# Attention Israel: Enough is Enough. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 16, 2003, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720 "2003-03-16T03:42:16Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/181 "2003-03-22T16:42:39Z")
Oh, how funny. Normally you hear that being his redeeming quality - his support of the Palestinians. So is his “support” considered a good thing or a bad thing? ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 5:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/182 "2003-03-22T17:52:27Z")
**Tee:** What, are you asking me if **I** consider it a redeeming quality of Saddam? I am sure that his burning sympathy for the palestinians are about as deeply felt as that of any other asshole trying to gain public support by populistic means. The palestinians are once again the losers, since Saddams support only takes legitimacy from the other widespread support the palestinians have for their claims. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/183 "2003-03-22T22:00:00Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > \*\ ***malthus** > > That is a very good question. > > For me, in no particular order: > > - my disgust in seeing suffering of people (both sides) for such a long period of time where there could be a solution (I believe), but nothing succesful has been done about it > > - the immediacy of the situation - it is not history, it is now > > - a sense of fairness - disgusted with people having land taken off them, when they have had contact with the land for ages, and the huge inbalance of power of one side over the other > > - the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human > > - that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy > All these things motivate my interest in the situation. Similarities with South Africa prior to 1990s and Timor prior to 2002. > > So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment. \*\* First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other. Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on _both_ sides of the debate. When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort: "- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human - that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy" "So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by a democratic govenment. " Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion. This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over. Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked. In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not. The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not. Now, what actions the right of self-defence justifies varies with the extremity of the danger posed. This is where I undoubtably disagree with McDuff. It is an individual issue whether any particular action taken by the Israeli government crosses the line from being justified to being unjustified, based on the extent of the danger and the severity of the response. So far, as a matter of historical fact, their response has been (in my opinion) reasonably restrained. Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of “innocents”? I am afraid it has. Unfortunately, excercising the right of self-defence tends to have that effect. It cannot be otherwise, particularly given an enemy who uses the innocent civilian population as its cover. To claim that never, under any circumstances, may the right of self defence impinge on innocents is to naively hand victory to the aggressors - as it renders that right essentially meaningless, given that those who engage in attacks are highly unlikely to seperate themselves willingly from the general population so as to enable them to be destroyed with impunity. As for why I am interested, myself: it mostly has to do with the fact that I lived there for almost a year, working on an archaeological dig (Tel Dor, if any are interested) in the days when I considered becoming an archaeologist. This gave me a certain amount of insight into the place and its history. The length of occupation of the area, and its seeming centrality over long periods of time, I found very interesting. So was the attitude of Israelis. I can best sum it up by saying that the events of the 20th century have taught the Israelis the absolute importance of both the right and ability to defend themselves. I can hardly disagree. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/184 "2003-03-22T23:12:54Z")
**Malthus:** I am sure that many people would agree with you that there exists a right to self defence. But then there’s the quastion of applying that general principle to a particular case. So let’s dissect the circumstances in this particular case. The original resolution that called for the creation of a jewish state also called for the creation of an arbic state. This two-state solution was not accepted by the neighbouring arab states (they wanted an ethnically mixed, one-state solution). The state of Israel was proclaimed, and immediately the neighbouring arabic states attacked. Israel won the war, and it can safely be argued that they were acting in self-defence. Now, Israel kept control of territories won in that war, and has since then often argued that these territories are needed for Israel’s security, in effect this constitutes the second, arabic state. This, i believe, falls outside what