Naturally, from a justice point of view, I’m as pleased as anyone else that this brutal creature who has killed so many innocent people is gone. However, I’m moved to ask two things:
1) Considering Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq before we invaded it, aren’t the chances pretty good that all of his victims would still be alive if we hadn’t attacked?
2) Correct me if I’m wrong, but I could swear the Pentagon just got done explaining why outtakes from his recruitment video showed that, militarily, the guy didn’t know his ášš from his elbow. So should we be worried that, if an incompetent yutz was able to give us this much trouble, whoever replaces him might be even worse?
PAD
• 
“Micha, while no one is truly safe in the age of global terrorism, I am writing this post in a position of relative safety compared to the situation you in which you live. I shudder to think about the dangers that people in your region are forced to live with as a matter of course.”
Thanks Bill, but my intention was more to show the dilemmas we face. The physical dangers are not that great, and our daily lives run pretty smoothly, which is more than can be said about Iraq or the Palestinians. The Israeli army is able to maintain a reasonable level of security, although not to eliminate terrorism completely. The frustration is more on the political level than on the level of personal safety for me. Although I do not live next to Gaza. But even the ones who do still have a functioning daily life of Western standards.
———
Israel has been used by democratic forces in the middle east as a challenge to despotism, and as an excuse by despots for not allowing democracy. It evens out. Even if there was no Israel there would be no democracy probably.
Turkey is somewhat distanced from the rest of the middle east.
Lebanon’s democracy was based on arranging the counties in a way that insured the balance of power of the different sects.
Said extremist religious parties in Israel are not representative of as large a segment of the Israeli public as the Islamists, and most of them are not as bad as Islamists. Some are. But the are only a part of a minority of the Israeli public. Which is not to say that the majority’s opinions do not contain racism, but not on the level of the Islamists.
—————-
“Something has to and had to be done to shock that area of the world into the 21st century. I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better. It is hard to see how the area could get much worse. I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won’t be pretty.”
This is bad on many levels:
1) Going to war claiming it is about WMD and actual threat to the US when the purpose was to reshape the middle east.
2) Going to war without an actual threat is usually a bad idea.
3) If I say that “shocking the midle east into the 21st century” sounds like Israeli arrogance that would not be a compliment. For now the shock seems to have sent Iraq in the opposite direction.
4) “I believe if we can somehow establish a semi-functioning democracy there, it may in the very long run, make things better.” Going to war for such a tenuous theory is bad. The idea that the middle east will see democracy and love it is problematic. I really hope it ends well. It could also be claimed that the threat of US violence helped Lebanese and Egyptian supporters of democracy. But there were better ways to help democracy move toward the 21st century that did not involve a visit to the 7th. Ways that were les harmful. The harm benefit ration for democracy in the middle east is not good right now.
5) “It is hard to see how the area could get much worse.” Things are worse than before the war.
6) “I would hope that this can still happen, and that in the long run, the people turn away from terrorism and al-quaeda. “
The war in Iraq may hopefully being democracy to Iraq, but it was bad for the war on terrorism. It had the opposite effect. Terrorism cannot be beat out of the Middle East. And it only helped Al Quaida. Even if democracy is built terrorism will remain. The way to defeat Al Quaida is to cut its popular supprt, the war has done the opposite. After 9/11 the US was in a position to fight terrorism effectively. It could also have promoted democracy. But somehow these two goals got mixed up in some half baked theory that the US can just come in and reshape things.
7) “If not things will only escalate from here. and we will have no choice but to unleash our full military might, which won’t be pretty.”
Going to a war in order to avoid a hypothetical future war is bad thinking. Bill is also right. The war on Al-Quaida usually do es not require a heavyhanded use of force. Not all wars are D-day. In any case, going into Iraq has now reduced the US’s ability to deploy forces or threaten with the use of force when necessary.
Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 09:49 AM
The physical dangers are not that great, and our daily lives run pretty smoothly, which is more than can be said about Iraq or the Palestinians.
Oh, well, in that case, I rescind my good wishes!
(Kidding! Kidding!)
I think the hope for a final and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians lies with people like you, Micha. People who care about their own nation, but are nevertheless able to care about the plight of their putative “enemies” as well.
1Others can talk with you, of course, as they see fit, but I’ll be ignoring you.
****
Ignored by Peter David and banned by John Byrne in the same month. Wow. That is a badge of honor.
I thought I was asking an interesting and thought out philosophical question in line with what you were talking about.
I didn;t call someone a Nazi or anything like that. It seems ludicrous to me that you can never bring up Nazis, Hitler or WWII. I can see where doing so in a stupid manner “Bush is Hitler” (though in another thread our troops were compared to the SS with nary a comment by you), your a fascist, kind of thing would be stupid.
I thought I’d asked and tried to explore a decent philosophical question, and certainly one that was relevant to your question.
I won’t be losing sleep over the fact that you are “done with me” though.
Like JB, you seem to have something of a chip on your shoulder when people disagree with you strongly, forcibly, but sincerely and with an attempt to back up their opinions with facts
In this case, i didn’t even disagree, just was expanding the philosphical debate. I wasn’t playing the Nazi card when talking about experimentations.
JB and PAD two sides of the same coin. Cool.
If I say that “shocking the midle east into the 21st century” sounds like Israeli arrogance that would not be a compliment.
****
Franklu, though I am not Israeli, I don’t care. When those nations can establish governments that aren’t routinely supressing their people’s basic human rights, then i will be less arrogant.
Until then, get over yourselves, the 1400s are over, join us in modern times, treat your people decently, stop blaming everyone else for your problems, and treat your people like human beings and improve the cesspool of the area you live in. You and the world will be better off.
Things are worse than before the war.
*****
Yeah, I mean heck, before the war, there weren’t murderous people there intent intent on killimng thousands of our people. Oh wait…..Oh, and they were heroes for doing so?
My mistake.
