Why are they both shooting babies?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Guy on right is shooting at guy on left while putting himself in front of baby on right. Goal being to protect baby on right. I can use smaller words if you want.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Lisa, I'm sure cow is being deliberately obtuse.
I think that cartoon describes the situation perfectly.
Pix
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Guy on right has an absolute moral obligation to pull that trigger, in my opinion. Sorry, baby on left. It was guy on left who killed you. Not guy on right.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd say it's fairly accurate for the grand majority of Palestine. But not what is going on in Lebanon.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
What's "Palestine"?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Is this where you try to justify killing children and claiming moral superiority for it?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Yes.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
This is where Israel has an obligation to survive and tries to save itself from the forces that have sworn to destroy it at any cost.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Anyone else's cost, you mean.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Either way.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
While I am not sure what sL hoped to gain by posting this, I agree with it.
And, kat, no, not at "anyone else's cost." At the cost of those who would hide behind THEIR OWN CHILDREN while attempting to wipe Israel off the map.
If you don't like the cartoon, I can show you some photos.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
At the cost of those who would hide behind their own children and said children, of course.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Regardless of how I feel about the cartoon, this thread worries me a little.
--j_k
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ElJay, if the terrorists (Hamas, Hezballah, Al Aqsa, etc) laid down their arms and stopped shooting it would be over.
If Israel laid down their arms and stopped shooting, they (and their children) would be destroyed.
I'm constantly amazed how people miss that very simple moral difference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
This is being presented as "we have to kill them or they will kill us". There is a third option. I am not saying that it is an acceptable option, but it does exist. "They" would not be trying to kill "us" if "we" were elsewhere.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Is this where you try to justify killing children and claiming moral superiority for it?
Who are you asking?
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:Regardless of how I feel about the cartoon, this thread worries me a little.
Worries me too, james. Probably for different reasons though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not suggesting anything bad happen to them, just that they go elsewhere.
Actually, I am not "suggesting" anything at all except to remind people that there is another option. Again, I didn't say it was an acceptable option. If Israel stopped shooting and left , it would also be over.
Posted by Primal Curve (Member # 3587) on :
Wouldn't it be Jim?
Pixiest, that's gotta be a record.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Any particular place you're suggesting we go?
Ignoring, of course, the very fact that being forced to leave the Holy Land would actually BE "something bad happening" to us.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
Hmm, I'm not sure if that counts, PC.
--j_k
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by James Tiberius Kirk: Regardless of how I feel about the cartoon, this thread worries me a little.
I wouldn't worry too much. It'll get locked fairly soon, I expect.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
PC: The PURPOSE of Israel is to prevent such a thing from happening again. You can't godwin that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: This is being presented as "we have to kill them or they will kill us". There is a third option. I am not saying that it is an acceptable option, but it does exist. "They" would not be trying to kill "us" if "we" were elsewhere.
Oh, hell, there are tons of options, in that case. We can kill ourselves like they did on Masada, robbing them of the fun. Or we can kill all of them.
Neither of those is an acceptable choice, either. Right now, we're doing our level best to kill the ones who need killing, and avoid killing others. It'd be a helluva lot easier, and probably would have saved the lives of the Israelis who've died in this war so far, if we just carpet bombed the hell out of them. Almost every Jew who has died in this so far has died for the sake of sparing collateral damage on the Arab side.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Perhaps this "elsewhere".
quote: Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
Of course, Rivka, you could always stay with me!
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I am not suggesting anything bad happen to them, just that they go elsewhere.
Actually, I am not "suggesting" anything at all except to remind people that there is another option. Again, I didn't say it was an acceptable option. If Israel stopped shooting and left , it would also be over.
It's kind of appalling that you'd even raise it as a theoretical option.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Perhaps this "elsewhere".
quote: Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
Nasty comparison. There are numerous Arab countries, including one that is, de facto, a Palestinian country. All we have is our home. Which was our home before the Arabs invaded it, mind you, and which we have never agreed to cede to them.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Why? Why is it appalling. And if you can understand why it is appalling, why can't you understand that it appalling for Arabs to be expected to "elsewhere"?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Why? Why is it appalling. And if you can understand why it is appalling, why can't you understand that it appalling for Arabs to be expected to "elsewhere"?
There are numerous Arab countries, including one that is, de facto, a Palestinian country. All we have is our home. Which was our home before the Arabs invaded it, mind you, and which we have never agreed to cede to them.
(I cut that and pasted it, because you apparently hadn't read it the first time.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No, we cross-posted.
So now it is about who has more right to the real estate. That is more complicated than "we have to kill them or they will kill us".
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
You can't start a fight, (which would have been death for Israel) lose and then demand your land back.
So we're back to "we have to kill them or they will kill us"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You can't start a fight, (which would have been death for Israel) lose and then demand your land back.
So we're back to "we have to kill them or they will kill us"
Sure they can. They are. So how does that follow. Israel could give up the land. So we are back to "who should have the land?"
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Israel may be the less guilty of the parties, but that is like saying that the Lord's Resistance Army is less guilty than the NKVD.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: And what do you have to back up your absurd assertion? Or are you just pontificating from a particular orifice again?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: You can't start a fight, (which would have been death for Israel) lose and then demand your land back.
So we're back to "we have to kill them or they will kill us"
Sure they can. They are. So how does that follow. Israel could give up the land.
The fact that you can state this as an option (and think that offering one person a place to stay, much as I appreciate the offer, is an answer to anything) indicates to me that on a very, very basic level, you do not understand.
Mind, I am not in favor of sL's stated solution. But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Pel, you're off the deep end. Israel is definitely far more moral than those carrying out terrorist attacks on them. The problem arises in that Israel's actions affect far more people than just those terrorists -- not that this means Israel should stop any action negatively affecting those other than terrorists, but that questions of morality and proper action become much more complex.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Pixiest, I have cited my sources and you have dismissed them withou explanation, aparently thinking that in an argument of your word against that of a Nobel Prize winner, your word would win without you even needing to explain.
fugu, Israel attacks, and kills, those that it knows are not terrorists, so do the Islamic militants. That is all that matters.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists. It is a regrettable thing, and an awful thing, but an unavoidable thing for a nation.
By your reasoning all nations (with militaries, that have taken part in any sort of military action) are on that level, since every decent-sized military action has involved the deaths of civilians (and often many civilians), making your moral equivalence (unsurprisingly) useless. Try coming up with useful ideas.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists. It is a regrettable thing, and an awful thing, but an unavoidable thing for a nation.
By your reasoning all nations (with militaries, that have taken part in any sort of military action) are on that level, since every decent-sized military action has involved the deaths of civilians (and often many civilians), making your moral equivalence (unsurprisingly) useless. Try coming up with useful ideas.
Alittle civility on your part could only serve to add to the atmosphere of this thread, TIA. Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: Nobel Prize winners like Yassir Arafat? *spit*
Winning the Nobel Prize is not a carte blanche to have any opinion you like. Yes, Even Nobel Prize winners have to back it up with logic.
And appealing to their authority does not automatically win you an argument.
Pix
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Nobel Prize winner in question was Amnesty International, whom I quoted. You did not say anything other than to say that you hated them. That is not even an argument, nor for that matter is "spitting."
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Heh, I actually wasn't thinking of it that way at all. Its a serious suggestion for Pel. He's clearly capable of coming up with useful ideas on the subject, yet throws out ideas he should be able to readily evaluate as useless in practice. He needs to spend at least a second after writing any idea and ask 'wait, is that idea useful?' before posting it.
edit: oh, and the 'unsurprisingly' was in regards to most moral equivalences being useless.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"since every decent-sized military action has involved the deaths of civilians (and often many civilians)" No longer true. Besides which the IDF is usualy acting more as a gendarmie than an army, and yet they use old-style military tactics in police case. Either they need serious training or they don't care enought to act like a responsible gendarmie. The British have a better track record in Norther Ireland than the Israelis, and the Italians a much better one in Sicily.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: I was pointing out that the Nobel Prize long ago lost their moral authority and saying "Hey, NOBEL PRIZE! Can't argue with that!" is bug eyed crazy.
