UCL professor: Terror 'Palestinians' moral right'

[bemildred]

In a lengthy and fiery debate at Oxford University over the weekend, the student union conceded Israel's "right to exist" by just over 100 votes.

---

Supporting the motion, Jessica Prince from Oxford's University College spoke about the "absurdity" of the debate title. "I didn't think it was a question that we ask anymore," she said.

Opposing the motion, Lewis Turner from Oxford's New College said that if Israel is supposed to be a safe haven for Jewish people, "it's not working out because it's one of the most dangerous places for them to live."

"I was shocked to hear Honderich actually say that, 'Palestinians have a moral right to terrorism,'" said Olga Belogolova, a Jewish student from Boston University studying at Oxford for the semester.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1201367874283&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[cgrindley]

1. No one has a "moral" right to terrorism

terrorism by definition is immoral, indicative of a total collapse of any conceivable ethical system.

[LeftishBrit]

4. Yes, the term generally implies condemnation...

People who wish to defend such actions generally re-phrase them as 'freedom fighting', 'guerilla warfare', 'direct action', etc.; but would rarely say, "We're terrorists and good for us!"

[bemildred]

5. Right, you have to use the right description, depending on who the perps are.

And it is a reasonably safe guess that the parties that are slinging the loaded terminology around have some sort of axe to grind.

I just want to make it clear that I'm not supporting any of this, I am just somewhat amused and interested that such events occur, and that so many take them so seriously.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

6. Terrorism is a TACTIC.

Why is that distinction contually lost in this debate?

Does a civilian population, beleaguered for 60+ years, under violent military occupation for 40+ years have the right to use violent tactics or tactics of terror to defend itself and resist?

[henank]

9. Do you consider suicide bombers a defensive tactic?

Do you consider suicide bombers a legitiamte defensive tactic? Do you consider firing thousands upon thousands of mortars and rockets upon a civilian population a legitimate tactic? Do you consider terrorist bombings of buses, restaurants, cinemas, clubs, discos, shopping malls, schools and universities legitimate]?

For the record, I don't. And do not play the "poor Palestinian victim" card here. These tactics have been used by the Arabs against Israeli civilians since the foundation of the state. It has nothing to do with the "occupation" unless you refer to the "occupation" of 1948, aka the existence of the State of Israel.

NOTHING justifies terrorism.

[Vegasaurus]

10. The pro-Palestininan posters here

do not even try to hide the fact that for them, the "occupation" is the entire state of Israel, including that within the "green lines".

This is why these people talking about "ending the occupation" is a conversation stopper. No one is going to legitimately vote for (including the entirety of the US Congress) the demise of Israel, or "ending the occupation" of Israel as a country.

And there is absolutely no moral, defensible rationale for terrorism. I am tired of the terrorist enablers trying to say that it is the poor beleaguered Muslims who MUST use suicide bombings, rockets, etc., to combat Western imperialism, when many of the radicals are middle class, and when much of the violence is against each other.

[breakaleg]

11. Excuse me? Where do you get this crap. Show me one poster who said that

they believe the area inside the "green line" is considered occupied? Let's see if you can back up this charge of yours.

[Vegasaurus]

16. I don't know how to search posts, nor am I interested in wasting my time

It has been a prevailing theme, though never stated as such. As I said, thinly veiled.

When people talk about the problems of occupation pre 1967, they are talking about the occupation of "greater Palestine". The denial of the legitimacy of a Jewish state is a similar theme of occupied Palestinian lands.

Again, if you don't see that here, good. I do, and the next time it is done, I will be sure to point it out to you.

[breakaleg]

19. Bullshit. I've seen the charge that this is the case but never have I come across

a post where someone actually said they believed "Israel" to be occupied.

The "pro-Palestinians" posters in this forum are a small bunch. I don't believe for one minute that any of them feel this way. And I submit that you won't back up your false accusation because in fact you cannot.

[Vegasaurus]

20. If I never see such evidence from here forth, consider the claim retracted nt

[Girlieman]

31. Debating the "legitimacy" of Israel is a waste of time

We may as well debate the legitimacy of the United States of America.

It exists and it's not going anywhere, no matter how it came into being.

[pelsar]

24. ask tom...

i believe he once mentioned the 60 years of occupation. Me, he never answers when i ask, perhaps you can try.

[Vegasaurus]

Yes, Tom is one who has talked of 60 years of occupation

but he isn't the only one.

I will try to save the post next time I read that. It will come up again, because it always does.

[Fredda Weinberg]

104. I can search

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=190253&mesg_id=190603

The issue is over Palestinian recognition of Israel as "the Jewish state." Touchy subject, but this poster's view is clear. As usual, it's over refugee rights.

[breakaleg]

107. Perhaps you can search again. That post did not back up the claim made by Vegas. nt

[azurnoir]

28. Terrorist "enablers"

And there is absolutely no moral, defensible rationale for terrorism. I am tired of the terrorist enablers trying to say that it is the poor beleaguered Muslims who MUST use suicide bombings, rockets, etc., to combat Western imperialism, when many of the radicals are middle class, and when much of the violence is against each other.

interesting choice of words

[Violet_Crumble]

48. Yeah., I noticed that too...

It's the sort of simplistic thinking that would be more at home at LGF than here...

[Vegasaurus]

49. I think calling someone simple in thinking

and like they would be more at home on LGF is against the rules of the forum.

So it is my turn to say stop it.

[Violet_Crumble]

50. Try reading what's said. I didn't call you simple...

I said that sort of thinking was simplistic. And given yr tactic of painting pro-Palestinian posters here en-masse as believing things most don't, I'm sure you'll understand why yr 'stop it!' is going to be soundly ignored till you retract that false accusation you made earlier in the thread...

[Violet_Crumble]

46. I do nothing of the sort...

In fact you making an assertion like that is an attempt on your part to dehumanize the pro-Palestinian posters here. Please stop it.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[eyl]

15. No, I don't think Jews in WWII could morally

"right to strike back at Nazis by any means they could" - and I speak as the grandchild of survivors.

And frankly, PM, you've just forfeited any right to complain about the actions of the Etzel and Lehi in pre-1948 Palestine. After all, they began their terror attacks due to attacks by neighboring Arabs* - attacks that, in some cases, destroyed or forced the abandonment of Jewish communities. And it could be argued that their use of terror was successful, so the "usefulness" creteria you set above was met.