I think the hope for a final and lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians lies with people like you, Micha. People who care about their own nation, but are nevertheless able to care about the plight of their putative “enemies” as well.
I would have more hope if not for the reality that the Palestinian counterpart to Micha would have a evry good chance of being killed by his own people. It’s going to be very difficult for a true Palestinian leader to emerge in these conditions–imagine having to tell the people who rejoiced in the “martyrdom” of their own children that it was for a lie.
I’ve always felt bad for the average Russian, who endured a life of pointless deprivation in the cause of communism only to find out, in the twilight of their lives, that the sacrifice was for nothing. I think it may even be worse for the Palestinians, though right now I have a hard time working up much sympathy.
Posted by: Bill Mulligan at June 12, 2006 10:48 AM
I would have more hope if not for the reality that the Palestinian counterpart to Micha would have a evry good chance of being killed by his own people. It’s going to be very difficult for a true Palestinian leader to emerge in these conditions–imagine having to tell the people who rejoiced in the “martyrdom” of their own children that it was for a lie.
I’ll acknowledge that my hopes may be naive. But I believe there is power in hope. Nelson Mandela could have been forgiven, I suppose, for giving up hope during all those years he was in prison. But had he done so, he’d never have had the chance to change the course of South Africa’s history.
I’ve always felt bad for the average Russian, who endured a life of pointless deprivation in the cause of communism only to find out, in the twilight of their lives, that the sacrifice was for nothing.
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that many hard-working Russians found a way to keep themselves and their families going so that they, or their children, could see the fall of communism.
I think it may even be worse for the Palestinians, though right now I have a hard time working up much sympathy.
I don’t. It’s a complicated problem. On the one hand, I believe Israel has a right to exist, and the Arab nations that have been plaguing Israel since its re-establishment have only themselves to blame for creating so formidable an enemy.
On the other hand, the Palestinians who occupied the land upon which Israel was founded anew were born long, long, long after the Israelis were first driven from their homeland. These Palestinians suddenly found themselves being punished for the sins of their ancestors, and were left without a homeland.
Israel has, in some ways, gone from being the oppressed to being the oppressor. There are valid reasons for that, and I am not condemning Israel. I am simply trying to take a balanced view.
It is easy for us to say that the Palestinians are by and large simply irrational and hate-filled people. On the other hand, were I a Palestinian, it’s hard for me to say with certainty that I wouldn’t be part of the Intifada. I’d like to believe that I wouldn’t, but how can any of us be sure?
On the flip side, it is equally easy for me to say, “Ðámņ it, Israel, stop being so lousy to the Palestinians!” But, you know, I don’t live in Israel, a nation surrounded by enemies who have sworn to drive it off the map.
The people in the house with him weren’t innocents. They were providing a safe-house for the most wanted terrorist in the country. Does anyone really think that if ground troops were sent in these people wouldn’t be taking up arms and firing at the forces?
That’s a rather dumb, binary way of thinking. Just as likely (if not more so) is that a head of household hosted Zarqawi and the women and minors had to take it because of his say-so. Or that Zarqawi targeted a house with a pregnant women specifically because there was a pregnant women there–if he was killed, it’d be a propaganda tool.
Bill, you are being too kind. I used to be a low level activist in Peace Now, but now I am very inactive. I’m afraid I lack the fire trhat creates good activists. A fire which seems often to come with a sense of self rightuousness and narrowmindedness unfortunatly.
—————–
“Yeah, I mean heck, before the war, there weren’t murderous people there intent intent on killimng thousands of our people. Oh wait…..Oh, and they were heroes for doing so?”
It is worse because now many more Iraqis are dead, and the country is in shambles.
It is worse because now many more people hate you with greater intensity, after the damage you have caused.
It is worse because now you have sent Americans close to their homes where they can easily hit them. That’s service for you.
Al Quida was a fringe group that was not that popular, with little popular following or ties, which had to make elaborate plans in order to hit western targets not very frequently. The attack on Iraq pushed them to the mainstream, gave them more legitimacy and opportunity to act.
“Franklu, though I am not Israeli, I don’t care. When those nations can establish governments that aren’t routinely supressing their people’s basic human rights, then i will be less arrogant.
Until then, get over yourselves, the 1400s are over, join us in modern times, treat your people decently, stop blaming everyone else for your problems, and treat your people like human beings and improve the cesspool of the area you live in. You and the world will be better off.”
You really don’t know the middle east well enough to be that arrogant. I don’t know it that well, and my mother teaches it in the university.
Even if we allow that there are things wrong with the middle east, do you think that bombing, shocking, and invading is the way to go? Would the US’s bad qualities change for the better were they invaded by a benevolent invador? Or would the bad only get worse? In the case of the Muslims the answer is that the worse attitudes of self-rightuosness, support of terrorism and victimization have become worse.
—————–
Bill Myers, the Israeli Palestinian conflict is too complicated. It will be enough to say that the Palestinians have reasonable grievances but tend to do the wrong things to address them.
Bill Mulligan. There are Palestinians that talk peace. I’m afraid the distant view you and Bob have of the middle east makes you blind to the nuances. This is not to say that there are not many annoying thought patterns, even among the more peaceful, but attitudes are not uniform.
I recently started reading blogs by Muslims around the world, and about the middle east. It is both illuminating and encouraging and I highly recommend it. The internet enables us to see the point of view of other people more easily than ever before.
Here is small sample of IMiddle Eat blogs.
http://ontheface.blogware.com/blog/_archives/2006/6/11/2022686.html
This is an Israeli site by a Canadian born Israeli. It has many links to other Israeli and Arab sites. This link deals with the recent events and includes the attitude of Palestinian bloggers.
http://www.michaeltotten.com/
This is a blog by an American visiting the middle east. Very interesting. The newest post has Lebanese speaking for peace.
http://kmgr.blogspot.com/
This site is by an Iranian living in Canada.
http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This is a pro-American Egyptian
http://wahdah.blogspot.com/
This is an Algerian living in America. Note his attitude to Zarqawi.
http://www.mideastweb.org/
This is an Israeli political site presenting good analysis and moderate views about the Israeli Palestinian conflict and other issues. This is less illuminating on the personal level but offers more professional analysis.
http://classic-diva.blogspot.com/
a site by a girl in Saudi Arabia
http://perpetualrefugee.blogspot.com/
A site by a Lebanese who has recently visted Israel. It is profound.
