Tyranny of the Minorities

This is a good example of what Foxfyre's thread titled "Tyranny of the minority" is about. The vocal Palestinian minority (e.g. Hamas) that does have that as a stated goal is being tuted as representative of the entire Palestinian population.

The number of Palestinians who "have a stated goal of wiping out the country of Israel and all its Jewish residents" is a minority, just like the Jewish minority that has a stated goal of ethnic cleansing (they use the diplomatic terminology "transfer" and "not west of Jordan") of the Palestinians and who have opposed any settlement.

In both cases there is fluctuating public support for the notion, in the Palestinian territories not having Israel around has certain popular appeal (I do not have precise figures to cite at the moment) and likewise in Israel many don't really want Palestinians around either (e.g. polling data in regard to ethnic cleansing of the territories has breached 50% in favor of "transfer" in the past).

Frequently, one will use the extremism of a demographic minority in order to validate pre-existing sentiment about the majority, and that is what has happened here.

Ok, I just noticed that I am, in fact, posting on "Foxfyre's thread titled 'Tyranny of the minority'" that I refereneced.

'Tis a brainfart, please disregard.

LOL, nevertheless your post was pertinent Craven

I think Craven is secretly in love with you Foxfyre, and can only show it by pulling your pigtails and posting relevent points.

Naw. Once we established that he didn't want to see me run through the street naked, all the allure was gone.

Oh well.

Just keep in mind that he doesn't speak for all of us...

LOL.

It's a regular Foxfyre fan club....and A2K is accused of not representing a Conservative voice, or presenting the 'naked' truth on serious issues.

I shouldn't have used the word "Palestinians" as an all-encompassing statement.

I must confess a great ignorance of the difference between the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organization and Hamas and Hezbollah and all the other Palestinian organizations crowded into that area. It's hard to distinguish who belongs to which group and who is independent when thousands of people are shaking fists in the street.

I'll bet the vast majority of Palestinians are just like the vast majority of Iraqis - they want to live their lives in peace and security and not worry about being bombed or shot. So where is that silent majority of Palestinians? Why aren't they taking to the streets, demonstrating against terrorism? Could it be that moderate Palestinians are a minority after all? I understand they are taught from an early age that Jews eat Palestinian babies and killing a Jew is the best thing they could ever do in their lives. Or is that all propaganda too?

The cost of freedom, is war. The cost of war, is censorship. Civilized nations are at fault to suppose that freedom and war can coexist.

There is a measure of truth to what you say Solon. I think it is very good that our national leaders and our military do not tell all that they know when there are legal considerations and military and civilian lives are at stake. And sometimes the niceties of civilian law are not appropriate in wartime.

All in all I think most nations represented here in A2K do a fairly credible job of protecting basic human rights during the prosecution of war.

Solon does indeed make a very valid point. This is our reality, but to polarize ourselves may be a bad solution. While war may be the 'cost' of 'freedom' (and these days, I'm not quite sure what that really means), the moderates must meet in the middle, and become much more vocal.

Quick run-down:

Hamas: A political organization and a militant group operating at arms length from each other under the same name.

Despite what really is an arms-length relationship they derive a lot of moral support from their political wing (schools, hospitals, schools) and in this particular conflict moral support is currency for blood in many ways. Some levels of moral support in some form is needed for recruiting for the militant wing.

This is easily the most dangerous group as they could actually serve as political rivals to moderate Palestinians (though they have, thus far, rejected turning their animosity against their own).

A civil war between Hamas and a moderate Palestinian Authority is a looming possibility and at the moment Hamas is more politically powerful (Israel was able to sideline and undermine the more moderate PA while Hamas' power was fed by their efforts) and subsequently are also more powerful militarily.

Palestinian Authority: The PA is not a static group. The PA is an authority recognized through bi-lateral negotiations with Israel and serve as a form of self-governance.

Initially this organization was largely peopled by the PLO. After the Palestinian launch of the intifada Israel has sought to undermine this authority. The reasons stated for this range from a punishment for them not being willing to fight Palestinian militants to the political ideology that opposes any PA as a step toward territorial settlement that some Israeli groups wish to avoid.

So ultimately, their taxes are witheld and their buildings destroyed for either their unwillingness and inability to fight terror or to keep them inable to do so in order to put off territorial settlement because of the terror.

I consider it a mix of both, the PA can't reasonably be expected to do that which it doesn't posses the power to do, but at the same time it has people within whose complicity had to have been addressed.

Sidelining Arafat has had a two-pronged result. Arafat's idiocy is a nice thing to sideline (as are the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades that spun off from the Fatah faction) but marginalizing him also undermines the sorely needed authority for the PA to combat the militants.

Ultimately a balance between using Arafat for symbolism for the settlement (if it is realized) and keeping him from a position of authority is needed, IMO. In other words, the PA needs to be run by someone else and he gets to be a mascot.

Mahmud Abbas (Abu Mazen) was the right moderate for the job, but he (wisely) quit because both Arafat and Israel were undermining his ability to do an already difficult (nearly impossibly so) task.

