This was included in the Manhigut Yehudit newsletter that I received by e-mail today. Manhigut (the name means "Jewish Leadership") is an organization in Israel which has as one of its slogans: "Turning the State of the Jews into a Jewish State."
quote:Is There Any Way to Stop the Madness?
"So what is your solution?" a Leftist once asked me.
"I don't have a solution," I answered.
"So what do you want?"
"I don't have a solution to your problem, but I do have a solution to my problem."
Our entire country knowingly marches toward its own destruction because it has decided that its problem is that it has no place among the nations (as Binyamin Netanyahu named his book, "A Place Among the Nations"). A Jewish country cannot exist in the Land of Israel if it is estranged from its past, its identity and its destiny. We do not have a place among the nations. We do have a place apart from the nations. Our problem is not how to become like the nations. Our problem is how to be Jews who fulfill their destiny -- to perfect the world in the kingdom of Heaven -- in the Land of Israel.
"For me," said authoress Dorit Roynyan in an interview to Israel TV a year after the Oslo Accords were signed, "Oslo means forgetting that I am Jewish."
So if your problem is peace and security -- in other words, "Give me some peace and quiet and let me forget the Jewish hump on my back," I have no solution for your problem. You will become more and more enmeshed in trouble and reel ever closer to destruction. Every time you attempt to run away, reality -- a.k.a. G-d -- will force you back to yourself. You will then vent your anger and frustration on your brothers who have remained faithful to their destiny -- the settlers.
I have no solutions for the imaginary world that you have created so that you can fulfill your dream of assimilation. You have created a virtual reality -- one that is not synchronized with G-d. It can't work and it won't work, and I can't help you. Until you face reality as the Creator has defined it, the Kassams will fall and the collapse will continue.
But I do have a solution for my problem. I have a way to fulfill my dream. I have a way to advance toward a completely different goal. My destiny dictates a solid solution to our current situation.
My goal and destiny is to perfect the world in the kingdom of Heaven. I strive to create a state in the Land of Israel (that includes Gaza), an exemplary Jewish society that illuminates the world with its morality and G-dly conduct. As soon as we re-set our moral coordinates, as soon as we restore our sense of justice, as soon as it is clear to us who the good and bad guys are in this story (when we know, we'll easily be able to explain ourselves to the world), everything will be simple.
We won't need major military offensives, we will not need targeted killings and we will not need fences. All we will need is some perseverance and everything will work out. When we return to our appropriate place and proportions, our enemies will also return to their appropriate place and proportions. The question is not what we will do with them, but what we will do with ourselves.
Only Jewish leadership for Israel can provide the answer. Because only Jewish Leadership asks the right question.
Moshe Feiglin
[ June 30, 2006, 05:20 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by Enigmatic (Member # 7785) on :
That's an interesting read. I don't really have any comments or anything, but wanted to thank you for sharing it.
--Enigmatic
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Lets hope they don't lock you up again!
BC
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
More than a little bit scary.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Inspiring, really.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote: I strive to create a state in the Land of Israel (that includes Gaza), an exemplary Jewish society that illuminates the world with its morality and G-dly conduct. As soon as we re-set our moral coordinates, as soon as we restore our sense of justice, as soon as it is clear to us who the good and bad guys are in this story (when we know, we'll easily be able to explain ourselves to the world), everything will be simple.
We won't need major military offensives, we will not need targeted killings and we will not need fences. All we will need is some perseverance and everything will work out. When we return to our appropriate place and proportions, our enemies will also return to their appropriate place and proportions.
And then we can all have milk and cookies, and ride off into the future on our pretty ponies!
Just a trifle idealistic. Was this written before or after Israel gave up Gaza?
edit: what I mean to say is, does the author really believe that Palestinians will give back Gaza, just because Israel becomes more moral in some undefined way? I don't get it.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I Believe in the right of my people, the Celts, to occupy large amounts of land not given to them by international agreement either! We will be invading Israel soon, I hope that is okay.
Alright, I admit that was unfair. The actual history of Israel would be to say that they took what they were suposed to share as their own and then proceeded to invade neighboring territories.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Morbo, it was written this past week. And no, it's not a trifle idealistic; it's extremely idealistic.
It's depressing to hear the term "idealistic" used to mean "unrealistic". Idealism means holding fast to an ideal and working to achieve that ideal. You won't always succeed, but it's a hard fact that you won't achieve it if you don't hold fast to it.
Playing realpolitik hasn't worked. And it never will for Israel. We're not supposed to be like every other country.
This is a link to Manhigut Yehudit's "Jewish Road Map". That's what needs to be implemented. Not more of the same.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: edit: what I mean to say is, does the author really believe that Palestinians will give back Gaza, just because Israel becomes more moral in some undefined way? I don't get it.
I think his point is that once we stop worrying so much about what the rest of the world will say, we'll simply repatriate them to Arab countries and move back onto our own land.
Edit: It's fascinating, really. I'm reading a book that takes place during the late '50s or early '60s, and the same nonsense was going on about the Cold War. The Soviets were open and above-board about wanting to conquer the whole world, but people of a certain bent refused to hear it. They demanded one concession after another, and called anyone who wanted to stand firm against Soviet aggression a "warmonger".
If you'd told any of these folks during the '70s or '80s that standing firm was exactly what was needed, and that the Soviet Union would break apart without a war, they would have thought you were crazy.
People went absolutely berserk when President Reagan came right out and called the Soviets an "evil empire". But that's what they were. And most of the hysteria came from the fact that people didn't want to acknowledge it, and were terrified that saying it would get the Soviets riled.
When the situation in the Middle East is resolve, I suspect it'll be in a way that would surprise the hell out of people right now, just as the end of the Cold War was surprising.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"We're not supposed to be like every other country." Yes, you bloody well are. All countries are bound by the same rules, and most countries break them. Israel is not held to a diferent standard than Sweden or the Sudan. In terms of meeting this standard, it falls between those two countries but the fact that Israel is mostly Jewish, Sweden mostly Lutheren, the Suden mostly Muslim, or Bhutan mostly Budhist is of little concern to me. The rights of a Muslim child or a Muslim woman are no different from the rights of a Hindu, a Sikh, a Jain or a Jew.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Lisa, why don't we all stop worrying about what others "think" and do whatever we please. How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: [QUOTE]
edit: what I mean to say is, does the author really believe that Palestinians will give back Gaza, just because Israel becomes more moral in some undefined way? I don't get it.
I read a story recently, though I honestly couldn't tell you how true it is.
Basically it involved this big name Palestinean terrorist sitting in Israeli prison. He was truly tired of it all, he went so far to tell all of his comrades that Israel will never be defeated.
Then Passover comes along. This prisoner witnesses one of the guards eating pita bread, and asks him why he can do such a thing when his religion forbids it for the holiday. The guard said something about not feeling it necessary to follow rules set by his ancestors thousands of years ago.
The prisoner again goes back to his comrades and tell them to forget what he said. That these people don't really take their covenant seriously, and if the Palestineans stick to their faith they shall prevail.
I'm probably off a bit on the wording, but I do think that it shows how the increase in secular Jews in Israel might just give the Palestinean terrorists more hope.
[ June 30, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: Stephan ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "We're not supposed to be like every other country." Yes, you bloody well are.
No, Pelagius, we bloody well are not. And despite what you wrote further on, I'm not talking about the rules you are. In fact, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those rules, and always have. I'm referring to our internal issues.
Repatriating the Arabs currently living in occupied Jewish lands to Arab lands is not an infringement of anyone's rights. On the contrary; it is the righting of a current wrong.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Um... while there are a lot of other things I could comment on, the whole "repatriate them to Arab countries" that they were there in the first place. They weren't. From m-w.com
quote: Main Entry: re·pa·tri·ate Pronunciation: (")rE-'pA-trE-"At, -'pa- Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing Etymology: Late Latin repatriatus, past participle of repatriare to go back to one's country -- more at REPAIR : to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship
None of the above apply to Palestinians with regards to other Arab countries.
Plus who says they other Arab countries will take them? None of the countries bordering Israel let the Palestinians assimilate in their country before, why would they do it now?
AJ
btw, I thought the article was actually restating Rabbi Hillel...
quote: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it. Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, if you want to have different rules from everyone else, splendid. We can always stop subsidising you, and watch that nice little military machine crumble into dust. On sheer size, Israel can support about as much army as Sweden. Let's see you hold off the Egyptians without outside support.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Um... while there are a lot of other things I could comment on, the whole "repatriate them to Arab countries" that they were there in the first place. They weren't. From m-w.com
quote: Main Entry: re·pa·tri·ate Pronunciation: (")rE-'pA-trE-"At, -'pa- Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): -at·ed; -at·ing Etymology: Late Latin repatriatus, past participle of repatriare to go back to one's country -- more at REPAIR : to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship
None of the above apply to Palestinians with regards to other Arab countries.
Sure it does. Jordan is more than 3/4 of Palestine. And their occupation of Israel, even if it started 13 centuries ago (not that many of the current self-identified Palestinians have been there nearly that long), was never legal.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Plus who says they other Arab countries will take them? None of the countries bordering Israel let the Palestinians assimilate in their country before, why would they do it now?
For the same reason that Israel exists. The Arab countries would prefer that not to be the case either, but it is. And they live with it.
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: btw, I thought the article was actually restating Rabbi Hillel...
quote: What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbour. This is the whole Torah; all the rest is commentary. Go and learn it. Hillel, Talmud, Shabbath 31a
With respect, Rabbi Hillel was Hillel the Elder's g'g'etc'grandson. The above was stated by Hillel the Elder, who was never called "Rabbi Hillel". Also, "all the rest is commentary" is a poor (albeit common) translation. Better would be "the rest is the explanation". Lastly, "neighbor" is definitely a bad translation. The word is "chaver", or "friend" or "comrade". It certainly does not include those who would kill us.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I think his point is that once we stop worrying so much about what the rest of the world will say, we'll simply repatriate them to Arab countries and move back onto our own land.
Fine, you could do that and reoccupy Gaza.
But it most definitely is unrealistic and idealistic to think that that would happen because "All we will need is some perseverance and everything will work out," without any messy "major military offensives."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lisa, why don't we all stop worrying about what others "think" and do whatever we please. How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
Theft and murder are very wrong. I hope you aren't going to stoop to what Lyrhawn did the other day and try and claim that I'm saying something other than what I'm really saying.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I'm probably off a bit on the wording, but I do think that it shows how the increase in secular Jews in Israel might just give the Palestinean terrorists more hope.
"We won't ever learn, will we?", by Jonathan Rosenblum. The original story was in Hebrew, written by Aharon Barnea, an extremely left-wing journalist in Israel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Morbo: But it most definitely is unrealistic and idealistic to think that that would happen because "All we will need is some perseverance and everything will work out," without any messy "major military offensives."
As I said, I think you'll be surprised. And I think you overestimate the difficulty we'll have with it.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
Interesting... so much for the "golden rule" actually being found across faiths then. I'd heard that touted by Jewish people themselves, although they probably weren't the most orthodox variety of Jew.
AJ
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj: Interesting... so much for the "golden rule" actually being found across faiths then. I'd heard that touted by Jewish people themselves, although they probably weren't the most orthodox variety of Jew.
Probably. We have a statement that says, "When one comes to kill you, rise up and kill him first." That would contradict what Hillel said if he was talking about just anyone, but he wasn't.
But we also have a rule that there are three things where one must die rather than transgress them. One is certain sexual transgressions. One is idolatry. And one is murder. If someone hold a gun to my head and tells me I must commit murder or he'll kill me, I can try and take the guy with the gun down, but I can't commit the murder and claim that the duress I was under excuses me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:All countries are bound by the same rules...
Israel is not held to a diferent standard than Sweden or the Sudan.
What utter nonsense. Israel is frequently held to a standard different than that of its primary enemy, Palestinian terrorists. In fact I would say 'almost constantly'. As for Sweden? It bears no similarity whatsoever, and so comparing Israel to Sweden-a nation without a tenth of the problems facing Israel-is foolish.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:All countries are bound by the same rules...
Israel is not held to a diferent standard than Sweden or the Sudan.
What utter nonsense. Israel is frequently held to a standard different than that of its primary enemy, Palestinian terrorists. In fact I would say 'almost constantly'. As for Sweden? It bears no similarity whatsoever, and so comparing Israel to Sweden-a nation without a tenth of the problems facing Israel-is foolish.
quote:We won't need major military offensives, we will not need targeted killings and we will not need fences. All we will need is some perseverance and everything will work out. When we return to our appropriate place and proportions, our enemies will also return to their appropriate place and proportions. The question is not what we will do with them, but what we will do with ourselves.
I kinda like the idealism in this peace, but it's a little scary. I'm an idealist myself, although I disagree with much of what this author has to say.
I would say that targeted killings, fences, and major military offensives are not necessary now. If you're going to be idealistic, you must follow the ideals. The golden rule, "be the change you want to create in the world," and the goal of creating "an exemplary Jewish society that illuminates the world with its morality and G-dly conduct" dictate that Israel must adopt moral and "Godly" policies right away. Yet, today Israel threatens the assassination of the Hamas PM unless a kidnapped Israeli soldier (kidnapped by a group separate from the Hamas leadership, a kidnapping that was denounced by that Hamas leadership).
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Please, O King, stop subsidizing us.
The author of this piece is very wrong in many of his unattributed assertions. One example: he asserts that military aid is 50% higher than economic aid, but it is actually almost ten times the amount of nonmilitary aid. Read Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's paper "The Israel Lobby" (PDF) for a very thorough explanation of Israel's strategic and tactical importance to the US that directly refutes what your link offers (this paper is not without flaw, but its conclusions are drawn on an extensive body of unquestioned facts).
quote:With respect, Rabbi Hillel was Hillel the Elder's g'g'etc'grandson. The above was stated by Hillel the Elder, who was never called "Rabbi Hillel". Also, "all the rest is commentary" is a poor (albeit common) translation. Better would be "the rest is the explanation". Lastly, "neighbor" is definitely a bad translation. The word is "chaver", or "friend" or "comrade". It certainly does not include those who would kill us.
oh I guess the golden rule really isn't a good one then. :sigh:
I don't know if you should call it "UN bias" if the UN passes security counsel resolutions against Israel for specific offenses this often. I don't see why a body so consistently opposed to Israel should allow it a spot on the security counsel, for example (your link's first example of bias). If you have a problem with the UN rules that it accuses Israel of breaking, that's one thing, but if you believe those rules/norms are just, then what?
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:What utter nonsense. Israel is frequently held to a standard different than that of its primary enemy, Palestinian terrorists. In fact I would say 'almost constantly'. As for Sweden? It bears no similarity whatsoever, and so comparing Israel to Sweden-a nation without a tenth of the problems facing Israel-is foolish.
I guess this is the part I don't get. Problems or no problems. Why compare yourselves to your enemies? PArticularly as far as moral conduct goes. Saying "I'm more moral than my enemy" is irrelevant.
Shouldn't you want to be conducting yourselves to the highest standard of good behavior regardless of the problems involved with doing so?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I would say that targeted killings, fences, and major military offensives are not necessary now. If you're going to be idealistic, you must follow the ideals. The golden rule, "be the change you want to create in the world,"
Heh. Now Immanuel Kant is the source of a "Golden Rule"? With all due respect, Nato, the ideals Moshe Feiglin is talking about in his article are very different from yours. It's quite possible to be idealistic even when the ideals you're holding firm to differ from Nato's.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: and the goal of creating "an exemplary Jewish society that illuminates the world with its morality and G-dly conduct" dictate that Israel must adopt moral and "Godly" policies right away.
Indeed. And although I actually haven't read past this point in your post yet, I have the distressing feeling that you're going to go ahead and tell us what "moral and Godly policies" would be. Before I get there, I just want to reiterate that "moral and Godly" are determined, for us, by the laws God gave us. And not by the moralizing of Nato.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Yet, today Israel threatens the assassination of the Hamas PM unless a kidnapped Israeli soldier (kidnapped by a group separate from the Hamas leadership, a kidnapping that was denounced by that Hamas leadership).
Denounced. Right. Hamas is the organization that has people calling Fatah "moderate" by comparison, even though Fatah still sponsors and applauds terror attacks and the incessant firing of rockets into Israel from Gaza. A comparison with Nazi Germany would be appropriate here. Germany as a whole was at war with the Allies. But members of the Nazi party were particularly odious. And members of the SS were the filthiest of the lot. While the analogy isn't a perfect one (and what analogy ever is), comparing the Palestinians to the Germans, Fatah and all its associated forces with Nazi party members, and Hamas with the SS is pretty close to the truth.
I would hope that so long as their war against Israel continues, not a single Hamas member would consider himself or herself safe.
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Please, O King, stop subsidizing us.
The author of this piece is very wrong in many of his unattributed assertions. One example: he asserts that military aid is 50% higher than economic aid, but it is actually almost ten times the amount of nonmilitary aid. Read Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer's paper "The Israel Lobby" (PDF) for a very thorough explanation of Israel's strategic and tactical importance to the US that directly refutes what your link offers (this paper is not without flaw, but its conclusions are drawn on an extensive body of unquestioned facts).
We're willing to take the chance. Please. Eliminate aid to Israel. It'll be like cutting a junkie off cold turkey, but the end result will be every bit as much worthwhile.
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:With respect, Rabbi Hillel was Hillel the Elder's g'g'etc'grandson. The above was stated by Hillel the Elder, who was never called "Rabbi Hillel". Also, "all the rest is commentary" is a poor (albeit common) translation. Better would be "the rest is the explanation". Lastly, "neighbor" is definitely a bad translation. The word is "chaver", or "friend" or "comrade". It certainly does not include those who would kill us.
oh I guess the golden rule really isn't a good one then. :sigh:
You mean the "Do unto others" one? No, I don't think it is. The world would have been a much nicer place without people constantly doing unto others. If that rule is redeemable at all, it would be by changing it to "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them." And even that is far from ideal.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I don't know if you should call it "UN bias" if the UN passes security counsel resolutions against Israel for specific offenses this often. I don't see why a body so consistently opposed to Israel should allow it a spot on the security counsel, for example (your link's first example of bias). If you have a problem with the UN rules that it accuses Israel of breaking, that's one thing, but if you believe those rules/norms are just, then what?
As usual, Nato graces us with an anti-semitic site. Note the use of quotation marks around "Israel". And the link to the story about Mohamed Durra, whose death was falsely attributed to Israel.
What can you expect from a site that doesn't even recognize the existence of the State of Israel?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
quote:What utter nonsense. Israel is frequently held to a standard different than that of its primary enemy, Palestinian terrorists. In fact I would say 'almost constantly'. As for Sweden? It bears no similarity whatsoever, and so comparing Israel to Sweden-a nation without a tenth of the problems facing Israel-is foolish.
I guess this is the part I don't get. Problems or no problems. Why compare yourselves to your enemies? PArticularly as far as moral conduct goes. Saying "I'm more moral than my enemy" is irrelevant.
Shouldn't you want to be conducting yourselves to the highest standard of good behavior regardless of the problems involved with doing so?
Sure. But the question is, what's the highest standard of good behavior? Some would say that killing is always wrong, and that if someone tries to kill you, you should still try not to kill him. We, on the other hand, hold it to be not merely permitted to kill him if necessary, but obligatory. We consider that the moral imperative.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Any time some person or group wants to use religion as an excuse to kill people, subjugate them, or take their property, it scares me. No matter who's doing it, or what their religion.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Ignore what site published this list. The list is accurate.
These are UN security counsel resolutions against Israel 1955-1992:
quote:
Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious # obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member # states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of # two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the # council's order not to deport Palestinians".
Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide # by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its # claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported # Palestinian mayors".
Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's # nuclear facility".
Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan # Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and # allow food supplies to be brought in".
Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions # and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia # in attack on PLO headquarters.
Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw # its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students # at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices # denying the human rights of Palestinians.
Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly # requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians # and calls for their immediate return.
Now my original question: do you reject the UN rules/norms that these resolutions condemn Israel for breaking? Do you think Israel should be exempt for some reason? (why?) Or what?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Boy, it's sure clear Israel is held to the same standard as Palestinians.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote: Sure. But the question is, what's the highest standard of good behavior? Some would say that killing is always wrong, and that if someone tries to kill you, you should still try not to kill him. We, on the other hand, hold it to be not merely permitted to kill him if necessary, but obligatory. We consider that the moral imperative.
This makes me sad. It also shows why a man like Ghandi would never cut it in the middle east.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I reject them. I reject their application to Israel. I reject their analysis of the situation that led them to issue these condemnations.
Take Resolution 799, for example. We took 413 monsters with blood on their hands and deported them. And for this, the UN condemned us. That condemnation condemns the UN; not us.
A goodly number of those condemnations were while Israel was in Lebanon. We went into Lebanon because the government of Lebanon was unwilling or unable to prevent rockets from being launched on a daily basis into Israel from Lebanese territory. That's an act of war. We tolerated it for years. And I don't notice any UN condemnations of the shelling of Israel towns by Arabs in Lebanon. Because that's not something that really interests the UN.
The Arabs in Gaza have been shelling the town of Sderot and other nearby areas ever since Israel pulled out of Gaza. Where are the UN condemnations for that? Or is that not against the "rules" you're talking about, Nato?
Seriously. The point Rakeesh made was that Israel is treated differently than anyone else. The fact that Israel gets condemned for such things when no one gets condemned for doing them to Israel simply proves Rakeesh correct.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BannaOj:
quote: Sure. But the question is, what's the highest standard of good behavior? Some would say that killing is always wrong, and that if someone tries to kill you, you should still try not to kill him. We, on the other hand, hold it to be not merely permitted to kill him if necessary, but obligatory. We consider that the moral imperative.
This makes me sad. It also shows why a man like Ghandi would never cut it in the middle east.
There's an interesting What If? story about if the Nazis had succeeded in taking Britain, and then, consequently, India. It describes the attempt of Gandhi and Nehru to use the same techniques against the Nazis that they did against the British. Needless to say, the results were a great deal less pleasant for the Indians.
Implacable malice can't be treated like simple opposition. The British, for all that they were colonialist, were civilized. There were limits on what they were willing to do in response to a rebellious colony. I'm sure the Indians would have preferred those limits to be other than they were, but in the end, limits did exist. The Nazis lacked the compunctions held by civilized peoples. So do, at the very least, the leaders of the Palestinians. They do not recognize any limitations whatsoever if those limitations interfere with their goal of destroying Israel.
Implacable malice. It can't be negotiated with. The Allies learned that during WWII. The NATO countries learned it during the Cold War. And Israel... well, God willing, Israel will learn it sooner, rather than later.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
But you are imputing implacable malice where it may or may not be.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I hear you, AJ. I think that it is. That they've made it more than abundantly clear that it is. And that we'd be foolish to doubt it at this point.
I also think that they can change it. And that they can convince us that they have. But they seem stunningly uninterested in doing so.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:starLisa:
Indeed. And although I actually haven't read past this point in your post yet, I have the distressing feeling that you're going to go ahead and tell us what "moral and Godly policies" would be. Before I get there, I just want to reiterate that "moral and Godly" are determined, for us, by the laws God gave us. And not by the moralizing of Nato.
I won't tell you some absolute standard of moral action. I am not a moral authority, although I do have many objections to Israel's actions on a moral register. I don't recognize the laws God gave you as legitimate moral authority either, as I am not religious, but I won't quarrel with them as long as they produce what I believe to be moral action. The international community rejects Israel's actions (through security council resolutions as one example) because Israel's actions breach international standards for treatment of refugees and civilian populations, among other things.
quote:The Arabs in Gaza have been shelling the town of Sderot and other nearby areas ever since Israel pulled out of Gaza. Where are the UN condemnations for that? Or is that not against the "rules" you're talking about, Nato?
The difference is that the people shelling those settlements are not affiliated with a state government. Since March, more than 8,000 Israeli artillery shells have landed in Gaza (UN statistic). That is the action of a state. The UN governs states, not individuals, and so a condemnation of individual actions is not in their purview.
quote:I reject them [UN regulations/international laws/norms]. I reject their application to Israel. I reject their analysis of the situation that led them to issue these condemnations.
Your position is very inconsistent. You don't want Israel treated on the same standards that other nations must abide by. And by your standards, getting hit with shells must be met by returning fire (over 100 shells landing in Gaza per day on average since March), yet you don't think Arabs returning fire meets the same standard? (note: I do not support rockets/shells being fired from either side) The kidnapping of one person is met with the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 and you consider it justified? What then is the justified response to the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 people?
quote:The Nazis lacked the compunctions held by civilized peoples. So do, at the very least, the leaders of the Israelis. They do not recognize any limitations (UN security council resolutions, international law) whatsoever if those limitations interfere with their goal of establishing of an Arab-free Israel as they want it.
Don't use overblown rhetoric please, it doesn't help the discussion at all.
edit:spelling
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Rakeesh, it is by no means held to a different standard than the Palestinian State. The war between the two states is not only tragic in the way which all wars are but made more tragic by the fact that both sides openly and willingly target civilians as much as or more than military targets.
quote: No, Pelagius, we bloody well are not. And despite what you wrote further on, I'm not talking about the rules you are. In fact, we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those rules, and always have. I'm referring to our internal issues.
Oh, very noble, I might even take it seriously if there were any sign of Israel acting on these high standards. I have often been ashamed of my country's actions, but the immorality of the U.S. and other western powers pales in comparision to the tactics used by Israel in its war against Palestinian militants. No other Western industrialized democracy has, in the post-Cold War era, displayed the same flagrent disregard for international standards on human rights as has Israel.
quote: Theft and murder are very wro
I am glad you think so. The IDF, despite the nobal aims expresed in the Purity of Arms Code, has been known, on more than one occasion, to commit murder and property destruction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: The international community rejects Israel's actions (through security counsel resolutions as one example) because Israel's actions breach international standards for treatment of refugees and civilian populations, among other things.
I reject the judgement of this "community". They have no authority, moral or otherwise. Israel needs to do the right thing. Not what some community of bias tells us to do.
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:The Arabs in Gaza have been shelling the town of Sderot and other nearby areas ever since Israel pulled out of Gaza. Where are the UN condemnations for that? Or is that not against the "rules" you're talking about, Nato?
The difference is that the people shelling those settlements are not affiliated with a state government.
I disagree. And so does the State of Israel. And the fact that the heads of the Arabs in Gaza do nothing to prevent the shelling would make it their responsibility even if they were not behind the shelling in the first place.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Since March, more than 8,000 Israeli artillery shells have landed in Gaza (UN statistic). That is the action of a state. The UN governs states, not individuals, and so a condemnation of individual actions is not in their purview.
In fact, the UN does not govern states. It does not govern anyone. Again, contrary to what you might wish, it is not a World Government. It does not carry that sort of authority.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Your position is very inconsistent. You don't want Israel treated on the same standards that other nations must abide by. And by your standards, getting hit with shells must be met by returning fire (over 100 shells landing in Gaza per day on average since March), yet you don't think Arabs returning fire meets the same standard?
They aren't "returning fire". Israel targets military and criminal sites. They fire at innocent townspeople, in order to foment terror.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: (note: I do not support rockets/shells being fired from either side) The kidnapping of one person is met with the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 and you consider it justified?
Parroting Arab propaganda only makes you look silly, Nato. And frankly, you don't need the help.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: What then is the justified response to the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 people?
The correct response is to start behaving responsibly. But we don't actually expect that.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Don't use overblown rhetoric please, it doesn't help the discussion at all.
It's not rhetoric, and it's not overblown. And your reversal was on the same level of maturity as "I know you are, but what am I?"
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:They aren't "returning fire". Israel targets military and criminal sites. They fire at innocent townspeople, in order to foment terror.
And the recent shelling of the public beach that killed a civillian family in Gaza was what? (Israel called it a "work accident" and then the result of a "Hamas mine" --not likely)
quote:I reject the judgement of this "community". They have no authority, moral or otherwise. Israel needs to do the right thing. Not what some community of bias tells us to do.
I don't think Israel is doing the "right thing." Shelling/invading Gaza is very wrong in my opinion, and in the opinion of the UN/world community that you don't want to recognize.
quote:In fact, the UN does not govern states. It does not govern anyone.
You're right; I'm sorry I used the word "govern." I was explaining that the actors the UN is concerned with are primarily states, which are viewed in most schools of international relations as independent but unitary actors. If the UN had the power to "govern" Israel, you would see police action instead of constant resolutions stating that Israel is in breach of international norms/regulations.
a "norm" is not a law, but a standard convention for acceptable behavior that we expect civilized countries to adhere to. Israel's disregard for the human rights of Palestinians is in flagrant violation of these norms, and the many UN resolutions seeking to change Israel's behavior seek to bring Israel back within international norms for civilized government.
Here are some examples of recent Israeli behavior that goes against international norms:
quote:Chicago court hears chilling tales of torture March 14, 2006 - In federal court in Chicago Tuesday, chilling stories about the torture of political prisoners by Israeli police. Testimony came during a hearing in the case against Muhammad Salah, who is accused of laundering money for Palestinian terrorists.
quote:Israel murders, maims more children in Gaza At least one Palestinian child was killed and seven others injured when an Israeli warplane Tuesday fired an air-to-ground missile onto a busy street in northern Gaza, Palestinian sources said.
Medical sources said a seven-year-old boy was killed instantly and seven other children sustained varied injuries when the hellfire missile hit a crowded street at the Jabalya refugee camp in northern Gaza.
quote: New evidence raises questions about Israel's role in beach explosion BEIT LAHIYA, Gaza Strip - Two weeks after an explosion on a Gaza Strip beach killed eight picnickers and turned images of an 11-year-old Palestinian wailing over her dead father into an icon of the Arab-Israeli conflict, new evidence is raising questions about the Israeli version of what took place.
The Israeli military cleared itself of responsibility for the deaths, saying that whatever exploded on the beach June 9 wasn't an errant shell fired by Israeli soldiers during a barrage of the waterfront. Based on video clips from one of its ships, Israel concluded that the explosion came at least 10 minutes after the military had stopped shelling.
But medical logs, cell phone records and other evidence reviewed by Knight Ridder suggest that the explosion took place during the barrage and probably was due to an artillery round.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:They aren't "returning fire". Israel targets military and criminal sites. They fire at innocent townspeople, in order to foment terror.
And the recent shelling of the public beach that killed a civillian family in Gaza was what? (Israel called it a "work accident" and then the result of a "Hamas mine" --not likely)
We actually apologized for that before we investigated it. We were that eager to take responsibility if we'd done something wrong. But then we did investigate it, and it turned out not to have been our doing.
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:I reject the judgement of this "community". They have no authority, moral or otherwise. Israel needs to do the right thing. Not what some community of bias tells us to do.
I don't think Israel is doing the "right thing." Shelling/invading Gaza is very wrong in my opinion, and in the opinion of the UN/world community that you don't want to recognize.
But then, I don't recognize them or you as having any moral authority. Quite the contrary.
quote:Originally posted by Nato: a "norm" is not a law, but a standard convention for acceptable behavior that we expect civilized countries to adhere to. Israel's disregard for the human rights of Palestinians is in flagrant violation of these norms, and the many UN resolutions seeking to change Israel's behavior seek to bring Israel back within international norms for civilized government.
Not really. And again, the UN seems very unconcerned with the atrocities carried out by the Palestinians. Why should we take the double standards of such an organization seriously?
quote:Originally posted by Nato:
quote:Israel murders, maims more children in Gaza At least one Palestinian child was killed and seven others injured when an Israeli warplane Tuesday fired an air-to-ground missile onto a busy street in northern Gaza, Palestinian sources said.
We don't target children. But we also don't concentrate our military presence in the middle of civilians. The fact that the terrorists use civilians as human shields (generally with the full consent of the civilians) isn't our problem. Our lives are more important to us than theirs are. As it should be.
New propaganda, you mean. Big deal.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
quote:The international community rejects Israel's actions (through security council resolutions as one example) because Israel's actions breach international standards for treatment of refugees and civilian populations, among other things.
Why is the UN Security Council deemed a moral authority? Seriously. Give me one good reason besides they're the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that although the aims of the United Nations are moral, the means they utilize frequently are not. They're like...well, they're a tool. The tool is only as worthwhile as its wielder and its application.
quote:The difference is that the people shelling those settlements are not affiliated with a state government. Since March, more than 8,000 Israeli artillery shells have landed in Gaza (UN statistic). That is the action of a state. The UN governs states, not individuals, and so a condemnation of individual actions is not in their purview.
HAMAS is the current leadership in the government of Palestinians. Did you miss this 'trivial' fact? And what is one of the things Hamas is most famous for? Why, I'll be! Targeting Israeli civilians for murder to achieve political ends!
Aside from that, again, just because Israel uses military force in a populated area against military targets does not mean they are targeting the population. Even if the population, if the duration of rocket attacks is any indicator, must tacitly approve-whether out of fear or agreement-of the attacks.
quote:The kidnapping of one person is met with the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 and you consider it justified? What then is the justified response to the destruction of the source of water and power for 10,000 people?
Another trivial detail: the issue is not just one person's kidnapping. There were two other IDF personnel killed in this kidnapping-at least you're not saying 'arrest'-and then there was the other hostage murdered, who was not military.
Perhaps if the Palestinians did not make it their primary method of effecting political change to target civilians for death, Israel would not retaliate with disrupting their power and water (yeah, guess what...that's not death!)
quote:Don't use overblown rhetoric please, it doesn't help the discussion at all.
Given that in discussions involving Israel and Jews you have frequently brought forth the fairly irrelevant and unnecessary tidbit that the Holocaust was 'exaggerated', I don't see how you're some sort of authority on what helps the discussion.
quote:And the recent shelling of the public beach that killed a civillian family in Gaza was what? (Israel called it a "work accident" and then the result of a "Hamas mine" --not likely)
It's enlightening that you view IDF reports as suspect, without applying that same level of skepticism-that I've ever noticed-to their enemies.
----------
Pelegius,
quote:The war between the two states is not only tragic in the way which all wars are but made more tragic by the fact that both sides openly and willingly target civilians as much as or more than military targets.
Yes, well, that's a lie and a stupid one at that. Any fool can tell that if the IDF made a policy of targeting civilians to the extent you're claiming, there would be a metric s*&t-ton more civilian deaths amongst Palestinians.
But there is no real way to prove this, for or against. So you'll be left with your belief that it's fact, and I'll be left with my belief that it's a stupid belief. If the IDF targeted civilians as thoroughly and as frequently as their enemies did, Palestinian casualities with each incident would number in the hundreds and thousands, and not the dozens and scores. Seeing as how they're using tanks and air strikes and conventional military-grade explosives in populated areas, instead of rocks and molotov cocktails and suicide bombers and AK-47s and homemade rockets.
quote:I am glad you think so. The IDF, despite the nobal aims expresed in the Purity of Arms Code, has been known, on more than one occasion, to commit murder and property destruction.
IDF's enemies have been known, constantly, to commit wilful murder of civilians. It's in their freaking charter. There are daily telecasts honoring 'martyrs'. There are streets named after them. They're revered as heroes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:These are UN security counsel resolutions against Israel 1955-1992:
I'd appreciate it if you could link the UN condemnations of the surprise joint attack by Egypt and Syria during 1973 and the shelling of Israeli villages from inside Syria prior to the 1967 war.
quote:The actual history of Israel would be to say that they took what they were suposed to share as their own and then proceeded to invade neighboring territories.
"How I bought into one-sided propaganda" or "How to rewrite history in one sentence," by Pelegius.
The history of the region is not as simple as either Lisa or you are making it out to be, but this is orders of magnitude beyond anything else happening in this thread.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lisa, why don't we all stop worrying about what others "think" and do whatever we please. How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
Theft and murder are very wrong. I hope you aren't going to stoop to what Lyrhawn did the other day and try and claim that I'm saying something other than what I'm really saying.
If you're going to call me a liar behind my back, the least you could do is quote me.
Please point out where I misrepresented you.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:Why is the UN Security Council deemed a moral authority? Seriously. Give me one good reason besides they're the status quo. The simple fact of the matter is that although the aims of the United Nations are moral, the means they utilize frequently are not. They're like...well, they're a tool. The tool is only as worthwhile as its wielder and its application.
I'll grant you that. I don't think the UN is perfect at all, although I trust the majority opinions of the UN to better represent world norms than the statements/actions of a single state. The UN is perhaps a weather vane we can use to determine international standards
quote:It's enlightening that you view IDF reports as suspect, without applying that same level of skepticism-that I've ever noticed-to their enemies.
:shrugs: Did you read that news article I posted where Knight-Ridder reporters determined it was likely to be an Israeli shell?
Also, The Mossad motto is, "By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War"
quote:HAMAS is the current leadership in the government of Palestinians. Did you miss this 'trivial' fact? And what is one of the things Hamas is most famous for? Why, I'll be! Targeting Israeli civilians for murder to achieve political ends!
I believe the election of Hamas was more a rejection of the complete failure of Fatah to help the Palestinian people with their day-to-day problems: how to find enough food, how to travel between towns to conduct business, etc. I think that the election may have turned out quite different if a non-Hamas non-Fatah party had been viable. I am saddened by Hamas' history and ideals, but I don't believe that they truly represent the wishes of majority of the Palestinian people, which I believe merely want to live their lives in peace.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Nato,
quote:The UN is perhaps a weather vane we can use to determine international standards.
You've dodged the question. Why then should international standards be a moral compass? You're essentially saying, "Enough people are saying it so it's good." I believe there's a term for that.
quote:Also, The Mossad motto is, "By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War
Is it possible you are so naive that you believe the Mossad is somehow unique in this? Especially in that region in the world?
quote:Did you read that news article I posted where Knight-Ridder reporters determined it was likely to be an Israeli shell?
You'll not be able to quote me making any statements about whether or not I believe Israeli claims that it was not a shell of theirs, recently fired or a dud or whatever. The fact of the matter is I believe both sides would be very willing to exploit this and twist forensic evidence to frame their enemies, thus I am extremely skeptical of both sides' position.
Whereas you focus exclusively on Israeli deception and misdeeds at almost every turn.
quote:I believe the election of Hamas was more a rejection of the complete failure of Fatah to help the Palestinian people with their day-to-day problems: how to find enough food, how to travel between towns to conduct business, etc. I think that the election may have turned out quite different if a non-Hamas non-Fatah party had been viable. I am saddened by Hamas' history and ideals, but I don't believe that they truly represent the wishes of majority of the Palestinian people, which I believe merely want to live their lives in peace.
Beliefs are nice. Your belief and $1.06 and Palestinian politics get you nothing, a double cheeseburger at McDonald's, and a stunning victory for a world-famous terrorist organization, Hamas. In other words, maybe-just maybe-it was a rejection of Fatah and an endorsement of Hamas terrorism tactics. Since, you know, they're called 'martyrs' over there and celebrated and revered and have things named after them. Oh, and they're commonly believed to be in Paradise an instant after murdering civilians.
So you can believe what people want. It's stunningly hypocritical that you hold the Israeli government to such a high standard, yet you blithely exonerate Palestinians of their election of an organization which plays a major part in the targeting and murder of civilians for political goals.
Israel: Needs to be nicer, because they have an obligation to be...umm...the international community says so.
Palestinians: Need to be treated more nicely, even when they elect Hamas as their government. Israel needs to, like, read their minds to know their intent is actually warm and fuzzy.
I have a very difficult time refraining from heaping scorn on such nonsense, as you can see. Maybe when you truly apply a level standard of judgement, I'll find it easier.
