly believe abortion is murder being carried out on a massive scale? Can we burn down theaters showing "blasphemous" movies and expect sympathy even from those who share our opinion of the movie? Or can we agree and insist that the morality of one's cause does not exempt one from all other forms of morality?

I suppose a somewhat stronger case could be made for terrorism in the name of a good cause if it actually worked to advance the cause, but there's no evidence that it does. On the contrary, terrorist attacks on Israel only caused the Israelis to build a security wall and set up more checkpoints, which has only made matters worse for the Palestinians. So the suicide bombers didn't just kill innocents, but also contributed directly to a substantial worsening of the lives of Palestinians on the West Bank, exacerbating the very conditions that are offered as moral cover for further acts of terrorism. It didn't take terrorism to end Apartheid in South Africa, and Ghandi did pretty well without it. Apart from the immorality of targetting innocents, it is simply a bad tactic for advancing the Palestinian cause.

[Dick Morgan]

Quincy-

I apologize for going off on you. My ex-wife was born in Lebanon, my family lived in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. My brother speaks fluent Arabic and has business interests in the UAE. According to the Signet/Hammond World Atlas, as per the 1978 edition, there was no country named Palestine. I have very strong feelings about the relentless distortion of the language about this subject.

Dick

[Mark Granier]

Roger, I just want to take you up on a couple of things.

Firstly, I may be wrong but you seem to equate my sympathetic comments on mistreated Palestinian civilians (and my disparagement of Mark's glib analogy re. American Indians) with some kind of approval of suicide bombers! What can I say? Only that 1 + 1 doesn't equal 7 to the power of 11, not in my universe anyway. But let’s look at one of your own analogies:

Can we say it's wrong for Iraqi insurgents to kill citizens lining up for jobs that will pay them subsistance wages, but it's okay for Palestinians to do the same?

While you are careful to distinguish Iraqi “insurgents” from ordinary Iraqi civilians (whom, after all, your friendly troops are trying to bring democracy to), you make no such distinction with Palestinians. Now, doesn’t that tell you something?

Then there's your use of that old bugbear-word, 'terrorism'. In terms of lexical abuse, only fellow members of that distinguished Dead Abstract Noun Club ('freedom' and 'democracy' for instance) come anywhere close. Of COURSE 9/11 was an act of terrorism (in fact terrorism is rather an understatement) and of course any suicide bombing is also an act of terrorism. Can 'legitimate' armies commit acts of terrorism? Was 'shock and awe' an act of terrorism? I think, at the very least, such things are open to debate.

I'm just very tired of people thinking they can use the word terrorist/ism with as much impunity as, say, words like AK47 or toothpaste. I'm sorry, but if you care at all what words actually mean, then you will know it is best to handle the word terrorism (along with 'freedom', 'democracy' etc.) like a phial of nitroglycerine. Robert Fisk is always going on about this, a small sane voice in the wilderness for all the difference he makes. But I love him for trying anyway.

Anyway Roger, we CAN agree on one thing, that “the morality of one's cause does not exempt one from all other forms of morality.” I am right with you there. And good ol immoral 'terrorism' is being put in practice right now in the Middle East, by the hawks on both (nay, ALL) sides.



[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited July 22, 2006).]

[Roger Slater]

Definitions are tricky, I admit, but it seems to me that "terrorism" is not the right word to use when a recognized sovereign nation engages in acts of war to obtain a military objective, even if that nation engages in repulsive and destructive measures that one might condemn as heartily as one condemns "terrorism." That is, a nation may do something as bad as terrorism, in theory, but that doesn't make it terrorism as I feel the word is used. What's striking about Hezbollah is that its actions take place desptie the Lebanese government -- Hezbollah has ties to the government, but the government did not (as far as we know) order Hezbollah to attack Israel. It's a para-military organization. Just as Hamas, before it was elected, would act despite the condemnation of the legitimate Palestinian authority. The reason I draw the distinction is that nations and governments are, at least in theory, subject to international accountability and international law, and at least enjoy some sort of imprimatur of an entire nation of people, but terrorist groups can number in the mere hundreds, represent no one but themselves (however much other people may approve or disapprove from the sidelines), and yet they claim for themselves the moral authority of nations and they tembroil nations in conflict and affect the overall state of the world. It should be that anytime a few dozen people get together with some dynamite, they can affect world politics, let alone kill people.

[Mark Granier]

Definitions are tricky, I admit, but it seems to me that "terrorism" is not the right word to use when a recognized sovereign nation engages in acts of war to obtain a military objective, even if that nation engages in repulsive and destructive measures that one might condemn as heartily as one condemns "terrorism." That is, a nation may do something as bad as terrorism, in theory, but that doesn't make it terrorism as I feel the word is used.

Tricky, eh? Well, that's one way of putting it Roger. I think Robert Fisk himself is one of the best-placed people to respond to that, being in the thick of the action. This is from a week-old report :

Terrorist, terrorist, terrorist. There is something perverse about all this, the slaughter and massive destruction and the self-righteous, constant, cancerous use of the word "terrorist". No, let us not forget that the Hizbollah broke international law, crossed the Israeli border, killed three Israeli soldiers, captured two others and dragged them back through the border fence. It was an act of calculated ruthlessness that should never allow Hizbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, to grin so broadly ay his press conference. It has brought unparalleled tragedy to countless innocents in Lebanon. And of course, it has led Hizbollah to fire at least 170 Katyusha rockets into Israel.

But what would happen if the powerless Lebanese government had actually unleashed air attacks across Israel the last time Israel's troops crossed into Lebanon? What if the Lebanese air force then killed 73 Israeli civilians in bombing raids in Ashkelon, Tel Aviv and Israeli West Jerusalem? What if a Lebanese fighter aircraft bombed Ben Gurion airport? What if a Lebanese plane destroyed 26 road bridges across Israel? Would it not be called "terrorism"? I rather think it would. But if Israel was the victim, it would also probably be Word War Three.

Full article on
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle14000.htm