It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Asymmetric Warfare: Why Palestinians are not "terrorists" and Israelis are not "monsters"

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:21 AM
link   
I have not had the urge to post on ATS in the past. I have been content reading the posts of the educated and informed on this website. This outlook changed earlier this week when the Israeli/Palestinian aid situation arose. I have witnessed many statements of negativity(I do not like to use the word hate) against either side or more in this recent incident.

The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is a typical scenario of Asymmetric Warfare. To begin, I will give a short description of how this particular type of warfare is defined.

Asymmetric Warfare is a type of conflict where one belligerent outstrips the other belligerent in resources such as manpower, training, logistics, technology, and conventional strategy and tactics. A belligerent that opposes an opponent with the above advantages uses strategy and tactics that would be labeled as unconventional warfare, terrorism, violent civilian resistance, atrocity, and guerrilla warfare. I want to make it clear that I am not an expert in this matter. I admit that I may have unwittingly excluded strategical and tactical doctrines related to this aspect of warfare that I am unaware of.

One other all important strategy for all sides in an Asymmetrical Conflict is propaganda.

The concept of propaganda is what I want to focus on with this post. Both the Israelis and the Palestinians have committed acts of war that each side denounces as atrocity. The allies of the belligerent back up the statements made by their ally, for the most part. Any belligerent in this type of conflict will seize the opportunity to use propaganda against their adversary. In the case of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, each belligerent uses propaganda to gain supporters for said belligerents cause. I am sure that many people on this forum are aware of the atrocities committed by either side in this conflict so I will not belabor them in this post. Propaganda is a most effective tool in this type of conflict. It riles the emotions and allows a person or group's blood to boil to the point that they believe that the belligerent they support is most assuredly in the right for the acts that they commit. I have witnessed numerous posts this past week that support this statement that I have made.

Propaganda, however, can only go as far as the recipients allow it. Many people say that there are only two sides to a story. People can side with one side or the other. I believe that is false. They can also side with the arbitrators of a conflict. People can demand - and the arbitrators can support the demand - that all sides of a conflict reach an amicable solution. There is the possibility of such a solution in the Middle East. The barriers to such a solution are onlookers taking sides, a belligerent refusing to accept the peace offers of the other combatants(in this case, each side refusing to accept or negotiate any terms that are not directly beneficial to one side and only that side), and most importantly, arbitrators that have the courage and resolve to impart humanitarian WILL on belligerents of a conflict that will not cooperate. This last point that I have described is why this conflict, and others, continue. For whatever reasons member nations of the UN do not want this or other conflicts to end. I may sound like a naive fool for saying that only the impartial citizens of the planet can force their respective governments to action regarding this conflict, or others.

The main reason that I created this post was to hope that those reading it will be able to dismiss biased stances toward one side or the other. Observing situations with neutrality, objectivity, and without bias can put situations into a certain perspective. I try my best to support a situation that ends in benefit to all rather than a situation that benefits only a certain group. Also, conduct research into this aspect of warfare not only for these two combatants but all others unfortunate enough to live through it.




posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


Gotta give you and S and F for your deeply thoughtful post.

My stance is that I hate all warmongers - no racism there.



posted on Jun, 6 2010 @ 10:13 AM
link   
reply to post by My_Reality
 


Star and flag for you for attempting to bring objectivity back to the debate.

Unfortunatly, most of the posters that post regarding this debate seem not to care for being objective, infact it doesn't suit their argument to be so.

I understand where alot of the blind hatred comes from though; when you feel strongly about something it is difficult to consider you may be wrong. In some cases impossible.



 
3

log in

join