4 ms·

If we're talking about the success or failure of terrorism in the Middle East, it's maybe worth considering that while it's not worked out for the Palestinians,

by Joeboy 10y ago

If we're talking about the success or failure of terrorism in the Middle East, it's maybe worth considering that while it's not worked out for the Palestinians, it worked out OK for Israel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks Edit: Or if you prefer you can throw away any data that doesn't back up the hypothesis and you can believe whatever you want.

finid 10y ago
Yep, it worked out really well for Israel, because all of the Irgun gangs became statesmen or respected military leaders.
- Joeboy 10y ago
  The same happened, so some extent, to Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat and probably many others.
  - finid 10y ago
    You put Nelson Mandela in that group! While you're at it, why not add Mahatma Gandhi
    - Joeboy 10y ago
      Because Gandhi was a pacifist and Mandela advocated armed struggle, and led an organisation that bombed civilians. Mandela's reputation as a man of peace is based on the fact he pivoted from a violent strategy to a political one, not on his being a pacifist. Edit: The fact that you and others are outraged by the idea Mandela was a terrorist sort of proves the point. The path to respect, statesmanship, Nobel Peace Prizes and sainthood often starts with violence.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Nelson Mandela cofounded and chaired the ANC's paramilitary wing. He might have proved to be a superb statesman and the ANC might have had no practical alternative to violent action, but he definitely belongs more in that company than Gandhi's. If anything it's Adams, who has always denied direct involvement with the IRA even if those claims aren't widely believed, that might have cause for complaint at not being considered merely a politician.
zeteo 10y ago
> while it's not worked out for the Palestinians, it worked out OK for Israel Why do you say it hasn't worked out for the Palestinians? If it wasn't for the PLO there would be no Palestinian state [1] and the PLO became prominent through terrorist acts [2]. There's a good number of organizations in history that have started with terrorist acts (i.e. atacks against civilians) and ended up in control of a relatively stable territorial state. They include the FLN in Algeria [3], Hezbollah in South Lebanon [4] and the armed wing of the ANC in South Africa [5]. Sure, most if not all have now renounced their terrorist beginnings - so maybe terrorism is not a strategy for the long run. But it's repeatedly provided the initial stepping stone to forming a government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#Armed_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organizat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Battle_of_Algiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Battle_of_Algiers [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah#Suicide_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah#Suicide_a... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings
- Joeboy 10y ago
  > Why do you say it hasn't worked out for the Palestinians? I suppose because I am comparing post-Oslo Palestinian terrorism to early 20th Century Zionist terrorism. Fair point. I'm not sure I agree that Palestine kinda sorta having statehood counts as much a victory, compared to the concrete losses suffered by Palestinians. It's not like Palestinians actually have much control over the territory their state claims.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Because for the most part they don't have a goal. Palestinian terroristm increased drastically with every concession Israel made. Suicide bombings after Oslo (they weren't really any before), and the 2nd intifada after Camp David when they were offered 98% of thier claimed territory with land swaps and East Jerusalem, and after Israel pulled out of Gaza it got 10,000's of rockets. Terrorism can work when it's a means to an end, not the goal itself.

by Joeboy 10y ago

finid 10y ago

Yep, it worked out really well for Israel, because all of the Irgun gangs became statesmen or respected military leaders.

Joeboy 10y ago
The same happened, so some extent, to Nelson Mandela, Gerry Adams, Yasser Arafat and probably many others.
- finid 10y ago
  You put Nelson Mandela in that group! While you're at it, why not add Mahatma Gandhi
  - Joeboy 10y ago
    Because Gandhi was a pacifist and Mandela advocated armed struggle, and led an organisation that bombed civilians. Mandela's reputation as a man of peace is based on the fact he pivoted from a violent strategy to a political one, not on his being a pacifist. Edit: The fact that you and others are outraged by the idea Mandela was a terrorist sort of proves the point. The path to respect, statesmanship, Nobel Peace Prizes and sainthood often starts with violence.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Nelson Mandela cofounded and chaired the ANC's paramilitary wing. He might have proved to be a superb statesman and the ANC might have had no practical alternative to violent action, but he definitely belongs more in that company than Gandhi's. If anything it's Adams, who has always denied direct involvement with the IRA even if those claims aren't widely believed, that might have cause for complaint at not being considered merely a politician.

zeteo 10y ago

> while it's not worked out for the Palestinians, it worked out OK for Israel Why do you say it hasn't worked out for the Palestinians? If it wasn't for the PLO there would be no Palestinian state [1] and the PLO became prominent through terrorist acts [2]. There's a good number of organizations in history that have started with terrorist acts (i.e. atacks against civilians) and ended up in control of a relatively stable territorial state. They include the FLN in Algeria [3], Hezbollah in South Lebanon [4] and the armed wing of the ANC in South Africa [5]. Sure, most if not all have now renounced their terrorist beginnings - so maybe terrorism is not a strategy for the long run. But it's repeatedly provided the initial stepping stone to forming a government. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_Accords [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organization#Armed_actions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestine_Liberation_Organizat... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Battle_of_Algiers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War#Battle_of_Algiers [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah#Suicide_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Hezbollah#Suicide_a... [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umkhonto_we_Sizwe#Bombings

Joeboy 10y ago
> Why do you say it hasn't worked out for the Palestinians? I suppose because I am comparing post-Oslo Palestinian terrorism to early 20th Century Zionist terrorism. Fair point. I'm not sure I agree that Palestine kinda sorta having statehood counts as much a victory, compared to the concrete losses suffered by Palestinians. It's not like Palestinians actually have much control over the territory their state claims.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Because for the most part they don't have a goal. Palestinian terroristm increased drastically with every concession Israel made. Suicide bombings after Oslo (they weren't really any before), and the 2nd intifada after Camp David when they were offered 98% of thier claimed territory with land swaps and East Jerusalem, and after Israel pulled out of Gaza it got 10,000's of rockets. Terrorism can work when it's a means to an end, not the goal itself.