For the most part, I happen to respect the military, and find most of what they do to be necessary and morally justifiable. And I am fundamentally opposed to terrorism, the intentional killing of civilians for political gain. However, I think you would agree that there are many instances when military operations contain elements of terror. There are also many instances when military planers know full well that innocent civilians will be maimed or killed, but they go ahead with the operations anyway.

When innocent civilians get killed in military operations, the leadership could say that this was morally justified in the name of self-defense. That type of logic, in my opinion, comes perilously close to the rationale used by terrorists. They could also say that the killing of innocent civilians could be justified as self-defense, and as pursuant to a cause they hold more precious than life itself.

What I am saying, is that we should not feel too comfortable hiding behind labels. Terror is terror. Just because we call it a “military operation,” does not mean that it is not terrorism. When people are terrorized, it is terror, no matter who the players are.

By looking at things the way they are, it may humble us, and may inspire us to see beyond the labels, and beyond the rationales, in search of a solution that will bring justice, as opposed to explanations that makes us feel better about the things we are compelled to do. I believe in seeing things the way they are, because I think we can no longer afford the excuses and rationales we comfort ourselves with.

Remove the checkpoints,
Go back to the 67 borders,
End the occupation and…

Adopt a policy of perfectly proportional response.

As in, if a Palestinian blows up one of a bus, a pizza parlour, a supermarket or an open market we respond…in exactly the same way. The same size bomb, the same makeup of bomb and the same target. Lob a rocket at Sderot hoping to hit a random house? No problem–we can do the same! Forget about trying to locate the people responsible. Go straight for the civilians.

Of course, the civilian casualty count would go up and the casualty count among those actually perpetrating the violence would go way down. But at least we would be able to avoid “collateral damage”.

…when you claimed that man has killed more fellow man in the past 200 years than ever before, I thought it was silly.

As usual, Jessica, some very insightful comments.

You question my assertion that more people have been killed by the hand of man in the past 200 years, than in the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence.

You may well be right, but let me share with you some of my thinking:

1. We have been around as a species for some 2,000,000.

2. We were hunter/gatherers for about 99% of that time, and only became “civilized” approximately 10,000 years ago with the advent of agriculture and small villages.

3. As hunter/gatherers, it would not have made sense to kill one another. Would you have killed your neighbor just to steal a couple of peanuts? Why bother?
We were actually guite gentle with one another, strange as it may seem, and this is born out by a documentary I saw, The Rise of Man, on The Discovery Channel. Anthropologists from all over the world were interviewed, and confirmed what I just said. And Jessica, wouldn’t it make sense that in order to survive for 2,000,000 years we would have to treat each other well, especially considering the hardships involved in survival? Wouldn’t common sense tell us to be kind to one another, and help each other out?

4. For the last 10,000 years, since “civilization” began, there has been the incentive to kill and steal, so that we could easily take from others what we wanted for ourselves.

5. Now, as to the numbers. Gunnar Heinsohn has documented that since 1950, some 85,000,000 people have been killed in bloody conflicts around the world.

6. If we add in: World War I, World War II, Taiping Rebellion, Russian Civil War, Napoleonic Wars, and Shaka’s conquests, we come up with another 140,000,000 which brings us to a grand total of 225,000,000

7. Oh, but we must not forget all the sundry killings by way of crime and even suicide. They count as well.

8. Now, it is true, Jessica, that man has always had a taste for blood since becomming “civilized.” For example, some 33,000,000 people were knocked off in China in the An Shi Rebellion. And the Mongol Conquests were a real treat with 45,000,000 deaths. But most of the other conflicts were less deadly by comparison. We are not counting death by disease or natural disasters.

So once again, Jessica, I don’t have the statistics. It is possible, in fact, that no one does. But I don’t think I’m too far off in saying that more people were killed by the hand of man in the last 200 years, than in the previous 2,000,000 years of human existence.

I am not talking about the number of deaths in proportion to population. I am simply talking about the number of deaths in absolute terms, because I beleive that each killing is an absolute loss.

Why is any of this important, Jessica? You know, they say that “Hisory is prologue.” If it is true that recent history is becoming more and more violent, and if it is true that technological advances are outpacing wisdom, and if it is true that we will soon be able and inclined to annihilate one another, then isn’t it time to stop, and take stock of where the hell we’re going?

My sense is, Jessica, that God, in His wisdom, put us on this earth to live, not to kill, and not to die before our time. That common sense approach was in place for some 2,000,000 of human existence. Life was not easy for the cavemen, and was often cut brutally short, but we kept going as a species by taking it easy with one another. It may well be time now, before time runs out, to go back to that logic, to invest in one another, instead of trying to outdo one another, to protect the environment, instead of raping the environment, and to follow the pattern that was set in place a long time ago, by a Power that was and is way beyond our own.

And Wladimir, there are fascists and there are fascists. You call Churchill a fascist, but would you really have preferred the Hitler variety? If the answer is yes, then I question your judgment. If the answer is no, then you can see for yourself why it is sometimes necessary to fight a war, and to kill for a cause you believe in.

“There is only greed and evil in the men who fight today; the song of crusader has long since gone away!”

Lord Kavi, I’m not sure that the crusaders did all that much singin, since they were busy killin, but I certainly appreciate your kind words of encouragement.

I doubt that any terrorist would actually label themselves a terrorist, even if almost every other single person in the world would consider their actions terrorism. Everyone who engages in this believes their cause is just, but of course, not all causes are just – hence the seperation between the two words. Therefore, there has to be a set of accepted standards that diferentiates between the two.

