Paul's Here

Some Dupes are Just Plain Dopes

24 posts in this topic

Fool me once, shame on you... Fool me twice, shame on me... Being a fool all the time, priceless...

[F]ormer U.S. president Bill Clinton told BBC television that he would be prepared to support dealing with Hamas if they agreed to negotiate and turn their backs on terrorism.

Asked if he would shake hands with Hamas in the name of negotiation as he did with Arafat in 1993, Clinton said: "If they made the same assurances that Arafat did. He had made private assurances, and he made public assurances, that he did not support terror any more and would try to restrain it."

"So if Hamas would say, suppose they say, okay, look, we can't change our theory, we can't change our document, we can't change our history, but we're in government now and the policy of the Palestinian government is no to terror and yes to negotiations. As long as we're in government, we'll honor that policy. If they did that, I would support dealing with them," Clinton said.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3234791,00.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the threat of regional instability doesn't allow you to confront Hamas militarily (which most take as a given, but Objectivists aren't most!), and they're in Government, is it not best to work on transforming them, at least until obvious cause for intervention exists? Now they're wearing suits and have governmental buildings I wonder if they're so keen on blowing everything up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if the threat of regional instability doesn't allow you to confront Hamas militarily (which most take as a given, but Objectivists aren't most!), and they're in Government, is it not best to work on transforming them, at least until obvious cause for intervention exists?

No. You do not negotiate with those who do not accept and act on that which all negotiation relies -- reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely that's what we're seeking them to demonstrate - reason in their policy towards Israel...this should be encouraged - Hamas today is not what it was 10 years ago, and will not be the same in another 10 years. I don't mean to excuse them from the acts of violence they have perpetrated, but I look at this in a similar light to Northern Ireland - when the political wing of the IRA started making headway, the IRA became less an army of terrorists, and more a group of violent gangsters, now the political republican movement is more or less disentangled even from the remaining organized crime circles.

Don't get me wrong - I support the withdrawal of all funding from Palestine, but beyond it being cutting ties to terrorists I see it as a means of encouraging change in Hamas's policy. If they start taking us seriously (when the money simply isn't forthcoming), they have to change to make us take them seriously - if and when that happens there will have to be a clear distinction between Hamas and fundamentalist nuts who want to 'drive the jews into the sea'.

Incidently, Stephen, what would your ideal Israel/Palestine policy be?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now they're wearing suits and have governmental buildings I wonder if they're so keen on blowing everything up...

It has been many years since I have read about them, but didn't many Germans in the mid-1930s say essentially the same thing about the recently elected Nazis? Now that they are in positions of responsibility, surely they will stop being thugs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-----------

Incidently, Stephen, what would your ideal Israel/Palestine policy be?

I'm not speaking for Stephen but my policy would be thus: On April 15th, 2006, launch a full scale invasion of Gaza and the West Bank. Demolish most of the infrastructure, including homes. At least 10 - 20,000 dead Palestinians will be sufficient to demoralize them; the Palestinians should be made to fully understand that any retaliation against Israel will result in another 10,000 dead. By summertime, terrorism against Israel will cease for at least 100 years.

If you want a historical example, study what the King of Jordan did to the Palestinians when they were causing proplems in Jordan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...] what would your ideal Israel/Palestine policy be?

Clarification please? Do you mean, what should be the policy of the government of the U. S. or Britain toward Israel and the Palestinians? Or do you mean, what should be the policy of Israel toward Palestinians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if the threat of regional instability doesn't allow you to confront Hamas militarily (which most take as a given, but Objectivists aren't most!), and they're in Government, is it not best to work on transforming them, at least until obvious cause for intervention exists? Now they're wearing suits and have governmental buildings I wonder if they're so keen on blowing everything up...

I don't usually like to parse someone's thoughts but since this is short, let's do it.

A. "if the threat of regional instability doesn't allow you to confront Hamas militarily." Regional instability is the result of not confronting Hamas militarily. These pin pricks of target assassinations is an extremely short range goal.

B. "they're in Government." No they're not. They are in a terrorist organization.

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.
Hamas does not do that. They are thugs. Imaine Al Capone as Mayor of Chicago.

C. "is it not best to work on transforming them at least until obvious cause for intervention exists?" You mean previous actions, founding organizational documents, explicit public pronouncements are not causes to act upon?

