I'm dragging this point out of another thread where it didn't belong. Looks like we get to start a new mid-east debate! Yea!!

It was raised, like many times before that the simple solution to terror is that the Israel exit the 'occupied territories' and cede control to the Palestinians in those territories. The reasoning goes that the humiliation and blah blah blah caused by the Israeli occupation of the people in this region are the cause for terror.

Now I will counter the above argument with a logical approach why this is not THE reason for terror, nor will the cessation of an occupation stop this terror.

First, military occupation is not the cause of terror. Proof? Well lets examine military occupations across the world shall we? Lets bring a few examples: Tibet, East Timor, Poland, Kosovo, Palestine.

Tibet, no terrorist, no suicide bombers, barely a resitance movement.
East timor, small resistance movement, little terror, no suicide bombers.
Poland, large resistance movement (talking about when poland was occupied by Russia), no terror, no sucide bombers.
Kosovo (under serbia), little resistance movement, terror, no suicide bombers.
Kosovo (under NATO), no resistance movement, little terror, no suicide bombers.
Palestine, little resistance movement, lots of terror, lots of suicide bombers.

Using different examples of varried military occupation throughout the world and of limited time scope above, I believe I have shown that occupation does not result in terror and therefore we can not make this assumption.

Now having proved that the assumption that occupation leads to terror is incorrect, I will difuse the argument that the end of occupation will stop terror:

For ending of occupation and the direct corrolation to an end of terror, we don't even need to take so broad examples from the world, there are many from Israel's own history:

Occupation of Sinai, and its end. Occupation of Southern Leabonon and its end.

Israel withdrew from Sinai in 1978. Terror continued before and after this date to Israel. Even though a formal peace signed with Egypt latter curtailed terrorist operations orginating from Egypt. Yet arms smuggling and terrorist support are still conducted from Egypt till this day.

Israel withdrew from Southern Lebanon in 2000 (or 1999, can't remember, it was spring though of whatever year). The Hezbullah had terrorized Israel's northern border before the occupation, during the occupation, and now after the occupation. The ending of the occupation in Lebanon had no effect on curtailing Hezbullah activity, many will argue it has even strengthened their position. Hezbullah continues to terrorize the Israeli populance, despite the fact that Israel withdrew from every bit of Lebanonese territory, and this was verified by the UN who says there should be no areas of dispute.

From these two examples, one could come to a general assumption that the ending of an occupation has no direct effect on the end of terrorism.

To this mix of counter arguments, I can add the ones you have probably already heard:

Terror existed before the occupation (israeli of palestinain claimed areas). If there was no terror there would be no occupation, and so forth. These are all valid, but I won't go to prove these as I believe the above arguments are proof enough to difuse your incorrect assumptions.

Now I will leave this post empty of citing sources and direct specific examples, and will leave that to my other posts to some of you who I am sure will try to stab at the above points.

New and closing point. I have argued my points civilly and with respect and hope all participants who participate in this debate will do so similarly. I do not want this thread to fall to the fate of its previous brother. I believe the mod was incorrect for closing the thread and simply not deleting the posts as it had not matured yet.

I am quiet proud of my hypothesis and have reposted it in an effort to see if it can be disproved. So take your shots guys. Politely

well, nobody is responding, but i must say yoepus, WELL SAID.

I don't know enough about the situation to have any input for now, but i hope that someone else will have a post from the other side of the spectrum, that is as well thought out and reasonable.

___________________

Visit my site Antiwar Homepage

well said Yoepus.. great hypothesis.. but you are looking at it from a technical viewpoint...

I think the reason why terrorism occurs in Isreal is deeper than just occupied palestinian land. Emotions of revenge...religious fanaticism...ignorance...brainwashing....and vulnerability all play a role in the sacrifice of ones self...anyone who thinks that land occupation is the sole factor in suicide bombing should rethink their ideas.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

It is a complicated situation, and I agree that even if israel stops occupation of palestine that there will still be some terror, but not as much as there is now. To stop terrorism, invading a country that supports it is not a good solution. Instead, I think that financial aid should be supplied to forces inside that country that are opposed to terrorism.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 It is a complicated situation, and I agree that even if israel stops occupation of palestine that there will still be some terror, but not as much as there is now. To stop terrorism, invading a country that supports it is not a good solution. Instead, I think that financial aid should be supplied to forces inside that country that are opposed to terrorism.

First, how can you say invading a country is not a good solution? Do we have examples of where nations have invaded a country to stop terrorism and it hasn't succeed, at least in a partial sense?

I'm just wondering if you can back up that point a little.

