abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (12/10/85)
Marcel-Franck Simon writes: > Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly > flexible. Those who are on our side are democratic freedom fighters. Those > who are not are bloodthirsty murderers. (Mr. Simon either must not be reading what I've been writing, or chooses to ignore me. No matter:) THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS NOT FLEXIBLE. Once a person accepts such Orwellian doubletalk, it becomes possible to justify any act of violence. (It is not, however, true that people attempt to justify all acts of violence; rather, all acts of violence can be justified given a nice fairy tale about how individuals have suffered unfairly.) Let me remind foggy thinkers out there that in the ideal laws made by man are not meant to be fair, but merely just. That is, many people suffer, but we can only treat people justly. It is the best that can be done. With this rather abstruse introduction: I will now state that WAR IS NOT TERRORISM. And finally that THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, HORATIO, THAN ARE DREAMED OF IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY. I know this last is true since you don't understand my point of view (quod erat demonstratum). HOWEVER, to take the point of view (if it can be thus dignified) advanced by Mr. Simon, is to deny that there is any difference between GOOD and EVIL. I must say that this is a lesson which has not been lost on Christian fundamentalists in the 1980's-- a group of which I rather suspect Mr. Simon disapproves. To wit: The Christian fundamentalists have reversed an historical trend of latent hostility towards Judaism in order PRECISELY to make the point that there is a difference between GOOD and EVIL. (I certainly do not subscribe to their theology, but call them as I see them.) Pooh, pooh! Those nasty Americans are aiding the CONTRA's! If you are a Nicaraguan leftist in 1985, I understand your chagrin. Please remind me what this has to do with Palestine? In Nicaragua there are poor people, historically suffering people. There are also ambitious generals, and games of geopolitical chess. In Israel there are a united people, the Jews, who are peaceful people by any reasonable standard, people who can claim a measure of self-righteousness. And they are physically attacked constantly. Day after day, year in and year out we hear the doubletalk rubbish from certain quarters about driving the Jews into the sea. Is this GOOD? That viewpoint makes me sick--as it does all real people. Who among us can live with the thought (REALLY LIVE WITH IT) that there is no difference between GOOD and EVIL? If GOOD for me is EVIL for you (and life is a zero sum game) than how can I look at myself in the MIRROR? If it is all just stepping on others to gain advancement for myself then what is the point? You who sit at the computer terminal--I urge you to quit your job, drop out of school: Because you are gaining your livelihood and status at the expense of less fortunate people who are equally deserving to you. You are just taking up space with your fat behind--if GOOD is EVIL. Rather, there is another possibility. Life is not a zero-sum game, and by contributing to society you justify your own existence. Ultimately, sitting around condemning people who are defending their lives against bloodthirsty attackers is not contributing to society. Sitting around claiming that TERRORISM is RELATIVE is not contributing to society. If you are a builder, not a tearer-down on average, then you have a right to park yourself in front of this terminal and take up a place which someone less productive might otherwise have. They deserve it as well as you do, but life is not fair and laws made by humans are at best only just. The modern history of Palestine is not fair either. People's feelings have been deeply hurt and they have been terribly manipulated. Other people have gained a homeland. But it is, I suggest, a disservice to equate these two events as necessarily connected. Look alive and accomplish new things for the future, don't look back. For the Jews, the establishment of Israel was a positive thing, a step forward. For the other Palestinian inhabitants, mostly Arab, it need not have been a step backwards, but it undoubtedly has worked out to be one. But I submit to you that it would not be a positive thing for Palestinian Arabs to become pre-occupied with taking revenge on the Jewish state. For that is TERRORISM.
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) (12/10/85)
> J. Abeles > > Me > > Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly > > flexible. Those who are on our side are democratic freedom fighters. Those > > who are not are bloodthirsty murderers. > > THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS NOT FLEXIBLE. > > [ Multiple lines of high intensity flames ] Mr. Abeles must have misunderstood, misread, or not read what I wrote. I did not equate Israeli behavior with that of any terrorist, or freedom fighting, group. I did point out that justification for US support of contras and others is exactly the same as justification for Arab support of the PLO. GOOD and EVIL have very little place in geopolitics. They are just words, to be used in advancing a point of view. In any conflict, the winner gets to write the official version of history, and claim that his side was right, good, democratic, etc. From the Palestinian point of view, they had their land forcibly taken from them. Yes, the Jews also have claims to that land. However, if someone came to yoour house and handed you an eviction notice, claiming that the house had been in his family a couple of thousand years ago, that he had been unfairly evicted by a third party, that he had now come back to reclaim his property, and that intended to keep you out, by force if necessary, would you not defend yourself, by force if necessary? NOTE: the above paragraph does not represent approval of terrorist tactics, but attempts to state a world view. That world view is that of the vanquished, hence carries little weight. That does not reduce its validity. > For the Jews, the establishment of Israel was a positive thing, > a step forward. For the other Palestinian inhabitants, mostly Arab, > it need not have been a step backwards, but it undoubtedly has > worked out to be one. But I submit to you that it would not > be a positive thing for Palestinian Arabs to become pre-occupied > with taking revenge on the Jewish state. For that is TERRORISM. It is terrorism because it clashes with your view of the situation. Consider the Stern gang, and other Jewish groups operating just prior to the formation of Israel. Were their tactics terrorism, too? -- Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs " Krik." "Krak." " Kapite`n anba kabann." "Vaz."
abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) (12/11/85)
>>> Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly >>> flexible. >> THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS NOT FLEXIBLE. > Mr. Abeles must have misunderstood, misread, or not read what I wrote. That's Dr. Abeles. Please refer to me either as J. Abeles or as Dr. Abeles. > GOOD and EVIL have very little place in geopolitics. > They are just words... That is a cynical statement.
tedrick@ernie.BERKELEY.EDU (Tom Tedrick) (12/11/85)
> [... discussion of how to define terrorism ... ] >WAR IS NOT TERRORISM ... Well, let me propose the following. The so-called terrorism we see so much of these days is part of a global war between the Soviet Union and the west. Since atomic weapons make total war very risky, the superpowers have resorted to this new type of war. In more detail, by applying the divide and conquer principle (stirring up trouble between various countries and groups) the Soviets are able to divert attention from the problem of containing Soviet expansionism. For example, the so-called arab terrorists are really pawns (perhaps unwittingly) of Soviet interests, stirring up trouble between Arabs and Israelis so the Soviets can gradually annex territory in the middle east.
dave@lsuc.UUCP (David Sherman) (12/11/85)
> From the Palestinian point of view, they had their land forcibly taken > from them. Yes, the Jews also have claims to that land. However, > if someone came to yoour house and handed you an eviction notice, > claiming that the house had been in his family a couple of thousand > years ago, that he had been unfairly evicted by a third party, > that he had now come back to reclaim his property, and that intended to > keep you out, by force if necessary, would you not defend yourself, > by force if necessary? > Marcel-Franck Simon ihnp4!{mhuxr, hl3b5b}!mfs That was NOT what happened in pre-Israel Palestine, however. The Jews who settled the area PURCHASED the land from the landowners at the time (Turks and Arabs). The Jews were quite willing to go along with the UN partition plan, which called for two states within the 23% of Palestine which had not been given to the Hashemites. And the Arabs who remained in Israel were not thrown out, but became Israeli citizens. Those who left did so at the instigation of the Arab leaders who were preparing to "push the Jews into the sea". If the Arab countries had put ANYWHERE NEAR the effort into resettling "Palestinian refugees" as Israel has put into resettling Jews from other countries - including hundreds of thousands from Arab lands, who left everything behind - there would be no "Palestinian problem". Dave Sherman Toronto -- { ihnp4!utzoo pesnta utcs hcr decvax!utcsri } !lsuc!dave
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/11/85)
> Marcel-Franck Simon writes: > > Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly > > flexible. Those who are on our side are democratic freedom fighters. Those > > who are not are bloodthirsty murderers. > (Mr. Simon either must not be reading what I've been writing, or > chooses to ignore me. No matter:) > > THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS NOT FLEXIBLE. > > Once a person accepts such Orwellian doubletalk, it becomes possible to > justify any act of violence. [ABELES] It seems that Mr. Abeles either must not be reading what Marcel was saying, or he is choosing to ignore him for his own ends. What Marcel was saying (and he is right on the money) is that use of the word terrorism (for those on "their" side) and the term freedom fighters (for those on "our" side) *IS* the REAL example of Orwellian doublespeak. He is not commenting on the actual definition of the word (which really isn't all that flexible) but on HOW IT IS USED BY RHETORICAL MANIPULATORS FOR THEIR OWN ENDS!!!! > (It is not, however, true that > people attempt to justify all acts of violence; rather, all acts > of violence can be justified given a nice fairy tale about how > individuals have suffered unfairly.) Let me remind foggy thinkers > out there that in the ideal laws made by man are not meant to be > fair, but merely just. That is, many people suffer, but we can > only treat people justly. It is the best that can be done. That cuts both ways. If you go out of your way to get fairness for your "own" despite your own assertion that all anyone can expect is just "just", then your whole assertion is blown away. I would caution Mr. Abeles that there are those people who sound an awful lot like him when they proclaim that the Holocaust is an example of a "fairy tale about how (certain) individuals have suffered unfairly". > With this rather abstruse introduction: I will now state that > WAR IS NOT TERRORISM. And finally that THERE ARE MORE THINGS > IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, HORATIO, THAN ARE DREAMED OF IN YOUR > PHILOSOPHY. I know this last is true since you don't understand > my point of view (quod erat demonstratum). And you obviously don't understand his, but who said either perspective represented the actual truth of things? In fact, war is nothing but sanctioned legalized terrorism. In war, it's "OK" to do what you couldn't legally do at home: murder and slaughter because you have a "mandate" to do so. That mandate stemming from the "right" of a nation to fight with another nation. It never ceases to amaze me how people will continually fall for the bullshit of "this is for the good of your country that you go out and kill those bastards", and thus perpetuate the horrors of