I highly recommend taking a peak in some of these sites just so we can realize that there are people out there with original complex thoughts.
I’ve tried to post some links to blogs but for some reason this site prevents it.
I recommend a blog by an American visiting the the middle east called Michael J. Totten.
A site by an Israeli-Canadian called On the Face.
This wil also give you links to many other sites, few of which I’ve visited.
An Egyptian site called SandMonkey.
An Iranian site called Kamangir.
An Algerian-American called the Morr Next Door.
A Lebanese site called Perpetual Refugee. He has recently visted Israel, and his account is amazing.
I highly recommend peeking at these sites to see the world is more complex than we sometimes realize. It also restores some hope inhuman kind.
Micha-
You got caught in the filter while we were being hit from another source. I have reconfigured your previous posts so I think they should all show up without duplicates.
Kath
Thanks
Micha, you are being too humble. There are many forms of “activism.” Your willingness to help us educate ourselves may seem a small thing to you, but education is the foundation for understanding, understanding is the basis for rational thought, and rational thought is the basis for rational decisions.
Will this discourse appreciably change the world? Most likely not. But true and lasting change, I’ve found, happens slowly over time, and in small increments. You never know what can happen when you build bridges of understanding.
And when I say “understanding,” I’m not talking about complete acceptance. I reject Al Qaeda’s terrorism as evil, for example. But how can we combat it if we don’t understand it and where it came from?
Micha,
Thanks.
Micha, yeah, what Bill Meyers said. You don’t have to be a sign carrying protestor to get things done (I might even suggest that the people who get things done tend to be the ones LESS likely to make a big show of it). Your efforts here to broaden our perspective may have greater effects than you can know.
Personally, I have a better than average background dealing with folks from the Middle East. One of my sisters is Iranian (long story). My mom went to Columbia University and would bring home people from the region–we actually dinners with Palestinians and Israelis and they would joke–sorta–about how the next time they would meet it would be on the battlefield.
The funny thing is, on a personal level, the Arabs were, by an large, much more likeable than the Israelis, who tended to come off a bit more harshly. Given what I know now I understand them better but at the time my sympathies would have gone to the Arabs…except they were and in far too many cases still are unwilling to accept the reality that the Jews ain’t leaving. 60 years of having the same lessons pounded home have done nothing. Watching the world enter a golden age of information and technology while they, sitting on wealth beyond the dreams of Croesus, have fallen further and further behind has done nothing. Watching Israel become a major military and cultural power while they have degenerated into what is for all practical purposes a death cult has done nothing.
And I don’t get it. The Arabs I’ve known, to a one, have been kind, generous to a fault, intelligent (though with a serious lack of skepticism), real salt of the earth. This…blindness as it pertains to Jews and Israel baffles me. An alien looking at Earth might conclude that anti-Semitism is some kind of viral disease, predominant in societies that are about to fall into ruin.
I’m pìššëd at the Palestinians because I don’t think they have any excuse. They are not inferior to their Jewish neighbors but they have allowed corrupt leaders to scam billions of dollars given to the Palestinian people and lionized those leaders in the process. They’ve allowed “religious” leaders to blaspheme one of the world’s great religions, twisting it into their image, turning actions that would, by any decent interpretation, be dámņáblë sins into noble acts of martyrdom.
Certainly, there are voices of courage and moderation among the Arabs. But if the general population doesn’t desire real peace, and I don’t know that they do, what chance do these people have?
1which had to make elaborate plans in order to hit western targets not very frequently
****
I am interested at how you define not very frequently. Seemed pretty frequent to us, and 9/11 could have easily been the death of 10,000 or more had they not evacuated the towers as much as they did, and had the flights been a little later in the day.
Yea, I think there was an awful lot of hatred then.
Even if we allow that there are things wrong with the middle east, do you think that bombing, shocking, and invading is the way to go? Would the US’s bad qualities change for the better were they invaded by a benevolent invador? Or would the bad only get worse?
****
I’d bring up a certain time period where invading, bombing, shockig etc. completely changed several peoples.
“even if we allow” wow can you, can you please allow that something might be wrong with these barbaric nations that can’t even get along with each other or provide basic decency for their people? Can you please???????
You really don’t know the middle east well enough to be that arrogant.
******
You have no idea how well I know the middle east, or how well I don’t. The arrogance is presuming someone who thinks differently than you is ignorant.
Posted by spiderrob8 at June 12, 2006 02:24 PM
You have no idea how well I know the middle east, or how well I don’t. The arrogance is presuming someone who thinks differently than you is ignorant.
Actually, your ignorance and belligerence come through loud and clear. Frankly, your posts are far more combative and ill-reasoned than you are willing to believe, and that may have played a part in Peter’s announcing that he would ignore you going forward.
As an aside, it was asinine to compare Peter to John Byrne in the “If I Were a Conservative Voter…” thread. I would actually agree that at times Peter takes disagreement a bit more personally than is warranted. But at the same time, even if he becomes totally sick of someone to the point of choosing to ignore them, he still lets them post in his blog because he believes in the importance of free speech.
I think the proper response to that is to say, “Thank you, Peter.”
So, thank you, Peter.
spiderrob8, I’m guessing that what I have to say is going to make an enemy of you, which isn’t my intent. But I believe this needs to be said, so I’m going to say it anyway. I’m a troll who has been desperately trying to reform. So I know just what it is that drives someone to join an online discussion and start picking fights, because it’s a bad habit I myself am still trying to control.
