Is it possible for "terrorists" to change their ways ?

In the 1970's, Jimmy Carter arranged a truce between Anwar Sadat of Egypt and Menachem Begin of Israel. In his younger days, Begin was known as a "terrorist" by some. But, he changed. He became the leader of Israel.

So, if it is possible for Begin to change his ways, is it possible for the Hamas and Hezbollah "terrorists" to change also. Or will they be terrorists for the rest of their lives? Should we work with the better angels or assume the worst forever?

I'm just saying....

Countries have begun on fighting and then conforming and then being...

and they know they're winning.

Bush is the catalyst.

...no.

But seriously...

All destructive anti-social behavior can be changed. One of the problems is in the addictive nature of any repetitive action, no matter how irrational. Once a pattern of thinking/acting has developed, whether initially in response to an outside influence or internal problems, the nature of biochemical/psychological feedback is such that such patterns are very difficult to break. Over time, if the exterior or interior conflict is lessened, the chances of behavioral change become more likely. But the individual needs to consciously recognize the addictive response to see his/her own part in the pathology.

It's not easy. But the first step is in recognizing where the problem truly lies, within oneself.

that rebeled against British rule would have been considered terrorists.

We would have considered the VC terrorists, the North Vietnamese (and some Southern) considered them "freedom fighters".


It's not necessarily the people who change or not, it's one's perspective.

Hamas and Hezbollah get a lot of support because they offer what many see as the only hope for justice. If the Israeli's sincerely wanted peace and stability, rather than post 1967 land, water, and military dominance they could quickly destroy the sole reason for existence of Hamas and Hezbollah.

The only policy that will guarantee Israel's long term existence is to:

1. Unilaterally go back to the EXACT pre-1967 borders.
2. Generously compensate Palestinians for property lost in the establishment of Israel, in lieu of a "right of return."
3. Assist the newly formed Palestinian state in developing it's infrastructure.
4. Make no demands on neighboring countries about their internal affairs.
5. Maintain a strong, mobile military.
6. Expect and tolerate a surge of terrorist acts until the Palestinian state starts generating prosperity for it's people. Once that happens, the Palestinians themselves will stop the terrorism.

An independent, solid, prosperous Palestinian state is the key to Israel's survival. That removes all serious grievances against them.

and if Olmert or Bush had any foresight this is the strategy they would purse, instead of the shortsighted "we'll show them who's boss" bullshit.

7. Draft volunteers for the period of genocide that will follow and tolerate such genocide, until the bloodlust of their neighbors is sated.

Where in your post is any compromise by anyone but Israel? Interesting.

It is an attempt by the politically institutionalized (who terrorize with their armies and weapons in pursuit of their political goals)

to distinguish themselves from

the disenfranchised (who terrorize with homemade and improvized weapons in pursuit of their political goals).

In either case, if one's terror is sufficient to attain one's political goals, one can then cease being a terrorist. In some cases, as with the founders of the United States of America, a terrorist can even be recast as a hero.

If, on the other hand, one's terror fails, the institutionalized terrorist becomes a war criminal and the suicide bomber (or guerilla or insurgent or whatever) remains forever villified as a terrorist.

Any distinction between state terror (whether war or coercion) and private terror is 100% in the eye of the beholder.

you are absolutely correct

... there is no evidence that he changed his opinions in the secret back-room meetings.

Once a person thinks they can get what they want by force, they will always try force to get it... There are other forms of terrorism other than armed military conflict.

It is used so shamelessly as a term of propaganda that it is totally useless.

I'm always the glorious defender of freedom. The other guy is always the terrorist.