*The Etzel was established by Haganah members who disagreed with that organization's policy of passive defense in the case of Arab attacks.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Well, I appreciate your consistency.

But I don't think any group should be forced to endure genocide because it would be a "greater wrong" to strike back. In truth, I have a difficult time wrapping my head about your POV.

I don't complain much about any tactics used. I think I'm pretty realistic about what went down in the past and what does on today. What I object to is the attempt to whitewash what happened, and in the current context, to paint the IDF as "more moral" because "they don't mean to kill civilians." I think that's BS.

[eyl]

34. Then I'll elaborate

IMO, given that the Jews were under threat of genocide, the range of morally "acceptable" actions they could take would be somewhat broader than would otherwise be the case. That does NOT mean that ANY action would be acceptable (e.g., if someone came up with a scheme to kidnap and murder young children of Nazi officials to force them to allow Jews to flee); nor does it mean that such latitude would be acceptable merely for "striking back" (e.g., blowing up a cafe to kill a Nazi leader for the purpose of revenge).

This is something of an abstract exercise, as I can think of few terrorist tactics the Jews could use which wouldn't make things even worse (if that's possible) and thus it would not be justifiable, since any such actions would then not be under the need of saving lives.

But again, that is under the stark threat of genocide - and even then, as I said above, I would not accept any and all tactics. In the case of the Palestinians, they are not - whatever some of our more strident critics might say - under threat of genocide and thus they don't get that extra "latitude".

[breakaleg]

40. It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to to twist things around so

some actions are ok for Israel but not everyone else.

[eyl]

60. European Jews circa WWII

were Israelis?

News to me...

[pelsar]

57. the case of the two british sergeants...

do you think the hanging of them was instrumental in speeding up the british conclusion to leave?.....leaving out the moral argument, i believe this is more in line what PM is arguing.

[eyl]

61. No, I believe the harm it did

well outweighed the good (if there was any good); moral considerations aside, as you say.

[azurnoir]

37. You can not mean that really

No, I don't think Jews in WWII could morally"right to strike back at Nazis by any means they could" - and I speak as the grandchild of survivors.

Sir considering how limited those means were in relation to what was fought against, all I can do is shake my head

and no one "complains" about the Etzel and Lehi (more commonly Irgrun and Stern Gang) it is just pointed out that they were at the time in the opinion of some the Hamas and Islamic Jihad of the Zionist movement.

[eyl]

62. See post 34 re the first point

As for the second; I've seen condemnations of them numerous times. And frankly, while I find some of those criticisms exaggerated and ven occasionally hypocritical, I don't have a problem with them as a whole. But since PM was arguing that terrorism was morally justified - and could be criticised only on its effectiveness - I pointed out that her argument would justify the Etzel/Lehi actions as well.

[Vegasaurus]

17. The Palestinians could have chosen a good life of partying, voting, swimming

had they chosen a state instead of a war. They have had that opportunity again and again, and they never fail to blow every one of those opportunities.

Again, responsibility is the missing link here. The Palestinians weren't denied "basic rights" in 1948-67. They chose to start a war in 1967 and lost more again. Every war they have started has resulted in greater losses for them. But they are responsible for those losses, and not Israel.

Their resistance has made their lives infinitely more miserable, and not an iota better. I can't imagine why they don't see that and work to improve the situation.

[Girlieman]

29. "They chose to start a war in 1967 and lost more again"

The PALESTINIANS started a war in 1967????? That's certainly news to me.

[hack89]

45. There was no Palestine in 1967

only Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (WB)- the countries that started the war. The Palestinians were screwed by their fellow Arabs.

[LeftishBrit]

69. Very true.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[kayecy]

33. Not in WW2?

Not in WW2? - Perhaps not against the Germans, but in 1940-47 they certainly used terrorist tactics against civilian Palestinians, UN representatives and the British.

Have you never heard of the Stern Gang and Irgun?

[Violet_Crumble]

52. Here's a question or two for you...

I've never seen you voice yr views on them, and having spotted a post where you place the word occupation in dit-dits, I'm curious to know...

Do you support a two-state solution to the conflict that will involve sticking closely to the Green Line with two viable and independent states emerging?

Do you oppose acts of terrorism carried out by settlers in the West Bank?

And finally. Why is it that you focus to the exclusion of all else on Israeli lives and never seem to show any concern about Palestinian lives?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

44. Sorry, it's illegal on this forum to answer that question.

That's really unfortunate. Perhaps the title of this forum should be Israel/Abbas forum, because apparently the only Palestinian POV that we are allowed to discuss is that of Mahmoud Abbas.

I hope that the mods recognize that this question -- what is acceptable resistance, is important to discuss, especially when it's done without personal invective and name calling, as it was being discussed on this thread.

If someone alerted on this post, I'd love to know why.

I'm curious as to why the OP wasn't deleted, since that's the topic.

[Violet_Crumble]

53. I didn't see the deleted post...

So I'm at a disadvantage from the start, coz I can only go on what the following posts in reply were saying.

I think it's important to discuss things like what's considered to be acceptable when it comes to resistance, what's considered to be acceptable when it comes to the actions of the IDF, etc. I've got a simple rule of thumb, and that's if it's going to result in dead civilians, it's not acceptable. But there seems to be a wide range of views in this forum as to what terms like *legitimate*, *self-defence* etc mean, so I reckon it'd be interesting to see how people define terms like that for a start...

[oberliner]

12. Would you be willing to answer your own question?

Do you believe that Palestinians do have the right to use tactics of terror?

[ProgressiveMuslim]

14. See above.

It's a question I've answered numerous times here.

[pelsar]

35. i'm afraid they're in shock...

by your honesty as well POV..... progressives arent supposed to believe that any and all tactics are acceptable....

That said, the whole suicide bomber, kill whenever you can mentality has really backfired. Its really been self destructive to the Palestinian society.....

and yes because we dont kill civilians intentionally, dont celebrate deaths and in fact do try to minimize damage, it does make our society civil rights oriented which affects the social fabric as well as economic...a more stable, tolerant society. The history of the area bears that out.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

43. I think you're kidding yourself

if you believe your society is morally better than any other in the area.