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
I have to say, Rakeesh makes some very good points here, Nato old boy.
While it's very true that Fatah and the PLO in general was infamously corrupt and incompetent, that doesn't excuse the Gaza Palestinians for voting in a freaking active terrorist group as their government. I'll leave aside whether the PLO is an active terrorist group (factions of it have been in the past, I assume some are still actively promoting terrorism), but they still had some tattered shreds of international credibility--which you've argued for on this thread, calling for Israel to comply with "international norms" and "international standards." If Israel must, then why, pray, do the Gazans get carte blanche, a free pass to elect terrorists??
quote:Originally posted by Nato: I believe the election of Hamas was more a rejection of the complete failure of Fatah to help the Palestinian people with their day-to-day problems: how to find enough food, how to travel between towns to conduct business, etc. I think that the election may have turned out quite different if a non-Hamas non-Fatah party had been viable. I am saddened by Hamas' history and ideals, but I don't believe that they truly represent the wishes of majority of the Palestinian people, which I believe merely want to live their lives in peace.
Hamas' history and ideals may not represent the wishes of majority of the Palestinian people, but Hamas certainly does represent the Gazan Palestinians politically, so what's your point? Hamas was elected, and now the Palestinians have absolutely no deniability or credibility regarding terrorism. I hope ousting Fatah was worth that.
[ July 01, 2006, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Morbo ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Dag, it is very much that simple. Under the British/U.N. mandate the idea was very clear that Israel was suposed to be a place where Jews could come from all over the world, but not a soley Jewish state, which would involve deporting an Arab majority and an Armenian minority. Israel had every right to counter-attack during various wars, but not to hold territory for decades after the peace treaty had been signed.
Rakeesh, as I waqas quite clear in my condemnation of both sides of the conflict, your anti-militant rhetoric, no matter how justified, can do no damage to my argument as I have never defended terrorist attacks. Your claim that the IDF does not systematicly target civilians is laughable:
Amnesty also runs a page, but that won't open.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Under the British/U.N. mandate the idea was very clear that Israel was suposed to be a place where Jews could come from all over the world, but not a soley Jewish state, which would involve deporting an Arab majority and an Armenian minority. Israel had every right to counter-attack during various wars, but not to hold territory for decades after the peace treaty had been signed.
Which peace treaty are you speaking of? By the time of the Camp David accords in the late 70s, 70s, only Egypt, of all the Arab countries, had recognized Israel. You don't make treaties with countries that don't even recognize you as a country and who regularly promise to annihilate your entire population.
Israel didn't deport people in 1948 to make the state exclusively Jewish. People left so that Arab armies could drive the Jewish settlers into the sea. Oops. Bad choice on their part.
(And note I haven't said Israel never deported people. I'm saying they've never engaged in a policy of deporting people for merely being non-Jewish.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pelegius,
quote:Rakeesh, as I waqas quite clear in my condemnation of both sides of the conflict, your anti-militant rhetoric, no matter how justified, can do no damage to my argument as I have never defended terrorist attacks. Your claim that the IDF does not systematicly target civilians is laughable:
Yes it can, because your argument is based primarily in statements like these:
quote:Alright, I admit that was unfair. The actual history of Israel would be to say that they took what they were suposed to share as their own and then proceeded to invade neighboring territories.
Yeah, and without any provocation they invaded!
How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
This is a criticism of the Israelis, not of both parties-however you try to spin it after the fact.
The war between the two states is not only tragic in the way which all wars are but made more tragic by the fact that both sides openly and willingly target civilians as much as or more than military targets.
And here's the real bulls*@! right here. The IDF does target civilians, but it does not target civilians for murder and maiming nearly to the extent its enemies do. Or is somehow bulldozing Palestinian homes equivalent to murders its occupants?
I have often been ashamed of my country's actions, but the immorality of the U.S. and other western powers pales in comparision to the tactics used by Israel in its war against Palestinian militants. No other Western industrialized democracy has, in the post-Cold War era, displayed the same flagrent disregard for international standards on human rights as has Israel.
Yeah, this is a real overall criticism of both parties for sure.
So! In conclusion, Pelegius, don't put words into my mouth, and address your defense to the actual statements you have made here. Not the ones you thought of after they were criticized.
Your assertion that the IDF targets civilians just as thorougly and just as harshly as does its enemies was then and is now complete, hypocritical nonsense, obvious to anyone who understands what kind of casualities a First World military force can truly inflict.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Voting Hamas into a leadership position, and into any sort of position that implies legitimacy is risky.
If Hamas does nothing to change, and really shows to the world that they, and their constituents are really just out for murder and mayhem, then they've shot themselves in the foot, and given Israel all the moral authority it needs to do whatever necessary to protect itself.
They're gambling, that when Hamas is in charge, it will have to grow up, more or less, and that if the will of the people really is, as a majority, peaceful, that Hamas will have to conform to that. Mahmoud Abbas is hoping so too. He's trying to keep all the groups from flaring into outright civil war, and Israel appears to be giving him some leeway, but not much. Calling for the referendum on recognizing Israel is a good move. If/when the people vote for recognition, Hamas' moderates will have the power they need to push for change. They are like any other political organization, in that they have their hardliners and their moderates, and all the rest.
If he gets the vote, and if the people vote the right way...it backs Hamas into a corner, and they'll have to change, or go against the people, and we'll be in uncharted waters. If they concede, it changes the nature of the game a bit.
It's a lot of ifs, but it could be good.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Rakeesh. Forgive for not adopting a posistion so relativist that I am willing to state that "target[ing] civilians for murder and maiming [less that] its enemies do" makes Israel a paragon of moral virtue.
Perhaps I must remind you of how civilized countries behave when they are faced with militants within their borders. The record of the British in Northern Ireland has been less than ideal, I do not deny that by any means. However, Britian, when faced with the same problem as Israel did not engage in a systematic, racialy based, pogrom designed to punish the Irish "nation" for the acts of IRA militants, nor did they, for that matter, ever even deny the right of self-determenation, a right which the U.N., your sworn enemy I know, has declared universal. Israel's behaviour is unworthy of any state, much less one that wishes to be know as a liberal democracy.
The irony is that I like Israel, quite a bit actualy, I have great respect for the ability of the early Israelis to recover from one of the greatest tragidies of the 20th century, a century filled with great sorrow in which the sorrow of the European Jews managed to stand out. I admire the kibbutzim, as quixotic as they were. I even admire the ability of Israel to repel attacks by larger states.
I cannot, however, make apologies for the tactics used against Palestine which cause an excessive degree of suffering to the ordinary people living there who, above all, desire peace. With every house bulldozed, with every child shot, Israel amasses an army that will destroy it, unless they learn to beat their swords into plaughshares.
"O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, which killest the prophets, and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, as a hen doth gather her brood under her wings, and ye would not!" How can any nation which has, for so long, lived under opresion, be so willing to opress? In the end, has the nation of Israel progressed beyond the killing of the Caananites? But, I speak falsly, for I know that Israeli bombs and bulldozers speak no more for the people of Israel than suicide bombers do for Palestine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pelegius,
quote:Rakeesh. Forgive for not adopting a posistion so relativist that I am willing to state that "target[ing] civilians for murder and maiming [less that] its enemies do" makes Israel a paragon of moral virtue.
You're dodging and twisting yet again. You must be a contortionist in meatspace, because you know I have never said that Israel is a 'paragon of virtue' nor have I asked you to accept such a position.
I have, however, insisted that you drop the stupid, unsupported claim that the IDF targets civilians for death and injury to the extent its enemies do, i.e. nearly exclusively. You have yet to do this, first equating bulldozing homes and other property rights violations (serious and deeply harmful, yes) with outright murder. That's why I keep using the word 'stupid', by the way. Then you insist that Israel is no paragon of virtue.
quote:However, Britian, when faced with the same problem as Israel did not engage in a systematic, racialy based, pogrom designed to punish the Irish "nation" for the acts of IRA militants, nor did they, for that matter, ever even deny the right of self-determenation, a right which the U.N., your sworn enemy I know, has declared universal. Israel's behaviour is unworthy of any state, much less one that wishes to be know as a liberal democracy.
First of all, let's get real: IRA terrorism was never nearly as serious a problem for Britain as Palestinian terrorism is for Israel. The IRA never said, "We want to utterly destroy Britain and won't be happy until we do!" So your comparison falls flat on that count. Second, the IRA didn't kill nearly as many British civilians as Palestinian terrorists have Israeli. Third, if you asked the Irish, they might have a very different perspective on how nobly the British treated then. Fourth, the UN is not my 'sworn enemy'.
quote:The irony is that I like Israel, quite a bit actualy, I have great respect for the ability of the early Israelis to recover from one of the greatest tragidies of the 20th century, a century filled with great sorrow in which the sorrow of the European Jews managed to stand out. I admire the kibbutzim, as quixotic as they were. I even admire the ability of Israel to repel attacks by larger states.
Sure you do. Somehow, I don't buy it. It seems like a smokescreen to me. "Early Israelis were great. These Israelis are scumbags, though." Whatever. Anyway, it's ironic you mention their ability to repel attacks by larger states as something you admire.
You do know the circumstances under which Gaza was seized, don't you? And the West Bank? And you do know how exactly most Palestinians came to be evicted, right? You couldn't possibly be so ill-informed to not know that the areas were seized after a failed war of conquest by its neighbors-which was nearly lost-and that many Palestinians were 'evicted' because they left voluntarily in order to not be there when their buddies the neighboring Arab states wiped out Israel, so they could return later?
quote:I cannot, however, make apologies for the tactics used against Palestine which cause an excessive degree of suffering to the ordinary people living there who, above all, desire peace. With every house bulldozed, with every child shot, Israel amasses an army that will destroy it, unless they learn to beat their swords into plaughshares.
You not only don't apologize, you lie about what their real tactics are. 'Not apologizing' is something I can respect. And no one who has examined Palestinian culture for more than about three-and-a-half minutes can so blithely say they desire peace 'above all else'. While I do believe the majority of Palestinians do desire peace-and not necessarily with the destruction of Israel-there is another desire right next to that one. A desire you're ignoring in favor of castigating the Israelis, whom you 'admire'.
quote:But, I speak falsly, for I know that Israeli bombs and bulldozers speak no more for the people of Israel than suicide bombers do for Palestine.
Israel does not cheer when a Palestinian child is killed the way Palestinians do when an Israeli child is killed. So, Palestinian suicide bombers do speak more for them than Israeli bulldozers and bombs do for Israelis. You know how I know? Because Israelis protest against such things, many of them. There are factions within the Israeli government which openly and repeatedly express a less hard-line view. Show me where that is with the Palestinians.
I dare you.
But no, you'll merely ignore and contort and skip away from everything. Maybe even using some nice Biblical quotes, while you're at it!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Israel will always need swords. Well maybe not always, but I don't see a time in the next hundred years when one of the Arab or Persian nations won't unleash on Israel if they show even the slightest of dulled swords.
It's their vigilance and their reputation that has kept their enemies at bay for so long. Their problem is that the Palestinian militants leave them few outs. They can't do nothing, or the Israeli people will protest, loudly, and either way, the will of the people should move a democracy, and the people demand action.
But whenever they actually do something, it always involves a strike from afar, or a massive military incursion. Personally I think they'd be better off using all special forces to abduct militants and then try them, but that would be a bloody business. And then the option that Lisa often espouses, and I'm not putting words in her mouth here, is to ship them all off to wherever, so long as it isn't in Israel. That option isn't really viable, politically, or realistically. No one would take them, so Israel would have to either force someone to take them, or just dump them at the border and shoot anyone who tries to come back in. It'll never work, the business of forcing them out alone would involve a massive amount of deaths from people refusing to leave, or fighting back.
Their restraint over the years is admirable, but in recent years has looked a lot like overkill without a looming international threat, without them just being in their infancy in terms of nationhood. And until recently they have rarely, if ever, ever done something to blatently hurt the Palestinian civilians. With the changing face of the situation over there, I think they would do better to promote Mahmoud Abbas, and make him appear as their only real hope for peace, which they have been doing a bit. With Arafat gone, one of the major impediments to peace is gone. I also think Israel should help enforce his decisions, like calling for the election.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
Which is more imporant, the moral authority of the Jewish people, or the safety and security of Israel?
I think this question is extremely important because while I believe Jews can be a shining light unto the world (or however you would prefer that the call as G_d's chosen people be phrased), I don't believe that this status will survive the kind of program you espouse with respect to removing the Palestinians from the areas in/near Israel.
I am, of course, assuming that this plan could not be accomplished without violence, since the Palestinians would not go willingly.
I submit that if Israel does embark on that kind of program, the end result will be:
1) large scale war in the Middle East 2) possible destruction of Israel 3) possible World War
Whatever else Israel decides to do to be secure in its state, kicking out the Palestinians is not going to be a reasonable solution that leads to long term peace and security, IMO.
I may be wrong, but even from the most hawkish perspective I can imagine, I don't see this as a solution that will go from a brief period of unpleasantness to peace and security for Israel.
I think there's at least some reasonable expectation of a world wide anti-Jewish backlash as well -- depending on just exactly how draconian the treatment of the Palestinians becomes.
Whatever else it has going for it, Israel doesn't really have the wherewithal to make it without support from other countries and from people living outside of Israel.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whatever else it has going for it, Israel doesn't really have the wherewithal to make it without support from other countries and from people living outside of Israel.
I think part of Lisa's (or, actually, the person she's quoting) argument is that thinking that Israel needs the support of other countries is causing much of the problem. Israel is supposed to rely on God - not in the sense of doing nothing for themselves, but in the sense of not putting faith in things other than God and God's word. That is, stopping the attempts to gain the world's favor and starting to do live as God has commanded is all that is necessary to ensure preservation of Israel.
I'm not venturing an opinion one way or another on the core concept, but I don't think your contention that Israel needs the good will of the world is really relevant to the underlying premise.
However, your question as to how Israel can "illuminate[] the world with its morality and G-dly conduct" while undertaking forced relocation is very relevant and very well put.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering where the US fits into that scenario Bob.
With the US having such a large force in the area, I'm betting Israel feels a bit more ballsy, but at the same time, the US could NEVER back that move, ever. If we simply stepped back and let whatever happens happen, then I think Saudi Arabia moves into the picture, and that's where Israel runs into trouble. They are arguably the strongest most heavily armed Arab power in the Middle East. Israel would be hard pressed to fight off their US trained and armed air force AND their tank force. Especially not with Egypt, Jordan and Syria probably joining in. It's not the same situation it used to be. The only way I see them coming through an all out war is with US assistance, and after one bloody war in the Middle East, I find it hard to believe that the US will plunge into another one with the ENTIRE Middle East for the sake of a nation that is forcibly expelling a million and change people to whatever fate that fortune might hold for them.
How long do you think it will take for people to start calling this the 21st century of the Trail of Tears? The US already has it's history of forced exodus, we cannot repeat it again.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lisa, why don't we all stop worrying about what others "think" and do whatever we please. How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
Theft and murder are very wrong. I hope you aren't going to stoop to what Lyrhawn did the other day and try and claim that I'm saying something other than what I'm really saying.
If you're going to call me a liar behind my back, the least you could do is quote me.
Please point out where I misrepresented you.
You claimed that I think Palestinians are subhuman, and that killing them is therefore not murder. That was disgusting, and I pointed it out to Papa Janitor. The thread was locked shortly afterwards.
And it wasn't behind your back, Lyrhawn. This is a public forum. And in that thread (which was afterwards deleted), I called you one quite explicitly. I'm willing to accept an apology, though.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Rakeesh, it is by no means held to a different standard than the Palestinian State. The war between the two states is not only tragic in the way which all wars are but made more tragic by the fact that both sides openly and willingly target civilians as much as or more than military targets.
It's a shame that you'd make such an obviously false statement like this, and even worse that you'd emphasize it. Israel has sent ground soldiers in to fight door-to-door, resulting in heavy casualities on our side, when it would have been so much easier to soften the area up with shelling. And why? To avoid unnecessary civilian casualties on the other side.
Israel's policy is never to target civilians. Commissions of inquiry are held when civilians are hurt unnecessarily. The Arabs, on the other hand, name streets and schools after those who deliberately set out to massacre innocent civilians.
Only a moral leper could compare the two, let alone equate them.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: Also, The Mossad motto is, "By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War"
1) Says who? 2) What does the Mossad have to do with the price of tea in China?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Lisa, why don't we all stop worrying about what others "think" and do whatever we please. How liberating to know that theft and murder arn't wrong, just unpopular.
Theft and murder are very wrong. I hope you aren't going to stoop to what Lyrhawn did the other day and try and claim that I'm saying something other than what I'm really saying.
If you're going to call me a liar behind my back, the least you could do is quote me.
Please point out where I misrepresented you.
You claimed that I think Palestinians are subhuman, and that killing them is therefore not murder. That was disgusting, and I pointed it out to Papa Janitor. The thread was locked shortly afterwards.
And it wasn't behind your back, Lyrhawn. This is a public forum. And in that thread (which was afterwards deleted), I called you one quite explicitly. I'm willing to accept an apology, though.
You have repeatedly called Palestinians animals, and at best, a multimillion man band of murderers.
I'll apologize for saying that you said it behind my back, because you're right, it IS a public forum.
But I won't apologize for apparently misrepresenting your views. You've called them animals in the past, you've espoused them being removed from Israel by any means necessary. You treat them like, and talk about them like rats or vermin, and that's how I portrayed you. If you don't like it, then stop acting like you don't give a damn one way or another if they live or die.
And report me and email me to PJ all you want. You've never given me any indication that you think otherwise from what I stated, so I don't feel I owe you an apology, and I don't feel I was wrong.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Dag, it is very much that simple. Under the British/U.N. mandate the idea was very clear that Israel was suposed to be a place where Jews could come from all over the world, but not a soley Jewish state, which would involve deporting an Arab majority and an Armenian minority. Israel had every right to counter-attack during various wars, but not to hold territory for decades after the peace treaty had been signed.
What peace treaty? Are you in some parallel universe where a peace treaty was signed regarding the land taken from Jordan, Syria and Egypt in 1967? There was one with Egypt, and Israel gave back land that was twice as big as what's left.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Your claim that the IDF does not systematicly target civilians is laughable:
That's what you mean by targeting civilians? You're honestly comparing demolition of houses to murdering people with bombs?
I'm stunned. That's low even for you, Pelagius. Honestly it is.
[ July 01, 2006, 11:19 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Rakeesh. Forgive for not adopting a posistion so relativist that I am willing to state that "target[ing] civilians for murder and maiming [less that] its enemies do" makes Israel a paragon of moral virtue.
Oh, it's not that, Pelagius. Is that you'd refer to demolishing the homes of terrorists as "targeting civilians for murder". I want to know your justification for that. Do you think those houses are demolished with bombs from the air, or something? Because they aren't. They're demolished like any house would be demolished. With a wrecking crew. That's murder?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Which is more imporant, the moral authority of the Jewish people, or the safety and security of Israel?
I think that's a false dichotomy, Bob. And it presupposes that what we're doing to protect our safety and security is somehow lacking in moral authority. You'll need to rephrase the question, or I'll simply treat it like any "Is it true you've stopped beating your wife" question.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think this question is extremely important because while I believe Jews can be a shining light unto the world (or however you would prefer that the call as G_d's chosen people be phrased), I don't believe that this status will survive the kind of program you espouse with respect to removing the Palestinians from the areas in/near Israel.
Oh, I think it will. I think that if we're serious about carrying out God's will, and if we are consistent in doing so according to God's law, the world, while it will certainly be hysterical at first, will become accustomed to it. After all, you've grown accustomed to terrorist atrocities in only a few decades. Growing accustomed to determined and moral action shouldn't be that hard.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I am, of course, assuming that this plan could not be accomplished without violence, since the Palestinians would not go willingly.