can safely be credited to self-defense. The united states do no longer occupy afghanistan in the sense Israel is occupying the west bank, and the gaza strip. This is the key issue. Neither can you argue that Israel has a right to occupy these territories in self defense towards suicide bombers. Or for any other reason. For sure you can argue that Israel feels safer holding on to the occupied territories (although i would very much doubt if it really makes them safer). But you can’t say they have a right to do so, on the grounds of self-defense. Now, i don’t support the suicide bombings. They cannot be justified by the occupation, since their victims often are civilians. But in the same way, you can never justify the Israeli’s revenge raids (that’s what they are) with the suicide bombings. The bombings kills women and children on the sidewalk. So does the Israeli “terrorist raids”. The former are carried out by fanatics, extremists among the palestinians. The latter are carried out by the Israeli army. And finally i wholeheartedly agree with the view that “Israel is a slur on democracy”. As of now there are 3 million inhabitants in the Gaza strip and the West Bank that are effectively governed by the Israeli state but has no right to vote! ---
**Author:** ![Tee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/73ab20/32.png) [@Tee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tee)\ **Post date:** [March 22, 2003, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/185 "2003-03-22T23:39:35Z")
“The state of Israel was proclaimed” and was created. Period. It is non-negotiable. As long as Arabs are calling for a Free Palestine they are essentially denying what gives them the right to administer their own land - the original resolution. From earlier: > [@](#): > > \*\*I am sure that his burning sympathy for the palestinians are about as deeply felt as that of any other asshole trying to gain public support by populistic means. > > The palestinians are once again the losers, since Saddams support only takes legitimacy from the other widespread support the palestinians have for their claims.\*\* I agree. They’ve been used. The damage is done now though, and they are filling the streets and crying Death to Israel, Death to America and probably will be for a very long time. When they are done figuring out whether they are respresenting themselves in the matter or whole Arab race for past injustices, then maybe an honest discussion about land can begin. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/186 "2003-03-23T00:16:38Z")
Who’s trying to negotiate the existance of the state of Israel? Maybe some people. Certainly not me. But much in the same way the return of the occupied territories should not be negociated. They should just be returned. I fail to see how “Arabs calling for Free palestine” denies that? Maybe i’m not reading you right, **Tee**? ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 1:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/187 "2003-03-23T01:31:01Z")
My gut feeling is this… if Israel (the country) could somehow reach a state of security where they were SURE, absolutely 100% sure that no further arms or terrorists against the Jewish people were being smuggled in through the incredibly porous borders with Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, and Sinai Desert - then I honestly believe the Israeli’s would go a long way towards implementing open land holdings and equal voting rights for the Palestinian Arabs living in the Golan Heights, the Gaza Strip, and the West Bank. As it stands, the Israelis are paranoid - quite justifiably I rather think - that still, to this day, all of the borders she shares with her Arab neighbours remain conduits for those enemies who would seek to kill her. Accordingly, the first step in a workable Peace Plan now is to accept that **all** of the occupied territories are now Israel - and that this is fait accompli. Next, we need to somehow implement a 100% watertight border control around the ENTIRE country. And folks - it’s got to be tighter than a frog’s arse. If it takes building a one kilometer high wall around the friggin place, then that’s what it takes. But something has to be done, once and for all, to physically stop the endless parade of terrorists ENTERING the occupied territories from countries OUTSIDE of Israel. Next, we, the countries of the world who are genuinely interested in a true lasting peace, must then FORCE total equality onto the Israeli people - of all religions - of all backgrounds. Everyone, from Tel Aviv to the Gaza Strip to the Golan Heights must have equal voting rights and equal representation in a Westminster style democratic government. And it wouldn’t hurt to do a total utter house to house search of the entire country - on both sides - for guns and explosives. And further, all guns henceforth should be illegal - unless held in the hands of the police. Lastly, Israel, in my opinion should change her name - and it should not be “Palestine”. She should simply change her name to the “Land of Jerusalem” because that’s a city which is sacred to everyone - regardless of tribalism - and as such, it’s neutral. And if anything in the state of Israel is in short supply, it’s a spirit of neutrality. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 1:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/188 "2003-03-23T01:42:43Z")