war. As long as people allow themselves to be manipulated by power brokers who insist that because they are a part of their "group" they are "obliged" to fight for that group against that other "evil" group, we are stuck with this. > HOWEVER, to take the point of view (if it can be thus dignified) > advanced by Mr. Simon, is to deny that there is any difference > between GOOD and EVIL. I must say that this is a lesson which > has not been lost on Christian fundamentalists in the 1980's-- > a group of which I rather suspect Mr. Simon disapproves. To wit: > The Christian fundamentalists have reversed an historical trend > of latent hostility towards Judaism in order PRECISELY to make > the point that there is a difference between GOOD and EVIL. This is nonsense of the highest order. You obviously haven't heard a lot about a certain breed of fundamentalist Christian called Identity Christian, but no matter. One thing it seems that a lot of divisivist people need to learn is that as long as your perspective of "good" and "evil" are limited to the needs of your particular group over those of anyone else, you are doomed to perpetuate the horrors of war and violence. When your "difference" between GOOD and EVIL consists of "good is what's good for us and evil is what's bad for us", if your definition of "us" is some small petty group pitted against another rather than the whole human race, you are a contributor to an atmosphere that could lead to the destruction of the entire human race. And if that's not motivation enough to redefine us to be the whole of humanity, I don't know what is. > Pooh, pooh! Those nasty Americans are aiding the CONTRA's! > If you are a Nicaraguan leftist in 1985, I understand your > chagrin. Please remind me what this has to do with Palestine? > In Nicaragua there are poor people, historically suffering > people. There are also ambitious generals, and games of geopolitical > chess. In Israel there are a united people, the Jews, who are > peaceful people by any reasonable standard, people who can > claim a measure of self-righteousness. And they are physically > attacked constantly. Day after day, year in and year out we > hear the doubletalk rubbish from certain quarters about driving > the Jews into the sea. Is this GOOD? Thank you for providing a fine one-sided example of what I describe above. If your only concerns are the immediate short-term concerns of Jews in Israel, then for sure your short-term solutions would not resolve the long-term problems of people in the area with another (perhaps, what you would call "EVIL") perspective. > That viewpoint makes me sick--as it does all real people. Who > among us can live with the thought (REALLY LIVE WITH IT) that > there is no difference between GOOD and EVIL? If GOOD for > me is EVIL for you (and life is a zero sum game) than how can > I look at myself in the MIRROR? If it is all just stepping on > others to gain advancement for myself then what is the point? I don't know, with a perspective such as yours, how DO you look at yourself in the mirror? Perhaps by recognizing that you don't spend your life actually stepping on other people (I hope), but acknowledge that they ARE real other people, and that their wants and needs are as valid as yours, and taking that into account in your dealings with them, rather than calling the person ahead of you in line at the bank "evil". The same rules should apply to larger groupings of peoples as well. > For the Jews, the establishment of Israel was a positive thing, > a step forward. For the other Palestinian inhabitants, mostly Arab, > it need not have been a step backwards, but it undoubtedly has > worked out to be one. But I submit to you that it would not > be a positive thing for Palestinian Arabs to become pre-occupied > with taking revenge on the Jewish state. For that is TERRORISM. By the same token, those who are obsessed with obliterating or otherwise getting rid of the "Palestinian problem", even by ignoring it, in hopes that the people and their problems will just go away, is also not a positive thing. -- Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (12/11/85)
In article <492@mhuxr.UUCP> mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (Damballah Wedo) writes: >if someone came to yoour house and handed you an eviction notice, >claiming that the house had been in his family a couple of thousand >years ago, that he had been unfairly evicted by a third party, >that he had now come back to reclaim his property Isn't this exactly what is happening with some American Indian claims on large portions of the land of certain states? Will
aouriri@ittvax.ATC.ITT.UUCP (Chedley Aouriri) (12/11/85)
> worked out to be one. But I submit to you that it would not > be a positive thing for Palestinian Arabs to become pre-occupied > with taking revenge on the Jewish state. For that is TERRORISM. As far as I know, Palestinians do not want to take revenge on the jewish state, they just want their homeland back. By the way, how would you qualify ex israeli prime minister Begin's and israeli foreign affairs minister Shamir's squads in 1946-1947. They accomplished several violent bombing, stabbing and killing raids on the local population of what was at that time a British protectorate. (The British had once put a "wanted, alive or dead" posting on Begin's head) Now, was that TERRORISM or FREEDOM FIGHTING to establish the state of Israel ??? Was that GOOD or EVIL ??? Please, do not accuse me of anti-semitism, anti-zionism or anti-jewishness. These are established historical facts.