D. "they're wearing suits and have governmental buildings I wonder if they're so keen on blowing everything up." This is really off the wall. What government buildings? Do you think they are living in downtown Baltimore? The buildings are shacks and huts where rats hide before they hatch their sinister actions. And "suits?" I'm sure you know the story of the Emperor's New Clothes. They don't want to blow everything up, just to destroy Israel. I suggest you study The Charter of Allah: The Platform of the Islamic Resistance movement (Hamas). For one simple quote from the founding charter, "Israel will rise and will remain erect until Islam eliminates it as it had eliminated its predecessors."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It has been many years since I have read about them, but didn't many Germans in the mid-1930s say essentially the same thing about the recently elected Nazis? Now that they are in positions of responsibility, surely they will stop being thugs.

I would liken the Palestine situation more to Northern Ireland than the third reich. On one hand you have a well greased military machine with the capacity to take over most of Europe, on the other a sectarian group of people fighting for independance/nationhood through the limited means available to them.

Consider Palestinians can't even muster the logistical strength to carry out bomb attacks without blowing themselves up! I think the burden of responsibility placed on the Hamas leaders may well cause them to acknowledge the state of Israel, perhaps even pledge towards peace in time, when they consider the no-win situation they're in (assuming we do withdraw funding, otherwise we're literally funding an organisation with a history of terrorism who have no motive to change - our actions demonstrating we're perfectly happy for them to continue living in a sort of limbo - receiving money at a political level and fighting a guerilla war against the Israelis on the ground level).

Clarification please? Do you mean, what should be the policy of the government of the U. S. or Britain toward Israel and the Palestinians? Or do you mean, what should be the policy of Israel toward Palestinians?

I meant policy of the US government. What do you think they should do?

As for Paul's here's comments, I'll just ask him to confirm that he means the US to invade Palestine (to the sum of 10-20,000 dead etc) or Israel with US political support? Either way - you've completely alienated the entire Middle East - lost all Arab support (be that commercial or political), possibily brought other Arab nations in a war against you, and who knows what the rest of the worlds reaction is - strategically extremely unpredictable situation. Or are you one of the people who thinks we should just give up on the entire Arab world and wipe them of the face of the earth?

Addendum: Although, for that matter I'd be interesting to hear any thoughts on what people consider ideal Israeli policy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or are you one of the people who thinks we should just give up on the entire Arab world and wipe them of the face of the earth?

And the value of Stone Age mentalities to civilized men would be ...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

B. "they're in Government." No they're not. They are in a terrorist organization. Hamas does not do that. They are thugs. Imaine Al Capone as Mayor of Chicago.

QUOTE(AR @ The Nature of Government, CUI, Obj. Research CD)

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

That is your ideal of what government is suppost to be, not the commonly accepted definition nor the public perception. Recognition of a government representing a nation is done relative to agendas - in the case of the Palestinian people - they've elected Hamas to lead them, in the international community its whether states choose to recognise Hamas as a political entity representing the views of the Palestianian people. As i've already said - I would hope my country (UK) and yours take the stance that until they prove otherwise, Hamas is not, as a political organisation, to be taken seriously - and hence we should withdraw funding. However, we can still encourage them to adopt more responsible positions, and hold them to it.

C. "is it not best to work on transforming them at least until obvious cause for intervention exists?" You mean previous actions, founding organizational documents, explicit public pronouncements are not causes to act upon?

Again, what you consider cause for intervention is not what the international community, or even most American Senators/Americans consider cause for that sort of intervention. Any specific foreign policy must be contextual to wider national interests - the environment such direct action would create for American interests would, to my mind & most, make such action unwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
-----------------

As for Paul's here's comments, I'll just ask him to confirm that he means the US to invade Palestine (to the sum of 10-20,000 dead etc) or Israel with US political support?

Since you weren't clear as to whose policy you meant, the US or Israel, I think my answer is clear that what I said should be Israel's policy with US support.

Either way - you've completely alienated the entire Middle East - lost all Arab support (be that commercial or political), possibily brought other Arab nations in a war against you,

To reiterated PhilO, and the value of Arab support is what? Do you refer to the fiefdom of Saudi Arabia, or perhaps the freedom loving country of Pakistan? You mean we'd alienate it more than it is now? Hmmm. Please explain. Israel defeated Egypt, Jordan, and Syria twice in wars. How long do you think the rest of them would last against the US? All we'd have to do is drop some cartoons from an airplane on them and they'd drop their rifles and jump up and down about being insulted.

and who knows what the rest of the worlds reaction is - strategically extremely unpredictable situation. Or are you one of the people who thinks we should just give up on the entire Arab world and wipe them of the face of the earth?

