quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: No, you need to "grow up."
You said that both sides deliberately target civilians. Will you retract that? Or will you continue to compare home demolitions (the only thing you could come up that you could claim was a case of Israel "targetting civilians") to mass murder?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I retract nothing of my previous statement, nor do I feel obliged to treat your post, reïteration ad absurdo, with any more respect for its content than you did mine. Perhaps, if you responded to my post, rather than just the first line of it, we could get so where, but, as of now, it is clear we cannot.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Strangely enough, I swear I posted several times in this thread. As I looked for my own posts, I conceded that perhaps I had posted only once early on. Still finding no posts, I must concede I am going crazy, as I clearly have not posted in this thread at all; until now.
Pelegius: Perhaps you have answered this question but I did not find it. Assuming everything you have said concerning Israels disposition and acts are correct, (and I do not believe they are.) what is your suggested course of action that you believe Israel ought to persue. Please explain what Israel should do starting today, and what you think the ultimate ramifications are. If you can manage to be specific regarding the details of you plan for Israel that would be nice.
I think its pointless arguing about the morality of what HAS been done until both sides establish what direction should be taken in the future.
posted
BlackBlade, I am sorry, I did not see your question, which I am glad to answer.
Israel is now in a difficult situation, no one can doubt that. It is my considered opinion, which I have expressed to much derision from Lisa, that it is Israel's best interests to begin withdrawing unilateraly from the West Bank, while, at the same time, begining negotiations with Palestine. Ultimately, Israel would West Jerusalem and Palestine East Jerusalem, but both sections of the city would be secured by U.N. forces on a temporary basis.
The Nato-Mediterranean Dialogue would provide forces to aid either side were the oposite side to attack.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because, after all, pulling out from Gaza had such amazing results.
Oh, wait. No, that actually just caused the election of Hamas and the constant shelling of Israeli cities.
But hell, who cares if the Arabs use Judea and Samaria as a site for launching missiles into every single city in the entire State of Israel. The important thing is that we listen to a 17 year old's idea of how to make peace.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I retract nothing of my previous statement, nor do I feel obliged to treat your post, reïteration ad absurdo, with any more respect for its content than you did mine. Perhaps, if you responded to my post, rather than just the first line of it, we could get so where, but, as of now, it is clear we cannot.
So you stand by your assertion that bulldozing homes and targeting civilians for murder are morally equivalent? This bullheaded stubborness in the face of being plainly wrong is...well, it's so adolescent.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a comparison that does beg to be made: terrorists who are Palestinian have deliberately targeted civilians, including children. the Israeli army has fired on legitimate targets and accidently struck civilians, including children. One set of actions are perpetrated by people who are not official representatives of the people. Their actions are morally reprehensible in both intent and effect. But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people. The other set of actions are perpetrated by people who are official representatives of their government, and are only morally reprehensible in their effect, not their intent. But...the "stain" of that action spreads to the entire Israeli population because it is their government acting on their behalf -- not a bunch of outlaws. We could decide that the terrorists are less moral and more reprehensible than the Israeli army & government when they shoot at vehicles in crowded areas, but that doesn't make those actions by the army and government any more moral in an absolute sense. Now that Hamas has come into power, there's another wrinkle in all of this -- the avowed terrorists ARE the government. One could've said that about Arafat too, of course, but the point is much more salient with Hamas which is actively aggressive. Until Hamas gained power it was at least possible to say that the terrorists don't represent the people. Now, it's not so easy. One truly sad aspect of all this is that the peace-loving Palestinians are less and less likely to get a hearing. And at least for now Israel doesn't seem to acknowledge that any such people exist. If Israel treats all Palestinians as "the enemy" it will certainly prove to be true.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people.
The trouble is by any standards we use, a whole heaping helping (strong majority) of Palestinians either condone and celebrate the 'stain', or are at best apathetic about it. Which, for certain things in my opinion, is more or less agreement.
Now that Hamas controls the government I'd say it's impossible to say the terrorists don't represent the people. Terrorists who spend a lot of time doing nice things for their people, yes. But terrorists who revel in the slaughter of unarmed civilians nonetheless.
If I were an Israeli, I would be extremely exasperated at best with the idea that the Palestinian people as a group want peace after electing Hamas.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What would you have done, I'm curious, as a Palestinian?
This isn't just to Rakeesh, but to everyone. You start off with a corrupt terrorist supporting government that funnels money off to god knows where that is supposed to be used to support and feed, and educate, and house the people but isn't. You also see that zero progress is being made on bringing an end to the conflict, regardless of the outcome.
Then this other group says they will enter the elections this time. This is the group that DOES feed the children, and educate them, and runs hospitals for them and the like. But they also actively, and VOCALLY support missile strikes and targeting of civilians. Do you refuse to participate at all? Do you vote for the party that isn't corrupt and doesn't steal food from your table? Or do you choose the less vocally violent and stick with the corruption, knowing that it will lead to more of the same?
It's not like they had a third option on the ballot, the pro-Palestinian, no war, turn palestine into a shining utopia option and they all willingly turned it down in favor of bloodshed. Even if they could convince Hamas to stop their military wing from attacking Israelis, which seems much more impossible recently, it doesn't mean that the half dozen other groups will stop as well. 11 Saudis were involved in 9/11, and we didn't hold the Saudi government responsible. Though that's a horrible example, given their actions.