I understand. I gathered that you were assuming that. You understand, though, that you could be wrong about that. Right? Who thought the Soviet Union would disappear without WWIII? History has a way of surprising us, Bob.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I submit that if Israel does embark on that kind of program, the end result will be:
1) large scale war in the Middle East 2) possible destruction of Israel 3) possible World War
Yes, Bob, I really do understand that you think this. I disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whatever else Israel decides to do to be secure in its state, kicking out the Palestinians is not going to be a reasonable solution that leads to long term peace and security, IMO.
On the contrary. It is the only solution that will lead to long term peace and security. And not just for us, but for the Arabs as well. They aren't happy there, Bob. They need to go somewhere where they can live their lives, be happy and fulfilled, and learn to have something other than hatred and murder in their hearts.
I don't want to be a hypocrite, and sound like I'm overflowing with concern for them and for their wellbeing. I'm not. But I will get pleasure, the kind that's the opposite of schadenfreude, from seeing them building positive lives for themselves wherever they wind up. I don't think they're bad people by nature.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I may be wrong, but even from the most hawkish perspective I can imagine, I don't see this as a solution that will go from a brief period of unpleasantness to peace and security for Israel.
Well, see, Bob, I don't look at things from a perspective of hawks and doves. I look at them from a perspective of what's right and wrong. And maybe I'm an optimist despite myself, but I really think that if we do the right thing, things will work themselves out in a positive way. And that that needs to be our guiding path, and not predicitions of gloom and doom from politicians and others.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I think there's at least some reasonable expectation of a world wide anti-Jewish backlash as well -- depending on just exactly how draconian the treatment of the Palestinians becomes.
Oh, Bob. I don't think anything is going to be "draconian". They'll just go to the other side of the border, that's all. And I'm sure we'll see to it that they get compensated for the loss of anything they own that gets lost along the way. At least after reparations are taken out for the crimes that have been committed against us. We don't want to hurt them. Honestly, we don't. But we can't allow them to continue trying to destroy us. That would be foolish on our part.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whatever else it has going for it, Israel doesn't really have the wherewithal to make it without support from other countries and from people living outside of Israel.
I suspect you're wrong there, Bob. I really do. I think we have a source of support that's far more important and useful, at least so long as we do the right thing.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks for not taking offense. I didn't intend any -- the 2nd paragraph was intended as part of the first thought and I didn't think how offensive separating the two might be, so thank you for not taking it that way.
If there were a peaceful way to get the majority of Palestinians to go elsewhere, I think the world would cheer. Mainly because the world in general probably doesn't give a hoot about anyone's claims to a place as "homeland" but rather much more about not having to deal with constant threat of violence -- and that mainly because it makes it harder to sell stuff in that locale.
And that same kind of mercenary attitude might extend to forgiving forced expatriation, or even genocide -- just so long as companies can sell their wares in the newly pacified territories.
As for terrorism -- I think it's a stretch to say that I'm used to it or accepting of it in any way (well, any way short of calling for the wholesale annihilation of everyone who shares the same ethnic background as the terrorists.)
I realize my response to terrorism may not rise to the level that yours does (as I can still empathize with the people who are genetic close relatives of terrorists), but I don't think that means I don't see "what's right." In fact, I think the RIGHT response to racial hatred is not more racial hatred.
But, hey, as long as you're advocating this "new" plan without a call to achieve it by "whatever means necessary" I'm at least thinking that we don't have to disagree much.
Re: history's surprises -- history could surprise us by having Arabs and Jews living peacefully inside Israel too. Do you leave open that possibility?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Rakeesh, the voice of Palestine, the voice of any country, is not found in its government. Heaven forbid that Hamas should speak for Palestine, or Bush for the U.S. The voice of nation is found in its children, in its old women and its poets.
quote: [terrorism] Involves serious violence against a person, endangering the lives of others, risks the health or safety of the public, serious damage to property, or serious interference with an electronic system designed to influence a government or intimidate the public in order to advance a political, religious or ideological cause
British anti-terrorist act.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Rakeesh, the voice of Palestine, the voice of any country, is not found in its government. Heaven forbid that Hamas should speak for Palestine, or Bush for the U.S. The voice of nation is found in its children, in its old women and its poets.
Unfortunately, the voice of Palestine seems to be including a lot of suicide bombers and people who applaud them.
Why are you willing to blame Israel as a whole for lesser crimes, yet excuse the Palestinians as a whole for celebrating and rewarding terrorists with their votes, their money, and their acclaim?
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
quote:There are factions within the Israeli government which openly and repeatedly express a less hard-line view. Show me where that is with the Palestinians.
There was an 18-month cease fire that Hamas called. It lasted until Israel fired on some beach-goers.
Hamas and Fatah agreed on a compromise deal to recognize Israel (On the Daily Show last Tuesday(?) Jon Stewart highlighted how this headline was an inch and a half away from the "Israeli jets attack Gaza targets" headline)
There are moderates and radicals in each camp. I just have trouble believing that the people of either side truly want war.
quote:Rakeesh: Why then should international standards be a moral compass? You're essentially saying, "Enough people are saying it so it's good." I believe there's a term for that.
I believe in the mission of the Human Rights Council, for example, not because most members of the UN support it, but because I believe there are some priviledges and immunities that we should protect for every human being. I don't trust any one state to act morally, because many states see reacting to perceived threats to national security as a valid excuse to violate human rights.
quote:
quote:Also, The Mossad motto is, "By Way of Deception, thou shalt do War
Is it possible you are so naive that you believe the Mossad is somehow unique in this? Especially in that region in the world?
no, I'm just saying that's not my motto.
On a separate issue, I just noticed this:
quote:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733326.html The detention of Hamas parliamentarians in the early hours of Thursday morning had been planned several weeks ago and received approval from Mazuz on Wednesday. The same day, Shin Bet security service Director Yuval Diskin presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with the list of Hamas officials slated for detention.
Israel planned to arrest these people weeks ago? Before the kidnapping incident that they cited as provocation? Do I read this correctly?
quote:Rakeesh: I have a very difficult time refraining from heaping scorn on such nonsense, as you can see. Maybe when you truly apply a level standard of judgement, I'll find it easier.
I think terrorism sucks and that people who resort to it do not have the proper level of respect for their fellow human beings. I hate to hear reports of rockets being fired into Israel, at civillians. I hate it just as much when Palestinian civillians suffer for the actions of the terrorists among them. I think the public on either side of the fence/wall needs to renounce violence. I will try to hold Palestinian actions to the same standard that I judge Israeli actions by, but I do believe that the Israeli military is (much like the US) creating more terrorism by putting the Palestinian people in a state of constant desperation and uncertainty. I truly hope that the Israeli soldier is returned soon and that Israel will recognize this by repairing the power plant and infrastructure it has destroyed in these raids. Denying an enemy's civillian population water is a war crime, and I think this fits the bill. (On the other side of the issue, firing Qassam rockets into Israel is terrorism, and very wrong).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Dagonee, I hope that I have not come across as blaming Israel as a whole while excusing Palestine as a whole, although I am afraid that I may have.
So, let me be perfectly clear: the states of Israel and Palestine have both commited terrible crimes, as have many private citizens of both countries, particularly Palestinians. I do not deny this, no one can deny this if they value the truth. I do deny, must deny, that entire nations are guilty for the actions of governments. I have often seen this point made, and it is deeply repulsive to me.
The Nazis murdered millions, but we do not, can not, must not, hold the entire German nation culpable, but, rather, judge indviduals as they are, for the actions they have personaly commited, and not as Germans, Jews or Arabs.
This is the only argument I have ever made on this issue, other than to state my vague surport for a two state solution.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It lasted until Israel fired on some beach-goers.
This is, of course, proven.
quote:I hate it just as much when Palestinian civillians suffer for the actions of the terrorists among them.
Hey! How's that 18 month 'cease-fire'? Can I hear some more about that, and how it was the Israelis who broke it?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nato: On a separate issue, I just noticed this:
quote:http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/733326.html The detention of Hamas parliamentarians in the early hours of Thursday morning had been planned several weeks ago and received approval from Mazuz on Wednesday. The same day, Shin Bet security service Director Yuval Diskin presented Prime Minister Ehud Olmert with the list of Hamas officials slated for detention.
Israel planned to arrest these people weeks ago? Before the kidnapping incident that they cited as provocation? Do I read this correctly?
It would be nice to think that this was true. I know I was not alone in my frustration over the refusal of the Israeli government to take any action in response to the constant shelling of Israeli towns from Palestinian-controlled territory. If this account is true, I might just be willing to consider Olmert a little less odious.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lisa: recommend you read some of the ethics literature on "collective punishment."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Destineer, thanks for the recommendation. When my people are being killed, my concern for the ethics of preventing it pretty much goes out the window.
I'm continually stunned at the fact that this should be a cause for astonishment, or even disagreement. I can only conclude that it's the ivory tower syndrome. I assure you that if your children were on the front line simply for existing, you would take a very different view.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Destineer, thanks for the recommendation. When my people are being killed, my concern for the ethics of preventing it pretty much goes out the window.
I'm continually stunned at the fact that this should be a cause for astonishment, or even disagreement. I can only conclude that it's the ivory tower syndrome. I assure you that if your children were on the front line simply for existing, you would take a very different view.
I don't consider myself to have a "people" the way you do, so you're right that I can't understand that part of your view. All humans except for my family and friends have about the same standing with me.
Are any of your literal children at risk, or is that a metaphor?
Would I commit moral wrong to protect those I care about? Definitely. But I would recognize that it was the wrong thing to do, even though I couldn't help myself because of how I felt. And I'd recognize that other people without the same personal feelings at stake would have every reason to resist me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Dagonee, I hope that I have not come across as blaming Israel as a whole while excusing Palestine as a whole, although I am afraid that I may have.
So, let me be perfectly clear: the states of Israel and Palestine have both commited terrible crimes,
And your "proof" of this has been home demolitions. The destruction of physical buildings is, to you, comparable to murdering innocent civilians.
That's apparently what passes for "moderation" in your view. I hope that when you get older, you learn some perspective.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Destineer, thanks for the recommendation. When my people are being killed, my concern for the ethics of preventing it pretty much goes out the window.
I'm continually stunned at the fact that this should be a cause for astonishment, or even disagreement. I can only conclude that it's the ivory tower syndrome. I assure you that if your children were on the front line simply for existing, you would take a very different view.
I don't consider myself to have a "people" the way you do, so you're right that I can't understand that part of your view. All humans except for my family and friends have about the same standing with me.
People who support the indiscriminate murder of innocents going about their lives have the same standing with you as people who risk their own lives to minimize civilian casualties. Got it. I just wanted to make sure we were clear about things.
I disagree.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Are any of your literal children at risk, or is that a metaphor?
Would it matter? No, it's not a metaphor, but would it matter if it had been?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Would I commit moral wrong to protect those I care about? Definitely. But I would recognize that it was the wrong thing to do, even though I couldn't help myself because of how I felt.
See, that's two differences between us. I wouldn't commit a moral wrong to protect those I care about. I would hope that those I care about wouldn't want me to. I know I wouldn't want anyone to commit a moral wrong on my behalf.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:See, that's two differences between us. I wouldn't commit a moral wrong to protect those I care about. I would hope that those I care about wouldn't want me to. I know I wouldn't want anyone to commit a moral wrong on my behalf.
quote:When my people are being killed, my concern for the ethics of preventing it pretty much goes out the window.
Um... please explain how these two statements are consistent.
quote:Would it matter? No, it's not a metaphor, but would it matter if it had been?
Yeah, because I sympathize with those who would do anything to protect their biological children, but I have little sympathy for people who would do anything to protect those who share their nationality, religion or ethnic background.
Sorry to hear about your children.
quote:People who support the indiscriminate murder of innocents going about their lives have the same standing with you as people who risk their own lives to minimize civilian casualties.
Obviously I didn't mean that. What I did mean is that no other relationship, besides friendship or family, has any moral significance for me. For example, I don't care more about the lives of Americans than I do about Israelis, just because they're Americans.
I was explaining why I don't have a "people."
[ July 04, 2006, 12:52 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Um... please explain how these two statements are consistent.
The consistency lies in what she deems to be a moral wrong.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The consistency lies in what she deems to be a moral wrong.
That wouldn't make the two statements consistent. It would just mean that she does, in fact, care about the ethics of protecting her people.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lisa?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:See, that's two differences between us. I wouldn't commit a moral wrong to protect those I care about. I would hope that those I care about wouldn't want me to. I know I wouldn't want anyone to commit a moral wrong on my behalf.
quote:When my people are being killed, my concern for the ethics of preventing it pretty much goes out the window.
Um... please explain how these two statements are consistent.
I think you need to explain why you see them as inconsistent.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote:People who support the indiscriminate murder of innocents going about their lives have the same standing with you as people who risk their own lives to minimize civilian casualties.
Obviously I didn't mean that. What I did mean is that no other relationship, besides friendship or family, has any moral significance for me.
Whereas I see a family relationship between all Jews. You don't have to agree, but that's where I'm coming from.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I think you need to explain why you see them as inconsistent.
Well, in the first passage you say you wouldn't do anything immoral to protect your people. In the second, you seem to be saying that when your people's safety is at stake, you will act to protect them whether or not this involves doing something unethical. So according to your second statement, you would do something immoral to protect your people.
Have I misunderstood what you were trying to say?
(EDIT: I am assuming you think that "ethical" and "moral" are synonymous.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I think the issue is that there are levels of morality. For example, I don't consider that I have a moral imperative to give money to every panhandler that I pass on the street. But I do consider giving money to someone needy to be a moral act.
I do not think it would be immoral to bomb the entirety of Gaza back into the stone age right now. If I were in charge, we'd carpet bomb the hell out of them until they cried uncle. I don't think that's immoral. But that's because of the situation right now. If they were not shelling our cities, I might not go that far, even though it would not be immoral if I did.
Do you see? There's a wide range of morally acceptable behaviors available. If an Arab from a certain town commits an attack, I would probably not obliterate the entire town. But not because they are deserving of that restraint; restraint of that sort is on the level of charity. Nice to do, but not mandatory.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
OK. I guess at this point I can only urge you once more to read some of the fine books and articles that have convinced me that there is no "level of morality" at which punishing people for wrongs they haven't committed is acceptable.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
That's what happens in war. That's why war sucks. The moral of the story is, don't commit war.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Destineer... You don't have a people? You don't have an emotional connection to any group? Is that really true?
I'm an American... when another American is murdered in a foreign land, I feel it.
I'm bisexual. When another LBG person gets beaten or murdered for being gay, I feel it.
I'm a former christian... When I hear of christians being murdered for being christian in islamic countries, I feel it.
Do you REALLY not identify with a people? Are you really that disconnected and adrift?
It must be very very lonely.
Pix
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
If an Australian is murdered in a foreign land, I feel it. If a LGB person gets beaten or murdered for being gay, I feel it - despite not being LGB. When a muslim gets murdered for being muslim, I feel it.
Or at least I should.
As for the article, there is nothing at all new in using a "high moral purpose" or invoking the name of God to justify doing whatever we want to those who are getting in our way. I believe that here we referred to it as "manifest destiny."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The question is, do you feel it as much?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think I do. I certainly think I should.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think I do. I certainly think I should.
I'm not sure I agree with that. For one, it presupposes a level of control over one's feelings that I don't think is morally necessary or possible. I think it is possible to truly value human beings equally yet to feel more intensely the loss of someone one knows, or can picture as oneself or one's loved ones, or sees in person as opposed to reading about.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that is, of course, true of people one knows personally and I think that one feels more when one knows more about the person or circumstances. My response was to the degree of feeling depending on whether or not the victim shared membership in a particular group.
I don't think that I should feel the murder of an african american person less because I am white or a gay person because I am straight.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I don't think that I should feel the murder of an african american person less because I am white or a gay person because I am straight.
What about the murder of a random child, vs the murder of your own?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
As I said (perhaps not clearly enough) that I was not addressing what one feels when one knows the victim personally. I would know my own child personally.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I think that is, of course, true of people one knows personally and I think that one feels more when one knows more about the person or circumstances. My response was to the degree of feeling depending on whether or not the victim shared membership in a particular group.
I don't think that I should feel the murder of an african american person less because I am white or a gay person because I am straight.
I don't see other Jews as mere members in a common group with me. They are my family.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:I don't think that I should feel the murder of an african american person less because I am white or a gay person because I am straight.
I don't think I should, either, but I do. Or rather, I feel the murder more of someone who's more like me. The more things we have in common, the more I personalize it and can empathize with the way they or their family must feel. So if it's a woman, I feel it more. If she's a mother, I feel it more. If she's an American, white, Mormon, married, stay-at-home mother with young children, I ache. Because it's easier to put myself in her shoes.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Levels of Morality." And I am supposed to be the dreadful relativist. I am, of course, also an anti-Semite/Nazi/Communist/Traitor to my country/Terrorist-lover/idiot/hypocrite/"Cultural Nihilist" (I still don't know what the last one even means), at the very minumum. I am also, almost certainly, a Blasphemer/corrupter of the youth/ Jesus killer.
I am very popular.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Jeena, I think that is a natural reaction. It is one that I try to overcome.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Levels of Morality." And I am supposed to be the dreadful relativist. I am, of course, also an anti-Semite/Nazi/Communist/Traitor to my country/Terrorist-lover/idiot/hypocrite/"Cultural Nihilist" (I still don't know what the last one even means), at the very minumum. I am also, almost certainly, a Blasphemer/corrupter of the youth/ Jesus killer.
I am very popular.
Grow up.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
No, you need to "grow up." You deliberetly dichotomize your world into "us" and "them" in an infantile manner based on your patently false assumption that becouse A. "Some Arabs attack Israelis" is true then B. "All Arabs hate Israelis" must also be true. If your enemies spoke Hebrew and were fair and called their God Yahweh, would you then attack them as a group, or do you reserve such treatment for those who speak a different, though related, language practice a different, though related, religion and have dark hair and eyes? You remind me, yes I who am young and am called foolish and naïve, of an exceptionaly violent child fighting with an exceptionaly violent sibbling over toys, not caring who is destroyed in the process.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: No, you need to "grow up."
You said that both sides deliberately target civilians. Will you retract that? Or will you continue to compare home demolitions (the only thing you could come up that you could claim was a case of Israel "targetting civilians") to mass murder?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I retract nothing of my previous statement, nor do I feel obliged to treat your post, reïteration ad absurdo, with any more respect for its content than you did mine. Perhaps, if you responded to my post, rather than just the first line of it, we could get so where, but, as of now, it is clear we cannot.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Strangely enough, I swear I posted several times in this thread. As I looked for my own posts, I conceded that perhaps I had posted only once early on. Still finding no posts, I must concede I am going crazy, as I clearly have not posted in this thread at all; until now.
Pelegius: Perhaps you have answered this question but I did not find it. Assuming everything you have said concerning Israels disposition and acts are correct, (and I do not believe they are.) what is your suggested course of action that you believe Israel ought to persue. Please explain what Israel should do starting today, and what you think the ultimate ramifications are. If you can manage to be specific regarding the details of you plan for Israel that would be nice.
I think its pointless arguing about the morality of what HAS been done until both sides establish what direction should be taken in the future.
TIA
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
BlackBlade, I am sorry, I did not see your question, which I am glad to answer.
Israel is now in a difficult situation, no one can doubt that. It is my considered opinion, which I have expressed to much derision from Lisa, that it is Israel's best interests to begin withdrawing unilateraly from the West Bank, while, at the same time, begining negotiations with Palestine. Ultimately, Israel would West Jerusalem and Palestine East Jerusalem, but both sections of the city would be secured by U.N. forces on a temporary basis.
The Nato-Mediterranean Dialogue would provide forces to aid either side were the oposite side to attack.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Because, after all, pulling out from Gaza had such amazing results.