That's a joke. Israel has broken the misery-meter.

[Lithos]

54. Terrorism is a tactic for sure

It is also considered counter to all international laws concerning acceptable use of military action.

L-

[ProgressiveMuslim]

64. My point is that it's frequently discussed on this thread,

in Congress, and around the world as tho it's an end in and of itself.

I think that's missing the point.

[Violet_Crumble]

66. What point is being missed?

I think discussions of *why* it happens are interesting, and there's been a few of those sort of discussions here in the past. There's a difference though in understanding why it happens and justifying or condoning it, imo...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

67. The focus on the tactic misses the underlying cause.

Politicians (and DU posters) treat terrorism as tho it's an end of itself.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Underlying causes of terrorism...

They'd be things like desperation, a desire to publicise a cause, asymetrical conflict where one party is armed to the back teeth and the other isn't, poverty (while those who plan attacks are generally among the more affluent, those who are recruited to carry out attacks aren't), and a strong sense of injustice. But when the end result of terrorist attacks is civilians being murdered, of course there's going to be a strong focus on that tactic being abhorrent and a violation of international law...

[Vegasaurus]

70. I agree.

There is no point to be made in favor of terrorism, even if all the perpetrators were poor and hopeless (the fact that many are educated and middle class throws this excuse in the toilet).

And again, since much of the terrorism is sectarian violence, it isn't even about imperialism or asymmetrical conflict or anything like that, although clearly some has those reasons at its roots.

There is nothing that makes targetting civilians OK. It is a coward's way.

[pelsar]

75. I"m going to defend PM here.....

the jihadnikim are not targeting civilians because its the "cowards way"....in some respects "its the only way.'. Its not so easy to get to an IDF force, let alone cause casualties (though they obviously do happen). Case in point, the hamas attempts to attack an incursion into gaza from the IDF, they dont always even get within shooting range before they are all killed. (tank fire, helicopters etc).

The decision to attack civilians is precisely because its the weak leak. True it takes some manipulation of the attacker, but nevertheless, it is a thought out military tactic that has both "pros and cons.".

[ProgressiveMuslim]

80. My knight ;) nt

[msmcghee]

78. Part of the problem is that there are two cultures . .

. . at war. The west has developed a morality of armed conflict designed to reduce civilian casualties. The enlightenment was based on the principle that reason - not violence should be used to guide societies. We tend to see armed conflict as Clausewitz' "politics by other means" - where war is where political goals that don't yield to negotiation and compromise can be achieved by the temporary application of armed force that hurts as few civilians as possible and that damages minimum infrastructure - and then peace treaties are signed. (Even though it never actually happens that way.)

Like everyone else, we think that others see the world through our eyes. But they don't.

The idealized Arab/Islamist view of conflict is more along the lines of a battle of cultures where one must be totally vanquished or placed in a position of Dhimmitude and the other must be totally victorious. All members of the enemy culture - infidels - are deserved targets of a violence that requires them to submit to Allah, Dhimmitude or die.

The practical goal of both sides is usually to control more land, trade routes and resources - as is the case with all human conflicts. But culturally, each side sees the role of violence differently.

In any case, someone who holds the western view of conflict sees terrorism (attacking civilians) as morally abhorrent. Holding the Arab/Islamist view - those same moral standards don't apply.

I am not saying that Arab/Islamist society is immoral. In fact, that's a big mistake that westerners make. We tend to see Arab/Islamists as uncivilized and lesser people than us. And they say exactly the same things about us. If anything, the Arab/Islamist culture is more consistent and demanding that their culture's moral codes by followed by its members than we are. Imagine anything in the west even close to the practice whereby all male members of society stop what they are doing five times a day when called - and kneel in unison to pray to one common God.

As a westerner I still believe that attacking civilians is morally wrong. But that's because we have different moral standards - not because Arab/Islamist culture is immoral.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

79. The defining characteristic of those who employ suicide terrorism is not religion, it's occupation.

So that kind of shoots your theory.

You might want to read "Dying to Win: The strategic logic of suicide terrorimsm" by Robert A. Pape.

He presents evidence of the above that's impossible to dispute.

http://www.amazon.com/Dying-Win-Strategic-Suicide-Terrorism/dp/0812973380/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1201538789&sr=8-1

[bemildred]

81. My favorite:

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=8846

The suicide hasn't got much to do with it, any soldier knows his life is forfeit. But you are correct also that it has nothing to do with religion, other than as a motivating tool, and that is hardly something unique to Islam. Although I do have to say that the Islamic version of paradise is much more attractive than sitting around singing hosannahs and stuff for eternity.

[bemildred]

83. And part II:

http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/76824/mike_davis_return_to_sender_car_bombs_part_2_

[ProgressiveMuslim]

86. Fascinating read... looks like the common characteristic is CIA involvement

at some point in the line.

Thanks for posting.

[msmcghee]

82. Well, I didn't say it was religion.

And I wasn't talking about "defining characteristics" anyway. I was talking about how different cultures see the morality of attacking civilians. Suicide terrorism is just one example of that.

[Vegasaurus]

84. That would be a good theory

except that a lot of suicide bombers are not under occupation. Look at the 9/11 hijackers. Mohammed Atta was well educated and had lived in Germany, as a free citizen, not under occupation at all.

Nor is terrorism, in general (not just suicide bombing) exclusively related to occupation.

[msmcghee]

85. My post was not about suicide terrorism.

It was about terrorism (attacks on civilians) as a war tactic - which was the topic under discussion.

If you think such terrorism is caused by occupation, then why was there a continuous string of terrorist attacks against the citizens of the new state of Israel before there was ever any occupation of territory outside Israel.

From Wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_attacks_against_Israel_before_1967

A number of fedayeen attacks deliberately targeted civilians, causing many deaths and serious injuries and disrupting daily life. Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs<3> describes the following events as terrorist attacks:

Border conflict, 1949-1956

* Jan 1, 1952 - Seven armed terrorists attacked and killed a nineteen year-old girl in her home, in the neighborhood of Beit Yisrael, in Jerusalem.

