Speech by Haim Harari - War on Terror

[Reffo]

http://www.worldthreats.com/middle_e...m%20Harari.htm
The extract below is from the above URL which is a very interesting summary by Haim Harrari about the War on Terror and the Middle East:

"Why do I put aside Israel and its own immediate neighborhood? Because Israel and any problems related to it, in spite of what you might read or hear in the world media, is not the central issue, and has never been the central issue in the upheaval in the region. Yes, there is a 100 year-old Israeli-Arab conflict, but it is not where the main show is. The millions who died in the Iran-Iraq war had nothing to do with Israel. The mass murder happening right now in Sudan, where the Arab Moslem regime is massacring its black Christian citizens, has nothing to do with Israel. The frequent reports from Algeria about the murders of hundreds of civilian in one village or another by other Algerians have nothing to do with Israel. Saddam Hussein did not invade Kuwait, endangered Saudi Arabia and butchered his own people because of Israel. Egypt did not use poison gas against Yemen in the 60's because of Israel. Assad the Father did not kill tens of thousands of his own citizens in one week in El Hamma in Syria because of Israel. The

Taliban control of Afghanistan and the civil war there had nothing to do with Israel. The Libyan blowing up of the Pan-Am flight had nothing to do with Israel, and I could go on and on and on."

[Leon]

try senidng it to Blair and side show Straw

[goliath]

Do you want to strip Israel of every responsabilities ? should be a new sound.

[Reffo]

Do you want to strip Israel of every responsabilities ? should be a new sound.

I don't think the aim of this article is to absolve Israel of all responsibilities. Nor does it vilify ordinary Muslims (see quote below):

"I should also say a word about the millions of decent, honest, good people who are either devout Moslems or are not very religious but grew up in Moslem families. They are double victims of an outside world, which now develops Islamophobia and of their own environment, which breaks their heart by being totally dysfunctional. The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement but they also do not stand up against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views."

However, I think that one of the main themes of this thread is that the Middle East is a tough and nasty neighbourhood and that it would be so with or without the existence of Israel

[goliath]

I don't think the aim of this article is to absolve Israel of all responsibilities. Nor does it vilify ordinary Muslims (see quote below):

"I should also say a word about the millions of decent, honest, good people who are either devout Moslems or are not very religious but grew up in Moslem families. They are double victims of an outside world, which now develops Islamophobia and of their own environment, which breaks their heart by being totally dysfunctional. The problem is that the vast silent majority of these Moslems are not part of the terror and of the incitement but they also do not stand up against it. They become accomplices, by omission, and this applies to political leaders, intellectuals, business people and many others. Many of them can certainly tell right from wrong, but are afraid to express their views."

However, I think that one of the main themes of this thread is that the Middle East is a tough and nasty neighbourhood and that it would be so with or without the existence of Israel

I do agree with your analyse,which seems to be a moderated position,for us Jews ,Israel is the only possibility to keep and have a country , who can our motherland in which we trust ,and could help and be present in case of extreme necessity,I agree with you nobody can generalize concerning a group of people (ethnic or religious or both) ,but we are for centuries under persecutions,and when the moment arrive , we have our land ,since the first day ,we have to fight and fight again,and people around the world ,doesn't wants to remember why ,we finally get that piece of land , and what do we get ,injustices ,persecutions and indifference.
So now , is difficult for us to trust people , and another factor is ,many Israeli are tired with fear and suicide attacks ,so we have to find a balanced solution.

[Reffo]

I agree with you totally but if we are to remain sane, we must keep our sense of humour. I received the following funny line as part of an e-mail from a friend:

"Earth is the insane asylum for the universe."

It is funny and sad but unfortunately very true.

[Mediocrates]

It's really not about exculpation is it? I mean it makes no practical benefit or disadvantage how guilty you feel about it. If you could have dropped the atomic bomb on Germany in 1944 instead of Japan in 1945 and bring the European war to a close a year earlier, would you feel bad about it? I wouldn't lose a minute of sleep and if anyone wanted me to feel horrible about that I would tell them about Machiavelli's virtues and the necessity to do ugly things for the greater good. Not only do the ends justify the means, the ends are the only thing that justify the means.

