Terrorism is Nobody's Monopoly

Re: # 310 HP,

HP,

Your post is terse and I may have missed a lot. Let me respond to what I think your main points are:

1. ``The Manichean division of the world is too simplistic and using labels liberally often results in neglecting the variances that exist and change from society to society.``

I tried to keep the definitions as broad as possible. Your input will be appreciated.

2. ``That leads us to consider that even if the West wins the war, it would still be a conservative victory. ``

Quite possible. May I add that a lot of people in the West may also term it as a liberal victory. But your point, I think, is that it does not matter who thinks what and I agree. I do so primarily because in this war of attrision there won`t be a clear cut end for a long time. And in the course there will be several `victories` and `defeats`.

3. ``So the strategy which you are mistakenly calling tactics, should be for the liberals to win on both sides and that is the real issue whether the liberals can win on both sides of the fences or not?``

Absolutely. The real issue is for the liberals to win on spheres currently dominated by strong states in the west and fundamentalists in the east. A liberal need not associate herself with any side.

4. ``One aspect of this clash of civilization is that the conservatives fighting this war on both sides will attempt to beat the liberals first before they begin the victory parade probably together.``

This is something very important for people to understand. In my last post, I did hint that even innocuous liberal interventions may invite death in the east. People should be very cautious in what they do. In the west, I think, the main problem is superficiality. Let us talk more on this.

5. ``One more thing for you to consider is how we define liberalism or even conservatives in the Societies outside of the western hemisphere.``

I propose that specific religio-political issues be kept out of the definition, in other words I suggest that my definition should do. I would be happy to take up challenges on this for I think this is an important point.

6. ``We want liberals to win in the West and we want moderates to win in our part of the world.``

No. I want liberals to win in both parts, even if the liberals from these two parts do not see eye to eye on most issues other than what I define as the 5 core requirements for a person to be liberal.

7. And the great curveball: Here you are actually pointing at the achiles heel of liberalism.

Hitler was not a socialist. He took up their symbols to (successfully) lure liberals into his fold. German liberals were trying for quick fixes. They even killed Rosa Luxemburg who was trying to calm things down.

I do try to handle this issue in my posts: The liberal ceases to be a liberal when she tries to impose liberalism on others through short-cuts. The liberal, like the angler, has to be patient. Furthermore, her job is to protect whaterver individual right exists and if possible to enhance individuals` right to choose. It might very well mean that the liberal ends up challenging the victorious liberal state that deviates from the principles of liberalism. Thus, like Jehad it is a lifetime process. It does not end. The liberals` war is a war of attrision. Hence, it stands a very good chance of winning this war.

HE, 334, 336

Hamas has already signalled it is prepared to [conditionally] accept Israel. Godot is merely splitting hairs over the manner (covenant vs statement vs interview) in which this signal was sent. He hasn`t addressed this signal and the obtuse Israeli response.

“Signaled”? This is not a matter of “splitting hair.” Either Hamas explicitly recognizes Israel or it doesn’t. Why is Hams beating around the bush? The recognition must be explicitly spelled out in the Covenant. Again, if you are Israel, would you want to see that recognition in the Covenant or through some “signals”?


The question really is: Is Israel prepared to return to 1967 borders and respect the human rights of its non-Israeli neighbors?

Unless you recognize Isarel’s right to exist as a neighbor, that question is irrelevant.

What does it expect the Palestinians to do in return? Are those expectations reasonable?

I believe Isarel’s expectation is that violence against the civilians must stop, that the Palestinians throw away the arms and start a dialogue. Israel knows that Palestinians are unlikely to come to grips with that. In fact, Israel fears that very move by the Palestinians. Peace by Palestinians will corner Israel in a way that no amount of violence and weapons can. Palestinians’ violence is Israel’s advantage. Palestinians’ peace is Israel’s defeat.

50 years ago this may have been an Israeli-Palestinian problem. But gradually it morphed into a Israeli-Arab problem. And now it is a Jewish-Muslim problem.

No, it is not a Jewish-Muslim problem. You have made it so. It is a dispute between two parties one of which happens to be Muslim.

Israel is not interested in peace that`s not 100% on its terms.

Who is? Is Pakistan interested in a solution to Kashmir that’s not on its 100% terms? Is India?

