• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Israel pulling out of Gaza and parts of West Bank

  • Thread starter Thread starter tig3r
  • Start date Start date
OK, the point I was making is that there are two sides to this issue. "Paracowboy, I agree with you on why we fight terrorism. 48th Hi, No, I am not advocating the slaughter of women and kids, suicide bombers, etc. From what I see and have experienced, there is plenty enough prejudice and unchristian actions occurring within Isreal proper so no group of peoples are completely innocent.

One thing that I find particularly unjust within the whole middle east region, is within the "Arab countries" the christains get subtly put down on a regular basis and within Isreal, the jewish faith is almost a requirement for being a fine upstanding member of the community or for the privilege of occupying settlement territory etc.

I am glad I live in Canada where I can practise the religion I want and bitch about things I do not think are just, and most of the time only hot language is exchanged, not bombs and bullets.
 
Jed,

I was the one who asked the question about murdering women and children, I knew the answer but I just wanted you think a bit about what you were saying. I know you wouldn't do anything remotely like that, nor would anyone here for that matter, but that is what is happening there, so I find the analogy a bit of a stretch.

Incidently my father's family owns and operates a farm on land that had previously belonged to French farmers. Not worried much about someone from Louisiana or Cape Breton blowing up schoolbusses in Halifax though, I guess maybe they've moved on with their lives.  


Thanks,

Andrew

** Edited to add "my" **
 
Jed said:
One thing that I find particularly unjust within the whole middle east region, is within the "Arab countries" the christains get subtly put down on a regular basis and within Isreal, the jewish faith is almost a requirement for being a fine upstanding member of the community or for the privilege of occupying settlement territory etc.

Are you out of your mind?  Where do you get your information?  The Michael Moore School for Middle East Studies?  20% of Israel is non-Jewish, 14.6% Mulsim, 2.1% Christian, and 3.2% "other".

Israel has no constitution; however, the law provides for freedom of worship, and the Government generally respects this right in practice.

There was no change in the status of respect for religious freedom during the period covered by this report. The Basic Law describes Israel as a "Jewish" and "democratic" state. The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Muslims, Druze, and Christians. Of this group, most are Arabs, and are subject to various forms of discrimination, some of which have religious dimensions. Israeli Arabs, temporary residents, and other non-Jewish Israelis, are, in fact, generally free to practice their religions.

There ya go.  Sure, some discrimination exists as it does everywhere else.  Members of all religions are free to practice as they wish though, and equal opportunities exist for everyone.  The only notable exception is that non-Jews may not serve in the Israeli military, except in special Druze units.  I would think the fact that Muslims and Arabs hold positions within the government should keep people from making silly accusations like yours.
 
48th Hi - No I am not "out of my mind" I am quite aware of the percentages of population break down with Isreal and the surrounding Arab States as well.  I speak from personal experience and it was quite a bit more uncomfortable for me in Isreal. Who knows what can be applied to the general Isreali population wrt predudicial attitudes etc. ?

Anyway, I just felt you were pretty one sided on your view to the point that you did not even recognize the other side so that is why I commented. Seems like you take the approach that if someone is not in my camp then he must be an enemy and I will take him out with maximum force on the target. I find this to be a waste of ammunition as well as putting up obstacles to bridging any alliances that can be built with future allies etc.

Just my 2 cents, being the red neck that I am attempting to break away from my upbringing and widening my arcs. lol
 
No, I just don't understand where this whole blame-Israel mindset comes from.  Same as the anti-american attitudes, I don't get them either, although I'm guessing the two are closely related.  I'm sorry if you felt you were being discriminated against during your time in Israel, but you're the first person I've heard make such a claim.

If you're going to be widening your arcs, just make sure you're not getting any friendly positions in there.
 
OK, I should probably just shake hands, 48th Hi, and back away but I have to clarify my thoughts on your last assertion suggesting a connection to the "Anti-Israeli" agenda and the "Anti-American" agenda. This is certainly not the case with me and people that I know from my part of the world.

As for no one ever experiencing or mentioning "uncomfortable prejudice" within Israel that truly surprises me. I must have been working on the wrong side of the technical fence and had the wrong stamps on my passport etc. However, do not get me wrong: I have a few Israeli soldier acquaintances that I truly respect and would consider comrades in arms.
 