But **Boo** , Paranoia in the Israeli people - justified or not justified - can never be a legal ground for their right to occupied land. It is occupied and, in the context of international law, therefore stolen and should be returned. No matter any other circumstances. Therefore the occupied territories can also never be accepted as part of the state of Israel. Even if you had it your way, the Israelis would never award full citizenship to the palestinians. Since they would then make up half of that new states voters and that’s a transfer of power that neither Likud nor the workers party is interested in. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/189 "2003-03-23T02:05:54Z")
Then the question becomes a simple one… “reality” vs “survival”. The reality is that the Israeli’s will never know true peace whilstsoever they share their immediate neighbourhood with a people who are blatantly forced to live in inferior living standards while the Israeli people live in much superior living standards. The survival of Israel, in the above circumstances becomes a moot point - she can’t survive - not indefinitely because the demographics and the polarisation of wealth will ultimately prevail. Hence, Israel now, ironically is faced with the same “choice of accepting reality” that the Palestinians were faced with during the 1930’s - namely - that they simply HAVE to embrace integration and shared voting rights and shared police rights and shared civil functions etc etc etc. Otherwise, the disparity of wealth and living standards will forever condemn both sides to everlasting atrocities. Ergo, it’s now “reality” vs “survival”. But I caution - all sides involved have to be prepared to cast aside the arguements of “tribalism” and “we were here first”. They all have to be able to think of themselves as “one country, one people” - from the Lebanon to the Sinai, from Tel Aviv to the Jordan river. Unless this giant “diametric quantum shift” is undertaken, it’s never going to be resolved I rather think. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/190 "2003-03-23T02:40:46Z")
Yeah, well actually i’m not sure if a one state with equal rights solution is such a bad idea. The only problem is that both parties in the conflict agree only on rejecting that solution. ---
**Author:** ![Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/e274bd/32.png) [@Boo\_Boo\_Foo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boo_Boo_Foo)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/191 "2003-03-23T03:07:31Z")
Indeed **Randy** - and now we’re getting to the real “heart” of the problem… namely, that the place is rife with endemic, and instutionalised “tribalism”. And oddly enough, in some respects, the whole imbroglio is similar to the “black townships” outside of Johannesburg, and the institutionalised “racism” which used to exist in South Africa. The South African blacks used to point to their squalid townships and their awful living conditions, and the fact that they couldn’t vote, and the fact that their fellow “white South Africans” lived in much better living standards - and they simply despaired at the dreadful injustice of it all. There were terrorist actions as a result. And yet, in just 10 glorious years (albeit not without hiccups I accept) they’ve transformed the place. But I would argue something very important here - I’ll bet you a million bucks that there’s NO WAY the South Africans could have sorted themselves out if there were other neighbouring African countries who were deliberately sending armed terrorists INTO South Africa with the mission of “Kill all the Whiteys!” - and that there, is a mighty important analogy I rather think. ---
**Author:** ![antechinus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/fbc32d/32.png) [@antechinus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/antechinus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 4:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/192 "2003-03-23T04:32:06Z")
> [@](#): > > First, I thank everyone who answered my question. I would like to point out that I was not trying to be rhetorical, or to score points for one side or the other. > > Rather, my question was intended to involve a certain amount of self-examination - for people on both sides of the debate. > > When I get a response like that above, it makes it slightly difficult. Statements of this sort: > > "- the disrepect shown by the Israelis towards the Palestinians - regarding them as sub-human > > - that the Israeli government is supposed to be a democracy - this is a slur on democracy" > > "So, malthus, how does your moral framework differ such that you agree to see a continuation of attacks on innocent poeple by > a democratic govenment. " From all the evidence I have, the Israeli government does treat the palestinians like shit and democracy is not applied evenly. > [@](#): > > Seem to call for debate over the assumptions (I believe wrong assumptions) which underline the opinion. > This is not what I was after. There is plenty of this sort of debate already, and we all know it tends to go in circles. Naturally, if you (or anyone) thinks that one side is all good, and the other all evil, and the reason you support one side is because you like good and hate evil, the debate is effectively over. Thats right, it is not that simple, both the suicide bombers and elements in the