I don't know what the solution is, but painting all Palestinians as blood lovers just because they voted Hamas into power seems rather ignorant to me, give their lack of options, thus I honestly wonder what everyone else would do.
I think there are some connections to be made between Iraq and Palestine. You can't force a change on them, they have to be willing to accept it and work towards it themselves, which is why any long term solution has to come from the Palestinian people. Political change over there is laboriously slow, and I can't blame Israel for being especially impatient given the situation. But things are changing, some getting worse, some with signs that there could be an open path to improvement. Only time will tell.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:You also see that zero progress is being made on bringing an end to the conflict, regardless of the outcome.
Israel had just left Gaza, hadn't they? What kind of progress do they want? They got a goal they'd been demanding for almost 40 years.
quote:I don't know what the solution is, but painting all Palestinians as blood lovers just because they voted Hamas into power seems rather ignorant to me, give their lack of options
I agree.
quote:thus I honestly wonder what everyone else would do.
I don't know, but they share some responsibility for creating the atmosphere that only supports pro-terror parties. And they deserve to suffer the consequences with respect to aid. If they are electing terrorists because they think it will make their daily quality of life better, it behooves us to not contribute to that illusion with our aid.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Israel had just left Gaza, hadn't they? What kind of progress do they want? They got a goal they'd been demanding for almost 40 years.
It might look like that on the surface, but do you remember what both groups, Fatah and Hamas were saying at the time? Fatah was calling the pullout a failure, because they still weren't internationally recognized as a state, and blamed Israel. Hamas on the other hand claimed the pullout as a huge victory. Israel pulled out of Gaza in August of 2005, and Hamas was elected into office four months later. If it looked to the people like Hamas was the one who orchestrated this victory, it'd only get them more votes, not less.
quote:I don't know, but they share some responsibility for creating the atmosphere that only supports pro-terror parties. And they deserve to suffer the consequences with respect to aid. If they are electing terrorists because they think it will make their daily quality of life better, it behooves us to not contribute to that illusion with our aid.
That's true, and I do agree. They do deserve to face the reprecussions of their decisions, but I really don't know what else we honestly expect from them. Living in a constant state of fear, facing two horrible evils they chose what they considered to be the lesser of those two, maybe not even fully appreciating the internationall consequences of such a decision. They are paying for their decision, and maybe in 5 months they will change their mind in the 2007 elections.
But I have to ask...what alternatives are we offering that they can accept?
Something has to change.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Here's a comparison that does beg to be made: terrorists who are Palestinian have deliberately targeted civilians, including children. the Israeli army has fired on legitimate targets and accidently struck civilians, including children. One set of actions are perpetrated by people who are not official representatives of the people.
I disagree. For years -- decades, even -- we insisted that the PLO was not the legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. Fatah, in case you aren't aware, is the Arabic name of the PLO. It is an acronym that stands for Palestine Liberation Organization.
We lost that battle. Largely because it was more an issue of us hoping than anything else. Bottom line, Fatah/PLO is the representative of the Palestinian Arabs. Even today, when they elected Hamas, their president is still Fatah.
The terrorists almost invariably turn out to be members of one or another Fatah guard unit. They are trained by Fatah, and they are charged by Fatah. Except for those who are trained and charged by Hamas.
I'm sorry, Bob, but there is absolutely no validity to the claim that they are operating as individual rogues. It's wishful thinking of the worst sort.
You know, they caught the three Arabs who kidnapped and murdered Eliyahu Asheri. Here's an article about it. All three were members of Fatah's Al-Aksa Brigade. That makes them every bit as official as IDF soldiers are for Israel.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Their actions are morally reprehensible in both intent and effect. But that "stain" doesn't spread to their whole people.
I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Whether they were part of Fatah or not is a completely different question, and one that's probably answered in the negative for most of them.
quote:I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
You really need to start reading the entire post, sL.
Seriously...Instead of responding to individual sentences, read the whole thing through and try to figure out what is really being said.
I purposefully ran the entire thing together just for you -- so that you would perhaps read it and understand it first before just splitting sentences out for your usual micro-attack.
I'm glad you don't deny the moral stain that spreads to all Israelis due to the killing of innocents when your army targets legitimate foes in the middle of crowds, though.
Would it hurt you to go on record with that though. I know from the past that you don't care about the morality of the actions the Israeli army, or, when you do care about it, its mostly from the standpoint of them acting from too high a sense of morality and that stops them from doing the job they should be doing (in your opinion).
Talk about "nothing will suffice." I've told you many times about the good people I have known who are Palestinian and you simply deny their existence. Talk about treating another people as "sub-human" -- I'd say defining someone as less than real is pretty much defining someone as less than human as well.
And it leaves you no-one to talk to except those who already agree with you.
Sadly (given your reply to my post as but one example) you are also incapable of spotting it when other people agree with one of your points.
You know, Lisa, part of why I dismiss you is that you are so bloody dismissive of me. Not mearly argumentative, but incapable of listening and hearing too. I have simply come to assume that you think of me as only slightly better than the Palestinians you hate so much. I have no reason to try to hear your point of view because I already know where it ends -- hating me and everyone like me.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: I never said they were individual rogues.
You said that they aren't acting on behalf of their government. That's clearly not the case.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Whether they were part of Fatah or not is a completely different question, and one that's probably answered in the negative for most of them.