My advice to you, therefore, is not coming from a perceived vantage point of superiority. Quite the opposite. I know where you’re coming from because I’m there, too. And I’m telling you that if you approach a discussion looking for fights, you’ll find them. You’ll also find that people increasingly tune you out. I know. It’s happened to me.
Conversely, if you come into a discussion willing to treat people the way you’d like to be treated, you will find that people increasingly tune you in, and you have an opportunity to influence them with your ideas.
You can dismiss my advice if you wish. That is your inalienable right. But I’m telling you that I know from direct experience that the “golden rule” is not just fluff: it really works.
But at the same time, even if he becomes totally sick of someone to the point of choosing to ignore them, he still lets them post in his blog because he believes in the importance of free speech.
*****
JB is not infringing on my free speech just because he doesn’t give me a platform to speak there anymore. He doesn’t have to provide me with such a platform. If someone kicks me out of their house, they are not infringing on my free speech.
However, you are right that the methods are different, for sure.
When i was a wee one I never knew that the writer of the incredible Hulk would ignore me on his blog
Actually, your ignorance and belligerence come through loud and clear.
****
I’m not ignorant at all. I’m very, very informed, and if it is a topic I am not informed on, I don’t post.
I don’t believe I’ve picked fights. More like the original blog entries did that. For the most part, i’ve argued hard, but backed up my arguments, with the facts as i’ve seen them.
The shock the middle east stuff not so much-but then, I am sick to death of people making excuses why that area of the world is a nightmare, and forget about the severe abuses and shocking inhumanity demonstrated by virtually every government there. The people I am more sympathetic too, but even they often support terrible terrorist groups and regimes though not always. and i’m also tired of “yeah, he was a killer but that might help Bush that he’s dead so let me come up with 97 reasons it is a bad thing that he’s dead, and bring up Osama, even though 95 of those reasons would apply to his death as well.”
It is a shame, too, because it doesn’t have to be that way.
And you didn’t make an enemy-I have no enemies (from my viewpoint), and certainly not going to have one over political arguments. My friends and I have long argued like that since we were like 12 about politics. Then we get a pizza.
The ignore post was odd, though, because I really thought that I was engaging in a solid philosophical debate, thinking out loud, not coming to any real conclusions, and certainly not calling anyone a nazi or anything like that. My other posts which did make comparisons to nazis and WWII I felt did so on legitimate grounds, again not name calling. Its absurd to say the biggest war in history can never be referenced again. There was no maliciousness or arbitrariness. Legitmiate comparisions/analogies to Nazis/Hitler/Fascism WWII are inevitable-its the bgiggest war in history and the defining moment of the 20th century. It has shaped the world we live in.
Just because some guy I don’t know made his “law” I’m supposed to treat it like Monroe doctrine or something.
Micha,
the Israeli Palestinian conflict is too complicated. It will be enough to say that the Palestinians have reasonable grievances but tend to do the wrong things to address them.
And yet you’ve given what is probably the most succinct and profound one sentence summary of it that I have seen in a long time.
Just jumping in here kinda late but I think that “Godwin’s Law” is an arbitrary pronouncement by someone who must have thought he was being very clever. To insist that when someone brings up Hitler they’re lost the debate implies, that the best way to win a debate is to disallow the most pertinent corollay.
I didn’t vote to adopt Godwin’s “Law”
Civil Disobedience against Godwin’s Law!!!
Mention Hitler and Nazis as often as possible!!! Revolt, revolt 😉
Counterfactuals are so much fun 😉
“Just jumping in here kinda late but I think that “Godwin’s Law” is an arbitrary pronouncement by someone who must have thought he was being very clever.”
Yes, that would be “Godwin.”
“To insist that when someone brings up Hitler they’re lost the debate implies, that the best way to win a debate is to disallow the most pertinent corollay.”
He brought up Nazis not once, not twice, but three times in three different responses. No one else has. It’s not “pertinent.” It’s his default reply when he wants to find a quick way to attack an argument. It’s just laziness.
“I didn’t vote to adopt Godwin’s “Law”.”
Tragically, this blog isn’t a democracy, so…
PAD
Posted by Spiderrob8 at June 12, 2006 04:41 PM
Civil Disobedience against Godwin’s Law!!!
Mention Hitler and Nazis as often as possible!!! Revolt, revolt 😉
Oh, God, even in jest, that’s just asinine. I mean, you can start your own blog and set your own rules. Blogs these days are dirt cheap. Trust me, I started my own blog and I can barely afford a pizza.
Oh, God, even in jest, that’s just asinine.
*****
Lighten up Bill.
For the record, one reason one the Nazis are often brought up, is because its morally clear. Virtually everyone agrees that the Nazis were super bad guys, and virtually everyone supports that war.
So when someone says “This should never be done” or “could never be done” or “isn’t right” it is effective to say, “But it was done in that war” and the person agrees. Then you say “and you approve of that war of course” and they say yes. and then you say “so you don’t really mean what you say. You mean it is ok to do that in certain wars, like say WWII. But you don’t approve of that tactic here, or that reason here. But you do there. So really, it just comes down to whether you think the war is important enough “worth it” or not. I admit you don’t think it is. But I do. therefore, when X is done, or Y is the reason given for war, or Z helps President so and so, I am all for it, because to me, this war/action whatever is worth it.”
Historical comparisons are often very useful that way. “Ha ha, Bush’s approval rating is as low as Nixon’s. That proves he sucks as a President and will be remembered as the worst president ever (though I can only name like 8).” “True, it is as low as Nixon’s I might say. But it is also as low as Truman’s. today, his approval rating is much higher among academics and people in general. So, maybe Bush will go down in history poorly. But his low approval rating doesn’t make it so. and in fact, even Nixon was partly rehabilitated in the minds of the public in the end.”
WWII and Hitler were somewhat unique, but not sooo unique they have no relevance at all. Quite different saying “So and so is Hitler. That’s what Hitler always said. Emperor so and so.” That’s demonizing an opponent so you can dismiss their arguments and differences with you without actually having to confront their ideas, and challenge your own thoughts.
