Is the "War on Terror" changing us?

[Buffy]

Please forgive me for being a phudnick (a nudnick w/a PhD);

Ah, you're a Phmensch too, no need for forgiveness! :hihi:

I still wonder, Buffy, if you might suggest just a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be". What and how might who "discuss" with whom in order to start a process leading to cessation of what kinds of terror where etc.,

I think one thing that is being dismissed out of hand here (what I've reacted to) is the notion that there are no "Moderate Muslims" who can help put pressure on extremists. May be there are very few Palestinians (but there are some), but there are Saudis, Egyptians Indonesians, etc. who are both in power of their governments and have vested interests in eliminating terrorism. The Bush Administration, by moving the US's role from that of mediator to hostile opponent of all Palestinian positions (even the moderate ones by the way), has made it impossible for these potential allies to act against extremism in a public fashion. This has to change.

 

It is just as false to see all Palestinians as supporters of the entire Hamas platform as it is to see all Israelis as supporters of the right wing of Likud. The extremists on both sides would like to say so, but that ends up leaving huge numbers in the middle who just want to not worry about missiles falling in their front yards. The alternatives are basically either talking or bombing the other side into the stone-age. Both have been tried, there's even an argument that a combination of the two is necessary, but all bombs and no talk, and most importantly, intransigence on "religous issues" (like recognition of right to exist, right of return, etc) makes it impossible to move forward. This weeks Economist has an article which notes that the main reason Hamas does not move ahead with recognizing Israel is pressure from Iran: if this was exposed more it could be effective in persuasion, but not if intransigence on the other side makes it easy to bill as propaganda.

 

Why am I talking about the Israel/Palestinian issue? Because its an easy play on emotions by the extremists (on both sides!), to promote and promulgate terrorism. Even forward movement would take the wind out of the sails. Unfortunately, some like to say that even working on this issue is tantamount to "capitualtion to the terrorists." Only if you let them promote it as such.

 

It is *all* about perception. The Bush Administration has a tin ear to this, and it hurts us all. We need to "out fair" the terrorists and take the high moral ground: the *only* claim they have to this is "persecution of the Palestinians" who they don't even like, and who are more closely aligned with Shi'a Iran.

 

So, do you really see that the only option is to beat the Palestinians in to submission? Or destroy the entire Arab world to stop the terrorists? Don't you think this will put us on the low moral ground that is easy to continue to attack for any radical purpose?

 

Jaw jaw is better than war war, :phones:

Buffy

[Dov Henis]

Ah, you're a Phmensch too, no need for forgiveness! :shade:

Buffy

Thanks, but this would'nt remove my this pressure.

 

I think one thing that is being dismissed out of hand here (what I've reacted to) is the notion that there are no "Moderate Muslims" who can help put pressure on extremists. May be there are very few Palestinians (but there are some) Buffy

 

If by "Moderate Muslims" you mean muslims who might opt to co-exist with non-muslims within a greater non-muslim citizenry, yes of course there are those who live everywhere in the world outside a muslim country including in Israel. Yes, there are also quite a few Palestinian Muslims who would not hurt or who would shield as much as they can Israeli Jews who happened to stray into Palestine. But even though Palestinian muslims by the thousands traffic daily safely inside Israel and in-and-out of Israel you may be sure that 90% of the Israeli Jews who stray into Palestine will be murdered. And you may be sure that your notion of "pressure by moderates on extremists" is a pure naive fantasy.

 

but there are Saudis, Egyptians Indonesians, etc. who are both in power of their governments and have vested interests in eliminating terrorism. The Bush Administration, by moving the US's role from that of mediator to hostile opponent of all Palestinian positions (even the moderate ones by the way), has made it impossible for these potential allies to act against extremism in a public fashion. This has to change. Buffy

 

Buffy, you are plainly wrong or uninformed. Bush Administration definitely encourages and supports the Palestinian "(relatively) moderate" group. And you are also naively wrong in blaming the Bush Administration for disabling or not enabling the "moderate" muslim countries "to act against extremism". Their governments are simply literally afraid for their lives...

 

 

It is just as false to see all Palestinians as supporters of the entire Hamas platform as it is to see all Israelis as supporters of the right wing of Likud.

Buffy

 

You display plain ...(I better hold my tongue).

 

-Who sees all Palestinians as supporters of Hamas?