You think? I think otherwise. But tell me, how many official Fatah soldiers have to kidnap and murder Israeli kids or blow up Israeli pizza joints before you'll acknowledge it as an official act of war?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz:
quote:I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
You really need to start reading the entire post, sL.
Lisa.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Seriously...Instead of responding to individual sentences, read the whole thing through and try to figure out what is really being said.
I purposefully ran the entire thing together just for you -- so that you would perhaps read it and understand it first before just splitting sentences out for your usual micro-attack.
I'm glad you don't deny the moral stain that spreads to all Israelis due to the killing of innocents when your army targets legitimate foes in the middle of crowds, though.
I ignored that, because responding to... see, I can't even find an adjective that would (a) be appropriate and (b) not be considered too harsh. Responding to such a stupid fracking claim would have pissed me off too much. There is no moral stain that spreads to Israelis. There is no moral stain on the part of the actual soldiers who fire the weapons that result in such deaths. The blame falls 100% on the heads of the people who make such deaths inevitable. The idea that we should let ourselves be targets rather than risk lives on their side is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said what I did about our lives being worth more to us than every single life on their side combined.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Would it hurt you to go on record with that though. I know from the past that you don't care about the morality of the actions the Israeli army, or, when you do care about it, its mostly from the standpoint of them acting from too high a sense of morality and that stops them from doing the job they should be doing (in your opinion).
Collateral damage caused by (a) active terrorists using their supporters as human shields and (b) their supporters willingly being used that way. None of that should be of any concern to us.
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Talk about "nothing will suffice." I've told you many times about the good people I have known who are Palestinian and you simply deny their existence. Talk about treating another people as "sub-human" -- I'd say defining someone as less than real is pretty much defining someone as less than human as well.
I'll simply note that you refused to answer my question and be done with it. No, actually, I'll repeat it.
I'd be interested in hearing, Bob, what you think would be enough for that stain to spread to them all. Anything? If all the terrorists started wearing official uniforms of a declared Palestinian Army, would that be sufficient? I ask in all honesty, because somehow I suspect nothing will suffice for you. I know that's the case for some people on these forums.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Destineer... You don't have a people? You don't have an emotional connection to any group? Is that really true?
Of course I have an emotional connection to certain groups.
Read again what I wrote. I said that no group besides my friends and family is more morally significant to me than any other. All sorts of groups have emotional significance to me. I just don't assign any extra moral importance to the well-being of these groups.
For example: I recognize that the death of someone I don't personally care about is as much of a tragedy, morally and objectively, as the death of someone I do care about.
quote:You said that they aren't acting on behalf of their government. That's clearly not the case.
Not clear at all.
Just because members of a certain government act a certain way doesn't mean the government itself has ordered them to do so. Consider the example of Oliver North during the Iran-Contra scandal: was he working on behalf of the American people? Surely not.
Likewise, if someone is acting on behalf of the dominant political party, this doesn't mean he's acting on behalf of the government. A spokesman for the Republicans doesn't necessarily speak for America.
I've never heard of a suicide bomber being ordered by a leader of the Palestinian Authority, claiming the authority of his government, to kill Israeli civilians.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Collateral damage caused by (a) active terrorists using their supporters as human shields and (b) their supporters willingly being used that way.
Do these guys walk down the street asking people, "Hey, I'm a terrorist. Do I have your support? Mind if I use you as a human shield?"
I mean, there have been attacks in public that colaterally killed passersby.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bob, an important and well-reasoned argument, which is unlikely to be headed, but does, indeed, make two important mistakes. The first, simply is confusing people with governments, the IDF may or may not represent the Israeli people, but it certainly represents their government.
By most standards, civilian houses are not legitimate targets, and, whild the Israeli government argues that any deaths that hapened in th course of such demolitions were accidental, that still leaves the IDF, and, by extension, the Israeli government, culpable of manslaughter.
Also, targeted killings are hardly legitimate by any standards, as they function as excecutions without trial (I am and remain firmly oposed to executions, but a trial would seem the minimum.)
It is important to remember that Israel is not represented exculisivly by Lisa and Rakheesh, whom I can only assume to be Israeli, and that, if it were, the elections would have gone differently. I can not pretend to be happy with Kadima, but, while I migh have prefered Labour, the ultra-militant factions did not, in fact, win.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not an Israeli, I'm a natural born American citizen.
quote:Also, targeted killings are hardly legitimate by any standards, as they function as excecutions without trial (I am and remain firmly oposed to executions, but a trial would seem the minimum.)
Yes, because Palestinian terrorists are only criminals. They're not at war with Israel or anything, right? Oh, wait. That's the dumbest thing I've heard since you equated bulldozing homes with murdering civilians-still not addressing that little bit of nonsense, I see.
I suppose you'd be happier if Israeli police forces rolled into a Palestinian neighborhood to serve polite arrest warrants to Palestinian bomb-makers, rocket-launchers, gunfighters, and future suicide-bombers in a good old-fashioned black-and-white patrol car.
Israel and Palestine are currently in a state of war, whether or not it's declared.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"War" and "peace" are both bad names for what's going on in Israel and Palestine. Rakeesh is probably right, though, that the unrest is sufficiently bad that the rule of law can't be expected to prevail in every situation.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Israel and Palestine are currently in a state of war, whether or not it's declared." Only if you consider Palestine a sovereign state.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They have an elected government. They're certainly more than just a private group.
