Democracy

[an8150]

You've lost me, Prospero. You said that Rand was a racist and suggested that the Israeli government committed acts of terrorism.

Are those not allegations?

[broncofan]

I think the interesting thing is that it only takes a little twist to view what Rand said within the framework of her other views. She believes the Israelis are the enlightened ones, the civilized force, and therefore entitled to whatever they get regardless of how they get it. She views the Palestinians as savages who are essentially murderous and barbarous. It is not tough to see that she like Romney when he spoke about Israeli and Arab culture have hijacked a complex political problem and viewed it through the lens of Rand's nutty philosophy. If you believe like Rand that people who meet a bad end are the authors of their own fate then you have very little room to be appalled by injustices.

an8150- I'm not sure what you would do. The leave it part of that proposition is the whole choice to immigrate. You could navigate the globe looking for undiscovered land to found your own country or try to immigrate to one with a set of rules you find palatable. Tell me, what hellhole looks the most promising?

[Stavros]

If you regard Munich as a "political act" (which is a disgusting evasion), Stavros, then it in your eyes at least it can have done little damage to the Palestinian cause.

Jordan's signing of a peace treaty in 1994, 13 years after Rand's death, does not alter my observations as to the reality when she was speaking.

Indeed, to this day, Israel is the only country I know of which seems to be required to justify its existence.

First of all you did suggest that every Arab state has sought the annihilation of Israel, in spite of the fact that this is not the case with Jordan (or Egypt, or Oman for that matter) and the peace treaty which, it seems, means nothing to you even though it undermines your claim.

Nothing evasive about Munich, if you can't handle the political reality don't dismiss it in compensation for your own incompetence. The bleak truth about Munich is that as an act of violence, it was symptmatic of the disarray that affected the different factions of the PLO as they tried to make sense of their situation following their expulsion from Jordan in 'White' September, 1970. The simple fact was that violence was counter-productive but radical elements in both the PFLP and Fateh were split over its use -in Fateh, Arafat was forced to accept that Israel's retaliation was too high a price to pay for cross-border incursions or attacks on targets overseas, but within Fateh the faction led by Salah Khalef (nom de guerre Au Iyad) disagreed and it was he who organised the Munich operation, part of a broader campaign which as Khalaf put it was 'a strategy adopted by the revolution to eliminate all challenges that prevent us from achieving our victories against the three circles of "Arab reaction, the occupied land [Israel] and American interests" '. In fact, Arafat's position was vindicated when, as a consequence of Munich, Israel bombed 'targets' in Syria and Lebanon -Israel's figures were 200 dead, 40% civilian, the Syrians said it was 300 and 75% civilian. In addition, the Israelis tracked down various people it claimed had been part of the Munich operation and killed them,

In other words, even within the PLO Munich was viewed as a disaster, one of many that had begun after 1967 with the aeroplane hi-jackings and continued with the reckless attempt on King Hussein's life in 1970, 'White'/'Black' September, the expulsion from Jordan, the assassinations -of Prime Minister Wasfi al-Tall in 1971 and various foreign diplomats aborad, the Lod Airpot massacre, and so on.

As for Abu Iyad/Salah Khalaf, a founder member with Arafat of the resistance movement in 1959, and half-Jewish (his mother was a Jew), he was assassinated in Tunis 1991 by an associate of Abu Nidal whom Abu Iyad had told Patrick Seale some years before, was working for the Israelis.

[Prospero]

You've lost me, Prospero. You said that Rand was a racist and suggested that the Israeli government committed acts of terrorism.

Are those not allegations?

Nope. One is factual. She described Arabs as "savages." Sounds racist to me.

The other i did not assert... i said some would describe it thus....a world of difference;

I said: "while turning a blind eye to arguments that the behaviour of the Israeli state constitutes state terrorism against the Arab people.

[an8150]

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?

[broncofan]

There are legitimate arguments to be made that when a state "targets" terrorists and kills five times as many civilians that they benefit from the coercive as well as deterrent effect of the collateral damage. This would make it closer to terrorism and make any distinction a distinction without a difference. Terrorism is killing civilians as targets and benefiting from that coercive effect on the government. But if you target individuals so crudely that the majority of the damage is to civilians and infrastructure, and you can anticipate this in advance, it is plausible to argue the state is engaging in terrorism.

I think Rand's statements are racist, but I think there's a more fundamental problem underlying it. She believes anyone who is in a position of weakness has brought it upon themselves. As someone who has been supportive of Israel I can tell you that Ayn Rand's support is troubling given her views. She must view the Palestinians as the underdogs and the Israelis as the oppressors or she would not be so disdainful of the Palestinians and laudatory of Israeli culture.

I know there are limits to rational self-interest and Rand herself must recognize those limits, but one could just as easily see her respecting terrorists for pursuing a rational strategy. Is terrorism wrong because it leaves innocent victims, or because it is not effective enough? If it is not effective enough, is the solution cooperation, and if so is that the way to a collectivism of sorts?

[an8150]

broncofan, I'm not sure there is one, although I've heard vaguely promising things about Hungary and (I think) Latvia.

[Prospero]

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?

No, don't be facetious. But if you said the English or the irish are savages I would. It is fair to characterise the Munich massacre as a savage action carried out by a group of savage people. but not to characterise all Arabs as savages. As you well know.

Would you apply such crass stereotypes to Jews or Black people?

[broncofan]

So, Prospero, if I called you a "savage", you'd assume it was a racist slur?

What if you said the British were savages? Let's not be naive and remove the context. She was saying Arabs are savages, uniformly, though perhaps not immutably. Does she have to say, "Arabs are savages, and I believe it is racial, that they cannot do anything abou it as they are an inferior ethnic group."

If this were required nothing would be racist. Look at Mel Gibson's claim that "Jews are responsible for all the wars in the world." I don't see any mention of it being because Jews are Jewish. He just happens to believe Jews have that culpability. Nothing racist there. Of course it is. The racist never says they hate because of race but some other pretext.

[broncofan]

broncofan, I'm not sure there is one, although I've heard vaguely promising things about Hungary and (I think) Latvia.

The reason I didn't mention this earlier is because when people say "why don't you just immigrate" it is often derisive or meant to say dissent is not accepted. But it doesn't have to be that way. If there is a country that has laws more consistent with your values, and you can immigrate without too much trouble, it's not a bad option.