So Godwin can jump in a lake for all I care about his “law”. Heck, I thought it was the John Byrne law.
Thamls Bill Mulligan, I appologize for saying your ignorant. However, in the business of changing the way people think making a Big Show is a good thing. Martin Luther King wrote about the dramarization of the grievances or something to that effect. We tried to do that a bit when I was active, but leftists tend to live in yjeor own world at times, which makes the drama incommunicable, or so I felt. Still, I am happy to do the little I do through the net. It is a new way of communication.
About your experience with Israelis and Palestinians, I dislike getting into generalizations, but it could be said that Arabs have an ingrained strict system of etiquette, while the Israelis really do not. Bernard Lewis (middle Eat expert) said that it’s a comflict between one side that is very polte and one that isn’t. However, I believe this is one of the reasons Israelis are flexible and adaptable (maybe Jews in general too?), and the Palestinians are rigid.
Antisemitism is like a virus.
I get annoyed with the Palestinians very often too. Unlike some in the Israeli Peace camp, I never thought that they are without reproach, while at the same time I do not use their stupidity to hide ours.
About whether the Palestinian majority want peace, I do not know. It is hard to tell, although polls show that they do. My own opinion is that most do, but not all of them are able to reconsile this choice wih their deep desire to restore what they’ve lost. There is a similar inability in the Israeli side to reconsile wanting peace and doing what is necessary. This is part of the tragedy. We are close, but not enough.
I recently read an interview with an American-Palestinian refugee whose mother stil wore the key to a house lost in 1948. So he told her that if she returned she’ll have to learn Hebrew and such, and the key vanished. It probably was difficult for her. I doubt any Jews wore keys of houses lost in Europe or in the Middle East. My father doesn’t.
You are right spiderbob/ I assumed that the fact that you make broad generalizations about the middle east and believe it your right to invade and reshape things the way you see fit no matter the consequences to be a sign of ignorance. But you may be well informed and still think the same way.
———-
“I am interested at how you define not very frequently”
Let me tel you what I define frequently. When you hear an ambulance and think: oh, another suicide attack. I should call my family and tell them I’m fine, and send the usyual E-mail to friends and family. Abd then you listen to the news and say, good, only 4 casualties this time. Frequently is two attacks per week. In Iraq things are even worse. Infrequently is what we have now. One suicide bombing with four casualties on averege every two months or so.
In the beginning of the Intifada they didn’t have enough recruits for suicide bombings so they planted bombs. At the hight, after many Palestinians got killed, then they had an endless supply of recruits for suicide bombings.
I do not envy the US for 9/11. But then you had a small group of people hating you and dedicated enough to plan an elaborate attack. Now there are many more who were humiilated and lost family in the war who hate the US. This is not an improvement.
————–
I’m the last person to defend despotism in the middle east. I dispute your right to shock them into the 21st century, or that such an action will improve the situation. Now you get to be barbaric too, while still being allied to other despotic regimes.
—————
“I’d bring up a certain time period where invading, bombing, shockig etc. completely changed several peoples.”
A hidden reference to WWII. Unfortunatly our little conflict (Israel, not Iraq) suffers from all too many such comparisons. And it never helps. But beyond that, WWII was not what you’d call a common event. It was unique in every respect. Nor was it such a shining example of bringing democracy to peoples that you imagine.
Western Europe needed the US’s military to defeat the Germans, but they had earlier democratic tradition. The Germans and Italians also had a European democratic tradition. After the war despotism remained in Spain, Portugal, and of course Eastern Europe. So, only in Japan did bombing create a deocracy, in one very unique case in a unique society. The rest of east Asia had to develop in there own ways. The US helped Korea start a democracy by fighting the north. But eventually it was the Koreans who removed despotism from their country without US bombs.
In other parts of the world democracy and progress were accomplished without bombing or invasion. The countries in question got US help at times (and opposition at others), but they formed democracy without shock and awe.
It should also be remembered that the US did not get into WWII for the sake of promoting democracy. There were more immediate issues.
It should also be recalled that the US track record in involving itself in international issues is not so great that it should go arround dictating and giving marks to countries for their barbarity.
————-
So really, I’m not saying that the middle east is not in bad shape, or that wars are always wrong, or that Zarqawi’s death was not a good thing. But seriously, the image of America marching in and bringing freedom to the world at gunpoint, while the masses cheer on is a dangerous fantasy. Try to understand the complexities involved, the limitations of military power, the restrictions you must put on yourself before you attack.
For the record, one reason one the Nazis are often brought up, is because its morally clear. Virtually everyone agrees that the Nazis were super bad guys, and virtually everyone supports that war.
But that’s precisely why it’s so lazy an argument and is so easily abused one. It’s like the “when did you stop beating your wife?” question. How do you counter that argument. People, particularly on the web, have pulled out the “that’s just like Hitler and the Nazis” card over anything that even mildly annoys them too many times. Everytime it’s used, it cheapens it even more. In the 10+ years since Godwin made his pronouncement, the Hitler comparison has become so cheapened that today, it’s almost meaningless.
After righting my previous reply I was afraid it would seem I don’t take 9/11 seriously. This is not the case. I’ve always wondered what’s worse, one big shocking attack with thousands of casualties, or your 5-10 casualties in a restaurant or bus every once in awhile.
I don’t envy the Americans at all. Nor do I take it lightly. But, I think on a purely strategic level the first case is better. When you have many people engaged all the time in trying to kill you with unsophisticated weapons and strategy, and with a seemingly endless supply of recruits from a supportive civilian population it is harder to fight it. A group like Al-Quida that has few people, less popular support, closed cells, elaborate plans, and who have to cross half the world to get to you, can be dealt with in ways that you can’t with groups like Hamas. Of course, Al-Quaida is not a walk in the park, I do not take it lightly, but I thing from a strategic point of view it is better than fighting the insurgency in Iraq or Somalia or Palestine.
