And which column it was and what specifically he said that caused you to change your mind?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:I am curious whether Orson's columns have changed anyone's mind?
Yes, but I keep buying his wonderful books anyway.
Posted by S. Claus (Member # 6025) on :
A general columnist's goal isn't to change minds, it's to comment on society according to his/her opinion.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
I saw American Beauty, but haven't felt like seeing it again after reading OSC's review on it. Does that count? Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Well, his opinions do make me think. I wish we could sit together and have lunch and debate in a friendly sort of manner. It helps me to see things from another perspective. A more conservative perspective... And it helps me see how unconservative I can be.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Nicely said, Syn. Posted by UofUlawguy (Member # 5492) on :
His columns have made me less knee-jerk in my reactions to Bush. I still dislike almost everything about him, but not automatically. Before I decide I hate what he's doing, I at least stop and think about it first.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
His columns have often formulated ideas I had, and added to them, but never made me turn 180.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
What Bob said. I'm still amazed how a guy can seem so rational and well-spoken in his novels and face-to-face meetings, yet still be as vitrolic as OSC can be in his War Watch columns.
I was particularly amused when he needed some way to attack the Supreme Court for their decision that states can't actively persecute homosexuals, and went all the way back to Marbury vs. Madison. Heh.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I wonder how he can be so... Right... and acting like Bush can do no wrong. And how he splits the world in good and evil. It's puzzling...
Posted by LadyDove (Member # 3000) on :
I agree with what Syn and Eddie said.
I'll admit that he has made me an avid "shopping cart putter backer" though.
[ December 30, 2003, 02:33 AM: Message edited by: LadyDove ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
I don't read OSC's columns any more. It's bad enough that I can't appreciate his novels now; if I continued reading his views, my apathy might turn to active dislike, and then I'd feel terrible for continuing to post here.
I like the bits where he talks about day to day life (food and such), though. He has an engaging non-fiction voice. Pity what it's saying normally pisses me off.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
*scratches head* *goes back and searches for something offensive*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
ae,
If you only listen to messages that appeal to you, what exactly are you learning?
I disagree with much that OSC says in his political writing and about 1/2 of what he says in his social commentary. But getting angry about it isn't really a useful reaction, IMHO. I don't mean to say that it isn't okay to be angry, I guess getting angry to the point of no longer listening is counter-productive.
I think reading the views I haven't liked here at Hatrack has helped me hone my opinions. It has certainly made me more aware of which parts of my opinions are based on facts and which are based on something less certain.
It also helps to know the main thrust of counter arguments and which of those are based in fact versus something less certain.
I don't really enjoy arguing, so I tend to stop posting in any of the threads discussing these various opinions once I've said my peace. But every once in awhile I can't let go of it. And then I get all worked up and vow never to listen to another word! But that's my problem, not the authors'.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
Sometimes he changes my mind.
If I see that he and I agree on a subject, I'm likely to look for flaws in my position. Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes. One thing.
He persuaded me that a government that does not place the highest value on the welfare of its own people - as opposed to humanity in general - is a traitorous government. As individuals, we should be concerned with humanity in general, but a government is a servant of the people, and if that government sells out the security of its own people for the security of another nation's, they are betraying the trust.
This is NOT to say I support any curtailing of rights, nor that the above is an excuse to treat the rest of the world like dirt. It does mean that if the Israeli government took NO action against the suicide bombers, it would be treason.
[ December 30, 2003, 10:29 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by ae (Member # 3291) on :
Bob, there is no shortage of opposing views in this world. The absence of OSC's columns in my diet is not going to make my mind wither away.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I dislike the writing style itself more than the actual content of the columns. I think that op-ed writing is largely a waste of time, and much prefer to read essay-style writing (in which, by convention, facts and figures are referenced). I get a lot more out of that sort of thing because I can then pursue things further on my own if I so choose. I also appreciate it when a writer takes the time to document and support his or her argument with data.
Basically, I don't like op-ed because I see it as the Bowling for Columbine of writing (or rather, Bowling is the op-ed of film). As a consequence, I read the Ornery forum, but not the columns (as a general rule).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That bit with the suicide bombers is actually a subtle false dichotomy, by the implication that what the Israeli government is doing now is somehow a minimal response, and the only lesser response is no response. The Israeli government's response is extreme and counterproductive, and should be reformed. Its actions are not justified.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Baloney.
I'm not saying they are taking the best action, or that the current response is the only one possible.
However, taking action to defend themselves is fine. I've seen Bob say on this forum before that he'd rather a few civilian Americans die than thousands of citizens of another country. That's fine - it's humanitarian and perfectly legitimate point of view.
But if the President said/thought that, or if anyone that is entrusted with the government of a nation was willing to sacrifice a few of their own citizens for the citizens of other nations, it would be sheer treason and they should be removed from office as soon as possible. You don't get to play out private morality with the public trust. If you have been commisioned to provide for the common welfare of the people, to do otherwise - no matter how noble the reasoning - is treason.
[ December 30, 2003, 11:44 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:He persuaded me that a government that does not place the highest value on the welfare of its own people - as opposed to humanity in general - is a traitorous government. As individuals, we should be concerned with humanity in general, but a government is a servant of the people, and if that government sells out the security of its own people for the security of another nation's, they are betraying the trust.
Not entirely true... Morally, it is in my interest to be concerned about the well-being of other people. Otherwise, I wouldn't be a very good person. And since it is in every person's interest to be concerned about the well-being of other people, the government must protect those interests by acting in consideration of the interests of others. Thus, it is hurting its own people (morally) if it unjustly holds the physical security of its people over the well-being of the world as a whole.
Or, in other words, if America acts selfishly, it means I am acting selfishly, since America represents me. And since being too selfish harms me in a moral sene, America harms me if it acts too selfishly.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm not saying that the government is justified in acting immorally.
But the government is a represetator entrusted with protecting the nation. If another nation's citizens are taking a higher priority than its own citizens, they are betraying that trust.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Javert - Then you don't approve of being a part of the United Nations' humanitarian projects which put US citizens at risk?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
So, what part of what I said supports that?
Soldiers are different - they have a different social contract with their government. Volunteers are different - they are voluntarily giving up their safety. Humanitarian projects are fine. They are voluntary, and there is a lot of room in the federal budget for many different priorities.
But the highest priority must, by sacred trust, be the safety of its own citizens.
[ December 30, 2003, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
quote:if anyone that is entrusted with the government of a nation was willing to sacrifice a few of their own citizens for the citizens of other nations, it would be sheer treason
You worded it differently from "I've seen Bob say on this forum before that he'd rather a few civilian Americans die than thousands of citizens of another country."
Your understanding of Bob Scopatz seems that he's thinking on War terms (which he was, when he said that). And you're thinking on very general terms. All things equal, a US citizen is worth more than a citizen of another country.
So, does this mean that a government should always have an Ulterior Motive? As in, a government may never do anything "Just Because It's Good" like humanitarian aid, when it would possibly jeopardize US lives?
Editing in response to your edit: Lets ignore volunteers. Can the US government _send_ troops for humanitarian purposes as a command?
[ December 30, 2003, 12:09 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Volunteer troops. Not the draft.
[ December 30, 2003, 12:15 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
isn't there something between Volunteer and Draft?
like, the government issues a command and says, 'hey you, [insert unit of army here] must go to this other nation and help out.'
No go? Every time it's humanitarian they're supposed to say, "okay guys, who wants to help out? here's a pamphlet about the current problem, and the list of risks to yourself. Sign-up sheet's on the right."
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Suneum, soldiers have a different sort of social contract with their government. They aren't merely civilians.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Ahem. Pleeeeez spell my name correctly.
Thanks.
But you said "Citizens" not "Civilians." I think you're going to have to restate your position with Civilians and Military treated differently.
Posted by jamesdotcom (Member # 5308) on :
As much as I love OSC's novels, I rarely ever agree with his War Watch columns, and a lot of his OSC Reviews Everything columns can be really mean and nasty.
So yeah, they're starting to make his books harder to enjoy. Or maybe the quality of his books has been deteriorating also...?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:Soldiers are different - they have a different social contract with their government.
Semantic parlor games.
[ December 30, 2003, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by jamesdotcom (Member # 5308) on :
By the way, I'm glad that other people seem to feel the same way... in my many months of lurking here, I don't remember seeing anyone comment on OSC's columns - I was beginning to think that it was just me.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I don't think this is just a semantic game. You're changing the rules.
If you're basing this off of Bob's original comment, then we were talking about troops in War. How the government treats its troops seems to be vital to this discussion on the Worth of Citizens' Lives. Who else gets thrown into perilous situations more than troops?
If you refuse to restate your position, then I will.
It seems that you believe that US Civilian lives are worth more than other nations' citizens, and therefore the government cannot draft civilians into humanitarian conflicts. However, US Military have already agreed to let the govt use them as needed, therefore the US can throw them into humanitarian problems. It is not treasonous for the US govt to use troops in hazardous situations to protect the lives of other nations' citizens.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
And I'm off to lunch. Someone else can jump in if they want.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Are you deliberately misunderstanding everything? What on earth are you talking about?
OSC convinced me that a government has the responsibility to protect its citizens. To neglect that responsiblity - no matter how noble the reasons may be - is a traitorous act. An individual has the freedom to value someone else's life over his own, but a government does not have the freedom to value to lives of citizens of other countries over the lives of the citizens of the country that has imbued it with its powers.
What part of that do you disagree with?
[ December 30, 2003, 12:48 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Don't let me distract you from the current conversation, but I thought I'd respond to a response to me.
Kat, I agreed with you that taking some action was justified. It doesn't change that the argument OSC put forward for the justification of their current actions was a false dichotomy. He argued that they were justified in doing something, then jumped to stating that thus their current actions were justified.
Baloney indeed. If that argument were logical I could use it to justify the mass genocide of Palestinians. The justifiability of a particular response must always be made in consideration of that response, and not merely of the justifiability of a response in general.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, it looked like you were saying that what I was saying was a false dichotomy.
Okay, that I agree with. I don't think our only choices are obliterate or die, or anything close. OSC did convince me, however, that first searching for a way to end the violence was the only honorable course possible for the Israeli government to take.
In other words, it isn't the Isreali government's responsibility to leave their borders open to suicide bombers because closing them might hurt the Palestinian economy.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'd point out that the "Palestinians" whose economy it might hurt are Israeli citizens (or at least residents, I'm not quite sure of their legal status, but I'm pretty sure they're citizens).
And its not so much their economy as their livelihood, quite literally. As in, what keeps them alive. Palestinians (Israeli citizens) are impoverished, homeless, and starving because of those walls.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Hey Javert, I'm not putting together a false dichotomy (if that comment was directed at me), nor do I think I'm misunderstanding you, nor have I actually put forth my own opinion in this conversation.
You keep saying that the govt has a duty to protect its citizens' lives over other nations' peoples. But I'm trying to dig at this question of whether or not the govt can send off troops for a Good Cause. At first, it sounds like you don't think they can, because it jeopardizes their own citizens. But you say that military have a different contract with the govt, so the govt _can_ send them off.
You're going to have to be a little more explicit on what you understand/think I misunderstand. I've tried to be verbose in my descriptions, which may make them a little confusing I admit.
(edit: spelling mistake)
[ December 30, 2003, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu: But alive.
Impoverished and struggling, but still alive. If the wall works to cut down on the bombs against civilians, then they are alive to struggle. If it doesn't work, then they need to try another tactic.
quote:nor have I actually put forth my own opinion in this conversation.
Then put forth an opinion.
Anyone can nitpick and twist someone else's words. Come on - take a stand.
[ December 30, 2003, 01:16 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I will as SOON as I figure out exactly what you believe.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
You need to know what I think before you know what you think?
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
Dude. This started with a simple question on the US's involvement with UN humanitarian aid. And I still can't say that I know what you'd answer. I've stated twice what I think you believe with regards to military use by the govt. But you haven't agreed or disagreed. Do that, then I'll answer your question.
Edit: Upon looking upwards, I realized that you edited a previous post so that it looks like you actually answered it the first time around. I hadn't read it. So don't blame me on that one.
[ December 30, 2003, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Oh, no question. I've stated my position. I'm fine.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Impoverished, starving, and dead. The only reason many Palestinians aren't starving now is the large amount of emergency aid: http://www.wfn.org/2000/12/msg00141.html .
Additionally, many of them are dead already. Last I checked, more Palestinians were killed by the Israeli government than non-Palestinian Israelis.
Posted by Suneun (Member # 3247) on :
I now declare you lame for changing actual text in a reply with the Edit button.
I believe that while the current govt may hold all its citizens in greater worth than citizens of other nations, I would support a nation that chose wisely in using its resources for "Good Causes" even when that puts the lives of US military or government personnel at risk.
