From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Fri May 21 2004 - 11:45:37 MDT
Erik Aronesty
Sent: 21 May 2004 06:50 PM
<snip>
Palestinians don't have the weapons to defend Israeli incursion. They don't
have RPG's to "go astray".
The excercise of reversing moral context can't require you concoct an
elaborate fantasy, or it isn't being performed correctly.
--- [Blunderov] Perhaps we could adopt Jonathan's idea of being constructive in our approach. What are the permissible actions that the Palestinians can adopt in their struggle? Many might say that if they renounced terrorism it would lead to negotiations and an amicable settlement. But what if it didn't? What military options would they have? Should they have any at all? Somebody once remarked that terrorism is the weapon of the weak. To me it seems harsh to call someone immoral for defending themselves with the only means available to them. I don't mean just the Palestinians. For instance the former regime in South Africa gave no choice to the ANC (and others) but to use terrorism. Or so it seems to me. Perhaps I am positing a false dilemma. I would certainly be interested to hear alternatives. Best Regards --- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri May 21 2004 - 11:46:44 MDT