-What's the difference, in terms of terrorism, between "Hamas" and "entire Hamas platform"?

-"The right wing of Likud" in Israel is ancient history.

-It's foolish and ... to refer to a "right wing" political party as a parallel to a terrorist organization.

 

 

The extremists on both sides would like to say so, but that ends up leaving huge numbers in the middle who just want to not worry about missiles falling in their front yards. The alternatives are basically either talking or bombing the other side into the stone-age. Both have been tried, there's even an argument that a combination of the two is necessary, but all bombs and no talk, and most importantly, intransigence on "religous issues" (like recognition of right to exist, right of return, etc) makes it impossible to move forward. This weeks Economist has an article which notes that the main reason Hamas does not move ahead with recognizing Israel is pressure from Iran: if this was exposed more it could be effective in persuasion, but not if intransigence on the other side makes it easy to bill as propaganda.

 

Why am I talking about the Israel/Palestinian issue? Because its an easy play on emotions by the extremists (on both sides!), to promote and promulgate terrorism. Even forward movement would take the wind out of the sails. Unfortunately, some like to say that even working on this issue is tantamount to "capitualtion to the terrorists." Only if you let them promote it as such.

 

It is *all* about perception. The Bush Administration has a tin ear to this, and it hurts us all. We need to "out fair" the terrorists and take the high moral ground: the *only* claim they have to this is "persecution of the Palestinians" who they don't even like, and who are more closely aligned with Shi'a Iran.

 

So, do you really see that the only option is to beat the Palestinians in to submission? Or destroy the entire Arab world to stop the terrorists? Don't you think this will put us on the low moral ground that is easy to continue to attack for any radical purpose?

 

Jaw jaw is better than war war,

Buffy

 

Too late now. Will handle this much later.

 

Dov

[Buffy]

Thanks, but this would'nt remove my this pressure.

Of course at least its more polite than repeatedly calling someone "naive and uninformed!"

...you may be sure that 90% of the Israeli Jews who stray into Palestine will be murdered.

Got any data to back this up? I wouldn't say that its "safe" by any means. White folks walking around in South Central LA isn't safe either, but a 90% chance of being murdered is probably overstating. I know you do it for a reason though.

And you may be sure that your notion of "pressure by moderates on extremists" is a pure naive fantasy.

Realize that I am not talking about "moderates talking to extremists and convincing them to change their ways." I know you'd like to put all "talk solutions" into this bucket, but that's quite self-serving.

 

What *is* possible is to marginalize the extremists so that they don't have any support--moral or monetary--from moderates who no longer see any benefit in providing it. If you call this "naive fantasy" I have fear of what your solutions are going to look like, but I'll let you tell me what those are....

Buffy, you are plainly wrong or uninformed. Bush Administration definitely encourages and supports the Palestinian "(relatively) moderate" group.

They at least talk to Abbas, but they've cut him off at the knees in terms of giving him much to go back to the Palestinian electorate to convince them they should support the PA over Hamas. Condi met with Abbas today and offered him a "temporary statehood" concept that is so far short of what is politically palatable to the middle that its doomed to failure, and Abbas had to reject it out of hand. And that's just the latest example: I could go on.

And you are also naively wrong in blaming the Bush Administration for disabling or not enabling the "moderate" muslim countries "to act against extremism". Their governments are simply literally afraid for their lives.

Actually, they're quite active in suppressing the extremists directly (both the Saudi's and Egyptians have been jailing them left and right), but the problem is *public* support, trying to convince their *moderates* to join in. As long as the US is so easily branded as being "unfair to the Palestinians" its hard to move against this middle.

 

Note I am NOT saying that this line of reasoning is *fair* or *reasonable*: what I *am* saying is that it is *exploitable* by the extremists, and is used heavily at the "legitimate diplomatic level" by the likes of Iran and Syria.

 

Have to make this clear: If you want to make them stop, you have to remove the easy targets. Making Hamas wrong-foot themselves on recognition of Israel is a really effective tactic, but it doesn't work unless the US really sticks its neck out and shows real lack of bias.

The right wing of Likud" in Israel is ancient history.

Tell that to Netanyahu! The Neo-Cons here *hate* Olmert and think he's sold out, and are eagerly awaiting the next PM election, because they're sure that Netanyahu will sweep to victory and retake Gaza.