Quoting the "write a letter, kill a tree" people isn't an argument either.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Guy on right is shooting at guy on left while putting himself in front of baby on right. Goal being to protect baby on right. I can use smaller words if you want.
I can see where they're standing. I don't think that should mitigate the point that they're both shooting at the other person's children.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
You shall never be taken seriously unless you state why they "lost their moral authority," particularly as everyone else seems to think they still have it. Enlighten us.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Actually we have the best record in the Phillipines.
Whey they started doing the terrorist stuff there shortly after the spanish american war, we took a bunch of them out, shot half of them, and made the other half bury them upside down wrapped in pig skins, then go back to their homes and tell everyone what happened.
The terrorism stopped right there.
Would you back this very successful strategy, Pel?
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Pel: because they gave the nobel prize to Yassir Arafat, the man who stole billions in aid money that was destined for his people. And that's on top of his decades of terrorism.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
I am neither a victim nor a executioner.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No longer true? Would you care to point to a decent-sized military action (we'll just have to eyeball this, of course) that has involved no civilian deaths? I'm not talking about isolated battles, but entire campaigns or operations.
As for the British having a better track record in Northern Ireland, or the Italians a better one in Sicily, I merely point you at your own post where you said "Israel attacks, and kills, those that it knows are not terrorists, so do the Islamic militants. That is all that matters." Britain and Italy have both killed civilians in those regions, so according to you "That is all that matters." Will you repudiate the statement now that you've contradicted it with a country's 'track record' somehow mattering?
Note that I'm not saying Israel is morally perfect, merely that they are significantly morally better than terrorists and that the exact moral status of their actions is a complex thing to determine. Part of what makes the situation complex are the great differences between Israel fighting terrorists that have managed to permeate much of the country and one of the major western powers (such as England and Italy) fighting terrorists in peripheral territories. I won't even get into the differences in terrorist tactics and the like.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Pixiest, the Nobel prizes are awarded by Norway, not Amnesty International
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
She's assaulting the moral authority of having a Nobel Peace Prize, not amnesty international in particular. That is, she's saying having a Nobel Peace Prize in no way indicates moral authority, because at least one person having a Nobel Peace Prize was a fairly detestable person (and known as such before receiving the prize).
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Britain and Italy have shown what I believe to a genuine desire to avoid killing civilians as much as possible, Israel has not. And, with the advent of guided bombs and shells, it is possible to avoid civilian deaths. Israel has also not shown the respect for Palestinian property the Italians do for Sicilian property, leading me to believe they correspondingly caviler with human lives, a fact borne out by the body count (more civilians the militants at last count, see my post about the Economist article.)
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I said the nobel prize commity lost their moral authority. Maybe I phrased it poorly.
I never thought Amnesty International had a moral authority because their big deal was writing letters to evil dictators. "Oh please mr dictator, spare the life of X..."
And the dictator would think "Oh, a letter from an American Liberal! This breaks my heart. I must do what he says... Mr Disident, I'm sorry I threw you in prison, cut off your hands and gauged out your eyes with a bicycle pump. I shall let you go now."
And Mr Disident would say "Thank you Evil Dictator, I shall go back to... well, I guess I can't write about how evil you are anymore, but I can have my secretary write it down."
And the Evil Dictator would say "ha ha HA! You are very witty, Mr Disident. Gaurd, cut out his tongue."
Yes, Amnesty International... Wasting everyone's time pretending they're doing Good.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Amnesty International has had some amazing results, but even if they had not, this would in no way affect their moral authority. Jesus was of little concern to anyone besides his followers in his own life, and Gandhi and Socrates were often ignored. And yet they were moral
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
No, Britain and Italy and Israel have decided that as much as possible is a different amount, and it is not at all clear any of them is wrong (though I fall into the side of thinking Israel has gone too far at times).
However, this doesn't much matter. Even a single civilian death violates your previous statement, and I don't see a repudiation yet.
BTW, its recently come out that the body counts by the BBC (which many people are getting their figures from) are inaccurate, due to anybody found in a civilian building being counted as a civilian (despite some of them being known terrorists).
Pixiest: Amnesty International has done rather more good than that. Also, are you arguing that a dissident being set free despite having been tortured is not better than having been tortured and killed? I hardly think they're a perfect organization (I've had friends working with them, and in at least some places they're shamefully inefficient), but don't shovel manure over the good acts a group has done because you think they aren't good enough or don't like the group.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"Even a single civilian death violates your previous statement, and I don't see a repudiation yet." I spoke to hastily. To my mind, Israel, while not willfuly killing civilians, willingly does so. Italy and Britain honesty try not to, at least now.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
fugu: I've heard nothing of their results. but I really doubt anyone would be set free (who wouldn't be set free anyway) due to a bunch of letters from american liberals.
I wrote the thing about the dictator and mr disident because it made me laugh. (Yes, I frequently am the only one who laughs at my jokes)
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"from american liberals." Perhaps true, but I do feel obliged to point out that, in so much as it is at all national, Amnesty is British.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Ok, "Western" Liberal then.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Pel: What evidence do you even have as to the motives and accuracy of Israeli, British, and Italian military?
It seems pointless to discuss the effectiveness and moral imperitives of all 3 of these groups when nobody has even stated on what basis they have created their judgements.
I have never seen the Israeli military operating, but I do know that the day before they bombed any civilian housing in Lebanon they dropped leaflettes the day before telling people to leave the area and avoid Hezbolah operatives and hot spots.
That sounds pretty concerned for civilian lives if you ask me.
Now what evidence do you have?
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
Well, firstly, and most importantly, neither Ulster nor Sicily have actualy been bombed, as in by aeroplanes.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: ElJay, if the terrorists (Hamas, Hezballah, Al Aqsa, etc) laid down their arms and stopped shooting it would be over.
If Israel laid down their arms and stopped shooting, they (and their children) would be destroyed.
I'm constantly amazed how people miss that very simple moral difference.
A lot's happened since I left this thread, but I just wanted to come back and say I do not miss that difference. And I don't disagree that innocents will die during wartime, and that the actions of terrorists who hide behind civilians, particularly children, are reprehensible. I just think if you're going to make the statement rivka made you need to acknowledge the full cost, even if you think that cost is worth it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: Britain and Italy have shown what I believe to a genuine desire to avoid killing civilians as much as possible, Israel has not. And, with the advent of guided bombs and shells, it is possible to avoid civilian deaths. Israel has also not shown the respect for Palestinian property the Italians do for Sicilian property, leading me to believe they correspondingly caviler with human lives, a fact borne out by the body count (more civilians the militants at last count, see my post about the Economist article.)
Right. Let us not forget that Pelegius considers buildings to be on the same level of importance as human lives. He made that clear in a previous thread.
Israel has sacrificed the lives of our own boys for the sake of sparing the lives of civilians on the other side. Only nutballs argue with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"They" would not be trying to kill "us" if "we" were elsewhere.
Why is it I hear this more often towards Israelis than Palestinians?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The question is not whether the cost is worth it.
We will not simply lie down and die, and all our other options have been stripped away.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:A lot's happened since I left this thread, but I just wanted to come back and say I do not miss that difference. And I don't disagree that innocents will die during wartime, and that the actions of terrorists who hide behind civilians, particularly children, are reprehensible. I just think if you're going to make the statement rivka made you need to acknowledge the full cost, even if you think that cost is worth it.
The cost is acknowledged by everyone. Who exactly is stuck with the moral check at the end of the meal is not.
Personally? I think the lion's share of the check needs to be laid at the seat of the person who plans the most in advance to kill civilians. That would be the parties that set up operations in civilian neighborhoods, engage in military-terrorist attacks on another nation, and then flee into civilian neighborhoods and wait for a counterattack.
Not the party which is attacked and then counterattacks their enemy as they can find them, minimizing civilian casualties as much as possible without completely avoiding them, which is not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't feel like starting yet another thread, or bumping any of the recent ones.
Yeah, the Lebanese situation has Israel pretty much firmly in the right (there are always little quibbles possible, but nobody's perfect).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Why are they both shooting babies?