Writing not righting. It’s 2:00 AM here. Stupid mistake.
Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 05:49 PM
About whether the Palestinian majority want peace, I do not know. It is hard to tell, although polls show that they do.
Most people claim they want peace. The question is whether or not they’re willing to make a sacrifice to achieve the goal. Many aren’t, and there’s the rub: turning conflict into peace inevitably requires a significant sacrifice.
My own opinion is that most do, but not all of them are able to reconsile this choice wih their deep desire to restore what they’ve lost.
That’s a terrific insight. And I fear the conflict between your people and theirs will continue until the majority of Palestinians realize that the costs of their desires outweigh the potential benefits. One hopes that such a realization won’t come too late.
There is a similar inability in the Israeli side to reconsile wanting peace and doing what is necessary. This is part of the tragedy. We are close, but not enough.
It’s a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I’ve always believed that Arafat’s refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy ’round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests.
Posted by: Micha at June 12, 2006 07:12 PM
Writing not righting. It’s 2:00 AM here. Stupid mistake.
Not stupid at all. You are in fact one of the most intelligent people I’ve encountered, on or off the Net.
By the way, I never thought you were belittling 9/11. Your ability to communicate is far better than you give yourself credit for.
Now go to bed!
Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I’d argue that the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now. It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we’d have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don’t think so.
I also think you discount what role war played in creating, maintaining, or shaping democracy. War saved democracy in England, War saved Western Europe, War ended naziism.fascism as a politicalworld threatening force, War saved Germany from itself,war created democracy in Japan-in fact total overwhelming destructive insane war, war led to democracy in Korea (and the South Vietnamese woud have been far better off had we won that war), war created this country, war freed the slaved in this country and crreated the conditions to pass amendments that, while it would take 100 years, ensured the rights of black Americans, and proxy wars and a military build helped bankrupt the Soviet Union which helped free Eastern Europe. Reminds me of a slogan-War has never solved anything Peace is then hard. Democracy and freedom is hard-it is more than simply giving people the right to vote like some people think-you need to give information, ensure that minority rights are protected, give voice to the majority without oppressing the minority. Of course it is more than just war-you need ideas, great men and women, continued checks over abuses, police forces, anmd people willing to take the chance offered them. and sometimes democracy comes quickly like in Japan. Usually its a struggle-the United States did not have true democracy for all its citizens for 200 years-the 1970s-yet the germ had to start somewhere.
I can’t believe I forgot about Turkey. (I’m not kidding, either.)
Micha, seriously, not to just jump on the bandwagon, but I would classify your ideas as remarkably clear, well considered, and exceedingly well communicated. Throw in the fact that you’re exceedingly polite, even going so far as to clarify further a remark you thought might cause offense (it didn’t for me at least) and you give me hope that maybe there is something to hope for. Don’t worry abouthow “active” you are. Change is more often brought about subtly.
Something to remember, touched on indirectly by Bill Myers above. Peace means different things to different people. It means more to have peace than to just not have fighting. Peace doesn’t mean everyone has what they want, because sometimes different people want different things. Peace is allowing others to have what they can while they allow you to have what you can. (I hope that makes sense outside my head.)
Thanks Bill and Sean.
“It’s a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I’ve always believed that Arafat’s refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy ’round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests.”
It was a little more complicated than that. It has been much discussed, but part of it is a little like Bill Mulligans dinner table. The Israeli prime minister made the Arafat an offer of 95% of the occupied territories, and felt he was being very generous, as if he was doing them a favor. His whole attitude was take it or leave it. The Palestinians could not really accept it although it was more than they were offered before. But they made no briding offers. They expected to get what they feel they deserved (which was more than Israel could agree to), viewed the Israeli offer not as a positive development but as an insult as well as part of an Israeli-American plan to twist their arm, felt they were being generous to even entertain a compromise with Israel, and completely ignored the Israeli needs, especially with regard to Jerusalem and the refugees. Then both leaders went around the world blaiming each other, as if a good soundbyte on CNN will get them anything. The Israelis viewed this as proof that the Palestinians don’t want peace. The Palestinians saw this as proof that the peace process was pointless, and felt the only way to get anything was by going to the tried method of ‘resistence’ (rioting and terrorism) and international pressure on Israel. When the fighting started the Israeli army was committed to teaching the Palestinians that they won’t get anything by violence, so they used excessive force. Then things spiraled out of controled, neither side would stop, each fel its ideas aboutr the other side confirmed, the peace makers were discredited and the hardliners took over. And the rest is history.
At that time period killing Palestinian terrorists probably did more harm than good. I believe the Israeli army could have tried to deescalate things on the early stages and tried harder not to kill civilians. But at a certain point things got so out of control, and the Palestinian revenge list go so long, that the use of aggressive military force become unavoidable, and the Israeli army was able to reduce the flames and provide greater security. They lso learned to be more careful about human rights violations, partly as a result of what the Israeli peace camp did. We also succeeded in getting the Israeli public to understand that continued occupation is not in Israel interest. But the peace camp is still discredited, and the Israelis have more faith in force and unilateral action than faith in peace (not without cause).
I believe that the Palestinians were more wrong than Israel, but Israel actions were not completel right either. As an Israeli my focus is on my side, although, unlike some of my friends, I don’t believe in making excuses for the Palestinians. One of the stupider things they did was believing that Clinton was too pro Israeli, and that the next guy will be better fo them. The theory you suggest about Arafat may be right. Many Israelis believed so. But it had been used as a justification for avoiding negotiations and taking a hardline approach. It is only a theory. It is hard to tell what Arafat was thinking because he never talked straight. In any case, after the Peace talks collapsed, the Israeli governments never considered returning to negotiations to find out. Part of the reason is that they were not willing to offer even what the previous prime minister offered.
spiderrob:
>Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I’d argue that the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now.
