At 01:04 PM 3/27/02 +0100 Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO wrote:
>I can understand that, although I think keeping millions of people oppressed
>for decades is an extremely drastic measure to reach that goal -- and
>apparently, a rather counter-productive measure as well.
Well, what choice does Israel have? Every time Israel withdrew from Arab
territories following an Arab invasion, the Arabs rearmed for another
invasion. Israel would be extremely foolish, given these precedents, to
withdraw from the Arab territories and permit the Arabs to rearm for *more*
violence agaisnt Israel. Whatever violence the Arabs are waging against
Israel now, given the complete freedom of an Israeli withdrawal, the
ensuing violence would almost surely be worse. (Of course, Israel would
still beat back an invasion, but a great many Israelis would die
nevertheless.)
>But, if you feel that terrorists should be destroyed, you also would not
>mind if Sharon were assassinated, right? After all, Arafat is essentially
>kept hostage by Israel, by order of Sharon. Keeping people hostage is an act
>of terrorism, so Sharon qualifies as terrorist.
Ummmm, Jeroen - this does not match any definition of terrorism that I have
ever read - and I have read an awful lot of time. In particular, the
house arrest of Arafat cannot possibly be construed as an action to spread
*terror*, among many other flaws in your weak analogy.
JDG
__________________________________________________________
John D. Giorgis - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - ICQ #3527685
"We fight against poverty because faith requires it and
conscience demands it." - George W. Bush 3/22/02
