In my humble opinion, the fact that the OP calls this dispute “the whole Israel conflict” is quite telling. As is the way the OP goes on to clarify that he is “not a Jewish individual”.
Note that the OP doesn’t call it “the whole Israeli/Palestinian conflict” or “the whole Israeli/Arab conflict”.
No, it’s just “the whole Israeli conflict”.
And that, to me, is a huge part of the problem. The “other side” is largely dismissed from the very outset of the debate.
I don’t support either side (my feelings are actually highly uncharitable towards both, as I think they both represent the very worst of both religion and humanity and are continually dragging the rest of us into their petty conflicts based on ancient superstitions), but one of the things I’ve found very interesting in my years of viewing the conflict and posting on the internet is that I’ve never once seen any supporter of Israel actually take issue with assertions that Israel kills more innocent civilians than it loses*. That is simply taken as a given by even the most partisan Israel supporter.
They always seem to argue instead that that is an unfair argument, because Israel does its killing with higher-tech weapons. Which somehow apparently gives them the moral high ground.
I’ve never really understood that point of view.
To me, it doesn’t really matter if you were killed by a homemade inaccurate rocket or a cluster bomb dropped by a fighter jet. You’re just as dead either way, and your kids will grow up with the same amount of hate towards the “enemy” in their heart.
*I’d estimate that since I started taking an interest in 1982, Israel has killed around three times as many innocents as it has lost. I could actually be convinced by evidence to the contrary, so anyone who wants to post a citation showing that Israel has lost more innocent lives than it has taken over the last 30 years should by all means have at it. You might do that rarest of rare things and convince someone on the internet that they are wrong.
I’m not happy with the 3-to-1 ratio. I’d like it to be higher. I’d like it to be 5-to-1 or 10-to-1 or even better; in fact, I’d like the amount of Israeli innocents killed to be so low that the ratio is a mathematical impossibility.
I’d also like the amount of innocent Arabs killed to be lower. In fact, in a perfect world, I’d like both columns to be at zero. But as one of those potential innocent Israeli victims, the Israeli column interests me more than the Arab column. If I were an Arab, I’d think the reverse; part of why I dislike organizations like Hamas is that they don’t think that way, preferring to up the tally on both sides.
I’m not an objective bystander here, you see, some foreign milquetoast who has the luxury of viewing the world in terms of abstract ideals. I have to look after me and mine, and while the deaths of innocents, of any nationality, saddens and horrifies me deeply, I’d rather it not be *my *innocents.
As you know, “legal” land ownership pre-Israel is complicated. Most Palestinians did not own the land their villages stood on, but had use-rights to it.
That is sort of irrelevant though - whether or not they “owned” the land their villages worked, they certainly feel as if it was all “their” land - and they want it “back”.
Which means removing the current inhabitants (no doubt including the ones who bought their land perfectly legally in accordance with Turkish or British laws).
How would peace make the slighest difference to demographics?
It certainly would be, if it had the indicia of a nation - such as a united government that had control of its territory. Right now, if anything, it is two nations - Gaza and WB.
First, the Arab-Israeli conflict has very little to do with “ancient superstitions”, or indeed with religion. It’s a nationalistic conflict, same as those which have convulsed, and continue to convulse in some places, Europe.
Second, it is a very curious notion of morality that demands of each side an accounting of innocent victims. If a war occurs, each side should offer up the same number of babies to the sacrifice? I have seen this sort of reasoning before and it has never made any sense to me, aside form a pacifism talking point. By this accounting, the US is clearly the villian of WW2, as the number of innocent Japanese and Germans killed by the US far, far outnumbers the number of innocent Americans killed by the Germans and Japanese.
Think of it rationally. If your nation is attacked and you go to war, are you supposed to allow the other side an equal opportunity of killing your civilians?
Well, this “foreign milquetoast” commends you on your honesty at least.
What you’re basically saying is that the deaths of innocents on your side mean more than the deaths of innocents on the other side.
Point taken, but I do have a question: Why on Earth would you conceivably expect that the other side doesn’t feel exactly the same way?
Think of it rationally. If your people are being killed at a rate of 3 to 1, are you supposed to just accept that the other side is justified because they’re using better weaponry?
I’ll reiterate what I said earlier
I again note with interest that another couple of Israel supporters haven’t even tried to deny that Israel kills more innocents than it loses, and yet again I’ve been told that those excess killings are morally justified.
But what would I know? I’m, apparently, just a “foreign milquetoast”.
What do you mean by “just accept”? Were the Japanese supposed to “just accept” that the US was firebombing their cities into ash during WW2 - when all the Japanese could do in return was this?
Rate of civilian casualties has no bearing on which side is “justified”. Where did you ever pick up the curious notion that it did?
If your people were being killed at the rate of 3 to 1 in a particular conflict, perhaps one possible solution is to re-think the sense of continuing the conflict.
No, I’d guess that a conflict in which the Israeli army is pitted mostly against insurgents is going to be pretty one-sided in terms of civilian casualties. That’s one reason they call it “asymmetric warfare”.
What I cannot fathom is why you consider this state of affairs an “excess”, like Israel has some sort of moral obligation to have its civilians killed off at what you consider a “fair” rate. Rather, it is simply a feature of that form of warfare - utterly predictable. Every time a state’s formal army is pitted against insurgents, you see the same sorts of ratios.
First of all, I’m not an “Israel supporter”. I’m an Israeli.
Second, I never said it was morally justified, I said it was pragmatically justified. I’m not guided by morality. I’m *tempered *by morality, which is why I would not agree to, say, 1,000 dead Arab innocents in return for one Israeli one. But when choosing a course of action, I don’t base it on what the right thing to do is; I base it on what the smart thing to do is.
You’re, what, disappointed that nobody’s lying to you in order to support Israel?
And of course, when you fight against an enemy that uses its population as human shields, there’s no real way to attack them without causing collateral damage. The fairly-standard answer among “Israel supporters” is that the military force which hides among civilians is responsible for the civilian deaths which result.
newcomer - as another Israeli, allow me to ask you this question:
Assume that civil defense is so good that it is practically guaranteed that no civilians will be killed by terrorist attacks.
Also assume however that this doesn’t stop the terrorists from trying, and in the process causing many civilians and corporations to change their habits drastically, scares away tourism and foreign investments and in general created general civic and economic havoc.
But no actual casualties.
What would your response be, as a citizen of the nation under attack? (note I didn’t specify this was Israel, think of it as an hypothetical)
Well, as someone who was raised Christian, this is how I [don’t really] understand it.
Both the Jews and the Arabs claim the same common ancestor. Abraham in the Old Testament, the father of Isaac. The story is that Abraham and his wife, Sarah, were barren but promised as son by God. They were in their 80s or 90s at the time.
Abraham and Sarah decided that Abraham should sleep with Hagar, Sarah’s maid, in order to have a child. Hagar conceives and gives birth to Ishmael. Sarah eventually conceives as well, giving birth to the promised Isaac. One of them went on to father the Jewish race, the other the Arab race. As to which is the descendent of the bastard child, I’ll leave that to the two sides to fight out.
My hypothesis (and that’s all it really is) is that it likely started out as a rivalry or enmity between siblings that was passed down from generation to generation over thousands of years.
Likely started as a family feud (like the Hatfields and McCoys), and as clans grew to nations, the conflict only expanded over time.
Again, it’s only my best guess – it’s all conjecture at this point. I could be (and most likely am) way off base. But those two groups of people have been fighting for many years.
Hrmm. I keep getting the impression that there is a deal to be made if Israel was willing to grant citizenship and pay restitution. If that isn’t true then it really changes a lot of my underlying assumptions. Do you have a cite that these two things would not be enough (in concert with 1967 borders) to satisfy the Palestinians?
If you included the population of the West Bank and the Gaza strip in Israel, I don’t think Israeli politics would move towards a theocracy as quickly as it will with a growing orthodox population. The secular Jews might become the swing vote and the only people that anyone listens to.
I could agree with that. Kind of like Pakistan and Bangladesh.
? ? Can’t find it.
You’re generally supposed to surrender as long as you have a reasonable and humane adversary.
One of the best things Germany and Japan ever did was surrender to the USA.
I remember hearing some economists talking about how Gaza and the West Bank would have tripled their GDP by now if they resolved the conflict in the aftermath of 9/11.
Your time frame coincides with zionism. Funny that.
Exactly. Hezbollah attacks Israel from the Gaza strip, using rockets and terrorists. It stores its battery next to, or in, hospitals and schools. So who is really responsible for those deaths: Israel in trying to eliminate the source of the attacks or Hezbollah who puts them in places endangering civilians?
CoastalMaineiac
This is not true. I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard the statement that they have always been fighting. In fact it wasn’t until Israel wanted her own state (to avoid the never ending pogroms against the Jews), that the enmity began. A good book on this history is A History of Israel from the Rise of Zionosm to Our Time, Howard M. Sachar. Alfred A. Knopf, 1976. This book states that the butchery of Jews was so extensive under Christian rule that the population was dwindled from 300,000 (year 1000) to a thousand Jewish families in 1169. But the foothold was tenaciously maintained. 18 years later Salah-ed-Din (Saladin), sultan of Egypt, won a crushing victory over the Latin kingdoms and began the process that ultimately evicted the last of the Crusaders a century later. Subsequently, under a tolerant Moslim regime, pilgrimages of Jews from overseas augmented the tiny “Palestinian” remnant.
This book further states that as the result of the Spanish Inquisition and the Spanish expulsion decree in 1492, not less than 8,000 Jews entered into Palestine. (The author keeps referring to that land as “Palestine.”) By luck, their arrival corresponded with the Ottoman conquest of the Levant (1517), and in its first century of Turkish rule proved unexpectedly benign. In the ensuing years, many other Jews immigrated to the area. Large numbers settled in the abandoned Crusader city of Safed. Safed’s Jewish population rose to 16,000 by the 18th century
During the 3 1/2 centuries of Roman rule, not a single Jew could set forth in Jerusalem. Under Arab rule, handfuls of Jews returned to Jerusalem.
I’ve read from other sources that after the vast immigrations ca. 1900, many Arabs were happy that the Jews were there, but it was when the Jews wanted their own state that hostility arose. Even now, Arab leaders say the Jews can live in Israel, but as an Arab state.
I see now that Malthus has posted a similar reply.
? Can’t find it.