Well, it’s not exactly as you say, but the moral aspect of reality isn’t much better.
Some of them fled from violence and such, undoubtedly. The empty land left behind was then classified as “abandoned” by the government, and was then redisributed to settlers. Not really just anybody, least of all the people that perpretrated the violence, came onto the land and appropriated it. I’m sure you can see how the government was pressured into releasing land that was classified as abandoned to the new settlers.
Now, I’m not saying that was right. It’s not a very good way of doing things, somewhat akin to the Australian Government appropriating land that the Aboriginals were on simply because they didn’t use the land to farm, and thus didn’t really own the land. It’s pretty hard to see that they were in the moral right for that, but it remains for the issue to be taken up with the government. The government acted in it’s legal right, and the voters apparently don’t seem to think that compensation is necessary.
Not quite armed robbery, but immoral nevertheless. However, completely legal and within their right. Sigh. And they wonder why lawyers are going to hell. ^^
Indeed. Problem is, many people use the argument of legal right to defend an action as somehow moral or morally justified. That’s why I took the question up with you - it seemed you were doing the same thing.
It cuts both ways, really. Palestinians have the right to fight Israeli occupation, and they have the right to choose terrorist tactics to continue that fight. Doesn’t mean terrorism moral or morally justified simply because they have that right.
I disagree with the part about the palestinians’ right to choose terrorist tactics. No one, for any reason, has the right to shoot a pregnant woman through the belly and then walk up and shoot her children as well. To then claim “credit” for the act or to celebrate it puts one outside the bounds of humanity. For my money, such acts are justification for some extremely cruel and unusual punishments.
Oddly enough, I agree with you about the difference between moral and legal. I don’t believe morality has much to do with legality.
From a pragmatic point of view, what should the Palestinians do? The terror tactics do nothing but piss off the Israelis and justify increasingly vicious reprisals. The bottom line is that the Israelis aren’t going to leave and the Arabs can’t do squat about it. The land is gone. The nation, if there ever was one, is also gone. There is nothing left to the Palestinians but useless wasteland and refugee camps. So, what’s your idea? The “unlimited right or return” you mentioned a few pages ago isn’t ever going to fly and you know it. Hell, if I was an Israeli and this idea ever reached the ballot box I’d shoot it down in a heartbeat.
I said I would allow, as a logical ‘given’ the premise that each and every Israeli was deliberately involved in this ‘land grabbing’ simply as a tactic to further discussion.
The fact still remains.
Even if this pregnant mother and her innocent children were, each and every day, helping build houses in the so called ‘occupied’ territories, with their own toddlers’ hands… it would still be the act of SCUM… To pump round after round into her body, to splatter her children’s brains all over, to shred the flesh of a mother and her unborn child…
NO MATTER WHAT
that is the act of scum
you arrest and deport people who are trying to live in your country illegally. You’ don’t ‘summarily execute them’
Again, I put this question to you AND DON’T YOU DARE IGNORE IT AGAIN.
You claim moral ambiguity, but I propose that you are willfully muddying the waters because it is Israel involved: Proof for my claim?
Would you support the idea that if Israel thought there were Arabs on its land illegally, they could round them all up and shoot them in the head, point blank. If the IDF would find every Arab baby and hack them apart with machetes…
Unless you’re going to say that’s okay… you’ve got some REAL soul searching to do as to why it’s okay to slaughter Jewish babies but not anybody else.
Well… at least you found an anti-semite to use as your cite…
Did you read that website???
The motherfucking Hollocaust Industry???
I myself know that the Shoah has nothing to do with the fact that I no longer have any extended family on my mother’s side because the Nazi’s butchered them all. It has nothing to do with the fact that the entire world sat back and watched…
For your ‘cite’ to call the Jews ‘blackmailers’ because they wanted the Swiss to give back their stolen property?
Simply to set matters straight: you might not want to use a raving anti-Semite to prove your points…
In the future… you just might want to, I don’t know, use facts?
So, they admit they weren’t Palestinians but ARABS, I continue…
Where the PLO sets forth, in plain language, the desire to keep its people ignorant and militant. Notice, they didn’t say all means of information and education must be adopted to teach our people math and science, but to prepare them for armed struggle.
So the PLO states that it was ALWAYS be at war with Israel. A good negotiating partner, right?
”… mobilization of all the Palestinian popular and educational efforts and their organization and involvement in the armed Palestinian revolution.”
