Don’t worry, I didn’t get invited either. What say we both sit over here until we get bitter enough to launch suicide attacks against Noone Special’s family?
Heck with it, I’m not taking any chances naming any more names. Come one, come all, I’ll keep the 'fridge stocked! 
That’s you, too, Olent, if you ever feel like visiting.
Dani
Matt, we have trouble hearing from Pal peace activists who live in the disputed territories. They usually get offed after being accused of collaboration with the Zionist enemy. Contrast that with Gush Shalom activists enjoying photo ops with Arafat at the Mukata.
Analogies are tricky. Yes, you can justify killing your neighbour if he is bent on killing you, and those who are aiding and abetting him. But I fail to understand your point. I doubt you are imlying that the Palestinians as a group are analogous to the murderous neighbour and that Israel is therefore entitled to kill them all.
Well a quick recap of what I said…
**"The Israelis live in a state of paranoia-inducing tension and fear, where civilians carry Uzis as a matter of course and anyone can become a victim of terrorist violence at any time.
It is not right that EITHER GROUP should have to live like that, and you cannot JUSTIFY either situation by appealing to history. "**
Basically I agree with you, or you agree with me, or something.
That’s exactly right, I did it out of spite to propagate misinformation. :rolleyes: You are attributing motives to me which are completely opposite to what I intended. By all means, replace 2000 with 20,000 in my statement if it makes you happy. I have great admiration and respect for the achievements of the Israelis, in the face of much hostility and at some very long odds.
Yes, indoctrination is a huge part of the problem. I’m no fan of religions in general myself. The Japanese are an interesting example though. A country of religous xenophobic fanatics that became a prosperous peaceful democracy. I hope the same can be achieved elsewhere, and without anyone getting nuked.
As for the Jews or the Roma in European history, you’re right but so what? Opressed Roma and Jews put up with it, oppressed Arabs turn into murdering monsters? Maybe so. How does it help?
kezami: tragic, of course.
An old joke - An englishman asks an Irishman the way to a pub. After a moment’s thought, the Irishman replies, “well, if I were you, I wouldn’t start from here.”
Unfortunately, we have to start from here, shitty as it is.
matt, a very good post if I do say so myself. (and I do)
however… I honestly have a question for you…
How do you propose that Israel go from its current state, having war waged upon it by Arafat himself, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah…
How do you go from that to lowering your guard?
It seems that until the Palestinians take the steps you outlined above, Israel really can’t back down… to begin with because it will look like a sign of weakness and the Palestinians will think any time they want something they just need an Intifada… and, without guarantees of security anyways anyways, once Israel removed its security forces, it’d be targeted by as many attacks as it is now: just more would get though.
However, a few quibbles too…
About this whole justification thing… Populations that have it rough don’t turn to terrorism, more often than not they simply don’t. They especially don’t turn to civilian targeted terrorism… The fact that SOME Arabs just happen to turn into murderous monsters should not be overlooked, this is an important fact.
This is, I think, the problem people have with olentzero’s statements…
and as I’ve posted to this thread, I still think he was:
excusing targeting civilians as an act of desperation…
at the very least saying that the Intifada, whose goal as more than half of the Palestinians see it is genocide, is a good thing…
In any case. Is it normal that someone who was poor would be upset? Yes. Is it normal that someone who lived in a miserable environment would be upset? Yes. Is it then logical that this person, rather than try to effect positive change in their own society would go out and murder someone…
The fact is, the PA is far more responsible for the state of the Palestinians than the Israelis… so if Johnny Suicide Bomber is going to kill anybody, shouldn’t it be Arafat?
One final quibble. If 60-70 percent, and as high as 80-some-odd percent (in some polls I’ve seen at certain periods of violence) of the Palestinian society supports suicide bombings… isn’t it fair to call their society kinda scummy?
Or should we just qualify it as 70/30 scum/non-scum?
(note, I’m NOT saying all Palestinians are scum, just the ones who think that civilian targeted terrorism is good)
Regrettably, Finn Again has embraced frank dishonesty in response to my posts. Further reasonable discussion with him/her therefore becomes impossible.
For the benefit of anybody reading with a genuine interest I will clarify & summarise my postion, before concluding any further discussion with FA. I will however consider replying to honest inquiry, or perhaps if FA is able to establish a mere lack of capacity.
In brief my position is that the taking of human life in defense of property is acceptable in many circumstances. I raised this in objection to the claim that the deaths in question could not be acceptable, whatever the circumstances that prompted them. My position is normal and usual in countries governed by law.