It's foolish and ... to refer to a "right wing" political party as a parallel to a terrorist organization.

I agree. I didn't say that, and I know you didn't say that "all Palestinians support Hamas," but the more extreme people on each side do take these intransigent positions, and its important to discount both sides: If you don't condemn *both* you won't convince the folks in the middle.

 

Again, its easy to dismiss people's proposals by calling them naive and uninformed, but its another thing altogether to say why they won't work or much better, to propose alternatives. Indeed, one of the reasons I'm active here is that it seems that those who oppose any form of peace in the middle east seem to imply that the only solution is ongoing low-level war of attrition, but are unwilling to say so because the morality of such a position is hard to justify unless you can absolutely and completely demonize the "enemy" into being not worthy of life down to the last man, woman, and child.

 

It may not mean *immediate* annihilation, but extremists on both sides call for that by implication. The only hope for the majority is to get them to shut up and go home. As long as the leaders of the middle cater to the extremes, that will not happen.

 

Think about it. Propose some courses of action. If we can solve terrorism while letting the Israeli/Palestinian conflict fester endlessly, that's fine, but how are we going to proceed? Is it just slow annihilation of the entire Arab world? What is it?

 

Hate breeds hate,

Buffy

[Dov Henis]

...

and most importantly, intransigence on "religous issues" (like recognition of right to exist, right of return, etc) makes it impossible to move forward.

 

-Israel's refusal to commit suicide or to be annihilated is intransigence on religious issues? are you serious?

 

- Right of return of those who became refugees cosequent to refusing UN division of old Palestine into two states + 1948 launch multi-Arab-states war on baby Israel + their defeat. Compensate them and enable them to try again... ? Are you serious?

 

...

This weeks Economist has an article which notes that the main reason Hamas does not move ahead with recognizing Israel is pressure from Iran:

 

Is this news to Economist and to you?

 

...

if this was exposed more it could be effective in persuasion, but not if intransigence on the other side makes it easy to bill as propaganda.

Why am I talking about the Israel/Palestinian issue? Because its an easy play on emotions by the extremists (on both sides!), to promote and promulgate terrorism. Even forward movement would take the wind out of the sails. Unfortunately, some like to say that even working on this issue is tantamount to "capitualtion to the terrorists." Only if you let them promote it as such.

 

I'm speechless. Nostra culpa. It's the intransigence of us, the "other side", the pray that refuses to yield, that spoils the possibility/opportunity for cessation of terror. And added to that is "the extremists (on both sides!)"; not only the Muslim terrorists but also their mirror-image Jewish Israeli terrorists...

 

...

It is *all* about perception. The Bush Administration has a tin ear to this, and it hurts us all. We need to "out fair" the terrorists and take the high moral ground: the *only* claim they have to this is "persecution of the Palestinians" who they don't even like, and who are more closely aligned with Shi'a Iran.

 

- Who cares and what matters what "claim" terrorists have?

 

- Are you suggesting a "selection" of Israel, one of the terrorist's Western-culture targets, as a scapegoat for a delusion that this will get them off your back?

 

...

So, do you really see that the only option is to beat the Palestinians in to submission? Or destroy the entire Arab world to stop the terrorists? Don't you think this will put us on the low moral ground that is easy to continue to attack for any radical purpose?

Jaw jaw is better than war war

 

No, Buffy. Jaw jaw is not better when a war is the ONLY way to survive. I'm talking from personal experiences going back also to WW2 in Europe.

 

PS:

And, again, Buffy: Please forgive me for being a nudnick. I still now wonder if you might suggest briefly a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be". What and how might who "discuss" with Whom in order to start a process leading to cessation of what kinds of terror where etc.,...

 

Still sincerely yours,

 

Dov

[Buffy]

Dov,

 

Your note is unfortunately a good example of why there's a problem. You've immediately jumped to the most negative interpretations possible about what I'm saying. Among the extremists, neither side--and I'm talking about the Meshal's and the Netanyahu's here, not the more moderate elements--will grant any sort of middle ground, and hear only that any consession whatsoever is tantamount to "committing suicide."

 

Its really important for all parties to listen.

-Israel's refusal to commit suicide or to be annihilated is intransigence on religious issues? are you serious?