You could say that, but you have little to no factual information that supports that statement. To the best of my knowledge, there have only been 2 other foreign attacks on American soil in the 200+ years that this country has been around, the Attack on Pearl Harbor and the first bombing at the WTC. The first occured over 60 years ago and the second happened about 10 years before it was hit again. That timeline alone indicates that the frequency of attacks is not enough to believe that your statement is factual.
If you believe the government that a few attacks have been stopped before they took place, than the number of attempts have actually increased significantly since the U.S. government went to war on terror.
The attacks that have been prevented were not doneso due to troops being sent to Iraq, a move that has united much of the Arab world against us, but due to covert government intelligence being utilized to bring these planned attacks to light before they occur.
>It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we’d have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don’t think so.
Not coincidence, no. It is due to a combination of a multibillion dollar intelligence budget and geography.
Fred
“Certainly,we do not face frequent suicide bombers. I’d argue that the fact that we haven’t been attacked since 9/11 is a sign of some things we have done right, no matter how many more supposedly loved us before, and hate us now. It is a difficult thing to say though, and to attribute credit too, because you never know what tomorrow will bring. I do know this-on 9/12/01, virtually everyone thought more and more attacks were coming, and up thgrough the beginning of the Iraq war, people were sayoing we’d have to get used to suicide bombings like the Israelis. So far, no. Coincidence? I really don’t think so.”
Give yourself a pat on the back. The US did well. The fact that here were no other attacks, especially not the kind we had here, show two things.
1) Apparently Al-Quaida has not succeeded in recruiting many people or building something among the local Muslim population. They seem to prefer the American Dream to martyrdom, and have less of a feeling of discontent than Muslims in Europe and the Middle East.
2) Your ability to use intelligence and security measures to protect yourselves is greater than the ability of Al-Quida to orchastrate an attack on US soil.
It is also possible that Al-Quida’s focus has shifted to fighting in Iraq. And that some malcontent muslims in the US have left the country to fight elsewhere, rather than fight in the US. But the above points are still valid.
Of course there is always the risk of somebody doing something. Wasn’t there something in Canada? But still, this is not Gaza, where the recruits came lokkoing for the Hamas recruiters so they could become martyrs, avenge deaths of relatives, insult to their honor and so forth.
It is also not Iraq. The opposite of everything I said is true of the American situation in Iraq and the rest of the middle east. Here terrorists have the will, the popular support born out of outrage and hate, the recruits and the means to attack Americans, which are greater than the abiility of the US to stop them. If this war ends well, it will probably involve some deal with the insurgents that will satisfy their honor and sectorial interests. And even then, each group will probably have their own militias for a while.
I was also worried that the US will have suicide bombings in great frequency. I’m happy that it ididn’t happen. I don’t think attacking Iraq helped the US. I think it harmed it and the war on terrorism. It is possible that in the long run it will bring a good outcome for the cause of democracy. I hope so. But it would still not make it a smart war.
“I also think you discount what role war played in creating, maintaining, or shaping democracy. War saved democracy in England, War saved Western Europe, War ended naziism.fascism as a politicalworld threatening force, War saved Germany from itself,war created democracy in Japan-in fact total overwhelming destructive insane war, war led to democracy in Korea (and the South Vietnamese woud have been far better off had we won that war), war created this country, war freed the slaved in this country and crreated the conditions to pass amendments that, while it would take 100 years, ensured the rights of black Americans, and proxy wars and a military build helped bankrupt the Soviet Union which helped free Eastern Europe. Reminds me of a slogan-War has never solved anything Peace is then hard. Democracy and freedom is hard-it is more than simply giving people the right to vote like some people think-you need to give information, ensure that minority rights are protected, give voice to the majority without oppressing the minority. Of course it is more than just war-you need ideas, great men and women, continued checks over abuses, police forces, anmd people willing to take the chance offered them. and sometimes democracy comes quickly like in Japan. Usually its a struggle-the United States did not have true democracy for all its citizens for 200 years-the 1970s-yet the germ had to start somewhere.”
I’m no pacifist, nor do I think wars are never necessary. I don’t think they should be sought, especially in order to make social experimentys in democracy in an alien culture based on a theory tthat in the distant future it would make the denizens in the middle east better people (i.e. more like Americans). The historical examples you cite are examples where people fought to defend or liberate their countries or their allies, not to do social experiements baed on the assumption that it will prevent some future war. The Americans chose to fight and sacrifice for their freedom, which is admirable. They also chose to sacrifice their lives to come to the aid of Europeans and the Koreans when they were fighting for theirs, which is also laudable. The proxy wars of the cold war + Vietnam are nothing to brag about, but the pressure on the USSR (but not actual fighting), did help liberate Eastern Europe, although it was they who actually stood up to tyrany in the end, relatively without violence. However the americans did not have the right to choose for the Iraqis to sacrifice their lives on American terms, in order to conduct an American attempt to form a democracy in an alien culture especially when Iraq (unlike Japan) did not attack or threated the US and their allies at the time. It should also be repeated that Japan and Korea (to a lesser degree) were the only places in which the US successfully formed a democracy where there was none before. So deciding to go into a country to form a democracy o these terms was an unwarranted act of arrogance on the US’s part. There were ways to help democracy develop in the middle east, slowly, gradually, like it did in Eastern Europe, South American and Asia (not always thanks to the US if I recall). And the US’s ability to help that goal would have been much greater.
Full scale military attacks should be reserved to cases of actual self defence (of self or allies), and in immediate humanitarian crises like Kosovo or Darfur. Had the Iraqis decided to fight Saddam on their own, the US would have acted right in helping them. But what they did was take the choice on itself.
“It’s a two-way street, though. I remember when Israel offered unprecedented concessions to the Palestinians, only to have their offer rejected out-of-hand by Yasser Arafat. I’ve always believed that Arafat’s refusal to come up with a counter-offer was borne out of a fear that making peace with Israel would leave him without an enemy ’round which to rally his people. So he sacrificed the long-term interests of the Palestinians on the altar of his selfish interests.”
I don’t know whether I’d classify being concerned about getting assassinated as a selfish interest.