Oh, wait. No, that actually just caused the election of Hamas and the constant shelling of Israeli cities.
But hell, who cares if the Arabs use Judea and Samaria as a site for launching missiles into every single city in the entire State of Israel. The important thing is that we listen to a 17 year old's idea of how to make peace.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I retract nothing of my previous statement, nor do I feel obliged to treat your post, reïteration ad absurdo, with any more respect for its content than you did mine. Perhaps, if you responded to my post, rather than just the first line of it, we could get so where, but, as of now, it is clear we cannot.
So you stand by your assertion that bulldozing homes and targeting civilians for murder are morally equivalent? This bullheaded stubborness in the face of being plainly wrong is...well, it's so adolescent.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Here's a comparison that does beg to be made: terrorists who are Palestinian have deliberately targeted civilians, including children. the Israeli army has fired on legitimate targets and accidently struck civilians, including children. One set of actions are perpetrated by people who are not official representatives of the people. Their actions are morally reprehensible in both intent and effect. But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people. The other set of actions are perpetrated by people who are official representatives of their government, and are only morally reprehensible in their effect, not their intent. But...the "stain" of that action spreads to the entire Israeli population because it is their government acting on their behalf -- not a bunch of outlaws. We could decide that the terrorists are less moral and more reprehensible than the Israeli army & government when they shoot at vehicles in crowded areas, but that doesn't make those actions by the army and government any more moral in an absolute sense. Now that Hamas has come into power, there's another wrinkle in all of this -- the avowed terrorists ARE the government. One could've said that about Arafat too, of course, but the point is much more salient with Hamas which is actively aggressive. Until Hamas gained power it was at least possible to say that the terrorists don't represent the people. Now, it's not so easy. One truly sad aspect of all this is that the peace-loving Palestinians are less and less likely to get a hearing. And at least for now Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge that any such people exist. If Israel treats all Palestinians as "the enemy" it will certainly prove to be true.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people.
The trouble is by any standards we use, a whole heaping helping (strong majority) of Palestinians either condone and celebrate the 'stain', or are at best apathetic about it. Which, for certain things in my opinion, is more or less agreement.
Now that Hamas controls the government I'd say it's impossible to say the terrorists don't represent the people. Terrorists who spend a lot of time doing nice things for their people, yes. But terrorists who revel in the slaughter of unarmed civilians nonetheless.
If I were an Israeli, I would be extremely exasperated at best with the idea that the Palestinian people as a group want peace after electing Hamas.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
What would you have done, I'm curious, as a Palestinian?
This isn't just to Rakeesh, but to everyone. You start off with a corrupt terrorist supporting government that funnels money off to god knows where that is supposed to be used to support and feed, and educate, and house the people but isn't. You also see that zero progress is being made on bringing an end to the conflict, regardless of the outcome.
Then this other group says they will enter the elections this time. This is the group that DOES feed the children, and educate them, and runs hospitals for them and the like. But they also actively, and VOCALLY support missile strikes and targeting of civilians. Do you refuse to participate at all? Do you vote for the party that isn't corrupt and doesn't steal food from your table? Or do you choose the less vocally violent and stick with the corruption, knowing that it will lead to more of the same?
It's not like they had a third option on the ballot, the pro-Palestinian, no war, turn palestine into a shining utopia option and they all willingly turned it down in favor of bloodshed. Even if they could convince Hamas to stop their military wing from attacking Israelis, which seems much more impossible recently, it doesn't mean that the half dozen other groups will stop as well. 11 Saudis were involved in 9/11, and we didn't hold the Saudi government responsible. Though that's a horrible example, given their actions.
I don't know what the solution is, but painting all Palestinians as blood lovers just because they voted Hamas into power seems rather ignorant to me, give their lack of options, thus I honestly wonder what everyone else would do.
I think there are some connections to be made between Iraq and Palestine. You can't force a change on them, they have to be willing to accept it and work towards it themselves, which is why any long term solution has to come from the Palestinian people. Political change over there is laboriously slow, and I can't blame Israel for being especially impatient given the situation. But things are changing, some getting worse, some with signs that there could be an open path to improvement. Only time will tell.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You also see that zero progress is being made on bringing an end to the conflict, regardless of the outcome.
Israel had just left Gaza, hadn't they? What kind of progress do they want? They got a goal they'd been demanding for almost 40 years.
quote:I don't know what the solution is, but painting all Palestinians as blood lovers just because they voted Hamas into power seems rather ignorant to me, give their lack of options
I agree.
quote:thus I honestly wonder what everyone else would do.
I don't know, but they share some responsibility for creating the atmosphere that only supports pro-terror parties. And they deserve to suffer the consequences with respect to aid. If they are electing terrorists because they think it will make their daily quality of life better, it behooves us to not contribute to that illusion with our aid.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Israel had just left Gaza, hadn't they? What kind of progress do they want? They got a goal they'd been demanding for almost 40 years.
It might look like that on the surface, but do you remember what both groups, Fatah and Hamas were saying at the time? Fatah was calling the pullout a failure, because they still weren't internationally recognized as a state, and blamed Israel. Hamas on the other hand claimed the pullout as a huge victory. Israel pulled out of Gaza in August of 2005, and Hamas was elected into office four months later. If it looked to the people like Hamas was the one who orchestrated this victory, it'd only get them more votes, not less.
quote:I don't know, but they share some responsibility for creating the atmosphere that only supports pro-terror parties. And they deserve to suffer the consequences with respect to aid. If they are electing terrorists because they think it will make their daily quality of life better, it behooves us to not contribute to that illusion with our aid.
That's true, and I do agree. They do deserve to face the reprecussions of their decisions, but I really don't know what else we honestly expect from them. Living in a constant state of fear, facing two horrible evils they chose what they considered to be the lesser of those two, maybe not even fully appreciating the internationall consequences of such a decision. They are paying for their decision, and maybe in 5 months they will change their mind in the 2007 elections.
But I have to ask...what alternatives are we offering that they can accept?
Something has to change.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's a comparison that does beg to be made: terrorists who are Palestinian have deliberately targeted civilians, including children. the Israeli army has fired on legitimate targets and accidently struck civilians, including children. One set of actions are perpetrated by people who are not official representatives of the people.
I disagree. For years -- decades, even -- we insisted that the PLO was not the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Fatah, in case you aren't aware, is the Arabic name of the PLO. It is an acronym that stands for Palestine Liberation Organization.
We lost that battle. Largely because it was more an issue of us hoping than anything else. Bottom line, Fatah/PLO is the representative of the Palestinian Arabs. Even today, when they elected Hamas, their president is still Fatah.
The terrorists almost invariably turn out to be members of one or another Fatah guard unit. They are trained by Fatah, and they are charged by Fatah. Except for those who are trained and charged by Hamas.
I'm sorry, Bob, but there is absolutely no validity to the claim that they are operating as individual rogues. It's wishful thinking of the worst sort.
You know, they caught the three Arabs who kidnapped and murdered Eliyahu Asheri. Here's an article about it. All three were members of Fatah's Al-Aksa Brigade. That makes them every bit as official as IDF soldiers are for Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Their actions are morally reprehensible in both intent and effect. But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people.
I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I never said they were individual rogues.
Whether they were part of Fatah or not is a completely different question, and one that's probably answered in the negative for most of them.
quote:I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
You really need to start reading the entire post, sL.
Seriously...Instead of responding to individual sentences, read the whole thing through and try to figure out what is really being said.
I purposefully ran the entire thing together just for you -- so that you would perhaps read it and understand it first before just splitting sentences out for your usual micro-attack.
I'm glad you don't deny the moral stain that spreads to all Israelis due to the killing of innocents when your army targets legitimate foes in the middle of crowds, though.
Would it hurt you to go on record with that though. I know from the past that you don't care about the morality of the actions the Israeli army, or, when you do care about it, its mostly from the standpoint of them acting from too high a sense of morality and that stops them from doing the job they should be doing (in your opinion).
Talk about "nothing will suffice." I've told you many times about the good people I have known who are Palestinian and you simply deny their existence. Talk about treating another people as "sub-human" -- I'd say defining someone as less than real is pretty much defining someone as less than human as well.
And it leaves you no-one to talk to except those who already agree with you.
Sadly (given your reply to my post as but one example) you are also incapable of spotting it when other people agree with one of your points.
You know, Lisa, part of why I dismiss you is that you are so bloody dismissive of me. Not mearly argumentative, but incapable of listening and hearing too. I have simply come to assume that you think of me as only slightly better than the Palestinians you hate so much. I have no reason to try to hear your point of view because I already know where it ends -- hating me and everyone like me.
So why bother, eh?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I never said they were individual rogues.
You said that they aren't acting on behalf of their government. That's clearly not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whether they were part of Fatah or not is a completely different question, and one that's probably answered in the negative for most of them.
You think? I think otherwise. But tell me, how many official Fatah soldiers have to kidnap and murder Israeli kids or blow up Israeli pizza joints before you'll acknowledge it as an official act of war?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
You really need to start reading the entire post, sL.
Lisa.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Seriously...Instead of responding to individual sentences, read the whole thing through and try to figure out what is really being said.
I purposefully ran the entire thing together just for you -- so that you would perhaps read it and understand it first before just splitting sentences out for your usual micro-attack.
I'm glad you don't deny the moral stain that spreads to all Israelis due to the killing of innocents when your army targets legitimate foes in the middle of crowds, though.
I ignored that, because responding to... see, I can't even find an adjective that would (a) be appropriate and (b) not be considered too harsh. Responding to such a stupid fracking claim would have pissed me off too much. There is no moral stain that spreads to Israelis. There is no moral stain on the part of the actual soldiers who fire the weapons that result in such deaths. The blame falls 100% on the heads of the people who make such deaths inevitable. The idea that we should let ourselves be targets rather than risk lives on their side is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said what I did about our lives being worth more to us than every single life on their side combined.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Would it hurt you to go on record with that though. I know from the past that you don't care about the morality of the actions the Israeli army, or, when you do care about it, its mostly from the standpoint of them acting from too high a sense of morality and that stops them from doing the job they should be doing (in your opinion).
Collateral damage caused by (a) active terrorists using their supporters as human shields and (b) their supporters willingly being used that way. None of that should be of any concern to us.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Talk about "nothing will suffice." I've told you many times about the good people I have known who are Palestinian and you simply deny their existence. Talk about treating another people as "sub-human" -- I'd say defining someone as less than real is pretty much defining someone as less than human as well.
I'll simply note that you refused to answer my question and be done with it. No, actually, I'll repeat it.
I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Destineer... You don't have a people? You don't have an emotional connection to any group? Is that really true?
Of course I have an emotional connection to certain groups.
Read again what I wrote. I said that no group besides my friends and family is more morally significant to me than any other. All sorts of groups have emotional significance to me. I just don't assign any extra moral importance to the well-being of these groups.
For example: I recognize that the death of someone I don't personally care about is as much of a tragedy, morally and objectively, as the death of someone I do care about.
quote:You said that they aren't acting on behalf of their government. That's clearly not the case.
Not clear at all.
Just because members of a certain government act a certain way doesn't mean the government itself has ordered them to do so. Consider the example of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal: was he working on behalf of the American people? Surely not.
Likewise, if someone is acting on behalf of the dominant political party, this doesn't mean he's acting on behalf of the government. A spokesman for the Republicans doesn't necessarily speak for America.
I've never heard of a suicide bomber being ordered by a leader of the Palestinian Authority, claiming the authority of his government, to kill Israeli civilians.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Collateral damage caused by (a) active terrorists using their supporters as human shields and (b) their supporters willingly being used that way.
Do these guys walk down the street asking people, "Hey, I'm a terrorist. Do I have your support? Mind if I use you as a human shield?"
I mean, there have been attacks in public that colaterally killed passersby.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Bob, an important and well-reasoned argument, which is unlikely to be headed, but does, indeed, make two important mistakes. The first, simply is confusing people with governments, the IDF may or may not represent the Israeli people, but it certainly represents their government.
By most standards, civilian houses are not legitimate targets, and, whild the Israeli government argues that any deaths that hapened in th course of such demolitions were accidental, that still leaves the IDF, and, by extension, the Israeli government, culpable of manslaughter.
Also, targeted killings are hardly legitimate by any standards, as they function as excecutions without trial (I am and remain firmly oposed to executions, but a trial would seem the minimum.)
It is important to remember that Israel is not represented exculisivly by Lisa and Rakheesh, whom I can only assume to be Israeli, and that, if it were, the elections would have gone differently. I can not pretend to be happy with Kadima, but, while I migh have prefered Labour, the ultra-militant factions did not, in fact, win.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am not an Israeli, I'm a natural born American citizen.
quote:Also, targeted killings are hardly legitimate by any standards, as they function as excecutions without trial (I am and remain firmly oposed to executions, but a trial would seem the minimum.)
Yes, because Palestinian terrorists are only criminals. They're not at war with Israel or anything, right? Oh, wait. That's the dumbest thing I've heard since you equated bulldozing homes with murdering civilians-still not addressing that little bit of nonsense, I see.
I suppose you'd be happier if Israeli police forces rolled into a Palestinian neighborhood to serve polite arrest warrants to Palestinian bomb-makers, rocket-launchers, gunfighters, and future suicide-bombers in a good old-fashioned black-and-white patrol car.
Israel and Palestine are currently in a state of war, whether or not it's declared.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
"War" and "peace" are both bad names for what's going on in Israel and Palestine. Rakeesh is probably right, though, that the unrest is sufficiently bad that the rule of law can't be expected to prevail in every situation.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Israel and Palestine are currently in a state of war, whether or not it's declared." Only if you consider Palestine a sovereign state.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
They have an elected government. They're certainly more than just a private group.
Anyway, one can be at war with moree than just a nation-state in modern times, for all intents and purposes. Just because you're not a nation-state does not make acts of war 'crimes'.
I'm still waiting to hear you acknowledge the obvious double-standard in equating bulldozing homes with murdering civilians. I'm not going to drop this.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
" I'm not going to drop this." And yet I am the pig-headed adolescent who is clearly wrong to all right thinking people. I have already explained my posistion, on this thread, today.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:By most standards, civilian houses are not legitimate targets, and, whild the Israeli government argues that any deaths that hapened in th course of such demolitions were accidental, that still leaves the IDF, and, by extension, the Israeli government, culpable of manslaughter.
Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions? They're not demolishing homes with Palestinians still in them. So you haven't explained anything at all. You're still dodging. That's not an explanation at all. I'm still waiting for you to address your hypocrisy.
And drop the "I'm such a martyr" crap, Pelegius. You're not 'wrong to all right thinking people', you're an adolescent (biologically and socially since you're 17) adopting a common complaint of adolescents, "You all HATE me!"
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
Now that's beyond disgusting. Even for you, Pelagius. Israel absolutely is a nation-state, and has been one for 59 years. Only terrorists and their supporters have denied this fact.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I've never liked the term nation-state, I'd call Israel a state. There's little use in trying to differentiate between nation-states and non-nation-states, because state is a (fairly) well-defined term and nation is not.
Palestinians, interestingly, are one of the few "state? not a state?" problem cases.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
Now that's beyond disgusting. Even for you, Pelagius. Israel absolutely is a nation-state, and has been one for 59 years. Only terrorists and their supporters have denied this fact.
You could always assume he said that in a matter of fact sort of way rather than as a verbal assault Lisa.
Pelagius: Why do you think Israel is NOT a nation state?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I'm still waiting to hear you acknowledge the obvious double-standard in equating bulldozing homes with murdering civilians. I'm not going to drop this.
Hey, so this is nothing but an ad hominem. Why don't we get back to the actual discussion and stop picking on P?
There are many different ways to "equate" things, and in some senses bulldozing homes and suicide bombings are indeed equal. They are both actions. They are both aggressive actions. They're both ways of "targeting civilians."
This is the only claim that I see Pelegius insisting on, and it's a true one. But even if it weren't, what's the upshot, Rakeesh? A guy in high school used a bit of hyperbole in expressing his political opinions? If that's all you're trying to prove in this thread, I'm neither surprised nor interested.
If you want to talk about how the Israelis should handle their situation, then let's get back to that.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Black-Blade, Israel has two distinct nations living within its borders, the Arabs and the Jews. Well, there are minorities such as the Armenians and the Druze, but Israel could claim to be a nation-state if it only had such minorities. As it is, Israel is 18.5% Arab.
Lisa's assumption can only be true is we claim that a. Arabs are not Israeli or b. There is no Arabic nation. B could be claimed, but the Arabs have a thousand-fold better claim to nationhood than the Jews do, being united by one language (how many American or European Jews speak fluent Hebrew?) and one more-or-less consistent culture.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
from my earlier post.
quote:Now that Hamas has come into power, there's another wrinkle in all of this -- the avowed terrorists ARE the government. One could've said that about Arafat too, of course, but the point is much more salient with Hamas which is actively aggressive. Until Hamas gained power it was at least possible to say that the terrorists don't represent the people. Now, it's not so easy.
I notice that you've ignored this statement twice in order to accuse me (in a backhanded "possible inclusion" way) of having no criteria under which I would state that immoral actions of terrorists would stain the entire Palestinian population in the PA-areas.
As for the immoral acts by the Israeli army, they had a choice of whether or not to pull the trigger. Knowing that their target was situated in an area where children would be present, they fired anyway.
There is immorality in using human shields.
There is also immorality in shooting anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: There is immorality in using human shields.
There is also immorality in shooting anyway.
I disagree with the second statement, unless there are other reasonable options.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not shooting is a reasonable option. The people targeted weren't in the act of shooting anyone at the time that the army shot at them. They were driving in cars, mostly. The shooting was a target of opportunity, not a "must shoot now to stop an immediate threat" kind of thing.
And shooting into a crowd of non-combatants (including children) is a decision with moral implications.
It's possible to say it's a burden one is willing to bear, but it's not okay to say that it doesn't have moral implications, seems to me.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Not shooting is a reasonable option. The people targeted weren't in the act of shooting anyone at the instant that the army shot at them.
Only slightly relevant. Given that these are known terrorists, I do not feel that they can only morally be shot at while in the act of shooting. (And seriously, do you? If you came upon a burglar you had reason to think might be armed, approaching from behind, and he did not see you coming, you wouldn't shoot him BEFORE he had a chance to actually pull out a gun?) [edit in response to your edit: It is very much a current threat, and not merely a question of opportunity. Do you have any idea how many suicide attacks Israeli security defuses every month?]
quote:And shooting into a crowd of non-combatants (including children) is immoral.
IMO, not if your target makes a practice of surrounding themselves with such crowds. The blood is on his head, not yours.
[edit: You edited after I saw your post. Moral implications, yes. But I stand by my assessment of whose choice, and therefore whose guilt, it is.]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
Oh, good God. Rachel Corrie? She had an accident while engaging in a protest. That's your evidence that civilians have been killed in home demolitions?
No one has died during these home demolitions. Rachel Corrie didn't die from the demolition. She intentionally stood in a dangerous spot and fell and got hurt. The first time I visited Israel, I tripped on a bad piece of sidewalk and skinned my knee. Should that count as Israel victimizing civilians as well?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
rivka,
I do see the point. However, if it is possible to spot the person, and they aren't engaged in any action at that moment, then it ought to be possible to go in and take them prisoner, or get close enough to use only small arms fire and have a lesser chance of killing innocent bystanders.
Blowing up a car in an intersection doesn't just kill the people in the car. Even if those people were trying to avoid crowds and not have human shields around them, the resultant fire and explosion is liable to hurt innocent bystanders.
The choice is one of not risking Israeli lives in order to take these people out. It is indeed a calculation, and the army chooses to do it this way, even though they realize that the choice comes with a cost in innocent lives.
The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
The people ordering it too.
Again, I think it's possible to say things like "well, less blood is spilled this way...we think" or "we're willing to live with the moral cost of having killed a few children as long as it means that person X is dead too."