In general you seem to react to any of the statements I've made by jumping to the conclusion that the only possible outcomes on any of this are "all or nothing" moreover, you completely misread *who* I think is intransigent about *what* (on "right of return"? hint, its not the Israelis!). On "right to exist" it would seem obvious that this is all or nothing, but in in fact the Oslo Accord signed in 1999, Arafat agreed to Israels right to exists but his parties (Fatah) charter still has not had the offensive element calling for Israel's destruction removed, even though it is officially. This was good enough for Shimon Peres. Fatah down, Hamas to go.

 

By agreeing to this compromise, do you think that Peres was making Israel "commit suicide?"

Right of return of those who became refugees cosequent to refusing UN division of old Palestine into two states...Compensate them and enable them to try again... ? Are you serious?

Do you see no compromise here whatsoever? I personally absolutely agree with the position that those that left took the risk in believing their leaders in 1948, and they did so of their own volition, and thus have no right to get all of their property back. Its also true though that the property that was left was taken and used to the benefit of the new owners. Maybe that was justified compensation, but maybe its a point on which some modest salve can be applied to a festering--if not justified--wound. There have been proposals by some in the Labor party to allow extremely limited rights for former Arab residents to immigrate, capped annually--just as *most* countries do--to avoid a flood of Palestinians who would indeed become a majority voting block (and quite frankly with no place to live).

 

Is anything other than absolute refusal to allow entry to former Palestinian residents of Israel under any circumstances as is now the law, "committing suicide?"

the main reason Hamas does not move ahead with recognizing Israel is pressure from Iran

Is this news to Economist and to you?

No, but its news to much of the rest of the world! And do you know why they don't listen to it? Because some of the people who say it *seemingly* show the same level of intransigence as the current Iranian government does.

 

Refusal to listen and refusal to talk leads people to question your motives, no matter *how* noble they are.

 

Now, that gets us to the matter of "getting the terrorists off our back:" Solving the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians does not convince the extremists of anything. This is all about getting the moderates in the Arab world to stop *backing* them. Pitying the poor Palestinians is a *cause celebre*, it serves no purpose to terrorists like al Queda except as a recruiting and money rasing tool. OBL couldn't care less about the Palestinians, but this side-show is his biggest money-maker. Same for Ahmadinejad and the clerics in Iran.

 

Take it away and they lose influence, power and money.

 

No its not black and white. No its not instantaneous. You don't ever get instant gratification even in war though.

Jaw jaw is not better when a war is the ONLY way to survive. I'm talking from personal experiences going back also to WW2 in Europe.

It would sound as if you do see this as WWII, and if so, why doesn't Israel finish it off and drive the Palestinans into the sea and Jordan/Lebannon? Do you see the problem of blindly carring out the logical conclusions of absolutist positions? Or do you see a middle ground?

And, again, Buffy: Please forgive me for being a nudnick.

I do! Please don't take this personally! I'm trying to make points that might be uncomfortable: I'm just trying to get you to consider the possibilities.

I still now wonder if you might suggest briefly a beginning of how to go about "trying to discuss what the various approaches might be". What and how might who "discuss" with Whom in order to start a process leading to cessation of what kinds of terror where etc.,...

I'm doing that right here! I'm trying to get someone who (I hope) represents the Israeli middle to discuss what some of the alternatives are to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. I've talked extensively about the fact that its the *moderate majority*--who care mostly about survival and living in peace--that you need to talk to because:

 

Extremists never listen.

 

We have alliances in the Arab world, and I've listed them (Egypt, most of the states on the Arab Penninsula, Indonesia, Jordan, etc.) that are moderate in their direction, but need support from the other side in order to justifiably move to the middle. This is done by removing any "cause" the extremists use to exploit hearts and minds.

 

This has been done before in Ireland: the US used to be a huge underground contributor to the IRA. The UK was really good at publicizing the human cost of the bombings. They took measures (including releasing "criminals") to avoid the "side shows" of Bobby Sands and the Hungerstrikers that made moderate folks see the UK as "intransigent." They leaned on the Protestants hard to get them to sign peace accords that gave up "sacred rights" like proof of the destruction of weapons on the part of the IRA.

 

This is called peaceful compromise, and its resulted in--finally--peace. I hardly think that the Brits and Irish are mentally superior to the Israelis and Palestinians, and have hopes that an accord can be found there too.

 

It all starts with listening.

