Chris, I understand that. It would be very nice if people could deal with the present situation in the Middle East rationially. However, rationality has never played a very strong role in shaping the outcomes of history. Usually, when one side gains (claiming reason, God, or whatever, to be on its side), it labels the outcome as reasonable if not entirely balanced. The other side rarely has reason to agree. I'm afraid that, in the Middle East, being in a position of strength and being able to retaliate will be the position of "reason" for a long time to come. "Balance" will continue to mean an eye for an eye and a death for a death. I do wish it were not so, but I do think it is.
Ed Ed Weick 577 Melbourne Ave. Ottawa, ON, K2A 1W7 Canada Phone (613) 728 4630 Fax (613) 728 9382 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Christoph Reuss" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 29, 2002 2:29 PM Subject: Re: whose ghetto ? (was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) > Ed Weick wrote: > > Yes, of course, Chris. One has to think of balance. And so it goes, on and > > on and on. > > My use of the term "balance" certainly did NOT refer to "an eye for an eye", > as you insinuate here. On the contrary, as should be obvious, I referred to > the balance of perspective(s) and facts as basis for decision-making, > which is necessary to achieve fair and _peaceful_ solutions. No good > solutions can come out of a distorted, unimpartial and/or misinformed > basis for decision-making. > > Chris > > >
