Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxm.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!mhuxm!abeles From: abeles@mhuxm.UUCP (J. Abeles (Bellcore, Murray Hill, NJ)) Newsgroups: net.politics,net.religion.jewish,net.nlang.africa Subject: The definition of terrorism is NOT flexible! Message-ID: <495@mhuxm.UUCP> Date: Mon, 9-Dec-85 22:26:28 EST Article-I.D.: mhuxm.495 Posted: Mon Dec 9 22:26:28 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 11-Dec-85 03:05:36 EST References: <4188@topaz.RUTGERS.EDU> <360@ubvax.UUCP> <1448@ihlpg.UUCP> <431@eneevax.UUCP> <210@pluto.UUCP> <491@mhuxr.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 84 Xref: watmath net.politics:12401 net.religion.jewish:2840 net.nlang.africa:176 Marcel-Franck Simon writes: > Thedefinition of terrorism, and justification for supporting it, is highly > flexible. Those who are on our side are democratic freedom fighters. Those > who are not are bloodthirsty murderers. (Mr. Simon either must not be reading what I've been writing, or chooses to ignore me. No matter:) THE DEFINITION OF TERRORISM IS NOT FLEXIBLE. Once a person accepts such Orwellian doubletalk, it becomes possible to justify any act of violence. (It is not, however, true that people attempt to justify all acts of violence; rather, all acts of violence can be justified given a nice fairy tale about how individuals have suffered unfairly.) Let me remind foggy thinkers out there that in the ideal laws made by man are not meant to be fair, but merely just. That is, many people suffer, but we can only treat people justly. It is the best that can be done. With this rather abstruse introduction: I will now state that WAR IS NOT TERRORISM. And finally that THERE ARE MORE THINGS IN HEAVEN AND EARTH, HORATIO, THAN ARE DREAMED OF IN YOUR PHILOSOPHY. I know this last is true since you don't understand my point of view (quod erat demonstratum). HOWEVER, to take the point of view (if it can be thus dignified) advanced by Mr. Simon, is to deny that there is any difference between GOOD and EVIL. I must say that this is a lesson which has not been lost on Christian fundamentalists in the 1980's-- a group of which I rather suspect Mr. Simon disapproves. To wit: The Christian fundamentalists have reversed an historical trend of latent hostility towards Judaism in order PRECISELY to make the point that there is a difference between GOOD and EVIL. (I certainly do not subscribe to their theology, but call them as I see them.) Pooh, pooh! Those nasty Americans are aiding the CONTRA's! If you are a Nicaraguan leftist in 1985, I understand your chagrin. Please remind me what this has to do with Palestine? In Nicaragua there are poor people, historically suffering people. There are also ambitious generals, and games of geopolitical chess. In Israel there are a united people, the Jews, who are peaceful people by any reasonable standard, people who can claim a measure of self-righteousness. And they are physically attacked constantly. Day after day, year in and year out we hear the doubletalk rubbish from certain quarters about driving the Jews into the sea. Is this GOOD? That viewpoint makes me sick--as it does all real people. Who among us can live with the thought (REALLY LIVE WITH IT) that there is no difference between GOOD and EVIL? If GOOD for me is EVIL for you (and life is a zero sum game) than how can I look at myself in the MIRROR? If it is all just stepping on others to gain advancement for myself then what is the point? You who sit at the computer terminal--I urge you to quit your job, drop out of school: Because you are gaining your livelihood and status at the expense of less fortunate people who are equally deserving to you. You are just taking up space with your fat behind--if GOOD is EVIL. Rather, there is another possibility. Life is not a zero-sum game, and by contributing to society you justify your own existence. Ultimately, sitting around condemning people who are defending their lives against bloodthirsty attackers is not contributing to society. Sitting around claiming that TERRORISM is RELATIVE is not contributing to society. If you are a builder, not a tearer-down on average, then you have a right to park yourself in front of this terminal and take up a place which someone less productive might otherwise have. They deserve it as well as you do, but life is not fair and laws made by humans are at best only just. The modern history of Palestine is not fair either. People's feelings have been deeply hurt and they have been terribly manipulated. Other people have gained a homeland. But it is, I suggest, a disservice to equate these two events as necessarily connected. Look alive and accomplish new things for the future, don't look back. For the Jews, the establishment of Israel was a positive thing, a step forward. For the other Palestinian inhabitants, mostly Arab, it need not have been a step backwards, but it undoubtedly has worked out to be one. But I submit to you that it would not be a positive thing for Palestinian Arabs to become pre-occupied with taking revenge on the Jewish state. For that is TERRORISM.