If the war was fought as WWII was, there is absolutely no "extremely unpredictable situation." The Arab countries would fold in, maybe, one week. Example: Hussein's "mother of all wars."

A

ddendum: Although, for that matter I'd be interesting to hear any thoughts on what people consider ideal Israeli policy to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Charles: Or are you one of the people who thinks we should just give up on the entire Arab world and wipe them of the face of the earth?
And the value of Stone Age mentalities to civilized men would be ...?

There are 23 Arab nations (or one Arab nation with 23 governments as some of them perceive it) with varying political structures, cultural identities, many of which are very wealthy and produce highly educated individuals and entrepreneurs. As I recall the Arabs were the first to translate Aristotle from the original Greek. Certainly they have a rich intellectual history. Now just because you have serious qualms with some of their professed values, their religion and the abuses caused by them in specific parts of that world, does that warrant the entire civilizations obliteration? Your just turn your back on an entire civilization with all its potential, because its easier to destroy a potential threat than try and work together and work for your values to spread across that region? You call yourself civilized?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is your ideal of what government is suppost to be, not the commonly accepted definition nor the public perception. Recognition of a government representing a nation is done relative to agendas - in the case of the Palestinian people - they've elected Hamas to lead them, in the international community its whether states choose to recognise Hamas as a political entity representing the views of the Palestianian people.

Whether something is commonly accepted or not is not relevant to the truth of a statement. Do you think that any gang the controls the means of using force in society is a government?

I have no problem recognizing that Hamas fully represents the views of the Palestinian people. Which is one reason I support total domination for the purposes of national defence. The fact that the dictators or terrorists use a particluar method (voting) that is used in freer countries is irrelevent as to the status of the organization.

As i've already said - I would hope my country (UK) and yours take the stance that until they prove otherwise, Hamas is not, as a political organisation, to be taken seriously - and hence we should withdraw funding. However, we can still encourage them to adopt more responsible positions, and hold them to it.

Again, what you consider cause for intervention is not what the international community, or even most American Senators/Americans consider cause for that sort of intervention. Any specific foreign policy must be contextual to wider national interests - the environment such direct action would create for American interests would, to my mind & most, make such action unwise.

Let's introduce some facts. Since the year 2000, there have been 1,098 Israelis killed by terrorists (http://tinyurl.com/29478). Ratioing that from the 6,300,000 Israelis to 300,000,000 Americans, thats 52,286 dead Americans. About what was lost in each of the Korean and Vietnam wars. Now, do you really think that taking action against an organization that had killed 52,000 plus Americans is "unwise?" Multiply those numbers by 6 for all those injured.

There are 23 Arab nations (or one Arab nation with 23 governments as some of them perceive it) with varying political structures, cultural identities, many of which are very wealthy and produce highly educated individuals and entrepreneurs. ------------

The exact same thing can be said about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, (probably not North Korea or Cuba - except for baseball players).

------------because its easier to destroy a potential threat than try and work together and work for your values to spread across that region? You call yourself civilized?

They are NOT a potential threat. They are an ACTUAL threat. Exactly what do you think peace is? Peace is not some state where you pick fruit from the tree and the sun shines all day. Peace exists when your enemies have been militarily defeated. That has been true throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your just turn your back on an entire civilization with all its potential, because its easier to destroy a potential threat than try and work together and work for your values to spread across that region? You call yourself civilized?

Yes, I do call myself civilized. I am not a multiculturist who believes that you only need to play nice with people intent on annihilating Western civilization.

The "wealth" you speak of, came from stolen (nationalized) oil fields that were discovered and developed by Western oil companies. And Muslim barbarism is not a potential threat. It *is* a threat. Destroying every single one of the corrupt Islamic theocracies is very long overdue. Practically speaking, that means their governments and means of financing.

Nazi Germany was one of the most industrialized countries on earth in the 1940s, and had its "intellectuals" and "entrepeneurs". (Many of the large industrial companies of Nazi Germany, that were instrumental in their war machine, still exist as well known brands.) Neville Chamberlain certainly tried appeasement in the 1930s, it was not particularly effective. The cost for that failure to address the problem early is well known.