:boring: I can see there is no point in taking this any further with 48H.  For some reason, being critical of some of Israel's behaviour (whether it be that of the state or of groups within the state) has earned me the title of "Anti-Israeli".  I'm surprised you never called me an Anti-Semite, although I'm sure it won't be far off if we continue.  There is nothing to discuss if Israel is sacrosanct to you (Just as Palestine is sacrosanct to the left).  Anyways, I'll offer you a few points to consider if you so choose (which I doubt, but c'est la vie):

- At no point did I refer to the "historic nation of Palestine", so I am not sure why you stick those words in my mouth.  Palestine has been a distinct region of the Levant since the Egyptians coined the word, and a distinct province in most of the Empires that have trotted through the region.

- Irregardless of who ruled the region, there have always been Palestinians (people who live in Palestine).  Palestinians are Arabs.  The use of "Palestinian" is valuable as it denotes Arabs from the region of Palestine (as opposed to Arabs from Syria, Transjordan, Egypt, etc, etc).  I wrap no ideology up into the phrase, you chose to put it their yourself.

- If the Jews didn't "declare Independence" (through actions, not words), then why do they refer to the 1948 wars as "The War of Independence"?   1948 was the culmination of 70 years of politiking to form Israeli statehood, and was very much an act of "independence" for the Jews of Palestine in their relationship to Western overseers and Arab neighbours.

- I'm not even going to touch the "All 700,000 Palestinian Arabs willingly left Israel in 1948" remark.

- Other than that, arguing about events of the establishment of Israel (which Paracowboy stated above were questionable in some respects) is moot now, I only use it to show that their are legitimate grievances that both sides point to as a justification for their cause or struggle.  What they choose to do with that justification is another story, but I don't think it undermines the fact that the various grievances have been there for the last 50 years.
 
Andyboy,

Andyboy said:
Thanks for the reply, I just wasn't sure which you thought it was. As some others have pointed out there are plenty of nations that have oddly shaped or discontinuous territories, some even with non-citizens occupying a sizeable chunk.

Yes, you are right, I was only voicing my opinion (and nothing more) on what I felt the future beholds.   Irregardless of how the political settelement pans out, I feel the geography of the area, political boundaries, ideology and demographics will ensure that the "status quo" of today will not be very permanent.   The Israelis exist in a sea of Arabs (some who get along with them, many who don't) and they can only wall themselves off for so long.   How long will the notion of Zionism remain strongly entrenched in a liberal Israeli society to preserve the notion of a Jewish state (which does seem at odds with our notion of a secular and democratic state being tied together)?

These are just my guesses, but - like anywhere else in history - I remain certain that the map will change a few generations from now.

The physical aspects aside, what is it that is keeping the Pals from being a nation, themselves or someone else?

I really don't know.   Certainly, Palestinian violence and terrorism in the latest Intifada has undermined any effort on their part to be seen as wanting peace, but my understanding of the situation is that the Israelis botched the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza from the start (this is what Hammes writes).   I still find myself confused over whether the Gaza and West Bank are considered a Palestinian State or Occupied Territories.

But my personal opinion (which should be taken only as that), as I've said before, I feel that Sharon's policy of disengagement seems to be the best course right now.   The violence of the Al Aqsa Intifada has created to much blood between each side to allow for negotiations, so disengagement and a wall should allow for detente.   As well , it puts the ball firmly into the Palestinian court (here's you country, now sort yourselves out).   I still remain uneasy about the rest of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank though.

paracowboy said:
in my eyes, the entire disagreement became irrelevent once the Palestinians started to....

By indoctrinating their children into a cult of death, to me, they completely invalidated any legitimate complaints they had.

Andyboy said:
Whether the grievances are legitimate or not is irrelevant In my mind.

I guess we can take that attitude, but we better be willing to push the Palestinians into the sea then.   As Brittney says, and I'm inclined to agree with "The bottom line is that the Palestinians are still here, and you'd better be prepared to either address their grievances or kill/deport the lot of them. Treating them like wayward children will not result in any peace for either side."   Of course, the argument cuts the other way, "Israel is still here, and we need to address their concerns.   Treating them like invading crusaders will not result in peace for either side."  I believe in both statements, and it is something I am trying to convey on this thread (much to the chagrin of 48thHighlander, who seems to paint me as some left-wing anti-Israeli, something I am most assuredly not).