But still, it's not a wash your hands of it situation just because the other side is acting immorally.
The human shield thing is a problem. It can be solved in a number of ways. Israel has chosen this particular way. I think it is incorrect to say they have no other options. They may have no other options that pose less danger to their soldiers, but that's not the same as no other options.
I'm just asking for someone on that side of the debate to own up to the morality of the choice that IS being made. I'd be perfectly willing, in that situation to say "yep, it sucks, but I can live with it."
Somehow, it seems important to the pro-Israel camp to be perceived as always acting out of the height of moral rectitude even when their actions are not actually the best choices from a moral standpoint.
I may be getting the wrong impression here, but I was really reacting to sL's continued assertion that if Israel does it, it must be morally correct. She has yet to say that any action taken against Palestinians was in any way wrong.
The real undercurrent is that she can live with it even if it isn't morally good, but she repeatedly asserts that it IS morally good even when it isn't.
This thing of shooting into crowds is certainly a case in point. There's no absolute moral justification for the deaths of innocent children. At best (from an Israeli point of view) there could be a relativistic justification that says on balance, fewer people died this way -- we think. Since they can't know that, it's a really a guess -- educated though it may be.
sL is taking that justification a step further, seems to me. She's saying that the justification is that fewer Israelis die as a result of these actions. It doesn't matter how many Palestinians die, the truly moral choice is the one that results in the fewest Israeli deaths -- no other considerations matter.
That, to me, is a dangerous kind of moral relativism. If the Palestinian death toll doesn't matter, then a solution with zero Palestinian deaths has no more moral weight with her than a solution that results in total annihilation. All that matters is the number of Israelis who died along the way.
Since this is war, I can understand her statements from that aspect.
What I can't understand, is the claim that either way, it's a moral solution.
My version of morality would put a strong preference on total number of lives lived being as high as possible. Even choosing sides in the fight, I would want as many people on both sides to survive -- especially if we're tallying non-combatants.
There is, indeed, a moral victory in stopping a terrorist from continuing to kill (or finance others who kill). It saves the lives of those whom the terrorist(s) would've killed. Score one (or several) for the good guys. Take AWAY from that tally, however, the innocent lives cut short in the process.
It may well be that this solution (shooting at vehicles on crowded streets) is the one that results in the most lives saved. I do not believe, however, that it is the one that results in the most innocent lives saved.
That's pretty nebulous (we can't possibly know the real numbers). But it is reasonable to suspect that Israeli soldiers could reduce the number of Palestinian children killed if they more closely engaged their targets with shorter range weapons. The cost, of course, would be exposure of more Israeli army personnel to harm and possible death.
So here's the question: By choosing not to risk their soldiers, but instead fire at enemies from a distance, and in so doing, killing innocent bystanders, what moral burden does the Israeli army bear?
I don't think it's possible to say "none at all" and without ascribing to a one-sided morality that puts greater value on the Israeli soldier's lives versus those of the innocent children killed when the missiles are used instead.
Again, all I'm looking for is Lisa to just say "yes, that's true, and I'm okay with it."
Rather than, "no, this is the morally correct thing to do" and then go on to say anyone who sees it differently is deserving of some rude epithet (or, more typically, the threat of a rude epithet).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It may well be that this solution (shooting at vehicles on crowded streets) is the one that results in the most lives saved. I do not believe, however, that it is the one that results in the most innocent lives saved.
Since I disagree with that second sentence, I disagree with most of your post.
The thing is, while I disagree (strongly!) with sL's claim that there are no innocents on the Palestinian side, I also think you are far overestimating the percentage who are innocent. Even if I were convinced that it were as low as you seem to think it is, the horrific and ongoing toll from suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that are stopped by these targeted killings mean that in my estimation this IS the way to save the most innocent lives.
As for your suggestions on Israeli soldiers' tactics, I believe you are being unrealistic in the extreme as to whether they would have ANY chance of success. I believe the tactics you suggest would be both doomed and suicidal. (And I base this in part from conversations with friends who have been in the IDF, as well as news stories like the ones reported after October 12, 2000. Not to mention the more recent kidnapping and murder of an Israeli soldier.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Again, all I'm looking for is Lisa to just say "yes, that's true, and I'm okay with it."
Rather than, "no, this is the morally correct thing to do" and then go on to say anyone who sees it differently is deserving of some rude epithet (or, more typically, the threat of a rude epithet).
First, thank you for actually calling me "Lisa". It almost makes up for the repeated "sL" references.
Second of all, I can't and won't say what you want me to, because I disagree with it. I guess I don't have the same absolute believe in a child's life being the most sacred thing in the world that you do. Sorry. I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid. That way, he wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to become the monster he's become.
I am not in favor of targeting children. Or any non-combatants who do not have blood on their hands. I am in favor of targeting combatants and those who have killed Jews. But I do not see any moral issue involved in choosing our lives over theirs.
That's not entirely true. I do see it as a moral issue. But not the way you want me to. Quite the reverse, actually. If the only way to take out a murderer and save Jewish lives is to do so in a way that has the chance of killing one of their children in the process, 100% of the blame for the child's death rests with the murderer we're taking out. And none with us.
I do not agree with your statement that:
quote:The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
Causation is not culpability. And while I haven't brought religion into this recently, I have to do so now. Judaism says that if someone comes to kill you, you must kill him first. More than this, if you see someone trying to murder someone else, you kill them to prevent it. And the culpability lies with the person you killed.
It is not an issue of "It's a bad thing to kill the guy, but it's better than the alternative". Believe me when I say that I understand that you think this. I do not. I never will. It is, in my view, an immoral position, and I reject it in its entirety.
Similarly, I will not say that "it's bad to blow up a bad guy if there's a chance that it'll kill a kid." Instead I say that if it's necessary to blow up the bad guy to save Jewish lives, then that's what needs to be done. The issue of there being the possibility of a kid getting caught by it shouldn't even be an issue, unless there's an equally effective way to take out the bad guy without risking the death of the kid.
Given equally effective options, I would personally choose the one that doesn't risk killing any non-combatants at all. But only given equally effective options. The least threat to the lives of me and mine requires that I act to prevent that threat, and it is not justifiable to place the life of a child on the side of the enemy over the risk of our own lives.
I get that you disagree, okay? But by all means, go ahead and express your disagreement. While you're at it, express some indignation and outrage at me for daring to have moral standards that differ from yours. That's always a good use of time.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Lisa, rivka, do you feel the same way about hostage situations? Should police make it their policy to shoot through hostages if it means bringing down hostage-taking killers?
If not, what's making the difference?
Let me lay out two examples for you.
1: Terrorist X is waiting at an intersection with five random Palestinian kids nearby. You have a shot at him with your missile, but you know it'll kill the five kids. You shoot because you know it's the only way to get him.
2: Terrorist X is hiding away in a safehouse. The guy who owns the safehouse says, "I'll give him up to you if you round up five random Palestinian kids and shoot them for me. It's the only way you'll ever get Terrorist X." You know he's telling the truth, so you find five Palestinian kids and shoot them.
I see no moral difference between 1 and 2. The five Palestinians are "collateral damage" in both cases. You're choosing to kill them, but only because it's the only way to kill Terrorist X.
2 is obviously wrong, so 1 is as well.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa
quote:Given equally effective options, I would personally choose the one that doesn't risk killing any non-combatants at all. But only given equally effective options. The least threat to the lives of me and mine requires that I act to prevent that threat, and it is not justifiable to place the life of a child on the side of the enemy over the risk of our own lives.
This is the first time I can recall that you've given any hint that you would stop anyone from killing a Palestinian on moral grounds.
I thank you for it.
And I apologize for thinking you didn't hold this basic human moral to be true.
quote:If the only way to take out a murderer and save Jewish lives is to do so in a way that has the chance of killing one of their children in the process, 100% of the blame for the child's death rests with the murderer we're taking out. And none with us.
Sadly, that "if" at the beginning is a BIG if. And one that nobody this side of G_d could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is true. So the 100% thing is also not true in any provable sense.
I understand wanting to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
[ July 07, 2006, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:The thing is, while I disagree (strongly!) with sL's claim that there are no innocents on the Palestinian side, I also think you are far overestimating the percentage who are innocent. Even if I were convinced that it were as low as you seem to think it is, the horrific and ongoing toll from suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that are stopped by these targeted killings mean that in my estimation this IS the way to save the most innocent lives.
some questions: 1) Do they stop the terrorists, or stop A terrorist? Seems to me the actions also breed others willing to fight & die in the cause of defeating the people who just killed their children. What may stop them is fear of being killed themselves. What may embolden them is the sense that they have nothing left to live for.
2) re: the percentage of non-violent Palestinians. If there are just 5 good ones... Look, the problem is that Israel is not G-d. The country's leaders are not able to see the future with omniscient clarity. And they can't see into the hearts of people. When I talked to Palestinians living in Israeli-controlled areas and in at the time soon-to-be PA-controlled areas, they didn't hate Jews, they mostly worked for or alongside Jews. The common people at that time weren't filled with hatred. They had a lot of resentment over a few issues -- settlements, home demolitions, border closings shutting down their businesses, and the like. But the vast majority of them loathed Hamas. Seriously loathed. They didn't much care for Arafat and his corrupt cronies either. Something has slipped a gear in the region, and an opportunity has been lost. There appears to a be a LOT more radicalized Islam in place now than just a few years ago.
I submit that such radicalism doesn't feed on nothing. It doesn't spring up in a vacuum. Part of the blame falls on the Palestinian people for being gullible and not choosing better leaders. Partly, the blame falls on Arafat, et al. for skimming aid rather than helping their own people. Part of the blame falls on aid-giving nations for being so ham-fisted and not recognizing and exploiting opportunities. But part of the blame also rests with Israel for continuing the oppressive tactics that Palestinians hated so much, and that beat down the common person there, and indiscriminately harmed everyone.
quote:As for your suggestions on Israeli soldiers' tactics, I believe you are being unrealistic in the extreme as to whether they would have ANY chance of success. I believe the tactics you suggest would be both doomed and suicidal. (And I base this in part from conversations with friends who have been in the IDF, as well as news stories like the ones reported after October 12, 2000. Not to mention the more recent kidnapping and murder of an Israeli soldier.)
I'm not a military person, and not a tactician. I said it's at least possible that they did the projections and came up with firing missiles at cars as the least destructive option. If they did...fine. The problem is that they did so knowing that the action would result in innocent deaths.
Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists. I assume she's speaking in the abstract, but if this became state policy, and you all believe that only a small percentage of Palestinian males would grow up to NOT be terrorists...well, the implications are a little bit chilling, no?
[ July 07, 2006, 03:13 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
What a hypocrite. You accuse me of not reading your posts in full, and then you post arrant garbage like this. You know I advocate no such thing.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Lisa, rivka, do you feel the same way about hostage situations? Should police make it their policy to shoot through hostages if it means bringing down hostage-taking killers?
If not, what's making the difference?
The difference is intent. As well as the fact that the imperative here is saving the lives of our own people. Shooting through hostages won't save those hostages.
And what I said has nothing to do with police matters. Police deal with civil issues. Internal matters. The army deals with military issues. War with external enemies. Obviously it's appropriate to deal with internal matters with more care. When you're talking about bank robbery, for example, the perps are criminals. That's a far sight different than enemy combatants.
I think this is one of the maladies of the late 20th and 21st centuries. People used to understand that crime and war are different. That how you deal with internal lawbreakers and external enemies have to be different, because they are different.
Now many people (you, it seems, among them) seem unable to make that differentiation. You have a global view that ignores the fact that people in other nations aren't subject to the same laws, and can't be dealt with under the same rules as domestic lawbreakers.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Let me lay out two examples for you.
1: Terrorist X is waiting at an intersection with five random Palestinian kids nearby. You have a shot at him with your missile, but you know it'll kill the five kids. You shoot because you know it's the only way to get him.
If it's really the only way to get him, maybe. And then maybe you'll wait for a better shot. One that doesn't include the certainty of killing the kids.
But then, Israel has never taken out a terrorist in this way. Perhaps if you'd put it as "Terrorist X is hiding out in an apartment building and there's no way to get in. You fire a rocket into his apartment even though there's the possibility that there may be innocent bystanders elsewhere in the building."
Note: possibility. Even probability. That's not the same as certainty.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: 2: Terrorist X is hiding away in a safehouse. The guy who owns the safehouse says, "I'll give him up to you if you round up five random Palestinian kids and shoot them for me. It's the only way you'll ever get Terrorist X." You know he's telling the truth, so you find five Palestinian kids and shoot them.
Obviously not.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I see no moral difference between 1 and 2.
I see a major difference. But it's a strawman argument, because the example I gave is more realistic, and is even more different than 1 or 2.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The five Palestinians are "collateral damage" in both cases. You're choosing to kill them, but only because it's the only way to kill Terrorist X.
They absolutely are not collateral damage in example 2. <shudder> I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mind sees that as "collateral". You see them right there, and you shoot. That's not collateral damage.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
quote:Hey, so this is nothing but an ad hominem. Why don't we get back to the actual discussion and stop picking on P?
There are many different ways to "equate" things, and in some senses bulldozing homes and suicide bombings are indeed equal. They are both actions. They are both aggressive actions. They're both ways of "targeting civilians."
This is the only claim that I see Pelegius insisting on, and it's a true one. But even if it weren't, what's the upshot, Rakeesh? A guy in high school used a bit of hyperbole in expressing his political opinions? If that's all you're trying to prove in this thread, I'm neither surprised nor interested.
If you want to talk about how the Israelis should handle their situation, then let's get back to that.
No, I don't think I will, Destineer. I'm talking about both right now, thank you very much. And furthermore he has not merely insisted that both are 'aggressive actions'. He has used bulldozing homes to indicate moral equivalency between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Thus I'm not picking on him, and I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack', which it is not. I have to admit that if you're going to so mischaracterize what I'm saying, I'm not very interested in what you have to say, either.
---------------
Pelegius,
quote:"Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
So you were and remain hugely uninformed about a statement you made and have not bothered to educate yourself about it at all. That's about what I thought, thanks for clarifying. Are you at least going to take the cop-out that Desinteer has presented, and insist that when you equated bulldozing homes with murdering civilians you only meant to indicate that 'both sides target civilians' and not that the two sides are morally equivalent?
I'd be willing to accept that, even though it's plain to me that isn't what you meant originally.
quote:Lisa's assumption can only be true is we claim that a. Arabs are not Israeli or b. There is no Arabic nation. B could be claimed, but the Arabs have a thousand-fold better claim to nationhood than the Jews do, being united by one language (how many American or European Jews speak fluent Hebrew?) and one more-or-less consistent culture.
There are certainly Arabic nations. Arabic culture is not monolitic. Furthermore you are completely ignoring questions of religion. This is obviously not just a nationality-vs.-nationality issue.
Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
Yes, war and policing are different matters, but you could probably get a lot more humane approach to Palestinian relations if you treated more of it as a police matter. After all, the current incident was called "kidnapping."
You might say something about how it's different when it's your enemy committing the crime. I think viewing the people in the area essentially under your control as enemies does as much to create/motivate terrorists as the US occupation of Iraq.
quote:But then, Israel has never taken out a terrorist in this way. Perhaps if you'd put it as "Terrorist X is hiding out in an apartment building and there's no way to get in. You fire a rocket into his apartment even though there's the possibility that there may be innocent bystanders elsewhere in the building."
I think it is sad that there isn't enough real policing/investing going on by the Palestinians into incidents of rockets being fired into Israel, etc. I think it would be much much better than Israel firing rockets back, or using helicopters or troops. If this could be treated as a police matter effectively, there would be a way out of the cycle of violent reprisals the area seems to be stuck in.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
I couldn't disagree more. While there is always a choice in the abstract (one could, for example, choose not to defend oneself from a lethal attacker and thus die), in the real world of choices some choices are taken out of one's hands by the aggressive actions of others.
If a man throws a hand grenade into a crowd, flees into his home, returns and does the same...again and again and again and again and again...and you cannot be certain of the route he takes to or from the crowd, but you do find out the home he lives in-if, in fact, the man has calculated his hiding place to be shielded with civilian lives-then their blood when you finally stop him is on his head, and not yours. Even if your attack is the one which kills them.
Why? Because the attack would never have happened, never even have been necessary, without his actions. You cannot just let him keep chucking his grenade into a crowd, and it might just not be possible (in the real world) to find out anything else about him other than his hiding place. You cannot always send in ground forces, which are more discriminating, either. Because that gives him time to escape and chuck more hand grenades, to say nothing of killing the soldiers themselves.
And, of course, there's also the question of just how many of his neighbors are 'good Germans' who don't really know what's going on. This is another unknowable...but the popularity of suicide bombers amongst Palestinians cannot be solely due to threats of intimidation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If this could be treated as a police matter effectively, there would be a way out of the cycle of violent reprisals the area seems to be stuck in.
Thank you for acknowledging the massive optimism involved in your post.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
What a hypocrite. You accuse me of not reading your posts in full, and then you post arrant garbage like this. You know I advocate no such thing.
quote:I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid.
If that's not advocating killing of selected children, please clarify.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think it's pretty clear that by 'selected children' she means 'children we are certain will become murderers of innocent civilians' later on in life.
Since there is no way to know that for certain without a time machine...
When someone says, "If only someone had killed Hitler when he was a kid," do you think they're seriously advocating murdering selected children?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Now many people (you, it seems, among them) seem unable to make that differentiation. You have a global view that ignores the fact that people in other nations aren't subject to the same laws, and can't be dealt with under the same rules as domestic lawbreakers.
I don't have a global view of how the law should govern us. Obviously laws of war will be different than peacetime laws. That's just a pragmatic matter.
I do have a global notion of ethics and morality, that the same moral law should govern our consciences during both war and peace. And I think this is the only defensible notion of morality. Peace and war aren't states of nature, they're social artifacts we've constructed to make sense of the way nations govern us. So a soldier in a war and a police officer are only different from each other (and from private citizens, for that matter) in how society views them.
To draw another analogy, suppose that I'm in the hostage situation instead of the police officer. I have the same equipment and training he does, but not the same job. Then I would say that my moral duty is the same as the officer's, although my duty to the government is different.
quote:They absolutely are not collateral damage in example 2. <shudder> I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mind sees that as "collateral". You see them right there, and you shoot. That's not collateral damage.
In both cases, you're killing the kids in order to kill the terrorist. Killing the kids is killing the terrorist -- by killing them, you cause the terrorist to die.
Do you think murder is less wrong if you can't see your victim? Why does being able to see the kids, and kill them one by one instead of all at a time, matter for the moral question?
quote:Thus I'm not picking on him, and I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack', which it is not.
Looking back at the thread, I can see that I was too harsh here. It's not really an ad hominem, since it arose from disputing an ethical judgement P was making. Sorry.
Still, it seems like all you're trying establish from this line of argument is that Pelegius has a flawed sense of right and wrong. It doesn't have much to do with the Israel issue anymore.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It has a lot to do with the Israel issue because it's an opinion I've heard expressed before with relation to Israel: that Israel and Palestinians are morally equivalent, because they both target civilians.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
What a hypocrite. You accuse me of not reading your posts in full, and then you post arrant garbage like this. You know I advocate no such thing.
quote:I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid.
If that's not advocating killing of selected children, please clarify.
I wish he'd gotten killed in a traffic accident. I wish a house had fallen on him. I wish that anything had happened to prevent him from reaching adulthood.
If I had a time machine, I'd go back and kill Adolf Hitler when he was a kid, too.
But all of that is because I know how Barghuti and Hitler turned out. And I don't believe you if you claim you didn't realize that's what I meant.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I think it's pretty clear that by 'selected children' she means 'children we are certain will become murderers of innocent civilians' later on in life.