If you can’t leave the definition decision up to the terrorist or the soldier/government, because both are not objective, only the general public is left. That is why leaving the distinction up to a democracy is, as Nissim qouted in Churchill, not a perfect solution but the only one. So, we are back to where we started – a representational body does the defining as to what is OK and what is not OK.

These standards are defined within international laws and conventions, and in the just war theory, which is purported by the United Nations. Again, not a perfect system, but it seems to be the best man has come up with as of yet. The question then becomes – as humans evolve and figure out more and more ways to kill each other, should these definitions evolve? And are reciprocative actions allowable? What is truly considered a “proportional” response, given the weight of the collateral? Ultimately, these decisions are still up to “the decider.” Of course there’s a gray area, but decisions need to be made based on the black, the white, and the gray. No decisions on tough issues would mean no action, and no action means more choas than we have now.

Nissim, I have to say, I loved 99% of your answers on this post, but when you claimed that man has killed more fellow man in the past 200 years than ever before, I thought it was silly. Painting current man as inherently more violent than previous man is simply misleading and unfair. I know you said you have no statistics to back it up, but population growth needs to be taken into account here. As the world’s population continues to grow, there will continue to be higher rates of deaths due to terror, war, ect at higher rates simply because there are more people to kill. In order for your comparison to be accurate, you’d have to add a caveat of proportional representation via percentage, and for that I really doubt your statistic holds up – especially given rampant disease, natural death, ect.

As you age remember the strong feelings you have now as they will transform with experience…

Well, patb, I know that this website is for mideast “youth,” but I’m about to turn 56, so I guess that makes me part of the old fart committee. But I guess you’re never too old to learn.

We must practice listening twofold to the act of speaking.

I like that idea. If the world is really getting smaller technologically and economically, we’ll make it a lot easier on ourselves if we can find a way to becaome smaller ideologically as well. Listening to one another, and speaking with one another, instead of talking at one another, is a good way to make that happen.

Selling a Vision of Hope has 5 elements to it, but An Ideology of Common Sense is probably the most important. Instead of believing what we want to believe, it may well be time to start believing in what makes sense. We owe it to ourselves to sceen all belief throught the filter of common sense. If something makes sense to you, keep believing in it. If it doesn’t, then let it go.

You mention the Marshall Plan, by which we invested in the nations we defeated in World War II. Some people ask me, “Why don’t you hold up the investment, till after we defeat the extremists militarily?” My resonponse is that this sitation is different.

In World War II you were fighting for territory, against conventional armies. In this new struggle, you’re fighting against a dispersed enemy, and you’re fighting for hears and minds, as opposed to territory. Therefore, you may well have to invest to create jobs, even as you fight the enemy militarily.

Because we have to fight, we also have to invest. And because we have to invest, we also have to fight. We will fight with both our “arrows” and our “olive branches” as depicted on the Presidential Seal. The willingness to invest will give the fight a good measure of credibility, and will help us win over the hearts and minds of moderate Muslims, which will inturn help us to win militarily as well.

I agree that the tribal leaders’ decision in Anbar Province to push back against Al Qaeda is an example of the people making their will known. I also agree that they needed military help to accomplish this. And I believe that wishful thinking is not enough when you’re facing a violent, extremists, enemy.

However, even though a military presence is indispensable to the quest for peace, by itself, it is not enough. What is needed is a multi-faced approach. What we have to do, strange as it may seem, is to co-opt some of the strategies of the extremists, and to beat them at their own game. We have to do what they do, only better.

If the extremists are ideological about violent Jihad, we should be ideological aout Common Sense. If the extremists invest peanuts in charitable handouts, we should invest some serious dollars in jobs, jobs which protect the environment, jobs which help to neutralize extremists thinking. If the extremists sell a vision of hope for martyrdom, or paradise, or virgins; we should sell a Vision of Hope for Peace, Prosperity, and Freedom. If the extremists inculcate hate in the hearts and minds of their people; we should inspire a sense of hope with some heavy duty Public Diplomcay. And if the extremists use terror; we should fight back with a military campaign, but also position the fight within a Vision of Hope. We should raise the fight on the ground to a higher moral plain by giving the fight a moral clarity of purpose. People will fight harder once they know what they’re fighting for. We’re not fighting a “war against terror.” We’re fighting a war to realize a Vision of Hope. There’s a big difference.

At every turn, we will cut the extremists off at the pass and beat them at their own game. The ideological extremists will not be able to capture the public’s imagination once people begin to imagine a better life for themselves.

So you see, patb, I’m not exactly naive about the threat we face. I just think we need a more comprehensive and sophisticated appproach.

And Wladimir, I think it was Churchill who said that, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all others.” It’s not that democracy is perfect. It’s just that democracy is a way of empowering the man on the street because it is thought that his common sense is indispensable to a healthy functioning of government.

And as to evil, you don’t have to be religious to know what evil is. Evil is what doesn’t work in ordering the affairs of men. Good is what does work. If we believe in treating others as we want to be treated, in bringing the greatest happiness to the greatest number, and in thinking with moderation instead of extremism, then evil is what prevents from doing this, and good is what allows us to do this.

As to war, yes it is a bad thing. But it is sometimes necessary to accomplish a greater good. I wish the day would come when this is no longer the case. When people will simply understand good and evil, and act accordingly without resorting to violence. Until that day comes, we will have to do as best we can, even as we stumble along the way.