From: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Subject: Re: Resisting occupation
Reply-To: hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad Hernlem)
Organization: North Carolina State University
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 1992 16:21:46 GMT

In article <42835@sdcc12.ucsd.edu>, revans@euclid.ucsd.edu (Ron Evans) writes:
> <1992Dec23.153301.25620@ncsu.edu> hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU (Brad
Hernlem) writes:
> >	1)  As Palestinians are not given equal rights, they should
> >	randomly kill Israeli soldiers in the territories until
> >	they are treated equally.
> >	2)  As the Bahai's are not given equal rights, they should
> >	randomly kill Iranian soldiers until they are treated
> >	equally.
> >	3)  As Iraqi Kurds  are not given equal rights, they should
> >	randomly kill Iraqi soldiers in Kurdistan until
> >	they are treated equally.
> 
> ...many of the Palestinians currently under the
> domain of Israel fell into this position by land conquest in war.
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> 	We are living in a country formed this way.  Islam was
> 	spread this way.  Almost all countries were formed this
> 	way.  Should native Americans be encouraged to randomly
> 	kill U.S. soldiers until they are given equal rights?

The U.S. government is set upon the premise that "all men are created
equal" regardless of whether this is true in practice. The intent is
there and there are avenues to pursue this objective without having to
resort to violence. The native American question is one with many
complications and it is not (or was not) possible that an equitable
agreement could be reached between those who formed the U.S. and the
natives. This is the reason why there was war. Killing, however, merely
to avenge injustices of the past is not reasonable and is
counterproductive. On the other hand, during the "Indian" wars of the
turn of the century it is completely reasonable that the native
Americans resisted.

> 
> Soldiers are the direct instrument used by Israel to maintain this
> position. They are reasonable targets. Similarly, I would agree in the
> case of 3, although their position came about not so much as a result of
> occupation as a development in the policy of the Iraqi government. 
> 
> 	This is the first time I have seen here an endorsement of
> 	the random killing of Iraqi soldiers in Kurdistan.  
> 	The killing of Israeli soldiers is exhorted here constantly.
> 	What is the reason for this double standard?
> 
> With regard to 2, I do
> not think that killing Iranian soldiers would yield the desired effect
> since Iranian soldiers are not involved (I suppose this is only
> partially true since the police and military in Iran are branches of the
> same organization, unlike in the U.S.). 
> 
> 	Let me rephrase the question then.  Should the Bahai's
> 	engage in the random killing of Iranians in the groups 
> 	DIRECTLY involved in their persecution?

Regarding your questions about Baha'is, it is widely claimed that the
IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) has a policy of persecuting Baha'is; i.e.
unjustly applying action against Baha'is merely because they are
Baha'is. We should be careful to discern between such cases and those
where an individual committed some offense against the state. It is not
immediately obvious that merely because an individual from a particular
faith is incarcerated that that person is incarcerated because of his faith.

Something that I would like to mention about this question is that (it
is my understanding) Baha'is do not advocate violence and are,
therefore, unlikely to kill, in any case. 
 
> 
> Neither the Kurds, the
> Bahais, or the Palestinians have any "right" to expect an autonomous
> state.
> 
> 	I think it is high time that the Kurds and the Palestinians
> 	had autonomous states.
> 
> 
> In the case of Palestine, however, the region was cut up by
> outside powers long ago. They allowed a highly nationalistic state to be
> formed in Palestine, a place which was by no means homogeneous. This
> state, the state of Israel, refuses to accept a segment of the
> population on equal terms.
> 
> 	One could equally well substitute Mesopotamia/Iraq
> 	for Palestine/Israel above.  (Mesopotamia became
> 	Iraq in 1921; independence was achieved in 1932.)
> 	Isn't it strange that one never hears Muslim groups
> 	calling for the destruction of Iraq?

Actually, I think there are some who are doing just this (I hesitate to
call them "Muslim groups", however). Some weeks ago, the McNeil/Lehrer
Newshour had a couple of representatives from opposition political
groups of Saddam Hussein give commentary about Iraq. One fellow was
clearly behind the struggle in the north while another was a supporter
of the struggle in the south. Both men were clearly for destruction of
Mr. Hussein, and barring that, for fragmentation of Iraq.

Completely as an aside, I noted a great similarity in the way that these
fellows described the situation in Iraq with the way that the Mojahedin
(Monafeqin?) Khalq Organization describes the situation in Iran. Just
like the MKO, these men described great popular support for the
overthrow of the regime coupled with claims about the imminent breakup
of the economy and governmental infrastructure. These sorts of claims
appear to be generated, not so much to be objective, but to drum up
political support. The MKO, for example, has been making these claims
for over 10 years.
 
> -- 
> Ron Evans (revans@math.ucsd.edu)

Brad "Ali" Hernlem (hernlem@chess.ncsu.EDU)