 

Now, I've presented my proposals and historical data backing it up. How about responding in kind? What are your proposals? I'm happy to listen to them! I might even surprise you and *agree* with some of them! :D

 

Would you like some ice creams Big Ears,

Buffy

 

P.S. None of this should matter at all, but I thought I'd mention that a big chunk of my family is Jewish and I have very close friends in northern Israel who enjoyed having rockets land in their front yard this fall. I'm hardly a Palestinian apologist!

[sebbysteiny]

Is anything other than absolute refusal to allow entry to former Palestinian residents of Israel under any circumstances as is now the law, "committing suicide?"

 

Yes.

 

I think you are getting it now. There really is no difference between accepting the right of return and putting a gun to the head of and shooting half of the Israeli Jews and throwing the other half into the mediteranian sea to swim for their life.

 

Any partial acceptance of the right of return that does NOT lead directly to the above WILL be refused by the Palestinians, who would rather all die myrters than 'surrender their national rights'.

[Buffy]

There really is no difference between accepting the right of return and putting a gun to the head of and shooting half of the Israeli Jews and throwing the other half into the mediteranian sea to swim for their life.

No, I'm not getting it, but neither are you. I know you do not think there is any possibility that a Palestinian government will ever agree to this. That's your opinion, its also evidence of your opinion of Palestinians in general:

Any partial acceptance of the right of return that does NOT lead directly to the above WILL be refused by the Palestinians, who would rather all die myrters than 'surrender their national rights'.

Never? Why? I support strong defense by Israel of their rights, and the refusal of Israel to accept "full right of return."

 

You continue to ignore the point here: a modest proposal from Israel takes the wind out of the view that Israel is being "unreasonable" and gets those in the middle to start to question their extremists.

 

To insist that "the Palestinians will never agree to this" is what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy. It also betrays unwillingness to listen and compromise. Why should the other side compromise if you don't show willingness to?

 

Again, the real problem is that people are not listening.

 

What is the alternative? As I asked Dov, if it really is hopeless, then isn't the only solution to anihillate every Palestinian and Arab? You seem to be saying that no matter what we do, every last one of them will try to kill us, so why not just nuke them and get it over with? Do you advocate this? Or something else?

 

I've quoted two of the greatest warriors of the 20th century, above advocating talk/peace, who specifically had to deal with one of the most justifiable wars in history. Are you saying Churchill and George S. Patton were foolish peaceniks?

 

Take calculated risks. That is quite different from being rash, :D

Buffy

[PsyCho]

There are over 100 definitions of the word terrorist, and the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence. All sides a guilty to this (by sides I'm referring to whatever conflict you choose to project into that space).

 

Surely the definition of terrorist is dependent on the view point of the observer/accusor (a lot like madness), and is a term we should strive to AVOID if we are going to make any progress? The reasons it is being used more and more (with enemy/illegal combatant), is that then you are then not restrained by the Geneva convention in your actions, hardly progress!

 

Extremist play on the hardships of others... The harder it is for a moderate person to survive, the more likely they are to support the extreme element in that society (think back to wind and sails)....

[infamous]

Any partial acceptance of the right of return that does NOT lead directly to the above WILL be refused by the Palestinians, who would rather all die myrters than 'surrender their national rights'.

Not only is this statement highly presumptuous, it most certainly is false. No way would ALL be willing to myrter themselves. Many of our members have already made the point that much of your opinionated delivery is not only unsubstantiated but bias to the point of bordering on racism. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence, abstain from making them.........................................Infy

[TheFaithfulStone]

Any partial acceptance of the right of return that does NOT lead directly to the above WILL be refused by the Palestinians, who would rather all die myrters than 'surrender their national rights'.

 

I doubt very much that this is true.

 

Given the choice between something and nothing, they choose ... nothing?

 

TFS

[TheFaithfulStone]

There are over 100 definitions of the word terrorist, and the only general characteristic generally agreed upon is that terrorism involves violence and the threat of violence. All sides a guilty to this (by sides I'm referring to whatever conflict you choose to project into that space).

 

A terrorist is a person who attacks civilians because they are civilians.

 

Killing civilians on accident doesn't make you a terrorist. Killing civilians because they're in the way doesn't make you a terrorist. Killing soliders doesn't make you a terrorist. All of these things may make you a lousy person, or the enemy, or a bad shot, but not a terrorist.