Read: We want our people dumb and poor so they will pick up a gun and fight when we tell them to.
The liberation of Palestine? The charter was written in 1964, the years before there was a green line. Thus… the destruction of Israel and the creation of a Palestinian state.
Pretty damn unclear, right? What EVER could they have meant by “the elimination of Zionism in Palestine?”
Just cuz you claim that it is defensive doesn’t mean it is. Anybody should be able to see the glaring logical errors in the first sentence.
I would also point out that peace and security will be achieved when there is an end to terrorism and that, unless I was sadly mistaken, they can have sovereignty and freedom on the plot of land they’ve now got…
So… Israel has no right to exist in the PLO’s eyes.
Let’s get this straight… every international decree/mandate on Israel is null and void in the eyes of the PLO. And… there’s no historical or religious claim, that outdates the Palestinians’ by several MILLENIA???
” reject all solutions which are substitutes for the total liberation of Palestine…”
But they’re negotiating in good faith, right?
” Israel is a constant source of threat vis-a-vis peace in the Middle East and the whole world. Since the liberation of Palestine will destroy the Zionist and imperialist presence…”
So… Israel threatens the ENTIRE WORLD? Sounds just as wacky as claiming that the Jews had terrorized the entire middle east and provoked the war in ’48.
And, again, the liberation of Palestine will DESTROY the Zionist presence… You think they’re talking about a big Ice Cream Social?
AND FOR THOSE WHO CLAIM THAT THE PLO IS NOT RESPONSIBLE
While it is true that shooting a pregnant woman and her four children is terrorism, it does not follow that all terrorism is limited exclusively to this type of act. Exercising the right to choose to resort to terrorism does not automatically lead to the conclusion that people are going to choose to shoot women and children. It depends on the circumstances under which the battle occurs. If circumstances are such that choosing the option of terrorism would likely lead to such acts being committed, then it should be argued that terrorism is not the option to choose. There are other ways of breaking the will of the enemy that wouldn’t be as quick to arouse moral indignation, even in the staunchest of your supporters.
Leading to the question: punishment of whom? The individual perpetrators, or punishment of the people as a whole? Israel is engaging in collective punishment - another form of terrorism - that does nothing but stir up deeper resentment and hatred.
That’s a good question, but unfortunately it’s one the Palestinians themselves have to answer. Their oppression by Israel has driven many of them to such desperation that individual terror exercises a very powerful attractive influence. The only way to combat that is to seriously and critically examine the situation on the ground - something none of us are able to do since we’re not there.
Except fight like hell.
Fight to take the land back.
I will say, however, that the only “Israel” I believe should be pushed into the sea is the geopolitical entity. Not the people who live there. The resulting country should be democratic - full and equal rights for anyone to live wherever they please, inside or outside what is now the Occupied Territories, the unconditional right of return granted to Arabs, or full compensation for the land if return is fundamentally impossible; and secular - the resulting state offering no support whatsoever to religious organizations and institutions, while protecting the right of Muslims, Christians, and Jews to worship openly, freely, and without fear of persecution.
What gives any Israeli the moral right to determine what the Palestinians should and should not have? Legally, sure they have one, but as we both agree, what’s legal is not necessarily what’s moral.
[QUOTE=Olentzero]
I will say, however, that the only “Israel” I believe should be pushed into the sea is the geopolitical entity. Not the people who live there. The resulting country should be democratic - full and equal rights for anyone to live wherever they please, inside or outside what is now the Occupied Territories, the unconditional right of return granted to Arabs, or full compensation for the land if return is fundamentally impossible; and secular - the resulting state offering no support whatsoever to religious organizations and institutions, while protecting the right of Muslims, Christians, and Jews to worship openly, freely, and without fear of persecution.
[QUOTE]
Um, apart from the fact that, well, even before the whole intefada business, Arabs were already trying to wipe Israel off the map. Yeah, real likelihood of that happening. As, well, you know, Jerusalem (um, birthplace of the Jewish faith?) not being under Israeli control allows Muslims, Christians, and Jews to worship openly, freely, and without fear of persecution. Even before 1948, and the whole “aggression of the Jews by setting up a state”. Sure thing.
Anyway, my job is done - Israel has the right to do whatever it wants with the land over which it has jurisdiction, and it certainly had the right to exist. Moral issues, well, they’ll never be settled, so have fun.