The culture that you laud can be seen here, right from the horse's own mouth:

http://www.memritv.org/

Unfortunately, I don't think that your sensitive approach to religious fanatics blind to reason is somehow lacking in Washington, D.C. I am sure there will still be apologists for them, after American and European trained biologists in Iran and Pakistan cook up some nice cocktail of designer viruses designed to send the Western demons back to hell (along with their own countries, oops) - just as the savages of 9/11 also used the advanced technology of the West, Boeing jumbo jets, to carry out their attacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are 23 Arab nations (or one Arab nation with 23 governments as some of them perceive it) with varying political structures, cultural identities, many of which are very wealthy and produce highly educated individuals and entrepreneurs. As I recall the Arabs were the first to translate Aristotle from the original Greek. Certainly they have a rich intellectual history. Now just because you have serious qualms with some of their professed values, their religion and the abuses caused by them in specific parts of that world, does that warrant the entire civilizations obliteration? Your just turn your back on an entire civilization with all its potential, because its easier to destroy a potential threat than try and work together and work for your values to spread across that region? You call yourself civilized?

When you mention "highly educated individuals and entrepreneurs" did you have Abdul Qadeer Khan in mind?

If you didn't, then I suggest you keep him in mind along with visions of mushroom clouds over the West.

Since the end of WWI, the West has been dealing with Arab Nations the very manner in which you propose we deal with them now.

How much longer do we have to continue to do so, and how many more innocent Westerners have to die at the hands of these barbarians before the title of this thread makes sense to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whether something is commonly accepted or not is not relevant to the truth of a statement. Do you think that any gang the controls the means of using force in society is a government?

No, like I said, its relative to your position, besides did Soviet Russia, Nazi Germany and Red China not have governments in your eyes?? You took an Objectivist Research CD Rom definition of government, not the commonly accepted one at all:

QUOTE(AR @ The Nature of Government, CUI, Obj. Research CD)

A government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of physical force under objective control—i.e., under objectively defined laws.

My Oxford English Dictionary defines it as "Body or Successive bodies of persons governing a state"

It defines Govern as "Rule with authority, conduct the policy, actions and affairs of (State, Subjects) either despotically or constitutionally"

Yours is a particular view of what government should exist for.

Since the year 2000, there have been 1,098 Israelis killed by terrorists (http://tinyurl.com/29478). Ratioing that from the 6,300,000 Israelis to 300,000,000 Americans, thats 52,286 dead Americans. About what was lost in each of the Korean and Vietnam wars. Now, do you really think that taking action against an organization that had killed 52,000 plus Americans is "unwise?" Multiply those numbers by 6 for all those injured.

Funny, the BBC must have missed the 52,000 Americans killed by Hamas since 2000. Honestly, and I pay the license fee!

The exact same thing can be said about Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, Red China, (probably not North Korea or Cuba - except for baseball players).

They are NOT a potential threat. They are an ACTUAL threat. Exactly what do you think peace is? Peace is not some state where you pick fruit from the tree and the sun shines all day. Peace exists when your enemies have been militarily defeated. That has been true throughout history.

Peace exists when your enemies have been militarily defeated...hmmm well my dictionary has it that it's when you and your enemy aren't fighting (a cessation of hostilities) or there's no fighting to be had, but thats a moot point. I'm more concerned with how you define enemy...is China an enemy of the USA? Is Dubai? Is Quatar? Oman? Oh wait, no - we have significant investments in Dubai, and Oman is the UKs chief Oil provider... do you believe in some sort of perpertual war doctrine? Last man standing until every one thats entirely complicit with American interests is left, until your Utopian society rules the world? Does it occur to you that attacking people sometimes creates more enemies than it kills? That people who potentially could have gone either way end up fighting you for what they see as grossly unjustified action? I don't doubt American military power - I'm questioning your reasoning, you'd rather crassly characterize a nation in the negative, wipe them off the map and be done with it...

I've just had a glance at PhilO's post where he says this:

I am not a multiculturist who believes that you only need to play nice with people intent on annihilating Western civilization.

