operations against terrorists

[Paul:]
> the recent (three-week) military operation, which is roughly
> analogous to the u.s. operation in afghanistan?

Oh! Interesting - you are absolutely correct there.
Foriegn nation launches military operation to round up
terrorists coming from rogue nation after strikes on
civilians.

> the aim is "rooting out terrorism" -- in both cases, i feel,
> with insufficient emphasis on root causes.

I see both operations as justified and reasonable, even
necessary. When you have a lawless state run by
criminals who insist on murdering civilians in
terrorist acts and said state refuses to take action to
stop the terrorists, you really have no other choice.
Imagine if a madman in the house next door was coming
to your house and killing your family members one by
one. You call the police and they refuse to do
anything. Obviously you would have to take matters in
to your own hands and whatever you need to do to defend
your family would be justified. I see it this way and
wonder how the countries complaining about Israel's
actions would handle it if the Palestinians were
attacking them the way they are attacking Israel. The
current operations in Afghanistan and Palestine are
simply matters of self-defense.

> . no one today seems to question the necessity of a
> palestinian state.

OK, I'll question it. Why do they get their own country
and not us American Indians? I think that is a fair
question and I'm quite serious.

Another question is, how come the Serbs and the
Bosnians and the Japanese and the Czechs and
Palestinians etc etc are all entitled to have their own
racially pure self-governed nations and the same people
supporting these adventures are opposed to White
Separatism? Seems the same thing to me - racially pure
states. Why are they the purest good in some places and
yet the most despotic evil in others?

> but agreeing to palestinian statehood would mean agreeing to
> israel's existence alongside it, and the palestinian leader
> has therefore turned down several fair and increasingly
> generous proposals along those lines.

Absolutely!

The arabs are not interested in Palestinian Statehood.
They are interested in the extinction of the Jewish
race.

> with 19 of the 22 nearby arab countries essentially breathing
> down his neck to continue warring against israel, it is
> little wonder.

Absolutely.

> meanwhile, innocent palestinians have had to live in a state
> of military occupation and blatant human rights abuses.

True.

> knowing no life other than brutal hardship, it is little
> wonder that many are ready to jump at causes to die for, in
> the hope that it might somehow better their people

Yes.

>. seeing
> little hope for dignity in this life, many heed
> fundamentalist promises of great rewards for their
> 'martyrdom' in the next life.

Unfortunately, yes.

> i don't see either side as the evil one.

Hm... yes, you're right.

> i don't see either side as the victim.

Hm... interesting. Actually I guess I pity the
Palestinians more -- as victims of the antisemites who
are using them as tools to further their evil agenda.
Can't let the Palestinians completely off the hook
either though -- their terrorist has to be dealt with.
Unfortunate fact of life is that the people always pay
the price for the crimes of their leaders.

> i see a lot of religious fanaticism, in symbiosis with the
> baser human instincts of aggression and group mentality.
> how hopeful am i that humankind can rise above them? well,
> considering some of the events that led to the declaration of
> the state of israel in 1948, and the growing movement to deny
> that these events occurred, i'm not all that hopeful.

> considering that Oil is the driver of the government and
> policy of the world's only superpower, i'm not all that
> hopeful.

Will be interesting to see what happens when we run out
of oil.

- Jeff

--- In metatuning@y..., "X. J .Scott" <xjscott@e...> wrote:

> > . no one today seems to question the necessity of a
> > palestinian state.
>
> OK, I'll question it. Why do they get their own country
> and not us American Indians? I think that is a fair
> question and I'm quite serious.

palestinian state or not, american indians should get their own
country -- and plenty of it.

i hope i caught the important part of your message -- bye!

In-Reply-To: <E170DOM-0000uF-00@...>
X. J .Scott wrote:

<snip>
> your family would be justified. I see it this way and
> wonder how the countries complaining about Israel's
> actions would handle it if the Palestinians were
> attacking them the way they are attacking Israel. The
> current operations in Afghanistan and Palestine are
> simply matters of self-defense.

The United Kingdom has been through a murderous terrorist campaign. We
dealt with it by observing human rights in the disputed territory, talking
to the terrorists' representatives, negotiating a power sharing regional
government and releasing terrorists from prison. It isn't resolved yet,
but the peace has lasted longer than the Israeli/Palestinian one.

