----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard S. Crawford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Brin-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 10:56 AM Subject: Re: Tragedy in Israel
> > Of course, the ancient adage the "two wrongs do not make a right" applies > just as much here as it ever has. I would personally much rather see the > "civilized" nations of the world decide to take the moral high road and > proclaim that just because the terrorists have killed or injured hundred or > even thousands of innocent people, we are better than they are and can > refrain from doing the same thing. The real question is what would happen then. Would terrorists view this as an expression of weakness of will? Would they accept us as morally superior and then agree to be reasonable so they would no longer be viewed as morally inferior? My guess is that the former is more likely than the latter. Indeed, I would argue that through much of the world, when one refrains from acting to protect one's own interests, it is not seen as taking the moral high ground, but as weakness. I agree that we need not always act in accord with the perceptions of others. There are time when we must appear weak to some in order to refrain from immoral actions. However, I think the consequences of our inactions as well as our actions needs to be weighed. The United States could have refrained from acting in response to the attack. However, the government would be responsible for the consequences of inaction as well as action. I deem it probable that additional terrorist actions would have been one of the results. It is also quite possible that countries in the region would conclude that if the United States would not respond to an attack on two icons of its own nationhood, then why would they respond to defend friendly governments? Given this environment, and the association between the Taliban and Pakistan, and the known discussions between nuclear scientists from Pakistan and the Taliban, I deem it probable that, left unchecked, the terrorists and/or their allies would be able to obtain command and control of nuclear weapons. The delivery system could be as simple as shipping it on a container ship and detonanting it via a radio control. >But going back to the "eye for an eye" > argument, if the terrorists felt justified in killing people who were only > vaguely associated with the conditions of the Palestinians, then perhaps we > can feel justified in killing people who were only vaguely associated with > the terrorists. > > Is it just? No. Is it rational? Probably, but only barely. Why set up a straw man? In the attacks by the US on AQ and the Taliban in Afghanistan, significant efforts were made to minimize civilian casualties, just as significant efforts were made to minimize "friendly fire" casualties. The number of civilian casualties are hard to measure, but I don't think it is reasonable to just take the Taliban figures at face value. If you look at other claims, like capturing US soldiers or shooting down a helicopter but only being able to show the wheels, one would get the impression that their claims need to be taken with a metric ton of salt. > > To me, the most rational and just course of action would be to focus more > time, energy, and other resources on eliminating the conditions that give > rise to terrorist tendencies in the first place. Well, one needs to consider what leads to the terrorism in the first place. With respect to the Palestinian terrorism, I would argue that the basic reason for it is the existence of Israel. If you consider the number of Arab countries, and the size of those countries, and the size of the initial number of Palestinian refugees after the 1948 war, one would have to conclude that it would have been a relatively small problem for the Arab countries to absorb those refugees. Compare that to the relative number of Jewish refugees that were absorbed into Israel. Indeed, the most likely reason for the continued existence of refugee camps was political expediency on the part of the leaders of the Arab governments. If the refugees were absorbed, the need to eradicate Israel would be less obvious. Having these people living in squalid conditions would be a clear affront to Arabs that could be laid at Israel's feet. Now, some Arab governments want a real long term solution, but are still not willing to take the Palestinian population into their country. Those of you who are older probably remember that the PLO almost took over Jordan and were highly involved in Lebanon. Syria ended up driving them out of power in Lebanon IIRC. Second, one can ask why the US was attacked. The support for the existence of Israel is probably part of it. Another big part is just being the US. The United States iconifies the success of the West. The cultural force of the US and the West in general is overwhelming. Think of the overwhelming presence of the US culture seen on TV, in merchandizing, and on the internet, and one can see how traditional values can be threatened. For example, I've stopped a Mid-Easterners in Europe who was wearing a University of Wisconsin sweatshirt to ask him when he was in Madison, Wisconsin (the home of the university of Wisconsin, and where I received my PhD). He told me he didn't, he just bought the sweatshirt. Plus, the United States is, I think, in a unique position to assimilate other cultures. The best example of this for me is the local Islamic society who are faithful followers of Allah, yet consider themselves full fledged Americans. It was very moving to hear a call from them for a jihad against the perversion of their faith. (Jihad, BTW, is mostly an interior struggle, violence in defense is only a last resort.) Another example of the seductive appeal of the US was GWB's discussion of how shameful it was "moms who wear cover outside" were afraid to go outside. The basic message was that, as long as you showed respect for the faith of others, you could hold to your own ways and be as American as any other person, no matter what you believed. Contrast that to the classical European view espoused in Marx's "On the Jewish Question." Given that, it would be shocking if the United States were not opposed by groups. The United States represents a challenge to a world view, and challenges are rarely unopposed. Often, even good changes are opposed violently. Does this mean that the US has been faultless in the world? No. Does it mean that there isn't poverty and injustice? No. But, I think it means that the faults of the US and the existence of poverty and injustice has only marginal association with the terrorism. The best possible candidates for injustice that caused this terror is the injustice of Arab governments. However, the West has only marginal influence on these governments, at best. > > If we really want to live by "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth", > then, as Tevya noted, "Soon the entire world will be blind and toothless." > One thing needs to be recalled is that "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth was a plea to end blood feuds. What it had been was "a life for an eye" "your whole family's life for a life." Even if you consider the response of Israel too strong, I think it is worthwhile to ask the question: "if the Palestinians had the power to overrun Israel, would they?" Would they negotiate if they had the upper hand, or would we be worrying about whether the people of Israel would be killed en mass? Dan M.
