"Killing Israelis is OK; calling the killers names is an atrocity," says the Guardian

The BBQ Pit
121

My view:

I don’t think you could possibly value a woman’s life as much as a mans, especially that of an African woman. And don’t even get me started on gypsies and homosexuals…wait, don’t those gypsies have a lot of gold in their teeth ?

That’s the simple retort. Now;

In the most general terms and IMHO, the problem for Jews is that they have faced a trade off between assimilation into wider societies and being alienated by same: Assimilation weakens everything from the culture and bloodline to the religion itself – not assimilating, historically speaking, has resulted in Jews becoming scapegoats. A dilemma.

Until Israel became strong.

Again IMHO, it is in the interests of Jewish Israeli’s to overcome the ‘bunker mentality’ that has, quite understandably, permeated their diaspora of societies for much of history. Yet one cannot expect that to begin to happen until Israel is safe, secure and at peace with it’s neighbours.

Once that happens – once a Palestinian State exists that poses no threat to Israel - again IMHO, there will be a moral obligation to reconsider what now seems to some to be an unreasonable position – that of valuing a Jewish life higher than another.

Until that safety, security and guarantee of peace exists, I tend to the view that such attitudes be given latitude because of the historic precedents.

Of course, some might argue there is also a moral obligation – especially in a democracy - on the leaders of that insecure society to work towards the day when peace prevails. Those same people might suggest that the current Administration in Israel is not doing all it can to attain that goal. We debate that a lot here when we’re not sidetracked into addressing non-substantive straw men.

There is also a difficult distinction to be drawn between, on the one hand, using the Holocaust to, say, manipulate sympathy in support an unreasonable position and, on the other, understanding that events like the Holocaust fuel, quite reasonably, that ‘bunker mentality’. It’s not a judgement I’d like to have to make.

I, for as many reasons as I can imagine, am glad I only sit here and try to form objective opinions. I don’t have a life which is torn by the judgements of history vs. modern sensibilities, by the dilemma of assimilation vs. alienation, by conflicting moralities, by acute family and social pressures, etc, etc…It’s easy to form views and judgements based on simple prespectives but it’s also dangerous. We aware and be wary.

So endeth today’s lesson from a patronising git.

122

Richard Littlejohn, is that you??

Kal - Who wonders if the Roma will ever get their own Homeland. We already have a flag and an anthem and everything…

123

Emphasis added. “Less noble perhaps”? Perhaps? All I can say, again, is that it is to your continued benefit that the phrase means to me (and to America) never again at all, because if it meant to us what you say it means to you (“never again to us,” and, by extension, the hell with anyone who isn’t “us”), things might be a heck of a lot worse for Israel than they are.

If your raison d’etre and overwhelming ethos is to take care of your own and “life sucks” for others, kindly explain why a WASP Christian American such as I should give a shit what happens to you or to Israel. I mean, so long as bad things don’t happen to me and mine, the rest of the world can look after itself, right?

For you to say in one breath that you look out for your own and “life sucks” for your immediate neighbors, and then for you to say in your next breath that it is the “responsiblity” of secure nations like America to look after weaker nations (including, presumably, Israel) . . . I find it outrageous. Based on your statements of taking care of your own, you are hardly in a position to tell me or my country what our moral responsibilities are. Under the clear extension of your avowed rationale, we have none – beyond looking after our own. This is not, in fact, my position, but kindly do not pretend it is not the logical extension of yours.

Like others here, I wish you the best of luck. That does not stop me from being both alarmed and disheartened to hear you embrace a mentality that in the past clearly worked to the profound detriment of your own group, and which would clearly work to its profound detriment again, were it to be embraced by your friends and protectors.

124

Jodi, Remember the Rwanda genocide of the early nineties? Remember how - eventually - nationsstarted sending over medical teams to try and help the survivors? Which country do you think send the largest, best equipped team?

Yes, it was Israel. Israel is known throughout the world for sending help - professional and material - to nations who need it; be it massacres in Africa and Bosnia, earthquakes in Turkey or mudslides in South America. Don’t lecture me on altuism, please.

You see, there’s a difference between thinking something is wrong and fighting it whenever you encounter it, and actually dedicating your very existance to preventing it. The first is the attitude the U.S. and Israel (as well as most enlightened nations) have towards genocide: it is wrong, evil and must be prevented. The second is Israel’s approach to attacks on Jews.

Besides, moral responsibility is taking care of your own. The cool thing about altruism is that very often it’s good for the giver as well. That’s why the U.S. should look after world peace - because world peace is good for the U.S. You know the saying about casting your bread across the water? So yes, I believe Israel should make peace with the Arabs, because that would be good for Israel. I just see peace as a means, not as an ends, and certainly not as some magic heal-all.

I believe, like most Israelis - and unlike our enemies through the centuries - in “live and let live”. I just believe that the second half
of the phrase is dependant on the first.

125

Nobody said you couldn’t take care of your own. And no one is saying that you shouldn’t be more upset if a relative died than if it were a stranger.

But…that does not mean one life is worth more than another.

126

I have to agree with Alessan. I’m Jewish (not observant) and have never been to Israel regarding live and let live (If the Palestines would leave the Israelis alone the Israelis would leave the Palestines alone, but as long as the leaders of Palestine and other Arab areas mislead their people there will never be peace. . IMHO the God of the Bible (old and new testament), and the koran is the same God.

