If you oppose the corrupt bigotry of Arab tyrants, why support their positions?

Great Debates
101

zigarretten,
I think the current discussion is about recent events in the last couple of years or at the very most the post-Oslo period. And your sources still don’t really show that collaborators=moderate in any meaningful sense of the word. And no, if December makes specific allegations, it is not up to others to bear the burden to prove him wrong.

Izzy,
OK this discussion is getting rather tedious as we keep going in circles over the same issues.
My main point at the begining was to refute December’s romantic picture of Israeli policy during Oslo and I think I have more than done that.

A few points:
As a “practical matter” Israel has reversed occupation many times when it thought it would enhance security, international opinion notwithstanding. There are good practical reasons why full reoccupation isn’t in its interest and wouldn’t necessarily increase its security. Also the most effective terrorist acts are commited by suicide-bombers not the police forces armed during Oslo. So your assertion that Israeli concessions have significantly increased Palestinian terrorist capacity is dubious at best.

As for the legality of settlements: I believe they violate the Geneva conventions and this was just reiterated by the UNSC resolutions, which incidentally were voted for by the US as well. I will leave it to the lawyers to discuss the legal technicalities but note that UNSC resolutions are most definitely an indicator of international legitimacy and international opinion.
So we have that settlements are:
a)widely considered illegitimate by most of the world.
b)undermined the peace process by alieanting Palestinian opinon and making a final settlement more difficult
So regardless of the technicalities of Oslo, I still say that the settlements indicate a lack of sincerity on the part of the Israeli government. I think many Israeli moderates agree with this as well. In any case I have also given a list of direct infringements of Oslo as well.

“That’s not what we’re talking about…”
OK. I can remember only the Economist specifically saying that the Palestinians made the greater concessions, but in any case I don’t think that is an important point.

102

This one is simple. In most circumstances you would be right, IzzyR. However, in this instance, Israel has repeatedly taken the position that it has the moral highground/should be supported because it is a democracy/respects human rights/doesn’t discriminate/etc. Israel has put the matter to the forefront, and have chosen to base at least some of its legitimacy on those very points. Having chosen the high moral ground to gain an advantage, Israel cannot turn around and act against this moral position when it suits their needs.

Curiousity got this cat. december, are there any Jewish citizens of the Palestinian Authority?

Sua

103

I’ve never heard of any. I have been given to understand that Jews would not be free to travel in most Arab countries. (Although I believe Egypt would now permit Jews to travel there.)

My assumption is that Jews would not be welcome to live under the P.A. We know that Palestinians routinely kill suspected Israel collaborators. I imagine that being Jewish might cause one to be suspected of being a collaborator.

104

As I’ve said, these actions have had a diplomatic cost. And if they would permanently reoccupy the cost would be far far greater. (Do you disagree with this?)

I don’t agree with you here. An actual occupation would allows a far greater degree of control over the amount of weaponry - explosives and arms - that gets brought into the area. When the Israelis had full control over the area there were far far fewer armed attacks against Israelis - knife attacks were more common. Much of the difference is that the PA has imported large amounts of weapons for itself and allowed Hamas and other such groups to import more for themselves as well.

I don’t agree. As mentioned, the ostensible cause of protestations about Israeli actions is not concern for the moral character of the politicians committing them, but rather, concern for the victims of these actions. Whether the politicians are also liars/hypocrites is not relevant. Even were this not the case, you would be justified in calling the politicians liars or hypocrites - this should not result in a harsher judgement of the actual actions.

Its not as if it’s all some sort of debate or legal jousting where you might sometimes allow strategic maneuvering to outweigh the underlying truth. The moral judgement that you make of a situation should reflect the true moral reality as much as possible, regardless of other factors.

Beyond this, I’m not convinced that your assertions are true. I don’t think Israel has claimed to be doing anything other than what it is doing (for the most part, at least). Israel has justified actions that others do not think are justified. They believe that they still have the moral highground. Others may disagree. If you don’t think they deserve the moral highground then don’t give them support on that basis. But this is no reason to hold them to a higher standard.

Still, what you say may have some validity in explaining the motivations of those who do hold Israel to a higher standard - there a natural emotional tendency to do this. But I don’t see it as a justification at all.