I guess my response is this.   Irregardless of what the Palestinians do with their legitimate grievances (The Palestinians went from doing it right in the First Intifada to doing it wrong in the Al Aqsa Intifada, squandering any political capital they had.) those grievances still exist and act as a call to further conflict.   If we are not going to address issues on both sides, then there will be no peace.   As I mentioned above, I believe detente is the first step into moving back to Oslo - but given the world situation now (a Huntingtonian "Clash of Civilizations") I fear Israel/Palestine may be overtaken by the bigger picture.

Oh well, makes for an interesting world, I guess....
 
I have noted in other related newspaper articles (sorry, no source avail) that Isreal is expanding into the West Bank and that this expansion will / may cut access to Jerusalem from the PA. Does anyone have any thoughts or info on how these actions are connected to the present withdrawal from Gaza ?

Sounds like it will be a very tricky part of the world to work in over the next while.  :warstory:
 
Not trying to paint you as anything, I just don't like apologists no matter who they're trying to find excuses for.   I don't care wether you're trying to justify Nazi war-crimes, or the 9-11 attacks, or the attack on Israel.   Sure, ok, you'll say you're not trying to justify them.   Then why make excuses?   On 9-12 would you have been posting things like "well, you know, the US is FAR FROM blameless for this mess...."?   Hardly.   So why pick on Israel?

edit:  you know what, forget I asked.  these conversations never get anywhere.  I'll bow out now and let you maybe get around to discussing something useful.
 
48Highlander said:
Not trying to paint you as anything, I just don't like apologists no matter who they're trying to find excuses for.   I don't care wether you're trying to justify Nazi war-crimes, or the 9-11 attacks, or the attack on Israel.   Sure, ok, you'll say you're not trying to justify them.   Then why make excuses?   On 9-12 would you have been posting things like "well, you know, the US is FAR FROM blameless for this mess...."?   Hardly.   So why pick on Israel?

edit:   you know what, forget I asked.   these conversations never get anywhere.   I'll bow out now and let you maybe get around to discussing something useful.

Well, I'm certainly going to reply to that because I don't like being painted as an apologist either.   I've never tried to justify terrorist attacks on Israeli civilians, so don't imply that I have.   What I am pointing to is the sentiments leading us to the point we are at now.

It's a matter of causality - cause and effect.   Why do Palestinians resort to what they do?   We see the effects every day with blown up buses and dead rock-throwing kids, but basing our viewpoints and our policies off of the effects isn't (IMHO) a good way of finding a solution (short of wiping the other side off of the map).   Look to cause (which is what I'm harping at) - don't try to assign weight to the value of cause and justification, because, as Brit said, "Moral authority is in the eye of the beholder" and to others, you're weighting is useless as a frame of reference.   My understanding of both the history and the current climate leads me to believe that some causality can be found in Israel's policies (there is alot in other places as well, but that isn't what we are discussing right now) - it has nothing to do with the effect of terrorist attacks, so I'm unsure of how this makes me an apologist for terrorism and anti-semitism.

Do the same with your 9/11 reference.   I in no way "apologize" or "justify" the attacks (which struck close to home for myself), but I won't pretend that the West is completely innocent in the matter.   Over 500,000,000 Muslims have some sort of hard on for America and the West in general, and unless you can convince me that all those people have been duped, then maybe their is a legitimate reason that they have the anger and frustration that have led them to resort to violence.   Again, irregardless of effect (Al-Qa'ida and the general anti-Western violence around the globe), the cause is there for hundreds of millions of people and we need to factor it into a solution.

Go back in history to a purely Western even, and it works the same.   Cause - There were sufficient legitimate reasons behind the anger of the American colonists towards the British government's policies towards the colonies.   Effect - Was the violence of the Revolution justified?   I dunno, I guess if you are an American, it seemed justified - on the other hand, if you were a Loyalist driven from your home for remaining faithful to the Crown, you wouldn't see it that way (and of course, you could be a Cherokee and think all these guys are assholes).   Either of these attitudes does not change the fact that the cause was there.

A good metaphor is boiling water - the water is the cause and the boiling bubbles are the effect.   If we focus on the bubbles, we can't do much to lower the temperature on the water.   Ignoring the boiling water means escalation and the pot boiling right over,

And so, it goes back to what Andyboy and I discussed a few months ago on the difference between sympathy and empathy.   I'm trying to empathize with the cause, get in their shoes and see where the will to violence is, to see why the water is boiling.   Quit trying to portray me as an anti-Israeli or an apologist, sympathizing with the effect and condoning terrorist attacks.
 
some random points. Most of us are all on line and in agreement, with sematics set aside.

