Last month I thought that Israel would have to give up
the West Bank in order to secure (a chance for) peace.
After this past week, they clearly cannot concede
anything, or they will fulfill the aim of terrorism -
"the systematic use of violence as a means to
intimidate or coerce societies or government"
-WordNet(r)1.6.  While there is nothing in that
definition regarding the targeting of civilians, such
actions ramp up the indignation -- and the right to
respond with extreme force -- according to my view. 
The U.S. seems to follow this as well: when the 'Cole'
was hit, or barracks bombed, the response was
relatively low-key.  Yet 9/11 generated outright (but
not all-out) war--justifiably so, in my book.

If Arafat had wanted to halt funding of the 'bombers,
he could have (which would probably be political
suicide, but was his goal the welfare of the
Palestinians, or hero/martyr status?).  His actions
have answered decidedly...[Not that I'm defending
Sharon either.]

Debbi

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://taxes.yahoo.com/

Reply via email to