* Apr 14, 1953 - Terrorists tried for the first time to infiltrate Israel by sea, but were unsuccessful. One of the boats was intercepted and the other boat escaped.

* June 7, 1953 - A youngster was killed and three others were wounded, in a shooting attacks on residential areas in southern Jerusalem.

* June 9, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a farming community near Lod, and killed one of the residents. The terrorists threw hand grenades and sprayed gunfire in all directions. On the same night, another group of terrorists attacked a house in the town of Hadera. This occurred a day after Israel and Jordan signed an agreement, with UN mediation, in which Jordan undertook to prevent terrorists from crossing into Israel from Jordanian territory.

* June 10, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrating from Jordan destroyed a house in the farming village of Mishmar Ayalon.

* June 11, 1953 - Terrorists attacked a young couple in their home in Kfar Hess, and shot them to death.

* Sept 2, 1953 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and reached the neighborhood of Katamon, in the heart of Jerusalem. They threw hand grenades in all directions. No one was hurt.

* Mar 17, 1954 - Terrorists ambushed a bus traveling from Eilat to Tel Aviv, and opened fire at short range when the bus reached the area of Ma'ale Akrabim in the northern Negev. In the initial ambush, the terrorists killed the driver and wounded most of the passengers. The terrorists then boarded the bus, and shot each passenger, one by one. Eleven passengers were murdered. Survivors recounted how the murderers spat on the bodies and abused them. The massacre was apparently reprisal raid conducted by members of a Bedouin tribe expelled from the al-Auja region of the Sinai three and a half years earlier.<4>

* Jan 2, 1955 - Terrorists attacked and killed 2 hikers in the Judean Desert.

* Mar 24, 1955 - Terrorists threw hand grenades and opened fire on a crowd at a wedding in the farming community of Patish, in the Negev. A young woman was killed, and eighteen people were wounded in the attack.

* Apr 7, 1956 - A resident of Ashkelon was killed in her home, when terrorists threw three hand grenades into her house. Two members of Kibbutz Givat Chaim were killed, when terrorists opened fire on their car, on the road from Plugot Junction to Mishmar Hanegev. There were further hand grenade and shooting attacks on homes and cars, in areas such as Nitzanim and Ketziot. One person was killed and three others wounded.

* Apr 11, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a synagogue full of children and teenagers, in the farming community of Shafrir. Three children and a youth worker were killed on the spot, and five were wounded, including three seriously.

* Apr 29, 1956 - Egyptians killed Roi Rotenberg, 21 years of age, from Nahal Oz.

* Sept 12, 1956 - Terrorists killed three Druze guards at Ein Ofarim, in the Arava region.

* Sept 23, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire from a Jordanian position, and killed four archaeologists, and wounded sixteen others, near Kibbutz Ramat Rachel.

* Sept 24, 1956 - Terrorists killed a girl in the fields of the farming community of Aminadav, near Jerusalem.

* Oct 4, 1956 - Five Israeli workers were killed in Sdom.

* Oct 9, 1956 - Two workers were killed in an orchard of the youth village, Neve Hadassah, in the Sharon region.

Suez Crisis, October 1956-March 1957

Main article: Suez Crisis

* Nov 8, 1956 - Terrorists opened fire on a train, attacked cars and blew up wells, in the North and Center of Israel. Six Israelis were wounded.

* Feb 18, 1957 - Two civilians were killed by terrorist landmines, next to Nir Yitzhak, on the southern border of the Gaza Strip.

* Mar 8, 1957 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Beit Govrin was killed by terrorists in a field near the Kibbutz.

Border conflict, 1957-1967

* Apr 16, 1957 - Terrorists infiltrated from Jordan, and killed two guards at Kibbutz Mesilot.

* May 20, 1957 - A terrorist opened fire on a truck in the Arava region, killing a worker.

* May 29, 1957 - A tractor driver was killed and two others wounded, when the vehicle struck a landmine, next to Kibbutz Kisufim.

* June 23, 1957 - Israelis were wounded by landmines, close to the Gaza Strip.

* Aug 23, 1957 - Two guards of the Israeli Mekorot water company were killed near Kibbutz Beit Govrin.

* Dec 21, 1957 - A member of Kibbutz Gadot was killed in the Kibbutz fields.

* Feb 11, 1958 - Terrorists killed a resident of Moshav Yanov who was on his way to Kfar Yona, in the Sharon area.

* Apr 5, 1958 - Terrorists lying in an ambush shot and killed two people near Tel Lachish.

* Apr 22, 1958 - Jordanian soldiers shot and killed two fishermen near Aqaba.

* May 26, 1958 - Four Israeli police officers were killed in a Jordanian attack on Mt. Scopus, in Jerusalem.

* Nov 17, 1958 - Syrian terrorists killed the wife of the British air attaché in Israel, who was staying at the guesthouse of the Italian Convent on the Mt. of the Beatitudes.

* Dec 3, 1958- A shepherd was killed at Kibbutz Gonen. In the artillery attack that followed, 31 civilians were wounded.

* Jan 23, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Lehavot Habashan was killed.

* Feb 1, 1959 - Three civilians were killed by a terrorist landmine near Moshav Zavdiel.

* Apr 15, 1959 - A guard was killed at Kibbutz Ramat Rahel.

* Apr 27, 1959 - Two hikers were shot at close range and killed near Massada.

* Oct 3, 1959 - A shepherd from Kibbutz Heftziba was killed near Kibbutz Yad Hana.

* Apr 26, 1960 - Terrorists killed a resident of Ashkelon south of the city.

* Apr 12, 1962 - Terrorists fired on an Egged bus on the way to Eilat; one passenger was wounded.

* Sept 30, 1962 - Two terrorists attacked an Egged bus on the way to Eilat. No one was wounded.

* Jan 1, 1965 - Palestinian terrorists attempted to bomb the National Water Carrier. This was the first attack carried out by the PLO's Fatah faction.

* May 31, 1965 - Jordanian Legionnaires fired on the neighborhood of Musrara in Jerusalem, killing two civilians and wounding four.

* June 1, 1965 - Terrorists attack a house in Kibbutz Yiftach.

* July 5, 1965 - A Fatah cell planted explosives at Mitzpe Massua, near Beit Guvrin; and on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem near Kafr Battir.