PLO: Largely irrelevant right now, except in that it is the father of many of the factions, both moderate and extremist.

Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades: A relatively new terrorist group springing from the Fatah faction. Slightly less dangerous than Hamas in terms of operations but much less dangerous than Hamas in that they are not yet politically powerful and can be coerced to a greater degree than can be done with a group like Hamas.

P.S. Hezbollah is not a Palestinian organization, but the confusion is understandable given the proximity (Lebanon) and the mutual "enemy" (Israel).



Amen. People the world over underestimate the average man's desire to lead an uneventful life.



Because of the common enemy that is Israel. There is too much anger at Israel for this kind of movement to coalesce because this kind of division would represent a break in solidarity against the "enemy" that is Israel.

Thusly, the specter of traitorship and the more pressing issue (to them) of Israel's occupation quiets the moderates.

In addition both Israel and the Palestinian militants work against the moderates. Israel frequently arrests and disrupts the activities of moderate Palestinians if they try to forward territorial settlement (an example of how Israel would do this is arresting someone holding a meeting of moderates in Jerusalem under the rule that Palestinians are not allowed to conduct any political activity in Jesrusalem).

The Palestinian extremists work against Palestinian moderates by executing them (more like lynchings due to the lacking governmental authority in the territories).



Depends on what you mean by moderate. Moderate is an issue of perspective. By my standards Palestinian moderates are nearly non-existent. But by the standards (subjective) of the conflict I'd put it at between 40% and 70%.

But more importantly, by the standards of this discussion (the stated goal to eliminate Israel) and effort toward the extremist goals I'd say that the active extremists are under 10% of the population depending on where you draw the line of support (largely moral).



It's largely propaganda. The terms used within this conflict for this (in Israeli documents, statements and negotiations) is to "incite".

Palestinian hatred does propagate and yes from an early age but those particular items have become more symbolic than real.

Jews who drink blood and such are a common theme throught history in the sense that one example of such idiocy is already too much. But it's more sporadic than msot people seem to think.

Incidentally Palestinians charge Israeli schools with inciting as well because of maps. Both sides complain about each other's maps which is the obvious result of territorial disputes.

Israel's usual stated reason for having a black hole instead of Palestinian territories is that the territorial matter hasn't been resolved (though most people reject this because despite the lacking resolution most map makers have less difficulty mapping the region and the desire for territorial ambiguity is usually ascribed to Israel for their textbook maps).

Excellent summary Craven.

Wow----that should be the end of the conversation. Great quote Solon, you have a fan here. That may be an originial on your part----is it?

in wars there are two sides, the aggressor and the defender. Preemptive attacks are not allowed in international law, and who ever crosses the border first is the aggressor, that is the way the whole thing works. Cross border shelling is an act of war in the sense of what are called wars of attrition, there has been a continious war of attrition between india and pakistan for the past god knows how long, the same with lebanon and israeli. The issue with cross border raids is the same, if it is not military personnel of the other country the only thing you blame them for is not secuing their borders etc. I am not saying that there were no provocations by egypt or syria, there were, but the fact stands that as defined by international law israel was the aggressor in that war and as such it cannot legitemately claim the occupied territories as spoils of war, let alone build settlements on them, that is why the UN resolution was passed condemning israel about the settlements and calling a halt to them, and also withdrawal of the occupation.

I have not questioned israels right to exist, or its right to soveigrnty. As a soveigrn power it has full legal rights afforded to any other soveigrn nation, but also must abide by the standards of international law.

To comment on foxfyres comment on israeli success. Well the preemptive attack practically wiped out the arabs airforces giving israelis complete air superiority. That counts alot in the modern battlefield, you effectively force your foes to stay put and hidden. Anytime they move you can go ahead and bomb them. Also I have to admit that I do have a high degree of admiration and respect for the effectiveness and fighting capability of the idf. I just don't like some of their less noble tactics and history (especially their conduct in lebonon)

McG, this aint propaganda buddy cold hard facts. If you dont like em, tough they are facts recorded in history.

The fact still remains that under international law the occupation is illegal along with the settlements, that the US support for israel has been the main reason why they have been able to keep up the occupation so long, and that the us is not an honest broker of peace, as can be clearly seen by bushs support of unilateral action on sharons side.

No human can justify a pre-emptive strike. To do so is to implicate harshly that the future is set, that there is no risk. In war, there is no risk except that of each soldiers life. A risk of failure, of defeat, is all calculated within the bounds of this measure. A pre-emptive strike makes no sense strategically or politically.

Conducting a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, when information was assumed and supposed, rather than a justified strike against a country where our intelligence is politically incorrect, yet factually solid, is yet another example of the popularity of self contradictory justification.

What would you say about AQ's pre-emptive strike?

Did it serve them? Where did it fall for you re: their political and strategic aims?

Yilmaz wrote:

The fact still remains that under international law the occupation is illegal along with the settlements, that the US support for israel has been the main reason why they have been able to keep up the occupation so long, and that the us is not an honest broker of peace, as can be clearly seen by bushs support of unilateral action on sharons side.

Where is yor outrage over the illegal occupation of Lebanon by Syria????????