Anyway, one can be at war with moree than just a nation-state in modern times, for all intents and purposes. Just because you're not a nation-state does not make acts of war 'crimes'.
I'm still waiting to hear you acknowledge the obvious double-standard in equating bulldozing homes with murdering civilians. I'm not going to drop this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
"nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
" I'm not going to drop this." And yet I am the pig-headed adolescent who is clearly wrong to all right thinking people. I have already explained my posistion, on this thread, today.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:By most standards, civilian houses are not legitimate targets, and, whild the Israeli government argues that any deaths that hapened in th course of such demolitions were accidental, that still leaves the IDF, and, by extension, the Israeli government, culpable of manslaughter.
Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions? They're not demolishing homes with Palestinians still in them. So you haven't explained anything at all. You're still dodging. That's not an explanation at all. I'm still waiting for you to address your hypocrisy.
And drop the "I'm such a martyr" crap, Pelegius. You're not 'wrong to all right thinking people', you're an adolescent (biologically and socially since you're 17) adopting a common complaint of adolescents, "You all HATE me!"
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
Now that's beyond disgusting. Even for you, Pelagius. Israel absolutely is a nation-state, and has been one for 59 years. Only terrorists and their supporters have denied this fact.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never liked the term nation-state, I'd call Israel a state. There's little use in trying to differentiate between nation-states and non-nation-states, because state is a (fairly) well-defined term and nation is not.
Palestinians, interestingly, are one of the few "state? not a state?" problem cases.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "nation-state" Palestine is not a "nation-state" as I understand the term, nor is Israel, although Israel clearly wishes to be one.
Now that's beyond disgusting. Even for you, Pelagius. Israel absolutely is a nation-state, and has been one for 59 years. Only terrorists and their supporters have denied this fact.
You could always assume he said that in a matter of fact sort of way rather than as a verbal assault Lisa.
Pelagius: Why do you think Israel is NOT a nation state?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm still waiting to hear you acknowledge the obvious double-standard in equating bulldozing homes with murdering civilians. I'm not going to drop this.
Hey, so this is nothing but an ad hominem. Why don't we get back to the actual discussion and stop picking on P?
There are many different ways to "equate" things, and in some senses bulldozing homes and suicide bombings are indeed equal. They are both actions. They are both aggressive actions. They're both ways of "targeting civilians."
This is the only claim that I see Pelegius insisting on, and it's a true one. But even if it weren't, what's the upshot, Rakeesh? A guy in high school used a bit of hyperbole in expressing his political opinions? If that's all you're trying to prove in this thread, I'm neither surprised nor interested.
If you want to talk about how the Israelis should handle their situation, then let's get back to that.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Black-Blade, Israel has two distinct nations living within its borders, the Arabs and the Jews. Well, there are minorities such as the Armenians and the Druze, but Israel could claim to be a nation-state if it only had such minorities. As it is, Israel is 18.5% Arab.
Lisa's assumption can only be true is we claim that a. Arabs are not Israeli or b. There is no Arabic nation. B could be claimed, but the Arabs have a thousand-fold better claim to nationhood than the Jews do, being united by one language (how many American or European Jews speak fluent Hebrew?) and one more-or-less consistent culture.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
Posts: 1332 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now that Hamas has come into power, there's another wrinkle in all of this -- the avowed terrorists ARE the government. One could've said that about Arafat too, of course, but the point is much more salient with Hamas which is actively aggressive. Until Hamas gained power it was at least possible to say that the terrorists don't represent the people. Now, it's not so easy.
I notice that you've ignored this statement twice in order to accuse me (in a backhanded "possible inclusion" way) of having no criteria under which I would state that immoral actions of terrorists would stain the entire Palestinian population in the PA-areas.
As for the immoral acts by the Israeli army, they had a choice of whether or not to pull the trigger. Knowing that their target was situated in an area where children would be present, they fired anyway.
There is immorality in using human shields.
There is also immorality in shooting anyway.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not shooting is a reasonable option. The people targeted weren't in the act of shooting anyone at the time that the army shot at them. They were driving in cars, mostly. The shooting was a target of opportunity, not a "must shoot now to stop an immediate threat" kind of thing.
And shooting into a crowd of non-combatants (including children) is a decision with moral implications.
It's possible to say it's a burden one is willing to bear, but it's not okay to say that it doesn't have moral implications, seems to me.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not shooting is a reasonable option. The people targeted weren't in the act of shooting anyone at the instant that the army shot at them.
Only slightly relevant. Given that these are known terrorists, I do not feel that they can only morally be shot at while in the act of shooting. (And seriously, do you? If you came upon a burglar you had reason to think might be armed, approaching from behind, and he did not see you coming, you wouldn't shoot him BEFORE he had a chance to actually pull out a gun?) [edit in response to your edit: It is very much a current threat, and not merely a question of opportunity. Do you have any idea how many suicide attacks Israeli security defuses every month?]
quote:And shooting into a crowd of non-combatants (including children) is immoral.
IMO, not if your target makes a practice of surrounding themselves with such crowds. The blood is on his head, not yours.
[edit: You edited after I saw your post. Moral implications, yes. But I stand by my assessment of whose choice, and therefore whose guilt, it is.]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Pelegius: "Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
Oh, good God. Rachel Corrie? She had an accident while engaging in a protest. That's your evidence that civilians have been killed in home demolitions?
No one has died during these home demolitions. Rachel Corrie didn't die from the demolition. She intentionally stood in a dangerous spot and fell and got hurt. The first time I visited Israel, I tripped on a bad piece of sidewalk and skinned my knee. Should that count as Israel victimizing civilians as well?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I do see the point. However, if it is possible to spot the person, and they aren't engaged in any action at that moment, then it ought to be possible to go in and take them prisoner, or get close enough to use only small arms fire and have a lesser chance of killing innocent bystanders.
Blowing up a car in an intersection doesn't just kill the people in the car. Even if those people were trying to avoid crowds and not have human shields around them, the resultant fire and explosion is liable to hurt innocent bystanders.
The choice is one of not risking Israeli lives in order to take these people out. It is indeed a calculation, and the army chooses to do it this way, even though they realize that the choice comes with a cost in innocent lives.
The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
The people ordering it too.
Again, I think it's possible to say things like "well, less blood is spilled this way...we think" or "we're willing to live with the moral cost of having killed a few children as long as it means that person X is dead too."
But still, it's not a wash your hands of it situation just because the other side is acting immorally.
The human shield thing is a problem. It can be solved in a number of ways. Israel has chosen this particular way. I think it is incorrect to say they have no other options. They may have no other options that pose less danger to their soldiers, but that's not the same as no other options.
I'm just asking for someone on that side of the debate to own up to the morality of the choice that IS being made. I'd be perfectly willing, in that situation to say "yep, it sucks, but I can live with it."
Somehow, it seems important to the pro-Israel camp to be perceived as always acting out of the height of moral rectitude even when their actions are not actually the best choices from a moral standpoint.
I may be getting the wrong impression here, but I was really reacting to sL's continued assertion that if Israel does it, it must be morally correct. She has yet to say that any action taken against Palestinians was in any way wrong.
The real undercurrent is that she can live with it even if it isn't morally good, but she repeatedly asserts that it IS morally good even when it isn't.
This thing of shooting into crowds is certainly a case in point. There's no absolute moral justification for the deaths of innocent children. At best (from an Israeli point of view) there could be a relativistic justification that says on balance, fewer people died this way -- we think. Since they can't know that, it's a really a guess -- educated though it may be.
sL is taking that justification a step further, seems to me. She's saying that the justification is that fewer Israelis die as a result of these actions. It doesn't matter how many Palestinians die, the truly moral choice is the one that results in the fewest Israeli deaths -- no other considerations matter.
That, to me, is a dangerous kind of moral relativism. If the Palestinian death toll doesn't matter, then a solution with zero Palestinian deaths has no more moral weight with her than a solution that results in total annihilation. All that matters is the number of Israelis who died along the way.
Since this is war, I can understand her statements from that aspect.
What I can't understand, is the claim that either way, it's a moral solution.
My version of morality would put a strong preference on total number of lives lived being as high as possible. Even choosing sides in the fight, I would want as many people on both sides to survive -- especially if we're tallying non-combatants.
There is, indeed, a moral victory in stopping a terrorist from continuing to kill (or finance others who kill). It saves the lives of those whom the terrorist(s) would've killed. Score one (or several) for the good guys. Take AWAY from that tally, however, the innocent lives cut short in the process.
It may well be that this solution (shooting at vehicles on crowded streets) is the one that results in the most lives saved. I do not believe, however, that it is the one that results in the most innocent lives saved.
That's pretty nebulous (we can't possibly know the real numbers). But it is reasonable to suspect that Israeli soldiers could reduce the number of Palestinian children killed if they more closely engaged their targets with shorter range weapons. The cost, of course, would be exposure of more Israeli army personnel to harm and possible death.
So here's the question: By choosing not to risk their soldiers, but instead fire at enemies from a distance, and in so doing, killing innocent bystanders, what moral burden does the Israeli army bear?
I don't think it's possible to say "none at all" and without ascribing to a one-sided morality that puts greater value on the Israeli soldier's lives versus those of the innocent children killed when the missiles are used instead.
Again, all I'm looking for is Lisa to just say "yes, that's true, and I'm okay with it."
Rather than, "no, this is the morally correct thing to do" and then go on to say anyone who sees it differently is deserving of some rude epithet (or, more typically, the threat of a rude epithet).
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: It may well be that this solution (shooting at vehicles on crowded streets) is the one that results in the most lives saved. I do not believe, however, that it is the one that results in the most innocent lives saved.
Since I disagree with that second sentence, I disagree with most of your post.
The thing is, while I disagree (strongly!) with sL's claim that there are no innocents on the Palestinian side, I also think you are far overestimating the percentage who are innocent. Even if I were convinced that it were as low as you seem to think it is, the horrific and ongoing toll from suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that are stopped by these targeted killings mean that in my estimation this IS the way to save the most innocent lives.
As for your suggestions on Israeli soldiers' tactics, I believe you are being unrealistic in the extreme as to whether they would have ANY chance of success. I believe the tactics you suggest would be both doomed and suicidal. (And I base this in part from conversations with friends who have been in the IDF, as well as news stories like the ones reported after October 12, 2000. Not to mention the more recent kidnapping and murder of an Israeli soldier.)
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Again, all I'm looking for is Lisa to just say "yes, that's true, and I'm okay with it."
Rather than, "no, this is the morally correct thing to do" and then go on to say anyone who sees it differently is deserving of some rude epithet (or, more typically, the threat of a rude epithet).
First, thank you for actually calling me "Lisa". It almost makes up for the repeated "sL" references.
Second of all, I can't and won't say what you want me to, because I disagree with it. I guess I don't have the same absolute believe in a child's life being the most sacred thing in the world that you do. Sorry. I wish someone had blown Barghuti's head off when he was a kid. That way, he wouldn't ever have had the opportunity to become the monster he's become.
I am not in favor of targeting children. Or any non-combatants who do not have blood on their hands. I am in favor of targeting combatants and those who have killed Jews. But I do not see any moral issue involved in choosing our lives over theirs.
That's not entirely true. I do see it as a moral issue. But not the way you want me to. Quite the reverse, actually. If the only way to take out a murderer and save Jewish lives is to do so in a way that has the chance of killing one of their children in the process, 100% of the blame for the child's death rests with the murderer we're taking out. And none with us.
I do not agree with your statement that:
quote:The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
Causation is not culpability. And while I haven't brought religion into this recently, I have to do so now. Judaism says that if someone comes to kill you, you must kill him first. More than this, if you see someone trying to murder someone else, you kill them to prevent it. And the culpability lies with the person you killed.
It is not an issue of "It's a bad thing to kill the guy, but it's better than the alternative". Believe me when I say that I understand that you think this. I do not. I never will. It is, in my view, an immoral position, and I reject it in its entirety.
Similarly, I will not say that "it's bad to blow up a bad guy if there's a chance that it'll kill a kid." Instead I say that if it's necessary to blow up the bad guy to save Jewish lives, then that's what needs to be done. The issue of there being the possibility of a kid getting caught by it shouldn't even be an issue, unless there's an equally effective way to take out the bad guy without risking the death of the kid.
Given equally effective options, I would personally choose the one that doesn't risk killing any non-combatants at all. But only given equally effective options. The least threat to the lives of me and mine requires that I act to prevent that threat, and it is not justifiable to place the life of a child on the side of the enemy over the risk of our own lives.
I get that you disagree, okay? But by all means, go ahead and express your disagreement. While you're at it, express some indignation and outrage at me for daring to have moral standards that differ from yours. That's always a good use of time.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lisa, rivka, do you feel the same way about hostage situations? Should police make it their policy to shoot through hostages if it means bringing down hostage-taking killers?
If not, what's making the difference?
Let me lay out two examples for you.
1: Terrorist X is waiting at an intersection with five random Palestinian kids nearby. You have a shot at him with your missile, but you know it'll kill the five kids. You shoot because you know it's the only way to get him.
2: Terrorist X is hiding away in a safehouse. The guy who owns the safehouse says, "I'll give him up to you if you round up five random Palestinian kids and shoot them for me. It's the only way you'll ever get Terrorist X." You know he's telling the truth, so you find five Palestinian kids and shoot them.
I see no moral difference between 1 and 2. The five Palestinians are "collateral damage" in both cases. You're choosing to kill them, but only because it's the only way to kill Terrorist X.
2 is obviously wrong, so 1 is as well.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Given equally effective options, I would personally choose the one that doesn't risk killing any non-combatants at all. But only given equally effective options. The least threat to the lives of me and mine requires that I act to prevent that threat, and it is not justifiable to place the life of a child on the side of the enemy over the risk of our own lives.
This is the first time I can recall that you've given any hint that you would stop anyone from killing a Palestinian on moral grounds.
I thank you for it.
And I apologize for thinking you didn't hold this basic human moral to be true.
quote:If the only way to take out a murderer and save Jewish lives is to do so in a way that has the chance of killing one of their children in the process, 100% of the blame for the child's death rests with the murderer we're taking out. And none with us.
Sadly, that "if" at the beginning is a BIG if. And one that nobody this side of G_d could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt is true. So the 100% thing is also not true in any provable sense.
I understand wanting to believe it, but that doesn't make it true.
quote:The thing is, while I disagree (strongly!) with sL's claim that there are no innocents on the Palestinian side, I also think you are far overestimating the percentage who are innocent. Even if I were convinced that it were as low as you seem to think it is, the horrific and ongoing toll from suicide bombings and other terrorist atrocities that are stopped by these targeted killings mean that in my estimation this IS the way to save the most innocent lives.
some questions: 1) Do they stop the terrorists, or stop A terrorist? Seems to me the actions also breed others willing to fight & die in the cause of defeating the people who just killed their children. What may stop them is fear of being killed themselves. What may embolden them is the sense that they have nothing left to live for.
2) re: the percentage of non-violent Palestinians. If there are just 5 good ones... Look, the problem is that Israel is not G-d. The country's leaders are not able to see the future with omniscient clarity. And they can't see into the hearts of people. When I talked to Palestinians living in Israeli-controlled areas and in at the time soon-to-be PA-controlled areas, they didn't hate Jews, they mostly worked for or alongside Jews. The common people at that time weren't filled with hatred. They had a lot of resentment over a few issues -- settlements, home demolitions, border closings shutting down their businesses, and the like. But the vast majority of them loathed Hamas. Seriously loathed. They didn't much care for Arafat and his corrupt cronies either. Something has slipped a gear in the region, and an opportunity has been lost. There appears to a be a LOT more radicalized Islam in place now than just a few years ago.
I submit that such radicalism doesn't feed on nothing. It doesn't spring up in a vacuum. Part of the blame falls on the Palestinian people for being gullible and not choosing better leaders. Partly, the blame falls on Arafat, et al. for skimming aid rather than helping their own people. Part of the blame falls on aid-giving nations for being so ham-fisted and not recognizing and exploiting opportunities. But part of the blame also rests with Israel for continuing the oppressive tactics that Palestinians hated so much, and that beat down the common person there, and indiscriminately harmed everyone.
quote:As for your suggestions on Israeli soldiers' tactics, I believe you are being unrealistic in the extreme as to whether they would have ANY chance of success. I believe the tactics you suggest would be both doomed and suicidal. (And I base this in part from conversations with friends who have been in the IDF, as well as news stories like the ones reported after October 12, 2000. Not to mention the more recent kidnapping and murder of an Israeli soldier.)
I'm not a military person, and not a tactician. I said it's at least possible that they did the projections and came up with firing missiles at cars as the least destructive option. If they did...fine. The problem is that they did so knowing that the action would result in innocent deaths.
Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists. I assume she's speaking in the abstract, but if this became state policy, and you all believe that only a small percentage of Palestinian males would grow up to NOT be terrorists...well, the implications are a little bit chilling, no?
quote:Originally posted by Bob_Scopatz: Lisa advocates killing selected children in order to not let them grow up to be terrorists.
What a hypocrite. You accuse me of not reading your posts in full, and then you post arrant garbage like this. You know I advocate no such thing.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Lisa, rivka, do you feel the same way about hostage situations? Should police make it their policy to shoot through hostages if it means bringing down hostage-taking killers?
If not, what's making the difference?
The difference is intent. As well as the fact that the imperative here is saving the lives of our own people. Shooting through hostages won't save those hostages.
And what I said has nothing to do with police matters. Police deal with civil issues. Internal matters. The army deals with military issues. War with external enemies. Obviously it's appropriate to deal with internal matters with more care. When you're talking about bank robbery, for example, the perps are criminals. That's a far sight different than enemy combatants.
I think this is one of the maladies of the late 20th and 21st centuries. People used to understand that crime and war are different. That how you deal with internal lawbreakers and external enemies have to be different, because they are different.
Now many people (you, it seems, among them) seem unable to make that differentiation. You have a global view that ignores the fact that people in other nations aren't subject to the same laws, and can't be dealt with under the same rules as domestic lawbreakers.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: Let me lay out two examples for you.
1: Terrorist X is waiting at an intersection with five random Palestinian kids nearby. You have a shot at him with your missile, but you know it'll kill the five kids. You shoot because you know it's the only way to get him.
If it's really the only way to get him, maybe. And then maybe you'll wait for a better shot. One that doesn't include the certainty of killing the kids.
But then, Israel has never taken out a terrorist in this way. Perhaps if you'd put it as "Terrorist X is hiding out in an apartment building and there's no way to get in. You fire a rocket into his apartment even though there's the possibility that there may be innocent bystanders elsewhere in the building."
Note: possibility. Even probability. That's not the same as certainty.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: 2: Terrorist X is hiding away in a safehouse. The guy who owns the safehouse says, "I'll give him up to you if you round up five random Palestinian kids and shoot them for me. It's the only way you'll ever get Terrorist X." You know he's telling the truth, so you find five Palestinian kids and shoot them.
Obviously not.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: I see no moral difference between 1 and 2.
I see a major difference. But it's a strawman argument, because the example I gave is more realistic, and is even more different than 1 or 2.
quote:Originally posted by Destineer: The five Palestinians are "collateral damage" in both cases. You're choosing to kill them, but only because it's the only way to kill Terrorist X.
They absolutely are not collateral damage in example 2. <shudder> I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mind sees that as "collateral". You see them right there, and you shoot. That's not collateral damage.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Hey, so this is nothing but an ad hominem. Why don't we get back to the actual discussion and stop picking on P?
There are many different ways to "equate" things, and in some senses bulldozing homes and suicide bombings are indeed equal. They are both actions. They are both aggressive actions. They're both ways of "targeting civilians."
This is the only claim that I see Pelegius insisting on, and it's a true one. But even if it weren't, what's the upshot, Rakeesh? A guy in high school used a bit of hyperbole in expressing his political opinions? If that's all you're trying to prove in this thread, I'm neither surprised nor interested.
If you want to talk about how the Israelis should handle their situation, then let's get back to that.
No, I don't think I will, Destineer. I'm talking about both right now, thank you very much. And furthermore he has not merely insisted that both are 'aggressive actions'. He has used bulldozing homes to indicate moral equivalency between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
Thus I'm not picking on him, and I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack', which it is not. I have to admit that if you're going to so mischaracterize what I'm saying, I'm not very interested in what you have to say, either.
---------------
Pelegius,
quote:"Exactly how many Palestinians have died in the course of those demolitions?" I don't know, as of now, at least one non-Palestinian has, but the news of American deaths is always better-known than citizens of devaloping countries.
So you were and remain hugely uninformed about a statement you made and have not bothered to educate yourself about it at all. That's about what I thought, thanks for clarifying. Are you at least going to take the cop-out that Desinteer has presented, and insist that when you equated bulldozing homes with murdering civilians you only meant to indicate that 'both sides target civilians' and not that the two sides are morally equivalent?
I'd be willing to accept that, even though it's plain to me that isn't what you meant originally.
quote:Lisa's assumption can only be true is we claim that a. Arabs are not Israeli or b. There is no Arabic nation. B could be claimed, but the Arabs have a thousand-fold better claim to nationhood than the Jews do, being united by one language (how many American or European Jews speak fluent Hebrew?) and one more-or-less consistent culture.
There are certainly Arabic nations. Arabic culture is not monolitic. Furthermore you are completely ignoring questions of religion. This is obviously not just a nationality-vs.-nationality issue.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, war and policing are different matters, but you could probably get a lot more humane approach to Palestinian relations if you treated more of it as a police matter. After all, the current incident was called "kidnapping."
You might say something about how it's different when it's your enemy committing the crime. I think viewing the people in the area essentially under your control as enemies does as much to create/motivate terrorists as the US occupation of Iraq.
quote:But then, Israel has never taken out a terrorist in this way. Perhaps if you'd put it as "Terrorist X is hiding out in an apartment building and there's no way to get in. You fire a rocket into his apartment even though there's the possibility that there may be innocent bystanders elsewhere in the building."
I think it is sad that there isn't enough real policing/investing going on by the Palestinians into incidents of rockets being fired into Israel, etc. I think it would be much much better than Israel firing rockets back, or using helicopters or troops. If this could be treated as a police matter effectively, there would be a way out of the cycle of violent reprisals the area seems to be stuck in.
Posts: 1592 | Registered: Jan 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The blood is always on the head of the person pulling the trigger. Always.
I couldn't disagree more. While there is always a choice in the abstract (one could, for example, choose not to defend oneself from a lethal attacker and thus die), in the real world of choices some choices are taken out of one's hands by the aggressive actions of others.
If a man throws a hand grenade into a crowd, flees into his home, returns and does the same...again and again and again and again and again...and you cannot be certain of the route he takes to or from the crowd, but you do find out the home he lives in-if, in fact, the man has calculated his hiding place to be shielded with civilian lives-then their blood when you finally stop him is on his head, and not yours. Even if your attack is the one which kills them.
Why? Because the attack would never have happened, never even have been necessary, without his actions. You cannot just let him keep chucking his grenade into a crowd, and it might just not be possible (in the real world) to find out anything else about him other than his hiding place. You cannot always send in ground forces, which are more discriminating, either. Because that gives him time to escape and chuck more hand grenades, to say nothing of killing the soldiers themselves.
And, of course, there's also the question of just how many of his neighbors are 'good Germans' who don't really know what's going on. This is another unknowable...but the popularity of suicide bombers amongst Palestinians cannot be solely due to threats of intimidation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If this could be treated as a police matter effectively, there would be a way out of the cycle of violent reprisals the area seems to be stuck in.
Thank you for acknowledging the massive optimism involved in your post.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's pretty clear that by 'selected children' she means 'children we are certain will become murderers of innocent civilians' later on in life.
Since there is no way to know that for certain without a time machine...
When someone says, "If only someone had killed Hitler when he was a kid," do you think they're seriously advocating murdering selected children?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Now many people (you, it seems, among them) seem unable to make that differentiation. You have a global view that ignores the fact that people in other nations aren't subject to the same laws, and can't be dealt with under the same rules as domestic lawbreakers.
I don't have a global view of how the law should govern us. Obviously laws of war will be different than peacetime laws. That's just a pragmatic matter.
I do have a global notion of ethics and morality, that the same moral law should govern our consciences during both war and peace. And I think this is the only defensible notion of morality. Peace and war aren't states of nature, they're social artifacts we've constructed to make sense of the way nations govern us. So a soldier in a war and a police officer are only different from each other (and from private citizens, for that matter) in how society views them.
To draw another analogy, suppose that I'm in the hostage situation instead of the police officer. I have the same equipment and training he does, but not the same job. Then I would say that my moral duty is the same as the officer's, although my duty to the government is different.
quote:They absolutely are not collateral damage in example 2. <shudder> I can't even begin to fathom what kind of mind sees that as "collateral". You see them right there, and you shoot. That's not collateral damage.
In both cases, you're killing the kids in order to kill the terrorist. Killing the kids is killing the terrorist -- by killing them, you cause the terrorist to die.
Do you think murder is less wrong if you can't see your victim? Why does being able to see the kids, and kill them one by one instead of all at a time, matter for the moral question?
quote:Thus I'm not picking on him, and I'll thank you for not labeling my beef with him as an 'ad-hominem attack', which it is not.
Looking back at the thread, I can see that I was too harsh here. It's not really an ad hominem, since it arose from disputing an ethical judgement P was making. Sorry.
Still, it seems like all you're trying establish from this line of argument is that Pelegius has a flawed sense of right and wrong. It doesn't have much to do with the Israel issue anymore.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
It has a lot to do with the Israel issue because it's an opinion I've heard expressed before with relation to Israel: that Israel and Palestinians are morally equivalent, because they both target civilians.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