105

One of the points empasized by Dale Carnegie is that virtually everyone believes they have the moral highground. His book How to Win Friends and Influence People even gives a quote from some notorious gangster, who maintained that his activities were benefiting society.

The Palestinians also claim the moral highground, and they have some arguments. Land was taken from them. They are forced to lead deprived lives. Israel kills their civilians. They also have some anti-Semitic arguments that are moral from their POV.

106

“And if they would permanently reoccupy the cost would be far far greater.”
Maybe but the point is that even without the diplomatic cost, there are good reasons for Israel not to occupy the West Bank . And don’t forget there were diplomatic costs to the occupation before Oslo as well (during the first intifida for instance). So it isn’t really the Oslo concessions that cause the diplomatic cost, but the act of occupation itself.

“An actual occupation would allows a far greater degree of control over the amount of weaponry - explosives and arms - that gets brought into the area”
The point is that only a small fraction of the weapons do the most damage. A few hundred suicide bomb-belts can do a huge amount of damage and it wouldn’t have been hard to smuggle them in regardless of occupation. I think even if Israel had continued occupation, Hamas would have gotten more and more effective. Israeli occupation in South Lebanon didn’t do much in keeping Hejbollah in check for instance.

107

So do I take it, Izzy, you see no linkage between continuous cycles of West Bank occupation, curfews, etc and Sharon’s own domestic political agenda, particularly with regard to the coalition Government and the demands of his particular domestic constituency ?

If so, I disagree. The character of politicians is fundamental to progress in the Mid East – Sharon has little history of utilising diplomatic options, or of compromise and he, as well as Arafat, are well known for their personal hatred of each other. This IMHO, in no small measure, is the reason he was elected.

You might argue that Sharon should reflect the views of his political constituency or, instead, manipulate same for some greater purpose, but to suggest there is no linkage between character and action is surely incorrect.

108

There was some. But by creating a quasi-state, it definitely makes it harder to undo. And by creating an actual state it will be tremendously harder. I’m surprised that you don’t agree with this - I guess we’re at an impasse here as well.

That is not the case, from what I’ve read. I think even as it is, the terrorists are hard pressed to come up with as much weaponry as they can - though they have quite a lot, unfortunately. And it is a fact that - as I’ve previously mentioned - there were far fewer armed attacks before the PA, and many more with knives. I think you are simply wrong here (do you have any basis for your assertion?)

Israeli control over Lebanon was never nearly as thorough as its control over the WB.

109

London_Calling, I fail to see any connection between anything I have been discussing and your post.

110

“But by creating a quasi-state, it definitely makes it harder to undo”
Maybe but I am not sure that undoing the quasi-state adds much to Israeli security anyway. In any case it’s just not clear to me that in an alternate world where Oslo never happened, Israel would be any less under diplomatic pressure if it performed the kind of crackdown it’s doing now. The same picture of Palestinians dying would go round the world and the same outrage would exist. You may be right but I don’t see any really compelling reasons to believe so. I can think of one good reason why the opposite might be true: the credibility that the likes of Peres have accumulated because of Oslo which helps the Israeli government make its case.

“That is not the case, from what I’ve read”
OK feel free to give your reasons. For instance 200 or so bomb-belts would be enough for years of terrorism. How much space would they occupy in a truck or small boat? How difficult is to smuggle them from across the border or through the sea even with an occupation? Are you saying that the Israeli occupation was so efficient that even over a period of two or three years the Palestinians wouldn’t be able to smuggle this many bomb-belts in? I have read that a lot of arms are smuggled from Israel itself so it doesn’t seem to me that occupation could eliminate smuggling on such a small level.

I think the big difference between the 80’s and now is that there are a lot more people ready to kill themselves. Obviously it’s not the concessions which have created that situation. The bottom line is that if you have if you have hundreds of people ready to die it’s awfully difficult to stop them from killing.

111

I am positing that if Oslo had never happened there would not have been this violent and succesful an uprising. It would follow that the Israeli crackdown would also have been less severe. The first intifada was pre-Oslo and was less violent, featuring rocks instead of bombs and guns, for the most part. The Israelis got bad press then, but nothing close to what they are getting now. Reason is that they did not need F-16s and Apache helicopters and curfews to supress a rock rebellion. And furthermore, they were not viewed as invaders to the same extent as they are now that the PA exists.

I don’t know the details, but this is what I’ve read from those who do. I saw an Israeli security official quoted in the NYT recently who said that even as it stands now there would be even more suicide bombings were there more explosives around. So it’s not as if getting enough explosives is as simple as you think. And once again, the facts are that there were not this many bombings or shootings until Oslo.

Actually that is not true, let alone obvious. I believe history shows that many times concessions create rising expections which can cause increased anger if they are not fulfilled. Many times people can accept a dismal situation if it has been unchanged for a long time because the feeling is that “that’s the way it always has been and that’s the way it is always going to be” and the like. By suggesting that the situation can actually change, people become much less satisfied with the status quo.

Examples of this phenomenon would include the race riots in the late 60s, after the desegregation and civil rights legislation of the 50s and mid 60s. Or the Russian overthrow of communism after glasnost and perestroika. And others. (This may be beyond the scope of this thread).

You’re on to something there. That is the biggest advantage that the Palestinians have going for them. Still, even in terrible situations there’s better and worse.

112

Apparently Israel is using the threat of re-imposing a military government as a way to try to deter a “mega-attack.”

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/08/07/1028157963916.html

113

Izzy,
I think we could discuss hypotheticals about Oslo endlessly so let’s agree to disagree.
I didn’t find the Israeli official’s comments too convincing both because he has a clear incentive to exaggerate the efficacy of Israeli actions and also because, as I said, smuggling a relatively small number of bomb-belts/explosives seems impossible to really control. Especially when so many Palestinians are desperate enough to die .

114

OK (though the comments were made about the difficulty of stopping the bombings due to so many willing volunteers, rather than about Israeli actions). I have seen many statements that indicated as much - I just seized on that one as a recent example that I happened to remember. YMMV.

115

CyberPundit, let me make it clear that my previous post wasn’t just aimed at you, your qoute just gave me a good intro.

It appears to me, however, that you and some others are trying to force december into defending a position which he didn’t take. I see no reference in decembers statement about any timeframe. (In fact his cites, in a later post, would seem to contradict your position on that point, as would your own question on the subject in one of your earlier posts.) Nor has december specified “moderate politicians” or “moderate leaders” which is what you now seem to want him to produce.

Now we could argue all year about what constitutes a “Palistinian Moderate”. One mans moderate…as they say. So I’ll just state straight out that if Palestinians are being killed for no other reason than “moderate” behavior along the lines of doing business with Israelis or helping other Palestinians to deal with Israel then I am willing to accept that “Palestinian Moderates” are being killed (even though any one of those “moderates” may actually have harbored the most extreme political views). And that is exactly what the report from Human Rights Watch says is happening. I feel this is a reasonable position, though I won’t pretend that it is the only reasonable position.

I agree. And if you had merely stated that december had failed to prove his position, then I wouldn’t think of asking you to support anything. But you went far beyond a statement along those lines, you stated that these allegations were “…another example of Israeli apologists indulging in fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of the Palestinian apologists…” while IzzyR stated “These collaborators are probably just apolitical guys taking payoffs from the Israelis.”

I’m only asking you to support your allegation that decembers allegations are “fantastic claims exactly on par with the worst of (those by) the Palestinian apologists.”

116

zigaretten,

I have sad elsewhere that I am out of this debate, but in the other thread started by me I did implicate you in an argument and I guess that it is fair that I clarify what I meant. Since the other matter is concluded in my eyes, I prefer to answer you in here.

No one has questioned whether or not there has been atrocious killing, lynching and prosecution of Palestinians by Palestinians, rather the contrary.

That is not what was asked for cites to corroborate either, december was called on the following statements:

Cites that corroborate killings were produced. Those were called on the basis that there was no proof that these were moderates, but collaborators (whatever that means). You are now handing us a definition of moderate that fits the cites, but not the general understanding of moderate. Hence it remains open to interpretation whether or not the individuals killed were in fact moderates.