Are they literally crouching behind baby carriages? Literally??
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:"They" would not be trying to kill "us" if "we" were elsewhere.
Why is it I hear this more often towards Israelis than Palestinians?
Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
Just playing devil's advocate, I don't think Israel should go anywhere. I think they are perfectly fine where they are (though the current situation isn't fine at all, the geography is), with the possible exception of Jerusalem, which I think should be made an international city.
I think lasting peace will almost have to come from outside of the area, an internationally brokered peace. I don't see the cycle of violence ending until someone steps in to help. It's nice to see the US finally stepping in, and I'm happy to see Israel is accepting of that help, rather than taking a go it alone stance. It might even be that Israel's excessive use of force and the destruction visited on Lebanon is what was necessary for the world to finally decide to take a more active role in the problem.
Palestine is still another issue, but with Hezbollah gone, Israel has at least one less thing to worry about.
Posted by Eaquae Legit (Member # 3063) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
I really just don't understand this argument, and I never have. First? Looking back a bit further, I see a different people being "first."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Probably because they weren't there, or are viewed as having not been there first. Who's to tell the guy who's been there all his life, and his father's life, and blah blah so on and so forth to go, for the sake of someone who's only been there for half a century?
I can understand that, but as time passes this becomes true for fewer and fewer Palestinians. There will come a point within the next couple of generations when few if any people have a living memory of the time before Israel returned-as a nation, as a recognized power that is-to the region.
But, somehow, I don't think what I quoted will stop being said along with it.
The fact of the matter is that if we're going to accept the right of any Palestinian to have just grievance over not being permitted to live on land he, as an individual, has never lived on himself...then what right do we have to deny Israeli claims along precisely the same line of reasoning? The only difference is time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Eaquae Legit, if you look back far enough, someone else was first...but they're either dead or no longer claiming Israel anymore.
Questions of who owned the land 'first' are irrelevant, in my opinion. The question of who has the most just claim is much important, and based on both how each party got the land, and how they intend to use it and get it back.
Those who fight for the Palestinian cause do so by profligate, targeted murder of civilians. So long as they drench their claim in the deliberate murder of innocents, in my opinion the Palestinian cause as a whole has no just claim to the land whatsoever.
But I'm flexible. If and when the changes, the justice of their cause does as well. A just cause cannot be fought for with injustice and evil, and similarly an unjust cause is not advanced by justice and good.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Barring strong suspicion or evidence of terrorist links between the occupants of the houses and terrorists themselves...
Yes, it certainly was worth it. There should be more to the decision of whether or not to incur civilian casualties than whether or not any military casualties will be incurred.
When you say things like this, it becomes quite difficult to seperate you from Bean Counter, Lisa. I believe you are a skillful enough communicator that I have to wonder whether or not it's deliberate.
Of course, all of this is total speculation. For all you know, there was any one of a host of alternative reasons for engaging in house-to-house fighting. Capture of prisoners, for example, or documents or other information.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
I know the way the IDF works too well to believe that. They told the civilians to leave, and they wouldn't. So they had no choice, by their standards, but to risk the lives of our own. I disagree with that judgement.
Fair warning is fair warning. That's all that should be necessary. And it's far more than we ever get.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Would you leave if an enemy military entered your neighborhood and demanded all civilians depart? Please, just answer the question without going into who has what coming to them. Would you leave and if not, why do you insist others do?
Setting aside those neighborhoods whose bridges and airports weren't destroyed, making it more difficult to leave of course.
Your judgement seems to be that massive civilian casualties are acceptable, even moral, so long as a disclaimer is publicly issued first? So what is the acceptable ratio?
Ten Arab civilians dead for one Israeli solider? Fifty? One hundred? One thousand? And since when do the good guys get to say, "They do worse, so we can still kill their civilians."
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
You and ElJay. Sorry, but I have no respect for someone who lets personal pique inform decisions that should be made on the basis of hard data.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rivka,
of course, I wasn't suggesting that my invitation was a solution to anything. I would assume that you would keep liviing right where you are - in Low Angeles. It was an (apparently failed) attempt to remind you, in the midst of what can be a contentious discussion, of how much I like you.
My point is that the options aren't "kill them" or "lay down and die". There is the option of leaving the middle east.
quote: But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Can you understand that isn't a compelling reason for people who don't share your faith? To them there are lots of European countries. To them Israel is a conqueror, an invader, an occupier.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
kat, just because one person feels that something is black-and-white does not make it so. Not in the way they think, nor in the opposite.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side."
As much as I agree with you that starlisa is wrong, don't let her convince you she represents Israel. She doesn't, anymore then David Duke represents all of the United States
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Before, I was fairly nuetral on the question of the middle east because I didn't know enough about it and it seemed like it was too complicated to make a moral judgement.
starLisa, you have pushed me over to the other side. I don't know all the ins and outs of the whole situation, but I know that you're wrong.
I would not judge Israel's entire position based on Lisa's opinions.
I think that you are correct in thinking that the situation is entirely too complicated to make any sort of "this side is in the right" declarations.
My position in these debates (in real life) is that I defend the "other side" when anyone makes any sort of absolute claim that one side is entirely right, and that one side is entirely wrong.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: My point is that the options aren't "kill them" or "lay down and die". There is the option of leaving the middle east.
Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate. (And yes, I like you too. Hence the "much as I appreciate the offer.")
quote:
quote: But there is only ONE Eretz Yisroel Hakidosha, and we ain't leaving. There are many Arab countries. It is not even an apples-and-oranges comparison.
Can you understand that isn't a compelling reason for people who don't share your faith?
Of course.
quote: To them there are lots of European countries. To them Israel is a conqueror, an invader, an occupier.
That is actually not a universally held notion among Arabs, including Israeli Arabs. Many (at least used to -- it is DANGEROUS to express such sentiments publicly in Arab neighborhoods now) consider us cousins.
It is also not true. There has never been a time in the past 2000+ years that there was no Jewish population in Israel, albeit small. At times, it was considerably larger than the (also small) Arab presence. For most of that time (until about 100 years ago), Israel was barren. Dry desert, almost no viable farmland. Other than nomads, few Arabs chose to live there.
Jews made the desert bloom, made it possible for the land to feed the many people it now holds. Funny how it became more popular among Arabs after that.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
The Carabinieri and the Guards fought as infantry, rather than bombing and shelling. That is all, anyone can note the difference.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate.
But leaving their homes is an option for them? Can you understand why this is unthinkable for them - as it is to you?
Of course, Israel has bloomed. It also had a substantial influx of western ideas and money that the people living there didn't have. Because the property was improved doesn't mean that that it was right to evict the former tenants - or to allow them to remain as servants in the much nicer house.
And this was an issue 100 years ago, too. Aaron Cohen, in Israel and the Arab World cites the letter of an settler in 1907. "Unless we want to deceive ourselves deliberately, we have to admit that we have thrown people out of their misrable lodgings and taken away their sustanance." This was concern from the beginning of the Zionist movement.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: Then let me repeat: that is not an option. And presenting it as one will only alienate.
But leaving their homes is an option for them? Can you understand why this is unthinkable for them - as it is to you?
First of all, I have not suggested forcing them out. You are confusing me with another poster.
Second of all, I am not talking about giving up homes. But the fact is, approximately equal numbers of Jews were tossed out of Arab lands in 1948 as Arabs were pushed out of the newly-formed State. The Jews were absorbed by Israel; the Arab countries refused (and STILL refuse) to absorb their brethren.
quote:Of course, Israel has bloomed. It also had a substantial influx of western ideas and money that the people living there didn't have.
Give me a break. The Jews who went to Palestine (back when that was just another word for Israel) in the late 1800s and early 1900s (a number of my relatives among them) were (with very few exceptions) dirt poor. They didn't improve the land by infusing money; they did it by the sweat of their brows and the labor of their hands. Infusions of money came decades later.
quote: Because the property was improved doesn't mean that that it was right to evict the former tenants - or to allow them to remain as servants in the much nicer house.