127

ALESSAN –

You have got to be kidding me. The world collectively stood by in the face of repeated explicit warnings of impending genocide – an indictment that clearly must include the U.S. – and continued to stand by while approximately 800,000 people were slaughtered in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. And your boast is that Israel sent the largest medical team, after the fact? Well, gold star.

I am not lecturing you on altruism. I am pointing out to you an obvious and IMO dangerous contradiction in hearing a citizen of a country such as Israel – which needs and heavily relies on foreign assistance and protection, or the spectre thereof – talk about “looking after his own” alone and, as to the others – well, life sucks. This has nothing to do with altruism as such, and everything to do with amazement to find such an attitude displayed by someone whose ancestors suffered mightily due to that very attitude, and whose children likely would suffer mightily as well, were that attitude taken up again. Besides, I seriously doubt that the chief reputation of Israel in the world at large is of the helpful neighbor, pitching in. IME, it has more to do with tanks and checkpoints, and – without assigning blame – the inability to make peace with its neighbors.

Moral responsibility is consistent with taking care of your own first. It is not consistent with abdicating responsibility to take care of others as well – the attitude so startlingly displayed in changing the phrase “Never Again” into “Never Again To Us.” And those who choose to take care of their own solely, or to make that their priority at the expense of taking care of others, then have no right to complain if others do the same, and by that rationale withdraw a hand extended in friendship, or protection. Again – it seems to me the clear loser from the spread of such an attitude is Israel. It sure as hell isn’t the U.S., where the situation in the Middle East is considered a long-term migraine that many – many – already judge to be not our problem, and therefore none of our business. Attitudes such as the one you have displayed in at least some of your posts here can only serve to further justify a conclusion that our collective national life would be a hell of a lot easier if we “live and let live” with our noses out of the Middle East. Good idea? Or not?

128

And unless some new point is made, I think I am through discussing this. It is not my intention to make you defensive about the choices you feel you have to make due to the difficult situation your country – and maybe your family and friends – is currently in. I am merely pointing out what I consider to be a dangerous attitude – that it’s okay to look after your own alone, and let the rest of the world take care of itself. That attitude may appear to assist Israel in its current siege mentality, but IMO it is clearly counterproductive when applied in a larger spectrum, inasmuch as would excuse the decision of the world at large to wash its hands of both Israel and the Palestinians, and the Middle East as a whole.

You either see this point, or you don’t. But I submit that the import of hearing a Jew say “We Jews interpret ‘Never Again’ to mean 'Never Again To Us” will not be lost on others who happen to read this thread. It is, IME, an astonishing and disheartening statement. The fact that you consider it a justified one will not make it less astonishing or disheartening to non-Jewish American ears.

129

Well, I do think my life is worth more than yours, to me at least. Objectively, it isn’t, and I realize that, but I’m sentimental about my life, in a way that I’m not about a stranger on a message board. If I were Mr. Spock, that probably wouldn’t be the case, but I’m not entirely objective…I have biases. I care more about some people than others, and that means I care more about my family than other people’s families, I care more about my country than about other people’s countries, and I care more about my religion than about other people’s religions. This might be a bad thing, but I think it’s also inevitable. We all have loyalties, and we all build a hierarchy of value. This doesn’t mean that I’m neccesarily going to side with my family, or country, or religion, or whatever, no matter what happens, or that I think my family/country/religion can do no wrong. That also doesn’t mean I’m going to be blind to the needs of other people. It does mean, though, that I’m going to give some people more of the benefit of the doubt than others. I’m sorry if you don’t understand that, but I think you do and just don’t want to admit you share these feelings.

130

Captain To your credit, this is what distinguishes you from other poster in this thread. You have some sense of perspective. No blind “My country, right or wrong.”

131

Sam, I hope you’re not refering to me, because at no point did I say “my country, right or wrong”. Oh sure, I did say that I’ll remain loyal to my country no matter what - and I will - but it will be loyalty on my terms, not anyone elses. Loyalty does not mean blind obedience; in fact, a truly loyal person does what he believes is right, no matter what he’s told.

And BTW, I believe that a nations moral strength is as important as its military or material strengths, and that we must protect ourselves from corruption and inhumanity even when we’re protecting ourselves from suicide bombers (incidently, I hate the term “homicide bombers” - while I appreciate the sentiment, the phrase lacks precision and smacks of jingoism). It’s all a matter of balance.

Satisfied?

132

Alessan, Twisty - just to step into your little side debate (and to agree with Guinastasia) - I think you’re both right - the issue is that yes, most of us would fight first for our family, for our homeland, for our “race” - but that does not mean that they are intrinsically better or worth more than the opposing side, just that that is where our loyalties are.

Eg: WW2. The average German person (civilian or soldier) fighting for their country on orders from the government had no less intrinsic worth or value as a human life than did a Brit, fighting the German for their country, or an occupied French or Polish person, or a persecuted Jewish person. All human lives are equal. Corrupt, wicked leaders apart, the “man in the street” deserves a safe, defined home and homeland, dignity, respect, freedom, etc.

In terms of december’s sad, fucked-up, paranoid, mentally impaired prejudice, race-hate and bigotry, it makes the Palestinians no less worthy or deserving as people if their religion/leaders/culture whatever happens to be bigoted against a thing such as homosexuality. It may be despicable to our (now enlightened) eyes, but such things were also criminal - and even punishable by death - in many “western” countries years back. Do we regard our ancestors as having less “value” than us because of this?