Second, you offer an alternative, this is good. In supporting forces inside an area that are opposed to terrorism. But what, if no such forces exist in an area? What are you to do then?

if I remember right WWI started because a prince was assasinated, my memory is vague about this. also look at occupied afghanistan because they sponsored terrorism in some way.

___________________
[/IMG]http://i54.tinypic.com/ngycqo.png[/IMG]

quote:

First, how can you say invading a country is not a good solution? Do we have examples of where nations have invaded a country to stop terrorism and it hasn't succeed, at least in a partial sense?

Well, I say that because occupation always leads to terrorism. If one country produces terrorists which are to terrorize another country, if that other country invades the first one, terrorism will continue, only its goals will change into freeing their country from occupation. Look at Northern Ireland, GB has been in control of it for centuries, and there are still terrorists there. Almost all terrorist groups have originated from disputed territories.
Now, situation with Izrael is a bit different because goals of terrorists are not quite the same, but invasion will not stop terrorism, only alter it.

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Well, I say that because occupation always leads to terrorism.

Can you back this assumption up? Ok I think I proved this assumption INCORRECT above:

Here just one example, Tibet, no terrorist, no suicide bombers, barely a resitance movement.

Occupation therefore does not ALWAYS lead to terrorism.

quote:

If one country produces terrorists which are to terrorize another country, if that other country invades the first one, terrorism will continue, only its goals will change into freeing their country from occupation. Look at Northern Ireland, GB has been in control of it for centuries, and there are still terrorists there.

Ok, lets say I agree with this. That if you invade an area where terrorist orginate from, their mission statement will change to liberating their territory. Now what would you assume happens when they liberate the territory? What happens when the occupying power withdraws from their territory? Won't they just, not, as you say resume their previous mission statement, find another excuse then just their liberation and revert back to their orginal mission?

As for the case of GB. There have been terrorist before their occupation, after their occupation (they have a peace treaty now), and during their occupation. So we can arrive at no conclusions with this example alone.

quote:

Almost all terrorist groups have originated from disputed territories.

Not true, terrorist usually orginate from conflicted areas. Hezbullah orginated from Iran - they have no disputes other then with Iraq. Taliban/Al Qaeda orginated from Afghanistan -they have no disputes other then with the Northern Alliance. The PLO orginated from Jordan/Egypt - they have no dispute except with Saudia Arabia. The PFLP orginated from Syria - at the time they have no legal dispute. But they did take a disputable position regarding the extermination of Israel.

In almost all these examples we can see that terrorist might have orginated from areas of conflict, and dispute, but that the terrorist did not always surface to meet that dispute or address it.

if you add to this the mix of terrorist during the cold wars, some that orginated from Eastern and Western Europe, you clearly find that the assertion that terrorist almost always arise from disputed territories is not true. Also the inverse is not true; that all disputed territories create terrorist as I ahve proven above.

quote:

Now, situation with Izrael is a bit different because goals of terrorists are not quite the same, but invasion will not stop terrorism, only alter it.

I agree with you completly on this part. Invasion will not stop terrorism. It will alter it. But that is better then nothing in the eyes of many. When faced with 100 terrorist attacks and no occupation, or an occupation and just a couple terrorist attack, we clearly see that a smart nation will chose the latter in an attempt to protect its citizens. Occupation does not seem to clearly be a stop to terrorism, but it does seem to be a very strong obstacle to terrorist actions orginating from the areas in occupation and does seem to prevent and stop many of them from happening.

This is the case in almost all areas occupied BECAUSE of terrorism: the Occupied Territories in Israel, Afghanistan, East Timor (the occupation there virtually ended any terrorism or resistance movement), Kosovo (under Serbia and latter NATO), Southern Lebanon, Occupation of Sinai, Checneya.

In fact, one could make a very bold gerneralization stating that:
Occupation reduces terrorist activities in the areas under occupation to a very large degree.

You have a good point Yoepus, and I agree. I'd like to also add that even if ending the occupation would end terror, it still wouldn't be the prudent course of action. By giving any benefits to people or organizations responsible for acts of terrorism, we would risk legitimizing terrorism as a means of obtaining redress for grievances (legitimate or otherwise). If you give your kid candy every time he cries, it might make him stop... for a while, but what do you think he's going to do next time he wants candy?

If we really want to stamp out terrorism, and I think we ought to, then we must do everything in our power to ensure that those who commit it do not obtain their goals.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter You have a good point Yoepus, and I agree. I'd like to also add that even if ending the occupation would end terror, it still wouldn't be the prudent course of action. By giving any benefits to people or organizations responsible for acts of terrorism, we would risk legitimizing terrorism as a means of obtaining redress for grievances (legitimate or otherwise). If you give your kid candy every time he cries, it might make him stop... for a while, but what do you think he's going to do next time he wants candy?