Neither am I! Iran has expressed that very wish and I support military action against them (preferably airstrikes against their Nuclear Facilities), I do not believe all cultures are equal - I believe there are value systems that are better than others, and I work towards seeing the fruition of decent values whereever previously they were absent. I've had letters published to that effect: Telegraph (1st letter under Common Values)

Appeasement of Iran could be a dangerous mistake - but Palestine doesn't pose any threat on that scale - I say withdraw funding, encourage Hamas to change, negotiate with Israel - if it doesn't, Palestine is going to be a whole lot worse off than it already is (without the support). If Hamas, the closest thing to a governing body, then actively pursues a course of violence in their own name - no one can have any reasonable qualms with Israel moving in and occupying the whole territory. Its tantamount to a declaration of war now they're in charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Appeasement of Iran could be a dangerous mistake - but Palestine doesn't pose any threat on that scale - I say withdraw funding, encourage Hamas to change, negotiate with Israel - if it doesn't, Palestine is going to be a whole lot worse off than it already is (without the support). If Hamas, the closest thing to a governing body, then actively pursues a course of violence in their own name - no one can have any reasonable qualms with Israel moving in and occupying the whole territory. Its tantamount to a declaration of war now they're in charge.

Appeasement of Iran or any other Arab nation would be a fatal mistake.

Are you seriously saying that Israel should occupy the whole territory if Hamas doesn't mend its ways? Didn't Israel do that in 1967? And then what happens? The Arabs scream that it's occupied territory, and Israel has no right to it and must vacate immediately or face suicide attacks; and a majority of the UN member "governments" concur. What then?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you seriously saying that Israel should occupy the whole territory if Hamas doesn't mend its ways? Didn't Israel do that in 1967? And then what happens? The Arabs scream that it's occupied territory, and Israel has no right to it and must vacate immediately or face suicide attacks; and a majority of the UN member "governments" concur. What then?

I agree that if Hamas doesn't mend its ways the situation you describe does seem likely. I guess it depends whether Israel would then cave into international pressure and vacate the lands, and what the various members of the international community would do if it didn't.

What would you like to see done with regards to Hamas Mr Grabowski?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

-------------

I'm questioning your reasoning, you'd rather crassly characterize a nation in the negative, wipe them off the map and be done with it...

------------

You should read more carefully. Nowhere did I state what you state above. In several cases, you outright missed the point (e.g., the 52,000 killed). And your other comments don't address my statements so I'm going to leave my statements stand as is until or unless you address them, directly. Not by giving hit-and-run examples with no relation to the principles I mentioned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that if Hamas doesn't mend its ways the situation you describe does seem likely. I guess it depends whether Israel would then cave into international pressure and vacate the lands, and what the various members of the international community would do if it didn't.

What would you like to see done with regards to Hamas Mr Grabowski?

Charles, with all due respect, I asked you didn't Israel do in 1967 what you propose they do now to make a point. How many time does one have to take the wrong action before one concludes that it's the wrong action?

You seem to think that civilized people have to treat barbarians as if they were civilized, that reason can be used to deal with people who reject reason. You can't. The history of the region shows that if you attempt to do so the only result is death to the good.

As far as what I would like to see done with regards to Hamas, well, I would have thought that to be obvious.

I would like to see them and their supporters (idealogical as well as financial) wiped off the face of the earth with the least cost in dollars and men as soon as possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incidently, Stephen, what would your ideal Israel/Palestine policy be?

In order to form a rational policy you first have to establish principles, and then correctly assess the facts and judge how your principles apply. The Palestinian issue is just the current focus of a much broader issue involving most all the Middle-Eastern countries.

The over-arching proper principle governing the interactions between people and nations is the absence of the initiation of force. The overwhelming fact to consider about the Middle-East is that savage nations have for decades initiated force for the stated purpose of wiping Israel out of existence. When force is initiated against a nation, the proper response is to apply retaliatory force to remove or destroy the threat.

There can be no compromise or negotiation with those who seek your destruction. It is because of Israel's appeasement of its enemies, and the failure to respond with enough force that has perpetuated the problem. At this point, the ideal policy about which you ask would be similar to the policy we in the United States should implement, namely obliterate the worst of the enemies and let the rest know that in fact the same will happen to them unless they completely and utterly stop their initiation of force. If they want to live they will abide; if they don't, they should be destroyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for Charles or anyone else who wants to respond. For decades we've heard the argument that "land for peace" is the only real solution for Israel. Let's suppose, as a hypothetical statement, that the only real way for Israel to live in peace were to use military action to destroy and wipe out the terrorist organizations that are threatening its sovereignty. Would you support such action by Israel?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites