posted
Strangely enough, there are disproportionately more of these people living in a region torn by european colonialism, US-USSR tensions, and with power structures propped up by petroleum control.
Its not the culture (at least in the general sense) causing these things, its the recent history. There are people with similar culture living in several regions of the world that get along well as most other people in the world do.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: We took the Sinai in 1956, and then gave it back. We took it again in 1967, and gave it back.
So when they going to quit giving it back? Why is it the looser who decides the concessions.
Because we have people in power in Israel who simply aren't willing to win. Look at what's happening now. Do you have any doubts that we'll be pulling back out of Gaza -- again! -- despite the insanity that doing it last year caused?
quote:Originally posted by Jay: Well said. For some reason it’s ok to attack Israel but when they defend themselves they’re the bad guys. I’m surprised they’ve put up with it for as long as they have.
There was an Israeli show that was on Broadway about 35 years ago, or so, called "To Live Another Summer, To Pass Another Winter". One of the songs on it was called "We're Sorry We Won It". The chorus went:
quote:We're sorry we won it We must have overdone it We know quite well that a Jew has his place A Jew who is a winner is a -- disgrace
Oh, please world Excuse us We're asking you for forgiveness We're awfully sorry We're sorry we won the war.
It was between 1967 and 1973, as I recall. The last verse went something like:
quote:Well, now it's done And we promise you quite truly A promise we know you will not misuse When faced with peril From prince or sheikh or cooley We promise we'll do everything to lose
And once again the world can shed its tears And cry and pray we make it out somehow You've been just wonderful to us through all these years We wouldn't want to spoil your pleasure now.
It's amazing how little changes.
Oh, and I was telling myself I won't reply to this because the part of Hatrack I dwell in is VBS.
"The people in power in Israel aren't willing to win"? I s'pose that's only true by your definition of "winning". Does "winning" equate ruling over millions of people with minimal - if any - rights? Does "winning" mean ruling over "the whole of the Holy Land?" From Perth to the Hidekel (yes, I know it has a name in English. Can't remember it.) Does winning mean killing more innocent people? I think the point you're missing, StarLisa, that the people opposing you have been trying to tell, is that defending is one thing. Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge. Just like killing whole families - and they are getting killed - in Gaza - isn't defence. The one thing Israeli governments haven't been able to figure out over the years is that there's no such thing as "hitting them so they'd fear retaliation and stop". It never works. So more potential suicide bombers grow up hating all Jews, because they saw their families being killed. So more Israelis act like you because they refuse to admit the other side are human, too. So the killing goes on and on and on, and no one cares to stop it. Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank. It's much easier bombarding Palestinians/ Lebanese and get everyone's support. Hamas don't want peace. They know that talking to Israel means they'll have to settle for the 67 borders, and they'd be the ones blamed. Hizballah obviously don't want peace. Hating is so much easier.
As for the old anti-semitism arguement. People are allowed to critisise Israel. It's a country. It has policies. People are allowed not to agree with these policies. Some of these people are actually Israeli. As long as the critisism is justified - as logn as it's because of how Israel behaves, and not because of racism - it's OKAY. And it's quite possible to crititse military actions without being racists, sorry. People might actually start taking Israel's point seriously if everyone would have stopped crying out "racists! Racists!" everytime someone dares suggest Israel's foreign policies are less than perfect.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank.
Yeah, cause that worked so well in Gaza. The results were astounding. The terror just stopped once the Arabs saw that we were willing to render 9000 of our own people homeless for the sake of peace.
All those warmongers who thought they'd launch missiles from the abandoned areas have been proven wrong, so we should definitely try the whole thing again. But this time, ramp it up to hundreds of thousands of Jews instead. Hell, if deporting 9000 was fun, think how cool a few hundred thousand of them will be!
And hey, while we're at it, since Arabs outnumber Jews in the Galilee, we should pull out of there as well. And then there's just a small piece in the north between Arab Galilee and Lebanon, so why be dumb? Let's pull out of there, too.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Olmert doesn't want peace. If there's peace he'd have to evacuate mitnahlim from the West Bank.
Yeah, cause that worked so well in Gaza. The results were astounding. The terror just stopped once the Arabs saw that we were willing to render 9000 of our own people homeless for the sake of peace.
All those warmongers who thought they'd launch missiles from the abandoned areas have been proven wrong, so we should definitely try the whole thing again. But this time, ramp it up to hundreds of thousands of Jews instead. Hell, if deporting 9000 was fun, think how cool a few hundred thousand of them will be!
And hey, while we're at it, since Arabs outnumber Jews in the Galilee, we should pull out of there as well. And then there's just a small piece in the north between Arab Galilee and Lebanon, so why be dumb? Let's pull out of there, too.
I don't think his/her point was that Israel would evacuate the West Bank to secure peace, but rather, if peace were to break out beforehand, they'd have no reason to be in the West Bank, and the illegal settlements there would have to be evacuated in the name of the continuing peace.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Each of these poses serious, serious risks to Israel, and a solution that leaves Israel vulnerable to external attack and daily rocket attacks wouldn't be just, either.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
StarLisa: You've got a deal. That is one bet I would love to lose.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Each of these poses serious, serious risks to Israel, and a solution that leaves Israel vulnerable to external attack and daily rocket attacks wouldn't be just, either.
I agree strongly. However, I would suggest that the best solution would be closer to #3, as it would still maintain a semi-buffer-zone, which was the original intent of taking the lands to begin with. I do believe that was partially the intent of Sharon pulling settlers out of Gaza previously.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
What I've been trying to say for the past 4 pages, which obviously hasn't gotten into people's heads is that, yes, in principle that is how you win wars. However! The 60 lebanese civilians killed are not even affiliated with the group of people who attacked Israel. Israel is attacking Lebanon, when it is Hezbollah that attacked Israel. And saying that it's lebanon's fault for not disarming Hezbollah (what the UN Israeli guy said today) is ridiculous, and not anywhere near a cogent justification of their actions, since the Lebanese government has been actively trying to disarm Hezbollah, and is cooperating with all the political parties in Lebanon (including Hezbollah's political side) to take back the south.
To make an analogy: let's say that a bunch of quebec seperatists went and bombed the US for some reason, then the US turned around and killed 60 people from British Columbia, and justified it by saying, hey canada, you have a seperatist party represented in your government, and you didn't stop these people from being armed, so it's your own fault. Would you accept that?
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hum. Four versus 65 works out to about one for sixteen. Just how badly are the Israelis outnumbered, counting all the Arab countries?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: At some point, one of the following has to happen for there to be a just solution:
1.) The West Bank and Gaza are returned to Jordan and Egypt.
You can't return to someone something that wasn't theirs to begin with. Egypt never claimed ownership of Gaza, and while Jordan did claim ownership of Judea and Samaria, only Britain and Pakistan ever recognized that claim.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 2.) The West Bank and Gaza become independent states.
There's been talk about creating an independent state of Judea in Judea, Samaria and Gaza. If Israel isn't willing to annex them, that doesn't mean that Jewish ownership is lessened in any degree whatsoever.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: 3.) The people living in the West Bank and Gaza obtain political rights in Israel.
Definitely #3. Except that you probably have a misapprehension about who those people are going to be.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
One of my best friends, a Sunni Muslim, looks disgusted every time the topic of Palestine comes up. "You have to understand," he always says. "These are among the most ignorant people on the planet. They're raised in squalor and told from day one that it's Israel's fault. What do you expect will happen?"
And, well... it's impossible to disagree with him. These are ignorant, poor, and angry religious fundamentalists -- nobody (particularly other Arab countries) wants them, nobody likes them, and they grow more desperate and furious as time goes on. The only thing they really share with other Arab countries is that they hate Israel -- easily blamed for problems of their own, sort of like how religious fundamentalists here are told to focus on homosexual marriage or flag-burning instead of real issues.
Israel's attack isn't unjustifiable, but I think it'll end up hurting them in the long run. They're just confirming their status as a villain, and permitting governments to continue pointing at them and telling fundamentalists that their poverty, their misery, their safety are all products of Israeli occupation. It's not like Israel wouldn't be a scapegoat if they didn't attack, but I don't think this helped matters.
Still, I have no idea what to do. I doubt the fundamentalists there will be any less hate-filled or venomous than fundamentalists here, and without a better economy and education, their children will grow up holding the same beliefs as their fathers. If I were in Israel's place, I'd "adopt" an Arab country (with a more PC term for it) and fund education, police, and grant full-fledged democracy and autonomy after fifty years. It can't possibly cost less than multiple military strikes, and I'd think a PR campaign would do more to mend fences than defensive (if entirely reasonable) military tactics.
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:“Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”
“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”
“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists,” he said.
-Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, Iraqi speaker of parliament
posted
Israel is at the top of military research and technology, I think they know what a UAV is.
And really, a crude toy plane, so long as it can reach it's target with a payload, is pretty much all you need for it to be classified as a UAV or cruise missile. Predators and Global Hawks are a few generations ahead, but that doesn't mean we didn't start with the same thing.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hezbollah has weapons supplied by Iran. Iran for years was purchasing US weaponry until the Shah was deposed. After that, they had access to French, Russian, Chinese, and 3rd-party brokered sales of weapons from just about anywhere.
Assuming that those countries do about the same as we do and bar sales of their best, most current stuff except to close allies, it's likely that Iran has 10-year old stuff.
They probably keep the best stuff for themselves and supply Hez with the older stuff that they bought earlier or get at cut rates due to it being so outmoded.
So, thinking maybe Falklands war era stuff.
Plenty deadly.
Not incredibly accurate by today's standards.
But good enough to blow holes in warships (for example), or deliver high payloads into areas over the horizon.
Frankly, this is not junk to be ignored. It can kill lots of people, isn't really likely to be used with an eye toward military targets, and given Iran's deep pockets, Hez probably has a crap-load of it.
Israel has better stuff, to be sure, but they also have more at stake if they use it, and more at stake if they don't. Certainly Hezbollah has almost nothing at stake. Israel could destroy Lebanon for all they care.
By the way, the price of oil ratcheted up a huge amount this week. Among the countries that profited by this: Iran.
Iran has paid off its national debt, btw. That's how well they are doing these days.
I personally would like to see the US go into immediate oil rationing and to bar purchase of oil from any country that doesn't immediately denounce Hezbollah.
I would like to see sanctions against Iran for their support of Hezbollah.
And I'd like to see us come down firmly on the side of descalation of the current conflict at the same time.
The thing that really sucks about this is that the common people on ALL sides are the ones who are going to suffer most. The Lebanese people aren't going to fare well. The Palestinians aren't going to fare well. The Israeli citizenry in the reachable areas (like Haifa) aren't going to fare well.
Iran is sitting off at a distance pulling strings like a puppet master.
This is a very dangerous thing because eventually the idea of stopping them is going to become the #1 priority -- even greater than Iraq.
I fear that conflict not because of Iran's greater weaponry -- they still aren't THAT powerful that we couldn't pretty much roll over them if we HAD to. But I fear the aftermath of the amount of destruction we would have to wreak in that country to dislodge the malignant regime there.
More important than that is the response of the rest of the Arab world to the US taking on Iran when they haven't committed any government troops to the conflict.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:WHAT?!? What do you mean by "die in the pursuit of peace" exactly? Accept attacks from others without any kind of retaliation?! In that case, there would be no Israel at all right now.
I would say their retalliations right now are bringing Israel much closer to destruction than any of their negotiations towards peace ever did. If Israel ceases to exist at the end of this all, it will not be because of their attempts to compromise towards peace, but rather because of their willingness to choose war instead.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Iran has also amassed 40 billion dollars in foreign reserves too off of the high price of oil. If not for the high price of oil, their economy would be in shambles. It's corrupt, and so heavily dependent on the high price of oil, and oil exports, that if everyone in the world stopped buying from them, or if the price of oil dropped dramatically, it'd put a stranglehold on their economy, and would go further to impoverish 60 million people. Which puts us in a fairly strong position to demand concessions from them.
With the Dow losing 300 pts in three days, and things looking like an economic slowdown, and the general position of the US economy, I think switching to oil rationing right now is almost out of the question. I think, for the long term health of the nation, it'd be smart. But Bush would never take that drastic a move.
The best way to cool tension from the Muslim world after such a dramatic move against Iran would be to put heavy pressure on Israel to pull back all its forces from foreign territory, including Gaza. Saudi Arabia, at least their government, will go along with it, and Egypt and Jordan as well. That's the grand majority of the rest of the Muslim world, and most of the nations in question have a large US military presence in them, or are in some other way connected to us and will listen to us.
But it's all a moot point, too much would have to happen. Bush would never order an oil rationing with the way the US is right now, and even if he did, he'd never apply any serious pressure to Israel, he'd only throw some verbal suggestions at them, and they'd kindly ignore him. But even if they did, there's still the matter of Hezbollah being out there, armed and dangerous. To put Israel at ease, someone would have to disarm them, or in some way neutralize them. Lebanon doesn't have the power to do so, or the will apparently. That means an international force, probably with mostly US troops, on the ground in southern Lebanon.
We'd never even take the first step, let alone the last. But I'd love to see it happen. I don't think we'd have to invade Iran to neutralize them. An economic attack might be enough to give the moderate elements there the power they need to dislodge the conservative elements. There are powerful elements for change there, but they've been shouted down by the current regime when they solidified their power base in recent years.
But if it's not done soon, then the situation will be too out of control for it to be considered reasonable, and Iran will become too strong to be considered an easy enough target to tangle with.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: Having 65 dead Lebanese and - as cruel and unhearted as it sounds - only 4 dead Israeli citizens - isn't defence, nor it is justice. It's revenge. Not just revenge but the kind of "mine's bigger, ner!" neighbourhood-bully revenge.
No. The cold and cruel fact is that this is precisely how you win wars. He kills 4 of yours, you kill 60 of his.
Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars. People, usually the ones not making the choices, die in droves.
So, the way to end wars is to kill more of the other side's unarmed innocent civilians? Y'know, your saying that actually makes me feel better. It's the whole world that's gone bonkers, not just my little corner of it.
Yes, I know that's not what you said. I know I'm putting words in your mouth. But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means. I say it doesn't. Because one day you lost your end, and only the means are left - I see that every day in the people around me. I hope this won't be taken as a personal attack, because this is not the intention, but StarLisa is a living proof of that in this forum, and most of the people around me (Jerusalem) are like that, too. And when that's the case, you wake up one day, and discover that you survived, but everything you fought for, or believed you fought for, has long gone in the ashes of war, along with everything that made life worth living. And you're left, alive, but there's no reason to be. The 'let's kill them before they kill us' attitude makes the human race a race of monsters, not people, and takes all the humanity away of humans.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I personally would like to see the US go into immediate oil rationing and to bar purchase of oil from any country that doesn't immediately denounce Hezbollah.
I would like to see sanctions against Iran for their support of Hezbollah.
Honestly, no offense intended - but we're never going to ever see rationing happen voluntarily, it would make the US economy implode. And you can't institute a policy of not buying oil and sanctions against a nation you already don't buy oil from and have sanctions against. I understand the sentiment involved but no American politician would commit electoral suicide like that - they're far too craven.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are ways to sanction nations that are decoupled from the act of purchasing their major commodity.
And Iran is not the only supporter of Hezbollah.
I agree that this Administration is unlikely to ration oil, but we may end up in that situation anyway (at least de facto) if we go down the path of military responses to threats in the Middle East.
I personally would rather we tried this pressure first, rather than get further embroiled militarily.
Glad you found my post so amusing though.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
No. By saying that this is what is needed in order to win a war, he's saying - at least, to the best of my understanding and interpretation - that there's no other way to win a war. So, if you're in a war - regardless the reason, whether it's right or wrong, or anything else - you want to win. And if you believe innocent civilians being killed is a necessary part - even if you do believe it's an evil part - of war, that's what's going to happen. And the end - winning the war - comes to justify the means.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree that there are many different types of sanctions (though in the specific case of Iran I'm not sure there are many more that we could throw at them) and I also concede there are other nations that support Hezbollah (but I doubt any of them would say as such in your hypothetical situation - save Iran who would probably have the stones to give the finger to Uncle Sam).
My overarching point is that any competent administration is unlikely to risk price level upset, whether de facto or intentional. To use some hyperbole, they'd sooner give Iran the nukes to blow all of Palestine into the Mediterranean than deal with an American public enraged with the consequences of oil suddenly being >$120/bl. We already had to deal with one smaller supply shock with Iraq. The results of taking another 6-7% of world supply off the market coupled with de facto Iranian military control of the Strait of Hormuz could be enough to seriously derail an already shaky global economy.
And again, I wasn't trying to be snarky with a chuckle. It's just the idea of anyone in power in the US writing up foreign policy based on principle. They've been more Morgenthau than Wilson since the 1940s.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll give him some props - he can grow my peanuts anytime. Not so sure about foreign policy though.
Posts: 183 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: But the thing is, you're saying that the end justifies the means.
No, he's not. Read:
quote:Whether the war is justified, whether Israel should have the land, whether there is a good guy or a bad guy, this is what happens when people try to win wars.
He's stating something about war, not whether it's justified. He even pointed this out explicitly in a vain attempt to prevent misinterpretation such as yours.
No. By saying that this is what is needed in order to win a war, he's saying - at least, to the best of my understanding and interpretation - that there's no other way to win a war.
Correct so far.
quote:Originally posted by Pitry: So, if you're in a war - regardless the reason, whether it's right or wrong, or anything else - you want to win. And if you believe innocent civilians being killed is a necessary part - even if you do believe it's an evil part - of war, that's what's going to happen. And the end - winning the war - comes to justify the means.
You're confusing a statement of consequences - "to achieve X you must do Y" - with a statement of moral judgment - "achieving X is worth the costs of Y." The statements aren't equivalent.
Your original post said Israel was seeking "bully" revenge, not justice. Jim-Me correctly pointed out that Israel is seeking neither. They are seeking to win a war.
Only had Jim-Me said it was justified would your "ends-means" analysis be correct. And he didn't. Moreover, he specifically said he wasn't making any such judgment.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good points. For example, Jim-Me's analysis is much the same as the one I use to conclude that all war is morally wrong on some level and should be avoided with as much effort as we can possibly bring to bear.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, now I see where the problem is. Neither you nor me nor Jim-Me's original post, but our culture.
We both agree Jim-Me said that there's no way of winning a war without hurting innocent people. Moreover, that the degree to which civilians are getting hurt in the current Middle Eastern conflict is within the acceptable margins of that definition. That's what I disagree with. You could think me naive - and who knows, maybe you're right - but I think the human race has evolved beyond that. That it is possible to fight a war - and obviously, I agree with Bob's conclusion that all wars are bad and we're much ebtter not fighting them - but that isn't the point. Even if a war is fought, my own personal belief is that it can be done without that many civilians getting hurt in the process.
Now - again, in my own personal, humble opinion - saying that it isn't possible is a way of jusitfying the means. Sometimes you have no choice but go to war. Current Israeli situation outside the discussion, because I don't believe this is one of these situations, sometimes, hypothetically, that could happen. And while I know no one takes the Geneva convention seriously, that was an idea made exactly to stress that point - even if you are at war, there should be a line drawn somewhere. So saying that line doesn't exist - which JM didn't say - or that it exists much farther away is, in my opinion, a justification of the means. It could be that I'm looking at the expression in a much broader way - obviously a very different one because this is my third post on the subject and I still don't know if my belief would get across - but that is what I believe in. And saying that "X is a necessary outcome of Y" is a moral judgement, because I disagree with that very statement.
ETA: and to explain the culture comment at the beginning of my post, I still feel I've not clarified myself enough so maybe that'll do it - the belief that a war can't be fought without many civilians getting hurt is a cultural thing. It's not a fact, in my opinion. But because our culture accepts that as a fact, rather than a judgement, this arugement occured. IMHO, again.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:nd saying that "X is a necessary outcome of Y" is a moral judgement, because I disagree with that very statement
???
Just because you disagree with a statement makes it a moral judgemnt?
btw, I didn't say all war is bad. Specifically, I said all war is morally wrong on some level. I believe that because, in part, one cannot enter into a war without first accepting the notion that innocent people are going to die as a result of your actions.
Ultimately, people justify war on many bases, but ONE of those bases is that fewer innocent people will die this way than if the war isn't faught. A closely-related, but less morally acceptable (to me) justification is that fewer of YOUR OWN innocent people will die this way.
These may seem like fine distinctions, but I think they are actually very important. And saying "all war is bad" is not really a tenable position in any discussion of the issue. It's a nice sound bite, but ultimately unconvincing when people are being killed by enemy forces, no?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just gonna throw in a comment. This thread has skirted the line pretty closely, and gone over it a couple times. However, those times always seem to be when I'm away from the computer (or my house), and things have calmed down and even been semi-productive when I return. But I don't think that means it's ok. I hate locking the threads, because the topic is extremely important. But I also don't want to edit 15 posts because one person crosses the line.
Especially on this topic, but on others as well, there are some steps that seem to be brought up: A) Here is when it began. B) Here are the pertinent facts. C) Here is what those facts mean. D) Here are the intentions of people involved. E) Here are the possible/plausible solutions. F) Here are the positives and negatives of each. G) Here is the best course of action.
In every single one of those steps there is disagreement, which is why (in my opinion) these threads rarely go anywhere. I just wonder sometimes if it might be more productive to approach those steps separately, instead of the mishmash that usually occurs. Just don't know exactly how to do that.
Ok, that was mostly me as Papa Moose rather than me as Papa Janitor, but I didn't log out and back in. Please forgive.
Anyway, back to the PJ portion. I don't want to lock the thread, but if (a) personal attacks or (b) racist/cultural attacks occur again, I will lock the thread and will not reopen it. This is frustrating to me, and I'm sure it's frustrating to most of you, especially those who are careful not to employ such attacks. I don't care which direction they occur, because as moderator I'm not taking sides on the issue (or trying not to, anyway).
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:“Some people say, 'We saw you beheading, kidnappings and killing. In the end we even started kidnapping women who are our honor,'” al-Mashhadani said. “These acts are not the work of Iraqis. I am sure that he who does this is a Jew and the son of a Jew.”
“I can tell you about these Jewish, Israelis and Zionists who are using Iraqi money and oil to frustrate the Islamic movement in Iraq and come with the agent and cheap project.”
“No one deserves to rule Iraq other than Islamists,” he said.
-Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, Iraqi speaker of parliament
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Don't you think you're devaluing your own argument when you begin to identify with or at least compare yourself (in what you seem to think is a positive way) to the thing which you speak with such invective and anger about?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In order not to close this thread down, I decided not to respond to every commment, and mainly be not reading the whole thread. I'll just state my POV:
Israel isn't attacking Lebanon for the sole reason of returning the two soldiers - in fact, the news hasn't really mentioned them in the past two days, so I guess people don't really find that as the focus of the attack. The whole story with the soldiers taken captive is just the straw the broke the camel's back, and most of the focus has now turned to the killed civilians; did the IDF know? Almost certainly.
When the IDF attacked Gaza about a week ago, nothing came out of it. It was a lot of noise, but the soldier didn't return; when the Hezbollah decided to 'show' solidarity, it was an insult and another blow to the army. But the Hezbollah is a very hypocritical, even cynical organisation - it allegedly tries to show the Palestinians that it aides (aids? Can't remember the difference in the verbs) them by attacking the IDF and hurting Israel, but it wasn't very helpful towards the Palestinians in refugee camps in Lebanon.
I seriously don't know what to do - this whole thing is weird. I've spoken to some Palestinian Arabs whom I know, and I just find most people to be sick of this whole situation. But one thing is certain - terrorism must be abolished on both sides of the spectrum (some behaviour on the IDF's part, and the various terrorist groups like the Hammas and Hezbollah), in order for peace.
Israel has the right to defend itself from the sort of things Hezbollah has been doing in the past six years, when Lebanon did nothing on its part (in spite of a UN decree) to stop the terrorist group. Civilians get killed in the process, but please note the IDF is warning Lebanese citizens to stay sheltered, and it tries to eliminate the Hezbollah's HQ. True, you can't do everything perfectly, but it's an attempt to eliminate cases like that when a couple of terrorists burst into a school in the north and start killing children.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Your experience in talking to Palestinians sounds similar to my own. I've come to picture the Palestinian populace as a mostly peace-loving people who are lorded over by a few incredibly violent people with all the weapons.
I'm not sure how realistic a picture that is, but when I was there, I didn't meet a single person who even hated Israel. I know there were some out there (because there were some rock-throwing incidents that weekend). There was a lot of bitterness over border closings and home demolitions, but even with the settlers in their midst, there wasn't a lot of anger towards Israel.
But there's also (dare I say it?) a fairly typical "macho" streak that says no slight (real or imagined) will go without retaliation.
Interestingly, this was true of the Israeli Jews I met too (by that I mean the ones born and raised there or at least in the Middle East).
It reminded me a lot of South America in that respect. That a man's honor was on the line all day every day, and anything that happened to him was viewed as either enhancing or impugning his honor and was dealt with in those terms.
Destroying a man's house was like emasculating him and was a slight that could not go unanswered, for example.
<edit: I deleted some stuff that might be over the line in terms of over-generalizations. I realize I have limited exposure to the semitic cultures as expressed in this particular region. I could be wrong, but that's what I came away feeling.>
I think it's at least worth remembering that "an eye for an eye" was initially a call for moderation. We in the West (and especially the Christian tradition) view that as an out-moded call for instant retaliation in kind. But originally it was thought to be a way to stop things from escalating -- you don't kill a man for putting out your eye, you just take his eye, and thent it's over.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
If you think I don't recognize that Israel and the Jewish people have been the victims of injustice at the hands of Arab nations and the Palestinians, you quite simply haven't been paying attention.
It doesn't make what I said any less true. The forced resettlement of 4 million people will be an incredible injustice.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'll tell you the truth - as an Israeli Jew, it's virtually impossible for me to reach the more extremist, Jew/Israel hating, racist Palestinians, because they avoid contact with the likes of me. But I've seen some of the worse parts of bigotry on the Jewish/Israeli side, and it's pretty gruesome.
I don't know how this thing will end-up, let's just hope that for the better.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
Don't you think you're devaluing your own argument when you begin to identify with or at least compare yourself (in what you seem to think is a positive way) to the thing which you speak with such invective and anger about?
I'm doing no such thing. Transfer of populations in order to avoid friction is not a terrible thing. It would have been nicer had it been mutually agreed upon ahead of time, but since it wasn't... well, it wasn't.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Anything that involves forced resettlement won't be just.
Tell the Arabs that. They kicked most of us out of their countries once Israel came into existence. That was the first stage of a transfer of populations. We simply need to carry out the other half.
If you think I don't recognize that Israel and the Jewish people have been the victims of injustice at the hands of Arab nations and the Palestinians, you quite simply haven't been paying attention.
It doesn't make what I said any less true. The forced resettlement of 4 million people will be an incredible injustice.
Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
First, amputation isn't injustice - it's a sad necessity. Second, if it were an injustice, it would be an injustice to the patient, not the leg. Here, you're committing an injustice to one party to benefit another.
Your analogy is so specious as to beggar belief. If you really do advocate the forced relocation of these four million people, then you are an advocate of evil.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Amputating a limb is an incredible injustice. But sometimes it's necessary in order to save the patient.
First, amputation isn't injustice - it's a sad necessity.
Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Second, if it were an injustice, it would be an injustice to the patient, not the leg. Here, you're committing an injustice to one party to benefit another.
I disagree that it's an injustice to them. I think they'll be better off as well.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Your analogy is so specious as to beggar belief. If you really do advocate the forced relocation of these four million people, then you are an advocate of evil.
No, I am not. It is the just and proper thing to do. It should have been done 39 years ago. But better late than never.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If it is "necessary" to start sending people away from their homes against their will, why not just send the Israelis elsewhere? That would achieve the same thing without provoking the ire of the neighboring nations.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Then sending the Arabs elsewhere is a sad necessity.
No, it's evil. And if you think this is a good thing, then you are either evil yourself or a pawn of evil.
quote:I disagree that it's an injustice to them. I think they'll be better off as well.
How wonderful for them that you're here to tell them what's best for them.
Considering the offense you took when someone suggested the Jews should be grateful for what the Romans did in A.D. 70, I'm kind of surprised you'd even say that, much less mean it.
quote:No, I am not. It is the just and proper thing to do. It should have been done 39 years ago. But better late than never.
Proper? Why? Why is it proper to kick people out of a land they've lived in for generations?
Before this goes too far, could you please clarify what steps you think would be OUT OF BOUNDS for Israel to take in accomplishing the goal of removing Palestinians from the region?
Would you be in favor of removing them by force?
Would deadly force be okay?
What type of compensation would you be in favor of?
If there is to be no "right of return" should there be a plan for Israel to provide monetary aid to the new host countries in order to adjust to the massive influx of people?
If the UN decides that Israel shouldn't do it, do you think Israel should go ahead anyway?
If you have to fight a war with Jordan or other nations to make this happen, would you be in favor of it?
Would you think Israel should do it even under the threat of all-out warfare in the region? Given that open war would cost a lot of Israeli lives too?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would just like to add, many people are writing their posts under the false assumption that the Lebanese government has not done anything to try and disarm the Hezbollah militants in the south. I have a friend in Beirut right now (she's at the American University of Beirut, probably the safest area there for the mean time), she is there with one of my proffesors from McMaster University in Ontario. His name is Atif Kubursi, and he is a very big wig economist for the UN. He is currently second in command for the Economic and Social Commission for Western Asia, and has been heavilly involved with the Lebanese government for the past few months. Here is something she wrote on my program's forum a few days ago:
"Through Lebanon's "National Dialogue", the government had been making incremental progress towards an agreement on Hezbollah's arms. (Relatedly, the government is mandated to include all parties/sects by the Ta'if accords that ended the civil war; and many decisions are essentially done by consensus, aka each party gets a veto.) At last week's ninth national dialogue session, all participants (Christians, Druze, etc., including Hezbollah) agreed that the issue of Hezbollah's arms was to be solved in small steps... it was a huge deal that they all agreed on anything about this issue (even that the issue needed solving), and analyst-types hailed it as progress.
Besides, Hezbollah's actions against Israel were probably all mandated by Iran and Syria anyway. And they certainly knew the reaction they were going to get from Israel. Hezbollah is basically putting the country hostage for their own sectarian gains.
Where does Israel think this is going to end? Do they have an exit strategy at all, never mind one where they actually leave with more than what they arrived with?"
So as you can see, they are trying to disarm Hezbollah, but when you have an extremely diverse representation in your government and you want to adhere to the principles of democracy, major changes in the socio-polotical structure of your country can take a while. Lebanon wants nothing more than for the Hezbollah militants to disarm, so it can assert soveriegnty over it's land (did anyone see the Lebanese head of state's speach yesteday, he said this), but it will take time and cooperation between many people, including the political side of Hezbollah (which for the record, isn't considered a terrorist organization by the UN, but rather as a legitimate representation of the Lebanese shiite, and they have no control over the militant side, much like the seperatist party in quebec had no control over the FLQ when they were commiting terrorist acts years ago in canada). If Israel really wants Hezbollah disarmed and Lebanon to be a stable state, they need to work in unison, not in occupation, with Lebanon.
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Israel's attack isn't unjustifiable, but I think it'll end up hurting them in the long run. They're just confirming their status as a villain, and permitting governments to continue pointing at them and telling fundamentalists that their poverty, their misery, their safety are all products of Israeli occupation. It's not like Israel wouldn't be a scapegoat if they didn't attack, but I don't think this helped matters.
is exactly what I'm worried about. Israel went into southern Lebanon after Hezbollah attacked them, and yet I have to wonder if the scale of the IDF's response is part of the reason that they are being percieved as the "aggressor."
posted
If Lebanon can't control Hezbollah, that doesn't weaken Israel's case for attacking Hezbollah themselves.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