* Aug 26, 1965 - A waterline was sabotaged at Kibbutz Manara, in the Upper Galilee.

* Sept 29, 1965 - A terrorist was killed as he attempted to attack Moshav Amatzia.

* Nov 7, 1965 - A Fatah cell that infiltrated from Jordan blew up a house in Moshav Givat Yeshayahu, south of Beit Shemesh. The house was destroyed, but the inhabitants were unhurt.

* Apr 25, 1966 - Explosions placed by terrorists wounded two civilians and damaged three houses in Moshav Beit Yosef, in the Beit Shean Valley.

* May 16, 1966 - Two Israelis were killed when their jeep hit a terrorist landmine, north of the Sea of Galilee and south of Almagor. Tracks led into Syria.

* July 14, 1966 - Terrorists attacked a house in Kfar Yuval, in the North.

* July 19, 1966 - Terrorists infiltrated into Moshav Margaliot on the northern border and planted nine explosive charges.

* Oct 27, 1966 - A civilian was wounded by an explosive charge on the railroad tracks to Jerusalem.

[Vegasaurus]

87. The silence will be deafening n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

94. I think all that list proved...

..is that some folk slap the terrorism label on any violence not carried out by their 'side'. Have another look through that list and notice that it includes shootings done by Jordanian troops, and also attacks on soldiers and police. Since when have those things been *terrorism*?

[msmcghee]

96. Are you saying that none of those examples . .

. . represent attacks against civilians?

If the answer is no, then it seems my point stands - un-refuted and unanswered.

[Violet_Crumble]

103. No, but you seemed to be claiming they all were...

When you said: 'If you think such terrorism is caused by occupation, then why was there a continuous string of terrorist attacks against the citizens of the new state of Israel before there was ever any occupation of territory outside Israel.' and posted a list that included examples that clearly weren't terrorism in it...

[eyl]

97. Remember the debate we had on the King David Hotel?

Or other Etzel attacks against British forces in Mandatory Palestine? They have been branded terrorism, even though they were against military targets (partially military, in the case of the KDH)

[Violet_Crumble]

102. Yeah, I remember that debate...

I can't speak for anyone else, but the King David Hotel was a soft administrative target kind of like if someone pissed off with Australian foreign policy decided to bomb an inner city building coz Defense had leased the office space for its plebs. When it comes to attacks on British troops in Palestine, while some of the attacks (I'm thinking in particular of the kidnapping and hanging of two soldiers and the boobytrapping of their bodies) really push the envelope, when it came to attacks on what were clearly military targets, I don't think they were terrorism, but when it comes to things like planting bombs in Arab markets, they were...

[msmcghee]

105. Do you ever reply to a point someone has made . .

. . directly confronting their argument in an intellectually honest way? Or, does every post have to be an attempt at deflection?

As you full well know - the argument is that terrorism existed an ample quantities before the "occupation". If a few elements in a long list documenting that claim don't fit your specific definition of terrorism the fact remains that the rest still do. And the rest are quite sufficient to make the point.

Quoting from the citation which was fully available to you, had you checked it yourself, you would have found this,

After the War of Independence, Arab terrorism expanded in scope. In 1952, when 'fedayeen' terrorist border incursions reached their height, there were about 3,000 incidents of cross-border violence, extending from the malicious destruction of property to the brutal murder of civilians. This anti-Israeli violence encompassed both frontier settlements and population centers, and was perpetrated, for the most part, against innocent civilians, most of them new immigrants.

In conclusion, the oft-repeated Arab claim that the Israeli 'occupation' is somehow to blame for the Palestinian terrorism is nothing more than an empty retort, repudiated by the facts, and disproved by a century of historical reality.

My challenge still stands,

"If you think such terrorism is caused by occupation, then why was there a continuous string of terrorist attacks against the citizens of the new state of Israel before there was ever any occupation of territory outside Israel."

Obviously, you don't have an answer for that - but you're quite ready to deflect the discusion off into a rousing set-to over the definition of terrorism. Good try.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. So it's *intellectually dishonest* to point out factually incorrect claims from you?

Oh-kay...

You posted a list claiming it was a list of *terrorist* attacks when even a cursory glance at it showed that there were a fair few things listed on it that weren't terrorism. I'm just pointing out that yr claim was wrong...


I see you have difficulty telling people apart in the forum. I haven't argued that an underlying cause of terrorism is occupation, and if you want to argue that, go and argue it with the person who's actually making that argument, not me. Personally I think they'd be pretty stupid to try to argue anything with someone so extreme in their views on the conflict that there's a flat-out denial that Israel is carrying out an occupation...

[ProgressiveMuslim]

88. Read Bemildred's article. It helps to educate yourself beyond wikipedia. nt

[msmcghee]

89. You said that terrorism is caused by occupation.

I showed a lot of terrorism before there was any occupation and asked you to explain that.

Either you can or you can't. Let's keep it simple.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

90. To repeat myself:

I said that scholars have shown, that the defining characteristic of those who practice suicide terror in this century isn't Islam, it's occupation.

End of discussion.

If that's not what you were talking about, forget it.

[msmcghee]

91. Not to belabor the point . .

. . but in 78. I discussed cultural differences in how how each side views terror (attacks against civilians).

You responded in 79. that suicide terrorism is caused by occupation not religion - and then claimed that proved I was wrong.

Your bringing up "suicide" terrorism and "religion" rather than culture were attempts to avoid facing my argument directly by bringing diversionary elements into the discussion.

But even if I allow that diversion you are still wrong. Why didn't the Palestinians engage in "suicide" terrorism during the period when the WB was "occupied" by Jordan and Gaza was "occupied" by Egypt?

Or, for that matter, since you are making a general statement about suicide terrorism and occupation - why aren't the monks of Tibet strapping explosives to their bodies and blowing themselves up near Chinese civilians in Tibet?

It seems that some cultural influences apply.

[Vegasaurus]

92. End of discussion because you say so?

There are other scholars who disagree with your terrorist apologist, Pape.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

99. With you two, "discussion" never begins.

There are plenty of pro-Israel posters, such as Pelsar, LB and Shakti, with whom one can have a dialogue.

You 2 are not in that category.

End of discussion.

Ma'asalamah!