Now the Palestinians can play this game two ways. They can play it according to Israel`s rules. Israel demands big concessions offering little in return. Palestinians keep giving in until they have absolutely nothing to offer. In the end they might get a moth-eaten Palestinian state in which the airspace, sea routes and borders are controlled by Israel. Palestinian refugees can`t return. Palestine can`t have an army. But Israeli army can enter or leave Palestinian territory at will. Israelis get security and most of the land. Palestinians get some land but no security.

The road to peace must start somewhere. Israel is holding the stronger cards today. Once a “moth-eaten” Palestinian country comes into being, the currents of history are bound to change today’s setup. Can you see into the future, beyond the next three months?

Or they can play the game according to their own rules...

Other than violence, what are their game rules? What end do you see of this “game rule”?

They offer conditional acceptance of Israel if Israel withdraws to 1967 borders. If Israel accepts the offer, both parties get land and security. Israel has nukes anyway. The Palestinians get an army. Palestinian refugees can return to Palestine. US continues to arm Israel and Palestine. This is the ideal situation from Palestinian POV, but the worst case scenario from Israeli POV.

So the Palestinians get an army, the US supplies arms to it, and Palestinians attack Israel, and you think “this is the ideal situation from Palestinian POV.” I don’t know whether to cry or to laugh at this silliness!

Palestinians are better off dealing with Israel on their own terms instead of accepting the Israeli terms (which will be fickle, dishonorable and unjust to Palestinians anyway).

That’s the impasse: Everybody wants its “own terms.” Reality is that the party that has dealt better cards does not mind the status-quo. The Palestinians are not with the better cards. So the violence continues, innocent people keep dying, and everything for the Palestinians is hunky-dory. They sure have a great future. I am already thinking of spending next summer in the Gaza with my family. I’m sure it will beat Monaco anytime.

Godot,

Equal partner at the negotiating table, agenda and timeline for set up of a Palestinian country, economic development of Palestinian territories, free movement of goods and trade, infrastructure development, job creation, to name a few

Well actually, that`s not the official position of Israeli govt. The Israeli say they will not negotiate with Hamas because it is a terrorist organization. Besides, this list of concessions does not include security provisions such as control of airspace, Palestinian military, etc.

Israel could use any terrorist strike (by Islamic Jihad for example) as a casus belli for re-invading Palestine. Countries can only take measures to prevent or prosecute terrorists. But they cannot 100% guarantee that a terror attack will never take place. Not even the US or UK can offer that kind of guarantee. That still doesn`t mean that you should invade an entire country because of a law & order lapse.

re: zeemax

Israel did the same thing in depopulating South Lebanon recently and it would have expanded into that as well if not thwarted by Hazballah

For the same reason, Israel refuses to share maps of landmines planted in Southern Lebanon during 1982-2000 occupation.

Disproportionate power creates disproportionate ambitions. Still most powerful states use force only if diplomacy fails. Israel is different. It resorts to diplomacy only when use of force fails.

Re: # 321

Godot:

You are so correct, increasingly narrower choices are presented to create sharper differences. The rest becomes history as the sharp divide becomes the issue.

Anil

uba #313 {``is that why muslims are constantly in a confrontationist mode all the time ?
muslims did not enter europe as traders but as invaders-rapists , and got kicked out of spain , in a fitting manner.``}

Uba,
I am disappointed by your shallow, generalized interpretation of a thousand year span of history. Muslims entered Europe via Spain in 711 AD at the invitation of local Jews who were suffering under Visigoth oppression. Yes, they were ``kicked out`` almost 800 years later in 1492 and physically expelled in the early 17th century folloiwng prolonged persecutions resulting from the notorious Spanish Inquisition. By this time, other parts of Europe (Greece, Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Ukraine, Moldova, Hungary, Thrace, Macedonia, and Albania) were firmly under the rule of Ottoman Turks in the east.

If you study the Crusades and Mongol invasions of the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries, you might understand why ``muslims are constantly in a confrontationist mode all the time.`` :)

Godot,

I am glad we are now on the same line [if not the same page].

Israel is not interested in peace that`s not 100% on its terms. And no Palestinian state can survive on Israeli terms. Israel knows that (that`s why it drafted those terms).

Now the Palestinians can play this game two ways.