To clarify:
Germane Points
-
The UN: Cannot offer practical protection to the property rights of
Palestinians against Israeli occupation. -
“Facilitate debate”: Exactly. I’m discussing within the constraints of this debate. I’m not yet discussing the position absolutely.
If there is a wish to discuss outside the constraints of this debate, that then is another & seperate question, which I may pursue.
The only relevant post Finn Again makes. Namely: even where the law allows it, it is nonetheless wrong. That is a reasonable position to take. It does however recognise that other people take a different postion, in fact it becomes law and thus the ultimate question is ambiguous.
Incidental Points
-
Arafat’s recognition of the State of Israel: Never repudiated
-
Poor & deceptive analogies: Finn Again uses them.
-
Dishonesty: but one example, for the purposes of eliminating any residure of doubt, Finn Again wrote
Regrettably, Finn Again has embraced frank dishonesty in response to my posts. Further reasonable discussion with him/her therefore becomes impossible.
For the benefit of anybody reading with a genuine interest I will clarify & summarise my position, before concluding any further discussion with FA. I will however consider replying to honest inquiry, or perhaps if FA is able to establish a mere lack of capacity.
In brief my position is that the taking of human life in defense of property is acceptable in many circumstances. I raised this in objection to the claim that the deaths in question could not be acceptable, whatever the circumstances that prompted them. My position is normal and usual in countries governed by law.
To clarify:
Germane Points
-
The UN: Cannot offer practical protection to the property rights of
Palestinians against Israeli occupation. -
“Facilitate debate”: Exactly. I’m discussing within the constraints of this debate. I’m not yet discussing the position absolutely.
If there is a wish to discuss outside the constraints of this debate, that then is another & separate question, which I may pursue.
The only relevant post Finn Again makes. Namely: even where the law allows it, it is nonetheless wrong. That is a reasonable position to take. It does however recognise that other people take a different position, in fact it becomes law and thus the ultimate question is ambiguous.
Incidental Points
-
The recognition by Arafat of the State of Israel: Never repudiated
-
Poor & deceptive analogies: Finn Again uses them.
-
Dishonesty: but one example, for the purposes of eliminating any residue of doubt, Finn Again wrote
But its not. See, your whole suposition falls apart from the beginning, because it is NOT legal to respond with deadly force (anywhere in the U.S. and Western Europe, at least) to a threat to your property. Period. You can’t kill someone for stealing or attempting to steal your TV. Your claiming it is so does not make it so.
Even allowing this wrong statement, in order to facilitate debate (wink):
it does nothing to support gum’s claim that the Palestinians can rely on the UN to give practical support of their property rights against Israelis acting illegally.
Add gum to the list of the dishonest.
sevastopolRegrettably, you’re a piece of shit.
I quoted you.
Tell me exactly how I’m being ‘dishonest’ ?
And yeah… it’s impossible to hold a rational discussion. Mmm hmmm. How many posts do I have in this thread asshole?
So I take it that means you’re going to ignore the implications of your logic and flame me some more? Cuz, like, that’s cool…
Oh, wait… you’ll talk to me if I’m able to establish a ‘mere lack of capicity’?
Do you just type whatever you think sounds good or is there higher-than-brainstem-functioning going on there?
Yes, and everybody else seems to agree that MURDERING women and children because they’re living on a plot of land is the act of SCUM. Don’t worry, tis the Big Bad Finn that’s somehow confusing them.
CITE???
It most certainly is NOT normal and usual in lawful nations. Show me where in the American Penal Code that it states you can shoot someone if they try to pick your pocket. (it’s okay, ignore that one too, idiot)
The Un can’t, eh? So… its charter has been revoked, or you’re full of shit?
Please provide a CITE which shows that Israeli is the only nation on earth not covered by UN rules.
No, you’re not facilitating debate. You’ve taken an obviously fecetious remark I made and you’re worrying it like a poor lonely puppy. The woman who was killed wasn’t a criminal. Moreoever, since this wasn’t a legal action, how did the gunmen even know this woman was engaged in ‘theft’? Because her car happened to be in an area of Israel they wanted to hit?
Again, asshole, CITE???
WHERE is it legal to murder someone who pickpockets you?
The other relevant point I made is that you use selective logic. Nice goin’ ignoring it.
Liar.
What would YOU call endorsing suicide attacks aimed at genocide?
You fucking moron.
Cite, asshole?
Or are you still clinging to the fact that you don’t have to explain why your logic wouldn’t hold for America and Mexicans?
CITE???
You make a lot of claims with ZERO proof, you argue like a highschooler and you can’t seem to follow a logical argument either. You, sir, are a waste.