Edit: I find your editing annoying
[ December 30, 2003, 01:42 PM: Message edited by: Suneun ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
More parlor games. There's no pointing fingers. And I'm much too lazy to tweak evidence for a non-existant audience. I assure you Hatrack is not keeping score.
----
Good. An opinon. I could even agree with that.
[ December 30, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
fugu, if Arafat and other PLO officials would stop diverting money meant for their impoverished people, it would help a lot more.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I completely agree. Both sides are highly in the wrong.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
>> Kat, I agreed with you that taking some action was justified. <<
Has Kat posted to this thread?
*gasp*
Is JH Kat?
*formulates conspiracy theories*
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Better break out the tin-foil hat again.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
Palestinians who stayed in Israel are Israeli citizens, with equal rights.
Palestinians in the territories are not citizens.
I wish someone would please explain to me why it is Israeli's fault that the Palestinian economy is suffering. There are over a dozen other countries in the region that could trade with them, including Jordan.
For years, Israelis employed Palestinians. Then Palestinians started randomly blowing up Israelis. It was no longer safe for Israelis to leave the borders as open as they were. This made it hard for Palestinians to get to work (in some cases impossible). The Palestinian economy started suffering because of Palestinian actions, not Israeli.
Sometime I have to laugh at the games that people will play to try to assign guilt to those they think should be guilty, whether they are or not.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
A great part of the economic problem in the Palestinian Territory falls squarely on the shoulders of Yassir Arafat. A little while back, it came to light that he had been skimming huge amounts of money from the country and its received foreign aid.
In addition, he has set up state monopolies on things such as fuel, putting cronies in charge of these monopolies. They, in turn, give money back to Arafat directly.
If I recall from the 60 minutes report, it is estimated that Arafat's personal fortune ranges in the $35 Billion zone.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu, that's the point. The Isreali government is NOT in the wrong. They are protecting their people, the Palestinians living in the territories are not their people, and if they want free access to Isreal, then their leadership needs to end the suicide bombings.
There are many opportunities for finger-pointing, but protecting its people is the highest duty and priority of the Israeli government. By cutting off the source of the bombers, they are only doing what they are mandated to do. It may be ineffective. It may have undesirable consequences. It may be a sad, sad necessity. But if it works, it isn't wrong, no matter how many people in the territories lose jobs over it.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
GradStudent...that was such a gross oversimplification of the situation that I can't even begin to address all that you left out.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Bob, you can't hit and run like that, though. If you disagree with her, I'd love to hear exactly why.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
Of course it is a gross oversimplification. A full explanation would take hours, if not days.
However, I still remain curious if anyone can explain why other countries (such as Jordan or Egypt, which both border) are not held responsible for the economic crisis as well.
I would suggest that the other Arab countries do not employ Palestinians because they get good PR out of the economic situation.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I didn't want to completely derail the thread, but here's a start:
1) The current boundaries are arbitrary. 2) There are Palestinians still living in refugee camps within the Israeli borders because they refuse to accept the criminally small settlements offered to them by the government. 3) The vast majority of citizens of Israel and Palestine aren't involved in terrorism or land grabs. They generally want peace and are no more responsible for terrorism than you or I are. Yet they all suffer for it. 4) The response of Israel to terrorism is essentially racist -- branding all Palestinians. 5) Israel has for most of its history considered the Palestinian territories to belong to them to do with as they please. To claim that the Palestinians are anything but an occupied state is to ignore the history of the region since WWII. 6) Israel, without donations from the West would be a dustbowl just like the majority-Palestinian areas. 7) Israel has had the opportunity to invest in the areas that are non-jew but belong to it and has not done so, with the exception of the abhorrent practice of locating Jewish settlements on land claimed by ethnic Palestinians.
Should I go on?
There's plenty of stupid, criminal and just plain horrid things to tally against the Palestinians as well. I don't really feel like going through it all here.
The point is that both sides are composed of mostly peace-loving people led by some of the worst most corrupt and certainly racist and screwed up by religious-biases governments on the planet.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Yes, go on, but with the list of Palestinian grievances. I'm not convinced you see them as heinous.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, sorry GS, we posted at the same time. I agree with much of what you just said. In fact, there's a feeling among many Palestinians that their cause is unlikely to be taken up by other Arabs for a variety of reasons including the one you cite.
There's also poverty.
With the exception of the Saudis, there isn't a country there that has a large enough economy to truly assist Palestine. And, from the point of view of making a real investment, as opposed to just giving aid and never expecting any return, Palestine is a bad bet. At any moment, whatever a 3rd party government helped implement there could be taken over by the Israelis without compensation. It's a very poor climate in which to invest.
And that's partly the Israeli government's fault too. They have a history of not respecting property rights of non-jews. So, why would anyone put their capital into that market?
So, the only way Palestine gets anything is in the form of handouts.
Add to that the blatant corruption of the Palestinian Authority (which basically siphons money off to build fine houses for the elite party members) and there's really not much that can be done there beyond the good old hand out.
It's not all Israel's fault by a long stretch. Sadly, there's plenty of blame to go around. But that doesn't absolve Israel of its own actions either.
The soon-to-be-completed fence is a case in point.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Kat, what do you mean?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I mean you have energy to list all the things Isreal has done wrong, but listing what the Palestinians have done wrong is too much of a bother. If you're going to try to paint a picture of the situation, that's an alarmingly large chunk of missing information.
In other words, I know you're sympathetic to the Palestinians. I'd love to hear your take on their culpability.
As for the fence, is there another way to immediately address the fact that suicide bombers are coming over in droves? It isn't a long-term solution, but in the short-term, the government must do SOMETHING. There have been almost 600 civilians killed in the last three years by suicide bombers.
[ December 30, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
1) The current boundaries are arbitrary. What boundaries aren't? They are the result of Israel being attacked, defending itself, and then gaining land in that war. They had offered to give back 90+% of it in the Camp David Accords.
2) There are Palestinians still living in refugee camps within the Israeli borders because they refuse to accept the criminally small settlements offered to them by the government. Sure. Ok. So why isn't any other country helping them out? Maybe the countries that started the war that could give them a hand. When has any country had an obligation to help the aggressors?
3) The vast majority of citizens of Israel and Palestine aren't involved in terrorism or land grabs. They generally want peace and are no more responsible for terrorism than you or I are. Yet they all suffer for it. No argument there.
4) The response of Israel to terrorism is essentially racist -- branding all Palestinians. What about all of the Palestinians that are Israeli citizens and get exactly equal rights. You know, the Arabs with the highest standard of living in the Arab world. The racism argument just doesn't hold water.
5) Israel has for most of its history considered the Palestinian territories to belong to them to do with as they please. To claim that the Palestinians are anything but an occupied state is to ignore the history of the region since WWII. Umm...except for when they gave 90%+ to the Palestinians. Or the time when the West Bank was occupied by Jordan.
6) Israel, without donations from the West would be a dustbowl just like the majority-Palestinian areas. Yes. You are 100% right. That money came from American and European Jews for the most part. So why aren't any of the immensely rich Arab countries doing what they can?
7) Israel has had the opportunity to invest in the areas that are non-jew but belong to it and has not done so, with the exception of the abhorrent practice of locating Jewish settlements on land claimed by ethnic Palestinians. I am against the settlements, both for Israeli and Palestinian interests. But there has been plenty of aid money for this kind of thing, including the contributions by Israelis themselves.
Including, in fact, my father. He has given a fair amount of money for a computer science school in Ramallah. Which was staffed by volunteer Israeli dot com workers. And shut down when the Palestinian police said they would not guarantee the safety of the teachers.
Israel is not blameless. But a very large amount of the blame rests squarely on the shoulders of the other Arab countries. And to ignore that is racist and myopic.
There are crazies on both sides, and unfortunately they speak loudly. But the Palestinians would have had their state twenty years ago if they hadn't been terrorists. In fact, right after Israel gained that land they volunteered to give it back. They didn't want it. And the Palestinians turned it down because it wasn't good PR.
I think it is completely reasonable to feel sorry for the Palestinian people who suffer under a corrupt government that is more interested in getting rich than helping their people.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
The fence is a good idea. It's just not in the right place. The settlements have to go. They are bad for the Palestinians.
And in the long run, they are bad for the Israelis. If they are going to take over that territory permanently (the only reason to have settlements in the first place) then they have to give the vote to everyone who lives there. And that would be the end of Israel as a Jewish state.
So many right-wing idiots in Israel. Including the taxi driver I had the other day who was preaching about how important the settlements were while running into about a zillion curbs.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Very well said, Bob.
This is a situation with few good guys, going back to the formation of Israel as a nation.
The problem is, everyone (outside of Israel) wants to pick a side but in doing an Us and Them scenario, you can't fix the problems.
The Palestinian neighbors have attempted to do some things for the Palestinians, most times by starting wars with Israel. And once one goes into the causes just a wee bit, it turns out that what was done in the Palestinians' name was really just done against Israel with little real concern for the Palestinians.
If you look at the terrorist groups working in Palestine, you'll find a very amazing thing... most are not Palestinian organizations. Perhaps on the surface they pay lip service to being Palestinian, but many are supported by Iran, Syria, Egyptian radicals, even Pakistanis. Their reasons run the gamut from the religious to creating buffer zones between Israel and their own countries (i.e. Syria's support of Hezbollah's positions in southern Lebanon).
But, on the other hand, you have got, as Bob aptly said, Israeli settlers who pursue sometimes violent squatters rights in areas that are traditionally and ethnically Palestinian. That intimate proximity is what started the resurgence of major violence back in the 1980s and has led to where we are today.
The US has done what it could, I feel. We've supported Israel in an effort to keep up our involvement in the establishment of the Israeli state. It has also, sadly, served as a testing ground for our weapons systems and given us our best reconnaisance of Soviet-era weapon systems deployed by many Islamic countries.
We have also voiced our opinion that an independent Palestinian Authority should be established and upheld, with guaranteed rights of its citizens and statehood. We've sent money and aid.
But the problem keeps unravelling like a cheap sweater as individuals and organizations pick at any thread they can get their grubby fingers on. Sadly, what can we do after all of this except throw our hands up, urge them to peace but in the end let them fight it out on their own?
It is a sad and tragic thing, no matter which side we look at it from.
Posted by GradStudent (Member # 5088) on :
And lastly, almost any country could help out the Palestinians if they really wanted to. The things they need are hospitals, food, microloans, etc.
My family has always believed that the long-term solution is Palestinian economic development (schools, etc). And they were working towards that end. But obviously, that can't continue now that it is not safe for Israelis or Americans to cross into Palestine. One of my Palestinian friends called me crying the other day because she had to uninvite me to her wedding because it's not safe. Obviously the Israelis can't go into Palestine to build anything without fearing for their lives.
How do you see this mess ending?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I'm sorry - I didn't mean to derail this thread into Israel/Palestine territory. I was trying to find an example where I agree with OSC about a government having an obligation to protect its own citizens first without bringing up the Iraq war, which I do not agree with.
I'd still love to hear Bob's take on Palestinian culpability, though.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:There have been almost 600 civilians killed in the last three years by suicide bombers.
Care to list the number of Palestinian civilians killed by the Israeli military in the last 3 years?
Look, you are attacking me for answering your question. I said I didn't want to get into it, and you feel like unless I prove that I know that there's a balance of blame in the region, that I can't say it.
Then I go ahead and answer the thing about why I think the earlier statement by GS was a gross oversimplification and you jump on me for not wanting to go into all the arguments on the other side.
Do you not know them? Or are you thinking that I'm being intellectually dishonest unless I use a two-column approach and match one bad thing about the Palestinians for every bad thing I list about Israel. When the original point was that making Israel sound blameless (as I thought GS was doing) was a gross oversimplification.
Anyway,
The main problems with the Palestinians' over the years have been:
1) They spent far too much energy complaining about their lost land and far too little energy improving what they did have. Most of the land that was "grabbed" was practically useless and certainly "underutilized." Israel came in, developed it and made it fertile again. The Palestinians could've done that and more had they been willing to swallow their defeat and work hard at something constructive.
2) The choice of Arafat as leader has been a complete disaster. The man is a terrorist. He is corrupt. His cronies are the very model of a goon squad. They squash dissent and, protestations to the contrary there are very few who believe that there isn't a very real quid-pro-quo going on between the PA and groups like Hamas.
3) The Palestinians haven't even tried to counter the terrorists. At least not seriously. And if they can't or won't do it, they have no reason to expect that Israel will just roll over and leave themselves exposed to terror.
4) The Palestinians who left the country and now whine about wanting their land back (or the right of return) are just nuts. They deserve no consideration.
I could think of more, I'm sure, but I suppose this is enough to prove that I think about this stuff in a balanced and equally provocative way towards both sides of complete idiots who have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory time and again since the dawn of recorded history (Abraham being the patriarch honored by both sides).
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Never mind, wrong number, still researching.
Yes, actually, I did want a list of wrongs from both sides. It seems like every source I look up and whatever I get the side from, it's slanted in some way. I know you know a lot about this - I wanted to know what your take on both sides was. Since you do know a lot about it and are willing to go in details for what Israel has done wrong, it felt unfair to not mention the other side.
[ December 30, 2003, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Okay, as long as you're genuinely interested in the answers and not just trying to make me out to be something I'm not.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
I have often suggested that the only way there will ever be peace there is if we just pull out and let them kill each other. However, people seem to have come to the conclusion that I am some kind of ditto-head or other right-wing nut.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I do agree about OSC about Merril Streep and wonder how he'd feel about Emily Watson who is brilliant.
Posted by porcelain girl (Member # 1080) on :
syn--- i remember in his review of punchdrunk love that he liked her. but that was quite a while ago, though i distinctly remember a positive vibe in reference to her. i think she's great, too. ^_^
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think the Israeli government is in the wrong. And many Israeli soldiers agree with me, oddly.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Less than 1% is hardly "many."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Any soldiers willfully disobeying a direct order out of conscience is many, particularly in a highly defense minded society.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
OSC did influence me heavily with one of his columns, but it was to the good.
When my wife and I went in search of a new mattress, I did a Google search on the Tempur-pedic beds. Sure enough, a column that OSC did about Tempur-pedic beds came up. I read it and knew we had to try one.
He was right on the money and we bought one with almost all the works. Within a couple of nights, my wife's chronic back pain had disappeared, my allergies slacked off big time and we've gotten the best nights of sleep you can imagine. He also reviewed the Tempur-pedic pillows saying they were great on regular beds, but not quite as good on the Tempur beds. He was right about that as well.
So yep, there's at least one instance. He's also suggested some great local restaurants in his columns.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*amused* Are you saying that his influence on me was to the bad? I don't think I appreciate that.
Fugu: OSC convinced me that a government has the obligation to protect its citizens, even if protecting its citizens has a deletorious economic effect on the people trying to kill those citizens. What part of that do you disagree with?
[ December 31, 2003, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That OSC persuaded you of it? None. That its correct? None of it.
However, its both a straw man and leads into a false dichotomy on his part. The straw man: NOBODY disagrees with this (there are a few, but nobody who's in a position to make or influence policy, and not many people who aren't)! Its not debated. He states it as if he's delivering some great insight, when this is the presumptive operating principle for the state of at least the past couple hundred years.
Then comes the false dichotomy. He acts like this shows how Israel's current actions are justified. It shows no such thing. Allow me to demonstrate a logically identical argument:
1. States are justified in taking actions to reduce violence against their citizens even if those actions economically harm others.
2. One country, lets call it Laersi, is subject to terrorist attacks, and the terrorists come from a group of people, we'll call them Nainitselap's.
3. Laersi has implemented a policy to lock all Nainitselap's up in concentration camps, where they will be given a minimal diet of bread and water, watched over by guards, executed if they try to escape, and allowed access to no medical care.
4. Since this is an action which fits our above criteria, a country reducing violence against its citizens even though the action is to the economic detriment of others, it is justified.
(I'm not saying this is what Israel has actually done, though they are moving closer and closer to it, but a logically identical argument to the one put forth by OSC).
Baloney! To justify Israel's actions, you must justify them particularly! You can't sweep them all under the "this general sort of action is justified" rug! As the above, ridiculous, argument, shows, there's an important logical step left out: why the action doesn't violate any other principles. Otherwise I could use generally accepted maxims like "you should do what you want to with your life" to justify killing people.
OSC's argument (as are many in his column) to justify Israel's actions did no such thing. He created a position that almost no one has to argue about, then proceeded to act like the only courses of action were what Israel was doing now and doing nothing.
edit for thinly veiled reference consistency.
[ December 31, 2003, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*considers*
So, you agree with my statement - that a nation's first and primary responsibility is to protect its people, not massage the economies of those trying to kill its people - but not with OSC using that statement as a justification for every nasty thing Isreal dreams of doing.
Okay, I agree with that.
With that responsibility in mind, what do you think Isreal should do? Long term, bring peace, of course.
In the immediate, short-term, bombers-are-murdering-civilians-and-their-people-support-and-applaud-them situation, what do you think the Isreali government should do to live up to its responsibility to protect its people?
[ December 31, 2003, 11:40 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
For some reason, with the Palestinian situation, I keep being reminded of Black Jack Pershing's answer to the Mau Mau problem in the Phillipines before WWI.
The Mau Mau were Islamic natives of the Phillipines and decided to revolt against the Americans who had recently received the islands as a post-war concession from the Spanish government.
The situation quickly devolved into a sadly modern guerilla war with the rebels fading into the populace only to swing back out and attack Americans or villages that supported American rule.
Pershing, the commanding general of the US forces, finally had enough of it. He couldn't and wouldn't wipe out villages of the Mau Mau to get at the small numbers who were actually rebels. He did know, however, that the rebels were often supported by the village headmen. So, one day, he took a contingent of soldiers into one of the main villages and arrested the village headman, an old and respected man who was also the local religious leader.
The soldiers then brought up two pigs and slaughtered them in the center of the village and skinned the animals. Pershing turned to the headman of the village and explained very plainly that if the trouble didn't stop from this village, the US troops would come back and sew him up in the pig skins and then shoot him.
This threat worked because it hit the village elders in what was most important to them, their religion. To be placed in a pig skin and then slain would leave them forever unclean and unable to enter Paradise, no matter how they had lived their lives. Pershing basically said, stop the problem or I will consign you to Hell for eternity.
He then went to the next village and did the same. Again and again he did it. The rebellion didn't falter or die down, it collapsed over night.
Should this be done with terrorist groups? I don't know, it's very extreme and so politically incorrect, but it does strike at the core thread that binds so many of these groups together -- religion.
Any thoughts?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, everyone knows the only reason Arafat is still alive is because of the US, right?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I'm kind of doing this based on second-hand information, but if the question is whether or not a state is justified in doing anything at all to protect its citizens, the answer is clearly no.
If it's okay to economically harm another group of people to protect "your own" then we could easily justify denying subgroups of citizens their rights in order to protect us from the few of that group who ARE a threat. We did this with Japanese internment camps during WWII. It was wrong then, and it'd be wrong now, even though some have suggested we try it with Arab Americans. Thankfully, not many have proposed this. Maybe we can learn.
Israel has not learned this lesson. It will, someday. And it will be a painful lesson. Just as our national shame over Japanese internment is painful. It reminds us of our ability to fail when "safety" is used as an excuse to eliminate rights. And it reminds us that we have a strongly racist past, that goes far beyond the sorts of things that were sanctioned during slavery and on up into the 1960's in some parts of this country.
By the way, I didn't say it before because it seemed not to need saying, but this is a good time to point out that a small minority of rich arabs living within the confines of part of Israel's territory does not mean that Israel is not a racist state. It is.
1) The state exists primarily as a state designed for the benefit of the jewish people who live there. Secondary benefits to other ethnic groups do little to ameliorate the basic condition which is that there are two levels of citizenship, and the higher level is almost exclusively the province of one ethnic group.
2) Religion is tied up in it too. Despite the attempts to make the state look like something it is not, the truth is that Israel is also a religious state in many ways. The influence weilded by religious parties within the government is far beyond anything that we would accept as "normal" or "healthy" in American politics, seems to me.
The fact that Israel opened its doors to religious (not ethnic) jews from all over the world and then built settlements for them in the occupied territories is just one clear example of the influence of religion upon that state.
3) The policies Israel is putting forth recently, especially the stupid fence, are purely racist. They attack an entire group of people when there are just a small minority of that ethnic group who are actively seeking the destruction of Israel or want to harm her citizens. If that's not active racism, I guess we need to define the term a little better.
Again... I'm not saying that the Palestinians are blameless or deserve a pass on what goes on there. I think something along the order of a complete crackdown on terrorism is rightly expected of them and they have not even begun to deliver on that.
I do, however, think that the Palestinians are the underdog in this. They have less effective weapons. They are the occupied force. Their towns can be shut down completely by the Israeli army (and are on a routine basis).
So, all told, Israel has become a bully. In a sad mirror of the horrid ways that ethnic and religious jews were treated throughout Europe in the times leading up to the 2nd World War, Israel is not above mistreating people who it rules over in fact if not in name.
That sucks.
Terrorism is not a reasonable response to Israel's actions, though. That sucks too.
If I were in charge, not one dime of US money would go to either country. Private donations by American citizens would be sharply controlled and the two groups would be forced by economics to come to some sort of mutal agreement, or their governments would be removed -- one hopes.
As it sits right now, Arafat will have to die before any progress is even possible. Until then, Israeli voters will keep vassilating between doves and hawks searching for a solution that doesn't exist in the current climate.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
In the above situation, the Palestinians are supporting the bombing and murder of civilians.
Since the Palestinians won't stop their own from doing it, how should the Isreali government live up to its primary responsibility of protecting its citizens?
They MUST: 1. Stop the suicide bombers, by force if necessary.
They SHOULD: 2. Not be a bully doing it.
What's your solution?
I have the luxury of clutching my head in my hands and saying they are both at fault, but the Isreali goverment would be traitorous if they did nothing. What might they do?
quote:Private donations by American citizens would be sharply controlled
Talk about being a bully. Does that mean bullying is acceptable if you approve of the aims?
[ December 31, 2003, 01:57 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
The donations I'm talking about, in particular are those going to groups like Meyer Kahane's. Basically, these folks are intent on curtailing the rights of Palestinians inside and outside the recognized borders of Israel. That this guy is an American just galls me. That so many Americans buy into his crap really makes me angry.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
So what do you think the Isreali government should do to live up to their responsibility to protect the citizens of Isreal?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'll have more to say in a bit, but suffice it to say that many of their efforts using force to stop suicide bombers have, well, created more suicide bombers.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
What would you have them do? Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Here's the solution to suicide bombers: Just have all the Jews in Israel move out, or even better committ suicide (while making sure no Jewish blood stains the land), and let the Palestinians move in and do what they wish. I garuntee you there wouldn't be anymore suicide bombings by fundamentalist Muslims after than.
See how this, and the other extreme being the extermination of all Arabs and Muslims, are not going to be realistic solutions and considering the fact that huge throngs of people show up to the funerals of suicide bombers I must repeat what I and others have already said, what would you have Israel do?
By the way, you know what doesn't make the news? All the failed suicide attacks that are stopped before they can occur usually by the "evil" method of the Israelis like checkpoints.
Finally, when people say that Arafat skims Palestinian funds that is a gross understatement. And Arafat would be even richer if he didn't use more of that money to buy weapons.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I really am curious about the answer to this.
In the immediate situation, the Isreali government has an obligation to protect its citizens. While individuals have the luxury of neglecting their own safety, for the government to neglect to protect its citizens would be treason. They must do something.
The above posters agree with the obligation to protect, but disagree with the current method of walls and checkpoints.
In the immediate present, in order to protect its citizens, what can the Isreali government do instead?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Well, as I said I'll have more in a bit, but some things of note:
Stop bulldozing places of residence, particularly apartment complexes and subdivisions. Turning people whose land you conquered, then promised to allow to continue to live there, out of their homes when they have done no wrong themselves has to be one of the more counterproductive practices out there, particularly as residences of various kinds are vast capital sinks.
Not opening fire on peaceful protesters (peaceful meaning, not threatening people at all).
Not making a fence that separates Palestinian communities as much as possible. You can't expect them to work together towards peace when they can't work together towards anything.
None of those things strike me as being very effective at curtailing suicide bombers (at least, many of these things are partially in place and if anything I've seen an increase in suicide bombings).
Now, as to proactive things:
Promote community organizations in Palestinian communities. In particular, promote organizations such as youth organizations and business organizations which stand a chance of supplanting the entrenched leadership with time.
Use the media as a promoter of cooperation and peace rather than an organ to justify government actions of oppression.
Don't unilaterally empower some palestinians over others. That's a surefire way to create conflict. See: Arafat.
Continue peace processes despite suicide bombings. The Palestinian authorities are not able to control all Palestinians, and the ones doing the negotiation had as little to do with the bombing as the Israeli government did, most likely. Using a bombing as an excuse to break off negotiations is absurd "There's violence, so we can't work together to end it".
Encourage trade with Israel. You don't need to loosen the restrictions on the movement of people to loosen the restrictions on the movements of goods. But structure the regulations to promote trade by small businesses and community organizations rather than magnates such as Arafat.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu, those are good things to do, but I see them more as long-term solutions.
What about the short-term? There is currently an intifada against Israel. Supporting the local YMIA isn't going to get it called off, and it isn't going to stop those intent on destruction.
[ December 31, 2003, 03:33 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Some walls and checkpoints make good sense. But the walls shouldn't be used make the Palestinians dependent on Israel's goodwill to survive, and the checkpoints shouldn't be used to harass those who pass through them. Move the walls to encompass a region that makes sense as a Palestinian area instead of attempting to subdivide already Palestinian areas, and make the minimum requirements to pass through a checkpoint less onerous -- ensure the person isn't carrying any means of violence, then let them through.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:make the minimum requirements to pass through a checkpoint less onerous -- ensure the person isn't carrying any means of violence, then let them through.
Okay, that's a suggestion I like. It means the way to avoid being harrassed is to not carry anything dangerous.
What else?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Lets put it this way: suicide bombings are increasing. Therefore at least some of the short term Israeli tactics have almost certainly been counterproductive. So evaluate those ones and stop doing them.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
If I were the Israelis, I would:
1) Refuse to negotiate with Arafat at all.
2) Remove all jews from occupied areas, period.
3) Close the borders to the Palestinian areas until someone other than Arafat is in charge.
4) Not send troops into the occupied areas, period.
I would essentially, put everything into a holding pattern. I would gather intelligence (which the Israelis do extremely well, by the way) and practice a bit of clandestine operations to eliminate anyone who was posing a serious danger (i.e., setting up a bomb-making operation).
But since the borders are closed, it really doesn't matter.
But first and foremost, they should just get out of the occupied territories. Just leave them one night when no-one is looking. Take all those who want to leave with them.
In response, the rest of the world should agree to cut off military aid to Israel and Palestine until they come up with a permanent negotiated settlement and implement it. The UN should get involved to ensure that the only aid coming is is either humanitarian or capital investment in infrastructure or education.
Probably impractical, but I don't see how what's going on now is doing anything but making the situation worse.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
It's much easier to criticize and nitpick than to protect and build. The Isreali government is entrusted the protection of Israelis, not the economy of those intent on the destruction of Isrealis. I love the idea of locking them in a room until they come up with a solution, but I don't see the point of discussing impractical solutions. It's a luxury to be able to do so; the people entrusted with the power and obligation to act don't have that luxury.
What can they do to stop the bombings, if the current bit isn't effective?
There was an offer to retreat from almost all of the occupied areas, but the offer was rejected.
It is almost universally agreed that Arafat is somewhere between an obstacle and earthquake. Should they take him out?
[ December 31, 2003, 03:41 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Stop bulldozing places of residence, particularly apartment complexes and subdivisions. Turning people whose land you conquered, then promised to allow to continue to live there, out of their homes when they have done no wrong themselves has to be one of the more counterproductive practices out there, particularly as residences of various kinds are vast capital sinks.
They have done wrong by supporting suicide bombers. It also destroys the incentive that suicide bombers have to do what they do because their families will profit.
quote: Not opening fire on peaceful protesters (peaceful meaning, not threatening people at all).
They don't do that unless you consider throwing rocks to be peaceful and even then rubber bullets are used.
quote: Not making a fence that separates Palestinian communities as much as possible. You can't expect them to work together towards peace when they can't work together towards anything.
The fences separate Israel from Palestinians not Palestinians from Palestinians. I think that's reasonable when an incredibly large percentage of Palestinians would kill an Israeli if they got the chance.
quote: Promote community organizations in Palestinian communities. In particular, promote organizations such as youth organizations and business organizations which stand a chance of supplanting the entrenched leadership with time.
I would be concerned these organizations would promote terrorism or at the least promote an extremist interpretation of Islam.
quote: Use the media as a promoter of cooperation and peace rather than an organ to justify government actions of oppression.
Do you know what the media does? It believes in myths like the Jenin "massacre". It claims an Israeli bullet kills a Palestinian child when it really was a Palestinian's bullet. The media has consistently portrayed the Israelis as aggressors even when conflicts have been started by terrorists.
Israel has been trying to get rid of Arafat but no matter what he still manages to hold significant influence even he loses all but figure head power.
If the Palestinian government can't control terrorism then what power do they have in the first place.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: not the economy of those intent on the destruction of Isrealis
I just figured out, this is the part of your stuff that's bugging me. The average Palestinian is not intent ont he destruction of Israelis.
The terrorists aren't the economy of Palestine.
You go to far with this statement, IMHO.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Clearly what Israel is doing right now is increasing the bombings. Therefore they should change what they're doing.
Also, I'd point out that most of the people who are doing the bombings are ones who have perfectly legitimate reasons to pass through barriers. The fence isn't going to change that, and its primary reason is almost certainly to provide leverage for the eventual boundary setting of a palestinian state -- in a way that is really quite unacceptable, because it assumes Israel has the right to dictate those boundaries.
When Israel conquered the territories, they took on responsibility for the civilians in residence there as well.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Change to what? We don't know that what is currently happening is completely ineffective - if it is stopping some, it is working on some level. In order to change policies, you need something to change to. Something with a greater probablity of working than the current policy.
quote:A new poll of Palestinians shows most oppose a halt in fighting with Israel, while 64 percent support suicide bomb attacks against the Jewish state.
quote:Yahoo news (www.yahoo.com) reports that a majority (66%) of Palestinians support the murder of unarmed Israeli civilians, including kids, through homicide/suicide bombings.
quote:In the realm of peace and security, the findings show widespread support, reaching 75%, for the suicide attack at the Maxim restaurant in Haifa, where 20 Israelis were killed.
There's hope (found also in the last article), but you can't say that most Palestinians don't support the bombers. It should be true, but it isn't.
[ December 31, 2003, 03:50 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
NFL, the sheer bigotry of several of your statements is appalling.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I agree with Bob except that Israeli soldiers still need to be there to carry out anti-terrorist operations and occupied territories could include all of Jerusalem and the Golan Heights which is completely unacceptable. And I don't think we should ever cut off military aid to Israel because at the least they aid us militarily.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu, point out where you disagree with him. It isn't fair to do a dis and run.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Sure, Fugu because we should also take into consideration a Jew might carry out a suicide bombing in a shopping mall. Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
The problem is that a state defined as Israeli cannot rule over predominately non-Israeli territory without conflict. Thus, I see three possible solutions:
1. Give up on the idea of an Israeli state. 2. Give up any land that is largely non-Israeli. 3. Accept the existence of some level of terrorism.
I don't believe anything else will work.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
4. Destroy those who perpetuate and support the terrorism.
That would work as well. Arizona doesn't have a big problem with Comanchee raids.
Those simply are not options.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: A new poll of Palestinians shows most oppose a halt in fighting with Israel, while 64 percent support suicide bomb attacks against the Jewish state.
Kat, I see that this means there is a lot of frustration among Palestinians about the way Israel is treating them, and doesn't necessarily translate into an active desire to see Israel gone.
Similar polls just a few years ago were overwhelmingly in favor of ending the violence.
What's changed in the interim? Mostly the actions of Israel's own hawkish politicians. They've made things worse and the poll numbers are bound to reflect that.
Do you really think more oppression will improve things?
Will Israelis really be safer???
How much more important is safety than the rights of citizens. Or even just the basic human rights of ordinary Palestinians -- the ones who aren't terrorists.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:4. Destroy those who perpetuate and support the terrorism.
No, that doesn't work because the more of those you kill the more anger you produce and the more terrorists you create. Even killing all the Palestinians won't work, because then all of the Muslim world would be enraged enough to attack (genocide has that effect.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
No, the long-term solution is to come up with something everyone can live with.
In the short-term, though, Isreali citizens are dying, and the Isreali government has the obligation to do something to protect them in the short term.
I know what Abe Lincoln said about statistics, but we can layer any meaning we want over the numbers handed to us. I'd hesistate to dismiss years of consistent opinions with "They don't really mean that."
I don't believe it is a sign of blood-lust or anything like that, but the fact that Palestinians as a whole have NOT made a concerted effort to stop the murderers among them is a more telling signal than any poll.
quote:How much more important is safety than the rights of citizens. Or even just the basic human rights of ordinary Palestinians -- the ones who aren't terrorists.
That's just it - the Isreali government does NOT have the right or the freedom to decide that Palestinian liberty is more important than the lives of its citizenry. Individuals can decide this, but the government cannot. It is entrusted with Isreali safety. If the members of the government want to put down that responsibility, they may, but if they neglect that obligation to protect while in office, it's treason.
quote:No, that doesn't work because the more of those you kill the more anger you produce and the more terrorists you create. Even killing all the Palestinians won't work, because then all of the Muslim world would be enraged enough to attack (genocide has that effect.)
Not in Rwanda... not in many places.
Sadly, genocide happens all the time, and it is only occasionally defended against.
[ December 31, 2003, 04:02 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote: Sadly, genocide happens all the time, and it is only occasionally defended against.
So, what's that mean? That it'd be okay? Or at least understandable?
If you can understand genocide perpetrated by a government in response to terror attacks, why can't you "understand" terror attacks in response to government-sponsored oppression (and the threat of genocide)?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
It is exceptionally difficult to broker peace with someone who insists on not doing anything to deserve it.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
For instance, that most Palestinians would kill an Israeli if they had a chance. Certainly most Palestinians would like Israelis to, well, leave them alone, but kill? Absurd. Most palestinians work with Israelis daily, yet very few of them ever actually kill any Israelis. Furthermore, there are numerous Palestinians groups which are working towards peace without violence. To characterize Palestinians so viciously and wrongly is bigoted.
Regarding the aforementioned statistics, supporting someone who kills and killing are two very different things. I'd bet the numbers are quite similar for Israelis saying its ok that Palestinian civilians die when Israel missiles a car. This doesn't mean Israelis would kill Palestinians if they had the chance.
On a side note: clearly Palestinian "citizens" are being killed by Israel in high numbers. Does this make Palestine justified in taking action against Israel?
NFL also said that because any Palestinians had voiced support for suicide bombers it was ok to bulldoze where they lived. I am again appalled. Is it then justifiable for Palestinians to destroy Israeli places of residence because Israeli's support killing Palestinians who are merely driving home, and have not been convicted of any crimes in any court of law?
Throwing rocks is NOT a threat. I have not heard of Israeli soldiers being killed by thrown rocks, while I have heard of Palestinian protesters being killed by rubber bullets and live rounds (heck, I've seen it happen on TV live!). Tear gas or other responses at a similar degree of force, ok, but firing on an unarmed crowd that is throwing rocks?!
And not all the protesters were even doing that. Not too long ago a group of Palestinians were protesting the building of the wall, and had approached it and begun dismantling a section of it. They were fired on, and at least one live round was fired (that is the number Israel maintains). Two protesters were killed. Dismantling a wall is a justification for killing someone?
Estimates are that the wall will leave out from 15% to 45% of the territory previously outside Israel's control, notably including large areas of Jerusalem. Also, there are already many smaller walls with checkpoints between Palestinian settlements.
Exactly, I don't expect the Palestinian government to control terror. Israel and the US have made it into too much of a puppet mockery. Yet Israel acts like it can control terror, and stops any negotiation that could promote peace whenever there is any terrorist act. If a country is serious about peace, it must work towards peace.
Kat: regarding your statement that its easy to criticize when it isn't your decision. If what the Israeli government is doing now is resulting in more terrorists attacks, it is their duty to change something about what they're doing now, not stay the course. "It isn't working now, but it will later" is not a very persuasive argument.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Bob:
No. I'm giving that as an option that (1) would work, and (2) is completely unacceptable. So this obligation to protect does NOT extend to being able to commit genocide with impunity. Just like the desire to throw off oppresion does not extend to the deliberate murder of children with impunity. But if Tres wants to discuss unfair, unacceptable solutions that would stop all the fighting, an unholy genocide would do the trick.
It's why I don't like discussion of impractical solutions. There are many, many solutions out there that would both bring pring a kind of peace and would never work, but I'd rather hear about practical solutions that might actually happen.
quote: Israel and the US have made it into too much of a puppet mockery.
So Isreal and the US are MAKING Arafat steal all that money? If Arafat didn't have support, he wouldn't be in the position that he is.
quote:stops any negotiation that could promote peace whenever there is any terrorist act.
So, there are peace negotiations, there is a terrorist bombing, the Isrealis pull out of the negotiations to hand over territory to the people can't keep themselves from bombing them long enough to discuss the handout, and it's Isreali lack of patience?
quote:If what the Israeli government is doing now is resulting in more terrorists attacks, it is their duty to change something about what they're doing now, not stay the course.
This would only hold if, in fact, no terrorist attacks are being stopped in the meantime. That's not true.
quote:Meanwhile, Israel Security Agency Chief Avi Dichter told the cabinet on Sunday that 14 suicide bombing attempts had been foiled in the past six weeks and that the number of terror alerts had recently increased from some 30 per day to 50, THE JERUSALEM POST reported. Dichter said two of the 14 suicide bombers had blown themselves up near Israeli targets, without causing casualties. The rest of the bombers were prevented from carrying out their attacks either by initiated Israeli military action, or by various roadblocks or random patrols.
[ December 31, 2003, 04:23 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Interesting to lump the words Genocide and Israeli together there Tres. You'd think that they'd never been the victims of genocide before...
Let me get this straight:
You want the Jews to give up on an Israeli state, not to mention the rest of the world?
Give up any land that is non-Israeli? Which would mean, by your first statement, give it all back...
And accept the terrorism that murders innocent people because, gosh darn it, the Palestinians and other Muslims have a right to be a bit mad. And hey, they're pretty much only killing Jews right?
I'm sorry but you are soooo out in left field on this one that that post and the previous one (which seems to state that the Israelis might commit some kind of genocide, rather than that they were the most genocidally victimized group in living history, if not all history) that it really does smack not of logic, but of anti-semitism couched in some form of classical liberalism. What an interesting and yet noxious cocktail that makes...
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
quote:So Isreal and the US are MAKING Arafat steal all that money? If Arafat didn't have support, he wouldn't be in the position that he is.
No, its that we maintain him in power despite his clear loss of mandate.
quote:So, there are peace negotiations, there is a terrorist bombing, the Isrealis pull out of the negotiations to hand over territory to the people can't keep themselves from bombing them long enough to discuss the handout, and it's Isreali lack of patience?
Lets do a little parable telling. There's one group of people, we'll call them P. Its a big group of people and no one is really in charge. In P there are two sub groups, A and B. Now, another group of people, not in P, lets call this new group I, is negotiating with A for ways to move towards peace between I and P. Someone in group B, unrelated to group A except for being in P, attacks I. I stops talking to A. Why? A has acted in good faith. A never pretended to be able to control what other P did, but exerted all its influence to attempt to do so. Furthermore, since its clear that many P do not want peace, I is playing into B's hands. Whenever negotiations start, B merely has to kill some I, and they stop, preventing there from ever being peace.
Only negotiating when there is peace is a way to guarantee never having peace, and its a clear demonstration that the Israeli leadership isn't interested in peace.
quote:This would only hold if, in fact, no terrorist attacks are being stopped in the meantime. I don't think that's true. Some still get through, but many are stopped. Hold on, I'll research.
This is why I think Israel should continue doing many of the things they are doing. I have been advocating Israel evaluate the results of their actions, and stop taking those actions generating the higher rates of attack, as clearly some of them are. What's unreasonable about this, and why the heck aren't they doing it?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, and I think roadblocks for tests and military patrols are reasonable, as I've stated.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Why aren't they coming up with a different solution to replace the one where they are stopping fourteen suicide bombings in six weeks?
That's what I mean about it being easier to criticize than to lead.
You think Arafat is being supported as the leader of the Palestinians against the will of the Palestinians?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Sopwith...get a grip, okay? No-one has said that.
And by your statements, you are saying that because of past atrocities perpetrated against jews, the government of Israel gets a pass when they do noxious things to the people in their own country and the territories they control.
I don't buy it for one second.
It's okay to criticize the Israeli government and that does not make one an anti-semite.
In fact, since the Palestinians are also semitic people, I think you are really barking up the wrong tree on this one.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
*thinks*
Fugu, I'm not what we disagree on here, then.
To protect the Israeli people, the Israeli government has a right to erect a wall at the border, do any manner of police checks, and patrol the streets, no matter if this disrupts the economy. The economy is messed by closing borders, but Israel is desimated without it, so that's okay. This is a solution for the short-term. Calling off the barricades, the soldiers, and the martial state is not an option for Israel's government, because that government has an obligation to protect the people it has been elected to represent. Anything else would be treason.
Is this right? We agree on the above?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Nono, the roadblocks and patrols have been effective, so keep them. Many of their other actions, such as the bulldozing, have not, so stop them. Ditto for the missiles into cars (killing the leadership of organizations when there are so many ready and willing to step into the same shoes strikes me as rather ineffective). I'm saying evaluate and stop that which isn't effective.
Also, its about net effectiveness, not total number stopped.
Hmm, I did a little research on Arafat's support just now, and it looks like about 40% support him strongly, with a bit over 30% supporting him "moderately" (the poll's word) and a bit over 20% disliking him. While most of the places I see read that as supporting Arafat as a leader, I don't think so. A person in opposition to Arafat that maintained his less extremist policies could likely net a similar share to Arafat (about 40%). So while a good number do support him, I doubt he could maintain his place as representative of Palestine without all the recognition he gets from Israel and the US.
While it doesn't push a particular position, the general impression I get from it is that Israel is avoiding moving towards peace.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
So, 70 - 80% of Palestinians support him moderately to strongly, but you still blame Arafat's continued leadership on the United States? I know Sharon declared him irrelevant and cut off dealings with him at least a year ago, so it can't be Isreal's support you're blaming.
That's what I mean about statistics being worthless. If you dismiss the poll numbers where the vast majority of Palestinians both support the suicide bombers and Arafat as "They don't really mean that," then it doesn't matter what the polls say. People will believe what they want to.
quote:A person in opposition to Arafat that maintained his less extremist policies could likely net a similar share to Arafat (about 40%).
Whare are you getting this number? It would be nice if it was true, but wishing something is true doesn't make it so.
[ December 31, 2003, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Firstly, if Israel is decimated then Palestine is far more so. After all, there are fewer Palestinians AND more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli action that vice versa.
I do support certain actions of Israel, which includes the building of walls in a general sense.
But such things as the particular locations of walls, which seemed designed to lead political and economic advantage rather than safety advantage, the lack of seriousness about the peace process, the use of excessive force on palestinian civilians, these all trouble me greatly.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, its a guesswork number, but supported by the current numbers. The 40%, 30% and 20% numbers are roughly mirrored across the recent surveys I've seen. The 30% that moderately support him could likely be snatched away pretty easily, and I think about half the 20-25% that oppose him (the other half oppose him for lack of extremism, I would guess).
This estimate is born out by that around 45% currently support the peace process. Since Arafat isn't doing much for the peace process right now, a strong peace process candidate would garner around that 45%.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
I know Palestinians are being killed as well.
Okay, so you support the wall and the guards and so on, but not using the wall to manipulate things for the express purpose of destroying economies.
Okay.
Where's the wall going, anyway? Does someone have a link?
Dang it, I have to go to. I'll be back in a little while.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Fugu, have you ever had a rock thrown at you? You're telling me that's peaceful? Since when is the destruction of property considered peaceful either. Peaceful is what Ghandi did. Peaceful is what Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activitists (obviously excluding the militaristic ones) did. Staging sit-ins is one thing, throwing rocks, which are perfectly capable killing if they make contact in the right place, is another.
Someone explain to me how either the US or Israel is responsible for keeping Arafat in "power". Isn't it Europe and the Arab world that continually condemns Israel whenever it brings up exile or lays seige to his compound?
[ December 31, 2003, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So if I poke you with a needle, you can shoot me with a gun? Give me a break, nfl.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
If you intend to cause me harm then I have the right to do whatever is necessary to prevent that harm. If I can punch you in the face then I'll due that, but if I can't and I have a gun I'll shoot in the air. Failing that I'll shoot you in the foot or leg. Failing that I'll aim to kill.
Similarly, Israeli soldiers fire in the air in warning first and then shoot. Even then its with rubber bullets which are considerably less lethal than regular bullets.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
The contention that Arafat is in power only because the US keeps him there, against the wishes of the Palestinians and the other Arab nations, is baloney.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
So you DO think if I intend to poke you with a needle you have a right to shoot me?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Fugu, you can't claim that throwing rocks is being peaceful.
It isn't being as deadly as with guns, but it isn't peaceful.
You never did answer about Arafat. Do you think that Arafat would be out of power unless he was supported by the United States?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Hey Kat/Javert, I'm curious where this "defense is the highest duty of government" thing comes from. Seems to me like representative government's highest duty is to represent the people, ie do what they want, or at least what they wanted on the most recent election day. So if the people elect a politician who has made clear that he doesn't support defense, or if (simplifying things a bit) they vote that a certain issue is more important to them than defense, it seems like the government's duty to defend them becomes secondary.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can't find it in a cursory look back over what I wrote, but I don't think I asserted that protesters throwing rocks were peaceful (stupid typo) -- nfl is the one who asserted they only shot at people throwing rocks (which I still think is a signficant overreaction). I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction, but specifically attempting to tear down the wall. Which does qualify as peaceful in my book.
I'll have more on Arafat, likely tomorrow.
[ January 05, 2004, 12:01 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The contention that Arafat is in power only because the US keeps him there, against the wishes of the Palestinians and the other Arab nations, is baloney.
Well, I don't believe any of the Arab states want him dead, but, as I said, he is only alive because of US intervention.
What are the nuances of Israel's immigration policy? I imagine that all Jews world-wide can apply for citizenship, but is it true that any citizen can obtain a writ to settle any of the land that was at any time considered "Greater Israel," independent of the wishes of the people who are currently living in that land?
Are Israel's borders as flexible as I imagine?
If so, if you forcibly occupy a territory, then have the temerity to move civilian citizens there, then there is a high likelihood that the civilians are going to be killed. If this is the case, I'm pretty sure that there is a section of the Geneva convention which expressly deals with the conduct of occupiers.
[ January 02, 2004, 01:57 AM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
I know for a fact that any Jew wishing to become a citizen of Israel can do so instantly. I've never heard about being able to settle any part of "Greater Israel". If that were true you'd have fanatical Jews trying to settle land in Jordan, Syria, and Egypt. Well, even if that wasn't on the books they might try that anyways, but that's why they're fanatical. If such a law does exist I would be suprised and upset. Of course, technically in the US you can still go get yourself a homestead courtesy of the US government and keep the land so long as you improve upon it for so many years.
Fugu, if you're tearing down a wall then you're destroying property.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, but its specific property destruction that does not represent a threat or likelihood to erupt in violence. Note I said general property destruction. And I consider it a nonviolent act, and certainly not one that would justify the use of violent force in response, including live ammunition.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Also, Irami stated he already knew any Jew could get citizenship. The thing about property was a question about the ability to unilaterally expell current residents from property within "greater israel".
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
So if I go to your house to protest your stupidity and while I'm there I start putting wholes in your roof you won't feel any need to use a gun if you have one to threaten me? You would just let me tear down your house right? (Don't call the police either because they will use a gun.) Let me guess, a house is different from a wall right? Well, have you thought about what that wall does for Israelis? It significantly increases their chances of living. So why don't you give me your address, I'll rent a Caterpillar and bulldoze your house and I expect you won't complain. And maybe you'll be in that house but that's the risk you take I suppose.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
He said he "imagined" that was so and I just confirmed that for him. I answered his other question to the best of my ability.
[ January 01, 2004, 04:05 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The police wouldn't use a gun, NFL, they'd physically restrain you. And yes, you would be overreacting to use a gun. You would kill someone over things?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Firstly, Irami is not a her, though I understand where you could get that impression j/k .
And I apologize about misreading your post on the settlement thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
nfl, interesting you should mention that it's okay to use force to stop someone from bulldozing your house. That's been a favored method of the Israeli army since the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza. Without a trial and without compensation or the right to representation, they bulldoze the houses of Palestinians they suspect of supporting any anti-Israeli sentiments.
Oh, surprise, the rubble makes nice things to throw at the army.
Look, terrorism sucks, but I have to ask if you really think the fence will significantly alter anything but the rights of law-abiding Palestinians.
Determined terrorists will find a way over, under, or through the fence. Israel can't possibly patrol the whole thing effectively. In the meantime, the people who would obey the law anyway are inconvenienced and have this constant reminder of their oppressor stretching across the landscape. That'll make everyone safer, wont it?
Frankly, I think much of what the Israeli government does is deliberate with the aim of provoking a violent response that they can then use to garner sympathy for the inevitable retaliation.
By the way, rubber bullets are more deadly than rocks. Especially when the rubber bullets are aimed at unprotected civilians whereas the rocks are tossed at military types wearing helmets and sitting in army vehicles.
I was in the middle of a rock-throwing protest. It was actually fairly safe. The rocks lost most of their potential power by the time they reached the Israeli sentinels. I walked out in it to ask the guards to let us pass so we wouldn't miss our plane. They were nervous teenagers (the guards) and no doubt thought the situation was more serious than it was.
Basically, they had guns, the protesters didn't. That kept the protesters about 100 yards away. There are few people who can throw anything with an effective range of 100 yards. A gun, on the other hand, even when loaded with rubber bullets, is deadly at that range.
I'd rather take a head shot from a rock tossed 100 yards than a rubber bullet shot that same distance into my head.
Really. Who wouldn't. If you know the physics of the situation.
A lucky shot with a rock and you MIGHT get a concussion. Most likely, you'll have a lump and some bleeding.
A head shot with a rubber bullet is going to be very messy and likely to be fatal. A lucky shot at that distance will go through the temple or eye socket or snap a vertebra and then you're cooked.
The "war" if it is one, is decidedly unequal. The Palestinians could no doubt handle their protests better. But to be honest, I think the current Israeli government wouldn't welcome a sweeping peace movement in Gaza or the West Bank. It would remove one of their best propaganda tools. The misbehavior of a small minority.
The best thing the Palestinians could do is start a peace movement, stick to it, and then embarrass the Israeli government when they don't stop all the provocation anyway.
By the way, the settlements range from really very nice neighborhoods to trailer parks. The government places some very rabid anti-Palestinians in the settlements -- one lady while we were visiting had a habit of going around town passing out leaflets depicting Mohammed's face on the body of a pig. We might think that's laughable and the woman is obviously a crank or a nut, but when the Palestinians complained to the authorities about the woman, they did nothing to curtail her activities and treated the request (or demand) with contempt.
That set off a rock throwing incident while we were there.
The resulting crack down -- the army shut down the entire town -- was way out of proportion to the 20 minutes of rock throwing. And the army had every opportunity to defuse the situation just by taking this obvious nutcase home to her family.
Note that no-one killed the woman. They know she's a nut. They just asked that she be kept back in her compound.
Is that too much to ask?
Is it any wonder that some kids took it upon themselves to throw stones at the army idiots who just laughed their elders off?
Really, the recipe for disaster there is as much contributed to by the Israelis as it is by the Palestinian terrorists.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Let me get this straight:
You want the Jews to give up on an Israeli state, not to mention the rest of the world?
Give up any land that is non-Israeli? Which would mean, by your first statement, give it all back...
And accept the terrorism that murders innocent people because, gosh darn it, the Palestinians and other Muslims have a right to be a bit mad. And hey, they're pretty much only killing Jews right?
I didn't say anyone should do anything. I'm just saying that those are the only things that Israel can do to solve this - they can choose which one they want. If a major segment of a region's population is ruled by a government that does not represent them, then you can eventually expect rebellion and violence. That's not my idea - it's just how things go.
[ January 01, 2004, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Tresopax ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
The point is that the protesters are NOT peaceful.
Fugu, if that property protects people I would value it over the people willing to tear it down.
The fence doesn't just keep people out and it can do that, it delays them. Time is priceless when it comes to anti-terrorist responses.
Bob, wasn't it you who said Israel should just get up and out of Palestine? Wouldn't that inconvenience the same people who are currently inconvenienced by the security fences? Surely you wouldn't expect Israel to continue to allow Palestinians to work and travel to Israel freely once they moved out?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Whoa, Bob, you've been to the settlements? Do you have the story of your travels posted anywhere?
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
quote:I'm just saying that those are the only things that Israel can do to solve this
I'm saying these are NOT the only thing that can be done to solve this - genocide would work just as well. As long as we're flinging about impractical solutions that will never happen, we might as well say we should make every injury inflicted in this conflict be felt by every member of both populations.
Tres, it disturbs that you say Isreal's only choices are to give up everything or get used to terrorism. You mean you don't even want to bother with condenming the suicide bombers? That Isreal deserves it?
You say they are the only things ISREAL can do. Any suggestions for the Palestinians, or do you assume they incapable of constructive action?
[ January 02, 2004, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Javert Hugo ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've got some suggestions for the Palestinian authorities, myself. I've got suggestions for the Palestinians in general, as well, but they're unfortunately unrealistic, such as "stop killing israelis because you hate them".
My suggestions include: ditch arafat. Compromise on Jerusalem (from my perspective, the "best" solution would be third party rule, possibly city rule, though that could result in a tyranny of the majority). Round up some of the worst rogue Palestinian elements and have big public trials, being very, very scrupulous about standards of evidence and such. Take a hard nosed stance on the destruction of palestinian residential areas (stand-ins, as has already begun to happen on a small scale).
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'd just like to point out that it's Israel, not Isreal. It was just bugging me. (Though that isn't the only thing that's been bugging me about this discussion.)
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Don't just nitpick to show disapproval - if it's bugging you, take a stand. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
OK, I'll bite. Briefly.
Politics and greed bug me. I really like the ideas fugu has in this post and some later ones. And I also like the idea of finding out which responses are actually effective and which are detrimental, and then doing something about it! This goes for other areas of government, also. Good leaders don't go for what just sounds good, they do what actually works, and explain their reasoning and cite the necessary studies. (And they make sure fair and accurate studies are done whenever possible.) And then suck it up if they're voted out because of it. Argh. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: Throwing 'stones' - which can be boulder sized - isn't terrorist activity? Tell that to the Shoham family, whose son Yehuda was murdered two years ago by stone throwers when he was about four months old.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, rocks can be dangerous. But when being thrown, at a great distance, against alert and armored soldiers, I can demonstrate that they are almost completely nonlethal. Its very simple:
Total number of rocks thrown in above situations: huge.
Total number of soldiers killed in such situations: zero.
Israeli response in such situations is with lethal force, which I find deplorable. I completely support tear gassing the protesters and similar tactics, but even the lethality of rubber bullets is far too much, for the simple reason that people die from them regularly. The aim is to stop the loss of life, not cause it.
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
But when they throw boulders that kill babies, then that force is okay?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No. In situations where rocks endanger life, responding with similar force is acceptable. That's exactly what I've been advocating all along, in which of my statements did you get any other impression?
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Tres, it disturbs that you say Isreal's only choices are to give up everything or get used to terrorism. You mean you don't even want to bother with condenming the suicide bombers? That Isreal deserves it?
I don't agree with the tactic, but Israel IS ruling over a large people that it does not represent. They're going to get some sort of rebellion.
And no, it's not giving up everything. Israel just wants Jewish folk to dominate a land that has a whole lot of other peoples in it. They ask for a bit much.
quote:You say they are the only things ISREAL can do. Any suggestions for the Palestinians, or do you assume they incapable of constructive action?
Well, Israel is the one holding the power, so it will be up to Israel to ultimately act in some way to end this - unless the Palestinians just give up all their demands, which they chould do. The Palestinians can choose however they want to try and convince Israel to do so. I think terrorism has proven ineffective, but it could work in the end - I can't predict the Israeli government well enough to know.
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
What bothers me is the Palestinians lack of commitment to non-violent protest and action.
In the past, when they have called a general strike, that has moved Israel faster than anything else when it came to obtain rights.
Sadly, though, it appears they've abandoned that whole idea in favor of homicide bombings and terror tactics.
Could they not see they had some success with the non-violent civil disobedience? Can't they try the methods of Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Stephen Biko and Nelson Mandela?
Edit to add: Violence won't work. How can you scare a nation that was born out of the horrors of the Holocaust? The Jews lost more people an hour to Auschwitz and Dachau than they have lost to terrorist attacks. And now they can, and do, fight back.
[ January 02, 2004, 04:50 PM: Message edited by: Sopwith ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Tresopax seems to be suggesting that terrorism is a legitimate form of protest and Fugu likes to claim that people with harmful intentions are actually peaceful just because they can't actually cause harm while also choosing to ignore the fact that rocks can kill just like rubber bullets can kill. Of course, if the Israelis truly intended to use lethal force against the "peaceful" protesters they could just use normal bullets.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
regular bullets are more harmful than "rubber bullets" (which are really just regular bullets with a rubber coating, not actual rubber bullets).
Rubber bullets are more harmful than rocks.
And the amazing thing about non-violent protests are that they work against people of conscience. There was a great story I read once about Ghandi trying the same tactics against Nazis. It was a short story with a sudden ending. For Ghandi.
What we have to ask is not why there aren't more Ghandis, MLKs and Bikos, but what is wrong with the rest of us that there are so few of these people working to change things for the better for all of us.
It is also worth questioning whether a non-violent protest movement would be effective if it didn't offer a peaceful ALTERNATIVE. In other words, if there wasn't a Nation of Islam pushing in the wings, would MLK have been as effective in his non-violent movement?
I'd like to think he would still have succeeded in embarrassing the rest of the nation into making real changes. But maybe not.
If Ghandi's movement hadn't essentially spread to the huge masses of Indian people (thus represeting a large overwhelming force that COULD be unleashed) would he have been successful?
I'm too ignorant of Biko's life to know the real story there. Sorry.
But I have said to my Palestinian friends many times that they need a Ghandi, not an Arafat. I'm not sure they know much about Ghandi, based on their reactions.
I wonder if it is in the people's character to be that patient. I mean, the tit-for-tat among the Arabs and Jews has been going on since recorded history. The bad blood between them is based on thousands of years of documented mutual harms.
I thought of another strategy, though.
Take all the children out of both countries. Raise them in isolation from the fanaticism and animosity. Wait for all the existing adults to die, then repopulate the land with people who know nothing of the past.
Cultural genocide, but lasting peace.
I thought the same ought to be done in Bosnia, et al.
I would volunteer to raise 2 children here in my house if the UN ever decided to implement this idea.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
NFL:
Firstly, Israel has used normal bullets against rock throwing protesters at times. Secondly, just because I can drop an atomic bomb on somebody doesn't mean any lesser response whatsoever is warranted, just as that one could escalate to live ammunition doesn't mean shooting rubber bullets which kill people is ok when there is no reason to believe anyone endangered. Thirdly, you're the one who connected rock throwing with peaceful protests. I'm referring to instances where there wasn't even that when I say peacefully, as I have already explicitly stated. Such as this one:
(I'm not referring to the ones who were taking part in stone throwing, but the ones who weren't, if that wasn't made already clear by implication).
You were the one who thought I meant stone throwing when I said peacefully. I have already explicitly corrected that. You twist my words. Stop doing that.
[ January 03, 2004, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
It's an interesting idea, Bob. If you were in power right now, would you support a proposal to offer safe haven in the US for Palestinian families with children under twelve, and all children under sixteen -- or something along those lines?
I can see some real advantages to that sort of proposal, provided the immigrants get some extensive education in English and job training. Though there may be some danger of trojan-horse terrorists, and that danger's certainly going to by hyped out of all proportion by reactionaries, I think with pre-agreed surveillance of the immigrants for ten years or so, most dangers can be intercepted and prevented.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:Could they not see they had some success with the non-violent civil disobedience? Can't they try the methods of Ghandi; Martin Luther King, Jr.; Stephen Biko and Nelson Mandela?
Problem is, there's always a bunch of folks who claim that violence is the only practical solution to whatever problem they are facing. They are the Palestinian terrorists, they are al Qaeda, they are the Bush administration, and so on.
quote:Tresopax seems to be suggesting that terrorism is a legitimate form of protest
Legitimate? Depends on what you mean by that. I don't think terrorism is a very legitimate means of protest at all, but I do think it is at least as legitimate than some of the things that we as a nation claim are completely legitimate. I'm confident a very large portion of the population would be all in favor of terrorism if it were, say, Jews blowing themselves in Nazi Germany to protest the genocide there. I know most would be in favor of, say, dropping bombs on Baghdad to promote "shock and awe" (a.k.a. terror) in the population there and help us win a war more easily. I'd rather we all avoid these sort of tactics (and other violence) as much as possible and declare them illegitimate, but as I alluded to above, there are others who believe the ends justify any means, and that such violence is necessary.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Tres, I've been thinking and perhaps you or someone else could explain. If there has been no violence as yet, it's obvious why trying to incite terror with violence is wrong. But if a war is already going on, why is it bad to attempt to scare people into surrendering rather than invading and potentially killing a good many more?
Posted by Sopwith (Member # 4640) on :
Bob, that is a really interesting thing to think about... does non-violent protesting work without some threat of violence in the background.
Biko and Mandela always had the threat of the larger black populace and the allies of the African National Congress in the wings. And the sheer masses of the Indian population was a not so subtle threat behind Gandhi.
I think in the Palestinian situation, that threat is definitely there and has been for some time. But, it also comes down to, is the end result of the success a scarier alternative to what the status quo is there. In the Civil Rights movement, the end result was in no way a direct threat to most Americans, so it wasn't a horrifying spectre looming down the road.
In South Africa, for many whites, the end of Aparteid was a horrifying possibility. Especially on a continent known for some terrible "cleansings." The possibility that whites would suffer deadly consequences was there. It succeeded in the end, and much to the better.
In India, Britain was already too stretched in the post war era and it was better to let India go and have an ally Commonwealth than to have to send troops to quell a rebellion. But the non-violent nature of the protests also made it so that sending troops would have been a very bad PR move. Basically, Ghandi caught Britain when it was already over a barrel. A very smart man he was.
Palestine, sheesh, who knows for sure. I do believe, however, that if the current Palestinian leadership was to take control of a fully independent nation, things would be very, very bad.
It is a shame that your suggestion with the children can't happen.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
A shame??? It's a horrid solution. It would only work if both sides' children were removed. The adults would have to stay where they are and if they wanted to fight to the death, so be it. We'd let them because it would mean that the place would be empty sooner.
There would be no movement of families. just the children. And I wouldn't move any kids over the age of 8, maybe even 6. The point would be to have kids who wouldn't have learned the prejudices of their parents.
But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
And that'd be a refreshing change for them too! Nothing like a common enemy to bring foes to a new level of understanding.
It would take far more guts than I have to actually do this though.
Can you imagine? Who would be willing to go down in history as the person who perpetrated cultural genocide on two of the oldest ethnic groups on the planet simply to stop the warring?
And chances are the rest of the world would rise up in protest and stop you from really doing it before you got the point across that it was mostly a threat to bring them to the bargaining table.
But, to be truthful, I think this is the real ultimate solution to all war. If parties insist on going to war, their children are taken away. That's it.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
...but carry it out to its logical conclusion, Bob. The Republicans were war-mongers less than a year ago -- should their children be taken away?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yes
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
You go, girl.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:The point would be to have kids who wouldn't have learned the prejudices of their parents.
Florida wanted to do the same thing to a couple of gay foster parents a year or so ago. If I recall correctly, you were against that.
So. . . kidnapping's okay as long as it fits your ideological prejudices?
Seriously, this attitude makes me want to vomit.
No offense, Bob.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
quote:If there has been no violence as yet, it's obvious why trying to incite terror with violence is wrong. But if a war is already going on, why is it bad to attempt to scare people into surrendering rather than invading and potentially killing a good many more?
I'm not sure I'm the best person to answer that, because I think that such an attempt might not be all that bad in that circumstance. You should ask one of those who believe terrorism is necessarily always wrong. One possible answer, though, is to claim that it is simply wrong to threaten civilians.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I don't think its more revolting than how callous several people on this thread have been about killing civilians.
[ January 03, 2004, 08:13 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
You realize how ironic your point is, right fugu?
Considering the topic, I mean.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I see a slight, sad irony, yes, that people are so willing to compromise the same values they are claiming to uphold in the same voice.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Hey, I said it was a horrible solution.
But how does one break a cycle of violence?
Anyway, I don't see the parallel to gay adoptive parents. The fact the state of Florida is controlled by people who want to pander to the Religious conservatives is far afield from a world-wide revulsion aimed at the intractable violence of the Israel/Palestine situation.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
The sad thing is Bob, is that there are many parallel situations to Israel and Palestine. All over the world.
And if you think back, we essentially did the same thing to the Native Americans here in the U.S.A. when we removed their children from their parents and homes.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Well, not quite. We more "slaughtered them all" than "removed children from their homes to be raised elsewhere to end the war between two cultures."
Slight difference in interpretation, really.
Posted by Maccabeus (Member # 3051) on :
Lalo, while there was a good deal of slaughtering, there were in fact quite a few reservations on which the remaining children were removed from their parents to be taught white culture, and I imagine that is what Shan's referring to. It just happened later.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Yes, the tribes were practically annihilated. We also got them from the other end by removing their children and beating them for speaking their own language and practicing their cultural/religious beliefs. Unfortuantely, this continues even today.
I met a mid-20's woman at a conference last year who clearly remembers her grandmother being hauled off to jail for performing a particular tribal dance. Who sees families torn apart on a regular basis. Who is aghast at the organized crime now running the tribal governments.
Yes, tribes were killed off through war, famine and illness. But I think the resounding deathblow in many ways came from the forcible removal of children from their cultural roots and familial ties.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Ironic, fugu, as in, 'A suicide bomber blew himself up in a Jerusalem market this morning, killing seventeen people and injuring thirty.'
Who is it that has no moral compunctions against killing non-combatants, again?
:shrug:
Bob, the situations are comparable. The parents in FL were feasibly subjecting children to a lifestyle that the government considered ideologically/psychologically detrimental. The theorhetical parents in Israel/Palestine subject their children to an ideology you think is detrimental.
Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
On that note . . . a little pepper anyone?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know what you intended Scott R. I intended to point out how willing people are to support Israeli tactics which kill (far more) Palestinian civilians in the name of peace than the Palestinians who kill in the name of war. I also consider it ironic, given the number of civilians Israel has killed, that you do not mention them. Both deserve to be in the same breath. I want the dying to stop, not one side's dying to stop as all to often seems to be the concern.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
So, you count stone throwing Palestinians among the citizenry?
Equatable with Israeli market-goers, perhaps? Party-goers? Bus riders?
Israel has killed civilians, of that I have no doubt. But Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
The palestinians are hardly very big offenders on that score, actually. You want experts, take a look at India and Pakistan. There are 65,000 people dead in Kashmir because of them. Palestinians are small change. And as the numbers show, not very effective, even compared to Israel.
I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers. Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
Stone throwing at soldiers is an expression of frustration. Certainly, they wouldn't mind killing one, but its not going to happen, and they know it, because it has never happened. The ones who are waging war are not the ones throwing stones at soldiers.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Where does one stop? Will my children be taken away from me because I insist on teaching them what is considered by many to be homophobia? Or male chauvinism?
If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
quote: A modest proposal, but your tongue was not in cheek.
I think the point was that if you gave people a choice between making peace and losing their children, they'd probably make peace. But if they still refused to, then they probably ought to lose their kids. It's a question of whether the world should just stand by and allow these situations to fester or should we do something about it. Given that we seem to want to do something about it, shouldn't we do something effective and lasting?
Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
But I will say it again, I'm not seriously proposing this. Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
quote:Palestinians have made an art imitated the world over of the practice
Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Basically, terrorism is as old as human warfare. Suicide missions are also as old as human warfare.
The shocking things about it are: 1) There seems to be an inexhaustable supply of people willing to die to do this. 2) They almost exclusively target civilians 3) They plan secondary explosions that kill the rescuers
Frankly, as much as I'd like to say that these people are a small minority of the Palestinians, the fact there are so many disaffected youth in the Palestinian territories means that this kind of thing is going to continue.
I do believe that the solution is to find a way to stop the poisoning of young minds. How we do that is for better and more humane people than me to decide. My imagined solutions always seem too horrible to contemplate. I would not be above jailing clerics or even killing them if they couldn't be silenced effectively -- assuming we could identify the clerics who are spreading this doctrine of dying for the cause. I would not be above taking children away from families that support or engage in the violence. I would do it on both sides though. And I would make sure that the country was empty of the hate mongers before I sent the next generation back in to set it all to right.
I'd prefer a diplomatic solution, but I'm pretty impatient when it comes to diplomacy. I just don't think we should have to wait thousands of years for first cousins (so to speak) to figure out how to live together peacefully.
And I truthfully would ban any religion (or religious sect) that preached a message of violence. I wouldn't have any heartburn over the deaths of the people preaching this either. I'd lose very little sleep over it. None, in fact.
And if the government leaders couldn't figure it out, I'd have them removed from office too. And if they didn't go quietly, they'd be next on the list for incarceration or elimination.
But the problem is that this kind of thing has been tried too. And what it gets you is just suppressed hatred. As soon as the enforced peace is removed (like when the Soviet Union fell), all the old animosities come back alive as if no-one had learned anything.
So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
That's about it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote: Bob Scopatz: If you're serious, yes I would absolutely love to see the state remove your children from your household before you poison their minds with that crap.
Hunh. This isn't what I expected you to say at all. I'm not sure how to answer you, Bob.
I hope this is one of those things you just posted off the cuff-- because it looks an awful lot like you want to encourage thought-policing.
And I am serious about teaching my children that homosexuality is a sin. And teaching my sons to serve God and man through the priesthood.
quote: Do you have a solution, other than genocide, that would be as effective and last as long, and would have as certain an outcome?
Yes-- supplying Palestinians with as much aid as we bestow on Israel, contingent on their willingness and capacity to halt terrorism.
quote:Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...just not yours.
:snort: Maybe I misunderstood the meaning of the phrase 'tongue-in-cheek.' See, I had THOUGHT that it meant sarcastic or ironic. Now I have another definition. One that turns it completely around.
For example, you imply that this is tongue in cheek:
quote: But here's the thing. I think if the UN actually THREATENED a program like this -- the forcible removal of all the young children and no let the people there raise their own kids UNLESS they found a way to make peace, they would make peace.
That's the hope of this idea. That the adults who are of good conscience would realize what is truly at stake and drop their mutual animosity in favor of being allowed to raise their own children.
If I were in charge, I would issue the ultimatum and if the terrorism and provocation didn't stop in 30 days, I'd move in and take all the children by force if necessary.
Chances are, we wouldn't even have to take more than a few hundred before people realized that they didn't want this future for their children or their country. And then they'd hate me more than they hated each other.
I'm going to need to get used to this new definition of tongue in cheek. But rest assured, I'll get the hang of it.
And then I'll be just like Bob-- which is apparently what he wants for me and my children anyway.
Won't he be happy?
:snort again:
quote: Lets say you lived in Palestine, and a stray missile shot had killed your sister, or your cousin, or your child. Or perhaps they were bulldozed in a demolition. Or perhaps a rubber bullet when they were in one of the non-stone throwing demonstrations. Are you telling me you would not be out there throwing stones at the soldiers who do this?
No. I'd be using my political power (BEHOLD! THE MIGHTY POWER OF SCOTT R) to remove Arafat and his profiteering cronies from power, and put in place someone who would, when Israel offers to give back the great majority of the occupied lands, accept it.
Throwing stones at soldiers is stupid, pointless, and gets you killed.
Not that taking on Arafat would be any LESS dangerous. . .
quote:Palestinians invented suicide bombing? Oh wait, no, they just turned it into an art form.
Um...was that just hyperbole or do you really think that?
Hyperbole, and I apologize. The demagogue in me is bellowing for food.
quote:So, I truly believe that you have to raise the next generation away from all of it, and let the existing people die off.
That's about it.
So. . . what? NOW you're NOT speaking tongue in cheek?
Make up your mind.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tongue was firmly planted in cheek...
ScottR, just raise your children to be good people -- a force for good. And do the best you possibly can raising them. If you do that, I'm sure I'll admire you and never have any complaints.
As for the rest, I do despair. I think that the prejudices of the past have poisoned the minds of many in Palestine and Israel. And because of that, I don't think they can achieve peace in their lifetimes. And they are teaching their children the same things they already "know" to be true, so they can't see a different and better way.
It's like if your attitude about homosexuality (it being a sin) took a violent turn, and you taught that to your sons. I mean, I can live with the thought that you might teach your sons something I disagree with as a principle. But if you teach them to act out on that belief and actually harm another human being, then you've gone too far, IMHO.
So, while most of what I've been posting about taking away people's children is just for the shock value, I would support the idea of taking away children from those who promote and engage in violence. Especially those who promote violence on religious grounds and aimed at innocent people who have not harmed anyone else.
Anyway, I wouldn't take away someone's children just for an attitude. But if the kids turn violent because of what they are taught? Sure. Maybe we could fix them -- undo the damage their parents have done before it's too late.
Which lesson do you consider more important to teach your sons: that they know how to recognize sin or that they know not to judge other people? And how do you make sure they get the difference?
You don't really have to answer that. It's the sort of thing that would keep me awake at night if I were raising children.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Quite frankly, recognizing sin is more important, Bob.
The kind of judging you're talking about is a sin, too, so recognition kind of covers that.
quote:And then I'll be just like Bob-- which is apparently what he wants for me and my children anyway.
Won't he be happy?
This was uncalled for and stupid. My apologies.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I find it hard to believe you would be working against Arafat, actually, as your primary news sources are partisan and one side is telling you he is corrupt (the same side, as far as you can tell, which has killed your relatives) while the other side is telling you he is not (the side which is not killing your relatives). I rather suspect that, while you might be suspicious of Arafat, you would hate the Israeli military.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:shrug:
I didn't realize that was how this game of theorheticals was played, fugu.
Wish I had-- I'd have let you drive from the start.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I simply don't think you are being realistic about the situation. Case in point: are you asserting you are far more reasonable and intelligent than most Palestinians? The simple proof that a lot of reasonable people would behave this way is that a lot of presumably pretty reasonable people are behaving this way. Lets make the a new example. Say you're in the US, and I walk into your house and shoot your wife, then when you come after me I assert I had good intelligence your wife was out to kill me and produce a well documented paper trail. Assuming through some odd cirumstance I was able to force you to read this paper trail, and even assuming that you are persuaded by it that your wife was out to kill me (a doubtful assumption), I'm betting you'd still do everything you could to get me the maximum punishment possible.
I trust you see the rough parallels?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
:shrug:
I'd kill YOU-- not the American government who allowed you to own a gun.
I'd kill you-- not white people.
I'd kill you-- not computer programmers.
I'd kill you-- not agnostics.
It honestly sounds like you're justifying suicide bombers, fugu.
Are you?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, I was suggesting an analogy between myself and the Israeli soldiers. Thank you for proving my point about how you would react.
[ January 04, 2004, 07:49 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Then do you understand why the international community finds my personal reasons for offing you abhorrent, and unsupportable?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Now lets assume that before you could kill me, I was taken into custody. Or, say, you just couldn't get close to me because I was sitting in body armor behind some sandbags with a machine gun, and you didn't have any guns. And perhaps you decide to throw a rock at me from a distance -- it doesn't hit me, or if it does, it does negligible damage.
Does the international community condemn you then?
Now say, I shoot a lot of rubber bullets at you (perhaps with my machine gun). Say one of them kills you.
Should I be condemned then?
I'm not drawing an analogy between you and the suicide bombers, scott. I've been drawing an analogy between you and the ones throwing stones at Israeli soldiers.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Stone throwing is never supported by lawful communities, fugu.
I don't exactly support the Israeli penchant for plugging teenagers with rocks-- then again, I don't face a populace that hates me, or that wants to blow me to smithereens every day either.
Empathy works both ways, you know. . .
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, which is what I feel so many people forget, and one purpose of my example.
And stone throwing, while not supported typically, is frequently not condemned. I predict were you to throw a stone from a large distance at a man who had killed your wife (we are assuming the man is in custody) you would be applauded, though of course I cannot be sure.
Moreso, my example was intended to show the humanity of the palestinians throwing stones at Israeli soldiers, something at least one person in this thread seems to reject.
My example was also to demonstrate why those throwing stones at Isreali soldiers were among the citizenry, which at least one person on this thread has specifically denied.
[ January 04, 2004, 08:32 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Bob, I read that same short story involving Ghandi and the Nazis. Two things: First, a story can be made any which way and that doesn't mean that it would be true. Second, you're implying the Israelis don't have a conscience. When I say the Israelis use rubber bullets instead of normal bullets I say it because they could use more force but they try to limit the damage. Of course Palestinians are going to die while Israelis are not because the whole point in using more effective weapons is to prevent the inneffective ones from becoming effective. Therefore, stop the attackers before their attacks become truly dangerous.
In Fugu's original article:
quote: Palestinian gunmen opened fire from nearby buildings, drawing Israeli heavy machine-gun fire, witnesses said.
Gunmen don't throw rocks. Furthermore, you said that Israeli soldiers shot protesters. I said they didn't shoot peaceful protesters. You said there were examples where soldiers shot people just throwing rocks and destroying a wall. At that point you imply that rock throwing and the destruction of property is peaceful. I have always maintained that those activities are violent. Finally, bystanders will always get hurt shooting starts around them. You can't expect soldiers to not defend themselves.
quote: I do count stone throwers among the citizenry, at least those who throw stones at soldiers.
So I guess soldiers aren't human beings too? I guess you're the kind of person who cheers when American soldiers are blown up by terrorists in Iraq. Because after all its just "an expression of frustration". Do you realize that virtually all Israeli citizens are, have been, or will be soldiers? Women too.
[ January 04, 2004, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: newfoundlogic ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Fugu, I am not sure that the stone throwers can be considered as being among the citizenry. It is obvious (to me, at least) that the stone throwing is not a part of any type of protest-- in other words, it is not a protected action. Throwing a stone at another living being (keep in mind the stones are not thrown with ones arm, often-- but thrown from a sling) is an act of agression. It has no purpose other than harm.
I think you swing too much the other way-- and sympathy only goes so far.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not going to bother speaking with NFL anymore. I have tried to converse civilly with him and he has made no similar effort, instead desiring to unleash his vitriol hatefully.
And I repeat, if those Palestinians throwing stones at soldiers were out to harm people, they'd choose something else to do. They can see with their own eyes that throwing stones a) does not harm the soldiers and b) results in tear gas or even death for them. I don't see what they can be other than an expression of frustration. And in a place where everyone has slings, yes, I expect them to be thrown by sling.
Now, throwing stones against civilians I consider just as bad as shooting civilians, and consider shooting at those engaging in it fully justified.
Could you be specific which actions I advocate you consider swinging too far the other way, Scott?
[ January 04, 2004, 09:37 PM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Okay. . . I'm at a loss again, which is twice in a thread. New record for me.
Fugu, how do you justify the stance that the rock throwers aren't throwing rocks to hurt people? Have you spoken with the throwers and asked them, "Are you trying to hurt people? Or standardize a new form of peaceful protest?"
Your argument is just. . .illogical.
EDIT: People who are frustrated but peaceful don't throw rocks. They pass out flyers. They shout. They make signs. All of which are open to Palestinians.
[ January 04, 2004, 09:40 PM: Message edited by: Scott R ]
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Its great that you decided that you'll ignore me because you didn't read what I said. If you think terrorists are justified in throwing stones at soldiers then you believe it is justified for terrorists to throw stones at any Israeli because every Israeli has been, is, or will be a soldier. If you don't stop/shoot the rock thrower he/she will kill you. What do you think is stopping them from truly becoming dangerous. Everything I've claimed you've said you have said. If you don't mean that soldiers aren't deserving of safety you shouldn't have said that.
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
*Considers taking various members by the hand and leading them to the logic thread.
Reconsiders and sits back to wait for the next comments.*
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I know I've said I wouldn't, but I hate being lied about.
I said:
quote: Not opening fire on peaceful protesters (peaceful meaning, not threatening people at all).
NFL says:
quote: They don't do that unless you consider throwing rocks to be peaceful and even then rubber bullets are used.
Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
I apologize, the article I cited earlier is unclear that some of the protests did not involve stone throwing, though when I read it I thought it made that clear. Though it does make it clear both the high lethality compared to rocks of rubber bullets, AND that Israel was using live ammunition in response to some rock protests, something NFL has asserted is not so.
However, my position has always been, and I have so clarified several times, such as here:
quote:I can't find it in a cursory look back over what I wrote, but I don't think I asserted that protesters throwing rocks were peaceful ... I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
After all this NFL of course is still saying:
quote: Fugu likes to claim that people with harmful intentions are actually peaceful
. No, I have said they are harmless, not peaceful. I have explicitly clarified multiple times that peaceful did not include them. See above.
Then I make it even clearer:
quote:Thirdly, you're the one who connected rock throwing with peaceful protests. I'm referring to instances where there wasn't even that when I say peacefully, as I have already explicitly stated.
And now of course, NFL says:
quote:Everything I've claimed you've said you have said
[ January 05, 2004, 12:18 AM: Message edited by: fugu13 ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Quite frankly, recognizing sin is more important, Bob.
The kind of judging you're talking about is a sin, too, so recognition kind of covers that.
Wow! I couldn't disagree with you more and still consider us as being from the same species.
Are you serious? It's more important for your children to recognize sin in themselves and others than to heed one of the clearest prohibitions in the New Testament?
Especially when sin is such a nebulously defined concept?
I'm just floored. Really I am.
And I'll stop talking about it because I find I can't continue without seriously impugning your parenting ideas, skills and whatever.
And I really have no right or basis on which to do that, not having been a parent myself.
But I'm shocked that any Christian would even begin to entertain the notion you have just espoused.
I fear, however, that I'm about to be educated by the other parents here at Hatrack...I'm betting more people feel the way you do than I'd ever imagined.
<hides from the world...again!>
This seriously has made my day a lot darker.
This sucks.
I think I'll start a new thread rather than further de-rail this one...
Posted by Javert Hugo (Member # 3980) on :
Bob, judging like that IS a sin. If they are recognizing sins, that's one of the sins to recognize.
---
I hate it when discussions turn into hypothetical arguments and statements are made for shock value when one person is still discussing the problem as it exists in this world and looking for a solution that might actually occur.
I mean, if we're going into a illusionary discussion, let's just pass a law that creates a mirror image of all of Isreal/Palestine, and Isreal gets one and Palestine gets the other.
That would solve everything.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Somehow I bet both sides would still be complaining the other got Jerusalem . . .
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
quote: Throwing rocks is NOT a threat. I have not heard of Israeli soldiers being killed by thrown rocks, while I have heard of Palestinian protesters being killed by rubber bullets and live rounds (heck, I've seen it happen on TV live!). Tear gas or other responses at a similar degree of force, ok, but firing on an unarmed crowd that is throwing rocks?!
And not all the protesters were even doing that. Not too long ago a group of Palestinians were protesting the building of the wall, and had approached it and begun dismantling a section of it. They were fired on, and at least one live round was fired (that is the number Israel maintains). Two protesters were killed. Dismantling a wall is a justification for killing someone?
So when you said rock throwing was not a threat you didn't mean that it shouldn't be considered violent? When you specifically pointed out that they were "unarmed" you weren't saying they were non-violent? If you didn't say that rock throwing ought to be considered peaceful protest you were certainly implying that in your post.
quote: I was referring to protests where they were not endangering any people, and not doing general property destruction,
quote: Things go on from there. I clarify several times that when I said that I did not even intend to include rock throwers (at soldiers) but that I meant those who were not attacking humans at all (once referencing an instance where palestinians were attacked when trying to tear down a section of the wall -- NOT attacking any soldiers).
Destroying a wall is property damage. Is there something you don't get about that? Furthermore, you're attacking people when you endanger their lives. You endanger their lives when you remove something that greatly contributes to their safety. I've already explained how the wall contributes to Israelis' safety and you've never responded to that.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I keep meaning to read this thread when I have more free time. As it is, I've just read the first post and this page. The only thing he's possibly changed my mind on is Meryl Streep. I was pretty neutral about her before, and now I can kind of see what bugs him about her.
I don't fully agree with him about Israel, but him having an opinion is probably better than me throwing my hands in the air and thinking "there will never be an answer". I heard different things from different people all the time that keep me feeling confused and upset about it. I guess it is because I am stuck on the underdog archetype. In the Israel/Palestinian struggle, Palestinians are the underdog. But in the Zionist/Arab struggle, the Zionists are the underdog. But since culture and nationality are not really the same thing, it creates very mixed feelings for me. I use Zionist in this context to highlight the kind of remarks made about "them" by pan-Arab and organizations. I don't mean it derogatorily.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
pooka, you simply MUST read page 3.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Bob-
quote: The best thing the Palestinians could do is start a peace movement, stick to it,[ sorry for the obvious Out of Contextness, but I'm too lazy to fix it]
What would happen if the Israelis did the same thing, I wonder? Is it possible that surrounding Arabs states would leave them alone?
I was going to bring up the anti-semite paradox in my apology for the zionist label. But what about when Asian Muslims speak of the need to drive Zionists from Palestine?
Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
Bob, as a parent, I MUST say -
Recognizing sin in others is not a priority lesson for children. (IMHO)
Recognizing sin (error) in self does top the list, though. It's part of the maturation/discipline process. Recognizing when I have screwed up and done something that harms another or myself. Making amends. Asking forgiveness. Changing the behavior.
I dunno - I always thought the greatest commandment was "Love one another as I have loved you." The capper, as it were.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Bob:
Jav Hug ( ) explains my POV pretty well.
Posted by newfoundlogic (Member # 3907) on :
Pooka, the Israelis had no interest in fighting a war in 1948, they were perfectly content to live with half of Palestine and Jerusalem as a UN city but every Arab nation decided peace was not a good idea. Then Egypt tried to starve Israel out of existence by closing the Suez Canal. Then Egypt formulated a plot to destroy Israel in 1967 but the Mossad picked up on it and launched an incredibly successful pre-emptive attack which really created this whole mess by creating the "occupied territories" such as the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and the Golan Hieghts. Israel managed to successfuly trade the Sanai for peace with Egypt later. Then in 1973 Arab nations launched a suprise attack on the holiest holiday for Jews. During this whole time Syria and its puppet state Lebanon have actively supported terrorist groups and have done it covertly. This is why Israel maintained a 20 mile buffer between Lebanon and Israel for a couple decades. The whole point is an Israeli peace movement would have no effect on the racists who will not be satisfied until all Jews are dead.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
More parlor games. There's no pointing fingers. And I'm much too lazy to tweak evidence for a non-existant audience. I assure you Hatrack is not keeping score.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
j/k .![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
)