[LeftishBrit]

93. I think this also applies to some elements of Western culture, frankly

Not, on the whole, the sort of people who choose to post on DU. But fanaticism - which is really the defining issue here - is not the prerogative of any one culture.

I have personally come into too close (fortunately not direct!!!) contact with violent fanaticism on three main occasions:

(1) Being on the London underground the day before the July bombings.

(2) Being stranded in one part of Oxford for several hours in 1993, while police cordoned off a large area in order to defuse an IRA bomb. There have been other occasions where my movements were restricted due to concerns about IRA bombing; and as a kid, my school was once evacuated due to what turned out to be a bomb hoax.

And sadly I have known people who lost relatives to the IRA bombs.

(3) Discovering that my name and address had been posted, along with those of other members of my own, and other, university departments, on an extreme animal-rights website, where we were described as 'vivisector scum' who deserved 'severe action'. (Most of us, including myself, had no connection with vivisection; this was guilt by association with a few members of our university.)


Only the first of these was connected with Islamic fundamentalism. One reason why I don't tend to regard Islamism as the *only* danger. I could have ended up just as dead from an IRA bomb as an Al Quaeda one.

Moreover, in many wars, there has been a fanatical quasi-romantic desire for 'victory at any cost'; crushing the enemy; and making the 'ultimate sacrifice'. Indeed, this attitude was quite extreme on all sides in the First World War in particular.

The more Enlightenment-influenced cultures DO differ from more fundamentalist cultures in terms of the value that they place on personal freedom *within* a culture, and the relative lack of punishment for internal dissent and 'heresy'. (But as I said in another post, some Western cultures, and China, have at times replaced religious fundamentalism with quasi-religious ideological fundamentalism.) But the Enlightenment, like truth, tends to become one of the first casualties of war - or indeed of any form of fanaticism.

[msmcghee]

95. Thanks for your adding those thoughts.

I have pondered those things a lot lately.

Some things I have considered as possibly true:

* We all have the ability to allow strong ideology to take over our identity beliefs. When we are involved in violent conflict as a society - we have to allow for that or we have a much poorer chance of survival. Violence and killing (fanaticism) comes from passion - not from reason. We had to somewhat become anti German and anti Japanese fanatics to win WWII for example. Those passions allowed more efficient killing in battle and more sacrifice for the war effort at home.

* All societies have some elements of reason and some elements of ideology as organizing principles - and those probably shift over time in response to external and internal pressures. At any one time some societies find themselves organized more around the enlightenment values of reason. Other societies will be more organized around some set of strong ideological beliefs. As Magistrate pointed out, the ideologically organized (tribal) societies last longer and have greater inherent stability. BTW - I believe this preference for either ideology or reason is an accident of history and geopolitical reality has nothing to do with genetics.

* But any society under attack will swing toward the ideological (tribal) end if they want to survive in a war. Which side would you prefer to be on in war - the one that believes if it just accommodates more of their enemy's demands, give up more of their freedoms, adopt the enemy's customs and traditions - the enemy will stop attacking them. Or, the side that believes that their own deaths, even their children's deaths, are a small but honorable price to pay for destroying their enemy - and that their God placed them on earth with that purpose in mind?

* When engaged in war therefore both sides need to be somewhat fanatical in order to prevail. It's prior to hostilities where I believe the society based on reason has advantages. That society will be inherently more tolerant toward minorities within it such as women, various (non-violent) religions, homosexuals, etc. Freed from ideology those societies can generate wealth and distribute it more equitably and efficiently so that standards of living, health standards, etc. will usually be much greater than in ideology-bound societies.

* Finally, reason-based societies are far less likely to start wars of aggression. Not that it doesn't happen but generally, wars cause far more destruction - even within the winning side's society - than peace. There is little reasonable justification for war and a lot of reasonable justification for avoiding it. When "reasonable" societies start wars of aggression (non-defensive wars) - it is because they lost their reasonableness IMO (Iraq perhaps).

I'm not sure these are all true but they seem to be. I post them here in case someone can point out some flaws that I might have missed.

But, the question for a rationalist that always comes from considering these things to their end - is how much should a tolerant society tolerate intolerance. For example, how much screaming and intimidation of patients entering abortion clinics should a society allow?

Or, in the context of I/P, when should a society that is organized around the idea of maximum tolerance for a diversity of beliefs, set aside that tolerance and become violently intolerant toward those who have decided that the very existence of the tolerant society offends them?

[LeftishBrit]

2. I'd like to make one point clear.

Contrary to what the news report says, the organizers of the debate were *not* the Oxford University student union. They were the Oxford Union, a private debating society mostly run by a group of current and ex-students, independently of the university. University staff and students tend to get annoyed that this group is, and allows itself to be, represented as being part of the university.


At least currently, they seem to want publicity more than anything, and have invited some very controversial people: Nick Griffin and David Irving on the same day (which led to a huge protest by students and others); Tom Delay; Justice Scalia.

Of course, I am glad the vote was in favour of Israel's right to exist. I am not surprised that people crossed sides and/or voted in contradiction with their speeches. That's the hallmark of debating societies: like lawyers in court, you try to present the best arguments to win a case, not necessarily what you think.

[KatzManDu]

3. No-one has a right to terrorism.

4200. YES, 4200 Gazan rockets have been launched into Israel, but there is no condemnation.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

7. Are you sure you want to begin counting?

Because when we add up acts of violence, injuries and death, Israel comes out a HUGE loser.

ON EDIT: spelling correction.

[kayecy]

8. Condemnation must be balanced.........

As the US is always saying, any condemnation must be balanced and list the provocations suffered by both sides.

We can all talk about the lack of condemnation of a particular series of actions.

[msmcghee]

21. No, condemnation must be deserved, not balanced.

Immoral actions deserve condemnation. To say otherwise is to condemn moral action - and there's been a lot of that going on here by you.

[kayecy]

26. Ah, but there we have it - Who decides?

Who decides what are immoral actions and what are moral actions?

As someone who can't bring herself to criticize anything one side does in this conflict, you are hardly the best qualified to judge!

[msmcghee]

27. You make that judgment because my conclusions . . .

. . don't appear "balanced" to you. But that's a circular argument.