Israeli government are bad. Everyone else is caught in the middle. > [@](#): > > Although I am not sure that it was made in good faith, I will answer the question asked. In my own moral framework, I believe that people have the right to self-defence. Some of the actions taken by the Israeli government are undertaken to defend the state and the people of that country. Others (such as the settlement policy) are not. > The former actions are unfortunate necessities and morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional. The latter are not. The suicide bombing campaign is not, I believe, undertaken in self-defence. Indeed, there is no conceivable way that such actions benefit or defend the people of Palistine. On the contrary, they are the cause of increased misery for those people. Therefore, they are not justified, and there is no need to debate whether they are perportional or not. I agree. The suicide bombing is not done in self defense, but provoked by desparation for international attention. I think it does the palestinians more harm than good. I am glad you agree that the settlement policy is not morally justified. > [@](#): > > Compare for example their response to suicide bombing (isolating, but not arresting or killing, Arafat) with that of the US and the al-Queda situation. Would the US agree to isolate bin Laden if they knew where he was? Has the US invasion of Afganistan dispossessed, killed or disrupted the lives of “innocents”? I am afraid it has. Arafat was preserved to avoid a huge international response. Come on - how can you compare Arafat with Bin Ladin. The Israelis launch attacks on civilians in order to protect themselves from suicide bombers, which just creates more Palestinian hatred and recruits more suicide bombers. Surely you can see the vicious cycle. Both the government and the fanatics are reacting to provocation. Who do you think is in a better position to break that cycle - individual fanatics or a democratic govenment? Malthus: I think this is your answer to the question (please correct me if I misinterpreted in this precis): The Israeli actions of killing innocents are “unfortunate necessities and morally justified” because it is in Israels self defence. And that the attacks are “morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional” This thinking would never solve the situation. It justs perpetuates the viscious cycle. The attacks by the Israeli army are NOT proportional. _Even if the attacks were_, then this is just an eye-for-an-eye morality. One that no modern human should subscribe to. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/193 "2003-03-23T14:34:59Z")
**Boo:** Yes, Israel/Palestine is ripe with tribalism and “hama-rules”. But i find the South-Africa analogy a bit far-streched. Back then most american condemned the apartheit system (as did most europeans). That is not the case with Israel / Palestine. The debate in american mass-media seem to more or less lean towards the Israeli viewpoint, as could be expected in the case of a strategic ally in the region. The apartheid system in SA could be easily associated by americans to their own country, pre- civil rights. That which one has recently abandoned is often most easily condemned! Now, in reality it was actually apartheid South Africa that sent militia into all of it’s neighbouring states, to pursue SA s perceived national interests. And, for sure, looking to the situation post-1967, Israel has been involved in a number of “preventive” interventions, f. e. the occupation of Leebanon. The present day Bush-doctrine actually seems to have taken a lot of inspiration from what the Israelis been doing for a long, long time. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/194 "2003-03-23T18:40:21Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\ ***Malthus:** > > I am sure that many people would agree with you that there exists a right to self defence. But then there’s the quastion of applying that general principle to a particular case. > > So let’s dissect the circumstances in this particular case. The original resolution that called for the creation of a jewish state also called for the creation of an arbic state. This two-state solution was not accepted by the neighbouring arab states (they wanted an ethnically mixed, one-state solution). > > The state of Israel was proclaimed, and immediately the neighbouring arabic states attacked. Israel won the war, and it can safely be argued that they were acting in self-defence. > > Now, Israel kept control of territories won in that war, and has since then often argued that these territories are needed for Israel’s security, in effect this constitutes the second, arabic state. This, i believe, falls outside what can safely be credited to self-defense. The united states do no longer occupy afghanistan in the sense Israel is occupying the west bank, and the gaza strip. > > This is the key issue. Neither can you argue that Israel has a right to occupy these territories in self defense towards suicide bombers. Or for any other reason. > > For sure you can argue that Israel feels safer holding on to the occupied territories (although i would very much doubt if it really makes them safer). But you can’t say they have a right to do so, on the grounds of self-defense. > > Now, i don’t support the suicide bombings. They cannot be justified by the occupation, since their victims often are civilians. But in the same way, you can never justify the Israeli’s revenge raids (that’s what they are) with the suicide bombings. > > The bombings kills women and children on the sidewalk. So does the Israeli “terrorist raids”. The former are carried out by fanatics, extremists among the palestinians. The latter are carried out by the Israeli army. > > And finally i wholeheartedly agree with the view that “Israel is a slur on democracy”. As of now there are 3 million inhabitants in the Gaza strip and the West Bank that are effectively governed by the Israeli state but has no right to vote! \*\* Unfortunately, I think you are a tad mistaken about the history of the region. 