You have to remember, a sizable portion of Arafat’s constituency consisted of people who consider the only acceptable negotiation to end thusly: All the Israelis leave. The back up position is, all the Israelis die. If they leave because they’re all dead, that’s good too. By his own admission, he was concerned that if he took the deal, he was a dead man. His own people would kill him. I can’t say he did the right thing in terms of his peoples’ future, but in terms of his personal safety, my guess is that he was probably right. For that matter, he might well have figured that he would agree to a deal, come home, announce the deal, be dead inside of a week, and his successor would say, “Deal’s off.”
It’s easy to say that the majority of Palestinians want peace. But considering a majority of Palestinians–or at least voting Palestinians–put in charge known radicals who have spent decades declaring they want to push Israel into the sea, I’m not convinced. If their own previous leader was afraid to talk peace to them for fear of his life, that says a lot.
PAD
Give yourself a pat on the back. The US did well
As Fred said, I don’t believe this to be the case at all.
Consider: Israel, albiet a much, much smaller country than the US, protects their borders, does a lot with security, etc. Yet, attacks still happen.
Whereas if somebody really wanted to make a suicide bombing here, they could probably do so at will. But aside from 9/11 there has been nothing.
No, it’s not because of our inept government stopping attacks, it’s because such attacks are not even being attempted.
it’s because such attacks are not even being attempted.
***
That ust begs the question why though. (aside from the fact that several attacks in the amking have been stopped, and I am sure many others disrupted in the early stages, that had we done nothing would have succeeded but we shall never know. Like if something had disrupted 9/11 planning early on-we would never know what we had missed out on).
one thing is that muslims in this country are fairly assimilated, have loyalty to this country, and are relatively happy and well off compared to the situation in other countries.
another reason why large scale attacks may not have happened is simple time. or money has dried up some. or leaders have been killed and plans disrupted. or calls have been intercepted. or the ones who were most angry are in Iraq now fighting, or other places. the distance between us and our enemies, while no longer determinative, still is a wide gulk, unlike Israel which is surrounded. the fact we are doing many things more now than before.luck. the government is bloated and slow, but it still has done things, and those things have undoubtedly had impacts no one will know-because non of us is The Watcher and can view alternate timelines where those things were not done. It is probably all of these things, and more, hough more attacks are only a matter of time.
There were ways to help democracy develop in the middle east, slowly, gradually
****
Not to be flippant about it, but it is 2006. Time’s up. It it more than past time to take steps toward granting basic freedoms and democracy. I don’t expect change over night-it took us 200 years to get ours more right than not, given we excluded a large part of pur population from the process. but it is time to start. I don’t care if they are more like Americans. I do care that most of the governments there are terrible, horrible giovernments, and the ideology of these terrorist groups is disgusting and insane. The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. There is a reason they have troubles there and it isn’t the “Jews and the Americans.” It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked.
That just begs the question why though.
Yes, it does. And I don’t have any quick and easy answers.
another reason why large scale attacks may not have happened is simple time.
How often have there been large-scale attacks in Israel? By large-scale, I’m thinking something along the lines of what happened in London.
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any, but everybody is welcome to refresh my memory of specific incidents. But for the most part, they’ve been lone suicide bombers that had some stuff strapped to their chests.
This style of attacks was also what was done in London, although it was done with multiple people at once, and unfortunately involved crowded buses and subways. I’m not knowledgable in the least of Israel’s public transportation systems, but if they had a subway, it certainly would’ve been targetted too.
The 9/11 hijackers also proved that it isn’t difficult to get into the country – most of them, if not all of them, arrived here legally. Some of them were also well off, much like the suicide bombers in London. So, getting to the US isn’t that great of an obstacle.
Materials for bombs probably aren’t all that difficult to get in the US either.
The world may never see another 9/11, although I don’t hold out much hope. But lone suicide bombers? It’s just too easy in the long run.
>The fact it has any popular support at all as opposed to being a fringe group should be a source of shame for those people. *snip* It is their own governments and the way they allowed their culture to be hijacked.
Wow. This is exactly how I felt as the U.S. entered the war without providing its people any real proof of their allegations. I watched as those people, due mostly to their own fear and anger, followed like sheep and actually condemned anyone who suggested that there were some very visible facts that contradicted what our government was telling us and that we get more info or more than a shred of proof before going to war.
Using your reasoning above, do my unsuccessful protesting, public statements and discussions with those supporting the war leave me “allowing my government to be hijacked”?
It it more than past time to take steps toward granting basic freedoms and democracy.
So, why the Middle East and not Africa? Why not Cuba, China, and the other Communist countries of Asia?
The method by which we, the US, are picking and choosing who should have democracy forced upon them is rather ridiculous and egotistical on our part.
I said it awhile back, and I’ll say it again: you cannot force democracy upon people. They have to take it for themselves. As you can see, this hasn’t happened in Iraq, and it hasn’t exactly happened in Afghanistan.
But it did happen in Turkey, and in some small fashion in other Middle Eastern countries.
The fact that we continue to choose military action to enforce democracy on others is never going to help.
So, getting to the US isn’t that great of an obstacle.
*****
True, it is easy to get here legally and illegally. However, legal immigration has been tightened somewhat with new computer checks, and even students from “friendly” countries have said they have had more difficulty getting here, so maybe that has slowed things down.
***
Materials for bombs probably aren’t all that difficult to get in the US either.
*****
No, as Tim McVeigh showed.
****
The world may never see another 9/11, although I don’t hold out much hope. But lone suicide bombers? It’s just too easy in the long run.
*****
That is definitely true, especially given the size of the country, though how many is the unknown question. People who immigrate here are not as radical as in Europe. They get assimilated. Those who come here to start trouble obviously can.
I don’t know. The problem is, despite the fact that overall, the suicide bombings wouldn’t kill that many people compared to our population, so the risk would be small, the fear created would hurt our economy tremendously, and psychologically hurt our people