You are only saying that by your definition condemnation must be balanced - regardless of what is being condemned. It's the classic post modern view.

I say it must be based on moral standards of conduct. You say I'm wrong because my conclusion yields an unbalanced condemnation. See? Circular.

We have two opposing premises here. What you need to do is logically justify your premise. You need to show why all parties to any conflict are by definition equally to blame for whatever death and suffering occurs. Justify that using reason.

BTW - I appreciate the civil tone. Let's both try to maintain it.

[kayecy]

30. I say no such thing .............

You say I'm wrong because my conclusion yields an unbalanced condemnation. See? Circular

I say no such thing. I merely say one must adopt a balanced approach when criticizing the parties to a conflict.

It is facile to single out one party for criticism when both parties have been guilty. Rockets didn't appear from nowhere, they came about after 40 years of occupation, settlements, road-blocks, blockades and general inhumanity.

You apparently have difficulty understanding why people are driven to such extremes. But then, you have probably not suffered the indignities of 40 years of occupation.

[msmcghee]

32. Oh, I see. You do have standards to judge behavior.

You are only saying that they need to be equally applied. Sorry I misunderstood. I agree with you on that. I think it's very important that standards be applied equally and objectively.

Since we come to different conclusions though, as to how blame and responsibility should be assigned in this conflict, it must be because we use different standards. I have explained my standards several times in this forum. I'll do it again if you wish, but you seem pretty sure that your standards are correct. I'll let you go first.

[kayecy]

36. That's very kind of you, but ..........

That's very kind of you but you will recall what you said once before:

"I don't treat you or your posts seriously. I just use you for entertainment."

I am perfectly sure my standards are correct, and would would be very happy to debate them with anyone who is serious.



When you have ceased to need 'entertainment', do let me know and I shall be more than happy to enter into a serious debate with you.

[msmcghee]

39. I told you in that same post that all it would take is one post . .

. . where you asked a question without an insult. You have done that and I'm looking forward to this serious discussion. I already told you in this thread I appreciated the civility.

You say you are "perfectly sure your standards are correct". We are approaching a moment of truth here.

Will you defend your standards or will you come up with some excuse why this is not a good time to do it?

[kayecy]

59. I suppose there must be a few simpletons .........

Let me get this right.

You have accused me of asking insulting questions:
“...all it would take is one post where you asked a question without an insult ...”

You make a mockery of a serious discussion:
"I don't treat you or your posts seriously. I just use you for entertainment."

You make gratuitously offensive comments:
"...I have you filed in the "screw you" category."

You have terminated our earlier discussions with such derogatory questions as:
‘Why do your posts always sound like they're from "Intro to the I/P Conflict"?’

About other contributors you have written such ‘complementary statements’ as:
“You wouldn't know an idea if you tripped over it. It's hardly surprising that you can't discuss them.”


You then issue an apparently serious invitation for me to “go first” and explain my standards.


I suppose there must be some simpletons who, having had the ‘pleasure’ of a few interchanges with you, are still prepared to invite more insults, but count me out.

Don’t get me wrong, your offensive remarks run off me like water of a ducks back. I find them amusing and an interesting illustration of your powers of reasoning.

[msmcghee]

74. I'm dissapointed.

You list all the reasons you don't want to continue the discussion and I have no problem with that.

But I would point out that you had no problem until we got to the part where you were actually going to support your position by stating the standards you apply equally to both sides.

Until then you had just engaged in several exchanges with me and that didn't seem to bother you. But when its time to actually deliver the goods, to support the premise you laid out in this discussion - you can't - because I've said things in the past that requires you to stop at this very place in the discussion.

It seems that your inhibitions about having a discussion with me only cover the part where you are required to deliver the goods - so to speak.

[breakaleg]

77. LOL!

[pelsar]

38. let me cut in here....

because as i understand your approach, its pretty simple:...you use death counts:

the one who kills more is the "more guilty"...and the one who has less, has the "right" to "catch up"....is that a good summary?

[azurnoir]

41. Is that a good summary??

From your POV I am sure it is, albeit self serving

the one who kills more is the "more guilty"...and the one who has less, has the "right" to "catch up"..

Now closer to the truth, IMHO the count is is called on as an example of despite the fact there are claims minimalist civilian causulties the numbers would state otherwise or that those "efforts" are not enough,, show me one post here where it is stated that Palestinians have a right to kill just many Israelis as Israelis kill Palestinians

[Vegasaurus]

42. I think the point is that Israel isn't supposed to respond to their citizens being killed

BEcause they are a big military power, and the Palestinians are so poor and powerless, they need some time to catch up a bit.

Israel shouldn't respond to suicide bombers, kidnappings, rockets, murders of hikers, or anything of the sort. Terrorism towards Israel should be met with a blind eye, according to some people here.

[Violet_Crumble]

47. Instead of misrepresenting other peoples views, how about being more clear about yr own?

What I find amusing is that yr constantly saying you don't understand what others are saying, yet here you are acting as though yr some authority on what anyone who doesn't agree with you thinks. And the hypocrisy of you complaining when you think it's being done to you, while turning round and doing the same thing you complain about to others is pretty blatant...

Instead of getting what everyone else thinks so wrong, how about you spend some time focusing on explaining yrself clearly in posts and making sure yr getting across what you mean to say?

[Itiel]

22. How nice of the Oxford Union

To concede that we have a right to exist.

I'm sure the Jewish people are breathing a sigh of relief that our continued existence on this planet is acceptable to the students of Oxford.

[LeftishBrit]

25. The Oxford Union is a private club, NOT the student body of Oxford..

and really its actions are just as irrelevant as you imply - except that it gains undeserved respectability by using the Oxford name.

Unfortunately, their one motto seems to be 'any publicity is better than none' and they court controversy. Their speakers have ranged recently from Nick Griffin (leader of the far-RW BNP) to Tom Delay!

[Violet_Crumble]

51. The whole "right to exist" thing...

Supporting the motion, Jessica Prince from Oxford's University College spoke about the "absurdity" of the debate title. "I didn't think it was a question that we ask anymore," she said.

I agree that it's an absurd thing, but the Israeli govt doesn't seem to agree as there's a bit of an obsession on their part to get the Palestinians and other countries to recognise their 'right to exist'...

