> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > Van: John D. Giorgis [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Verzonden: donderdag 28 maart 2002 5:39 > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Onderwerp: Terrorist Goals RE: This week in the Middle East
> 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.) There is one major difference between the situation then and the situation now. This time, there is a (quite reasonable) peace proposal from the Arabs on the table. All that Israel has to do is accept the proposal. If Israel would for once do the right thing, they might actually get to live in peace with their Arab neighbours. Quite frankly, however, I do not have much faith in it. Sharon is the kind of leader who believes only the other side should make concessions, so I seriously doubt the Israeli regime will accept the peace proposal. Not accepting it would be extremely stupid, as it would (a) lead to further (and quite possibly increased) violence and (b) put the blame for the continuation of the war on Israel, now that the Arabs have shown their willingness to make peace. It would clearly mark Israel as the agressor in the region. > >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*, House arrest (just like jail time) is something that can only be given to someone who has been arrested. Arafat has not been arrested (not by his own people, and not by the Israeli regime), so he can not possibly be under house arrest. As his freedom of movement has nevertheless been limited against his will, the only possible description of this situation is a hostage situation. Keeping someone hostage is an act of terrorism. > among many other flaws in your weak analogy. Such as? The use of the word "many" suggests there must be at least four of five flaws in my analogy. Please list all four or five of them. Jeroen _________________________________________________________________________ Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com Tom's Photo Gallery: http://tom.vanbaardwijk.com
