“Jimmy’s mom lets him do it, so why won’t you Mommy?” isn’t much of an ethical defense.
First of all, the Israeli didn’t “kick everyone out”.
Second, if the US attacked Canada in order to destroy it, and if Canada counter-attacked and won, then yes, I’d be OK with the annexation.
I just don’t understand why every other country on earth gets a pass at having done the annexation thing in the past, but only Israel gets heat for it.
What a strangle strawman. I’d have to say that if Canada COULD annex the great lakes and kick ‘everyone out’ (presumably ‘everyone’ being Americans and indigenous Indians), then I’d say we’d have no say in it. Obviously, from an ‘ethics’ perspective we are going to feel that it’s unethical for Canada to do this, while the Canadians might have a different perspective…while our Euro buddies would probably have mixed feelings about it, thinking on the one hand how nice it would be to see American humiliated (with a healthy does of ‘well, they are getting what they deserve’), while on the other hand they would want to wax laconically about the evils of conquest by force and imperialistic aggression (since they would never do such things themselves)…so, it would be a quandary.
Myself, I’d welcome our new Canadian Overlords…their economy seems to be doing a hell of a lot better than ours is, so maybe it would be good if they took over the whole shooting match.
-XT
Well, then it’s a good thing I wasn’t using that kind of a defense then!
Which is why we’re not in GQ, discussing this. By whatever standard of ethics is it you consider this ethically defensible, and why? (If you do, that is) Please elaborate.
Ok, to clear up, I was just referring to the legalities quarrel, and tried to make the point that it’s not all that relevant, so long as there are ethics to discuss, anyway. Still, if these settlements are illegal at the state level, then that would be a pretty good indication they’re morally problematic. But they still need not be - that’s what we’re trying to discuss here.
Progress? The evidence suggests that roughly half of the stone age males died violent deaths, then why all the fuss about people still killing each other? We’ve always done it, why not keep up the tradition!
Is settling in disputed theritory, thereby threatening the peace process, a morally defensible thing to do? If then, how?
I say clean up your own backyard before you go griping that someone else’s back yard is dirty. Lead by example. Perhaps the US could start by giving Hawai’i back to the Hawai’ians. California next, then Texas. Alaska, too, since we new it was stolen when we bought it.
Britain can start with North Ireland, and then move on to Scotland. Poland can give back the eastern part of Germany that it stole, and in return, I’m sure that Ukraine would be more than happy to give back the western part of Poland.
First off, I’m not big on the whole ‘ethics’ thingy…I think that mostly ethics are spouted by hypocrites (societies and individuals), who are basically saying ‘do as I say, not as I do’, or some other form of telling people (OTHER people) what they SHOULD do, while doing whatever they want. Israel is doing nothing more (and a hell of a lot less) than just about every nation state or society in history has done.
So, with that in mind, my ‘defense’ of the settlements would boil down to the lack of any meaningful movement on peace with the Palestinians (or even a meaningful long term prospect for a cease fire) over the course of decades (half a century really), and the desire for the Israelis to expand into the lands of a people who has made themselves enemy. I don’t think this is ethical or unethical, moral or immoral…it simply is human nature. I think it’s WRONG, but that has nothing to do with some fantasy ethics or morals, it has to do with practicality and reality…by doing this they are closing off any sort of avenue to a lasting peace, and they are further sowing hard feelings, anger and frustration, which is certainly going to bring about yet another cycle of stupid violence and death.
As I’ve said in many of these threads, the Israelis aren’t blameless in all this. The only consolation they can have is that the Palestinians have acted with such barbarity that it makes the Israelis look good. If the Palestinians were smart they would adopt the tactics of Gandhi, and this would push the Israelis off what limited high ‘moral’ ground they have and probably force a real peace, and real concessions from the Israelis. But then, if the Palestinians were smart they wouldn’t be in the situation they have been in since 1949…
-XT
"What is hateful to yourself, do not do to your fellow man. That is the whole Torah; the rest is just commentary. " - Rabbi Hillel
Of course, if you define another people as *not *being “your fellow man”, then you can easily rationalize subjugating him and taking his property.
