| Newsgroups |
gmane.politics.leftists.monkeyfist |
| Message-ID |
<[email protected]> |
>Second, 'war on terrorism' is not clever at all. It's dangerous, for
>reasons I discussed above. This was not a war, it was a crime.
>Let's take an example that should be clearer for you; let's imagine an
>American, say an American Jew, goes to Israel and sets up a settler's
>life, colonizing some new cantonized area of Palestine, as has been
>happening for years. This American Jew, now living in Israel, finally
>goes a bit nuts, perhaps fueled by a hateful distorted version of
>Judaism, and he decides to take matters into his own hands. He goes
>into Gaza, releases some sort of bio-agent into the water supply, and
>5,000 Palestinians die, over the course of a week, slow, agonizing,
>horrible deaths.
>Okay, so would you support the Arab world declaring war on Israel?
>Would you support them invading and bombing Israel? Further, would you
>support them declaring war on the US, since the US harbored him and
>supports Israel?
>No, you'd quite rightly want it treated as what it was: an act of
>crime, surely even a crime against humanity, as were the terrorist
>acts.
This is an improper analogy. In this case mentioned above, the state
of Israel would surely prosecute the man responsible for these crimes,
convict him, and he would receive a high penalty. In addition, the
United States has not "harbored" this terrorist. While it is true that
he lived in the United States, he did not take refuge there in an
effort to escape punishment for the actions he has committed. if he
flew to the United States after doing this, we would certainly not
allow him to stay in the country without fear of being extradited, as
Ussama Bin Ladin, and we certainly would not facilitate him in
committing further terrorist acts, as the Taliban has.
Also i think that a distinction needs to be found between a criminal
action and a violent action by a state. There is no set rule about
exactly what actions will bring security to a state that fears for the
safety of its citizens, and thus no guidebook that leaders, good or
bad, can turn to in times of crisis.
In the example of Israel, the attacks on the Palestinian leaders is
based on the concept of destroying the capability of terrorist groups
and suicide bombers to make war. Sanctions against Iraq are based on
the idea that it is the most effective way to destroy, or at least
reduce, Sadaam Hussein's ability to make war against his neighbors
and/or develop weapons of mass destruction. Both of these methods harm
innocent civilians, but so do all other alternatives. Some argue that
these methods are effective at acheiving their goals, and some say that
they aren't. There will be that kind of disagreement no matter what
policy is pursued. The question that isn't discussed though is whether
these actions are in any way different from the actions of terrorists.
If they are the same, then it puts nations like israel between a cylla
and charibdis. If they can not choose any method of response since no
matter what it will have some effect on innocent lives, then, most
believe, their choice becomes to give in to every demand of the
Palestinians or watch their country be destroyed while they do nothing
to stop it.
As has been said you can't prosecute a suicide bomber. the only
solution to this kind of political trap is to formulate some sort of
international guideline as to what steps are morally and legally
justified for the preservation of your state and the way of life for
your people. To use the current situation, the response to the attacks
serves two purposes: it serves justice by punishing the perpetrators
and it serves to preserve the state by defending the state against
further attacks. The action taken by the United States must accomplish
both of these goals, and at the same time be ethically and legally
correct. What options does that leave? you have said that one can't
declare war on a state because you necessarily destroy the way of life
of the people within. Sanctions also harm the innocent, sometimes more
then bombings do. Clearly, you do not believe in targeted attacks
against groups, such as goes on in Israel. But if all of these things
are void, then what options are left open? As far as i can see there
are none left, barring persuading everyone involved to voluntarily come
to the united states to stand trial, which seems unlikely.
Given the above, what responses are morally and legally available to a
state which has been attacked and perceives a threat to its continued
existance?
Monte Frenkel