Actually, "selected children" was Bob's invention. I had nothing to do with that.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Since there is no way to know that for certain without a time machine...
When someone says, "If only someone had killed Hitler when he was a kid," do you think they're seriously advocating murdering selected children?
Thank you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:It has a lot to do with the Israel issue because it's an opinion I've heard expressed before with relation to Israel: that Israel and Palestinians are morally equivalent, because they both target civilians.
I see.
I'm not sure I even know what it means to say that one socially made-up agglomeration of people is morally equivalent to another such agglomeration. Individual people are guilty for what they do themselves, and one person may be as bad or as good as another. Beyond that I'm not sure what the question is supposed to mean.
There's no such thing as Israel or Palestine, except insofar as we pretend there is. Nations and tribes are useful fictions -- except when they become dangerous. If either the Israelis or the Palestinians would look at it this way, their problems might easily be corrected. But of course they're so far from looking at it this way that what I'm saying would sound like gibberish to them.
Some Israelis are ruthless, some Palestinians are cruel and fanatical. On average the latter have probably killed more innocents. But this is overshadowed for me by something most of them have in common. So many on both sides are so lost in the madness of nationalism (or better: tribalism) that I find it hard to sympathize with either side.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: There's no such thing as Israel or Palestine, except insofar as we pretend there is.
Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Nations and tribes are useful fictions -- except when they become dangerous. If either the Israelis or the Palestinians would look at it this way, their problems might easily be corrected. But of course they're so far from looking at it this way that what I'm saying would sound like gibberish to them.
Actually, it is gibberish.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Some Israelis are ruthless, some Palestinians are cruel and fanatical. On average the latter have probably killed more innocents.
It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
You are blind, Destineer. The fact that you can't see the vast chasm between these two positions is a kind of moral blindness which, unlike physical blindness, is something you should be deeply ashamed of.
Posted by Bean Counter (Member # 6001) on :
Pain, loss and deprivation, there should be classes where these things are taught as subjects through experience. It takes the abstraction and armchair out of philosophers like this.
Lisa do not think this is a group representative of the United States, believe me, in the real world my positions are moderate.
That things are artifacts of Human creation makes them more significant to we as man, not less, these are the choices we have made, the things we are responsible for.
BC
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote: Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
That's not an argument. It's just a statement of a view that you hold for no good reason. (Unless you have purely religious reasons, which would give those who share your beliefs reason to agree but won't persuade me.)
I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
quote:It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
OK, and if you could prove that were the only way to stop them you'd have a point.
But there are other ways. To mention an obvious one, which I don't recommend, but just bring up to make my point: you could abandon Israel.
Another example that would work if the Israelis and Palestinians saw that their tribes were a fiction: Israel could become a secular nation, home to both groups equally.
Not gonna happen. My main point is that it's too bad that it won't happen.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
How do you fight an ememy that is ready to die as martyrs before they are even teenagers.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That things are artifacts of Human creation makes them more significant to we as man, not less, these are the choices we have made, the things we are responsible for.
Plus they provide a great reason for otherwise needless killing!
I'm not saying that nations don't have their uses. Why else would we build them? But they're not ends in themselves. They're there for a reason: to improve people's lives. When they don't serve that purpose, we should be willing to abandon them.
quote:Pain, loss and deprivation, there should be classes where these things are taught as subjects through experience. It takes the abstraction and armchair out of philosophers like this.
Some would say that while pain and loss can be great teachers, they can also warp a mind into something unable to see the truth. In the limit, this is called post-traumatic stress disorder.
So far it seems to me that the pain and loss of many Israelis and Palestineans has warped them, not taught them.
(Notice I say "many Israelis and Palestineans." As always, I judge individual people, not fictional tribes.)
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
And to be fair, many Israelis do seem to have learned from their pain. That seems to be what happened to Sharon, later in his life.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer:
quote: Just because you don't recognize something doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It only means that you don't recognize it.
That's not an argument. It's just a statement of a view that you hold for no good reason.
And that differs from your arbitrary claim exactly how?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: (Unless you have purely religious reasons, which would give those who share your beliefs reason to agree but won't persuade me.)
I'm sorry, are you suddenly the determining factor here? Some people are so completely over the top that when I dispute their statements, it's not for the sake of convincing them. Because I won't waste my time on someone whose mind is so utterly closed and biased. I dispute their statements for the sake of readers who might not be as closed.
You make a foolish statement denying the existence of the State of Israel, and then expect me to back up my rejection of that sort of nonsense?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
That's dumb. In the first place, social constructs are, indeed, real. If we didn't act as though there were laws, there wouldn't be laws. But that doesn't change the fact that there are laws.
And some laws are more than just social constructs. If we didn't act as though murder was wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that it's wrong.
You can recognize facts of reality or not. That doesn't change their reality.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
quote:It isn't a matter of numbers. It's a matter of intent, and it's a matter of reasons. Their intent is to kill innocents. Ours never is. They kill in order to gain land and to drive us out. We kill, when we do, in order to stop them from killing us.
OK, and if you could prove that were the only way to stop them you'd have a point.
Who says we have to prove it to you? You're sitting in your ivory tower pontificating about stuff that's about as real to you as Frodo and Mary Poppins. Go ahead and theorize to your heart's content. Meanwhile, we'll do what we need to.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: But there are other ways. To mention an obvious one, which I don't recommend, but just bring up to make my point: you could abandon Israel.
You're assuming that our goal is different than it is. How would abandoning Israel make it possible for us to live in peace in Israel?
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Another example that would work if the Israelis and Palestinians saw that their tribes were a fiction: Israel could become a secular nation, home to both groups equally.
Not gonna happen. My main point is that it's too bad that it won't happen.
<yawn> Can I tell you how incredibly tiring and tiresome it gets to hear the same crap for 2500 years? And the wonder of it is that you think you're being original.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:How would abandoning Israel make it possible for us to live in peace in Israel?
For what it's worth, I'm reasonably sure that the Palestinians would also be glad to live in peace in Palestine.
There's some argument over which one you're all living in, and that causes the friction.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: And to be fair, many Israelis do seem to have learned from their pain. That seems to be what happened to Sharon, later in his life.
Please. Sharon wasn't who you think he was. He never did anything that wasn't for his personal gain or aggrandizement. The whole withdrawal from Gaza last year was staged purely to keep himself from being indicted (and convicted, most likely) on corruption charges.
"There are certainly Arabic nations." That is nonsensical, there is either one or none.
"I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack'" Actualy, the fact that you "have beef with me" is indicitive of the fact that you are arguing ad hominem and not ad argumentum.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote: For what it's worth, I'm reasonably sure that the Palestinians would also be glad to live in peace in Palestine.
There's some argument over which one you're all living in, and that causes the friction.
Is that why Fatah and Hamas started murdering eachother immedately? Becuase they wanted to live in peace in "Palistine?"
I'm sure such a warm and friendly people as the palistinians are not the ones causing the conflict Israel.
Pix
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
Of course I realized that's what you meant. I was merely highlighting the statement you made. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it. In the context of a discussion about the deaths of current Palestinian children, you raised that as an example. The inference is pretty clear, is it not, that if you had some way of deciding which children were future terrorists you would be in favor of eliminating them now before they had the chance?
I've never liked the Hitler/time travel thing because if it is possible to go back in time to affect Hitler's life, why not do something other than kill him. What if he'd become a successful artist and poet rather than a monstrous dictator, for example. I mean, as long as we're going to spin ludicrous fantasies and use them in an argument about real-life people, we could just as easily go back in time and make Hitler into a rabbi or a Catholic saint as well.
The question isn't moot, or as easily dismissed as you and Rakeesh seem to think. I know what you meant, but there's an obvious implication to it as well. And I think it's unfair of you to call me a hypocrite when you've actually said the thing I pointed to. If you don't like the implications of it, then take it back or clarify what you've said.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Pelegius,
quote:An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally "argument against the person") or attacking the messenger, involves replying to an argument or assertion by attacking the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself. It is usually, though not always, a logical fallacy (see Validity below).
Mr. Encyclopedia saves the day! As I've indicated at least twice now in this thread, the problem I have with your statement is in its substance, not in the speaker. Although I won't pretend I'm very fond of the speaker, but then I have very little indication of what sort of person he is. All I know, really, is that I dislike many of the positions you take.
What exactly is 'ad argumentum'? I don't speak Latin, but it appears to mean 'argument from' or 'argument to/against'. Against what?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:That's dumb. In the first place, social constructs are, indeed, real. If we didn't act as though there were laws, there wouldn't be laws. But that doesn't change the fact that there are laws.
And some laws are more than just social constructs. If we didn't act as though murder was wrong, that wouldn't change the fact that it's wrong.
Having extracted the two lines of actual argument from your post, let me address them.
I agree that the moral law is not socially constructed. Also that nations are in some sense "made real" by our agreement that there are nations. (Sherlock Holmes and the Dallas Stars are also "real" socially-constructed things in the same way.)
But something that's independent of our social conventions, like the moral law, can't depend on something that is socially constructed, like a nation. Because then the moral law would itself depend on our social conventions.
Sure, Israel exists, just like the Dallas Stars exist. But the existence of a socially-constructed thing like a hockey team or a nation won't make a whit of difference to what the moral law dictates.
Now, a socially-constructed thing can serve a moral purpose. The United States has, at times, served the moral good by advancing the cause of freedom. That's what makes the US worth defending -- not the fact that it's my nation.
Does Israel serve a moral purpose? All things considered, surely it does, and is therefore worth defending -- within limits. If Israel can only be defended through ruthless action, action so ruthless that it would undermine the moral purpose that gives the nation a reason to be there in the first place, then we are better off without it.
In particular, your own suggestion,
quote:I do not think it would be immoral to bomb the entirety of Gaza back into the stone age right now. If I were in charge, we'd carpet bomb the hell out of them until they cried uncle.
would undermine the moral purpose that gives Israel a reason to exist.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I agree. If there ever was a justification for carpet-bombing civilian population centers, it disappeared with the advent of widely available (for nations such as Israel and the 'First World') smart weapons. It would be a deliberate and primary targeting of civilians to punish the other side for violent politics. Seems like the definition for terrorism to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I say to you that nations and tribes are nothing but social constructs. The one-line proof: if we didn't act as if there were such things, there wouldn't be such things.
What part of that do you disagree with? Why?
With the unstated assumption that it's possible for the world to act as if there weren't such things on a continuing and ongoing basis.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Destineer, thank you.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:With the unstated assumption that it's possible for the world to act as if there weren't such things on a continuing and ongoing basis.
Whether or not the world could act as if there were no nations, period, the world could certainly act as if there were no Israel.*
Indeed, this is the stated position of many an Arab nation!
*(This is enough to show that even if the idea of "nationhood" is not socially constructed, any particular nation is. But come on, Dag. By all accounts there was a time in our distant past when there were neither nations nor tribes, only families.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Of course I realized that's what you meant. I was merely highlighting the statement you made. If you didn't mean it, you shouldn't have said it.
Who said I didn't mean it? I didn't mean the obnoxious misinterpretation (malinterpretation, rather) that you came up with, but I absolutely meant what I said.
And you didn't "merely highlight". You claimed that I said something I didn't. Be honest enough to admit that. I'm careful with my words, Bob. Read what I say; not what you choose to read into what I say.
But you've basically admitted that you wrote what you did for the effect. That you knew I wasn't saying what you malinterpreted me as saying, but claimed I was anyway. Maybe that passes for honest discourse in some circles, but I think it's disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I've never liked the Hitler/time travel thing because if it is possible to go back in time to affect Hitler's life, why not do something other than kill him. What if he'd become a successful artist and poet rather than a monstrous dictator, for example.
Not my problem. This isn't "Touched by an Angel". Time travel isn't an option, but I promise you that if it were, I wouldn't waste my time trying to "redeem" Adolf Hitler. Or Yasir Arafat.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: The question isn't moot, or as easily dismissed as you and Rakeesh seem to think. I know what you meant, but there's an obvious implication to it as well. And I think it's unfair of you to call me a hypocrite when you've actually said the thing I pointed to.
You didn't point. You pointed and then added your commentary, claiming that your malinterpretation was what I actually said. Without even quoting my words (the first time around) you wrote:
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
That's not "pointing" at all. I never said that, and you knew I never said it. And you knew that what I did say didn't even imply it. You were (and are) playing rhetorical games and trying to score points. And you're doing it damned dishonestly.
What I actually did say was:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I guess I don't have the same absolute believe in a child's life being the most sacred thing in the world that you do. Sorry. I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid. That way, he wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to become the monster he's become.
And I stand by that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "There are certainly Arabic nations." That is nonsensical, there is either one or none.
You don't get to decide that. Libyans and Iraqis and Jordanians consider themselves separate nations. There is such an ideology as "Pan-Arabism", according to which everyone who is a native Arabic speaker is an Arab. But that has nothing to do with the existence of separate Arab nations.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well since it's come up, I certainly would try to clean Hitler up. But...if things didn't look like they were turning out alright, I'd open the bleach bottle.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm sure such a warm and friendly people as the palistinians are not the ones causing the conflict Israel.
I don't think there are any one "ones" causing the conflict in Israel. That's what makes it so complicated.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Lisa, I don't think any anthropologist would say that Syrians were of a different nation than Iraqis (although some Iraqis are, of course, Kurds rather than Arabs.) The fact that Iraq and Syrua are different states bears no relationship to the fact that they are inhabited by the same nation, which is also presen in Israel, which is why I claimed that Israel is not a nation-state.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, silly debates over words with no well-defined meaning.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Lisa,
I apologize for misrepresenting your stance. I thought the implications of what you were saying were fairly obvious. I was wrong. When you spoke hypothetically of killing a child based on hindsight, I assumed that you were also saying that the situation in which you hypothetically had knowledge about a current human being the same willingness to kill would hold true.
I can see now how that wouldn't necessarily be the case, but I didn't think you held the one opinion and not the other.
If understand you correctly, then, you would kill Hitler because you have certain knowledge of how he did turn out. But, were you given certain knowledge that a Palestinian child would eventually turn into a terrorist, you still would not kill that child.
Is that correct?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:*(This is enough to show that even if the idea of "nationhood" is not socially constructed, any particular nation is.
But the effort of treating an entity as a non-nation seems to be something only done by nations and largely because of the existence of that nation.
quote:But come on, Dag. By all accounts there was a time in our distant past when there were neither nations nor tribes, only families.)
I was under the impression you were talking in the present tense.
I believe that if nations were originally a social construct, it's still possible for them to be real and NOT merely a social construct now.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I believe that if nations were originally a social construct, it's still possible for them to be real and NOT merely a social construct now.
Something is a "social construct" if it was constructed by society. Nothing ever loses that status.
Anyway, I don't understand your view. Do you think it's impossible -- physically impossible, contrary to the laws of nature -- for everyone on earth to stop acting as if Israel were a nation?
If you agree with me that this is possible, do you think Israel would continue to exist even if no one recognized that it was a nation?
Posted by TheGrimace (Member # 9178) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Some people are so completely over the top that when I dispute their statements, it's not for the sake of convincing them. Because I won't waste my time on someone whose mind is so utterly closed and biased. I dispute their statements for the sake of readers who might not be as closed.
I have to say when I read this I actually burst out laughing... Let me advise anyone new to this topic to make sure your rabies shots are up-to-date. We don't want anyone developing lockjaw in the middle of an argument <cough> I mean discussion.
On a separate note though, I'm curious why I still haven't seen this point brought up at all: While it does not justify the actions of Palestinian terrorist groups why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that in their eyes it could be as easy to say that anyone living in Israel is willingly placing themselves in the role of a combatant. Afterall, it was only ~60 years ago that this land was siezed from the Palestinians, so anyone there could concievably be seen as a forced occupier or at least someone willingly supporting those who are forcibly occupying formerly Palestinian lands.
Does this justify Hamas targetting schoolchildren and whatnot? Absolutely not. Is this the same kind of justification starLisa is using to advocate carpet-bombing Gaza? I think so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Something is a "social construct" if it was constructed by society. Nothing ever loses that status.
Not if the thing then evolves beyond what the social construct version originally was.
quote:Anyway, I don't understand your view. Do you think it's impossible -- physically impossible, contrary to the laws of nature -- for everyone on earth to stop acting as if Israel were a nation?
No. But I consider that a useless definition of impossible for purposes of this discussion. If that's the definition you're using, then your one sentence proof that nations are a social construct proves no such thing.
quote:If you agree with me that this is possible, do you think Israel would continue to exist even if no one recognized that it was a nation?
Too many terms with multiple meanings, starting with "Israel." I'll assume you don't mean "recognize" as in diplomacy and "nation" as in "state." If I'm wrong, let me know and I'll reevaluate.
However, if everyone - including the people w/in Israel - stopped recognizing that it was a nation, then whatever resulted, even if still called "Israel," would not be what is meant by the term now.
Edit: I realized I left off the reason this means it's not a social construct: part of "nation" is self-identity of a group of people. However, part of it is something more than self-identity.
Your test is, at best, only half-complete. You asked if everyone could stop recognizing nations and proffered that as proof. However, if everyone simply decided to recognize a particular nation, that would not create the nation.
Self-identity is necessary, not sufficient, and it is not something that can be merely chosen. There is more to it than that.
[ July 07, 2006, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: If understand you correctly, then, you would kill Hitler because you have certain knowledge of how he did turn out. But, were you given certain knowledge that a Palestinian child would eventually turn into a terrorist, you still would not kill that child.
Define "certain knowledge". Did I come back from 15 years in the future in a time machine? If not, how are you defining "certain"?
As I define "certain", I'd kill him dead. I don't know of any way on earth to attain certainty of that sort except in retrospect, by which time it's too late. So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing. I don't even see the "child" issue as pertaining. I've mentioned my friend Radwan here before, I believe. He was an Ashafist (Fatah supporter, back when everyone realized that Fatah was a terrorist group), and I was a Kachnik, and everyone expected us to be at one another's throat. But we weren't. Even knowing that one of us might one day have to kill the other, and knowing that neither of us would hesitate for a second should it be necessary, we were still able to be friends. The Middle East is not America. But thanks for the apology.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheGrimace: On a separate note though, I'm curious why I still haven't seen this point brought up at all: While it does not justify the actions of Palestinian terrorist groups why hasn't anyone mentioned the fact that in their eyes it could be as easy to say that anyone living in Israel is willingly placing themselves in the role of a combatant. Afterall, it was only ~60 years ago that this land was siezed from the Palestinians,
Israel was never siezed from Palestinians. That's a bunch of garbage propaganda that they like to use.
Up until 1948, "Palestinian" without a modifier was generally used to describe Jews living in that area. As opposed to Arab Palestinians, where the modifier "Arab" was added for clarification.
Most Arab Palestinians lived in the 78% of Palestine to the East of the Jordan River (the part now called Jordan). Most Jewish Palestinians lived in the 22% of Palestine to the West of the Jordan River. Nothing was seized from anyone. Most of the land we lived in was bought and paid for, and most of the rest was taken when the Arabs tried to exterminate us in 1948. Add to that the land that we took when they tried -- again -- to exterminate us in 1967, and then subtract the vast majority of that, which we gave back to Egypt.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" as if Israel were a nation" It isn't. Talk of "the nation of Israel" usualy predates the creation of the state of Israel. There is a Jewish nation and an Arab nation both of which live in Israel and in many other places, like New York.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Pelegius, you're using one particularly narrow meaning of the word "nation." Which is fine if that's how you want to use it, but please don't correct people who are using it differently but correctly.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing.
And thank you.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
quote: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.... The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
Wikipedia
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Pelegius, come on, this is pointless.
quote:However, if everyone simply decided to recognize a particular nation, that would not create the nation.
Why not?
Seems to me like that's just what it is to create a nation. A certain group of people treat each other as countrymen. Everyone else treats them, collectively, as an ally or an enemy or whatever.