They can play it according to Israel`s rules. Israel demands big concessions offering little in return. Palestinians keep giving in until they have absolutely nothing to offer. In the end they might get a moth-eaten Palestinian state in which the airspace, sea routes and borders are controlled by Israel. Palestinian refugees can`t return. Palestine can`t have an army. But Israeli army can enter or leave Palestinian territory at will. Israelis get security and most of the land. Palestinians get some land but no security.

Or they can play the game according to their own rules...

They offer conditional acceptance of Israel if Israel withdraws to 1967 borders. If Israel accepts the offer, both parties get land and security. Israel has nukes anyway. The Palestinians get an army. Palestinian refugees can return to Palestine. US continues to arm Israel and Palestine. This is the ideal situation from Palestinian POV, but the worst case scenario from Israeli POV.

If Israel refuses the ``1967-ceasefire offer``, Palestinians fire Qassem rockets at Israelis in West Bank, dig tunnels under Israeli fences and kidnap Israeli soldiers. Hizbullah fires a few rockets or raids Israeli checkposts in north every couple of months. Israeli army is continuously fighting against tough Islamist zealots in South Lebanon, Gaza and West Bank. Every couple of months, a terrorist strike occurs inside Israel. Israeli economy suffers. It remain insecure and some Israelis migrate to the U.S. The Palestinians will suffer too but their endurance levels are much higher. Besides they have nothing more left to lose anyway. But at least the Israelis get a taste of the same hopelessness. The promised land begins to look dull and scary.

As you can see, the Palestinians are better off dealing with Israel on their own terms instead of accepting the Israeli terms (which will be fickle, dishonorable and unjust to Palestinians anyway).

=== Interact Filtered ===
view this users filtered interacts

DM, 320

Hamas has already signalled it is prepared to [conditionally] accept Israel. Godot is merely splitting hairs over the manner (covenant vs statement vs interview) in which this signal was sent. He hasn`t addressed this signal and the obtuse Israeli response.

The question really is:
Is Israel prepared to return to 1967 borders and respect the human rights of its non-Israeli neighbors? What does it expect the Palestinians to do in return? Are those expectations reasonable?

When problems are left unsolved, they grow in scope...

50 years ago this may have been an Israeli-Palestinian problem.
But gradually it morphed into a Israeli-Arab problem.
And now it is a Jewish-Muslim problem.

We could have treated it as a regional issue back in the 50s. But now it has taken civilizational dimensions. Today Israel has an image problem not just in Middle East, but also in places as far as Malayasia and Sudan.

Re: # 310 by HP

HP:

The curve ball is well appreciated. I need to read your post once more before discussing further. I would like you to read all three of my posts once more too (you will see where I am going with this). A few comments:

1. I have defined a liberal in my first post. The liberal may or may-not side with moderates. For all I know there may be liberals in OBL`s camp. It is for the liberal to decide. Liberals may disagree with each other over most of the issues.

2. My definition of a liberal, along with the proposed tactics, cut accross the religious and the atheist.

HE, 331

What quid pro quo do Israelis offer to Palestinians in return for perpetual ceasefire?

Equal partner at the negotiating table, agenda and timeline for set up of a Palestinian country, economic development of Palestinian territories, free movement of goods and trade, infrastructure development, job creation, to name a few.

Asking Hamas to change its charter first is a delay-tactic.

Why is that a “delay-tactic” for Israel? If it is, then Hamas is playing right into Israel’s hands. The more Hamas delays modifying its Covenant in recognizing Israel and living in peace with that country, the more time it is going to lose, and more chances it’s providing to Israel to consolidate more of Palestinian territories.

Israel is buying time to consolidate its hold over West Bank. Words spoken 18 months ago are more relevant than words spoken 18 years ago.

Very true. Israel is buying time, and Hamas is cooperating.

PS: I want you to understand that I am not pro-Israel, but a realist, and I do recognize Israel as much as I recognize Singapore. If anything, I’m pro-peace and anti-violence. Violence is not a superior tactic or a negotiation ploy over dialogue.

godot, 297

What quid pro quo do Israelis offer to Palestinians in return for perpetual ceasefire? Remember it is Israel that is occupying Palestinians, not vice versa.

Asking Hamas to change its charter first is a delay-tactic. Israel is buying time to consolidate its hold over West Bank. Words spoken 18 months ago are more relevant than words spoken 18 years ago.

Kaalchakra and Dots

The concept of dar-ul-harab applies to all religions, in that each religion considers itself to be superior to all others. And that’s what dar-ul-harab is about: my way is better than yours.

