Comments on: Frustration is not a Strategy

By: gry java

gry java — Tue, 13 Jan 2004 21:58:21 +0000

Mein Hobby ist es Gästebücher zu besuchen. Das ist immer ganz interessant und widerspiegelt so, was die Leute im Internet wirklich denken. War auch interessant bei Dir ! Bis zum nächsten Mal. All The Best OfNew Year. Sorry for my english i’am from Germany.

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Fri, 01 Aug 2003 03:14:24 +0000

Sympathy for the Devil
As the song says:
They say in Harlan County There are no neutrals there You'll either be a union man Or a thug for J.H. Blair Which side are you on?, boys Which side are you on?

By: mr blue

mr blue — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 09:21:23 +0000

And the implication of Ireland’s neutrality being?

By: Robert Schwartz

Robert Schwartz — Thu, 31 Jul 2003 03:45:13 +0000

I am still happy with my first comment. I further point out that Ireland was “neutral” in WWII. Chun is not Irish, he is a space alien. The other romanticism going around is 1968 vintage little red book romanticism. The guerilla is a fish who lives in the sea of the people. blah, blah, blah.

By: BAA

BAA — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:35:45 +0000

Coming late to the party, I know, but I don’t think anyone has picked up the guantlet layed down by back40. Kieren Healy suggests that Totten and other hawks are engaging in a “Boy’s Weekly” fantasy. Instead of fighting Palestinian terror elements, Israel needs to make peace with her enemies. But what supports this? As far as I can gather, Healy makes the historical argument that a terrorist group with substantial popular support cannot be adequately contained only by acceding to its demands or commiting moral atrocities. I am no historian, but I imagine counter-examples can be found. To be sure, vigorous action against a popular terrorist group can increase the support it enjoys, and hence its strength. But it’s not like this is an iron-clad law of history. Similarly, making concessions to a terrorist group can increase its popularity and strength. It’s case by case, neither view is absurd, and anyone who says the other side just doesn’t get it is talking through their hat.

By: Frank Quist (NL)

Frank Quist (NL) — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 23:05:13 +0000

Frank, Have you been paying attention for the past 1,000 years? Muddle is the name of the game. In long-lasting fights of attrition those with the least the lose have the biggest advantage. I haven't been around for that long. But actually I was - because I am not looking forward to the consequences of the 'defeat-em-all' strategy - just wondering if opponents of that strategy had an alternative strategy to offer, besides doing nothing. Like I said, what to do then?. Doing something implies activity. Leaving it as it is could be a very bad thing, I think. I take both sides would radicalize only more. Possibly the conflict could resolve itself when democracy starts to get more traction in the Middle East (because of Iraq for example), which may also freeze the funds flowing towards the terror groups, but if that doesn't happen the area's going to not be a very fun place to be.

By: PG

PG — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:53:18 +0000

Following up on Healy’s remark: But outfits like the IRA and Hamas bear an entirely different relation to the society they inhabit. I am not so familiar with the IRA, but anti-Israel terrorist groups unfortunately are embedded within Palestinian society. In some respects, they are the closest the Palestinians come to government agencies. It’s not Israelis who find housing for widows; it’s people linked to anti-Israel terror. As long as Palestinians I have to give grudging support to DeLay’s idea of a Marshall Plan for the Palestinian territories. Frankly, the Palestinian leadership has such a bad record with money, none should be given to them directly. We’d be better off giving directly to individuals, and possibly giving goods rather than money (building materials, schoolbooks, medical equipment). Funding infrastructure and giving start-up money for Palestinian businesses, in order to restore the economy, as well as providing a safe route to funnel Palestinian goods (because Israel’s security policies have pretty much choked off exports) would be an enormous service to the peace process. Not only would it be a direct help to Palestinians, but it would diminish support for terror organizations; many of the groups involved in terrorism also serve the community through schools, hospitals, charity, etc. In order to de-legitimize those groups, we have to take their place in providing necessary civil aid.