[henank]

55. Not absurd at all

When the Arab entities surrounding Israel refuse to recognize her right to exist (we're talking especially Hamas, and Fatah's refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state) why would Israel not want these entities to first give such recognition before starting serious negotiations?

The problem is exacerbated when so-called civilized societies (the Oxford Union would have come to mind except it doesn't seem so civilized lately) also start to question this right to exist.

[Violet_Crumble]

56. Sorry, but it is absurd...

It's got nothing to do with refusal to negotiate*. Israel exists as a state just the same as any other, and when Israel insists that this 'right to exist' must be recognised, then it's pretty hard to get all hot under the collar and act like it's the end of the world because a debate society debates the question....

How does someone even talk to with something that it doesn't think has a right to exist when the act of talking to it proves they do think it exists?

Also, I notice that you tacked 'as a Jewish state' onto what until then had been Israel's right to exist. And that's the problem with this thing about Israel insisting everyone must recognise its right to exist. When they do that (as in the case of the PLO), the goalposts get changed and another demand gets added, and then if that ones done, the goalposts will get moved again. And in reality, is Israel going to shrivel up and vanish if someone says they don't agree it has a right to exist? Of course not....

[henank]

58. I tacked on "Jewish" on purpose

Not to move goalposts, nor for any other nefarious Zionist plotting reason. The reason is that if Israel is not recognized as a Jewish state, or rather if Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state is not recognized - and this is the crux of the matter - then Israel has no right to exist at all. What is Israel if not the "Jewish State"? - as Israel is described by countless newspaper editors, writers etc., but just another Western style state? There's no point in playing semantics and saying "well of course you exist, you're sitting right there aren't you". If the Arabs cannot or will not accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state in the Middle East then what is left for Israel negotiate, other than its own terms of surrender?

[breakaleg]

76. So you think that if Hamas would "recognize Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" then that

would preclude them from attempting to either attack Israel at a future date, or foster Israeli Arabs from trying to use the demographics inside Israel to try to remove the "Jewish" part of that? Those are words only. And they aren't going to give any guarantees against any future attacks. Which is precisely why that demand is ridiculous. It means nothing.

[eyl]

98. You could say the same

of any peace treaty.

[breakaleg]

100. So, why are those words a condition to any talks?

[eyl]

101. Because in the majority of peace treaties

either neither side was trying to destroy the other or one side was dealt a crushing defeat to the point it could no longer attack, so that the words are redundant. Neither is the case here (in Israeli perceptions, anyway)

[breakaleg]

106. Hamas has no chance in hell of destroying the state of Israel. I'd say this is the case here. nt

[Vegasaurus]

108. They are working on that capability

Give them time.

[eyl]

109. The point is we'd like them to stop trying n/t

[eyl]

63. It's not absurd

(why do I have the feeling I may be starting this subthread on the path to "is too!" "is not!" posts :))

Israel wants Hamas to recognize its right to exist as a Jewish state. Such recognition would mean that Hamas renounces the goal of destroying Israel, either outright or by "replacing" it

[ProgressiveMuslim]

65. Abban Eban: “Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’"

From Mitchell Plitnicks' blog:

Countries do not exist by right. They exist by fiat, a recognition of sovereignty, defensive capabilities, and the power, derived either from the populace or the military, to maintain the structure and government of that country. But the debate over Israel’s right to exist persists for two reasons: Israel’s insistence that other countries, particularly the Arabs and especially the Palestinians, acknowledge this right and the constant rhetorical attempts by Israel’s opponents to de-legitimize the state’s existence. Both of these are pointless exercises that serve only to fuel the conflict and make rational discussion that much more difficult.

Israel’s “right to exist” and even to exist as a Jewish state was sanctioned by the United Nations in their partition plan of 1947 and expressed in UN General Assembly Resolution 181. While GA resolutions do not have the weight in international law that Security Council resolutions do, this is still much more international acknowledgment than most countries have. UNGA 181 speaks specifically of a “Jewish state” repeatedly.

More than that, though, Israeli diplomat Abba Eban put it best: “Nobody does Israel any service by proclaiming its ‘right to exist.’ Israel’s right to exist, like that of the United States, Saudi Arabia and 152 other states, is axiomatic and unreserved. Israel’s legitimacy is not suspended in midair awaiting acknowledgement….There is certainly no other state, big or small, young or old, that would consider mere recognition of its ‘right to exist’ a favor, or a negotiable concession.” (New York Times, November 18, 1981).

Eban was right. Israel’s insistence that its right to exist be recognized in fact undermines the very goal that insistence seeks to achieve. This is a different matter from recognizing Israel’s sovereignty, a diplomatic formality that is very important for international relations. That is what Israel needs, not recognition of its “right” to exist. And Israel can best achieve that end by ending its dispute with the Palestinians and finally demarcating clear borders so that Israel is a clearly defined entity in the international arena. Put simply, Israel needs its sovereignty recognized in the same manner as sovereignty is recognized for most of the rest of the world’s states.


http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/mitchell_plitnick/2007/nov/24/the_right_to_exist_a_double_edged_red_herring

[bemildred]

71. It is a propaganda term, a dissembled demand for support.

Israel cannot demand that everybody, and the Palestinians in particular, support it's existence, that would be a bit too ludicrous, so instead it demands that everyone support it's "right" to exist, which is of course unassailable.

[LeftishBrit]

72. I think that what it really means is...

'we want you to accept our right not to have our country dismantled!'

I find the term 'right to exist' a bit strange myself, but it serves a purpose. Countries don't really have a right to exist. But people have a right to live in their home in safety. The real question is, do Jews have a right to a safe homeland - and my answer is yes. So, in fact, do Palestinians; and the aim of the peace process should be to ensure a safe homeland for both groups. (And while in an ideal world, maybe it could be the *same* homeland, in the real world that isn't possible at present, so they must agree on some way of sharing and dividing the area between them.)

[bemildred]

73. That's close enough for me.

The problem hinges around the term "homeland". Exclusive "homelands" always bring up the question of what is to be done with residents of other nationalities. The Jews have as much right to a safe homeland as anybody else, which means as a practical matter, the right to right to attempt it if you want to. There are a few examples of peoples that pull it off.