OK then. The whole “punishment” thing, either collective or personal, is easily justified when the Palestinians commit this kind of atrocity. The strategy isn’t working. As far as the “fight to get the land back” bit, the Israelis aren’t going to allow the PA to develop an effective military force. They’d be fools to do so. So, the PA is left with this kind of asymetrical warfare. It isn’t like they can force the Israelis to “go home,” that is their home. The PA is going to lose, and keep on losing. They can cause a lot of revulsion with these kinds of tactics but they do not impact Israel’s ability to wage war. What is the point?
I don’t think morality really enters into it. The Israelis fear their neighbors, and can easily supply justification for doing so. Regardless of who was the initial aggressor, right now the Israelis are scared of what will happen if they let their guard down for a moment. Why should the Israelis gamble the future of their country on someone else’s goodwill? I sure wouldn’t. The country you describe sounds wonderful but I don’t see it happening in that area.
Israel is a democratic country with equal rights for its arab citizens. Tell me, shouldn’t the above argument also apply to the other arab countries in the ME such as Iran, Syria etc,…oh but they have to be democratic to be included in the club…forgot.
Hey, Olentzero. I don’t mean to jump your shit given the current onslaught. If you have some time, I (and probably other readers) would appreciate it if you could clarify your position on the following issue:
I had to read this a few times to parse it, and I am still not entirely certain what conclusions you are drawing and from which premises.
As I understand it, here are your premises:
[ul]
[li]Individuals and groups have the “right” to exercise terrorism under certain circumstances.[/li][li]There are different classes of terrorist acts.[/li][li]Embracing the practice of some classes of terrorism does not automatically entail embracing the practice of all classes of terrorism.[/li][li]Terrorists choose which class to perpetrate based on the “circumstances of the battle.”[/li][/ul]
From which you conclude that:
If the likelihood of commission of a prohibited class of terrorism is high, then no terrorist act should be performed.
My following questions are based on the above logic. If I am in any way misrepresenting you, it is unintentional. In order to understand your position better, I would appreciate it if you could answer some questions. If you don’t wish to or don’t have time, well, life is tough.
[ul]
[li]What are the classes of terrorism?[/li][li]Which ones do the Palestinians have a right to practice and which ones don’t they?[/li][li]How high does the likelihood of the performance of a prohibited class of terrorism have to be such that terrorism should not be employed at all?[/li][li]Does the detonation of belt bombs, bike bombs, and bus bombs in crowded locations that are frequently populated by pregnant women and children constitute prohibited terrorist acts? Why or why not?[/li][li]Does the commission of prohibited classes of terrorism morally undermine the cause of the terrorists? If not, then why are the attacks morally prohibited in the first place?[/li][/ul]
They might have had sympathy - [financial]support, even - from a lot of countries, but they’re losing that too. Any thinking person, with the ability to see knows they’re losing, by their own damn fault.
No-one wants to support the murders of a pregnant mom and her children by Palestinian scum
Somehow I missed this the first time around. What the Palestinians do have a monopoly on is suicide terror targeted at civilians. The Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, who have perpetrated far more suicide bombings than all of the Palestinian groups combined, strike predominantly military and governmental targets. I picked 1996 at random. Out of 11 LTTE suicide attacks, only 3 were targeted at civilians (a bank, a public rally, and a market). In the 1980s, during the Hezbollah campaign against Israel, Hezbollah detonated predominantly military targets in Lebanon. But in the 90s, something changed. From 1994-1997, every single Hamas/Islamic Jihad suicide attack (16 in total) targeted strictly civilians in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netzarim, Beit Lid, Ashkelon, etc. These are not SLA or IDF patrols/outposts that were targeted, but buses, markets, weddings, etc.
This sets the Palestinians apart from every other major terrorist group that employs suicide attacks: the PKK in Turkey, the Chechen Separatists, the Kashmir Separatists, and the LTTE. All the rest attacked predominantly military and political targets.
What makes this group different from all other groups?
With all due respect, Maeglin, surely you’re not insinuating the Palestinians had anything to do with September 11th?
