Arguably Israel had strategic value to the US as America's regional representative during the Cold War. Israel is now perhaps America's greatest global liability. Rather than helping to secure America's access to Mideast oil, Israel has endangered it. Israel's endless hostility toward the Palestinians, its brutal treatment of the Lebanese, etc. appear the leading reason the Islamic world hates the US so -- the main cause Islamic terrorism exists at all.
Here's the best part: The US doesn't have to spend a lot of money to win over the Islamic world and drastically reduce the incentive for terrorism. In fact the US can achieve these aims by *saving* money, simply by ostracizing Israel. What have we got to lose, Haifa oranges?
> > >We should also get out of Iraq and Afghanistan,
> > which
> > >is a good deal more like, at least it will happen
> > >within our lifetimes, and probably within the
> > decade.
> > >But that wouldn't be enough to placate the
> > Islamists.
> >
> > How do you know?
>
>Because, among other things, I bother to read what
>they say.
>Have you read, for example, bin Laden's
>statements, or the Islamist propaganda and policy
>analysis? They want a lot more than US OUT of some
>recent places they've invaded, and a lot more even
>than Palestinian nationhood and the elimination of
>Israel. They want to establish Islamic Republics of
>Virtue throughout the Muslim world,w hich extends from
>Morocco to Indonesia and parts of the Philippines and
>the former USSR, not to mention bits of China, and
>they want to eliminate all Western influence from this
>greater Islamic world. And they've been talking this
>way for over 70 years.
You've simply taken Cold War talking points and cut-and-pasted "Islamic" where the word "Communist" used to be. I have to assume you're saving your creative thinking for the paying customers.
> > >Finally, your approach here is really subject
> > >changing, unless you actually agree with Chris'
> > >sarcastic comment that we should ignore terrorist
> > >activity and hope they don't bother us.
> >
> > No, that's too simplistic. I favor a more
> > comprehensive two-pronged
> > approach: (a) ignore the terrorists
>
>I presume you are not planning to fly, go near or into
>any tall buildings, or near any large groups of people
>in hot symbolic targets, on this view. You live in New
>York, though, right?
Right, on Long Island, which has a large and growing Islamic population, as well as the nation's biggest commuter railroad, the LIRR, which I frequent and is a juicy target if ever there was one.
>And I have no illusions that the prosecutorial method
>would solve the problem. For that we need to go to the
>roots, and ending the US occupations of Iraq and
>Afghanistan would help, as would forcing the Israelis
>to be rational and semi-cooperative. But I was
>talking about stopping Islamists from blowing up
>planes, buildings, and people over the next few
>months and years.
>
>That was the question I posed to you, what to do about
>that, and your answer is: nothing. That is not
>acceptable. It is not rational. It is self-destructive.
I would argue that you are being irrational and self-destructive by failing to see that this problem has to be addressed at the causal, not the symptomatic level. At the rate we're going folks will soon have to undergo a full body cavity search before they can ride the subway morning and night.
Security checks are a mug's game. They're a source of endless expense and inconvenience, and long-term they are destined to fail because vigilance relaxes and lapses occur.
In short, we can't deal effectively with Islamic hatred in a direct way. We have to make Moslems not hate us. And if that makes things tough for Israel, tough.
Carl