By: pathos

pathos — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:51:51 +0000

Frank, Have you been paying attention for the past 1,000 years? Muddle is the name of the game. In long-lasting fights of attrition those with the least the lose have the biggest advantage.

By: Frank Quist (NL)

Frank Quist (NL) — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:02:17 +0000

I wonder, if the cease fire and roadmap don’t work, and arresting/defeating/eliminating the terrorists isn’t an option, what to do then?

By: Walt Pohl

Walt Pohl — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 18:05:28 +0000

Hasn’t Israel already attempted phase one? “The first phase would not be complete until the enemies of peace are defeated, deported, imprisoned, or killed. These include Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Yasser Arafat’s Fatah, the Al Aqsa Martyr’s Brigades, and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.” Other than Fatah, which of these groups has Israel not targeted?

By: pathos

pathos — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 16:26:57 +0000

Markus, The “cease-fire” as you call it, was in fact a temporary suspension (for a limited term of three months) conditioned upon the release of all Palestinian prisoners (which Israel, of course, will not do, and which was not a term in the roadmap). I have linked to the text of the “cease-fire”, or Hudna, as it is called. The term that is not intended to be implemented is standard in the Hudna, so as to permit the opportunity to break it as soon as is feasible. http://www.honestreporting.com/articles/critiques/Hudna_With_Hamas.asp “As for Hamas, they have proven time and again their commitment to a tactical hudna — replenishing their strength during the quiet periods, then returning with increased deadliness. As recently documented by The Washington Institute, Hamas agreed to no less than ten ceasefires in the past ten years, and after every single one returned freshly armed for terror. Hundreds of Israeli citizens have paid for these hudnas with their lives.” Assumedly, Hamas made a tactical decision that it was worthwhile for both sides to cease hostilities while they re-armed and rounded up a new set of suicide bombers. One month of peace from Hamas—while attacks continue from other groups—hardly settles my concern that the PA is not honestly pursuing peace.

By: markus rose

markus rose — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:48:07 +0000

Pathos, how many attacks have there been BY HAMAS since the cease fire agreement that Abbas negotiated with Hamas?

By: brayden

brayden — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 15:47:36 +0000

Departing from the serious tenor of the previous comments, I’ll make a vacuous pop culture reference. Recently, I watched the “otherwise-not-so-great” film, Hulk, and couldn’t help but think about the relationship between U.S. terrorism policy and terrorist networks as I watched the Hulk rampage across the screen. In the movie, the military tries to contain the Hulk by locking him down and incapacitating him. This only makes him more angry, which then drives whatever it is inside of him that makes him get bigger and more powerful. The more the military tries to stop the Hulk, the more angry and menacing he becomes and the less sucessful they are at stopping him. Okay, so maybe I’m just trying to justify my use of time in watching a summer blockbuster, or maybe this really is a useful analogy of the current situation of U.S. policy and terrorist containment.

By: Pathos

Pathos — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:49:08 +0000

The problem with many of the comments here is the underlying assumption that there is nothing the PA could do if they really wanted to end or minimize attacks on Israelis. Of course there can be no government that can COMPLETELY eliminate the attacks, but it is reasonable to assume that a government dedicated to a peaceful solution could seriously reduce the number of attempted attacks. Syria has, in fact, determined that it is in its best interest to do just that, and as a result we hear very little these days of attacks from Lebanon in the North. Are the PA the Israelis’ “partners in peace”? There is simply no reason to think so—not because they haven’t eliminated the attacks, but because they have made no substantial moves in that direction other than empty promises. If the answer is, “No, the PA is not committed to peace in any meaningful way,” then I don’t see how continued negotiations with them can be successful.

By: theCoach

theCoach — Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:54:30 +0000

Tangentially, as far as clear differences between Ireland and Palestine, look at a map of the proposed two state solution, and notice how clear the geographical separation is compared to Ireland and England.