1. I know that the surrounding Arab states publically proclaimed in '48 that they wanted a “democratic single state” solution, but they also proclaimed that their goal was to “toss the Jews into the sea”. I am more inclined to believe the latter would have been the outcome, particularly as none of the surrounding states implemented democracy themselves, and most after losing that war exiled their own Jewish communities (links available concerning this, on request). 2. The WB and Gaza were _not_ taken in '48 – by Israel. They were taken by Jordan and Egypt, respectively (no-one complained about that, for some reason). 3. The WB and Gaza were taken by Israel during the so-called six day war in '67. 4. That war was a defensive war on the part of Israel. The UN disgraced itself in that conflict, by agreeing without debate to an Egyptian demand to remove peacekeepers seperating Egypt from Israel so as to facilitate an Egyptian attack (one of the many reasons Israel distrusts the UN). 5. Israel, following victory, obtained several territories - Sinai, WB, Gaza, Golan heights. Immediately, Israel sought to give these territories back to the Arab states they got them from – in exchange for peace treaties. I am sure you would agree that this was the proper thing to do. Sinai and Gaza were to go to Egypt, the WB to Jordan, Golan to Syria. 6. The Arab states refused to offer peace treaties. 7. After “Black September” (the attempted Palistinian take-over of Jordan) in 1970(?), Jordan renounced its claim to the WB - making that territory effectively stateless. The reason: Jordan’s Hashimite monarchy feared the absorbtion of so many Palistinians would undermine the kingdom. 8. After Egypt’s comparatively good performance during the Yom Kippur war in '73, Egypt considered that honour was satisfied and accepted the Sinai in exchange for a peace treaty. They did not want Gaza back either. Like Jordan, they had no intention of accepting so many Palistinians. 9. Syria has never been interested in obtaining a peace treaty. The Golan hights are extremely strategic (they were used prior to '67 by the Syrians to shell deep int Israel), so Israel is unlikely to give them back without firm guarentees. 10. That leaves Gaza and the WB. These territories were in effect abandoned by the countries which originally “owned” them (quite illegally, assuming that the UN’s decision in '48 represented a legal decision). What is Israel supposed to do with them? Extremists on the Israeli side thought that the answer was to grab the important bits via the settlement policy. 11. Over the last decade, attempts were made via the Oslo accord and otherwise to transfer them to the Palistinian people themselves – attempts which were unsuccessful, mainly because the Palistinian leadership rejected them. Still, it is hoped that a new Palistinian leadership will prove more accomodating. Please point out to me what steps taken by Israel during this sequence of events amounts to a “slur on democracy”. The intent all along was _not_ to hold onto the WB and Gaza - with the exception of some extremists. Arab instrangence has strengthened those extermists’ positions immensely. But seriously, assume you were in control of Israel. What would _you_ do? Attempt to hand them over peacefully? Been tried, and failed. Give them to the countries you took them from? They don’t want them. Hand them over to UN control? The _same_ UN that so conspicuously failed to even attempt to protect Israel in '67? Maybe it is easier to simply condemn Israel out of hand. Easier, but easy answers are not always right. ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/195 "2003-03-23T19:08:04Z")
> [@](#): > > After looking at various alternatives, the UN proposed the partitioning of Palestine into two independent States, one Palestinian Arab and the other Jewish, with Jerusalem internationalized (Resolution 181 (II) of 1947). One of the two States envisaged in the partition plan proclaimed its independence as Israel and in the 1948 war expanded to occupy 77 per cent of the territory of Palestine. Israel also occupied the larger part of Jerusalem. Over half the indigenous Palestinian population fled or were expelled. Jordan and Egypt occupied the other parts of the territory assigned by the partition resolution to the Palestinian Arab State which did not come into being. > > In the 1967 war, Israel occupied the remaining territory of Palestine, until then under Jordanian and Egyptian control (the West Bank and Gaza Strip). This included the remaining part of Jerusalem, which was subsequently annexed by Israel. The war brought about a second exodus of Palestinians, estimated at half a million. Security Council resolution 242 (1967) of 22 November 1967 called on Israel to withdraw from territories it had occupied in the 1967 conflict. (From the UN Department of Political Affairs : [http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html](http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html)) So I admit that my recount of the occupation of the gaza strip and the west bank was sloppy, and ill-informed. My apologies! Still it should be pretty clear that the legal basis of the state Israel is from the outset coupled to the existance of another palestinian arabian state, which territory has been, and is as of now occupied by Israel. Now i don’t and would never lay all the blame for the current state of affairs on Israel. That would indeed be simplified and inaccurate. And I fully agree with you that the neighbouring arab states are worthy of much critisism. But that do not constitute a defence for holding on to the occupied territories. No argument based on Israels security, critisism of the UN, or the villain-ness of Egypt, Jordan or Syria can motivate this. Since UN is the instance that gave Israel existance, and legitimacy in the first place. And since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not identical to Palestine or the Palestinians. ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/196 "2003-03-23T19:08:39Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > **From all the evidence I have, the Israeli government does treat the palestinians like shit and democracy is not applied evenly.** Really? Do your sources indicate that Arabs are prevented from voting, that Arabic is not an official language of Israel, and that there are no Arab political parties in parliament? If so, I would like to see them. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > **Thats right, it is not that simple, both the suicide bombers and elements in the Israeli government are bad. Everyone else is caught in the middle.** I am not one to go for a cheap moral equivalence argument. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > **I agree. The suicide bombing is not done in self defense, but provoked by desparation for international attention. I think it does the palestinians more harm than good. > I am glad you agree that the settlement policy is not morally justified.** I never thought of suicide bombing as a cry for attention. More like a rally for a Jihad. > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > **Arafat was preserved to avoid a huge international response. Come on - how can you compare Arafat with Bin Ladin.** Why not? Both have sponsored terrorist bombings of innocents. What, to you, is their distinguishing feature? > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by antechinus \* > \*\*The Israelis launch attacks on civilians in order to protect themselves from suicide bombers, which just creates more Palestinian hatred and recruits more suicide bombers. Surely you can see the vicious cycle. Both the government and the fanatics are reacting to provocation. Who do you think is in a better position to break that cycle - individual fanatics or a democratic govenment? > > Malthus: I think this is your answer to the question (please correct me if I misinterpreted in this precis): > The Israeli actions of killing innocents are “unfortunate necessities and morally justified” because it is in Israels self defence. And that the attacks are “morally justified - with the proviso that they are perportional” > > This thinking would never solve the situation. It justs perpetuates the viscious cycle. > > The attacks by the Israeli army are NOT proportional. _Even if the attacks were_, then this is just an eye-for-an-eye morality. One that no modern human should subscribe to. \*\* Actually, if the Israelis wanted to protect themselves by killing innocents, they have the power to kill every last Palistinian. If they behaved as you have characterized them, there wouldn’t be one left. You make it sound as if the Israeli army just randomly shoots Palistinians for revenge, as a matter of policy. Is this what you really believe is happening? Rather, the deaths of innocents are the unfortunate result of attacks on the not-innocent who hide among innocents for protection. As for whether you believe that self-defence is _ever_ justified, or is only archaic “eye-for-an-eye behaviour [that] no modern human should subscribe to”, that “just perpetuates the cycle”, that is your opinion - I don’t subscribe to it, myself. If someone crept into your house and killed your wife and children, would you want that person caught - even if you risked killing _his_ wife and kids, because he is hiding under their bed - if only to prevent him from killing others? In any event, that is really an opinion on the _effectiveness_ of the tactic, not on its _morality_. You may think that the action is not _effective_, but that is not the same as proclaiming it _immoral_. For example, the Israeli govermnent has a policy - it never negotiates with hostage-takers. If a gunman takes an Israeli civilian hostage, and puts a gun to his or her head and makes a demand, that demand will not be considered - only efforts made to kill the gunman. The result: no hostage incidents. Is this a good self-defence policy, or one worthy of condemnation as callous and inhumane? Its effectiveness and its morality are seperate issues [I myself think it both effective and morally justified]. Point is, not all choices are easy and safe. Rolling over and appeasing the violent may indeed “break the cycle of violence” – but at the cost of doing what the violent want. And in this case, I am not at all sure that what the Palistinian men of violence want is a democratic, free Palistine alongside a free Israel. I think what they want is a country cleansed of the Jewish invaders, and an authoritarian state run by themselves. As for myself, I would be very reluctant to condemn someone elses’ actions taken in self-defence. I can see nothing marally seperating the US’s actions in Afganistan from Israel’s in the WB. ---
**Author:** ![Tamerlane](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tamerlane/32/7602_2.png) [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/197 "2003-03-23T19:17:06Z")
Just a couple of minor factual corrections ( some of the other points may be debatable in context or course ). > [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Malthus \* > > 1. After “Black September” (the attempted Palistinian take-over of Jordan) in 1970(?), Jordan renounced its claim to the WB - making that territory effectively stateless. The reason: Jordan’s Hashimite monarchy feared the absorbtion of so many Palistinians would undermine the kingdom. No, not quite. Jordan agreed in principle to sign away its claim to the West Bank in favor of the PLO in 1974 ( not 1970 ), during the post-Yom Kippur War’s Rabat Summit. They did so very reluctantly and only under intense pressure. In part they had to be bribed with cash subsidies from the Gulf states. In 1988, the above was made formal. Jordan was a majority Palestinian state from 1948 and actually the loss of the West Bank in 1967 didn’t change that ( though it did alter the proportion ) due to demographic shifts over those decades. It’s still a majority Palestinian state today. A similar situation occurred with Egypt ( only they were less reluctant to surrender their claims, as Gaza was not a great prize ). - Tamerlane ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/198 "2003-03-23T19:22:29Z")
The three million Arabs of Gaza and WB are not allowed to vote. Calling the suicide bombing in Israel a “cry fo jihad” is a simplification if there ever was one! As is comparing Arafat to Bin Laden. That’s ludicrous! Com’on **Malthus** , i thought you just now was asking for people that viewed issues not in all-white or all-black. Try to be a role-model will you? ---
**Author:** ![Malthus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/85f322/32.png) [@Malthus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malthus)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/199 "2003-03-23T19:23:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by RandySpears \* > \*\*(From the UN Department of Political Affairs : [http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html](http://www.un.org/Depts/dpa/ngo/history.html)) > > So I admit that my recount of the occupation of the gaza strip and the west bank was sloppy, and ill-informed. My apologies! > > Still it should be pretty clear that the legal basis of the state Israel is from the outset coupled to the existance of another palestinian arabian state, which territory has been, and is as of now occupied by Israel. > > Now i don’t and would never lay all the blame for the current state of affairs on Israel. That would indeed be simplified and inaccurate. And I fully agree with you that the neighbouring arab states are worthy of much critisism. > > But that do not constitute a defence for holding on to the occupied territories. No argument based on Israels security, critisism of the UN, or the villain-ness of Egypt, Jordan or Syria can motivate this. > > Since UN is the instance that gave Israel existance, and legitimacy in the first place. And since Egypt, Jordan and Syria are not identical to Palestine or the Palestinians. \*\* I don’t know why you read my post as proclaiming that Israel shoud keep the WB & Gaza. I think they should give them back, and have been trying to do this ever since they got them. But, that giving back has to be coupled with a recognition of their own right to exist. In other words, what is lacking is not the will to give those territories back, but an acceptable way of achiving this goal. That must be suppled by Palistinian leadership. Receint events pose some hope for this. Arafat has been forced to appoint a prime minister, specifically because Palistinians have lost patience with his corruption and his inability to accept any peace plan. This could mark the beginning of a Palistinian state: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/22/international1957EST0709.DTL](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2003/03/22/international1957EST0709.DTL) ---
**Author:** ![RandySpears](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/858c86/32.png) [@RandySpears](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RandySpears)\ **Post date:** [March 23, 2003, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720/200 "2003-03-23T19:29:06Z")
**Malthus:** So how then, if the Israelis have been so anxious to return WB & Gaza would you explain the Israeli settlers, and the administrations historical policies in regard to them? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/attention-israel-enough-is-enough/161720.md?page=11)