I repeat: Before 1890-ish, there WERE almost no "tenants." And the position of Israeli Arabs before 1980 was hardly that of "servants"! In fact, even with the events of the last 25 years, an Arab living in Israel has a far better quality of life than one living in most other countries in the area. Right to vote, representation in the government, etc.
(I have a feeling you are translating the British/Irish issue to the Israeli/Arab issue. And the fact is, they are not analogous.)
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
A proposed constitution (a terrible one, in my opinion) was recently presented to the President of Israel. The following is the beginning of the Preamble to that constitution, which does have some value, again, in my opinion.
quote:The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish People. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave the eternal Book of Books to the world.
After being forcibly exiled from its Land, the People kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent generations they returned in masses. Pioneers, ma'apilim and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace and knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood.
After the Nation was forcibly exiled from its Land, it remained faithful to its Land and never ceased to assert its right to a life of dignity, freedom and honest toil in its National Homeland.
The Holocaust which befell the Jewish people during the second World War - the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe - was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz-Israel the Jewish State, which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the community of nations.
On the day of the termination of the British mandate over Eretz-Israel, the fifth of Iyar, 5708, the fourteenth day of May, 1948, the members of the People's Council, representatives of the Jewish community of Eretz-Israel and of the Zionist movement, assembled and declared the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.
The vast majority of the Arabs who identify as "Palestinians" do not have their roots in the Land of Israel at all. They came when the returning Jews created jobs and infrastructure. If there are a handful of Arabs whose families have been in the areas controlled by Israel for even a century, let alone a century and a half, let alone the absurdity of having been there since the Arab conquest 13 centuries ago, that's a lot.
Yasir Arafat, former head of the "Palestine Liberation Organization" was himself born in Cairo, Egypt. He lied about this for years. But it's useful. Claim that your family has been there, and what can anyone say? There just isn't enough documentation; no one can fairly insist that you show papers proving it.
The Arab population was extremely sparse when the Jews started coming back in large numbers. Were there Arabs living there? Of course. But not very many, and they couldn't have cared less about Jerusalem. That myth (the "third holiest city in Islam) wasn't created until much later.
What happened was that the Arab world became aflame with the idea of nationalism. And those Arabs who had migrated to Palestine after the Zionists had begun repairing the centuries of damage done by Arab neglect decided that they wanted self-rule. But the Jews were there, too.
That was no problem. They figured that in a sea of Arab countries, there was no way that a bunch of Jews would be able to hold out. They could be terrorized or pushed into the sea. And that was tried, over and over.
Then they decided that they'd been neglecting public opinion. Everyone thought the PLO were scum, and the best that could be said about the Arabs who called themselves Palestinians was to deny that the PLO represented them. Anyone in their late 30s and up (and maybe even younger people) will remember the constant phrase, "The legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people." That was the PLO's claim. And as a result, only the wackiest and extreme leftists were willing to identify with the Palestinian cause.
In 1982, when Israel got tired of being shelled from Lebanese soil by the PLO and invaded, the Arabs had apparently learned something about propaganda. And they used it well. They're doing so even now.
Phrase it as a humanitarian issue, and the world will go along. The underlying threat of "if you don't let us have our way, we're going to stomp our feet, hold our breath until we turn blue, and blow up your children" was, of course, an underlying subtext, but the humanitarian issue was one that people could get behind without feeling ashamed that they were caving into violent blackmail.
The most moderate of them still insist on "the right of return", which would mean the end of Israel through inundation, rather than bullets. We're not willing to go. It's our home. It's our only home. And we will have it back. And if the bloody Arabs want to write editorials or UN resolutions condemning us, good health to them. But if they keep trying to kill us, they're making a very bad choice. One which will backfire on them to their great detriment. As they're seeing now in Lebanon.
The Lebanese government has done nothing to prevent Lebanon from being used by Hezbollah. They don't get to distance themselves from the results.
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
Posted by Angiomorphism (Member # 8184) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists.
I would like to add that this is not always true, as we have seen recently with the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, which Kofi Anan believes was intentional.
EDIT: woah I totally didn't realize that there was another page to this thread, sorry for the off topic remark.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Angiomorphism:
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: No, Israel attacks locations known to harbor terrorists and terrorists, and sometimes kills those who are not terrorists.
I would like to add that this is not always true, as we have seen recently with the bombing of the UN outpost in southern Lebanon, which Kofi Anan believes was intentional.
Kofi Annan saying it doesn't make it true. So yes, what fugu13 said is the case.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle:
quote:"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend."
And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations.
I didn't recognize it, though it was obviously a quote (those little quotation marks gave it away). I'm not a fan of Tolkein <ducks>.
But I thought the quote was spot on, actually. To paraphrase it in less flowery language, "When faced with an implacable enemy which is absolutely dedicated to our destruction, war is our only choice. We don't want war, and we don't like war. We don't enjoy having our country turned into an armed camp where people get on buses with Uzis or M-16s hanging on their shoulders. We fight because we value what we are defending. Because it's worth being defended. And because the enemy gives us no other choice."
[ July 27, 2006, 04:04 PM: Message edited by: starLisa ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I did miss one case, Israel also sometimes attacks infrastructure.
Angiomorph: there's a report on the CBC that the outpost was being used as protective cover by Hezbollah, meaning this would fall into the situations I described. http://www.imra.org.il/story.php3?id=30314
Note that I don't agree with bombing it, at least not while there were UN soldiers inside, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taken out because terrorists were being targeted.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Nine Israeli soldiers died today in house-to-house fighting. Note: The purpose of house-to-house fighting, when it'd be easier just to drop a bomb on the neighborhood, is to avoid civilian casualties.
That's nine more boys we sacrificed for the sake of saving Arab lives.
It wasn't worth it.
You REALLY believe that?
What do you really think would happen if you carpet bombed or dropped a Hellfire on every house in southern Lebanon? You think it would save your lives, and you'd just go on your merry way, perhaps with a somewhat heavier weight on your morals, but otherwise intact?
Go ahead and turn southern Lebanon into smoking rubble and charred corpses (more than you already have I mean), hell, go ahead and drop a nuke. Save your soldier's lives, and then see what happens. See the outpouring of relief and sympathy that comes from the world to Israel for the horrible thing they just HAD to do.
Those soldiers aren't dying to save Arab lives, they're dying to save future Israeli lives, or current Israeli lives for a later date. It's an investment.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Note that I don't agree with bombing it, at least not while there were UN soldiers inside, but that doesn't mean it wasn't taken out because terrorists were being targeted.
If I was a terrorist, and I knew it was Israel's policy to attack suspected terrorist sites regardless of "collateral damage," I'd make it a point to stick a terrorist in every vulnerable spot in the surrounding area, then hole up my main force somewhere else, so the enemy could spend all their time bombing the crap out of soft targets and pissing everyone off. That way when I do emerge from my hole, and I see that busses, and Red Cross transports, and homes, businesses and apartment complexes all around me have been destroyed, I know I can do pretty much whatever I want with the support of the people around me while my enemy is villified.
They're devoid of morals in the war they are fighting, but that doesn't mean they are stupid or ineffective. Which is why calling them animals is so counterproductive, it suggests they are stupid.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I've asked this question time and time again to those who disagree with how Israel is handling things.
Were you in complete control of Israel how would you change things? What would your response be to the terrorist attacks they endure on an almost daily basis now?
Are you suggesting they try something like what Gandhi did in India? What? I keep hearing arguments like "Israel shouldnt do X" and the response is, "But they are justified because their enemies do Y and want Z."
What should Israel be doing INSTEAD of what it does?
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there is no moral high ground in the Middle East. Everyone wants their chunk of land, and they are willing to kill for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So, killing is killing is killing?
Thus killing in self-defense is equally immoral to killing for profit? Killing in self-defense is equally immoral to killing in defense of, say, a child? Killing one's self is immoral? Killing one's self to save others is immoral?
Yeah, I'm afraid what you've said before and say now isn't very persuasive. Your moral mathematics seem pretty inaccurate to me.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
When Isreal was created, how many hundreds of thousands of people were displaced? After the way Isreal was created in 1948, how could it ever possibly claim any kind of moral high ground?
The Palestineans and Arabs are no better, of course.
In this specific case, yes. Killing is killing is killing.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I disagree. If you go back far enough you can always find some claim to any specific land.
What matters most is the here and now. In this situation there is a difference between the two sides. No question about it.
I doubt most of the people in the US would feel any different if the American Indians were the ones launching rockets at us.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Shame on those Indians for being on our land before we got here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Indeed, Native Americans have just grievance with the US government in many, many ways. And I support them in all of them. Tribal lands, casinos, tax breaks, scholarships, tribal governments, I think all are only a fraction of what we owe while being a substantial portion of what we can actually give.
My sympathies and support would vanish entirely, though, if Native Americans had been involved in a campaign (in the modern era) of deliberately targeting civilians for murder as a political tool.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Possibly because it did not make it a policy to target innocent civilians for murder to achieve political ends, thus it has some kind of high ground?
So...unless you're making the frankly stupid claim that displacement equals targeted murder of civilians, then yes, they do have the moral high ground. I say 'frankly stupid' because until recently, I never heard it actually made and am still astounded that it ever was.
You need to explain why exactly displacement-which was, by the way, returned to Jews living in Arab states, you know-is equivalent to the means Arabs and Palestinians use to remove their enemies: by murdering their civilians.
You have not done so, or even attempted to do so so far.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:So...unless you're making the frankly stupid claim that displacement equals targeted murder of civilians, then yes, they do have the moral high ground.
I'm sure plenty of Americans would quietly give their land up if a stronger force asked nicely. Or bulldozed their homes. I'm sure Americans would never use all necassary force to take back land their saw as their own. I'm sure.
The civilian/soldier distinction is a cynical manipulation of language. It's the myth nations tell to themselves so they can go about acheiving their aims and polish their halo.
It's also a story only truly powerful nations can tell to themselves. If Isrealis or Americans were placed in a desperate enough situation, they'd happily bomb as many civilians as needed to achieve their goals.
I'm not a pacifist, but the cynical manipulations and self-deceptions that typically surround war are pretty pathetic. Admit that you have material or ideological goals and just get on with it. Forget the Just War crap.
That is not a call to a perpetual state of war, by the way. The desirability of various goals can be debated. It's the moral fluff that we should dispense with.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Foust,
So, you are making the claim that destruction and theft of property is equivalent to targeting civilians for murder?
Or are you making the completely irrelevant claim that 'Americans would do it too, so don't villify Palestinians'? Or what, exactly? You're doing an excellent bit of rhetorical acrobatics, but you haven't really answered the question I asked at all:
Is destruction and theft of property morally equivalent to targeting civilians for murder to achieve a political goal? It's a simple yes or no question, Foust. Answer it please, if you can.
Now, as to the rest of your post...
quote:I'm sure plenty of Americans would quietly give their land up if a stronger force asked nicely. Or bulldozed their homes. I'm sure Americans would never use all necassary force to take back land their saw as their own. I'm sure.
Actually, there have been Americans who had their homes, rights, and dignity stolen from them and did not do what you suggest that 'of course' Americans would do. African-Americans, for one. And they were slaves, not just evictees. So...please, don't feed me your 'I'm sure' nonsense. You need to re-examine the many histories of oppressed peoples throughout the world to see what 'you're sure' they would do.
And how effective it would be towards success, of course. In the past century, the most famous examples of peoples which have succeeded in regaining rights and sovereignty have been the ones which did not do what 'you're sure' they'd do.
quote:The civilian/soldier distinction is a cynical manipulation of language. It's the myth nations tell to themselves so they can go about acheiving their aims and polish their halo.
Of course it's a manipulation of language, Foust. Like the differences in definitions in a dictionary is 'a manipulation of language'. Considering that there is a serious difference between a soldier and a civilian. Or is this going to become a 'deny all terms and definitions' discussion? Frankly, those are tiresome and generally the resort of those who cannot effectively disagree on the merits of facts and opinions.
quote:It's also a story only truly powerful nations can tell to themselves. If Isrealis or Americans were placed in a desperate enough situation, they'd happily bomb as many civilians as needed to achieve their goals.
It's a story all nations which have ever made war in history-all of them, in other words, powerful and weak-have told themselves. And just because people will generally do anything if you artificially change their circumstances to make them their most desperate and murderous does not make being desperate and murderous 'moral fluff'.
quote:I'm not a pacifist, but the cynical manipulations and self-deceptions that typically surround war are pretty pathetic. Admit that you have material or ideological goals and just get on with it. Forget the Just War crap.
Just because material goals are served by a war does not mean the war is unjust. Furthermore, since when are all ideological goals 'cynical manipulations' and 'crap'? If you want to discuss pathetic, how about focusing that keen selective historical insight on the idea that if any group has one single self-serving motive, their entire cause is cynical and pathetic and crappy?
Give me a break. Don't talk to me about moral fluff when you selectively magnify lesser self-serving, cynical methods of one party and compare them to the much greater and more horrible methods of the other side, ignore everything else and say, "Morally equivalent! See!"
Oh, and since you spent awhile not doing so, just a pointed reminder: please answer my question. If you can. Personally, on the tone and position of this post of yours, I don't think you can-and I think you know it.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: When Isreal was created, how many hundreds of thousands of people were displaced? After the way Isreal was created in 1948, how could it ever possibly claim any kind of moral high ground?
The vast majority of the Arabs who were "displaced" had been there for no more than a generation or two. You're buying into the myth of a large Arab population in the land prior to the beginning of Modern Zionism, when the land, according to all accounts, couldn't support a large population of any sort.
The UN split the 22% of Palestine that hadn't already been made into an Arab state (Jordan) into 7 pieces. Three for Jews, three for Arabs, and one (Jerusalem) that the UN wanted to keep for itself. The pieces given to the Jews and Arabs were all populated with Jews and Arabs, but the UN made the Arab sections the ones that had the bigger Arab populations (the Jews were left with whatever was left over, but we were willing to go with that).
Almost half of what was given to the Jews was the Negev desert, which was almost completely empty. But again, we were willing to take it, because we figured that we could find a way to make the desert bloom (and we did).
The Arabs were given most of the arable land. Arable land that hadn't been arable land until Jews showed up and made it that way.
But they weren't even willing to let us have a patch of uninhabited desert. They tried to kill us all. At the end of that war, we'd turned our three non-contiguous pieces of land into something contiguous, though the heartland of Judea and Samaria was taken by Jordan, and the coastal area of Gaza was taken by Egypt.
The Arabs who'd been living in the area for not very long at that point didn't have any major problem with this. There were no "Palestinian" protests against Egypt for holding Gaza. There were no "Palestinian" protests against Jordan for holding Judea and Samaria ("the West Bank"). The PLO was created in 1964, three years before Israel took those lands, and the "Palestine" it wanted to "liberate" was Tel Aviv and Haifa and every single inch of land that was under Jewish control.
In 1970, the PLO attempted to depose King Hussein of Jordan and take over Jordan, because Jordan is 78% of the original Palestinian Mandate. Hussein dealt with them appropriately, which was how they wound up in Lebanon, where they continued shelling Israel until 1982.
We don't just have the moral high ground. We have the only moral ground. All we want to do is live. All they want is for us not to live. Or why are they still living in refugee camps a year after we abandoned Gaza? Why haven't they declared statehood? We declared statehood when all we had were three separate cantons, one of which was nothing but desert.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: Or bulldozed their homes.
Oh, spare me. Do you know why we started bulldozing houses? Because the bloody terrorists are heros of their people. And their families are treated as the families of heros. And for a very long time, they were getting paid a bounty. Go blow yourself up in a Jewish restaurant, and we'll give your family $25,000.
Some of these people were willing to risk their own lives, but didn't want to hurt their families in the process. So we made it clear to them that their terrorism would hurt their families. We couldn't just kill their families (though that's what the Arabs would have done), but we could knock their houses down.
You make it sound as though the terrorism is because of the house demolitions. That's like saying criminals commit crimes because there are jails. It's idiotic.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: The civilian/soldier distinction is a cynical manipulation of language. It's the myth nations tell to themselves so they can go about acheiving their aims and polish their halo.
That's sick.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: It's also a story only truly powerful nations can tell to themselves. If Isrealis or Americans were placed in a desperate enough situation, they'd happily bomb as many civilians as needed to achieve their goals.
Well, it's clear that you would. There are those of us who have a sense of morality, though. I understand that such a thing is utterly alien to someone with a basically sociopathic view of the world ("there's no right or wrong; just effective and not effective"), so you'll just have to take my word for it.
quote:Originally posted by Foust: It's the moral fluff that we should dispense with.
You make me want to go and wash my eyes. They feel dirty just from reading what you write.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Again Lisa, you voice my opinions as though they'd been distilled and magnified many times over...and make me view my own thoughts with a critical, regretful eye.
You can be as ineffective as Bean Counter, Lisa. I've gotten the impression in the past that you don't care who you alienate, and in defense of some things I can understand and even agree. You may believe that Israel does not need friends to survive, but do you think it requires no friends to survive?
Sometimes, I think that's what you're going for.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You make it sound as though the terrorism is because of the house demolitions.
Personally, I think some terrorism is because of the house demolitions. Do you believe all terrorists spring fully-formed from the minds of the gods?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Do you know why we started bulldozing houses? Because the bloody terrorists are heros of their people. And their families are treated as the families of heros. And for a very long time, they were getting paid a bounty. Go blow yourself up in a Jewish restaurant, and we'll give your family $25,000.
Some of these people were willing to risk their own lives, but didn't want to hurt their families in the process. So we made it clear to them that their terrorism would hurt their families. We couldn't just kill their families (though that's what the Arabs would have done), but we could knock their houses down.
You make it sound as though the terrorism is because of the house demolitions. That's like saying criminals commit crimes because there are jails. It's idiotic.
Hey, how'd that house-bulldozing program work out?
Oh-- the picture would be much more accurate, I believe, if the Israeli soldier was carrying a bazooka instead of a rifle.
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
quote:Or are you making the completely irrelevant claim that 'Americans would do it too, so don't villify Palestinians'?
Eh? Where did I say "don't villify Palestinians"? I'm pretty sure I said they didn't have the moral high ground. If only there was a written record of what I said, so you could go back and re-read it, more carefully this time...
quote:Is destruction and theft of property morally equivalent to targeting civilians for murder to achieve a political goal? It's a simple yes or no question, Foust. Answer it please, if you can.
I'm also pretty sure I've made clear it isn't a question of moral values, but rather of power and language.
You might as well ask if me if the sound of the colour blue is high pitched. No matter if I say yes or no, you won't get a clear picture of what I think of your question.
quote:Actually, there have been Americans who had their homes, rights, and dignity stolen from them and did not do what you suggest that 'of course' Americans would do.
This is a non-sequitur. Barring the obvious fact that African slaves were never "Americans," African slaves rarely had the opportunity or ability to organize and fight back. I say rarely, because at times it did happen.
I thought you were claiming that the Palestineans are in the wrong for getting violent over lost territory (maybe I misread you). I said many groups would react in a similar way, including whatever group you're a part of. You responded with examples of groups that never had the opportunity for an organized response. Non-sequitur.
quote:Or is this going to become a 'deny all terms and definitions' discussion? Frankly, those are tiresome and generally the resort of those who cannot effectively disagree on the merits of facts and opinions.
Or, those discussions are a necessary recognition of certain realities about the way humans think.
quote:It's a story all nations which have ever made war in history-all of them, in other words, powerful and weak-have told themselves. And just because people will generally do anything if you artificially change their circumstances to make them their most desperate and murderous does not make being desperate and murderous 'moral fluff'.
All nations? That's a pretty strong statement. Whatever the truth of that statement is, it's also clear that in practice, the status of civilians is only valued insofar as killing civilians is not (perceived as) necessary to the war effort. See: Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki. Or, skim the stories about the initial conquest of Canaan in the Bible: not much respect for civilian status there.
quote:Just because material goals are served by a war does not mean the war is unjust.
No, but it is not hard to argue that the material goals are the primary motivating factor, and that the justness of a war is a matter of comfort for the weak hearted.
quote:Furthermore, since when are all ideological goals 'cynical manipulations' and 'crap'?
Eh... again, re-read what I said. Cynical manipulations in the service of ideology are crap, not the ideologies themselves.
quote:Give me a break. Don't talk to me about moral fluff when you selectively magnify lesser self-serving, cynical methods of one party and compare them to the much greater and more horrible methods of the other side, ignore everything else and say, "Morally equivalent! See!"
Yeah, I didn't do this either. Seriously. Re-read my posts. I said the origins of Isreali power make them equivalent to the Palistineans, not the ways they justify that power. Am I unclear, or are you uncapable of reading carefully?
quote:Oh, and since you spent awhile not doing so, just a pointed reminder: please answer my question. If you can. Personally, on the tone and position of this post of yours, I don't think you can-and I think you know it.
If it will make you feel better, I will answer your question.
wait for it...
"Yes"
quote:The vast majority of the Arabs who were "displaced" had been there for no more than a generation or two. You're buying into the myth of a large Arab population in the land prior to the beginning of Modern Zionism, when the land, according to all accounts, couldn't support a large population of any sort.
I suppose my history might be sketchy, yes. How many Palestineans do you claim were there? Were any forcibly removed, and if so, how many?
quote:That's sick.
I might have some halo polish in my garage, if you've run out of your own.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (I have a feeling you are translating the British/Irish issue to the Israeli/Arab issue. And the fact is, they are not analogous.) [/QB]
Not really. My point with the N. Ireland comparison is only to point to a process that is working.
I think that the British/Irish issue does have some parallels - but only if you go back prior to the 1922. And there are similar parallels with the US/Native American conflict. The Native Americans didn't use the land at all efficiently; America can support way more people and in better conditions now than it did; the Native Americans regularly killed women and children during their resistance. Of course, no situation is going to be analogous in every aspect, but facets of history can help to illuminate the present.
You will notice that I don't do a lot of lobbying for white people to go back to Europe and leave the US to the Native Americans.
My point is that simplifying the situation to what the cartoon does: they are baby killers; we save babies - brings us further from any solution that isn't disastrous. Declaring them evil without recognizing that there might be reasons - not justifications, necessarily, but reasons - does limit the conversation to kill or be killed. We did that with the Native Americans to an extent. And we could do that because they were a limited population that nobody cared about. Muslims are not, so the consequences are greater.
I do want to say that I am not confusing you with other posters. Nor do I think that you share the positions of other posters. I respond to your posts rather than others because it is interesting and productive to converse with you and because I want you to know what I think.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
kmboots--
That was a very rational post that makes me ashamed of my flippancy above.
Well, not ashamed. Sort, "Aw, man-- she's got class."
Posted by Foust (Member # 3043) on :
Thanks, Scott, that's very kind. FWIW you didn't sound flippant to me - you sounded frustrated. It is easy to get frustrated. It is less frustrating to respond mostly to Rivka because she is so reasonable in her posts. Right now work has made it harder to post complicated stuff quickly or often, so I have to pause before I react which cuts down on my natural snarkiness.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You make it sound as though the terrorism is because of the house demolitions.
Personally, I think some terrorism is because of the house demolitions. Do you believe all terrorists spring fully-formed from the minds of the gods?
That's a false dichotomy. I don't believe a single terrorist act has resulted from those demolitions. And you know something? Someone who reacts to the destruction of a house by killing people is an animal. Yes, you heard me. Lyrhawn, go and jump for joy. I'll repeat it, too. I won't say that someone who kills for a principle is an animal (necessarily), but someone who commits murder, let alone mass murder, because a physical structure was destroyed should be hunted down and killed like a dog.
Of course, I don't believe there's a single Arab who has done such a thing. So no, I'm still not calling them animals. Sorry, Lyrhawn.
Terrorists make choices. In some cases, they are raised that way. Does that reduce the degree to which they can be considered as having made a free choice? Are they to be considered like brainwashed POWs during the Korean War and Vietnam? Lacking culpability because they lack true volition?
Tell it to Sgt. Krupke. They may be depraved on accounta they're deprived, but that's not our concern. The danger they pose is. If there are any responsible individuals among them, they bear the responsibility to lock their lunatics up tight and to keep them from harming others.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Oh-- the picture would be much more accurate, I believe, if the Israeli soldier was carrying a bazooka instead of a rifle.
So we should limit ourselves to the same weapons? Some sort of "Marquis of Queensbury" rules? Sorry. They're trying to kill us. We'll use whatever weapons are effective.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Someone who reacts to the destruction of a house by killing people is an animal.
If this were true, someone who responds to an eviction notice with a bomb is an animal.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Foust: I suppose my history might be sketchy, yes. How many Palestineans do you claim were there? Were any forcibly removed, and if so, how many?
None. Many of them did leave during the war because they figured it'd be smart to get out of the way while their brethren killed the Jews. They didn't plan to be gone long. They miscalculated. Badly.
I've mentioned this before, but you may not have been around. I spoke once with a woman who lives in Upper Nazareth. That's a Jewish town built near Nazareth, which is an Arab town.
Back in 1967, while Arab leaders were screeching about throwing the Jews into the sea, before the Six Day War, this woman walked into her kitchen, and saw a woman she knew from Nazareth walking around looking into cabinets. Like she owned the place.
She asked the woman what she was doing, and was told, "After the war, this will be mine. I'm just looking it over."
The land was not empty. But it was extremely sparse. There was virtually no infrastructure until the Zionists showed up and built it. The vast majority of the Arabs living there in 1948 had been there much less than a century. A generation or two at the most. They were Arabs; not Palestinians. They'd migrated there from other Arab countries, because the Jews were creating jobs.
Posted by Pelegius (Member # 7868) on :
"So we should limit ourselves to the same weapons? "
All wars fought in the developed world since 1918 have featured some limitations on weapons. Failing to comply with these is an inherent war crime.
In this case, the situation is made more complex by the policing/gendarmie nature of operations, which requires more discretion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Is there any proof that violence by Israelis is dissuading Muslims on the West Bank to not blow themselves up in the marketplace?
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: And there are similar parallels with the US/Native American conflict.
Very true. But you're misidentifying the sides. Israel is more like the Native Americans. If you're identifying us with the Europeans, that'd mean that Europeans came into being in North America, and that it was European land. And that the Native Americans came in and conquered it when most of the Europeans were elsewhere against their will, and those who were left were unable to prevent the conquest.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Arab is surrounding himself with babies. Good edit.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina:
quote:Someone who reacts to the destruction of a house by killing people is an animal.
If this were true, someone who responds to an eviction notice with a bomb is an animal.
I agree.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Esau is weeping for his dead children...
Who's land it WAS doesn't matter NOW. What matters is stomping out the mentality (on both sides) that maintains the right to murder people on the other side.
We can divvy up the back forty after you share your pottage and sit down and behave like civilized human beings.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Esau is weeping for his dead children...
Huh? Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac's sons were Esau and Jacob. What on earth does Esau have to do with what's going on in Israel right now?
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: Who's land it WAS doesn't matter NOW. What matters is stomping out the mentality (on both sides) that maintains the right to murder people on the other side.
We don't murder people. Period.
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: We can divvy up the back forty after you share your pottage and sit down and behave like civilized human beings.
To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead. Your moral relativism is odious.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Posted by narrativium (Member # 3230) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
They're doing a great job of showing it, considering the official positions of Hamas and Hezbollah both call for the complete and unconditional eradication of Israel.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
From Ahad Ha'am "Truth from the Land of Israel" 1891
"...if a time should come when the life of our people in the Land of Israel develops until it encroaches upon the natives to a smaller or lesser extent, they will not easily yield their position."
In 1948 somewhat over 700,000 Arabs were removed from their homes. Roughly half this number of Jews were removed from Arab lands and absorbed by Israel.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
Consider? Sure. They don't. They say it themselves, loudly. Their goal is to keep shooting so long as there's a single one of them left and there's still a single one of us living in our land.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
I would, if you were as right as you are sure. But you aren't. The question you asked has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with who is continuing it. We have stopped hostilities times without number. They always start again. I repeat, if they were to stop killing us, this conflict would be over. We're not fighting for land. It's our land, and we don't need to give it up to people who have no right to it, but we aren't fighting over land. We're fighting over them killing us. They, on the other hand, are fighting over us being there at all.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Gosh. That's so... creative.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
And almost all those 700,000 Arabs (or whatever the real number was) arrived in Israel decades after Ahad Ha'am wrote those words.
If there were a couple of tens of thousands of them in the entire area in 1891, that's a lot.
And the Arabs were not "removed from their homes" in 1948. They left to get out of the way of the war they expected to eliminate the Jews. As I said before, that was a Very Bad Idea.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
650,000 Jews were forced out of Arab lands in 1948.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QUOTE]Originally posted by Scott R: [qb]Esau is weeping for his dead children...
quote:Huh? Abraham's sons were Ishmael and Isaac. Isaac's sons were Esau and Jacob. What on earth does Esau have to do with what's going on in Israel right now?
From Wikipedia (bear in mind Edom is an alternate name for Esau)
The Edomites
The Bible refers to Esau's descendents as "Edomim" or "Edomites". The Edomite people are known from history to have been a Semitic-speaking tribal group inhabiting the Negev Desert and the Aravah valley of what is now southern Israel and Jordan.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Trust me, sL knows that Edom descends from Esau. Neither is Ishmael, the origin of the Arabs -- according to their oral traditions as well as ours.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: 700,000 Arabs were removed from their homes.
They were not removed from their homes; they fled in anticipation of a war that would wipe out the Jews. They left because THEIR leaders told them to get out of the way of a march to drive the Jews into the sea.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: From Wikipedia (bear in mind Edom is an alternate name for Esau)
Yes, I think I may have heard something to that effect. <grin>
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: The Edomites
The Bible refers to Esau's descendents as "Edomim" or "Edomites". The Edomite people are known from history to have been a Semitic-speaking tribal group inhabiting the Negev Desert and the Aravah valley of what is now southern Israel and Jordan.
And again, the connection would be...? There are no people in the world today claiming to be descended from the Edomites. Jewish tradition sees Rome (and all the cultures deriving from Rome, such as Europe and the US) as the inheritors of Edom, but that's midrashic, and isn't necessarily literal.
The Arabs see themselves as descendents of Ishmael, Edom's uncle. Granted, Esau did marry at least one daughter of Ishmael, so some Arabs may be of Edomite descent, but they don't claim it. That's biblical, and the little they have of the Bible in the Qur'an is totally garbled. Abraham being commanded to sacrifice Ishmael, rather than Isaac, Haman advising Pharaoh to build a great Tower... stuff like that.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Trust me, sL knows that Edom descends from Esau.
So does Lisa. Btw.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If you prefer, I can go back to ignoring you entirely.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Thanks for the sources:
My sources are books rather than online. I had thought that the 711,000 was a UN estimate. In terms of "removed", I suppose it is a question of which "eyewitness account you read. There are plenty of recorded accounts of towns such as Deir Yassin or al-Ramla or Lydda where people were forcibly removed. I imagine there is some truth to both. I had thought that the Jewish population shift in 1948 was about half from Arab lands and about half from Europe, but again, sources differ.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I had thought that the Jewish population shift in 1948 was about half from Arab lands and about half from Europe, but again, sources differ.
I believe it was close, although more from Arab countries. (England was strictly limiting Jewish immigrants from Europe.) But the Jewish population increased something like 1.1 million around that time, so 650,000 or so from Arab countries would be about right.
And yeah, I have mostly book sources as well. But none in front of me at the moment.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That makes sense.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
In any case, my point was that it should have been an approximately equal switch (leaving aside the question of whether either group should have been forced/encouraged/whatever to leave their homes). But while the Jewish exiles from Arab lands were absorbed by Israel (and to a somewhat lesser extent, Europe and the US), Arab exiles were put in camps by the Arab nations -- or refused entry entirely.
Blame their 50+ years as displaced people on Jordan, Egypt, and Syria. They knew precisely what they were doing -- and continue to do.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If you prefer, I can go back to ignoring you entirely.
Just to clarify, if I object to being called sL, you'll go back to ignoring me?
Oh.
Just curious. Do you object to me telling other people that I prefer to be called by my name, or is it just you that I should say such a terrible thing to?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You make it sound as though the terrorism is because of the house demolitions.
Personally, I think some terrorism is because of the house demolitions. Do you believe all terrorists spring fully-formed from the minds of the gods?
That's a false dichotomy. I don't believe a single terrorist act has resulted from those demolitions. And you know something? Someone who reacts to the destruction of a house by killing people is an animal. Yes, you heard me. Lyrhawn, go and jump for joy. I'll repeat it, too. I won't say that someone who kills for a principle is an animal (necessarily), but someone who commits murder, let alone mass murder, because a physical structure was destroyed should be hunted down and killed like a dog.
Of course, I don't believe there's a single Arab who has done such a thing. So no, I'm still not calling them animals. Sorry, Lyrhawn.
My god you're full of it. Thankfully katharina called you on it right away. You are declaring something then trying to justify it, but your justification doesn't work. When it comes down to it, you're saying that anyone who kills because something was taken from then is an animal, something physical, not something alive, where I think you even said things are less clear.
Someone who murders for the sake of houses or land is an animal. Your justifications are thin, vapor thin, so why bother making them? We all know how you feel. Baiting me doesn't make me look stupid, it makes you look ridiculous.
I wonder though, what this makes Israel for killing women and children in Lebanon and other places, for the sake of land, for the sake of houses.
Stop tying to have it both ways. Yet again you are calling them animals. It's your choice to do so, so live with it, and stop saying it then qualifying it. I think calling a group of people like that animals is dangerous, not for what it makes you into by being the one to call them animals, but for how you underestimate and judge them. It'll only hurt you in the long run.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
No question that the Arab countries failed in both duty and compassion to the refugees.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
Consider? Sure. They don't. They say it themselves, loudly. Their goal is to keep shooting so long as there's a single one of them left and there's still a single one of us living in our land.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
I would, if you were as right as you are sure. But you aren't. The question you asked has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with who is continuing it. We have stopped hostilities times without number. They always start again. I repeat, if they were to stop killing us, this conflict would be over. We're not fighting for land. It's our land, and we don't need to give it up to people who have no right to it, but we aren't fighting over land. We're fighting over them killing us. They, on the other hand, are fighting over us being there at all.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Gosh. That's so... creative.
Thank you for letting me know that to make a point you must be creative. I'll remember it for future debates.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Just to clarify, if I object to being called sL, you'll go back to ignoring me?
My choices are to ignore you, or do as I have been doing.
Feel free to make the choice for me.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: My god you're full of it. Thankfully katharina called you on it right away.
How, exactly, did she "call me on it"?
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You are declaring something then trying to justify it, but your justification doesn't work.
That makes no sense.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: When it comes down to it, you're saying that anyone who kills because something was taken from then is an animal, something physical, not something alive, where I think you even said things are less clear.
Maybe you're upset, but I'm not understanding you. I can't even parse that.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Someone who murders for the sake of houses or land is an animal. Your justifications are thin, vapor thin, so why bother making them? We all know how you feel. Baiting me doesn't make me look stupid, it makes you look ridiculous.
Does writing an unintelligible post make you look stupid? That wasn't my goal, incidentally. This is the first time I've seen you post something this garbled. Normally, even when I completely disagree with you, you're at least cogent.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I wonder though, what this makes Israel for killing women and children in Lebanon and other places, for the sake of land, for the sake of houses.
Israel does no such thing. We didn't attack them when they held Judea and Samaria and Gaza from 1948 to 1967. Yes, that's our land. So is Jordan. So is Lebanon, for that matter. But it's nothing that we're going to start a war over.
We fight to stop them from killing us. That's it, Lyrhawn. They aren't even fighting for land. They're fighting to get rid of us.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stop tying to have it both ways.
Um.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yet again you are calling them animals.
Yet again, you're making things up. I deny that they are attacking us because of house demolitions. That wasn't me who said they were. If they were murdering people because of house demolitions, animal would be the correct term. But they aren't doing that, so "animal" is the wrong term.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Just to clarify, if I object to being called sL, you'll go back to ignoring me?
My choices are to ignore you, or do as I have been doing.
Feel free to make the choice for me.
Fair enough. Given that, ignore me. Someone who can't be decent enough to comply with a request that would cause her absolutely no harm whatsoever like calling me by my name isn't someone I care to have responding to me anyway.
If you ever decide those aren't the only choices, that'll be fine as well.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa:
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: [QB] To repeat what was said before, if they were to lay down their arms, the conflict would end. If we do the same, we're dead.
Ever consider that maybe they feel the same way?
Consider? Sure. They don't. They say it themselves, loudly. Their goal is to keep shooting so long as there's a single one of them left and there's still a single one of us living in our land.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: I'm sure you'll respond that it wasn't your side that started it, and your side is just defending itself. You have a point.
I would, if you were as right as you are sure. But you aren't. The question you asked has nothing to do with who started it. It has to do with who is continuing it. We have stopped hostilities times without number. They always start again. I repeat, if they were to stop killing us, this conflict would be over. We're not fighting for land. It's our land, and we don't need to give it up to people who have no right to it, but we aren't fighting over land. We're fighting over them killing us. They, on the other hand, are fighting over us being there at all.
quote:Originally posted by Javert: But the problem with 'an eye for an eye' is that everyone ends up blind.
Gosh. That's so... creative.
Thank you for letting me know that to make a point you must be creative. I'll remember it for future debates.
My point was that tossing out an inapplicable cliche doesn't count as making a point.
I note that you're choosing to ignore the fact that you assumed my answer above would be something it was not, and that I was not raising the issue of "who started it".
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
So I guessed wrong. I'm willing to concede the point.
How is it an inapplicable cliche? They kill you, you kill them back, they kill you for killing them back...and so on. An eye for an eye. It may be a cliche, but that doesn't mean it's not true.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: Someone who can't be decent enough to comply with a request that would cause her absolutely no harm whatsoever like calling me by my name isn't someone I care to have responding to me anyway.
My intent was certainly not to upset you. And if you cannot understand my reasons, that's fine.
Henceforth, I will abide by your decision.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Your moral relativism is odious.
I'm glad you find my attitudes odious. No matter how I fail, I can look back on this day and think-- HECK YES! On that day, I was doing something right, because starLisa found my "moral relativism" odious.
My point about Esau is just saying that the Israelites were not the first in Canaan. So claiming "We were here first! It's ours, preciousss, preciouss..." just doesn't fly.
I hope Israel wins, and becomes a secure nation, free from suicide bombers and Kasaam rockets. I think Israel, once it is stabilized, will be a stronger influence for the good of that whole region than if it were governed by those that attack Israel now. But I'm NOT willing to tolerate the idea that the atrocities that starLisa subscribes to in every single thread like this are necessary.
They haven't worked in the past. They don't work now.
Where is the evidence, starLisa, that bulldozing those homes stopped families from raising Billy-the-Bomber? Did the attacks on Israel stop? Where is the evidence that assassinations worked at all?
Posted by BandoCommando (Member # 7746) on :
quote:Originally posted by Belle: And a quote from Tolkien is applicable here why?
Edit: And while I'm sure most hatrackers recognize it immediately, it is considered good form to appropriately cite quotations. [/QB]
I included this quote because, at least to me, it aptly explains why Isreal goes to war. Not because they love war, but because they must fight to protect their home.
As for leaving out the source, I apologize to all of the acemadicians out there. I simply recalled the quote and felt it appropriate to bring it up, but in a more conversational manner.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)