November 11, 2004

Some thoughts in regards to Yassar Arafats passing.

In light of Yassar Arafats recent demise, I think that it is time for Americans to do some introspection in regards to our perceptions about who is and who is not terrorist. Now that Arafat is dead, all I have heard is "good riddance to this terrorist", for the most part. The term terrorist has taken on immoral connotations that make those labeled such out to be evil fanatics. Without doubt there are evil fanatics that practice terrorism, but not all terrorist are motivated by evil and fanaticism.

It is said that one persons ceiling is often another person’s floor. It is also said that one should not judge a person unless they have walked a mile in the shoes of the person being judged. Here in our own country and in our own history, there are many people heralded as heroes and great men by some, but terrorist by others. Just ask the Native Americans how they view and interpret the actions of Europeans and white settlers upon their land. Just ask the African Americans how they view white heroes and founding fathers like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson’s, who terrorized their blacks to keep them as slaves.

The term terrorist is an emotionally laden term and not a very accurate term to describe what is happening between the Jewish and Palestinian people. I for one do not consider the actions of the Palestinians to be terrorism. They are not trying to "scare" or "terrify" the Isrealis as the end. I see their actions, along with the actions of the Jewish people, to be “Survivalism”. They are trying to ensure their survial on a plot of land that both call their own. The first law of nature is survival and self preservation and that is what is motivating both sides in that long standing conflict in the Middle East.

Terrorism is simply a strategy for survival. Nuclear war heads, advanced war planes, missiles, biological and conventional weapons….these things are also strategies for survival. Both the former and the latter bring death. There is no fundamental moral difference between the two means to that end, other than one is the strategy of the militarily weak and the other is the strategy of the militarily strong. They are simply asymmetrical and symmetrical means of survival whose main objective is killing and death of those perceived as a threat to the others survival.

Constantly I hear American people refer to terrorist as cowards for resorting to their tactics of survival. What they want, in essence, seems to be for the "terrorist" to fight their militarily superior opponents on the terms and conditions of their opponents, so that they can be crushed by the superior strength of their opponent. Their unwillingness to do so therefore makes them cowards, in the eyes of many. My suggestion to those who want a fair fight, instead of terrorism, is to provide the "terrorist" the same armaments that their opponents poses. In the past, when people had honor “duels”, both sides were equipped with the same armaments, whether they be swords or pistols. Today, it seems that people expect those who are fighting for what they consider to be their survival, engage in a duel of honor, but without the tools of honor, which would lead to their slaughter.

If China were to develop some super technology that neutralizes our nuclear strength and makes them the overwhelmingly superior military power over the USA and subsequently invading our nation for our land….what would Americans do? Who would then get do define the meaning of terrorism and asymmetric warfare? Would we now call the "floor" what we use to refer to as the "ceiling"? When the shoe fits...would we wear it? Would we engage them head on where they have the greatest advantage or would we resort to other tactics that give us a better chance at survival and winning? Nature will trump morality every time, because one can only be moral if they are living and surviving to make the decision. Thus, preserving ones survival is a higher order than morality, because survival is a biological directive of life, while morality is not. People will do anything and everything to ensure their survival, especially when faced against a foe with superior means. People should not confuse morality and "goodness" with power and military superiority. The test of true morality comes when one is weak and without power and under survival stresses.

I do not know what the solution is to the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. However, what I am clear about is that both entities are motivated by their right to survive in a disputed area of land. The Jewish people’s right to the land is Biblical. The Palestinian people have lived on the land long before the Jewish state of Israel was created artificially by Europeans. But are the Jewish people from Europe the same blood as the Jewish people in the days of Pharaohs? Is the Land biblically grated to a race of people or people of a certain religion? Are not the Palestinians actually closer in regards to their DNA, to the Hebrews, than are the European Jews who now occupy the land? I do not know the answer to these questions.

It seems to me that Christianity and Christians are trying to fulfill prophecy, instead of letting God and time fulfill prophecy. The Christians in the USA seem to be trying to set the stage for the second coming, by creating the state of Israel and supporting it right to exist. However, no one knows what timing God has for such events to take place and the actions of man to try to fulfill prophecy based upon our timing may prematurely bring about the destruction of the world.


At 8:18 PM, Blogger Len said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

<< Home

Black Sites and Forums