In any case moderate is a matter of definition. It would be helpful if december defined moderate in this respect. Being a moderate myself and having been pigeon holed in this matter before I fear that this definition isn’t quite going to find consensus, but that is another matter. In all cases this is a strawman again. If Palestinians have killed each other in the thousands was not the original question. The original question was:

The OP takes for granted that atrocities have been committed and therefore the discussion of what kind of atrocities becomes somewhat irrelevant. I have responded to the actual question in here and in the other thread in this way:

You will not find me giving a blanket approval of any side at any point and you will not get me to make a blanket condemnation of any side. I will reserve my judgment to be made on a case-by-case and situation-by-situation basis.

Sparc

117
  1. How can there be a “collaborator” in a time of peace?

At least since the Camp David accords, Arafat was pledged to cooperate with Israel in preventing terrorism. So, “collaborator” might mean “someone who actually tried to fulfill the Palestinian side of the Camp David agreements.”

  1. ** My comment about the killing of “something like 1000 ‘moderate’ Palestinians”**

This was based on my memory of the opinionjournal cite that zigaretten found. I was a bit, but basically correct, as that cite gave a figure of 800.

  1. ** What is a “moderate”? **

I confess that I can’t give an exact definition. Regardless of the precise definition, the murder of 800 people is an atrocity. However, if “moderate” denotes someone who might actually make genuine peace with Israel, then the problem is greater still. No peace can ever occur, if potential peace-makers are killed as soon as they speak out. This is how the situation has been described in various articles, although I do not have cites at hand right now.

  1. Have these killings been acknowledged by posters?

Sparc says, “No one has questioned whether or not there has been atrocious killing, lynching and prosecution of Palestinians by Palestinians, rather the contrary.” The contrary of questioning the killing of Palestinians by Palestinians would acknowledging it. Other than Sparc’s comment above, I do not recall posters doing so.

  1. Do people know about these killings?

In the related Pit thread, wring says that she deplores all the violence. OK, but if she’s unaware of the magnitide of these murders, then she can’t take them into account in making judgments. OTOH some posters go into great detail counting the number of civilians killed by Israel, although we all deplore the death of innocent civilians.

  1. Policy implications

I wonder what the EU about these killings. Despite the misdeeds of Arafat against Israeli citizens and against his own citizens, and despite his theft of millions of dollars, the EU continues to give him money. In fact the recently raised his stipend.

  1. Modern Mideastern Mobster

In my book, Arafat is essentially a gangster. Gangsters used to make their money the old-fashioned way: They stole it.

Today, the UN and the EU support them. :frowning:

118

Kinda like the West Bank?

Yeah, yeah. Cheap shot.

119

Less than a cheap shot. It is repeating the Big Lie. Israel did not steal the West Bank, she won the West Bank from Jordan (who had “annexed” - read “stole” - it from the newly created Palestine years before) in a defensive war and, despite the presence of settlers, the vast majority of Israelis want out of it … if only there was a way to get out and have long term security. Heck, even Sharon is on record as wanting that.

Israel just doesn’t know how to get out, safely. Withdrawl in response to attacks is not an option. Israelis believe that such would signal weakness and open them up to escalating continued attacks against Israel proper by those committed to her total destruction. Some believe that even Arab countries would see withdrawl as weakness and as an opportunity to attack in full military conflict. (I know that many on these boards see these perceptions as unfounded, but they are the perceptions, even in many very liberal circles. Withdrawl will not occur as a matter of retreat.)

Negotiation? Well, negotiation was tried and, from the Israeli perspective, the only thing that would seem to satisfy Arafat were terms that guarenteed the end of Israel as a Jewish state, eg a full right of return. (Again, I’m not wanting to re-open old debates about whether such is an accurate assessment, just to put out what Israelis generally see as reality.)

And now, slowly, the Big Fence is going up to see if that can provide safety so that withdrawl can commence as other than retreat.

Sua asks a pertinent question: what is the legal staus of Jews under the PA? To the best of my knowledge there are no Jewish citizens of the PA and it is, in fact, illegal to sell property to a Jew. Some settlers would love to stay in their homes after an Israeli government withdrawl, as citizens of the PA, provided that they would be protected as citizens and given rights as citizens. Would that be expected to occur? Would the world hold a PA to that standard? Or would the EU fund Arafat and his corrupt cronies no matter what they do?

120

What happened here? That’s not like you DSeid! You know very well that financial support for the PA is not unilaterally from the EU. I guess Tom pressed a button there, and your counter argument is well made… up until this last sentence that is. Care to clarify?