> > . no one today seems to question the necessity of a
> > palestinian state.
>
> OK, I'll question it. Why do they get their own country
> and not us American Indians? I think that is a fair
> question and I'm quite serious.

The Palestinians will get their own country because they'll keep bombing
Israel until they do. American Indians have little power, political or
military, and no powerful friends. There's also a clearly defined
territory that would become the Palestinian state. American Indians are
dissipated over the Americas. Israel is exceptional in being founded by a
diaspora.

> Another question is, how come the Serbs and the
> Bosnians and the Japanese and the Czechs and
> Palestinians etc etc are all entitled to have their own
> racially pure self-governed nations and the same people
> supporting these adventures are opposed to White
> Separatism? Seems the same thing to me - racially pure
> states. Why are they the purest good in some places and
> yet the most despotic evil in others?

Serbia fought for its independence from the Ottoman Empire, but was placed
in a united Yugoslavia in the peace settlement at the end of the World War
(which they triggered by aggressive behaviour towards Bosnia-Herzegovina).
Serbia wanted to keep the Yugoslav federation -- it broke up because the
others wanted out.

Japan has been independent since antiquity. As a sovereign nation, they
are allowed to enforce their own immigration policy.

AIUI, refugees are being resettled in Bosnia Herzegovina so there will be
no ethnically pure state. If that doesn't work out, it'll be because the
various ethnic groups keep on fighting. Few outsiders think that would be
a good outcome.

Czechoslovakia was made independent at the end of the same World War,
following Wilson's policy of national self determination. It was not
ethnically pure -- it had a large German minority which Hitler fought to
unite with the German Empire. The border was restored at the end of the
ensuing World War. Czechoslovakia itself broke up on ethnic lines because
a few people wanted it and nobody strongly objected. The Czech republic
is not ethnically pure -- the German minority remains.

Many nations do not have their own states. The Kurds were not allowed to
break away from Iraq because we apparently believe in the territorial
integrity of Iraq, and Turkey doesn't want to encourage its own Kurds to
secede. There's no Basque state, because the majority seem not to want
it. Tibet is not independent because China's strong enough to do what
they like with it. There's no Tamil state because the Sinhalese majority
in Sri Lanka will not allow it.

You'll know better than I do whether American Indians consider themselves
a single ethnic group, and want a state. There'll be huge opposition to
creating one in the United States because it was established in the Civil
War that nobody has a right of secession. I think Nunavut does have some
self governing status, and might even be allowed independence if they
wanted it. Do they count as Indians?

> > but agreeing to palestinian statehood would mean agreeing to
> > israel's existence alongside it, and the palestinian leader
> > has therefore turned down several fair and increasingly
> > generous proposals along those lines.
>
> Absolutely!
>
> The arabs are not interested in Palestinian Statehood.
> They are interested in the extinction of the Jewish
> race.

It's far too simplistic to assume "the arabs" have a single desire. Some
Arabs do want the expulsion of all Jews from Palestine. It's a step
further to want their complete extinction, but no doubt some do. There
are nutcases all over the world. Most Arab states now accept Israel's
right to exist -- Iraq and I think one other being exceptions.

Many Palestinians really do want their own state, and when they get it
it'll remove a big grievance against Israel.

> > with 19 of the 22 nearby arab countries essentially breathing
> > down his neck to continue warring against israel, it is
> > little wonder.
>
> Absolutely.

Yasser Arafat had a big personal stake in the Oslo process, and did
everything he could to keep it going without losing the support of his own
people (which is, of course, essential to peace). But for the personal
hostility shown to him by the Israeli government, he would have lost his
position as Palestinan leader when the process ended.

> > i don't see either side as the evil one.
>
> Hm... yes, you're right.
>
> > i don't see either side as the victim.
>
> Hm... interesting. Actually I guess I pity the
> Palestinians more -- as victims of the antisemites who
> are using them as tools to further their evil agenda.
> Can't let the Palestinians completely off the hook
> either though -- their terrorist has to be dealt with.
> Unfortunate fact of life is that the people always pay
> the price for the crimes of their leaders.

Undeniably the Jews were victims of Nazi oppression, and the creation and
expansion of the Israeli state had everything to do with that. The
Palestinians also became victims of that process, because they lost their
homes. So both sides are victims, which is exactly the problem.

Both sides have their evil as well. It doesn't help to weigh out who has
the most evil, or use one evil to excuse another. Somehow, they have to
find a way of living together (or peacefully apart).

Graham