But those Muslims who say that, hey look, Islam wants Muslim rule under strict Sharia Law over the entire planet are very few and totally blind towards the realities of twenty-first century. It’s a grave folly to take the view held by a miniscule minority and project it onto the entire Muslim population of over a billion people.

Those who are committing terrorist acts are making political statements and covering it up with religious color to gain sympathy and legitimacy from the masses for their heinous acts. Equating Islam with terror is milked by those who are bent on dividing the world into us-vs-them. This advocacy is making the world a very dangerous place and playing into the hands of terrorists who may get transformed, to the average Muslim, from mere criminals to heroes.

TACTIC:

The previous two posts on the liberal agenda are perhaps sufficient for people in the west. What follows is more for liberals residing in Pakistan and India.

2. The most important task is to get involved in the civil society. Big time politics, elections etc. is best left alone. Where does one get involved: (a) if one is religious then the local masjid, temple or church commitees. They usually exist, if not try to organize one. It is OK even if these fora are usually involved in mundane matters; (b) public school commitees; (c) get to know the local doctors/quacks; (d) almost everywhere there are small groups which carry out social services for prison inmates, get involved and get to know the station officer and the inmates.
What does one do? Well the answers will come along with involvement. Pre-set goals are usually not feasible. But certain things can be tried. Whenever there are elections get out the vote, not necessarily in favor of any party. Whenever `big-time` religious scholars come for speeches insist on question-answer sessions (there is no need to plant or ask questions). Find out from the public school teacher her needs, the reasons for absenteesim etc. Take up these causes with your friends and see if something can be done. Encourage the local doctor to explain the `disease` to patients. Encourage her to answer questions. Get to know the drug addicts, prostitutes and the common thief in the local prison. You will know what to do from then on. A word of caution. I know people, from back home in India, who have been killed for just doing some of the things mentioned here. In fact one of them was involved in teaching midwives, in Chattisgarh, how to sanitize cloth by boiling them.

3. The ongoing fight makes use of grand institutions which allow ``leaders`` to co-ordinate with each other and with the cadre. The institutions are usually huge and no particular individual knows how the entire institution functions. Do not oppose institutions now (you are bound to fail). However, all institutions have `weak` links. Attack those if and when you find one, try to do it in a way that is perceived as a help to the institution (yes subtle sabotage). You will know what I am talking about when you see one. For example, yesterday there was a link posted on UP which talked about CIA help to the mujahedeen. It was mentioned that a Pakistani businessman sold sub-standard equipment to the CIA. These are the `weak` links that I am talking about and are apparent at the local level. While the military might not have known about the deal as it was being executed, the local butcher might have. Again be cautious. I know of a person in Telengana who was killed for exposing the fact that `rations` were being diverted from a licensed shop to another. The guy was killed by the Marxists because the ration was infact being diverted to them.

The three posts that I have written on the liberal agenda provide a summary of what I think about the matter. Time permitting, I shall address the question as to why I think liberals will win the war. The question that was posed right in the beginning.

#327 Wheel O Time
that is precisely the point. The incremental nature of it - comes in two forms. One as you suggested, and the other as a series of local disputes (our discussion on opportunity).

The intent is there, and hence the drawing of the lines by both parties. Indeed if you read carefully what Blair and the brits of all hues have been saying for sometime, it appears they have realised this particular intent and are trying to counter the intent. Bush and his cohorts, have grasped the idea but are articulating it in a different manner. Even the most ardent opponent of these guys, doesnot disagree with the general thrust of the idea but disagrees on the mechanism in drawing that line.

Finally to your last point - the reality has been different mainly because of a general differential in population dynamics, and availability of resource. These days that equation has an off-set. And hence the clash of ideas. Unfortuantely the ideas are not discussed but debated by some rather violent means.

--...--

But logically, dar-ul-harab concept IS an incremental concept. First it mandates that Muslims are not to live in peace in any place ruled by others. Then when power has been snatched away from non Muslims and Islamic state has been obtained then true Muslims are not to live in peace when they are ruled by not-true Muslims.

Fundamentally, this is the doctrine of constant warfare - continuous Islamic `revolutions` - until the rule of true Islam has been established everywhere.

That is the intent. If the reality throughout the ages and throughout the world been different, then the concept does not have any power.