Infanteer said:
 I'm surprised you never called me an Anti-Semite,
that term has always cracked me up when used in reference to most Jews today. The majority of Jews alive today are not Semitic. They are, for the most part, Slavs. Most Jews today are Ashkenazi (sp), Semitic Jews are Falasha. Most of them were only found in Africa until very recently.

- At no point did I refer to the "historic nation of Palestine", so I am not sure why you stick those words in my mouth...has been a distinct region of the Levant since the Egyptians coined the word, and a distinct province in most of the Empires that have trotted through the region.
Before they were known as Palestinians, they were known as Philistines. This hate has been goin' on a looong time!

- If the Jews didn't "declare Independence" (through actions, not words), then why do they refer to the 1948 wars as "The War of Independence"
Independence from Mother England.

- I'm not even going to touch the "All 700,000 Palestinian Arabs willingly left Israel in 1948" remark.
wise choice. The Irgun were terrorists. And highly trained ones, as Britain had brought IRA members to teach them, as well as SOE operatives during the Second World War. Kinda back-fired when Britain tried to renege on promises made. If you get the chance to pick it up, read The Roots of Counter-Insurgency by Iain F.W. Beckett. Some good stuff on Palestine prior to 1945. Also, anything you can find on Mickey Marcus, Orde Wingate, the Haganah, the Irgun, the Palmach, and the Stern Gang.
While I am firmly on Israel's side today, I will not blindly support all of the actions of the State's Founders, or of the various governments since.

 
more random points:
Infanteer said:
How long will the notion of Zionism remain strongly entrenched in a liberal Israeli society to preserve the notion of a Jewish state (which does seem at odds with our notion of a secular and democratic state being tied together)?
their nation is democratic, but with strong theocratic overtones. However, you don't have to be a Jew to vote. Unlike other theocracies that shall remain nameless.

Certainly, Palestinian violence and terrorism in the latest Intifada has undermined any effort on their part to be seen as wanting peace
they've shot themselves in the foot. They've spent so much indoctrinating their people with an undying hatred, and a death wish, that they can't control the gunmen. The lunatics have seized control of the asylum.

I still remain uneasy about the rest of the Israeli settlements in the West Bank though.
me, too. They should expand, for security's sake. They should withdraw for public perception. Which way they're gonna go, I dunno.

The Palestinians went from doing it right in the First Intifada
yup, rocketting/mortaring Israel, blowing up stuff, sending children with lethal slingshots and bolts to attack Israeli soldiers, then crowd around gunmen so the Israelis appear to be murdering children, etc, etc. All the while playing the media like grand pianos. Actually, to be more accurate, like kazoos.
They did it right.

makes for an interesting world, I guess....
may you live in interesting times
 
Infanteer,

I've got a few things to say but I am far too lazy to use the quote feature so please bear with me.

First, thanks for the clarification, it seemed like you saw the physical geography as the main determinant to Pal statehood, but I understand better what you meant now. Sort of a straw that breaks the camels back kind of thing? I agree that it's a problem but not really one that can't be overcome provided both parties are willing to work together to make the Pal state work alongside the Israeli state. Unfortunately the Pals have spooled themselves up for war (or their version of it at least) to such an extent they are not going to be able to stop any time soon. The leadership has convinced the population that Jews (not Israelis, but Jews) are an enemy that is best off dead so how do you convince them otherwise now?

Secondly, who really controls Hamas and the rest of the armed factions who represent the Pals? Do they actually represent the majority of the Pals desires? How would anyone know? If 100% of the Pals wanted them to disarm would they? I don't know, I doubt anyone does, what is certain though is that those armed factions took some horrifying decisions on behalf of the Pals for which someone has to be held to account.

Third, the morality is in the eye of the beholder theme is a bit tired in my opinion. As a conscious, free, thinking, human being it is certainly my right and duty to point out actions that I think are immoral. The notion that I have no business judging someone else suggests that my moral convictions are no better than anyone else's which is hooey. My moral convictions are based on the principle of "do unto others". Certainly I can judge the actions of someone who, say, rapes a child, can I not? Does the rapist's viewpoint or moral convictions really matter? Doesn't the action speak to those convictions? Do we really need to go through the list of things that we can all agree are morally wrong? I doubt it. I have a sneaking suspicion that the unwillingness to make judgments says more about an inability to articulate one's own morality than anything else.

Last, you make a good point about ignoring legitimate grievances however what you are missing is the danger of addressing legitimate grievances due to illegitimate actions. If you respond to illegitimate actions (terrorism, for example) to address legitimate grievances (land claims, for example) you legitimize those actions. In other words giving in to terrorism causes further terrorism, which was my point when I said that the legitimacy of their grievances was irrelevant. Certainly the land will eventually go back to the Arabs, perhaps one day all of Israel will go back to them, but why on Gods green earth would anyone suggest giving it back while the Arabs are ruled by the thugs that they are right now?

Good discussion,
Andrew
 
Andy,

Tough questions, and I'm just an armchair observer, so I won't pretend I know.

First point on convincing - I'd say it works the other way as well, we are all strongly convinced that there is no hope for the Palestinian Arabs except a suicide bombers vest, how do we convince the world that they will accept peace (if they are indeed willing)?   I still think the answer is detente; disengagement and the wall.

Second point - your guess is as good as mine.

Third point on morality.   Nowhere does it say that you can't judge and comment on the action of others; what I am getting at is that, because humans are complex and odd things, your judgement is going to be worth the paper it is printed on to the guy who disagrees with it (to quote Brit) with regards to getting something done.   You don't need to convince me that blowing up a bus is not a good way to show you want peace, we need to convince the Palestinians.   This is not from the fact that I have an inability to articulate my own moral code (which I've done numerous times around these forums), it's only that me adding "Fucking Palestinian murderers" or "Osama is going to pay" or "McDonalds is the Devil!" to the thread doesn't do much in really getting to the crux of the matter.   Your notion of the rapist is a bit different - committing the crime of rape within our society (Canada) brings in absolutes.   Within our system rape has been deemed taboo, and we have the full weight of the justice system to back it up.   Black and white, right and wrong exist.  

But when you go above this level to societies interacting, where does the moral authority to pronounce right from wrong come from?   If 4 million Palestinians have a problem, and they are backed by a the sentiments of a billion Muslims (I know, it would be foolish to think that all Muslims have the same politics, but I think we can both admit right now that the Islamic world is pretty uniform in its opinion of Israel), and many in the West champion their cause (Edward Said has a big audience) then who is to say that their opinions have any less moral authority than ours?   Can you, as a conscious, free, thinking human being agree with me that those other guys are probably also conscious, free, thinking human beings who probably feel the same about their moral authority?   I always like to use the "Lowest Common Denominator" thought experiment - if there was just you and the other guy, who would be right?

Ultimately, I think "right" will be realized by taking one of two paths (that Britney highlighted earlier) - we either have agreement and peace (which, like all politics, will demand concessions from both), or we scorch their will to resist to the ground to utterly convince them that our viewpoint is the one to take (the Hama method, what we did with the Germans and the Japanese).

Fourth point - you are absolutely right about later actions.   My causality argument was a bit simplified to get my point across and ignored what I think is the second part of the idea, action and reaction.   Once you have a cause and effect, you get an action and a reaction.   Continuous action and reaction tends to muddle up a clear picture, as action and reaction become cause in their own right.   However, I still think you have to separate what you feel is genuine cause from what you see to be illegitimate action, because saying "You have no right to any political recourse now because of terrorist attacks!" would be pretty unproductive in deescalation (Indeed, if we used that tact, the Jews of Palestine would have never gotten the British and the UN online with a Jewish state - as Paracowboy mentioned, their past is less than rosy).   Hold out the carrot to those who wish to negotiate, and use the stick against those who continue to attack your innocent civilians, and be willing to make the concessions.   It should legitimize your actions in the eyes of others and delegitimize that of the other guy - the essence of 4th Generation War fought on the moral plane (Hammes' chapters on the Intifadas are excellent).

As for giving back the land, do you mean Israel as a whole or just Gaza/West Bank?   I think it is necessary to give them the land (all of it) in the West Bank/Gaza as was layed out by Oslo and to let them have their own state as it will be the only way to convince them (and the anti-Israeli crowd at large) that it is not Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down.   Despite the fact that all those who were intimate in the process generally feel that Yasser Arafat was the key roadblock to success (I've seen this from diplomat Dennis Ross, in the writings of Friedman, in a quote by Saudi Prince Bandar, etc, etc) - a view I believe in - fingers always point to Israel as the problem, and so the violence continues.   I say that if Palestine puts thugs, gangsters, and terrorists in charge, then they'll reap what they sow.   Detente, disengagement, and the wall will do the best to ensure that this time, all the Palestinians (and their supporters) can do is point the fingers at themselves (of course, judging from the world right now, fingers will somehow go to the United States....).

Anyways, just my thoughts

Cheers,
Infanteer
 
paracowboy said:
some random points. Most of us are all on line and in agreement, with sematics set aside.
that term has always cracked me up when used in reference to most Jews today. The majority of Jews alive today are not Semitic. They are, for the most part, Slavs. Most Jews today are Ashkenazi (sp), Semitic Jews are Falasha. Most of them were only found in Africa until very recently.
Before they were known as Palestinians, they were known as Philistines. This hate has been goin' on a looong time!
Independence from Mother England.
wise choice. The Irgun were terrorists. And highly trained ones, as Britain had brought IRA members to teach them, as well as SOE operatives during the Second World War. Kinda back-fired when Britain tried to renege on promises made. If you get the chance to pick it up, read The Roots of Counter-Insurgency by Iain F.W. Beckett. Some good stuff on Palestine prior to 1945. Also, anything you can find on Mickey Marcus, Orde Wingate, the Haganah, the Irgun, the Palmach, and the Stern Gang.
While I am firmly on Israel's side today, I will not blindly support all of the actions of the State's Founders, or of the various governments since.

At the risk of being pedantic maybe I can clarify part of the above.    Ashkenazi Jews hail from Eastern and Central Europe,   Sephardic Jews hail from the Middle East and the Mediterranean.   Many of them were expelled from North African countries when the State of Israel was created, the number is approximately equal to the original Palestinian refugees.    An essential difference is that the Sephardim were integrated into Israeli society whereas the Palestinians ( or "the cousins" as they colloqually referred to by Israelis) were penned up in refugee camps by their Arab cousins for whatever reasons.     The Falashas, from Ethiopia, are neither Askhenazi or Sephardi.   They are considered the mythical lost tribe and were brought to Israel in the '70's &   '80's when Ethiopia went down the toilet.   I say mythical because there a several other Jewish sects that make the same claim, not that it matters.

As far as the Irgun & Stern Gang are concerned, both were indeed extremists and terrorists.    The former was a splinter group from the Haganah (the "official" Zionist DND if you will and of which Palmach was the mobile strike force and which owes much to Orde Wingate, so much so that Israel's premiere institute of sports medicine is named after him) and the Stern Gang was a splinter group from Irgun.   In 1948 Haganah quite literally had to shoot it out with Irgun/Stern Gang to rein them in and so the IDF was formed.   If you want more details read up on what is called the Altalena incident.   That memory has re-surfaced in the present day with the extreme right resistance to Israeli government's disengagement policy.

I'll shut up now. I've been following this interesting debate however I have been refraining from more actively participating because my own views are very subjective and, frankly,   they ain't gonna change.   So I'll just interject with clarifications such as this one. . :salute:
 
Shec said:
 Ashkenazi Jews hail from Eastern and Central Europe,   Sephardic Jews hail from the Middle East and the Mediterranean.   Many of them were expelled from North African countries when the State of Israel was created, the number is approximately equal to the original Palestinian refugees...The Falashas, from Ethiopia, are neither Askhenazi or Sephardi.  
Thank you for that, Shec. You are spot-on. (I just re-checked my reference material. Which I should have done before posting. I am a dumb@ss.)

 
Infanteer, good post, thanks for taking the time. I think we are much closer on this than we think.


"...how do we convince the world that they will accept peace (if they are indeed willing)?   I still think the answer is detente; disengagement and the wall."

I don't think we need to, I think they need to OR we make them willing.



"Second point - your guess is as good as mine."

Exactly, and ultimately that is the point, as I see it, to electing people to speak for us to other countries. Other countries may not like what we have to say and vice versa, but at least when we level their cities we can do so knowing that they are reaping what they sow.



"Third point on morality.   Nowhere does it say that you can't judge and comment on the action of others; what I am getting at is that, because humans are complex and odd things, your judgement is going to be worth the paper it is printed on to the guy who disagrees with it (to quote Brit) with regards to getting something done."

Indeed...but so what? I have judged the action, not the person, not even the method and reasoning behind the decision to take the action. Those are not of any immediate concern to me, what is a concern to me is the action itself and letting the individual, or society, understand that that action is unacceptable.



"You don't need to convince me that blowing up a bus is not a good way to show you want peace, we need to convince the Palestinians."  

I think we need to convince the Pals, Arabs, Muslims, and the world at large that blowing up a bus is not a good way to do anything.



"This is not from the fact that I have an inability to articulate my own moral code (which I've done numerous times around these forums) it's only that me adding "******* Palestinian murderers" or "Osama is going to pay" or "McDonalds is the Devil!" to the thread doesn't do much in really getting to the crux of the matter."  


Yes you have, I apologize if you inferred that from my statements. You are correct that using rhetoric like the examples you've used isn't helpful, but neither is taking a neutral tone with respect to the actions. It is possible to judge an action without judging a person or a culture. IE. "Murdering those civilians was a disgusting act", vs. "those Pals are a disgusting people for murdering those civilians". Judging the act itself without judging the person who committed it is useful in letting that person, as well as any observers, know where you stand with respect to the act. As a society we have not done a very good job of the former out of fear of doing the latter.




"Your notion of the rapist is a bit different - committing the crime of rape within our society (Canada) brings in absolutes.   Within our system rape has been deemed taboo, and we have the full weight of the justice system to back it up.   Black and white, right and wrong exist.  

But when you go above this level to societies interacting, where does the moral authority to pronounce right from wrong come from?"

The act of rape is not wrong because the system says it is wrong, it is wrong because we as individuals have decided that it is wrong and have gone so far as to create a system to codify it. Labeling an act right or wrong is not done out of some desire to judge individual people as moral or immoral but as a way to prevent those acts from happening as much as is possible. Similarly the moral authority to pronounce right and wrong at a societal level comes not from a desire to feel superior to other societies but from the desire to prevent the act from being perpetrated on (and in) our society.

Frankly if the people of Lower Blueballistan decide amongst themselves that murder as we define it is a legitimate means to resolve grievances, well, that is their concern. My concern is that it will be used by their society on another and when or if comes to pass that they do just that, it behooves us to let them know we don't find it acceptable.  



"If 4 million Palestinians have a problem, and they are backed by a the sentiments of a billion Muslims, and many in the West champion their cause then who is to say that their opinions have any less moral authority than ours?"

Reason should decide morality, not consensus.



"Can you, as a conscious, free, thinking human being agree with me that those other guys are probably also conscious, free, thinking human beings who probably feel the same about their moral authority?"

Maybe, I don't know how they feel with respect their moral authority, they are they and I am I. No man can claim to know the mind of another much less the minds of another society at large. I'm quite certain though that there is a variety of opinions about it, but I do hope to god that it is a minority that have no moral problem with deliberately killing civilians. I suspect we will never know, just as we will never really know how many Germans or Japanese had no moral problem with what their armed representatives were doing. The point is not whether or not they feel they have the moral authority to deliberately target civilians but whether they SHOULD feel moral authority to deliberately kill women and children. From what I can understand that is the point to the GWOT; convince the world at large that deliberately targeting civilians is verboten before the world at large decides that it isn't. If the world decides that deliberately targeting civilians is kosher, as we did in WWII, they will lose.      



"I always like to use the "Lowest Common Denominator" thought experiment - if there was just you and the other guy, who would be right?"

In that instance who was right would be decided the same way it has been decided since the dawn of time. The saying "might makes right" exists for a reason, why we have the "might" and they don't is for another discussion. For the record though I happen to believe it is BECAUSE of our respective moral codes that we have the might.



"Ultimately, I think "right" will be realized by taking one of two paths - we either have agreement and peace, or we scorch their will to resist to the ground to utterly convince them that our viewpoint is the one to take."

Yup, see WWII.



"Fourth point - you are absolutely right about later actions.   My causality argument was a bit simplified to get my point across and ignored what I think is the second part of the idea, action and reaction.   Once you have a cause and effect, you get an action and a reaction.   Continuous action and reaction tends to muddle up a clear picture, as action and reaction become cause in their own right."

I don't disagree with that.



"However, I still think you have to separate what you feel is genuine cause from what you see to be illegitimate action, because saying "You have no right to any political recourse now because of terrorist attacks!" would be pretty unproductive in de-escalation..."

That is not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that political recourse is the only choice they have, indeed it is the only option they ever had. They may one day be Arabs ruling the entire world from Jerusalem, I could really care less provided Terrorism has been abandoned as a means of internal and external control.



"(Indeed, if we used that tact, the Jews of Palestine would have never gotten the British and the UN online with a Jewish state - as Paracowboy mentioned, their past is less than rosy)"

Correct, and perhaps we SHOULD have taken that tact then, unfortunately we allowed the circumstances and objectives to cloud our judgment of right and wrong. Pity, perhaps we could have avoided the whole mess?



"Hold out the carrot to those who wish to negotiate, and use the stick against those who continue to attack your innocent civilians, and be willing to make the concessions. It should legitimize your actions in the eyes of others and delegitimize that of the other guy - the essence of 4th Generation War fought on the moral plane (Hammes' chapters on the Intifadas are excellent).


I don't disagree except that is to clarify. You said "...and be willing to make concessions" but I think you should have included "to those willing to negotiate, not those attacking civilians". In this instance can we separate the two? It doesn't seem like it to me.



"As for giving back the land, do you mean Israel as a whole or just Gaza/West Bank?   I think it is necessary to give them the land (all of it) in the West Bank/Gaza as was layed out by Oslo and to let them have their own state as it will be the only way to convince them (and the anti-Israeli crowd at large) that it is not Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down.   Despite the fact that all those who were intimate in the process generally feel that Yasser Arafat was the key roadblock to success - a view I believe in - fingers always point to Israel as the problem, and so the violence continues.   I say that if Palestine puts thugs, gangsters, and terrorists in charge, then they'll reap what they sow.   Detente, disengagement, and the wall will do the best to ensure that this time, all the Palestinians (and their supporters) can do is point the fingers at themselves (of course, judging from the world right now, fingers will somehow go to the United States....)."

I mean the whole kit and kaboodle, I think that it is inevitable that at some point majority will rule in the region. Might be 1000 years from now, might be 50. Either way hopefully by then the majority will have learned of the futility and folly in targeting civilians.


Thanks,
Andrew


 
Shec said:
I'll shut up now. I've been following this interesting debate however I have been refraining from more actively participating because my own views are very subjective and, frankly,   they ain't gonna change.   So I'll just interject with clarifications such as this one. . :salute:

Actually Shec I think you post was very informative and apropos to the general point I am trying to make, thanks for taking the time.

I think sometimes we get a bit wrapped up in the minutiae of issues that we forget to look at the larger picture. Whenever I read about "Lost Tribes" and so forth I remember that the struggles in that part of the world are really really really old. We're newcomers on the scene as far as they're concerned and I think the only reason they don't like us is because we've stuck our nose in to their affairs and worse still taken the Israeli side.

I think that the question as to whether they have a claim to the land or not is irrelevant,   and in fact they may in fact have a legitimate claim to the land and the Israelis might be all wrong. The people of Germany had a claim to the Rhineland in the 30s after they lost (but weren't defeated) in WWI. I think most of the world thought that they had a claim to it. I certainly think they had a legitimate claim to it and understand their joy when they took it back. None of that is relevant though, what is relevant is that Germany in the 30s was run by Hitler and giving it back to them while he was running things was a really unwise thing to do. Not because the people of Germany didn't want it back nor because the people of the Rhineland didn't want it, and not because the people of the world didn't want it but because the result of giving it back was bad all around.

Similarly the people of the Middle East on the whole have a legitimate claim to renegotiate the deal that made Israel a state but not so long as the tactic of deliberately targeting non-combatants is seen as a legitimate tool to a dangerously powerful part of their societies. How many Germans were members of the Nazi party in German in the thirties? 2%-3%. I can't remember but it certainly wasn't a majority, everyone loves a winner though and every time those who employ what we call terrorism can claim a victory their popularity will increase, just as the popularity of Naziism rose with every gain Hitler made diplomatically and militarily. Contrary to what some people will claim, victory in places like Iraq does not lead to a growing opposition, only defeat will cause our opposition to grow.Every concession that we in the "West" make is a victory for our enemies, whether we acknowledge it as such or not. Our enemies have already claimed victory (through Terrorism) in Gaza just as they claimed victory in Somalia, Lebanon, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan (Soviet), Bosnia...

How many "victories "will it take until they get really motivated? I think that we are in our generation's version of the 1930s. I hope to god I'm wrong. I don't want to go to war, I like my life.

Andrew



Edited to add: All of that being said, Gaza is not the Rhineland, and Abbas is not Hitler. The comparison is apt on some levels, but is not exact by any means.
 
Back
Top