And for those playing along at home, I’m not cherrypicking from posts. Maeg’s earlier post asking me several questions on terrorism has got me seriously considering my position, and will probably result in the beginning of another thread entirely so as not to distract from what debate is still occurring here about Israel.
kezami, as I’ve said before in this thread, my support for the Palestinian cause does not extend to support for the governments of the surrounding Arab countries. My call for greater democracy in Israel is matched by a call for greater democracy in the Middle East as a whole, and that whole stand is underpinned by my support for the right of the Arab populations in the Middle East to self-determination - that is, the right to form their own, independent governments - and their right to fight for the right of self-determination if it is denied to them by others.
Olentzero Why don’t you answer Maeglin’s question, instead of trying to point us in another way?
Originally posted by Maeglin:*
But in the 90s, something changed. From 1994-1997, every single Hamas/Islamic Jihad suicide attack (16 in total) targeted strictly civilians in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Netzarim, Beit Lid, Ashkelon, etc. These are not SLA or IDF patrols/outposts that were targeted, but buses, markets, weddings, etc.
This sets the Palestinians apart from every other major terrorist group that employs suicide attacks: the PKK in Turkey, the Chechen Separatists, the Kashmir Separatists, and the LTTE. All the rest attacked predominantly military and political targets.
What makes this group different from all other groups? *
Oh, hell no, I didn’t mean to give that impression. To put it crudely, I was measuring civilian suicide terrorism by volume, not by weight. Al Qaeda is responsible for six attacks between Nov 13, 1995 and Sept. 11, 2001. Of those six attacks, only one, the WTC, was a civilian target. The others include: a US base in Riyadh, a US base in Dharan, the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, the USS Cole in Yemen, Ahmed Shah Massoud in Afghanistan, and the Pentagon. Measured by frequency, 9/11 only represents 17% of Al Qaeda’s total suicide terror attacks. This is a fairly reasonable proportion compared to the other aforementioned terrorist organizations that avail themselves of suicide attacks. The outliers in this case are the Palestinians.
I would love to participate in this thread, so if you do start one, kindly drop us a link here.
Despite appearances to the contrary, gum, I work a full-time job and I have other political activities I help to coordinate during my working day (when the boss isn’t around, of course). Maeglin’s statement about the monopoly of terrorism jumped out at me first and I responded to that one quickly while I had a few moments. I now have no time to answer anything until I get home much later tonight, at which point I will answer Maeg’s other questions in both his posts, since I will have the leisure to do so.
In other words, get the hell off my case, Jack. I’ve only fucking got two hands.
Word. I am just really glad that you are going to take some time to answer my questions. It certainly beats firing off a quick reply, it being nitpicked, and having to backtrack. Take your time. You may work a full-time job, but I am a full-time grad student embroiled in exams and my MA paper. Ergo, I am at home on the computer all day.
I know this is the pit, but this thread is six fucking pages long. There is some real substance here. We can do without some of the frothing and foaming, I think. It doesn’t really help anyone, certainly not those who are on the fence on this issue. It sure as shit doesn’t fucking persuade anyone that Israel is in the right to have a legion of people fulminating about revisionism, scum, pigheaded fucking liars, etc. I am glad that this thread has at least calmed down from that.
I am not trying to take a pretty mellow tone because I don’t care. My great-grandfather Abraham was a pioneer, close friend, and ultimately a roommate of David ben Gurion’s. Abraham and a bunch of his buddies bought a large swath of land in Palestine long before statehood and tried to make a living for themselves. Returning to Europe was impossible after the war for obvious reasons. Every night a bunch of settlers had to camp outside with their rifles: the proto-Palestinians were extremely fond of returning to the land they’d sold and attacking the settlers, taking their property, and raping their women. The British mandate certainly didn’t enforce the property rights of the original settlers, and the Arabs saw little reason to honor contracts they had made since no one was around to enforce them. The land my great-grandfather settled was purchased, developed, and defended by his people, European Jewish emigres. My feelings on this so-called “right to return” are unambiguous.
I suppose I am telling this story for two reasons. First, I think it’s a pretty fucking cool story. Not too many celebrities in my family, nor pioneering badasses. Second, because this is an issue I care about, I am trying to keep it cool so we can all benefit from open discussion. I think that if we can all do the same, we might learn something. Olentzero is going to go home and give this some thought. Perhaps we all should, too.
Not too many celebrities in my family, nor pioneering badasses. Second, because this is an issue I care about, I am trying to keep it cool so we can all benefit from open discussion. I think that if we can all do the same, we might learn something. Olentzero is going to go home and give this some thought. Perhaps we all should, too.