Which, if we look at the sweep of human history, seems to be the norm, while blathering claptrap about ‘morals’ and ‘ethics’ seems to be either a load of horse crap hypocrisy, or, if genuinely expounded, a complete minority viewpoint. People TALK a good game about morals and ethics, but their actions give lie to the words.
Hell, have you READ the freaking Torah (or the OT, the NT, the Koran, etc etc)??
-XT
It was not a defense for Nazi war criminals that killing Jews was legal under Nazi law.
That’s 'cause, you know, they LOST THE FREAKING WAR. Had they won, there wouldn’t have been trials of Nazis for war crimes…instead, there might have been Brits and Americans being tried for war crimes due to bombing of civilians. And you can be sure that Stalin et al would have been put up against a wall or shown a rope for ‘war crimes’ had Germany won.
-XT
Israel does demonstrate hypocrisy when it claims to desire peace, but participates in provocative activities. Each of these settlements decreases the chance of peace in the region. Not like that chance was very high, but it still seems counterproductive.
If Israel annexed the disputed region, they seem to have done a piss-poor job of it. When done right, you don’t even consider giving it back, and nobody expects you to.
I don’t believe the Israeli settlers are doing anything illegal. If the settlements are illegal according to international law, which they may very well be, then it is the Israeli government that broke the law by allowing its citizens to move there in the first place. (Although “international law” is more of a concept governing interactions between states than something actually enforceable.) I think this is similar to what Alessan was saying in the original thread.
This said, I’m reminded of a historical situation that (while very different) bears some resemblance to the question under discussion. At some point during World War II the Vichy French government decided to allow French citizens to join the SS. This was an illegal decision, because no matter how collaborationist Vichy France was, a state of war existed at the time between France and Germany, so it was not permissible to allow French citizens to join enemy forces. A certain number of Frenchmen joined the SS under this provision. At the end of the war, most of them were prosecuted and condemned for treason, with some being executed.
Now I’m not comparing living in an Israeli settlement in the West Bank to joining the SS. But my question is, how responsible are citizens for doing something which may be illegal, but which their government condones? These young French fighters may not have committed any war crimes during their time in the SS, but were still branded as traitors and punished when the war was over, even if their government (the Vichy French government was the official government of France at the time, recognized by both the Allies and the Axis) said it was all right. Of course in this case joining enemy forces was illegal according to French law and not international law, and this is the law they were judged according to. But I’m still curious to know if my question is formally answerable.
It’s a bit late to clean up all that mess now. I don’t know much about Hawai’i, but I would hazard a guess that most people living in California, Texas and Alaska feel they belong to the US. What’s done is done, and frankly, we don’t have room for all of you back in Europe, even if it would be nice to give the native Americans their lands back. But it IS possible not to expand on Palestinian soil, because that’s happening right now. You might notice that conquering has generally gone down worldwide, because most nations are at least adolescent now. Horrible things happening in the past is no excuse to let them keep happening. Also, lead by example goes for Israelis, too, you know.
This is ridiculous. Attrocities are attrocities, whoever wins the war. Now, bombing civilians is an attrocity, settlements probably less so, but might != ethics, and you can’t discuss morals with reference to who wins the war.
There we go. That didn’t take long.
You don’t think most of the people liviing the settlements think they belong to Israel? As for it being too late, what was the cut-off date? Just because Europe and the Americas had their wars a relatively long time ago doesn’t mean the rest of the world has to operate on their our time table.
I’ve already said I think Israel should stop building settlements. But that’s purely from a practical standpoint as an effort to bring peace. Ethically, I think they’re just doing what everyone else does or has done. They are under no more ethical obligation to stop than the Brits are to get out of Northern Ireland or th US out of Hawai’i.
No, that’s exactly the sort of defense you were making. Whether or not other nations have behaved as bad or worse in the past is irrelevant to whether or not Israel or anyone else should act as badly today.
No; we’ve just improved a great deal.
I disagree; the Palestinians aren’t more barbaric; we just turn a blind or apathetic eye when the Israelis behave just as bad as they do. I see neither side as having any moral high ground to stand on, they have both dug deep moral pits for themselves at this point.
That would work if they could pull it off; what I can’t see them doing is being able to keep a lid on every angry Palestinian out there, and if even one throws a rock the Israelis will be able to machinegun down the peaceful protesters with their supporters just shaking their heads about the barbarism of the Palestinians.