Ed Weick wrote: > 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.
This may well be true for the Middle East.(*) But we here on this list should be able to take a rational, balanced look at the situation -- and for this, it is necessary to correct objectively false claims such as that Israel is a ghetto. (*) This also suggests that the solution must come from outside, i.e. the famous "international community" so often quoted by Dubya, but only when it suits his needs (or rather, his wants). After all, solving conflicts like the M.E. (or at least, preventing crimes like Sharon's) is precisely what the U.N. has been founded for. If only the U.N. would live up to its ideals... Chris