[I am David]

There is no justification for the US bombing of Japenese cities. And no, it has nothing to do with BS stats stating how many Americans would have died in a full scale invasion. The whole affair was merely a result of a bunch of sick, heartless and deranged individuals who allowed the thing to happen.

That said, the situation does not apply to Israel. During the whole conflict, It's safe to say that Israel, as government policy, has not adopted policies that seek to resolve the conflict through intentional killing of innocents. The same can not be said for the Allies in WW2. Mass-bombing of civilian cities was an accepted tactic. Israel, on the other hand, realizes that aiming soley for military targets is a much more humane and effective tactic for winning this war - on terror.

[Reffo]

In general I am not comfortable with the idea that the end justifies the means. Having said that though, I would not exclude this sentiment entirely. In particular, I believe that if you are fighting for your very survival and your enemy has no moral scruples whatsoever and if (this is the big if) you have no other alternative then one is entitled to resort to this sentiment but only as much as necessary (no need to go overboard). However, if all you want is to improve your position or get richer etc, the end certainly does not justify the means.

[Reffo]

The extract below from Haim Harrari's paper is very enlightening:

"What is behind the suicide murders? Money, power and cold-blooded murderous incitement, nothing else. It has nothing to do with true fanatic religious beliefs. No Moslem preacher has ever blown himself up. No son of an Arab politician or religious leader has ever blown himself. No relative of anyone influential has done it. Wouldn't you expect some of the religious leaders to do it themselves, or to talk their sons into doing it, if this is truly a supreme act of religious fervor? Aren't they interested in the benefits of going to Heaven? Instead, they send outcast women, naïve children, retarded people and young incited hotheads. They promise them the delights, mostly sexual, of the next world, and pay their families handsomely after the supreme act is performed and enough innocent people are dead.

Suicide murders also have nothing to do with poverty and despair. The poorest region in the world, by far, is Africa. It never happens there. There are numerous desperae people in the world, in different cultures, countries and continents. Desperation does not provide anyone with explosives, reconnaissance and transportation. There was certainly more despair in Saddam's Iraq then in Paul Bremmer's Iraq, and no one exploded himself. A suicide murder is simply a horrible, vicious weapon of cruel, inhuman, cynical, well-funded terrorists, with no regard to human life, including the life of their fellow countrymen, but with very high regard to their own affluent well-being and their hunger for power."

[goliath]

[QUOTE]

I am David[/B]]There is no justification for the US bombing of Japanese cities

.
Politic matters are most of the times not an evidence for the troops or people they are going to die for.
WW I : utilisation of Hyperite Gas (terrible)
WW II Atomic bombing on Iroshima and Nagasaki ,it exist two option about the reason of this :
1) Accelerate the end of the war in Japan
2) Demonstrate to Stalin , US was able to use a terrible and destructive weapon.
Mankind is unhuman .

[Mediocrates]

In general I am not comfortable with the idea that the end justifies the means. Having said that though, I would not exclude this sentiment entirely. In particular, I believe that if you are fighting for your very survival and your enemy has no moral scruples whatsoever and if (this is the big if) you have no other alternative then one is entitled to resort to this sentiment but only as much as necessary (no need to go overboard). However, if all you want is to improve your position or get richer etc, the end certainly does not justify the means.

"Have no alternative" is overly broad, isn't it? After all in the 1950's and 60's busing was done for schoolchildren to balance the racial scales. Now would one say there was no other alternative or would one say it's merely one efficient way out of several to achieve this? It left many people very unhappy and angry and yet, none of those considerations really mattered. Similarly we put Federal troops on the ground in Southern states for the first time since the Civil War in order to enforce Brown v. Bd of Ed. (1954) which in today's highly polarized world of Conservative politics and states rights and the New South might lead to another real civil war. Yet none of those things really mattered either. The fact is, ethical considerations have to take a much longer view of things than what people like or dislike.

[Reffo]

I think that when one is involved in a fight for survival the alternatives tend to be pretty clear. I agree that at other times the term can be broad.