What more must we add to the mix to get a nation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Do you think recognition is all that's required for a group to treat each other as countrymen and for everyone else to treat them differently? It's something beyond choice.
When the nation starts acting together a nation exists. That's more than the sum of a bunch of individual actions. It's the creation of a new entity.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius:
quote: One of the most influential doctrines in history is that all humans are divided into groups called nations. It is an ethical and philosophical doctrine in itself, and is the starting point for the ideology of nationalism. The nationals are the members of the "nation" and are distinguished by a common identity, and almost always by a common origin, in the sense of ancestry, parentage or descent. The national identity refers both to the distinguishing features of the group, and to the individual’s sense of belonging to it. A very wide range of criteria is used, with very different applications. Small differences in pronunciation may be enough to categorize someone as a member of another nation. On the other hand, two people may be separated by difference in personalities, belief systems, geographical locations, time and even spoken language, yet regard themselves and be seen by others, as members of the same nation. Nationals are considered to share certain traits and norms of behavior, certain duties toward other members, and certain responsibilities for the actions of the members of the same nation.... The term nation is often used synonymously with ethnic group (sometimes "ethnos"), but although ethnicity is now one of the most important aspects of cultural or social identity for the members of most nations, people with the same ethnic origin may live in different nation-states and be treated as members of separate nations for that reason. National identity is often disputed, down to the level of the individual.
Wikipedia
Very good. You feel free to use the word "nation" when you want to discuss those concepts.
Destineer and I are having a very nice discussion about something else, and we're also using the word "nation" to discuss it.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Do you think recognition is all that's required for a group to treat each other as countrymen and for everyone else to treat them differently? It's something beyond choice.
I feel like I still don't understand what you're trying to get at. What I've been meaning by "recognizing" a nation is just that people behave in a certain way. Since we can control our behavior, we can control whether the nation exists or not.
quote:When the nation starts acting together a nation exists. That's more than the sum of a bunch of individual actions.
I don't see why you think it is. Could all the individual actions be exactly the same, and yet the nation not be "acting together"? That is, is the nation's acting together something distinct from my acting a certain way, and your acting a certain way, and GW Bush acting a certain way, and so on for every American?
I don't see how it could be. Because if I act the way I'm acting right now, and you act the way you're acting, and Bush does the same, etc, then the nation must be acting together. I can't imagine a possibility in which all of the people are acting the same way we are now, but the nation is somehow acting differently. So the nation's acting together is really nothing but the sum of the individual actions of its members.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I feel like I still don't understand what you're trying to get at.
I don't think I've explained it well, but I'm not sure I can do better in the time I have.
quote:What I've been meaning by "recognizing" a nation is just that people behave in a certain way. Since we can control our behavior, we can control whether the nation exists or not.
Is your contention that anything that is solely the product of either voluntary behavior or instinctive (non-consciously chosen?) behavior that could be voluntarily overcome is a social construct? I'm not sure I fully understand what you're saying any more.
quote:don't see why you think it is. Could all the individual actions be exactly the same, and yet the nation not be "acting together"? That is, is the nation's acting together something distinct from my acting a certain way, and your acting a certain way, and GW Bush acting a certain way, and so on for every American?
This will only hint at the distinction I'm trying to draw:
Suppose 100 people standing in a public square decide, without consultation and truly simultaneously to mob a speaker. Were they acting as a group? And here, I mean not even unconsciously joined decision-making - assume each person would have acted were he the only person there and had no input from the others when deciding to act.
Is it as much of a group act than a group who hears there already recognized leader yell, "Let's get 'im, boys!" before they charge the stage?
I know these don't counter your example - part of how Americans act is in choosing our leader and making group decisions. But it's getting at something underneath that. I think.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " as if Israel were a nation" It isn't. Talk of "the nation of Israel" usualy predates the creation of the state of Israel. There is a Jewish nation and an Arab nation both of which live in Israel and in many other places, like New York.
We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there.
The fact that armed squatters entered while we were prevented by force from returning does not grant them any rights to our home. They are, and have been, invaders in our home. Israel is, indeed, a nation-state. The existence of Jews outside of Israel does not in any way contradict that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:So no, I can't think of any situation on earth in which I'd intentionally kill a child (or an adult, for that matter) for something that he might wind up doing.
And thank you.
Don't thank me, Bob. I didn't say it for you.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lisa, is it really so necessary to be so aggressive and kick over quite so many fences as all that? I certainly understand being upset enough to want to, but that does not make it a good thing to spit in someone's face like that online.
And anyway, you did say thanks for the apology.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Don't thank me, Bob. I didn't say it for you.
It helped me anyway. So, thanks.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there." What romantic-nationialist bull, under that logic, I have the right to reclaim my fatherland in Central Europe along with my Celtic brothers. Judaism survived becouse the Romans were too stupid to realize that kicking the Jews out of Judea was the best possible thing for them. Even were this not so, one cannot pretend 2000 years of history never happaned. The fact is that Israel is currently 18% Arabic and thus not a nation-state as I understand the term. Iceland is a nation-state, perhaps the only one that can claim that title now. Your assumption, rooted in outdated nationalist thaugt, is that nation-states are inherently better than other states. Is Switzerland less stable than Iceland becouse of its four lingustic groups? Did Britain fail becouse its citizens included both Celts and Anglo-Saxons? I think not.
Anyway, I never contradicted your claim as to Jews being a nation.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "We were a nation back when we all lived in Israel, and we never stopped being a nation, nor did our land ever stop being our home, in all the centuries that we were prevented from returning there." What romantic-nationialist bull, under that logic, I have the right to reclaim my fatherland in Central Europe along with my Celtic brothers.
Don't be a child. We have a continuity. We have never, not for one single day, failed to publically proclaim our intent to return to our land. Three times, every day, Jews around the world have been doing this for centuries. And you compare that to your distant connection to Central Europe?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Judaism survived becouse the Romans were too stupid to realize that kicking the Jews out of Judea was the best possible thing for them.
Bite me. You don't get to decide that a horrible crime perpetrated against us was "good for us". That's disgusting.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Even were this not so, one cannot pretend 2000 years of history never happaned. The fact is that Israel is currently 18% Arabic and thus not a nation-state as I understand the term.
That speaks more to your lack of understanding than anything else. Israel is, indeed, a nation-state, and the fact that there are non-Jews living there makes not a whit of difference to that fact.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Iceland is a nation-state, perhaps the only one that can claim that title now. Your assumption, rooted in outdated nationalist thaugt,
Don't presume to tell me what my thought is or what it is grounded in. Children like you are so incredibly tiresome when you presume to know what other people are thinking.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Don't be a child. We have a continuity. We have never, not for one single day, failed to publically proclaim our intent to return to our land. Three times, every day, Jews around the world have been doing this for centuries. And you compare that to your distant connection to Central Europe?
It's only yours because the world felt bad after WW2 and carved it out for you, and have defended it for you, then gave you the tools to defend it for yourselves. That's a blatent way of putting it, but can you really dispute it? Saying something is yours is a state of mind, as far as land goes, it's only yours if you can take it, and hold it. History has no other requirements for the "owning" of land.
And Israel IS a state, a nation, nation-state, whatever. If there is some semantic difference between all of these names, well I don't know it, and quite frankly, does it even matter? They aren't going anywhere, and I don't think they should be.
[ July 09, 2006, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
" You don't get to decide that a horrible crime perpetrated against us was "good for us" Your inferiority complex is quite intersting. Every ethnic group has been forced to move for some reason, hence the fact that the world is populated by a single race from central Africa. Bear this in mind, I too am descendant of a nation displaced by the Romans, pushed outward onto barren craigs at the edges of Europe, then the known world.
And, yes, I do maintain that the diaspora was beneficial, without it there would be no Rabbis not Synagogues, no glorious tradition of Jewish scholarship throughout Europe and North America.
"Israel is, indeed, a nation-state, and the fact that there are non-Jews living there makes not a whit of difference to that fact." Do you understand the term "nation-state?" I would love to hear your definition as it most clearly bears no relation to what I learned in Human Geography.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, yes, I do maintain that the diaspora was beneficial, without it there would be no Rabbis not Synagogues, no glorious tradition of Jewish scholarship throughout Europe and North America.
Certainly there can be good that would not exist but for the commission of some evil. It makes the evil no less evil for all that. I think Tolkien sums this up well in the Silmarillion:
quote:'Thus even ... shall beauty not before conceived be brought into [the world], and evil yet be good to have been.' But Mandos [guardian of the dead] said: 'And yet remain evil.'
Edit: I'm not commenting as to whether there were good effects at all from the Diaspora. I'm merely stating that even if there were such effects, what Rome did is no less wrong because of them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"Israel is, indeed, a nation-state, and the fact that there are non-Jews living there makes not a whit of difference to that fact." Do you understand the term "nation-state?" I would love to hear your definition as it most clearly bears no relation to what I learned in Human Geography.
Since apparently you define 'nation-state' as a country which has almost no signifigant minority population, I'd say what you learned in Human Geopgraphy has little to nothing to do with what I've learned in the Real World.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I did not deny that what Rome did was wrong in intent, only that it was the best thing that could have happened to Judaism, which would otherwise be a semi-obscure regional religion like Zoroastrianism, rather than a major world religion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I did not deny that what Rome did was wrong in intent, only that it was the best thing that could have happened to Judaism
I think you have no knowledge upon which to base this, because you have no idea what would have happened had the Temple not been destroyed and the other losses associated with that destruction occurred.
quote:which would otherwise be a semi-obscure regional religion like Zoroastrianism, rather than a major world religion
Without venturing an opinion on your conclusion, are you so sure that Jews would consider a smaller size and more concentrated locality a bad thing?
Judaism seeks no converts, and I doubt a credible case can be made that there would be more non-observant Jews had the Diaspora not occurred.
And, while concentration would have rendered Jews more vulnerable in some ways to mass attacks and a single disaster, it wouldn't have made them as vulnerable to the many pogroms and the Holocaust. It's very hard to say what would have happened.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Anyone who actually practices internation relations or similar field can tell you there is no accepted, objective definition of nation-state or nation. Many incorrect things are taught in high school.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Just because there is no single widely accepted definition for those terms does not mean that any nation with a signifigant minority population is not a nation or nation-state.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
It just makes it nearly pointless to try talking about groups in those terms for the purposes of political discussions. State is a nice, useful, fairly well defined, mostly objective term.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: " You don't get to decide that a horrible crime perpetrated against us was "good for us" Your inferiority complex is quite intersting.
Oh, do grow up, Pelegius. Recognizing a crime that was committed against us is an "inferiority complex"? Believe me, kid, I'm not the one I view as inferior here.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Every ethnic group has been forced to move for some reason, hence the fact that the world is populated by a single race from central Africa.
None have ties to their original homelands. None except us. And we will not acquiesce to the robbery of our land. This is not some sort of reconstruction of ancient history, where we were quite happy living elsewhere and suddenly decided to pick a place where we used to live. You need to learn a little about the subject before you start pontificating. The Babylonian exile didn't get us to give up on our home, and we returned. The Roman exile didn't either, and we returned. And we will always return. Because that's our home. It belongs to us, and it is a sacred responsibility.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Bear this in mind, I too am descendant of a nation displaced by the Romans, pushed outward onto barren craigs at the edges of Europe, then the known world.
Oh, who cares? Your people never maintained their claim on their original home. My people never went a fraction of a day without recalling it. Every wedding, every celebration, for thousands of years, has included mention of the reason why we can't ever celebrate fully. Because we aren't in possession of our homeland.
And you compare that to your history?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: And, yes, I do maintain that the diaspora was beneficial, without it there would be no Rabbis not Synagogues, no glorious tradition of Jewish scholarship throughout Europe and North America.
Then I suppose you don't realize that there were rabbis and synagogues long before we were exiled from our lands. You disgust me, Pelegius. You're the kind of person who would tell a rape victim that she should be glad she went through an experience that made her stronger. Who are you to tell us what's good for us and what's not?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Israel is, indeed, a nation-state, and the fact that there are non-Jews living there makes not a whit of difference to that fact." Do you understand the term "nation-state?" I would love to hear your definition as it most clearly bears no relation to what I learned in Human Geography.
Yes, I do. And I look forward to the day when you "look back on all the crap you learned in high school" and realize that there's more to life than the pap you're being fed.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Lisa, either explain your view of a nation-state, with some authority to back it, or be quite. As of now everyone, except those of us lucky enough to be, like you, in direct communication with the linguistic deity who defines things, define a nation-state as being something totaly different from what you see it as. To me, and everyone else I know, a nation-state is a state inhabited almost exculisivly by members of one nation. I admit I learnes this in Secondary School, and I am sure my School, like everywhere else, was a indoctranation lab for anti-semites like me.
You know who I really feel sorry for, all the Jewish students who learned about nation-states never knowing that this was an anti-semetic doctrine.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
P.S., "Before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, communal prayers centered around the korbanot ("sacrificial offerings") brought by the kohanim ("Jewish priests") in the Holy Temple. The all-day Yom Kippur service, in fact, was an event in which the congregation both observed the movements of the kohen gadol ("Jewish high priest") as he offered the day's sacrifices and prayed for his success." From the Wikipedia artical on Synagogues. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is run by anti-semites like me and all those people I went to school with.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:To me, and everyone else I know, a nation-state is a state inhabited almost exculisivly by members of one nation.
Not to the people at Wikipedia, whom you've already cited as a source in this discussion.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Wikipedia artical focuses on the concept of an ideal nation-state, then pointing out that such an example does not exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Exactly. And yet it applies the term "nation-state" to lots of nations that all ideal. Stop insisting that others draw the line in the same place you do. And definitely stop insisting that everybody else agrees with where you draw the line. They don't.
There's no such thing as an ideal "free market," either, but that doesn't stop us from using the term to describe real world markets.
Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :
I just read this thread. I really have nothing to add to the current discussion, but I wanted to comment on this:
quote:Our problem is how to be Jews who fulfill their destiny -- to perfect the world in the kingdom of Heaven -- in the Land of Israel.
I find that a little scarey. If they are just talking about Israel, I am ok with it. Having a religion I don't believe have a goal to perfect me scares me. I know some religions, like Mormons, have that as a stated goal, but it feels like a Jewish theocracy (which is how I am reading this) would be a lot more intrusive in what I consider to be personal rights.
Maybe that is not a reference to a Jewish Theocracy. After all they just want their own state-not a world state. The quote just rubbed me the wrong way.
Can you shed light for me StarLisa? Would they change laws to reflect Jewish tradition/morality to try and perfect the world? I hope not.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: P.S., "Before the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, communal prayers centered around the korbanot ("sacrificial offerings") brought by the kohanim ("Jewish priests") in the Holy Temple.
They still do, Pelegius. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing, I guess. Note that the vast majority of Jews prior to 70 CE didn't live anywhere near the Temple or Jerusalem. The essense of Jewish worship was always to worship God. The sacrifices were and are a requirement (conditional on it being possible to offer them, of course), but they were never the essense of worshipping God. That was the error that people had fallen in which the prophets spent so much time and energy clarifying.
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: The all-day Yom Kippur service, in fact, was an event in which the congregation both observed the movements of the kohen gadol ("Jewish high priest") as he offered the day's sacrifices and prayed for his success."
So what?
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: From the Wikipedia artical on Synagogues. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is run by anti-semites like me and all those people I went to school with.
I'm trying to figure out why you're raising the issue of anti-semitism. I don't think you're an anti-semite. I think you're a child.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by lem: I just read this thread. I really have nothing to add to the current discussion, but I wanted to comment on this:
quote:Our problem is how to be Jews who fulfill their destiny -- to perfect the world in the kingdom of Heaven -- in the Land of Israel.
I find that a little scarey. If they are just talking about Israel, I am ok with it. Having a religion I don't believe have a goal to perfect me scares me. I know some religions, like Mormons, have that as a stated goal, but it feels like a Jewish theocracy (which is how I am reading this) would be a lot more intrusive in what I consider to be personal rights.
Maybe that is not a reference to a Jewish Theocracy. After all they just want their own state-not a world state. The quote just rubbed me the wrong way.
Can you shed light for me StarLisa? Would they change laws to reflect Jewish tradition/morality to try and perfect the world? I hope not.
God has a plan for the world. But we need to get our house in order first. We're meant to be teachers. We're the ones who can tell everyone else what God really wants from us. Every nation is supposed to run their own business. They'll just come to us when they want to know what the right thing is to do. God can take care of those nations who don't want to do the right thing without any help on our part. We are not intended to be the world's police force, God forbid, and we will never even consider such a role.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: God has a plan for the world. But we need to get our house in order first. We're meant to be teachers. We're the ones who can tell everyone else what God really wants from us. Every nation is supposed to run their own business. They'll just come to us when they want to know what the right thing is to do. God can take care of those nations who don't want to do the right thing without any help on our part. We are not intended to be the world's police force, God forbid, and we will never even consider such a role.
I can't make logical sense of this. A group who intends to teach the world can't get its own act together. A God who will take care of nations who won't do the right thing without help isn't.
The idea that ANY single, small group of people have all the answers for the entire world frightens me. How many different groups, all believing that God wants them to be in control/have all the answers/occupy the holy land/be His chosen people can be correct?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: God has a plan for the world. But we need to get our house in order first. We're meant to be teachers. We're the ones who can tell everyone else what God really wants from us. Every nation is supposed to run their own business. They'll just come to us when they want to know what the right thing is to do. God can take care of those nations who don't want to do the right thing without any help on our part. We are not intended to be the world's police force, God forbid, and we will never even consider such a role.
I can't make logical sense of this. A group who intends to teach the world can't get its own act together. A God who will take care of nations who won't do the right thing without help isn't.
There are phases in history. The current one is one in which God's presence is "hidden". Far less obvious that it has been in the past and will be in the future. You might say that God's giving us all enough rope to hang ourselves, if that's what we want to do.
As far as us getting our act together, we're working on it.
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: The idea that ANY single, small group of people have all the answers for the entire world frightens me. How many different groups, all believing that God wants them to be in control/have all the answers/occupy the holy land/be His chosen people can be correct?
Why would it frighten you? It's not like we're going to roam the world forcing the truth down your throats. We'll be a resource. You won't have to listen to us. Any consequences of your choosing wrongly won't come from us. That's not our job.
See, that's one of the differences. Other people have insisted, wrongly, that they have the truth, and have "offered" it to you with a gun in one hand. No wonder you're skittish about the whole idea of there being a real Truth. But you don't have to worry about that from us.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Judaism seeks no converts, and I doubt a credible case can be made that there would be more non-observant Jews had the Diaspora not occurred.
This interests me. It was my understanding that at least around the time of Christ there were to some extent Jewish missionaries who strove to convert gentiles to the faith. Hence Jesus' comment about the a Pharisitical convert being "3x the child of hell he was before he met you."
As for the benefits of the diaspora. I think its extremely hard to judge whether it was beneficial or a terrible disadvantage as we simply do not know all the factors or the results as Dagonee has said.
Certainly even according to their own scriptures the Lord has used dispersion as a way to save the Jewish nation from corruption and other evils. See the Assyrian and Babylonian captivities for details.
I really cannot say with any sort of certainty had the diaspora not happened, what the state of the Jewish nation would be today. Certainly it was an evil act by the Roman empire, but I am always open to the idea that SOMETIMES adversity strengthens faith and resolve, while prosperity often breeds pride and corruption.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Judaism seeks no converts, and I doubt a credible case can be made that there would be more non-observant Jews had the Diaspora not occurred.
This interests me. It was my understanding that at least around the time of Christ there were to some extent Jewish missionaries who strove to convert gentiles to the faith.
There were many Romans at that time who converted to what we would call Noachidism. To many people, this was considered similar to converting to Judaism, even though it didn't actually make the people involved Jewish, or obligate them in all of the commandments Jews have to obey.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)