 

TFS

[Dov Henis]

A honest frank confessional statement:

 

I quit this thread. Fed up. Exasperated.

 

Why do I quit?

 

- Many of its postings deal with the past and current daily experiences of myself, my family and my community, by forum mates who have never lived here and undergone similar experiences. I decline, respectfully, outsiders' judgements about our past and present situations and their advice re future conducts-plans of affairs, re the future of my family and community in matters - literally - of life and death and maimings.

 

- My attitude towards the present format of this thread's posts has evolved into nausea, as it now appears to me - rightly or wrongly - a salon 'pseudo-sophisticated-clever-cute devil's- advocate-managed game, applied to a most serious grave matter. For me this is in bad taste.

 

- I have several additional reasons, of lesser importance ( including * the inherent subjective nature of evidences in this subject + * I cannot clear more than circa 1.5 hrs/day of my time for forums...).

 

The bottom line is that I QUIT THIS THREAD, with full sincere respect to all its participants.

 

Arrivederci in other threads, I hope,

 

Dov

[jackson33]

Dov; you dealing with a scared social structure, dedicated to a passive social structure and non-interference of political or social events in the world. Mr. Bush, most of his administration and about half the US public behind closed doors, understand your argument w/o reservations...

 

PhyCho; when referring to the current problems the definition of "terrorist" is to create terror among a populace, that will not bend to a particular view. in this case; to convert to Islam and denounce your current religious beliefs, or be killed. no one, including me says all Muslims agree, but if they do not, they become part of the group which is to be terrorized. my logic says if the terrorist show signs of victory most with that current philosophy will celebrate regardless of what the pacifist think.

[sebbysteiny]

Not only is this statement highly presumptuous, it most certainly is false. No way would ALL be willing to myrter themselves. Many of our members have already made the point that much of your opinionated delivery is not only unsubstantiated but bias to the point of bordering on racism. Unless you can back up your claims with evidence, abstain from making them.........................................Infy

You misread my statement.

 

1) If you look at the pattern of offers, refusals and also the private discussions on the right of return amongst Palestinians, all offers that do not grant them a majority in Israel will be and have been refused. The only exception was the 'geneva accords' (if I remember right) which was clarified by the Fatah leadership as being 'only a ploy to topple Sharon's government and there is no way they would actually make those concessions. Of course this was in Arabic to the Palestinian people not in English to Western audiences.

 

2) Not ALL the Palestinains will be willing to Myrter themselves (obviously). What I meant was that all political leaders capable of holding power are completely united in the fact that they would rather have endless war than 'surrender their national rights' to destroy Israel and / or commit the genocide of every Jew there even if this means the killing of almost all Palestinians, which they would regard as 'myrters'.

 

3) Any political leader who says otherwise will almost certainly lose the support of the people.

 

4) As a monitor, I expect more politeness and diplomacy in your posts. You may monitor hypography. But I monitor the posts I chose to consider and reply and not to consider and reply to. Let me guess, neg rep :eek: .

 

My next post will ignore Israel Palestine and get back to the issue of providing evidence of the nature and extent of conservative Islam as challenged to do so by Buffy.

[InfiniteNow]

Popularity doesn't make something right. While the points above about the current sociopolitical climate in the US may have validity, it in no way means that this ideology is what will help us move forward as a society. We all share this planet, and it's time for some serious revision of our biases.

[sebbysteiny]

Any partial acceptance of the right of return that does NOT lead directly to the above WILL be refused by the Palestinians, who would rather all die myrters than 'surrender their national rights'.

 

I doubt very much that this is true.

 

Given the choice between something and nothing, they choose ... nothing?

 

TFS

 

Okay, last post on this issue.

 

You doubt it, and I wish it were false, but your summery is absolutely correct.

 

I doubted it too. But that was before I discovered the true extent of the hate Palestinians have for Israel's Jews. Before I made the discovery, I never believed such hate was actually possible.

 

Goldier Mayer said it best. 'There will never be peace until the Arabs learn to love their children more than they hate Israels'.

 

I think though it is a bad use of the neg rep when you use it on an opinion simply because you disagree with it.

[TheFaithfulStone]

Well, you brought it up.

 

You don't get negreps for having unpopular opinions, you get negreps for making outrageous universal statements without any support.

 

You don't get negreps for doing it once.

 

TFS