Which is still preferable to an intellectually delusional pursuit of "underlying causes" which always ends of in the same place: a secular and rational explanation for motivations which couldn't be further from that.
I see. Terrorism in all it's forms is just a result of irrational religious fundamentalism. We can never understand why it springs up where it does,nor why people take it up, and thus we can never stop it. We can only wait until the terrorists reveal themselves, i.e. attack. Then we find the perpetrators and kill them and as many of their co-conspirators as we can. Even if we only destroy a tiny fraction of a terrorist organization, and even if we create a thousand new fundamentalist acolytes in the process, this is our only available approach. Terrorism -- similar to, say, crime -- is the completely random act of wild, unpredictable crazy people.
If you understood them properly, you would think they're crazy, but they mostly definitely are not. They're very sane and most likely will win.
I don't think terrorists are insane at all. That was my point. Perhaps I should clarify what I meant by "underlying causes." I understand why people like Bin Laden and Arafat choose terrorism as their tactic. I understand that they made that decision rationally. But where do they find their widespread support? Why do many Palestinians continue to support Arafat, not to mention join the ranks of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the rest? If the U.S. and Israel refuse to ask that question, then yes, the terrorists have a reasonable chance of triumphing. The one sure way to undermine Arafat's power is to erpde his base of popular support. As long as Israel continues with repressive occupation, illegal settlements and targeted bombings, that support base will only grow.
Damn right. Somebody needs to tell Detroit to stop making us whores to Saudi oil. Even if we were to tap those controversial reserves in Alaska, we couldn't completely wean ourselves from having to deal with OPEC.
Someone in NY agrees with Dean The real argument lies in the demographics, which become crushingly clear for a state that seeks to define itself as Jewish. There are 3.2 million Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, with an annual growth rate of 4.2 percent, among the highest in the world. Because of impressive medical gains over the last 30 years, the infant mortality rate among Palestinians has dropped to 20 per thousand, from 70 per thousand. In Israel itself, there are 1.3 million Arabs and 5.4 million Jews. This means that the number of Jews and Arabs living between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River — in Israel and the occupied lands — is approaching parity. By 2020, Jews will be a minority. The longer Israelis continue to settle in the West Bank and Gaza, the harder it will be to cleanly divide the land between two nations with separate identities. Talk of two states will end. Two options will remain: an apartheid state run by a heavily armed Jewish minority, or a new political entity without a Jewish identity. The conclusion is clear. Israel must begin to plan its exit from the West Bank and Gaza not only to permit the creation of a viable, contiguous Palestinian state but to preserve its own future. Polls show that most Israelis understand. They do not want to drain their treasury and lose their children to protect West Bank settlements. At the Democratic presidential debate on Tuesday night, Senator Joseph Lieberman criticized former Gov. Howard Dean for calling on Israel to dismantle most of its settlements. "That's up to the parties in their negotiations, not for us to tell them," the senator said. We strongly disagree. True support for Israel means helping it see through its pain and rage to its own best interest. You do not have to believe in Mr. Arafat's sincerity or the Palestinians' good will to grasp the need for a radical course shift. You need only understand the meaning of self-preservation.
You probably should have quoted the paragraph before this one as well, becuase it looks like the op/ed is calling a 4:1 Jew:Arab ratio "parity". But I think where the NYT is wrong here is there belief that withdrawing settlements will allay the anger of the local Arab populace and they'll start recognizing Israel's right to exist. Were there West Bank settlements before 1967 when the Arab world was still attacking Israel? The end of a Jewish state is what most Muslims there want, whether it comes from homicide bombers, rocks and bottles, or irresponsible breeding.
You're quicker than the average sock-puppet, I'll give you that. That the New York Times agrees with Dean? There's a shock. As for the point the Op/Ed made: no, I got the point, I just disagreed with it.
Right wingers are scared? If you are stating opinion, I think you are wrong. Things may change, but up to this point right wingers think Dean is a match made in heaven. The ones who so far have been scared of Dean are the current leadership of the democratic party, because they believe that he is dangerous and may spoil their hopes to regain the White House.
I am not about to register for the propaganda machine called the NYTimes, so I will trust that you quoted it correctly. My question is, if polls show that most Israelis agree with the statement that you quoted, as the NYTimes asserts, how is it possible that they elected a leader like Ariel Sharon?
Lieberman is correct when he asserts that it is up to the parties involved. Israelis realize there will be a Palestinian state at some point and the settlements will have to go. But you use them as a bargaining chip in the meantime. Israel would be foolish to act unilaterally and receive nothing in return.
Except the point the editorial makes is that failure to act, unilaterally or otherwise, will result in the end of Israel as we know it. The Palestinians don't have to offer anything for the above scenario to play out and therefore waiting for them to is rather foolish.
Yes, that's exactly correct. Whenever I find out someone is a terrorist, my only response is, "how soon can they be dead?". The minute you embrace a single terrorist is the beginning of the end to civilization. Terrorism is an act of evil cowardice, and there is never any excuse for it. Never. And it should never be tolerated. Never.
Wrong. Somebody needs to tell the American consumer. How can you possibly blame Detroit (or Munich or Tokio) for giving the American people precisely what they want?
Does anyone honestly think that the U.S. extreme favoritism of Israel is in American interests -- or that it is helping achieve peace? Israel needs US even-handedness. As it stands, the US only gives the Likud party a blank check to do whatever it wants. Why has the road map failed? Is it all because a Palestinian suicide bomber broke the truce on Aug 19? Here's an interesting analysis published on US-funded Radio Free Europe: http://www.rferl.org/nca/features/2003/09/12092003154928.asp