I agree with you as well. This is called appeasement, and in almost all cases I believe it does not work (maybe I will open a thread proving that one day eh? hehe).

But what I like about my thesis, if I do say so myself is that it is independent of such a political opinion, yet examines it on the netrual basis of facts and examples from history.

quote:

Occupation therefore does not ALWAYS lead to terrorism.

I will alter my statement and say almost always.
It has lot to do with the mentality of the people. People of tibet aren't very agressive, and their religion isn't so either. That's why they don't have terrorists.

quote:

Ok, lets say I agree with this. That if you invade an area where terrorist orginate from, their mission statement will change to liberating their territory. Now what would you assume happens when they liberate the territory? What happens when the occupying power withdraws from their territory? Won't they just, not, as you say resume their previous mission statement, find another excuse then just their liberation and revert back to their orginal mission?

Some of them might be sattisfied, and their organisations may diffuse somewhat. On the other hand, maybe they won't and then you still have the same thing you started with. But you haven't lost or gained anything.

quote:

But that is better then nothing in the eyes of many. When faced with 100 terrorist attacks and no occupation, or an occupation and just a couple terrorist attack, we clearly see that a smart nation will chose the latter in an attempt to protect its citizens. Occupation does not seem to clearly be a stop to terrorism, but it does seem to be a very strong obstacle to terrorist actions orginating from the areas in occupation and does seem to prevent and stop many of them from happening.

Now, I don't think that occupation will reduce terrorism, it may only strengthen terrorists. That's because when their country is occupied, then they actually have a legitimate reason for their attacks, and that is freeing their country. That will attract much more people to their cause.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a fact that amount of terrorist activity has dramatically increased since Bush and Sharon came to power?

___________________
1+1=10

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 I will alter my statement and say almost always. It has lot to do with the mentality of the people. People of tibet aren't very agressive, and their religion isn't so either. That's why they don't have terrorists.

Its not even ALMOST always. Its ALMOST not even often. I gave five examples above: East Timor, Kosovo, Palestine, Poland, and Tibet.

Out of these five examples only 1 resulted in a lot of terrorism. I can add more occupations in world history:

Occupation of Japan, Occupation of Germany, Occupation of Hong Kong, Occupation of Singapore, Occupation of Native America, Occupation of Mongolia, Occupation of Lebanon (french), Occupation of Netherlands (WWII), Occupation of France (all WWs), Occupation of Vietnam, Occupation of Korea, Aparthite, Occupation of India (UK). And these are just of this century. In many of these cases I can find resistance movements yes, but terrorism only isolated incidents if any of all in the following examples.

quote:

Some of them might be sattisfied, and their organisations may diffuse somewhat. On the other hand, maybe they won't and then you still have the same thing you started with. But you haven't lost or gained anything.

Look this is speculatory. You have no proof to back up your idealisitc opinion. Usually if you do not respond in force to force, it has the ill effect of encouraging it. A

quote:

Now, I don't think that occupation will reduce terrorism, it may only strengthen terrorists. That's because when their country is occupied, then they actually have a legitimate reason for their attacks, and that is freeing their country. That will attract much more people to their cause.

Why is this a legitimate reason? If you make an act of war against a nation, that nation is in its right to declare war legitimately against you. If North Korea attacks the south, the South has a right to delcare war and occupy the North right? So why when a terrorist strikes, does a nation not possess this same right?

Again though, this is a false assumption, I proved above that occupation DOES NOT lead, OR increases terrorsim.

Now honestly man, if you do not believe war is a legitimate response to terrorism, then what do you see as an alternative?

quote:

And correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not a fact that amount of terrorist activity has dramatically increased since Bush and Sharon came to power?

Again, you have to seperate this now. In Israel, Palestinian terrorism has decreased in incidents since his rise to power (as compared to Barak levels, and levels obtained as he took office). In the Lebanonese fronts, terrorism has decreased, but their are reports of a heavy build up in the Leabonese southern border, the terrorism network their has re-inforced and is getting stronger. The networks in the occupied territories are being all but crushed.

As to regards to Bush, you can't say terrorism increased. Under his reign only one terrorist incident has effected the USA: The September 11th attacks. Under Clinto, you had 3 attacks on US soil. The embassy bombings in Africa, and the first WTC attack. Also you had the attack on the Cole, and a plot that was exposed of blowing up multiple 747 over the Pacific to celebrate the second milenium. So no, terrorism has NOT DRAMATICALLY increased. There might be a slight increase, and there might be a sligh decrease for all I know. There is no 'terrorist index' that I can reference. One woudl have to compile all terrorist incidents or plots according to their time frame to accurately assess this.

So in short, I'm correcting you, your wrong.