fsks@unc.UUCP (Frank Silbermann) (12/15/85)
Chedley Aouriri writes: > >How would you qualify ex israeli prime minister Begin's >and israeli foreign affairs minister Shamir's squads in 1946-1947. >They accomplished several violent bombing, stabbing and killing >raids on the local population of what was at that time a British >protectorate. (The British had once put a "wanted, alive or dead" >posting on Begin's head) >Now, was that TERRORISM or FREEDOM FIGHTING to establish the state >of Israel ??? Was that GOOD or EVIL ??? During Israel's struggle for independence, there were at least two main liberation organizations: the Haganah and the Irgun. The Irgun did commit a number of atrocities. The Haganah, disgusted with the Irgun tactics, refused to cooperate with them, and instead fought them as another enemy. Eventually, the Irgun was defeated. When Israel became a state, the Haganah became the Israeli army. Begin and Shamir had worked for the Irgun. It was only after many years that they were politically "rehabilitated." Summary: Israel has ALWAYS rejected terrorism. Frank Silbermann
liss@gramps.DEC (Frederick R. Liss DTN 237-3649) (12/16/85)
[] [ittvax!aouriri writes] > >As far as I know, Palestinians do not want to take revenge on the >jewish state, they just want their homeland back. > >By the way, how would you qualify ex israeli prime minister Begin's >and israeli foreign affairs minister Shamir's squads in 1946-1947. >They accomplished several violent bombing, stabbing and killing >raids on the local population of what was at that time a British >protectorate. (The British had once put a "wanted, alive or dead" >posting on Begin's head) >Now, was that TERRORISM or FREEDOM FIGHTING to establish the state >of Israel ??? >Was that GOOD or EVIL ??? > >Please, do not accuse me of anti-semitism, anti-zionism or ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >anti-jewishness. These are established historical facts. > How could anyone accuse you of anti-Semitism? Your posting appears to be totally unemotional and well documented. ;-) Fred
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (12/19/85)
>>By the way, how would you qualify ex israeli prime minister Begin's >>and israeli foreign affairs minister Shamir's squads in 1946-1947. >>They accomplished several violent bombing, stabbing and killing >>raids on the local population of what was at that time a British >>protectorate. (The British had once put a "wanted, alive or dead" >>posting on Begin's head) >>Now, was that TERRORISM or FREEDOM FIGHTING to establish the state >>of Israel ??? >>Was that GOOD or EVIL ??? >> >>Please, do not accuse me of anti-semitism, anti-zionism or >>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >>anti-jewishness. These are established historical facts. > How could anyone accuse you of anti-Semitism? Your posting appears to be > totally unemotional and well documented. ;-) [FREDERICK LISS] Why the smiley, Fred? What did Aouriri say that was anti-semitic (as you imply)? Is calling Begin a terrorist (which indeed he was) an act of anti-semitism? The posting *was* objective and well documented. It pointed out the fact that some Jews did engage in terrorism as part of a movement to establish a Jewish state. Is this incorrect? Is Aouriri telling lies? Making up stories to slander Jews? I think not. Would you rather we rewrite history so as to forget that one part of the Zionist movement (though by no means the thrust of it) did engage in terrorism? Or, as Aouriri, Marcel Simon, and myself have pointed out, is it "freedom fighting" when your side (the "good" side) engages in acts of violence, but terrorism when anyone else does. If you define your terms based on petty localized definitions of "good", you encourage others to do the same, and what you get is divisive violence that threatens the entire world. Frankly, I think ANY petty divisive so-called "nationalistic" movements are fractious and dangerous for this reason. "Fight for our group against that other terrible group. Give us the right to our own homeland where we can be in charge and all the rest can suffer as we have..." And so on, and so on, and so on. -- Popular consensus says that reality is based on popular consensus. Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr