This kind of treatment to a key US firend is two things:
1) A clear sign that Obama is an amateur and is an embarassment for the USA and,
2) Not too smart from a purely political perspective. One would think that at least a clear narcissistic person like Obama would consider the effect of this kind of thing on Jewish voters support of the Democrats this year.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
And your post is a clear sign your an embarrassment to Humanity and to the internet.
Though you'ld probably fit right in with 4chan.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
To substantiate, this is clearly a political act designed to show the US's displeasure with current Israeli actions without having to commit to anything that could severely damage relations.
Snubbing the PM while insulting doesn't cut trade deals or aid to Israel.
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
I could definitely see China filling in as chief ally to Israel one day.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This kind of treatment to a key US firend is two things:
1) A clear sign that Obama is an amateur and is an embarassment for the USA and,
2) Not too smart from a purely political perspective. One would think that at least a clear narcissistic person like Obama would consider the effect of this kind of thing on Jewish voters support of the Democrats this year.
Huh. So maybe Michael isn't Clive.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
So the PM wants US support for some questionable action he's taking, and when he doesn't get it he's humiliated?
I'm fine with that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Now if only we'd level the playing field with respect to that sort of behavior. Instead, suicide bombings and mass murder are regarded as status quo among Palestinians as far as American politics is concerned, and they have to really ratchet up the body count in order to get us upset.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: So the PM wants US support for some questionable action he's taking, and when he doesn't get it he's humiliated?
I'm fine with that.
Do you have any idea of what actually happened? It doesn't sound like it. Netanyahu (who I despise, incidentally) had nothing whatsoever to do with what happened. A municipal government granted a permit that was part of a general development plan for the city. And the Obama government chose, for political reasons, to turn it into all but a casus belli. Frakkin' ridiculous.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
He should have had something to do with it. Clearly his government is a place where people not in charge feel free to make politically explosive announcements, no matter what the consequences may be. He's the captain. What happens on his ship is his responsibility.
How he responded to it is definitely his responsiblity, no theoreticals needed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: I could definitely see China filling in as chief ally to Israel one day.
Doubt it. They have to walk a fine line with sympathy for Israel and Jews on one hand, but they still buy oil from the rest of the Middle East and they also wouldn't want to inflame Xinjiang with more tangible support for Israel.
For better or worse, they do and will have to adopt a more balanced approach than the US does.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: He should have had something to do with it. Clearly his government is a place where people not in charge feel free to make politically explosive announcements, no matter what the consequences may be. He's the captain. What happens on his ship is his responsibility.
How he responded to it is definitely his responsiblity, no theoreticals needed.
And Obama is responsible for actions taken by the city council of Palm Springs? Now you're just being ridiculous. In any case, Jerusalem is the capital of the friggin' country. It isn't a "settlement" (not that most "settlements" are, either).
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Obama is responsible for actions taken by the city council of Palm Springs?
If the US was the size of Florida, I wouldn't find that assumption unreasonable.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Under these circustances, yes, he is responsible. It was his government, and that they didn't hesitate to make that announcement means there is a culture in his government that allows it to happen.
Arguing that the prime minister is out of touch and incompetant is not a compelling reason to give him respect.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
Frankly, it sounds to me as if Obama's snub is working quite well. He's getting the message across: "Our support is in no way unconditional, you have to work with us in this peace process. When you don't, we won't work with you."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: Under these circustances, yes, he is responsible. It was his government, and that they didn't hesitate to make that announcement means there is a culture in his government that allows it to happen.
What the hell was wrong with the announcement? Israel isn't some vassal that has to get permission to build in its own capitol city. It's bad enough that Netanyahu bowed to the insane diktat of the US not to build in other Jewish towns, but the capitol? Who the hell does Obama think he is?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:What the hell was wrong with the announcement?
Ah, there's your real objection. Clearly, your opinion that there was nothing wrong with it is not shared universally. Those who disagree are making it known. Rather effectively.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:America provides approximately three billion dollars to Israel annually, while Israeli government revenues amount to roughly 60 billion dollars. In other words, American aid to Israel represents five percent of its revenue. That's it -- just five percent. link
One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
They won't. Isreal would be sunk without the U.S.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
加油!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:America provides approximately three billion dollars to Israel annually, while Israeli government revenues amount to roughly 60 billion dollars. In other words, American aid to Israel represents five percent of its revenue. That's it -- just five percent. link
One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
I'd be fine with that. I am fairly sure they would be there waiting for us when we got there.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
If your defense of Netanyahu is that the national government has no control over construction projects in OCCUPIED territory, its a very poor defense. East Jerusalem is occupied territory and under international law, Netanyahu's government is responsible for what goes on in occupied territory. Continuing construction projects in the occupied territories are one of the major (if not the primary) barriers to the peace process.
No Israel is not some vassal that has to get US permission to build in lands it took by force from the Palestinians. They are a sovereign nation and can make their own choices. But in the same vein, the US is not Israel's vassal either and we have no obligation to keep supporting Israel when it pursues policies we believe are detrimental to the stability of the region and harmful to human beings.
Netanyahu shouldn't expect the backing and support of the US as long as Israel continues to deny Palestinians basic human rights. Netanyahu should't expect the US to pretend he's committed to the peace process when he has clearly no intention of ever returning Palestinian lands in east Jerusalem to Palestinian control.
quote:Who the hell does Obama think he is?
He thinks he is President of the US and responsible for deciding how the US will relate with foreign nations and establish the criteria under which we will do that. He has every right to declare the conditions under which the US will continue diplomatic relations with Israel and any other country. He certainly has every right to decide he will not have dinner with a Prime Minister who is doing thing the US deems unacceptable.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Who the hell does Obama think he is?
Apparently someone that the PM thinks is important enough to try and get approval from.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
Aww, aren't you idealistic.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
加油!
Refuel? (according to google, anyway)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, I have to add:
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: One would think that at least a clear narcissistic person like Obama would consider the effect of this kind of thing on Jewish voters support of the Democrats this year.
Interesting. Narcissistic personality disorder? You're expressing quite a habit for pseudopsychological diagnosis, but I have to ask: like you mentioned with psychopathy, do you think God made Obama a narcissist for a reason?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: They won't. Isreal would be sunk without the U.S.
Oh, please. Israel would be a lot better off without the US.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: If your defense of Netanyahu is that the national government has no control over construction projects in OCCUPIED territory, its a very poor defense. East Jerusalem is occupied territory and under international law, Netanyahu's government is responsible for what goes on in occupied territory. Continuing construction projects in the occupied territories are one of the major (if not the primary) barriers to the peace process.
Jerusalem is not "occupied". It was annexed and is legally part of Israel. America not recognizing that doesn't change that fact.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: No Israel is not some vassal that has to get US permission to build in lands it took by force from the Palestinians.
Learn some history. Or is 43 years too long ago for you? Israel took those lands by force from Jordan in 1967. Not from any "Palestinians". Jordan's conquest of that land was also not recognized by the US. Or by anyone else in the world other than Great Britain and Pakistan.
And who did Jordan take it from? Well, when they took it, there was no government or polity there of any kind. The UN had voted to partition the area between Jews and Arabs, but the Arabs refused the deal. Which means that it never took effect. They never had any legal ownership of that land, and Israel took it away from Jordan when Jordan joined the attempt to obliterate Israel.
Note, btw, that Israel asked Jordan to stay out of it. They didn't have to get involved, and if they hadn't, they wouldn't have lost Judea and Samaria.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Netanyahu shouldn't expect the backing and support of the US as long as Israel continues to deny Palestinians basic human rights. Netanyahu should't expect the US to pretend he's committed to the peace process when he has clearly no intention of ever returning Palestinian lands in east Jerusalem to Palestinian control.
There are no "Palestinian lands in east Jerusalem".
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: ... One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
加油!
Refuel? (according to google, anyway)
It's a coloquial term in Chinese that means essentially "Go Go Go!" or "Keep it up!"
It literally means "add oil" so imagine somebody tossing oil on a fire to get the expected plume of flame.
----- edit: Lisa,
I imagine today Israel may be just fine without American assistance, but to argue our giving Israel money, resources, and arms on the cheap has not been even a significant help to Israel is a bit disingenuous. Maybe God would have simply picked up the slack, but in this case he may or may not have used the US. At this point I'm sure you feel the US's assistance comes at a price that is not worth it, but the decisions Israel is able to make now, came, in part, at the price of decisions the US made in the past.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:It was annexed and is legally part of Israel. America not recognizing that doesn't change that fact.
Do you concede that our not recognizing it -- and, more importantly, the fact that the Arabs don't recognize it, and the construction announcement was made when we were trying to get everyone around the same table -- is in fact relevant to whether or not the action might be considered provocative?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One good thing that might come from Obama overstepping is Israel finally telling the US to go to hell.
I'm wondering what world one must be from where one regards five percent of a budget as somehow insignificant and easily dismissed. Everything else aside, that's just silly.
Suggesting that American support for Israel can be accurately measured strictly in dollars is pretty silly too, but less obviously and unarguably so.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
So all the harping against Obama is really just another opportunity for you to assert your view as fact.
It isn't. It is clearly your view, and those who hold it have clearly failed utterly at convincing the President of its veracity. Hence: deserved humiliation.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So all the harping against Obama is really just another opportunity for you to assert your view as fact.
For Lisa, this could be considered a "two birds, one stone" kind of situation.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Lisa, I sincerely curious to hear why you think Obama has overstepped. Does Obama not have the authority to set US foreign policy? Does the US not have the right to establish the conditions on which it maintains diplomatic ties with Israel? Is Obama doing threatening to invade Israel over this issue or threatening any action that would not normal be considered a legal diplomatic action? Please explain what bounds is Obama has overstepped?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Lisa, I sincerely curious to hear why you think Obama has overstepped. Does Obama not have the authority to set US foreign policy? Does the US not have the right to establish the conditions on which it maintains diplomatic ties with Israel? Is Obama doing threatening to invade Israel over this issue or threatening any action that would not normal be considered a legal diplomatic action? Please explain what bounds is Obama has overstepped?
Making dictates the way Obama has been doing is interfering with the internal affairs of a sovereign state.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: erusalem is not "occupied". It was annexed and is legally part of Israel. America not recognizing that doesn't change that fact.
I actually know my history on this one fairly well. Under the 1949 treaty, Jerusalem was a divided city. Israel captured the city and surrounding areas in the west bank in 1965. Immediately there after Jerusalem annexed not only arab east Jerusalem but a large area of the occupied territories surrounding Jerusalem and began building Jewish neighborhoods in these occupied territories.
Israel considering this action "legal", does not change the fact that these are occupied territories taken from the palestinians by military force. You can't honestly expect the US to base its diplomatic policies on a law the US does not consider legitimate.
I know you believe that God gave you these lands and so no other law matters, but do you really expect the US to set its foreign policy based on that.
You have in the past indicated you believe the US government should be fully secular. A secular government can't base its policies on the positions of any religion (or segment of a religion as is the case here). A secular government must base its policies on the facts and reasoning we can all see and agree upon, not religious dogma.
When your position on this is not even embraced by all the Jews on this site, how can you possibly recommend it as the basis for US policy?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I actually know my history on this one fairly well. Under the 1949 treaty,
If you actually knew your history, you'd know that no such treaty exists. There was an armistice agreement, but no treaty. You can't imagine that an armistice agreement continues in force after one side invades the other with the intent of obliterating it.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Jerusalem was a divided city. Israel captured the city and surrounding areas in the west bank in 1965.
Is that another example of you "knowing history"? Israel took Judea, Samaria, Gaza, the Golan Heights and the rest of Jerusalem in 1967. When Egypt and Syria and Jordan tried -- again -- to wipe Israel off the map. In 1965, a year after the creation of the Palestine Liberation Organization, incidentally, Syria was holding the Golan, Egypt was holding Gaza, and Jordan was holding Judea, Samaria and the rest of Jerusalem.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Immediately there after Jerusalem annexed not only arab east Jerusalem but a large area of the occupied territories surrounding Jerusalem and began building Jewish neighborhoods in these occupied territories.
On the contrary, this was the natural growth of a city. And for that matter, the entire Etzion Bloc, south of Jerusalem, was a thriving Jewish center in 1948, when the Arabs came and attacked it in their first attempt to obliterate Israel. Its inhabitants were killed or driven out. That area was resettled in 1967 after we took Judea and Samaria. You're complaining about the natural growth of Jerusalem into uninhabited areas, but you seem fine with calling the Etzion Bloc "occupied". An area which had been rendered Judenrein for a total of 19 years.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Israel considering this action "legal", does not change the fact that these are occupied territories taken from the palestinians by military force.
Again, we took nothing from the "Palestinians". If you claim otherwise, the burden is on you to substantiate it. Who were these Palestinians we took the land from? Israel took that land from Jordan; not from any "Palestinians".
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: You have in the past indicated you believe the US government should be fully secular. A secular government can't base its policies on the positions of any religion (or segment of a religion as is the case here).
It can be based on reality and not on the repetition of the kind of stupid propaganda you like to parrot.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Sorry about getting the date wrong. The point still stands. East Jerusalem is occupied territory.
quote:Again, we took nothing from the "Palestinians". If you claim otherwise, the burden is on you to substantiate it. Who were these Palestinians we took the land from? Israel took that land from Jordan; not from any "Palestinians".
The land was part of the country of Jordan, but the people who lived on it and were forced to leave were Palestinians, at least that is how they identify themselves. My property is in the US, but it does not belong to the United States. It belongs to me and my husband. Similarly, the lands Israel seized surrounding Jerusalem belong to people, who were Palestinian.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Sorry about getting the date wrong. The point still stands. East Jerusalem is occupied territory.
quote:Again, we took nothing from the "Palestinians". If you claim otherwise, the burden is on you to substantiate it. Who were these Palestinians we took the land from? Israel took that land from Jordan; not from any "Palestinians".
The land was part of the country of Jordan, but the people who lived on it and were forced to leave were Palestinians, at least that is how they identify themselves. My property is in the US, but it does not belong to the United States. It belongs to me and my husband. Similarly, the lands Israel seized surrounding Jerusalem belong to people, who were Palestinian.
And they live there now. What's your point? That Israel rules the area? Why is that a problem? Who has more right to sovereignty there?
You own your land, but that doesn't mean the US government doesn't get to be sovereign there.
When I lived in Efrat, there was a vineyard near the entrance to the town. It was owned by an Arab. The city was built without anyone knowing that he had a vineyard there (it's about half a block on a side). Every day, he comes from his village, where he lived prior to 1967 as well, and works his vineyard.
The so-called Palestinians were never sovereign there. Or anywhere. The last sovereign owners of that land were the Ottoman Turks. Jordan was never sovereign there according to the world, which is apparently your standard for legitimacy, and Israel took it in self-defense. Why do you think that just because there are Arabs living there who call themselves "Palestinians" that they are entitled to sovereignty? We have a history in the land; they do not. We cared for the land, in the past and the present. They did not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Same old song.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:Originally posted by Alcon: Frankly, it sounds to me as if Obama's snub is working quite well. He's getting the message across: "Our support is in no way unconditional, you have to work with us in this peace process. When you don't, we won't work with you."
Let him -- he bows to the king of Saudi Arabia and snubs the leader of Israel. The Saudi royal family are petty theocratic dictators -- Israel is a democracy. We can only hope that the message did get across -- to American Jews to snub "The One" the next time an election comes around.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:You own your land, but that doesn't mean the US government doesn't get to be sovereign there.
I don't think we're claiming sovereignity. We're saying, "You've come to us asking for our help in getting people around this table, and yet you keep deliberately pissing off the people at the table. So we're angry at you."
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
quote:I actually know my history on this one fairly well. Under the 1949 treaty, Jerusalem was a divided city. Israel captured the city and surrounding areas in the west bank in 1965. Immediately there after Jerusalem annexed not only arab east Jerusalem but a large area of the occupied territories surrounding Jerusalem and began building Jewish neighborhoods in these occupied territories.
Israel considering this action "legal", does not change the fact that these are occupied territories taken from the palestinians by military force. You can't honestly expect the US to base its diplomatic policies on a law the US does not consider legitimate.
Well, and by what standard should the Israeli people follow on this one? Russia took land from Germany after WW2 -- basically as revenge for Hitler turing on his buddy Stalin. Russia also took land from Finland -- a country THEY attacked and ravaged.
Israel was attacked, the Arabs lost, end of story. There is nothing from history that says they have any obligation to give the land back.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: ... to American Jews to snub "The One" the next time an election comes around.
Man, what did Jet Li ever do to them?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:You own your land, but that doesn't mean the US government doesn't get to be sovereign there.
I don't think we're claiming sovereignity. We're saying, "You've come to us asking for our help in getting people around this table, and yet you keep deliberately pissing off the people at the table. So we're angry at you."
Read it again.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, and by what standard should the Israeli people follow on this one? Russia took land from Germany after WW2 -- basically as revenge for Hitler turing on his buddy Stalin
You really need to look at a map of Europe. Russia and Germany not only don't have a common border, there are at least two countries (in places up to 6) countries in between Germany and Russia. Regions that were in Germany a century ago, are now in Poland, the Czech republic and France, but none of them are or ever have been in Russia (or even the Soviet Union).
Hitler and Stalin were never buddies. Get a clue. The facists and nazis arose in opposition to marxism and anarchism and were at odds with the Soviets from their inception. The Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact wasn't an alliance. It was an agreement not to invade each other, to remain neutral. And I might add that even without any "pact", the US remained neutral during WWII nearly as long as the Russians and just like Stalin only entered the war after being attacked.
quote:Israel was attacked, the Arabs lost, end of story. There is nothing from history that says they have any obligation to give the land back.
In 1967, Israel did the attacking. The Israeli's claim it was a pre-emptive attack. The Arab nations claim it was unprovoked. But no matter which side you believe, it was in fact the Israeli's who attacked not the Arabs.
But even if your story was true, it doesn't make the Israeli occupation right, legal or ethically justifiable. Yes, country boundaries have been determined by wars and treaties in the past. Slavery was legal in the past as were many other things we now consider morally reprehensible. Historical, territorial claims have ultimately been resolved by treaties not wars. And treaties are just away of formalizing an international agreement. East Prussia is now part of Poland, not simply because the Germans lost the war but because all the nations of the world have agreed that East Prussia is part of Poland. No one but Israel recognizes East Jerusalem and the West Bank as legal part of Israel.
Think about the moral implications of what you are saying. If you are arguing the Israeli's have the right to the occupied territories because they won the war, would you then be willing to surrender all Israeli claims to the land if someone else takes it battle? If the Mexico invaded and occupied California, would you be willing to give it back to them? Would you tell the millions of refuge that fled a Mexican occupied California to just go somewhere else? What if the Dutch invaded New York, or the French invaded Louisianna, or the Lakota took the plains states in battle? Would you be willing to sit back and say "fine, they won the war. Its theirs now. No problem. All the refugees who fled should just move to Kansas, there is plenty of room there."
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
First of all, I would encourage you to watch the documentary "The Soviet Story" which does a better job in sinking your assertation that the Nazies and communists were not ideological brothers. After dividing Poland they had many cooperative ventures together -- including rounding up Jews. Oh, and bad idea comparing Israel's victory and unwillingness to give any land away to California. The US wound up with California after a war. And while many would cringe at the idea of "might makes right" it is the rule and motivating morality for international politics.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Israel was attacked, the Arabs lost, end of story. There is nothing from history that says they have any obligation to give the land back.
In 1967, Israel did the attacking. The Israeli's claim it was a pre-emptive attack. The Arab nations claim it was unprovoked. But no matter which side you believe, it was in fact the Israeli's who attacked not the Arabs.
Wrong. In the first place, closing the Straits of Tiran was an act of war by all rules of warfare. Second of all, all records from the time show that the Arabs were revving their people up for a war of genocide. And not against Israelis, either, but against Jews.
"Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight . . . The mining of Sharm el Sheikh is a confrontation with Israel. Adopting this measure obligates us to be ready to embark on a general war with Israel." – Nasser, May 27, 1967
"Under terms of the military agreement signed with Jordan, Jordanian artillery co-ordinated with the forces of Egypt and Syria is in a position to cut Israel in two at Kalkilya, where Israeli territory between the Jordan armistice line and the Mediterranean Sea is only twelve kilometers wide ... ." – El Akhbar newspaper, Cairo, May 31, 1967
May 19, 1967: "This is our chance Arabs, to deal Israel a mortal blow of annihilation, to blot out its entire presence in our holy land"
May 22, 1967: "The Arab people is firmly resolved to wipe Israel off the map"
"The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map. We shall, God willing, meet in Tel Aviv and Haifa." – President Abdel Rahman Aref of Iraq, May 31, 1967
"This is a fight for the homeland – it is either us or the Israelis. There is no middle road. The Jews of Palestine will have to leave. We will facilitate their departure to their former homes. Any of the old Palestine Jewish population who survive may stay, but it is my impression that none of them will survive." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967 (Note that he wasn't talking about the "West Bank", which Jordan controlled at the time, but all of Israel.)
We shall destroy Israel and its inhabitants and as for the survivors – if there are any – the boats are ready to deport them." – Shukairy, June 1, 1967, speaking at a Friday sermon in Jerusalem
And even if you ignore their stated intent to annihilate us, and even if you ignore the closing of the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba (which would be a strange thing for someone who goes on and on and on about international law to do), and focus just on the fact that Israel took out the Egyptian Air Force before they could launch their fighters, the fact remains that Jordan, from which Israel took back Judea and Samaria, is not Egypt. Not even the most insane propagandist claims that Israel attacked Jordan first. Unless you're vying for that title yourself.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by michaele8: First of all, I would encourage you to watch the documentary "The Soviet Story" which does a better job in sinking your assertation that the Nazies and communists were not ideological brothers.
How were the commies and the nazis 'ideological' brothers? Is this another "national socialism = socialism" assumption?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Lisa, lets try again.
You have very good and logical arguments for Israeli governance of East Jerusalem.
The Arabs who live in the surrounding area have arguments that they believe are logical and good.
They hope to forge a country to call their own. They need a major city to have as their capital, one with a major Muslim holy site, and they see that in East Jerusalem.
There is continuous fighting between these Arab people and the Israeli people.
The US has been asked by both sides to help stop that fighting.
While you contend that all Arabs just want to wipe Israel off the map and murder all Jews, Israel is getting the reputation that only by wiping out this hoped for state of Palestine, and removing or killing all the Arabs in it, will they be satisfied.
This is not a reputation Israel wishes, and asked its friend the US to help with these talks.
The US sends its number 2 man to start these peace talks.
On the day he arrives a major announcement is made that more permanent Jewish apartments are being constructed in what the Arabs hoped would be their capitol.
From the time of Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 12 I believe), the secret to permanent conquest is not military but colonization. This is another colony going up in East Jerusalem. This is a change of facts on the ground.
This made the Vice President look impotent, and the US look untrustworthy and a mere lackey of Israel.
There were plenty of apologies for the timing. There were plenty of explanations. But they came too late and were not well received.
The US, not President Obama or Vice President Biden, but the US has to save face and prove that we are a neutral party for any negotiations.
Otherwise there can be no negotiations.
Then the missiles and the suicide bombings will continue.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Israel is a friend of this nation and our nation is loyal to Israel. This administration is temporary. This administration doesn't follow the will of the people. Israel will be back in our good graces after the next couple of elections. They've been our ally for years. One president comes along and shuns them and the will of the people. Israel knows America hasn't turned her back them.....a president with a four year term has.
It's going to be a crazy year. Checks and balances are out the window and the statists are showing their true colors. They have only months left to defy the will of the American people.
The Dali Lama and Israel wont be welcome in the white house for three more years.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: ... The Dali Lama and Israel wont be welcome in the white house for three more years.
Obama avoids both. He's too busy appeasing the Chinese and Muslims. He's the great uniter. In order to appease our enemies, he needs to distance himself from our allies.
The Dhali Lama and the leader of Israel have met with every president, except this one. His rebuttals are temporary. Israel knows the majority of Americans support Israel, just as the majority of Americans were against the health care bill. We have a temporary chief executive calling the shots. Our one term president is a speed bump.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
How are the Chinese enemies? Rivals maybe, competitors maybe, but enemies? Riiiiight in the same way a boy is the "enemy" of a girl in his class and dips her hair in ink and throw spit balls at her during lunch.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
"The Dhali Lama and the leader of Israel have met with every president, except this one."
"Israel knows the majority of Americans support Israel..."
This much is true. I would like to see a poll that asks if we support every single thing the Israeli leader does, however. In general I support Israel over the surrounding nations, but mostly I'm hoping for peace and Netanyahu's latest moves don't seem to be encouraging it.
"...just as the majority of Americans were against the health care bill."
Yes, they were. But a significant percentage of those against the health bill were against it because it didn't go far enough. I really don't think you get to claim those in your total. And support for the bill has gone up a bit since its passage.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Obama avoids both. He's too busy appeasing the Chinese and Muslims. He's the great uniter. In order to appease our enemies, he needs to distance himself from our allies.
I'm sure Muslim Americans everywhere are thrilled at your categorization.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Just to put this into perspective, how would the US feel if it were surrounded by huge nations that felt that the destruction of your country was not only a great way to unite their people's, but a way to show God that you were his loyal servant? Would we not be a bit worried about giving any strategic ground we had taken in any war?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Lisa, lets try again.
You have very good and logical arguments for Israeli governance of East Jerusalem.
The Arabs who live in the surrounding area have arguments that they believe are logical and good.
First problem: you assume they have arguments that they believe are logical and good, as you understand the terms "logical and good". I don't think that's the case. I think that they believe they have the ability to defeat Israel and take that land. I think that they believe taking that land is one more step towards the ultimate dissolution of Israel, which they consider to be something that they want. I don't think concepts such as logical and good, as you understand them, are even on their radar concerning this.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: They hope to forge a country to call their own.
Second problem: I don't think this is true. I don't think that is in any way a goal of theirs. I think that the claim that it's a goal is something they use as a weapon. They've never had a state. They've never shown any inclination towards making one. The Fatah and Hamas factions, just to mention the two largest ones, are engaged in an on-again-off-again civil war, and both sides are as corrupt as any tinpot dictatorship. The only thing they agree on is hating Israel and wanting it gone. Do you know what a failed state is? That's the best that can be expected of an independent Palestinian state.
Nor has there ever been a nascent state which has as its highest aspiration the annihilation of another state. This would be a first in history. And a very, very bad precedent. It would, among other things, teach the world that terrorism is a legitimate way to achieve your goals. They pretty much created modern terrorism as a political tool. Fatah is the Arabic acronym for Palestine Liberation Organization. The PLO. There's some expression about putting lipstick on a pig that would be appropriate here.
Nor have they shown themselves able to control their own people. Prior to 1967, Arab terrorists were constantly streaming over the border into Israel, and Jordan was "unable to do anything about it". Mostly because they didn't really care. The Palestinians are as bad if not worse than the Jordanians. There will be one attack after another, after another until Israel is forced to take action, whereapon the entire world will scream bloody murder about Israel invading a sovereign state.
The news doesn't mention it much, but since Obama has launched this recent diplomatic war against Israel, the Arabs in Gaza have restarted shelling Israeli towns. Because that's the way they think. They've already killed at least one person with these rockets (link). And I find it extremely telling that the US government spends its energy slamming Israel for building apartment buildings in Jerusalem, and ignores the Arabs firing rockets into civilian areas.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: They need a major city to have as their capital, one with a major Muslim holy site, and they see that in East Jerusalem.
They "need" this? No. They need food and water and housing and leaders who give a damn about them. They don't need a major city with a major Muslim holy site. For the record, the Temple Mount is in "East Jerusalem", and it's the single holiest site in all of Judaism. Bar none. Nothing is even close. Whereas Jerusalem was never holy to Islam until the beginning of Zionism. The Qur'an doesn't mention it; they only started calling it holy because of Jewish claims.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is continuous fighting between these Arab people and the Israeli people.
No. There are continuous attacks on Israel by these Arab people, and continual attempts by Israel to stop these attacks. There's no similarity or equivalence between the two. Israel never -- ever -- targets civilians, and the Arabs almost invariably do just that.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The US has been asked by both sides to help stop that fighting.
Source?
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: While you contend that all Arabs just want to wipe Israel off the map and murder all Jews, Israel is getting the reputation that only by wiping out this hoped for state of Palestine, and removing or killing all the Arabs in it, will they be satisfied.
I don't care what the reputation is. I'm looking at facts. I'm well aware of the propaganda campaign against Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: This is not a reputation Israel wishes, and asked its friend the US to help with these talks.
The US sends its number 2 man to start these peace talks.
On the day he arrives a major announcement is made that more permanent Jewish apartments are being constructed in what the Arabs hoped would be their capitol.
Again, wrong. The US demanded that Israel freeze construction in Judea and Samaria. Despite the outlandish and inappropriate interference in its internal affairs, the Israeli government issued a 10 month freeze. This did not include Jerusalem. None of the talks have ever included these parts of Jerusalem. I have friends who live in Ramot and can see Ramat Shlomo out their windows. This is not an Arab area. Even if, God forbid, part of Jerusalem were to be given to the Arabs, this wouldn't be part of it.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: From the time of Machiavelli (The Prince, Chapter 12 I believe), the secret to permanent conquest is not military but colonization. This is another colony going up in East Jerusalem. This is a change of facts on the ground.
Garbage. This is not a colony. You should really go there and see what you're talking about. I think you'd be very surprised to find out how misled you've been by the media. This is a neighborhood among other neighborhoods.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: This made the Vice President look impotent, and the US look untrustworthy and a mere lackey of Israel.
That's a bunch of bull.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There were plenty of apologies for the timing. There were plenty of explanations. But they came too late and were not well received.
There shouldn't have been a single apology. But there were many, and they were profuse and groveling. But since that announcement was simply an excuse for the anti-Israel administration to go on a diplomatic offensive against Israel, no apology would have been enough.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: The US, not President Obama or Vice President Biden, but the US has to save face and prove that we are a neutral party for any negotiations.
Neutral. Neutral parties flip out over the building of homes and ignore the firing of lethal rockets. Right.
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Otherwise there can be no negotiations.
Then the missiles and the suicide bombings will continue.
Blaming the victim. Israel okayed a bunch of apartment buildings (not built -- just authorized), and that's exactly equivalent with attempted mass murder. Got it.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Neutral. Neutral parties flip out over the building of homes and ignore the firing of lethal rockets. Right.
How much money does the U.S. give Palestinian groups? (Serious question, I don't know the answer). My understanding is we spend huge chunks of money giving Israel the means the survive, and I don't think it's unfair to ask that in return, Israel not undertake actions that provoke even more hostility (requiring even more money on our part).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: And I find it extremely telling that the US government spends its energy slamming Israel for building apartment buildings in Jerusalem, and ignores the Arabs firing rockets into civilian areas.
And here's the point where Lisa and I agree. I have been in the neighborhood under discussion. I have looked out a window at the area that was recently approved for additional apartments.
It is not a colony or a settlement. It is a growing urban area.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Our president is condemning the building of homes in a Jewish district. Maybe he should condemn the condominiums being built in San Antonio. Some Mexicans claim that Texas is really stolen Mexican land.
Israel isn't creating a new settlement and taking away from the Palestinians. They're building new homes in land that they already control. Of course many Mexican's can't accept they lost the Mexican American War over a hundred years ago. They might consider a house being built in Texas to be an intrusion.
Posted by SoaPiNuReYe (Member # 9144) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is continuous fighting between these Arab people and the Israeli people.
No. There are continuous attacks on Israel by these Arab people, and continual attempts by Israel to stop these attacks. There's no similarity or equivalence between the two. Israel never -- ever -- targets civilians, and the Arabs almost invariably do just that.
[ March 28, 2010, 02:53 AM: Message edited by: SoaPiNuReYe ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why should the Rape of Nanking be likened to rapes that occurred under US occupation of Japan?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
SoaPiNuReYe: I'm trying to temper my knee jerk reaction, because I agree rape in any context including Okinawa is absolutely disgusting.
But you don't seem to realize that the rape of Nanking and rape in Okinawa are two very different things.
To me, it's the difference between a bully beating you up pretty bad, and a bully beating you up really bad, raping you, and flaying you alive.
Posted by Jenos (Member # 12168) on :
Soap is trying to say that only pointing to the atrocities one side commits in a conflict is disingenuous - it implies that the other side is free from atrocity, which is false.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
If that's what Soap was trying to say, then I agree. But I don't think Soap did a very good job of saying that.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Our president is condemning the building of homes in a Jewish district.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the problem this time was that they are trying to build in a historically Palestinian part of Jerusalem.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Could someone please provide information on how many Palestinians were living in that area prior to the creation of the Zionist movement and the immigration of Jews back to what is now Israel?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: But I don't think Soap did a very good job of saying that.
Nope. OTOH, if he was trying to demonstrate the tendency to take very non-equivalent acts and equate them, he did an excellent job.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Also, for the record, war is not war. All wars are bad, it's true. All wars are not, however, equally bad. It's a common mistaken belief that the truth lies in the middle.
That's often true, but not always true. Sometimes one side is just outright, totally lying and the other is telling the truth. And just because neither side is clean does not mean one side isn't much worse than the other. The United States and Japan serve as good examples of this idea.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
This cartoon from The Economist made me smile.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Also, for the record, war is not war. All wars are bad, it's true. All wars are not, however, equally bad. It's a common mistaken belief that the truth lies in the middle.
That's often true, but not always true. Sometimes one side is just outright, totally lying and the other is telling the truth. And just because neither side is clean does not mean one side isn't much worse than the other. The United States and Japan serve as good examples of this idea.
The Master says that if he believed in war he was in the right he would "go forward even against thousands and tens of thousands."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Maybe if you explain what you mean, the relevance will become clear?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:Our president is condemning the building of homes in a Jewish district.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the problem this time was that they are trying to build in a historically Palestinian part of Jerusalem.
They are not. However, the land they're building on was on the Jordanian side of the border prior to 1967. Then again, so was the Western Wall and the Temple Mount.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: There is continuous fighting between these Arab people and the Israeli people.
No. There are continuous attacks on Israel by these Arab people, and continual attempts by Israel to stop these attacks. There's no similarity or equivalence between the two. Israel never -- ever -- targets civilians, and the Arabs almost invariably do just that.
Oh, seriously. That's the most blatantly dishonest piece of tripe I've ever seen. You know very well that if any of that garbage were true, or if they could even find bad evidence to support it, it would be all over the mainstream media.
Amnesty International is actually an interesting case. They've been slamming Israel disproportionately for decades.
quote:Originally posted by SoaPiNuReYe: toprovidesources. War is war; it brings out the worst in humanity and you cannot compare one side to saints and the other to demons without sacrificing credibility.
When I was in the IDF, during basic training, they brought us into a room and talked to us about the different types of orders in the army. Basically, there are three kinds of orders, they told us. Legal orders, illegal orders, and patently illegal orders. A legal order is any normal order. An illegal order is something that the ranking officer has no right to demand. Like having you sleep outside without blankets in the middle of winter. Both of these, you have to obey, or you can be prosecuted for disobeying orders. In the case of an illegal order, you still have to obey it, but you can bring the officer up on charges for issuing it.
And then there are patently illegal orders. Such as "Shoot that civilian." If you obey that kind of order, if it were to be given, you go to jail.
They told us a story which is considered the prototype example of patently illegal orders and let us discuss it. But they slammed the story into us over and over and over.
Anyone who believes the crap in those articles you've cited is a credulous fool.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: Yes, they were. But a significant percentage of those against the health bill were against it because it didn't go far enough. I really don't think you get to claim those in your total. And support for the bill has gone up a bit since its passage.
I found that interesting. I heard that stat quoted on NPR- I think the poll was done by MSNBC, is that right? When they figured the totals of "for" plus those who responded against but answered: "because it did not go far enough," the total was a majority- I think in the mid to high 50s. Now if you could dial in those polls to get an accurate representation of the number of people actually in favor of this kind of reform, whether or not they agree with the precise direction this bill went, I think you'd be seeing numbers in the 60s. Maybe more importantly, the support among future first time voters (16s and up) and the younger generations in general is likely much higher. I imagine the polls show the least support among the wealthy or among the self-employed, mainly over tax concerns, and probably a slim minority over outright disagreement with "socialism."
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:When I was in the IDF, during basic training, they brought us into a room and talked to us about the different types of orders in the army. Basically, there are three kinds of orders, they told us. Legal orders, illegal orders, and patently illegal orders. A legal order is any normal order. An illegal order is something that the ranking officer has no right to demand. Like having you sleep outside without blankets in the middle of winter. Both of these, you have to obey, or you can be prosecuted for disobeying orders. In the case of an illegal order, you still have to obey it, but you can bring the officer up on charges for issuing it.
And then there are patently illegal orders. Such as "Shoot that civilian." If you obey that kind of order, if it were to be given, you go to jail.
They told us a story which is considered the prototype example of patently illegal orders and let us discuss it. But they slammed the story into us over and over and over.
Anyone who believes the crap in those articles you've cited is a credulous fool.
One could use a parallel argument to "prove" that Abu Ghraib and the Mahmudiyah murders never happened. But they did. Soldiers and the officers they follow will sometimes disobey directives from on high and commit atrocities. (Especially when those directives offer mixed messages rather than firm guidelines about right and wrong, which the US ones under Bush certainly did.)
I don't believe, as some people seem to think, that the IDF has an unofficial policy of encouraging war crimes, or not doing its part to prevent them. But you can't deny that they occasionally happen, perhaps despite the top brass's best efforts.
There are Palestinian Arab civilians and groups of them, many suspiciously closely connected with the ruling political party, who do much much worse things than any Israeli soldier ever has. So there are Palestinian groups that should in no way be considered morally on a par with the Israeli government. Whether the Palestinian Authority, insofar as it is a functioning government, is on a par with Israel is a tougher question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
It doesn't seem like a particularly tough question to me. The PA had as its leader Yasser Arafat, for pity's sake.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm thinking in terms of what these govts have actually done, not what their leaders have done prior to their government service.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Making its leader a known terrorist and specific targeter of civilians seems to be something that government has done.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Yeah, fair enough, that was a bad idea. But the Irish Free State did much the same thing when they elected de Valera as their first prime minister. That guy was a serious terrorist. But the Brits worked with him and his successors, and things turned out OK eventually.
Not a perfect analogy of course, but there is no perfect analogy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sometimes terrorism is in the eyes of the beholder.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not suggesting that the PA making Arafat its leader absolves the Israelis from any moral obligation to work with him, or that doing so makes it impossible for there ever to be any sort of peace.
I was just pointing out that doing so in the first place is a pretty emphatic, visible example that the PA is really not equivalent to the Israeli government when you're making the kinds of comparisons we're talking about here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm wondering if we need to stop talking about Palestinians as a monolithic bloc. I know Lisa would prefer it if we didn't use the term Palestinian at all, but without an alternative phrase, I'm not sure what we're left with.
Regardless, Palestinians in the West Bank and Palestinians in Gaza are living practically in different worlds, and certainly under different leadership. A lot of articles have come out recently describing lessening security woes and attacks out of the West Bank, as well as marked improvement in services, reductions in corruption, and a rapid increase in GDP. By most measures, despite the recent closing of West Bank borders, the West Bank appears to be on the mend, to the point where Abbas has started pushing Israel and the UN to officially recognize a Palestinian state even before negotiations are officially finished (or begun, for that matter). This, by the way, is a point I think Lisa sometimes misses when she says that Palestine can declare a state whenever they want. It's true that they can. But if no one recognizes it, there isn't much tangible benefit.
Gaza is still a den of corruption, poverty, and, far more so than the West Bank, is rife with violence and attacks on Israel from Gazan territory. They effected their own political separation years ago. At what point do we start to discuss them separately? I see a lot of promise in the West Bank right now. I don't see much in Gaza.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
The Palestinian Arabs, at about the same time the Jerusalem municipality was approving a block of apartments in an urban area, were going to be naming a public square after the woman who committed the coastal road massacre.
They postponed it (officially, though dignitaries showed up to do it anyway) for what they claim were technical reasons, but said "No one in the world can prevent the Palestinians from being proud of their history and heritage. This history and heritage is part of our life."
This is the "West Bank", btw, and not Gaza. This woman murdered 38 innocent civilians and wounded 71 others, deliberately targeting them as civilians. She's a hero to the Palestinian Arabs.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
She's kinda hot.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: The Palestinian Arabs, at about the same time the Jerusalem municipality was approving a block of apartments in an urban area, were going to be naming a public square after the woman who committed the coastal road massacre.
They postponed it (officially, though dignitaries showed up to do it anyway) for what they claim were technical reasons, but said "No one in the world can prevent the Palestinians from being proud of their history and heritage. This history and heritage is part of our life."
This is the "West Bank", btw, and not Gaza. This woman murdered 38 innocent civilians and wounded 71 others, deliberately targeting them as civilians. She's a hero to the Palestinian Arabs.
If true, still doesn't disprove my point.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:This is the "West Bank", btw, and not Gaza. This woman murdered 38 innocent civilians and wounded 71 others, deliberately targeting them as civilians. She's a hero to the Palestinian Arabs.
Indeed. In times of war, killing of enemies becomes viewed as a heroic act...this is hardly a rare phenomenon. Admittedly, in this case, the ones killed weren't part of the military, but to the Palestinians-- who have been driven from their country, killed and displaced, with now a generation of people who have never known anything but oppression and displacement--the distinction isn't as obvious. Every Israeli, especially those who try to encroach on the few areas Palestinians have left, can be seen as a hostile perpetrator of what's been done to the Palestinian people, or at the very least a willing member and beneficiary of a the system that hurts them. This is sad, but understandable.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:This is the "West Bank", btw, and not Gaza. This woman murdered 38 innocent civilians and wounded 71 others, deliberately targeting them as civilians. She's a hero to the Palestinian Arabs.
Indeed. In times of war, killing of enemies becomes viewed as a heroic act...this is hardly a rare phenomenon. Admittedly, in this case, the ones killed weren't part of the military, but to the Palestinians-- who have been driven from their country, killed and displaced, with now a generation of people who have never known anything but oppression and displacement--the distinction isn't as obvious. Every Israeli, especially those who try to encroach on the few areas Palestinians have left, can be seen as a hostile perpetrator of what's been done to the Palestinian people, or at the very least a willing member and beneficiary of a the system that hurts them. This is sad, but understandable.
When Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Arabs who were planning an attack on Jews in 1994, the entire state went into a frenzy. People were arrested for even speaking on his behalf. His memorial was taken down by the Israeli government.
Ami Popper killed seven Arab civilians at a bus stop in 1990. He'll be in jail until at least 2023, if he even manages to get out then.
Meanwhile, the Arabs laud murderers of civilians. Not "enemies", sinflower. Civilians. And not as collateral damage, either. They deliberately target civilians. And you making excuses for that makes you a moral viper. Scum.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:When Dr. Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Arabs who were planning an attack on Jews in 1994, the entire state went into a frenzy. People were arrested for even speaking on his behalf. His memorial was taken down by the Israeli government.
Ami Popper killed seven Arab civilians at a bus stop in 1990. He'll be in jail until at least 2023, if he even manages to get out then.
Meanwhile, the Arabs laud murderers of civilians. Not "enemies", sinflower. Civilians. And not as collateral damage, either. They deliberately target civilians. And you making excuses for that makes you a moral viper. Scum.
But that's central to my point. The Israelis and the Palestinians are in completely different situations. The Israelis have had, and continue to have, the superior power militarily to defend their people. They have a stable and relatively safe state, compared to the Palestinians, who have had decades of displacement and refuge status in states that are not their own-- as well as the cultural memory of ONCE having had what the Israelis now have, their own land, but having that taken away from them. The cultural psyches are completely different, and that's been shaped by the different past experiences and continuing experiences of the two groups with one another. The advantaged group, and the group that has experienced gain, can afford to be magnanimous (understand that I'm not talking here about individual people "choosing" to have a certain mindset--I'm personifying a group to illustrate my point). The disadvantaged one, and the one that has experienced loss, naturally experiences more frustrated rage and resentment towards the other group, which leads them to depersonalize members of that group.
I'm not going to argue the civilian vs. soldier case here in detail, but I'd like to add that both sides have killed civilians on the other side, and the numbers are hardly unequitable. Once again, the Palestinian cultural psyche is one of desperation. They don't HAVE traditional military might-- they CANNOT counter Israel's traditional military with their own. In that situation, they take what weapons they can get, and use what strategies they can implement with their limited resources. This involves methodologies that more powerful and industrialized nations view as "terrorism"--naturally--because we'd prefer if they fought on our terms, by which they would very quickly lose, and be unable to inflict any damage on us in the process!
So in summary--I'm saying that the attitudes and mindsets of these two ethnic and national groups have been shaped by their differing experiences and situations. You seem to be saying that Arabs are just inherently immoral people compared to Jews. I think my view is more reasonable.
[ April 01, 2010, 12:57 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Remember the movie "Red Dawn?" The Russians would have called Patrick Swayze and the Wolverines terrorists.
Think about that.
RIP, Patrick. You were an inspiration.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Sinflower, they aren't "inherently" immoral people. But taken as a whole, insofar as they support the actions of the militant terrorist groups that ostensibly speak for them, the Palestinian people have chosen to be immoral. "Inherent" smacks of some kind of nebulous racism, that they're immoral because they're genetically predisposed towards it. That's not the case.
quote:I'm saying that the attitudes and mindsets of these two ethnic and national groups have been shaped by their differing experiences and situations.
I think this is accurate. And the attitudes of the Palestinians, insofar as they are one generalized group of people, has been shaped towards immorality.
Explicitly targeting noncombatants is immoral. Put more simply: Murdering civilians is immoral. You're explaining a potential reason for their actions, which is fine. You could be right. Understanding why they choose to commit or support immoral actions doesn't make those actions acceptable.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
On the other hand, the firebombing of Dresden targeted civilians as did the atomic bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing magnitudes of civilians more than this coastal massacre.
However, the US does name and commemorate the air crews and Truman. Not that I'm particularly upset by that, Americans are entitled to their opinion. But I do find it difficult to sympathize when the shoe is on the other foot such as in the case of this attack.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:I think this is accurate. And the attitudes of the Palestinians, insofar as they are one generalized group of people, has been shaped towards immorality.
Explicitly targeting noncombatants is immoral. Put more simply: Murdering civilians is immoral. You're explaining a potential reason for their actions, which is fine. You could be right. Understanding why they choose to commit or support immoral actions doesn't make those actions acceptable.
You're drawing a very arbitrary line in the sand and saying, "step past this line and it's immoral. Irrefutably. Incontrovertably. It's just wrong." But what is your line in the sand? "Civilian." "Someone who's not part of the military forces."
But it's not that simple. What about the politician that commands the general that commands the military? Is he not as responsible for the military's actions? What if a particular powerful businessman is funding, in great part, some hypothetical military force and enabling its existence and operations? Would he be a civilian? I would view him as a hostile nonetheless, for he is enabling the hostile actions of the military. And so stretch that a little bit more. What if it's a society that's enabling and supporting a military force's existence, and it's the society's will-- including the "civilians" within it-- that dictates in great part what the military does? Well, it's not that much of a stretch to view those members of the society as hostiles as well, is it? If they are, in part, the creators of the situation I find hostile.
The line between "military" and "civilian" is not so clear cut. We normally draw the line at "hurting civilians" because it's not viewed as a reciprocal exchange-- civilians are "innocents." But military forces don't exist separately from the "innocents" whose will they enforce.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On the other hand, the firebombing of Dresden targeted civilians as did the atomic bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing magnitudes of civilians more than this coastal massacre.
However, the US does name and commemorate the air crews and Truman. Not that I'm particularly upset by that, Americans are entitled to their opinion. But I do find it difficult to sympathize when the shoe is on the other foot such as in the case of this attack.
The distinction is not about killing civilians, it's about targeting civilians. Civilians can and do die in war. They died in larger quantities when our weapons had less sophisticated targeting capabilities, but they still die today. But the Palestinians intentionally target civilian areas where they can maximize the number of innocents killed.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly civilian targets. Furthermore, we warned the inhabitants of both cities (and many other cities, of course, since otherwise we would have given away our specific target and made the entire operation impossible) prior to dropping the bombs, so that civilians could flee the cities and avoid the destruction. The goal of the bombings was not "kill as many civilians as possible." Anyone who thinks it was needs to revisit their history books.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So in summary--I'm saying that the attitudes and mindsets of these two ethnic and national groups have been shaped by their differing experiences and situations. You seem to be saying that Arabs are just inherently immoral people compared to Jews. I think my view is more reasonable.
Your view would be more reasonable if it didn't basically amount to, "Get angry enough, and it's acceptable to view a child eating pizza in a restaurant as your enemy."
The truth is, there are several methods by which the Palestinians might fight the Israelis without explicitly resorting to continually targeting civilians. Guerilla forces have done this effectively throughout history, as have protesters.`
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:Your view would be more reasonable if it didn't basically amount to, "Get angry enough, and it's acceptable to view a child eating pizza in a restaurant as your enemy."
As far as know they haven't been specifically targeting children, which I would view as a different matter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: On the other hand, the firebombing of Dresden targeted civilians as did the atomic bombing of both Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing magnitudes of civilians more than this coastal massacre.
However, the US does name and commemorate the air crews and Truman. Not that I'm particularly upset by that, Americans are entitled to their opinion. But I do find it difficult to sympathize when the shoe is on the other foot such as in the case of this attack.
The distinction is not about killing civilians, it's about targeting civilians. Civilians can and do die in war. They died in larger quantities when our weapons had less sophisticated targeting capabilities, but they still die today. But the Palestinians intentionally target civilian areas where they can maximize the number of innocents killed.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not strictly civilian targets. Furthermore, we warned the inhabitants of both cities (and many other cities, of course, since otherwise we would have given away our specific target and made the entire operation impossible) prior to dropping the bombs, so that civilians could flee the cities and avoid the destruction. The goal of the bombings was not "kill as many civilians as possible." Anyone who thinks it was needs to revisit their history books.
That's a pretty thin line. We didn't warn Toyko before we firebombed a city largely made of wood with millions of incendiary bombs. It's hard to argue that they weren't specifically targeting civilians when it's a night raid, there's no warning, you know the city is going to turn into a massive bonfire, and you do it anyway. They could have done night raids with explosive ordnance on the weapons factories, which were the only structures unhurt by the fires, but they didn't.
Pilots said they could smell human flesh cooking from thousands of feet below in the city.
To Lisa, I wasn't trying to provoke an argument on moral equivalence earlier, by the way, I was just pointing out that the situation in the West Bank is dramatically better than at any point in the last couple decades. You might not like who they're deciding to canonize, but attacks from West Bank territories are down, school enrollment is up, GDP growth is healthy, economic activity is comparatively brisk, and their government and security forces have been totally revamped. Criticize what parts you still don't like, but I don't see how you can argue that progress hasn't been made.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank: ... Furthermore, we warned the inhabitants of both cities (and many other cities, of course ...
I find your line of reasoning very unconvincing. This could easily be used to justify an atomic bombing of Israel if the Palestinians ever got ahold of an atomic weapon. After all, the Palestinians have warned Israelis to leave their cities. It is also virtually assured that there will be targets of military value in and amongst the cities in Israel as well.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I may further add to this that the focus of my statement was supposed to be on the memorializing, both of allied air crews and of Truman.
The original argument seems something like, "the people in the West Bank are crummy since they name stuff after this terrorist." Thing is, you could easily flip this around and say "Americans are crummy because they name stuff after these war criminals."
Additionally, I would also note that when the US is *not* involved, say when South Koreans protest the memorializing of WWII war criminals in Japan, the typical response is not that Japanese people are crummy, but some variant of "get over it."
Well, why is is not "get over it" in the case of this attack? Thats why I find that kind of reasoning very perspective-dependent and non-objective.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Were there any world leaders who weren't war criminals in WWII, Mucus?
-----
sinflower, if you're not aware of Palestinian terrorists specifically targeting children as well as women, old people, adolescents, and people just minding their business getting some lunch, you're simply not paying attention.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Regarding the firebombing of Toyko:
quote: [General Curtis]LeMay said, "If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war criminals." And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not immoral if you win?
- Robert McNamara in The Fog of War Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I'm not 100% sure what the point of contention even is on the "moral equivalence" argument. Is it about how morally good a person the average Jewish Israeli citizen is, compared with the average Palestinian?
I completely agree that the average Palestinian is less well-educated, more indoctrinated, subscribes to a less morally beneficial version of religion, and probably admires way more morally awful people than the average Israeli. Does this give the average Palestinian less moral standing, or make it less important to take his interests into account? I'm not sure I see why.
Also, on the issue of collateral damage and "targeting civilians." I just don't think this distinction holds up. If you take an action that you know will kill Billy and Susie, you have targeted both Billy and Susie in every morally relevant sense, even if Billy was the only one you really wanted to kill. By this definition, IDF soldiers have targeted civilians, although perhaps they've never solely targeted civilians (how important is that distinction, I wonder).
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Were there any world leaders who weren't war criminals in WWII, Mucus?
Given reasonable assessments by the aggrieved parties? Maybe Mackenzie King and his Australian counterpart. Both probably didn't have authority to avoid Dresden and certainly didn't have input on the atomic bombs. The major strike against the former at least is the internment of Japanese Canadians, but while a gross abuse of human rights, that normally isn't classified as a war crime per say.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Also, on the issue of collateral damage and "targeting civilians." I just don't think this distinction holds up. If you take an action that you know will kill Billy and Susie, you have targeted both Billy and Susie in every morally relevant sense, even if Billy was the only one you really wanted to kill. By this definition, IDF soldiers have targeted civilians, although perhaps they've never solely targeted civilians (how important is that distinction, I wonder).
It's pretty darn important if, say, your enemy who has made it clear will return and target your civilians for that reason alone goes and hides in an apartment complex.
You know he's coming back, and when he does, it's quite likely he'll be bringing an explosive vest along with him to pay a visit to a bus or a pizzaria. What do you do then? Doing nothing is not an option. Attacking him in the moments before his attack is not an option, because how can you tell? Attacking him where he chooses to live, though...well, that's really all that's left.
Entirely different from going out of your home, finding civilians, and killing them. In both cases, you are morally responsible for killing civilians, yes, it's true. But one is obviously, by any rational moral standard, worse than the other.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Other things being equal, I agree. If you kill 20 civilians to get at one bad guy, that might make you worse than someone who kills one civilian for no good reason. So sometimes you have to take it case by case and look at the numbers.
Also, one thing that technologically advanced countries don't do very often, and perhaps should do more often, is send ground troops instead of missiles. This happens with US forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan too. If we can kill a terrorist without collateral damage by losing half a dozen US troops, that might be a better decision all things considered than killing that terrorist, along with half a dozen civilians, in a Predator drone strike.
[ April 01, 2010, 04:59 PM: Message edited by: Destineer ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
These quotes by Ami Isseroff (Director of the Mid-East Web for coexistence) summarize the heart of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.
quote:TEach side remembers only one part of the story, and actively dismisses the rest, which is a threat to their own self image, as a group, and as individuals. Two peoples are living a lie.
quote: Partisans claim that the brutal act, whether it is the massacre at Deir Yassin, or the massacre of Jews in Hebron, or suicide bombings, or brutality at checkpoints, is characteristic of their opponents, and proves that they are thoroughly evil and inhuman.
quote:There is no chance that such propaganda can bring about rapprochement or peace or justice, because the other side is never going to accept a false version of history in which they are entirely wrong and delegitimized, or accept that the "punishment" for their "misdeeds" is that they have to forfeit all their rights entirely. Reconciliation cannot be built on hate-mongering.
This matches my personal experiences with Palestinians and Israelis (and their supporters) to a tee. I have known Israelis (like Lisa) who are adamant that Israelis have done no wrong. They have done not even the minimum necessary to protect themselves from an evil, inhuman enemy that is bent on their total destruction and motivated by nothing but totally irrational hatred of Jews. They will insist that "Palestinians" not only haven't been injured in any real way, they dont' even really exist.
I have also known Palestinians who are equally adamant that the Arab peoples are absolutely innocent of any crime. They were forced from their ancestral homes in a reign of terror and have been brutally oppressed by Israel for no reason besides greed, imperialism and Jewish ethnocentrism.
The two sides can't even agree on the basic facts. Until these two peoples can accept that they are living a lie and that the truth lies somewhere in the middle, there is no possibility of reconciliation or peace.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
First, whether the middle ground lies closer to the Israeli side or the Palestinian side really depends very much on which Israeli or Palestinian you are talking to. There are moderates and extremists on both sides and I don't think the extremist Israelis are one whit closer to the truth than the extremist Palestinians. I have personally known more moderate Israelis than moderate Palestinians but over the past couple of decades the trend seems to have been toward extremism on the Israeli side and away from it on the Palestinian side. I don't know whether that's a biased analysis or not. It is consistent with both my first hand experience and what I see in the media.
As for Rakeesh's point, he is missing something very major. We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world. They are a nuclear power. The Palestinians have no army or any type of organized military. They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis. If you agree that they do, how can you reasonably deny them the right to fight by the only means they have available while at the same time allowing the Israelis to use their massive military to oppose them.
[ April 01, 2010, 06:23 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
In some ways you're right about this. For instance, insofar as rules of war allow for collateral civilian deaths, they are morally problematic and unfair to poorly-armed insurgent forces. That's what I was getting at above.
(I guess I worry more about the moral problems than the unfairness. Who says everyone who wants to fight a powerful government should automatically have a fair chance?)
But I can't accept that murder is a legitimate tool in any conflict except perhaps the most desperate fight for freedom. Certainly not in a conflict motivated mainly by nationalistic/tribalistic goals ("We must have a homeland") like this one is.
quote:The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis.
Legitimate reasons to fight them with force, as opposed to nonviolent protest? Probably not, I'd say. I wouldn't normally agree that they deserve their own country, but they're so feisty that it seems like the best solution possible. Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Uuum its perfectly possible to fight a guerrilla conflict without stooping as low as the Palistinians, its called fighting a "People's War" which is principly limiting attacks to purely military targets and collaborators.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
The fact Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state make this an undesirable outcome for both sides.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rabbit, I agree, although I think that the middle ground of truth probably lies closer to the Israelis' version of things than the Palestinians', which is very radical and anti-Semitic. I take it this is Rakeesh's point.
I would probably put it more strongly than that, but that's a fair analysis in general, yup.
----
quote: We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world.
How did Israel attain this status in the region, Rabbit? That's a point you're forgetting. They got it through repeated, very close conventional military struggles to do what Palestinian terrorists attempt in the modern day: wipe Israel out. The problem is, the Israelis were better at it. And they don't use their military to wipe out the Palestinians, to completely remove them from the region or kill them in the process. If they did...the Palestinians would all be dead due to the military superiority you're pointing out.
quote:They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
They use guerrilla tactics because they tried and failed at conventional warfare, when it was more or less an even contest. And it's absurd to suggest that rules against explicitly targeting civilians, and civilians alone, are 'might makes right'.
quote: The real heart of the question is whether or not the Palestinians have legitimate reasons to be fighting the Israelis. If you agree that they do, how can you reasonably deny them the right to fight by the only means they have available while at the same time allowing the Israelis to use their massive military to oppose them.
Is that a serious question? How can we reasonably deny them the right to target civilians for death by suicide bombing? Men, women, children, old people, handicapped, the unborn, passersby, people just driving the bus that morning? Rabbit, is that really a serious question? If it is, I'll answer it bluntly: we can deny them that right because it's wrong to make war on civilians.
It's wrong to make war at all, true. It's wrong to make war on enemy combatants and get enemy civilians caught in the explosion. But it's most wrong to make war specifically on enemy civilians. It's cowardly, it's murderous, and most important of all: it doesn't work. It's certainly not going to work on the Israelis!
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:sinflower, if you're not aware of Palestinian terrorists specifically targeting children as well as women, old people, adolescents, and people just minding their business getting some lunch, you're simply not paying attention.
I was speaking of specifically children versus adults, and not of those other subgroups of people that you find it morally wrong to target. If they are in fact targeting all of those groups, which include most of the entire Israeli population, then they are not specifically targeting children. However, if they are specifically and purposefully singling out children to attack, more so than they are attacking other civilian groups, then I would find that troubling. If that is the case, then rather than chastising me for "not paying attention," please present me with the evidence.
In the general case again, you're basing your entire argument on the tenet "targeting non-military persons (civilians) is morally wrong." I have already explained why I find this tenet questionable. Do you have any other basis of argument besides this one? If not, can you please elaborate why you have come to this particular belief and conclusion and support it so strongly? Thus far, you have stated it, but not really explained it.
quote:We aren't talking about two equal opponents in this conflict. The Israelis have one of the best equipped, best trained, largest (per capita) armies in the world. They are a nuclear power. The Palestinians have no army or any type of organized military. They use guerrilla tactics because it would be impossible for them to fight the Israelis on equal ground. The "rules of War" that deem Israeli tactics as more ethical than Palestinian tactics are rules that are only remotely reasonable in a conflict between equals. Outside that context, they are nothing more then "might makes right."
Exactly. Our perspective on what methods of war are acceptable are largely based on the what methods of war we are accustomed to. For a nation that is highly industrialized, a nuclear power, and with a highly trained traditional army, guerrilla tactics are not necessary, nor is emotional warfare (they already inspire terror through their very existence). However, for a people who-- I believe-- have every right to be trying to regain the country they have lost, and are significantly handicapped against their opponent in this attempt (the nation described previously), these tactics are what they must use.
Of course, that brings up the question of whether necessity for an action makes that action right. My answer is: no. However, I still haven't been presented with a convincing argument as to why their methods of warfare are wrong. The main argument I have seen is this: that "targeting" civilians is wrong, but purposefully engaging in military actions that you know will almost certainly result in the deaths of civilians is not wrong. The distinction made is that the moral difference is between having
1) the death of civilians or 2) the success of a military effort
as the end goal of an operation. However, I don't think this is an accurate representation of the situation. The end goal of the Palestinians isn't killing civilians, it's getting their land back. Similarly, the end of goal of the United States in using those two bombs wasn't killing civilians, it was defeating the Japanese in war. The end goal of any nation engaging in a war, their "target" as you can call it, isn't killing civilians, it's winning their war-- with the acceptance that civilians must die in the process. Once again, I fail to see why the Palestinians are different in this respect.
[ April 01, 2010, 11:13 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:For a nation that is highly industrialized, a nuclear power, and with a highly trained traditional army, guerrilla tactics are not necessary, nor is emotional warfare (they already inspire terror through their very existence).
No one is objecting to guerrilla tactics. 'Emotional warfare'? War already has plenty of ridiculous euphamisms, but that's got to be one of the worst and most absurd. Emotional warfare indeed.
quote:However, for a people who-- I believe-- have every right to be trying to regain the country they have lost, and are significantly handicapped against their opponent in this attempt (the nation described previously), these tactics are what they must use.
One could argue they have the right to fight to regain the country they have lost. I could take such an argument seriously, however much I would disagree with it in this case. But the right to make war on their enemy's civilians, just because the odds are against them in other avenues?
What you're really saying is that anything is permissible if the alternatives are too difficult. That's not an outlook I can get behind.
quote: 1) the death of civilians or 2) the success of a military effort
You're completely ignoring the most important question asked in any effort at all, much less a military effort: What is the chance it will work towards our goal?
quote:Once again, I fail to see why the Palestinians are different in this respect.
One group kills civilians in an effort to kill the people who are killing their civilians. One group kills civilians to terrorize the enemy into submission/retreat. The civilians they kill aren't the ones killing their civilians. Killing the civilians as they do don't lessen the chance of the other group's military coming and killing their civilians-quite the contrary.
What's there to fail to see?
quote:However, if they are specifically and purposefully singling out children to attack, more so than they are attacking other civilian groups, then I would find that troubling.
That's what you'd find troubling?
quote:If that is the case, then rather than chastising me for "not paying attention," please present me with the evidence.
Well, now that you've clarified yourself, to my knowledge Palestinians don't target children specifically. Just the unarmed and helpless civilians.
quote:If not, can you please elaborate why you have come to this particular belief and conclusion and support it so strongly? Thus far, you have stated it, but not really explained it.
Given that you would be 'troubled' at targeting children for death by suicide bombings, I'm frankly very doubtful what good it will do, but here's one core element of my belief:
It doesn't work. The only possible excuse, ever, for any sort of warfare is that it might work. And even that's a terrible excuse for killing people, though sometimes necessary. The more odious the killing, the greater the likelihood its effectiveness must be for it to be legitimate even in terms of the excuses we use to make war on one another.
Suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by Palestinians will never, ever, ever work to drive Israelis from the region. It won't even ever give the Palestinians a shot at a better deal in any sort of negotiation. There isn't a single measure of anything involving the Palestinian people as a whole that is improved by suicide bombings against Israeli civilians. It doesn't get them more land. It doesn't get them more respect. It doesn't get them more rights. It doesn't get them more political, economic, or military power. It doesn't get them any closer to forcing the Israelis out of the region. It doesn't bring their dead back to life. It doesn't make it less likely more of them will die-quite the opposite, in fact.
In fact, the only cause which is served by suicide bombings against Israeli civilians by Palestinians is really, really hating the hell out of Israelis. That's it.
Now, contrast this with Israeli military action. When the IDF launches an airstrike against a Palestinian terrorist, they stand at least a chance of killing that particular target and destroying any equipment that is there. That is one enemy that won't be bombing another bus station or pizzaria. Will it engender more hatred of Israelis by Palestinians? Certainly. But what are Israel's alternatives, exactly? Take no action? Make concessions? Negotiate? These things have been tried. They haven't worked. But what does work, however poorly, is making Palestinian terrorists dead.
It's terrible. It's desperate. It's not a long- and it's barely a short-term solution. But what else have you got?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:One group kills civilians in an effort to kill the people who are killing their civilians. One group kills civilians to terrorize the enemy into submission/retreat. The civilians they kill aren't the ones killing their civilians. Killing the civilians as they do don't lessen the chance of the other group's military coming and killing their civilians-quite the contrary.
What's there to fail to see?
I'm going to try to rephrase this to better understand it. All the repetitions of the word "civilian" are confusing me after the initial read. Tell me if I'm interpreting you wrong. So
1) Israelis' goal: End Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. 2) Palestinians' goal: Drive Israelis back and regain land.
And in addition
3) The Palestinians' actions will not improve their situation and will in fact make the Israelis more likely to kill Palestinian civilians.
First of all, I still don't see the moral difference here. Both of the groups want to achieve an end goal-- The Israelis the safe occupation of their land, and the Palestinians the safe occupation of what was previously its land. Both groups want to defend their own people. Both groups engage in military tactics that will result in the death of civilians on the other side. The only difference you offer is that the Israelis have been more successful.
In addition: I doubt that the main reason behind your staunch moral stand on the wrongness of killing nonmilitary persons, civilians, is because it "doesn't work." I doubt that that's even a significant reason-- because even if it worked, would you find it any less wrong? I'd still like you to explain your main reason.
[ April 02, 2010, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... It's cowardly, it's murderous, and most important of all: it doesn't work. It's certainly not going to work on the Israelis!
I would agree with the first two, but the last seems dubious. Maybe suicide bombs won't work, but perhaps firebombing a city will. Maybe firebombing won't work but maybe an atomic bomb will. At some point, it does work and this is why this was done by the US to end WWII.
In this, you're not actually criticizing the Palestinians for their approach. You're criticizing them for not having a big enough bomb to use in their approach to accomplish what they want.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Are civilians still innocent civilians when they are occupiers - at least from a certain point of view? Are civilians still civilians when they give aid to guerrillas? I don't think that those lines are as clear as we might wish them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:First of all, I still don't see the moral difference here. Both of the groups want to achieve an end goal
I'm beginning to think you're being deliberately obtuse with the things you don't see. The moral difference is that Israel would be content for Palestinians to live in the region, so long as they stopped bombing buses and lobbing rockets.
quote:Both groups engage in military tactics that will result in the death of civilians on the other side. The only difference you offer is that the Israelis have been more successful.
No. You're clearly not paying attention. The other difference is that when Israel kills Palestinian civilians, it is in a direct, measurably successful effort to stop their own civilians from being killed. When a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians, the same cannot be said. The opposite, in fact, is what can be said.
quote: In addition: I doubt that the main reason behind your staunch moral stand on the wrongness of killing nonmilitary persons, civilians, is because it "doesn't work." I doubt that that's even a significant reason-- because even if it worked, would you find it any less wrong? I'd still like you to explain your main reason.
I didn't say it was my main reason. And frankly, I don't see much point in continuing this discussion with you-our viewpoints are too alien to one another, and you've too consistently misunderstood - deliberately or not - what I've said so far. So thanks, but no.
----------
quote:In this, you're not actually criticizing the Palestinians for their approach. You're criticizing them for not having a big enough bomb to use in their approach to accomplish what they want.
The two cannot be separated, Mucus. Their approach is wrong. If someone approaches a 7/16' nut with a 3/16' wrench, I would criticize them for approaching the problem incorrectly. This is speaking strictly in pragmatic terms, you understand.
But even if they adopted a greater scale, the approach would still be wrong. Firebombing a city wouldn't work-the Israelis would certainly retaliate, to the much greater woe of the Palestinians for years to come. An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
---------
quote:Are civilians still innocent civilians when they are occupiers - at least from a certain point of view? Are civilians still civilians when they give aid to guerrillas? I don't think that those lines are as clear as we might wish them.
I agree the lines aren't as clear as desirable. For me, though, innocence doesn't enter the matter when dealing with the restriction against making war specifically on civilians.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:1) Israelis' goal: End Palestinian attacks on Israeli civilians. 2) Palestinians' goal: Drive Israelis back and regain land.
And in addition
3) The Palestinians' actions will not improve their situation and will in fact make the Israelis more likely to kill Palestinian civilians.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position. Plus, you have phrased the moderate Israel position in the most positive possible light. That is in no way fair.
We should either compare the extremists positions.
1. What the extremists in the Israeli camp want is a Jewish religious state that stretches from the Euphrates to the Nile. link (That is our Lisa's blog).
2. What the extremists in the Palestinian camp want is to drive the Israelis out of the region.
or we could pair the moderates
1. What moderate Israelis want is a Jewish state (with its capital in Jersusalem) which can provide a secure refuge for all Jews.
2. What moderate Palestinians want is self determination in a country in their homeland (with its capital in Jerusalem).
To be even handed, you also really need a parallel to your point three for Israel.
4. The Israelis' actions (including military assaults, laying siege to Gaza, expanding settlements in disputed territory, brutality and border crossings and so forth) will not improve their security and have in fact made the Palestinians more anxious to launch terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the world.
[ April 02, 2010, 12:39 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
4. The Israelis' actions (including military assaults, laying siege to Gaza, expanding settlements in disputed territory, brutality and border crossings and so forth) will not improve their security and has in fact made the Palestinians more anxious to launch terrorists attacks against Israeli civilians and fuel anti-Jewish sentiment throughout the world.
Personally, I agree these things don't improve Israeli security. But I don't think it's a given. I don't think the same thing can be said of suicide bombings. It is a given that those will not improve Palestinian security.
quote:This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position.
Given Palestinian veneration of suicide bombers, it becomes difficult to really get a handle on just how moderate the middle really is, to be honest.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Ideally what they should try to do is live in peace in Israel and lobby for the rights of equal citizens, which they do deserve. But that option is so far off the table that it's just fantasy.
The fact Israel wants to be both a democracy and a Jewish state make this an undesirable outcome for both sides.
I also think it's wrong to have a country with an established religion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Personally, I agree these things don't improve Israeli security. But I don't think it's a given. I don't think the same thing can be said of suicide bombings. It is a given that those will not improve Palestinian security.
You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel. The two sides have far more in common than you admit. I know of no human situation where punishing the many for the crimes of few does not lead to hatred, resentment and retribution. I think that is a given.
Look into the history. Look at the claims made by each side. The first thing you will recognize is the extreme disparity in what the two sides believe are the facts. Its really astounding. Then as you do further research you will find that a good portion of the claims made by Palestinians and Israelis are over blown or overly simplistic, but that both sides have legitimate grievances that the other side refuses to acknowledge. As long as that continues, the status quo of terror attacks by Palestinians and oppression by Israelis is inescapable.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Given Palestinian veneration of suicide bombers, it becomes difficult to really get a handle on just how moderate the middle really is, to be honest.
How many Palestinians have you known, personally? I know quite a few and none of them venerate suicide bombers. That caricature of an entire people based on a few extremists is grossly unfair and bigoted.
I should also point out that there are many in our society who venerate people killed in battle, even those killed in what can accurately be deemed suicide missions. The distinction between those two is based on an imaginary line you've draw that allows you to maintain the illusion that we are good and our enemies are evil.
It is irrational to believe that the Palestinians are ever going to accept that fictional view of reality. It is irrational to believe that peace and security for Israel are possible as long as Israel and its supporters continue to insist that the Palestinians are entirely evil and must surrender all their rights as punishment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel.
Well,this is an excellent foundation for a conversation. I do accept that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. Thanks for telling me what I think, though.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I should also point out that there are many in our society who venerate people killed in battle, even those killed in what can accurately be deemed suicide missions.
Obviously it's not the suicide part of suicide bombing that people have a problem with. Palestinians can commit suicide all they want. It would even be OK for them to suicide bomb Israeli soldiers, if in fact they have good enough reason to fight in the first place.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am reminded of Native Americans and settlers.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
And it's 1770, and there's time to make history different. Better.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or 1870. Doesn't matter. Which side has the responsibility to make it better?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Or 1870. Doesn't matter. Which side has the responsibility to make it better?
That's an important point. I do think the onus is on the Israelis to be scrupulous. That means no torture of prisoners and, ideally, no predictable collateral killings.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
[ April 02, 2010, 03:44 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:You don't agree its a given because you still don't accept that the Palestinians have a legitimate grievances against Israel.
Well,this is an excellent foundation for a conversation. I do accept that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances against Israel. Thanks for telling me what I think, though.
I'm sorry that I mis-read you, it was not evident to me from what you said. Perhaps you can explain why you don't think its a given that Israeli actions (like for example bombing civilian areas or blocking shipments of food and medicine to Gaza) are going to provoke more terrorists attacks. If you agree that the Palestinians have legitimate grievances, why don't you see it as a given that they will respond with violence even though you see it as a given that Israelis will respond with violence when they are attacked? I can't follow your reasoning on this.
[ April 02, 2010, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I find it ironic when a group that uses the Old Testement as a historical and moral backing for wanting a particular piece of land then complains about the morality of the military actions of their enemies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
I think we may be talking about different things. I was talking about the US expanding into the west. Settlers moving into new territories - even some that had been promised by treaty to Native Americans and, once there, staying there. The Native Americans attacking the settlers (civilians?) and the army moving in to protect them.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
I wouldn't at all be surprised if Israelis had a boomer in the Med or the Gulf somewhere.
And I absolutely believe that if Israel was totally wiped out, they'd blow whoever did it off the face of the earth. Can't say I'd blame them either.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Again, missing the point of the progression. Imagine a simultaneous attack with MIRV, or a meticulously designed virus, or who cares really as long as it works. The point of the hypothetical is not to be realistic, it is to explore the various propositions that various people have brought up to justify the use of weapons of mass destruction.
For example: 1) the use of a WMD is justified if there are valid military targets in the area 2) the use of a WMD is justified if it works (to end the war) 3) the use of a WMD is justified if you warn civilians to leave beforehand These are three that have been brought up in this thread.
In the hypothetical, all three conditions are fulfilled, for sure if the Palestinians manage to nuke the whole of Israel there will be valid military targets caught up in the blast, for sure the Israelis have been warned to leave multiple times, and there is bound to be a hypothetical where "it works" and the war is ended even if it requires the death of every Israeli near a retaliatory weapon.
So the question remains, in this hypothetical would people seriously contend that in fairness the Palestinians have satisfied the same conditions that have been previously used to justify the use of WMDs and thus are morally in the clear? Obviously, I believe that people wouldn't, although I'm open to being surprised by an affirmative answer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by katharina: By 1870, it was all over - and had been for a hundred years, and most of the Indians were dead. This is still early. If it does get to 1870, it will be all be on Isreal's head. And America's, again, for supporting them.
I think we may be talking about different things. I was talking about the US expanding into the west. Settlers moving into new territories - even some that had been promised by treaty to Native Americans and, once there, staying there. The Native Americans attacking the settlers (civilians?) and the army moving in to protect them.
So was I. and that certainly wasn't over by 1770. The battle of the little big horn wasn't until 1876. Chief Joseph's and Nez Perce flight to Canada and last battle was in 1877. The Wounded Knee Massacre was in 1890.
If you want to get technical about it, the US is still in violation of dozens of treaties we made with various Indian nations. In 2006 the UN demanded the US cease and desist from violating treaties with the Western Shoshone, the US natually ignored the order and is continuing to give Western Shoshone lands to mining companies. So if you thought the Black Hills gold incident was a thing of the past that we would never repeat in todays America, think again.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... An atomic bomb definitely wouldn't work-Israel is widely known to have a very specific response to that kind of attack ready to go.
Of course, you're missing the point of the progression. A response to that kind of attack can only function if the bomb is not large enough to wipe out that response in the first place. At some point, there is a bomb big enough to ensure that there is no retaliation, even if the only Israelis left are overseas.
Of course, I disagree that it would ever need to reach this point anyways. There is a non-trivial rational fraction of the Israeli population who would decide to leave after X million Israelis are wiped out.
Yeah Mucus it is widely believed in military analyst circles (I know a few) what Israel has at a minimum three dolphin-class nuclear cruise missile carrying submarines 2 on active patrol and 1 on standby each carrying probably at a minimum 5 warheads there is no way that they couldn't respond, standard operating procedures with strategic weapons is to automatically launch them once communications with Tel Aviv is lost with written and signed orders given to the commander by the current PM in charge to ensure legality.
So once communications are lost LAUNCH ZE MISSILES.... But I'm le tired...
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It was over when the end was in sight. It wasn't like in 1870 there was any uncertainty as to how it would all turn out. In 1770, there was still some uncertainty. Like now, in the Middle East.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. We are still talking about different things. That's okay.
Posted by michaele8 (Member # 6608) on :
Possession is 9/10 of the law, is it not? Russia is unlikely to give back vast areas of Finland it stole in the 1940s, China is unlikely to give Tibet any form of independence, Brazil is unlikely to give anything back to the original Indian people and the Israeli people should not be expected to give back anything it has taken. I suppose it would be different if you had two groups of people who could get along, but as long as the leadership of the nations surrounding Israel have burning hatred to Israel then it would be unwise for Israel to make any concessions that could pose a threat to it.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:The moral difference is that Israel would be content for Palestinians to live in the region
How generous of them, considering it was the Palestinians' region in the first place.
quote:
No. You're clearly not paying attention. The other difference is that when Israel kills Palestinian civilians, it is in a direct, measurably successful effort to stop their own civilians from being killed. When a Palestinian suicide bomber kills Israeli civilians, the same cannot be said. The opposite, in fact, is what can be said.
So the moral difference is between offense and defense, in your view? I disagree. This conflict was not started by the Palestinians. The Israelis initiated the conflict by taking the Palestinians' country, not the other away around.
Each nation has the wellbeing of its own people in mind. Israel wants to protect the wellbeing of its own people. So do the Palestinians. The quality of life & the likelihood of having long lives, not cut off by warfare, would be higher for the Palestinians if they weren't refugees with no home or country, no?
quote:This is exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about. I'm sure sinflower doesn't recognize this but what she has has done is to pair the moderate Israeli position with the extremist Palestinian position. Plus, you have phrased the moderate Israel position in the most positive possible light. That is in no way fair.
Understand that this is not my point of view. I was trying to rephrase Rakeesh's statement in a way that didn't misinterpret his point of view. As much as he thinks I'm trying to deliberately misunderstand him, I'm not.
quote:Brazil is unlikely to give anything back to the original Indian people and the Israeli people should not be expected to give back anything it has taken. I suppose it would be different if you had two groups of people who could get along
You think Israel would give land back if only the Palestinians would get along with them? Really?
quote:Possession is 9/10 of the law, is it not?
In the sense of "might makes right," yes.
[ April 03, 2010, 05:21 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So the moral difference is between offense and defense, in your view? I disagree. This conflict was not started by the Palestinians. The Israelis initiated the conflict by taking the Palestinians' country, not the other away around.
Even if I granted the idea that the Israelis started the conflict by 'taking the Palestinians' country' - and I don't, I think it's partially incorrect and too simplistic - just because someone wrongs you does not give you carte blanche to wrong them back in any way you see fit, which seems to be the core of your justification for suicide bombings targeted against civilians here: they started it.
quote: Each nation has the wellbeing of its own people in mind. Israel wants to protect the wellbeing of its own people. So do the Palestinians. The quality of life & the likelihood of having long lives, not cut off by warfare, would be higher for the Palestinians if they weren't refugees with no home or country, no?
Actually, those Palestinians who choose to live in Israel under the Israeli government are also cared for by that same government. Now, of course, on equal grounds with equal respect? No. But you can't say the same thing at all in the reverse.
quote:You think Israel would give land back if only the Palestinians would get along with them? Really?
They've been willing to give some land back even in the midst of being suicide bombed. So yes, really.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote: which seems to be the core of your justification for suicide bombings targeted against civilians here: they started it.
No, actually it's been the core of your moral distinctions--that the Israelis' actions are more moral because the Palestinians started it and the Israelis are "only acting in defense." So, following upon your assumption that who started it matters, I stated that even so the Israelis wouldn't have some sort of moral advantage.
But in my opinion, both sides have taken offensive and defensive actions. So--still no moral distinction.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
A lot of talk has gone on about how Palestinians intentionally target Israeli civilians, whereas Israeli military only injure Palestinian civilians as collateral in operations where they are intending to take out Palestinian militants. And overall, so far I think Rakeesh has done a fantastic job in this area, so I just want to echo what he's said so far. Well done, Rakeesh.
But there was one more thing I wanted to add, Sinflower, with regards to that moral equivalency you've been rocking. I don't think Rakeesh has mentioned it yet. Not only is the disparity of targets significant, but there's also the matter of human shields. Palestinian militants frequently hide amongst non-combatants, intentionally putting their own civilians at risk. Many sympathetic civilians welcome them, as well. The Palestinian militants, in this way, force Israel to either seriously endanger Palestinian civilians, or simply wring their hands and give up.
Sinflower, it kind of seems like you think the only morally acceptable action for Israel to take is to do the latter, and simply accept that Palestine has the right to destroy them.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
It seems like many of you are arguing against points I never made.
For example, I never made any statements about what Israel should or should not do.
All I've done is defend against this notion that the Palestinians are somehow less moral than the Israelis in this conflict. I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: All I've done is defend against this notion that the Palestinians are somehow less moral than the Israelis in this conflict. I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
It's true that my argument does support the idea that the line between civilian and combatant is not totally clearcut.
For instance, many Palestinian "civilians" are actually complicit in the terrorist acts of the "combatants," and willingly shelter and hide the combatants, thus creating scenarios where it is virtually impossible to assault the "combatants" without endangering "civilians." Nevertheless, most human rights groups I am aware of, and even the Israeli government, still track their deaths as civilian casualties, and try to minimize them.
Yep. Morally equivalent for sure.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
sinflower,
quote:No, actually it's been the core of your moral distinctions--that the Israelis' actions are more moral because the Palestinians started it and the Israelis are "only acting in defense." So, following upon your assumption that who started it matters, I stated that even so the Israelis wouldn't have some sort of moral advantage.
It's becoming almost impossible to believe you're not deliberately misunderstanding me.
My moral distinction is that the Israeli military is more moral than the Palestinian terrorists because, when the Israeli military kills Palestinian civilians, it is most often in pursuit of a military objective: killing terrorists. Furthermore, these terrorists abet these civilian deaths by making their bases in densely populated urban areas. It's a political/military win-win for them. They get the strategic benefits of hiding in a dense urban area, making them more difficult to find and when they are found, it's nearly inevitable there will be civilian deaths when they are attacked-further inflaming their host population.
When Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians, though, it is not in pursuit of military objectives. Bombing a bus does absolutely nothing to make things better for the Palestinians-quite the contrary. And the political objectives suicide bombings serve are, in my opinion, evil-they make war on civilians in order to make war on civilians, even though doing so will not be effective even in the short-term.
But anyway, you've made it quite clear that you feel the Israelis started it, and furthermore, that their military superiority makes targeting their civilians understandable. You've even specifically stated that the only thing that would trouble you would be the deliberate, systematic targeting of children.
quote:It seems like many of you are arguing against points I never made.
Where have I done so? In fact, where is this 'many'? If it's happened so often, certainly you can offer a few examples.
quote:I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank).
You have stated it, but not actually supported it. But even if you had, you've also said you wouldn't be troubled by targeting them anyway.
A parent riding the bus with their kids on the way home from school =/ combatants. They do = civilians. How's that for clearcut?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lemme put it another way: the IDF measures the success of a mission by two things, was it successful and how few civilians did it hurt; the Palestinian terrorists (and those who laud them) measure it by how many, to paraphrase The West Wing.
And that reasoning is another foundation for my thinking.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The great uniter. Obama reduced our nuclear stockpile in proportion to Russia. Hooraay, all over the news. Bush reduced it from 6k to 2k,...not news. Bush was a war monger. Obama's reduction is nothing in comparison to Bush's. Bush cut nuclear weapons by 60% and it didn't even get one days headlines.
Russia signed a new contract to sell nuclear tech to Venezuela this week. Of course, peaceful means. Afterall, Obama's people love Chavez almost as much as Che and Mao.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, in fairness, the specifics of Bush's treaty were so toothless that it wasn't really that big of a deal. No enforcement, no verification, three months notice before it could be unilaterally dissolved. It was set to expire on 2012 before Obama negotiated the new START treaty, so really, Putin could have signed it, done nothing until November of 2012, and then pulled out, having done nothing at all and still wouldn't have violated a letter of the treaty.
Also, Obama's treaty, much like Bush's really just puts a lot of those warheads in storage somewhere, which makes the key difference the delivery mechanisms. Bush's treaty had no measure to reduce the delivery mechanisms for the weapons. Obama's includes limitations on strategic bombers, ocean based submarines, and ICBMs.
So yes, Bush should get credit for decreasing our nuclear stockpile, though, let's also keep in mind that towards the end of his presidency, he was instrumental in introducing the idea of, and pushing for, more R&D money for a new generation of nuclear weapons, so, some of that credit seems a little premature. But if we're worried about the actual effects of nuclear war? Obama's treaty as a more direct impact on the ability to wage nuclear war. Having 6,000 warheads is all fine and dandy until it comes to get them from your launch pad to the enemy, and when you only have half that many launch vehicles, it sort of makes having that many a little useless. Of course, even a quarter of that number is more than enough, but we're talking about progress here, multi-decade generational progress. Obama succeeded. Bush made a good effort, but didn't do as much.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Mal: You forgot to mention how much Obama loves that other guy. You know, the one he really turns to for advice. Who could it be... The Devil! Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have stated it, but not actually supported it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians, though, it is not in pursuit of military objectives. Bombing a bus does absolutely nothing to make things better for the Palestinians-quite the contrary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
Bush also totally missed the opportunity to put together a true follow-up treaty to START. As a result, the proposed treaty we have now is much weaker than it could've been if we'd been making progress all this time.
quote:What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
Something that wasn't entirely begging the question would be a start. As for what would count as support, I obviously don't know-if I did, I would probably believe as you do.
quote:Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
That's not the only distinction. And what do you mean 'perhaps'? In what way, then, does suicide bombing a bus full of civilians make things better for Palestinians? And your notion that 'if they thought it would, that's the same thing' might be compelling if it were the first time. Or even the tenth time. It's not. There is a long, established pattern of what we generally consider terrorism enacted against Israel, and it has not improved the lot of Palestinians. When and where has it done so? Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for. Given that, they don't get to take the cop-out, "We thought it would make things better," and you don't get to do so for them-unless you can point to a time when it did.
As for not knowing enough to say, that certainly hasn't stopped you from speaking in support of them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
Something that wasn't entirely begging the question would be a start. As for what would count as support, I obviously don't know-if I did, I would probably believe as you do.
quote:Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
That's not the only distinction. And what do you mean 'perhaps'? In what way, then, does suicide bombing a bus full of civilians make things better for Palestinians? And your notion that 'if they thought it would, that's the same thing' might be compelling if it were the first time. Or even the tenth time. It's not. There is a long, established pattern of what we generally consider terrorism enacted against Israel, and it has not improved the lot of Palestinians. When and where has it done so? Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for. Given that, they don't get to take the cop-out, "We thought it would make things better," and you don't get to do so for them-unless you can point to a time when it did.
As for not knowing enough to say, that certainly hasn't stopped you from speaking in support of them.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for.
Sinflower read this line of Rakeesh's again. Seriously. This is key.
Because, to the Palestinian militants, they see this as a benefit. Even if it has no chance of actually defeating Israel, they see murdering Jewish civilians as an end in itself.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
There's an essay I read recently on this subject, which is reasonably short and says it better than I could (although I censored it a bit)
quote:So someone flew a plane into a building the other day. Before he flew a plane into a building, he was nobody, another quiet ranter: today, most of us have already heard what he had to say about the IRS, and more will as time goes by.
And that's one of the problems I have with terrorism: For certain values, of working, it works.
Without the plane crash, nobody would give a crap about this guy; another mostly-rich guy with a $220,000 house and a plane in some trouble. One wrecked building and two dead people later, he's all over the news. He wanted people to hear what he had to say, and sadly, I can't think a better way for him to be heard; if he'd just offed himself and left it in a suicide note? Local news, maybe. If he'd gone on a publicity campaign to tout his unfairness? Local paper, page three.
If he'd posted it in his own private LJ? Oh, come on, kid, you know better.
For a pretty unremarkable man who wants to have his words read by the entire country, the best way is to become remarkable. And the easiest way to do that, one requiring no particular talent or likeability, is to kill people in a spectacular fashion. And that's a shame.
I wish I had a clean answer to this one, but I honestly think that's the way it is. I'm pretty sure the American public wouldn't give two craps about the Middle East without the terrorists harbored there. (The American government would care deeply, given the oil resources there, but it'd be one of those headlines buried somewhere in the Wall Street Journal: SAUDI ARABIA'S INSTABILITY CONTINUES TO TROUBLE BANKERS.) I'm really no fan of what Palestinian terrorists do to Israel, but on the other hand the Palestinians aren't treated wonderfully by Israel, and I'm reasonably sure that if they didn't have suicide bombers and randomly-launched missiles, we wouldn't hear a thing about the conflict over in America. At least not on the network news.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think terrorism actually causes positive changes. I don't think that there will be wide-spread changes in IRS law thanks to asshole plane-flier. I don't think that America's going to wake up one more morning and go, "Whoa, the Taliban hates us! Let's give up Hollywood and convert!" I don't think that Israel is ever going to give Palestine ground when opening up the border opens them up to a risk of being blown up.
Purposely targeting civilians at any time is a reprehensible tactic. These guys are, I must be clear, total scumbags, and it doesn't get them what they really wanted. But when the other alternative is "sit back and be invisible," I don't know that we're providing better options. I don't know that there are other options we could reasonably create.
I hate their choices, I hate the way they poison the world. But when a bunch of people who feel oppressed (legitimately or not) look around and go, "Hey, these guys who aren't blowing stuff up are ignored, and the guys with the bombs are catching three solid minutes on CNN," I can see where the idea gets planted.
Even if I granted those were the choices in the beginning - do nothing or kill people spectacularly - and there is a case to be made for that argument, I agree, that's clearly not the choice any longer.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for.
Sinflower read this line of Rakeesh's again. Seriously. This is key.
Because, to the Palestinian militants, they see this as a benefit. Even if it has no chance of actually defeating Israel, they see murdering Jewish civilians as an end in itself.
That's ridiculous. Its exactly the kind of demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians I was referring to.
First, lets get some perspective on the magnitude of the problem. In the past 10 years there have been 1072 Israelis killed by Palestinians. That sounds like a lot until you recognize that about twice that many Israelis were murdered in the same time frame and that even if you add together the terror attacks and the murders, the murder rate in Israel is only half what it is in the US.
Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict. The objective of Palestinian terror attacks is to regain their homes and self determination by drawing world attention to their plight and creating pressure on Israel to negotiate. The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: First, lets get some perspective on the magnitude of the problem. In the past 10 years there have been 1072 Israelis killed by Palestinians. That sounds like a lot until you recognize that about twice that many Israelis were murdered in the same time frame and that even if you add together the terror attacks and the murders, the murder rate in Israel is only half what it is in the US.
See, this 'magnitude of the problem' type of reasoning...well, the truth is it's not only not very persuasive, but it can also be used to minimize just about anything except maybe death from car accidents or old age. 'Ordinary' civil murder is a concept we as human beings (in the abstract, at least) are comfortable with, have accepted. It's part of our daily lives. Someone strapping on come explosives and sitting on the bus next to you, on the other hand, has a way of gripping the mind.
Which is incidentally, of course, one of the selling points of terrorism. One spectacular death from terrorism will immediately be more widely known than the twenty murders that happened in the same city that month, except perhaps to coroners and homicide detectives.
So 1072 deaths in a decade doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot, because 'a lot' is completely relative, and one death - in terms of public awareness - is not equal to another death.
quote:Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict.
What it shows is that, still, you're not reading very carefully. Dan_Frank said, "...to the Palestinian militants..." not Palestinians in general. Perhaps he also meant to the Palestinians as a whole, but I don't see how you have any way of knowing that.
As for the objective of Palestinian militants, they can claim it's to regain their homes and self-determination by etc. etc. all they like. But they're either lying when they say that, or they're just deeply stupid, or they're insane. Or some combination of all three. Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is - together, especially the further we get from the Holocaust.
quote:The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
I don't think they would have the first without terrorism (though they could definitely have attained it in other ways-or has the Dalai Lama been preaching the blowing up of school busses and I missed it?), but how much do they really have the second? Israel is negotiating with them, yes. And with every single terrorist attack against Israeli civilians, the Israeli government gets to take a harder line.
How long do you think the Israelis would be enjoying American support in particular if Palestinians were protesting by staging non-violent protests as opposed to direct violence?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:How long do you think the Israelis would be enjoying American support in particular if Palestinians were protesting by staging non-violent protests as opposed to direct violence?
Equally as long as they have. As much as we may preach morality and human rights across the globe, at the heart of it the American government is as strategic and as pragmatic as any.
quote:Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict. The objective of Palestinian terror attacks is to regain their homes and self determination by drawing world attention to their plight and creating pressure on Israel to negotiate. The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
Exactly. Of course we can debate what Israel and the United States would have done if the Palestinians had just stood peacefully by and asked for justice, but frankly we don't know, and I for one am not as idealistic as to think that Israel or the US would give anything to the Palestinians if they'd proven to be no threat at all. And if I, an American, doubt that the Israelis and the Americans would be fair to Palestine? Naturally the Palestinians would doubt it more. They haven't been shown justice. They haven't even been given the right to return. Likely some of them saw suicide attacks as the only way to get the world's attention. People don't commit suicide for fun, and they don't do it because they're just so damn bloodthirsty and want to kill civilians. They do it because they're desperate and they think sacrificing their own lives is the only thing they can do to help their people.
The core of Rakeesh's argument has been that for the Palestinian militants, killing Israeli civilians is an end in itself. And that's just not reasonable or believable at all.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:So 1072 deaths in a decade doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot, because 'a lot' is completely relative, and one death - in terms of public awareness - is not equal to another death.
Exactly. They've killed far less Israelis than Israelis have killed Palestinians--conservative estimates for Palestinian deaths caused by Israelis in the last decade is in the 6000s, with some reporting far more. And then take into account that Israel has a far larger population, so percentage wise they've killed even more Palestinians. There's just less awareness of it.
quote:Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is - together, especially the further we get from the Holocaust.
Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
In addition, the glue--at least for American support-- is a combination of the desire to have a strategic ally in the Middle East, and the religious support for Israel's biblical right to the "holy land." With perhaps some aid from the Israel lobby. Oh, and the general phobia towards anything Muslim post September 11 helps too.
[ April 04, 2010, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: ... Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
To be specific, even in the US in 2008, only 21% favoured Israel versus 71% who didn't want to take either side and 3% for the Palestinians. Your larger point does stand though. In the world as a whole, support for the Palestinians is at 20% versus the Israelis at 7%. world public opinion link
That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service poll Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Exactly. They've killed far less Israelis than Israelis have killed Palestinians--conservative estimates for Palestinian deaths caused by Israelis in the last decade is in the 6000s, with some reporting far more. And then take into account that Israel has a far larger population, so percentage wise they've killed even more Palestinians. There's just less awareness of it.
Actually, very few people I've ever talked to about this weren't aware that Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. But, again, one death is not necessarily equal to another, at least in terms of the support it gains or costs.
quote: In addition, the glue--at least for American support-- is a combination of the desire to have a strategic ally in the Middle East, and the religious support for Israel's biblical right to the "holy land." With perhaps some aid from the Israel lobby. Oh, and the general phobia towards anything Muslim post September 11 helps too.
The first one is a wash. On any list of reasons for the 'Muslim world's' antagonism towards the United States, its support for Israel has got to be somewhere at the top. If not the top. We could certainly gain much more than we would lose, in pragmatic terms, if we turned on Israel.
The religious support for Israel doesn't play much of a widespread political role for American support of Israel, again at least not so far as I have seen.
As for a 'general phobia of anything Muslim' since 9-11, that hardly counts in support of your idea, because American support for Israel goes much further back than 9-11, after all. And an American fear of Muslims is hardly irrational.
How powerful would the Israeli lobby be if it couldn't point to suicide bombers and say, "See?! They're evil! Look!" How much religious support would Israel enjoy if its most famous enemies weren't so infamous? And how frightened would the United States be of 'anything Muslim' if some of the most sensational Muslims of the modern day weren't known for blowing things and people up? (No pun intended, they've hijacked the reputation of the Muslim world to an extent)
Every single thing you've said, sinflower, so far as it is true is true, in large part or entirely, because of the response suicide bombings against civilians generates.
quote:That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service poll
Sometimes the world is flat-out wrong. I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service poll --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the world is flat-out wrong. I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
quote:Actually, very few people I've ever talked to about this weren't aware that Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. But, again, one death is not necessarily equal to another, at least in terms of the support it gains or costs.
Nor in moral value, I suppose? The Israelis are still the victims here?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rakeesh: Sometimes, sometimes not. In this case, I think democracy is right on dot.
I would also note that technically, the question asked is about Israel, not Jews. In any case, the original assertion was about world support and this is an indicator of world support.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
OK, sinflower, that's enough for me. I could believe major misunderstandings stemmed from us starting from radically different places in this discussion for awhile, but at this point I just don't buy it anymore.
-----
quote:Rakeesh: Sometimes, sometimes not. In this case, I think democracy is right on dot.
Fair enough.
quote:I would also note that technically, the question asked is about Israel, not Jews. In any case, the original assertion was about world support and this is an indicator of world support.
For many, many, many people, there is no difference. I think there's ample historical justification for being wary of world opinion when it comes to looking at things done that concern Jews, is all I'm saying.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
I rather assumed that was a cheap shot. Even if you omit the countries that have a history of antisemitism (North American, European, or Arabic), Israel still wouldn't really move up much in the rankings.
The European countries if anything are even more negative about North Korea than Israel and off-set the Islamic countries which are the reverse. So omitting both is a bit of a wash.
Japan for example would give Israel a 2% approval rating versus North Korea at 1% and thats *with* North Korea regularly launching rockets toward or over Japan, so Israel is definitely sucking it up.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
Rakeesh:
You said this.
quote:I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
If you weren't talking about the anti-Semitism that caused the Holocaust as well as other Jewish persecutions, then what were you talking about?
If I misunderstood your meaning there--if, and I doubt that I did--it wasn't because I was deliberately misinterpreting your words. In response to the data showing that the world doesn't actually support Israel as you claimed, you said that the world had been wrong before about the Israelis. This heavily implies that they are wrong now, and for a similar reason. The reason before was anti-Semitism. So you wonder why it seems that you are alleging anti-Semitism in the present day? Instead of throwing a hissy fit over being "deliberately misunderstood," look at the way you're wording your ideas. Or the ideas themselves, one or the other.
And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be?
[ April 04, 2010, 10:59 PM: Message edited by: sinflower ]
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. but shouldn't it be?
Again, I don't speak for Rakeesh specifically, so don't take this as him answering. However, my answer would be... no.
To make this really clear, I'll use an extreme example: If a foreign nation executes a murderer, that won't do much to gain our support or enmity. If they execute an American tourist for, say, something that is a minor crime (or not even a crime) in the US, they will likely earn some amount of enmity from us.
Do you think that's reasonable?
I can be even more extreme. If another nation assassinates our President, they'll earn a lot more enmity than if they execute a citizen of theirs who is a convicted serial killer.
Does that seem reasonable?
Saying "One life should be equal to another" sounds very noble and wonderful when you don't actually follow it to its logical conclusion.
If either of my examples seems reasonable, then you agree that one life does not, and should not, always "equal" another, whether in terms of garnering US support or really for any other metric.
So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Haha, nice way of putting it. We're just haggling over the details... such as all the facts about the conflict at hand...
Although to be fair that's how this whole conversation has gone. I did much of the same thing with my argument that there isn't a strict line between civilians and combatants, didn't I? And then we all just haggled over the... details.
So in the spirit of haggling, I'd like to mention that those upwards of 6,000 Palestinians, or by less conservative estimates far more than double that number, were not convicted killers or murderers or even members of any militant group. A small number of them were, no doubt. But not the majority. So assume 1,000 of Palestinians killed were all murderers. And assume the very conservative 6,000-ish estimate is the right one.
You still need to justify why 5 Palestinian lives are worth less than 1 Israeli one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I rather assumed that was a cheap shot. Even if you omit the countries that have a history of antisemitism (North American, European, or Arabic), Israel still wouldn't really move up much in the rankings.
That assumes I care in the first place. I understand you're speaking strictly to the question of world opinion, though. It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
-----
Sinflower, you're just proving my point. World support for Israel was being discussed. I pointed out that I'm more than a bit wary of taking what 'the world' thinks of things concerning Jews, because anti-Jewish sentiment has such a negative and virulent force throughout the world for a long time-at least, as Mucus notes, in nations that have ever dealt with Jews. If you look at the list he offered, the only nations and regions that aren't mentioned are ones who have never had a sizable Jewish population in the first place.
Which was the only point I was making. You then replied, "So you're saying there's no reason for the world to be opposed to Israel except anti-Semitism?" That's a deliberate misunderstanding, so far as I see it, because it's a pattern of my discussion with you. Saying, "I mistrust world opinion on Jews," does not equate to, "The only reason the world doesn't like Israel is because they're antisemitic." It just doesn't.
quote:Instead of throwing a hissy fit over being "deliberately misunderstood," look at the way you're wording your ideas.
I suppose you could characterize it at 'throwing a hissy fit' when you look at what I say, find the implication that best supports your argument, and then claim that's what I said, sure.
quote:And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be?
Would you also like a pony?
Posted by sinflower (Member # 12228) on :
quote:That assumes I care in the first place. I understand you're speaking strictly to the question of world opinion, though. It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
Because you brought it up.
quote:Which was the only point I was making. You then replied, "So you're saying there's no reason for the world to be opposed to Israel except anti-Semitism?" That's a deliberate misunderstanding, so far as I see it, because it's a pattern of my discussion with you. Saying, "I mistrust world opinion on Jews," does not equate to, "The only reason the world doesn't like Israel is because they're antisemitic." It just doesn't.
So you mistrust world opinion on Jews because of anti-Jewish sentiment, i.e. anti-Semitism. Which means you think that that likely plays a part in the world view of Israel, a significant part or you wouldn't have brought the issue up.
"Can't you think of any other reasons besides the one you stated (anti-Semitism) for the dislike of Israel" is a perfectly reasonable response to that statement, vaguely as it was stated. Yes, I didn't ponder it deeply. I didn't consider whether you were stating that anti-Semitism was the only main reason for the dislike of Israel, or merely a significant one. How deliberately awful of me.
quote:And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you also like a pony?
Alright, I take it back. I wouldn't like to hear your response at all, not if it's going to have that level of constructiveness.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
Well, we were talking about world support for Israel. However, thats a measurable thing, as opposed to say, which side is more moral which is not measurable.
Specifically
quote: Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
and
quote:Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is
are statements that can be verified by seeing whether there is support for Israel and how it ranks with other nations.
In specific, Israel has world support to about the same amount that North Korea has world support (which is to say, not much) and support from the Western world for Israel is not significantly off-average from the rest of the world (since Europe balances the US).
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by sinflower:
quote:So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Haha, nice way of putting it. We're just haggling over the details... such as all the facts about the conflict at hand...
Although to be fair that's how this whole conversation has gone. I did much of the same thing with my argument that there isn't a strict line between civilians and combatants, didn't I? And then we all just haggled over the... details.
So in the spirit of haggling, I'd like to mention that those upwards of 6,000 Palestinians, or by less conservative estimates far more than double that number, were not convicted killers or murderers or even members of any militant group. A small number of them were, no doubt. But not the majority. So assume 1,000 of Palestinians killed were all murderers. And assume the very conservative 6,000-ish estimate is the right one.
You still need to justify why 5 Palestinian lives are worth less than 1 Israeli one.
Mens rea?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ah! I see the problem now, Mucus. When I said, "...Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is..." I didn't mean that there was a majority of world support, or even a strong minority. I just meant that the thing which keeps governments (mostly the United States) supporting or at least not more strongly condemning Israeli actions is Palestinian suicide bombings. I thought I made that clear by saying it was fragile, but that wasn't very precise.
I'll note that Mucus communicated that without suggesting I said the entire world opposed Israel because it hates Jews.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Fair enough.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I am interested, though, with whether you agree or disagree. Do you still think the United States would be supporting Israel to the extent it does, and criticizing Israel to the extent it does, if it weren't for things like suicide bombings and rocket attacks?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
I don't know. I guess it depends a lot on the terms of the scenario, namely at what specific point when they (the Palestinians) became more pacifistic and to what degree.
If the Palestinians were all Gandhi-like and the Israelis were still going with the Gaza War with white phosphorus, then yes it would be more difficult for the US to maintain its military support. However, the Israelis aren't stupid and would similarly switch to less violent means. With Israel still bordered by states like Iran and Lebanon, I don't know how much of a reduction in military aid there would be. Additionally, I think it is too unrealistic for the Palestinians to go the full Gandhi, so you're really looking at a more modest reduction
Nevertheless, on that aforementioned ranking, you would expect Israel to climb out of the ranks of rogue nations and into the lower middle alongside the China* and US.
* which in fact does have a more modest Muslim terrorism problem. That sort of points toward the results of a moderate terrorism reduction for the Palestinians, they're still Muslim and with the War on Terror, that limits international sympathy. But at least they wouldn't both be condemned with the "a pox on both your houses" attitude that dominates internationally among uninvolved nations.
If you stretch the scenario backward with the Palestinians back in time, maybe someone more familiar with Israeli immigration would be able to answer the question as to whether the Palestinians could have stayed in Israel if they were more pacifistic and worked toward equality within one state. It may be the case that a more black-and-white issue of apartheid might be harder for the US to overlook than a greyer terrorism issue. But I have no idea if that was ever an option.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mucus,
quote: If the Palestinians were all Gandhi-like and the Israelis were still going with the Gaza War with white phosphorus, then yes it would be more difficult for the US to maintain its military support. However, the Israelis aren't stupid and would similarly switch to less violent means. With Israel still bordered by states like Iran and Lebanon, I don't know how much of a reduction in military aid there would be. Additionally, I think it is too unrealistic for the Palestinians to go the full Gandhi, so you're really looking at a more modest reduction
First of all, if the Israelis switched to less violent means, wouldn't that immediately make things better for the Palestinians? Given that more Palestinians are killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians.
Second, military aid is not the only measure of US support of Israel. When, for example, President Obama 'shuns and humiliates' Israeli leaders, that certainly has an impact on what the Israeli government will direct the IDF to do in the future. Our support does not consist only of giving them guns, tanks, and jets and then saying, "Do what you like with them." What we would permit done in order to ensure continuing military aid, too, would change. And that also would quickly make things better for the Palestinians.
As you pointed out, American public opinion on Israel basically amounts to 7:2:1 in terms of non-involvement, support Israel, and support Palestinians. Change one person in seven's mind about whom to support, and support is equally divided. Change two in seven and it's a blowout. Will the Israeli lobby continue to be powerful? Well, of course. I'm not talking about an abrupt change in fortune for the Palestinian people. Things don't work that way, even in guerrilla war campaigns, much less non-violent protest campaigns.
But how long have Palestinians (please note I did not say all) been trying the suicide bombing of civilians approach? And how long has it been a complete and total failure in terms of making things better for Palestinians?
Speaking generally now and not to you specifically, Mucus, I continue to be baffled at resistance or argument against the idea that nonviolent protest would make things better for the Palestinians. Why not try it? Organized, nation-state violence has failed. Individual suicide bombing violence has failed. International terrorism against the West has failed. Perhaps the sane next step for Palestinian 'militants' would be something not involving targeting civilians for death?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Actually, I do not believe I commented on whether things would be better for the Palestinians. In fact, I'm not sure if I have ever commented on that. I have been commenting on the specific issue of international support and/or perception.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Looking back, I see that's true. I guess I thought the conversation had grown to include that, my mistake.
(Looking even further back, I probably ought not to have put the Mucus heading there up top, since I wasn't speaking just to you.)
Anyway, I still support for both parties is subject in large part to the way they are perceived over time (obviously). I also think things like military aid are subject to support-so I don't see how a change in perception wouldn't result in a change in military aid.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Well, I didn't say no change, I said modest reduction.
I guess I would model it something like this (warning, totally made-up numbers): If I were to explain military aid to Israel from the US, I would roughly divide it into 40%: Aid against Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc. (also allow for plausible deniability in attacks against Iran) 20%: Aid in sympathy against Palestinian terrorism 30%: Aid for domestic purposes (say 10% Israeli lobby, 5% economic since 75% of US aid must be spent on US arms)
So a full Gandhi approach might shave the military aid by 25% at most, which is good but modest. But also, as I said it is unlikely that all Palestinians would buy into this, so a 80% reduction in terrorism might get you more of a 21% reduction.
It is true that Obama's tongue lashing as an example of change in non-military support might also affect Israel, but I would say that remains to be determined. If the leadership follows a more Lisa approach, they might do something the opposite out of spite Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Would that it were so.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Would that it were so.
I think Blayne is confusing AIPAC with the Zionist shadow conspiracy that controls all the world's financial institutions, media, and governments behind the scenes.
It's a reasonable misunderstanding, I think. Their names are pretty similar.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I find it ironic when a group that uses the Old Testement as a historical and moral backing for wanting a particular piece of land then complains about the morality of the military actions of their enemies.
This is actually a very good point. For my part I find it odd (from the perspective of logical consistency) for orthodox Jews, who I presume must be literalists about the events of Numbers and Deuteronomy, to have a big problem with the targeting of civilians and children. There were no Amorite children left alive by the time the Israelites were done with them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why is it either ironic or odd? It's only ironic or odd if you believe that the people you're describing, those using the OT as historical and moral backing, don't actually believe that God commanded the people in the OT to do what they did.
If they believe that was so then, and that they are commanded to behave in a certain way now, and that their enemies are not given such permission by God...where is the irony or hypocrisy?
You could argue that there is wrongness or something to be found there, but that's a different thing. The zing here doesn't zing.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_Frank:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Would that it were so.
I think Blayne is confusing AIPAC with the Zionist shadow conspiracy that controls all the world's financial institutions, media, and governments behind the scenes.
It's a reasonable misunderstanding, I think. Their names are pretty similar.
Hah.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
It seems very odd if one assumes, as believers generally do, that when God demands an action it means that sort of action isn't atrociously wrong. When God commands Adam to go forth and multiply, we infer that multiplying is generally a good thing. In fact, if it were evil then God would have just done something wrong by commanding it. Seems impossible.
It's not like he ordered these deaths as a test of faith, like when Abraham was ordered to kill Isaac. He actually wanted the Amorite civilians dead. So I fail to see how a believing Jew who reads this passage literally could universally condemn attacks on civilians without granting that God sometimes does the wrong thing.
A more nuanced perspective would be to say that civilian deaths are sometimes a necessary evil, and that's why God was willing to command them. But then one can't consistently say something like
quote:Meanwhile, the Arabs laud murderers of civilians. Not "enemies", sinflower. Civilians. And not as collateral damage, either. They deliberately target civilians. And you making excuses for that makes you a moral viper. Scum.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
To put it another way, and phrase things in parallel with Lisa: the Jews laud murderers of civilians, and not as collateral damage. It's just that the murderers they laud (such as Joshua) are supposed to have lived a very long time ago.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I can't speak to a Jewish interpretation of those texts, Destineer, but I can very easily imagine one overriding thing you seem to be forgetting. Someone using those texts as moral and historical support would likely think God commanded those killings.
It's very unlikely (to put it mildly) that they feel the same can be said of suicide bombing killings going on today. God commanded one, not the other. Granting your premise that those past killings were wrong, is it actually very odd at all to think that God could command something bad be done to make things turn out better? And that, if so, those bad things while still bad are acceptable?
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:Granting your premise that those past killings were wrong, is it actually very odd at all to think that God could command something bad be done to make things turn out better? And that, if so, those bad things while still bad are acceptable?
Sorry, are we supposed to be disagreeing here? How is this different from my statement above?
quote:A more nuanced perspective would be to say that civilian deaths are sometimes a necessary evil, and that's why God was willing to command them.
And how can someone who believes this make a blanket condemnation of targeting civilians?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:And how can someone who believes this make a blanket condemnation of targeting civilians?
I don't think they actually are doing so. The, "...when God commands us..." part is implicit but unspoken.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
But what principle was God using when he decided to order the killing? Presumably, that it was worth it to kill civilians in service of the greater good. Well, some Palestinians think they're in just that sort of situation.
Also, I suspect the Palestinians think that God has commanded them to do what they're doing, since they probably see it as a way of meeting the obligation to take part in jihad.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure if we can connect on this, Destineer. I think (and again, can't speak for Jewish readings of these texts) that what justified those killings in the past wasn't, "God commanded them," in general, that it was acceptable because they believed God commanded them.
It was acceptable, they believe, because God did command them. You're approaching the matter as though the people who look to these events as moral and historical justification are doing so in some sort of abstract, when I think it's quite a bit more specific than that.
Killing is acceptable when God commands it, but only if God has actually commanded it. Obviously they don't think God has commanded the killing of Israelis, thus it's not acceptable, and thus having a problem with it is not odd or ironic.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
I see the distinction, but I don't see how it solves the problem. God's decisions about what to command have to be justified by some moral principles. It's not like he could just say "Poof, killing is always right, go do it. So sayeth Me."
There must be some deeper principle of justification behind God's command that the Israelites murder indigenous tribes on their way to the promised land. So what I'd like to see, from the orthodox Jewish critic of the Palestinians, is an explanation of why that same principle couldn't justify Palestinian suicide bombing.
Such an explanation would have to be longer and more involved than "They killed civilians, period. They're evil." To pretend otherwise seems to me inconsistent with Jewish scripture.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Destineer,
How much do you know about Jewish scripture, particularly as it is most commonly interpreted by Orthodox Jews? I'm only asking because I know very, very little, so it's difficult for me to understand what framework you're coming from. It really reads like you're doing quite a bit of projection.
quote: There must be some deeper principle of justification behind God's command that the Israelites murder indigenous tribes on their way to the promised land. So what I'd like to see, from the orthodox Jewish critic of the Palestinians, is an explanation of why that same principle couldn't justify Palestinian suicide bombing.
I would be surprised to learn there wasn't some deeper principle of justification involved. One very easy to imagine would would be, "To help Israel." This would apply thousands of years ago, but most definitely wouldn't apply today, to Palestinians killing Israeli civilians.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I hope I'm not stirring a pot that shouldn't be stirred by saying this, but in a modern international context, "God authorized it" is useless. As a justification it can only work in private. No one else [outside your religious community, at the limit] will believe you. No one will give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard if there is some question of mutual importance on the line, let alone vital importance. They will react to what you do as if God didn't authorize anything.
I'd sleep a little easier if I thought no one these days was under the impression that God has issued standing orders to kill. (Not a lot easier, since there is an overabundance of other reasons people are killing other people. ) But anyone who really holds such a belief is a moron if they think that carries any weight with anyone else. And anyone else would be foolish to cede anything on such a basis.
Critics of Palestinian suicide bombers (for example) don't need to explain why religious motivation isn't good enough or even a mitigating factor. It'd be insane to give that kind of weight to beliefs that are not shared. I do think it's worthwhile to examine the situation in terms of why people are doing things, since that's the only way to determine with any hope of accuracy whether they'll continue to do them, but that's an analysis of cause and effect, not whether actions are justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing that up, scifibum. Destineer and I weren't talking about whether or not the justifications were really good enough, then or now, but whether it was odd, ironic, or hypocritical for someone who believed God commanded the death of civilians then to be critical of those killing civilians now without, they obviously believe, God's command.
Posted by Destineer (Member # 821) on :
quote:I would be surprised to learn there wasn't some deeper principle of justification involved. One very easy to imagine would would be, "To help Israel." This would apply thousands of years ago, but most definitely wouldn't apply today, to Palestinians killing Israeli civilians.
Yeah, that's probably the idea. Good point. I guess you're right that I'm taking these ideas out of their proper context. I have a hard time comprehending a picture in which God favors one ethnic group over all others.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Well, the people who believe God commanded people to take over countries in the first place obvious have no problem with it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I'm not entirely sure why you're bringing that up, scifibum. Destineer and I weren't talking about whether or not the justifications were really good enough, then or now, but whether it was odd, ironic, or hypocritical for someone who believed God commanded the death of civilians then to be critical of those killing civilians now without, they obviously believe, God's command.
Yeah... I got that. I was trying to make the point that it would ALWAYS be odd for anyone to credit anyone else's claim of divine justification if they don't share the same religious beliefs. Everyone should be critical of that kind of reasoning, and anyone offering it should expect the reasoning to be rejected outright.
It's not hypocritical unless you expect others to accept your own claim of divine justification while denying theirs...and I don't see anyone doing that. They may be open about their reasons, but they don't act incredulous when people don't say "OK, well if God said so, then I guess I'll just let you do whatever you want."
(At least, I haven't seen any examples where it appears that someone who wants to kill for their God seems to expect others outside the same religious community to let it slide on principle. They either take it for granted that they'll be at war with anyone who dares, or they feel they have practical impunity.)
I think I'm agreeing with you actually - just trying another way to address this specifically:
quote:So what I'd like to see, from the orthodox Jewish critic of the Palestinians, is an explanation of why that same principle couldn't justify Palestinian suicide bombing.
...just saying "nothing could justify religiously motivated killing if you don't share the religion." If Destineer wants to know whether people, including Jews, recognize that the "same principle" is involved, then I'd say yes they recognize that, but are likely to insist that the principle is being misapplied in one or all cases, so it doesn't really matter.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
It's not hypocritical unless you expect others to accept your own claim of divine justification while denying theirs...and I don't see anyone doing that. They may be open about their reasons, but they don't act incredulous when people don't say "OK, well if God said so, then I guess I'll just let you do whatever you want."
Even if there were such a situation, it wouldn't be hypocrisy. There's only hypocrisy if you examine it from the outside looking in, and apply your own standards where all religious justifications are already equally suspect.
The people inside, the people you're looking at, probably don't think their religious justifications are suspect, but rather that theirs are divinely inspired, or commanded, or pick your word. So you could say to them, "Look at how dangerous this kind of thinking is, look at how many people it could apply to if we accepted it from you, and that's why we won't take that as sufficient justification." But you can't say, "You're being hypocritical for saying your religious claim is good but someone else's different religious claim isn't good."
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:But you can't say, "You're being hypocritical for saying your religious claim is good but someone else's different religious claim isn't good."
Not quite what I was getting at. This a completely hypothetical situation where I see some hypocrisy:
"My religion claim is good and you should therefore willingly allow it to take precedence over your own vital interests. However, your religious claim means nothing to me."
That doesn't really happen too often. People often try to run with a religious agenda over objections of others, but you don't see them going so far beyond the pale as to expect those others to just happily die in service to that agenda. So in practice, generally, there isn't that particular kind of hypocrisy.
Just perceiving a difference between the validity of your own religious claim and someone else's doesn't amount to the same sort of thing, and I agree it wouldn't be hypocrisy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
scifibum,
quote:"My religion claim is good and you should therefore willingly allow it to take precedence over your own vital interests. However, your religious claim means nothing to me."
Where is the hypocrisy here, however slight? That's what I don't understand. In the (as you say, hypothetical) situation you're describing, the speaker doesn't view their claim as good because it's religious, thus making it equivalent to the second set of religious claims. The speaker views it as good because it is the right religious claim. It's only hypocritical to claim one's own beliefs as good justification but not someone else's beliefs as good justification if the justification lies only in the fact that they are the beliefs the person holds. Does that make sense? I'm having difficulty thinking of a good way to say it.
quote:Just perceiving a difference between the validity of your own religious claim and someone else's doesn't amount to the same sort of thing, and I agree it wouldn't be hypocrisy.
Anyway, I see when we look at the more real-world issue that brought up this discussion, we do agree. Lemme also make clear that I don't at all agree with, "My religious belief is justified because my religion is right; yours isn't because yours are wrong," and think it's a pretty uncivilized way of thinking, not to mention quite dangerous.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Shouldn't the basis of any valid system of morality include the belief that it applies equally to all people, regardless of race, country, apperance, beliefs, etc?
Any moral rules which allow one social/religious/ethnic group to do whatever they like to another group are, by default, immoral.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
It's hypocritical to expect OTHERS to listen to your claim, but to ignore another claim that has exactly the same evidence supporting it as your claim does. It's not necessarily hypocritical for YOU to believe your claim is right and their claim is wrong, but if you can't provide a metric for a not-currently-believers to judge between good and bad beliefs, it's hypocritical to expect them to follow some but not all faith-based claims.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Who said it shouldn't? I was only ever rejecting the notion that there is hypocrisy in claiming justification for past civilian deaths at the command of God and not accepting claimed justification of modern deaths not commanded (it is believed by the hypothetical Jews we're discussing) by God.
quote:Any moral rules which allow one social/religious/ethnic group to do whatever they like to another group are, by default, immoral.
I can't speak to a Jewish reading of their own scriptures, but I am pretty sure this is not what actually happened, even back on the way to Israel.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I can't speak to a Jewish reading of their own scriptures, but I am pretty sure this is not what actually happened, even back on the way to Israel.
I'm not going to put words into anyone's mouth, but I've read what Joshua, for just one example, did to the people he fought, and I'm fairly certain that nobody would think it's OK for their enemies to do that to them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I'm not going to put words into anyone's mouth, but I've read what Joshua, for just one example, did to the people he fought, and I'm fairly certain that nobody would think it's OK for their enemies to do that to them.
I was objecting to your characterization of what happened as a set of moral rules which allowed the Jews to do 'whatever they liked' to another group. I wasn't objecting to your description of events, but to their motivation and to the way those stories are told today.
quote:I'm not going to put words into anyone's mouth, but I've read what Joshua, for just one example, did to the people he fought, and I'm fairly certain that nobody would think it's OK for their enemies to do that to them.
Is this somehow relevant to the discussion we were having?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: Shouldn't the basis of any valid system of morality include the belief that it applies equally to all people, regardless of race, country, apperance, beliefs, etc?
Any moral rules which allow one social/religious/ethnic group to do whatever they like to another group are, by default, immoral.
When defining a moral system a lot of work goes into who is covered by it - e.g. who are the 'moral agents' or 'persons'. For example, in the abortion debate a contentious point is whether or not the foetus is a person. It's a tough question. If 'consciousness' is the criterion for personhood, then, clearly, our behavior towards many animals is highly immoral. If rationality is the criterion, then this removes protections from the severely mentally handicapped, patients in comas and newborns.
To your examples - I have a hard time understanding why traits such as race, religion etc should have any bearing on one's personhood. However, if I believed a given sub-population were God's Chosen, then I'm not sure that it's invalid to give them a higher degree of personhood.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
For the purpose of the discussion at hand, Lisa, and presumably other Jews view Israel as theirs by right of God giving it to them. Many Muslims also view it as theirs because their God gave it to them.
Some of the Palestinians today seem to think it's acceptable to target civilians, children, and non-combatants in their quest to "reclaim their land."
If you read the Old Testement, the Israelites frequently engaged in the same type of warfare against their enemies.
I find it absurd to claim that a behavior that is reprehensible when used against you is perfectly acceptable for you to use, simply because your God told you that it's OK.
Anyone can say that to justify their behavior, and obviously they do.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) But anyone who really holds such a belief is a moron if they think that carries any weight with anyone else. And anyone else would be foolish to cede anything on such a basis.