Weirddave
A civil post is appreciated.
My position:
We are discussing more than a threat, being actual state-sponsored occupation. This is relevant to the degree of force that may be used.
I dislike flat contradictions, but I do believe you are wrong.
- It is lawful
- in some circumstance
- to use deadly force in defence of property.
Of course a simple quote may disprove this and I would welcome such. If so, I am the one who is wrong.
Lastly, I am not arguing the justice of one position. Recall that I am asserting ambiguity, that is that the facts concerned might be ones where deadly force could lawfully be used. Accordingly this allows for a range of reasonable disagreements either way. Which is incidentally all I have argued throughout.
I wish I lived in your world, Matt. It sounds like a beautiful place. I’m not kidding.
Sadly there are some inherant flaws in your proposals and some glaring omissions. To whit:
Ask yourself whose fault that is. (Yeah, yeah, I know you don’t like the blame game, but it’s important here so we can address who is actually responsible for fixing this fucked up mess). The reason the Palestinians are living in refugee camps now instead of their own country is because they rejected the original offer of a two-state solution, “unleashing a storm of violence through the country”. You present their plight as if it’s somehow the result of how they’re treated by the Jews, when it’s not. The Palestinians are living in refugee camps in Lebanon, too. Why aren’t they simply able to live like any other immigrating human being? Do we put immigrants in refugee camps in Canada or the United States?!! They live in refugee camps in the ME because their Arab bretheren want to keep them that way. It helps keep them angry and hostile and helps promote their agenda of destroying the Jewish homeland. The Palestinians became refugees in Israel when they were convinced by their Arab bretheren to abandon their property and get out of the way so the dirty land-grabbing Jews could be destroyed. This is not the fault of Israel, so Israel can’t fix it.
With all due respect, you just contradicted your own argument. One can very well JUSTIFY Israel building walls and arming herself against an HISTORIC ENEMY - an enemy who has not changed their position as to her right to even exist in the first place. It IS justifiable based on history.
Again, who indoctrinates these kids with anti-Semitism, who fills their hearts with hate, who does everything in their power to keep them poor and pissed off? What productive thing have their leaders done to make an effort to improve their plight? (And don’t tell me they can’t – you’re smarter than that).
OFFERED AND REJECTED WITH VIOLENCE.
If I didn’t like and respect you so much, I’d take greater offense at your suggestion that the Jews have only offered substandard land to the Palestinians and held onto the good stuff for our own greedy selves. This is patently and demonstrably false.
See, this is what I think you aren’t grasping. THERE WILL NEVER BE ENOUGH CONCESSIONS FOR THE PALESTINIANS UNTIL ISRAEL CEASES TO EXIST. You say it’s a requirement in your very next paragraph, so I know you know how important it is, it’s just that I don’t think you understand how frustratingly impossible it is. So long as the PLO charter continues to include calls to destroy Israel and drive the Jews into the sea, as long as Arab leaders encourage, reward and celebrate violence and terrorism against Jewish civilians, I see no reason to believe that offering them any amount of land, be it contiguous or “productive” or any other condition, will ever actually work. It certainly hasn’t worked for the past 50 years. Not until they acknowldege that we have as much right to be there as they do, and clearly they do not. Sadly, I have no hope that they ever will.
Hey asshole.
Don’t you DARE call me dishonest, especially not when all I’m doing is applying logic to your statements, and then expect me to be ‘civil’ with you.
Don’t you dare call me ‘incoherent’ and then expect me not to rip your ridiculous argument to pieces.
In short, if you’re an asshole, karma kicks in.
And, genius, if, without much effort, I can quote you contradicting yourself three different times, you might just want to check your own affairs before you accuse other people of being ‘incoherent’.
Are you totally unaware of logic? (oh, logic… I must be dishonest, right?)
The burden of proof is on he who makes the claim.
In other words, you are claiming that American justice allows for vigiliantism if one’s property is threatened. Please show me that section of the penal code where that is refrenced?
Otherwise, you are wrong.
In short (this seems to be a common theme)… give proof or retract.
(And although I shouldn’t reward you for being intellectually lazy, here’s PROOF that you’re talking out of your ass)
So what great bodily harm comes from having your possesions stolen?
(or am I being dishonest and incoherent and making bad analogies?)
[quote=Sevastapol}Lastly, I am not arguing the justice of one position. Recall that I am asserting ambiguity, that is that the facts concerned might be ones where deadly force could lawfully be used. Accordingly this allows for a range of reasonable disagreements either way. Which is incidentally all I have argued throughout.[/QUOTE]
Hey, I’m probably being ‘dishonest’ some more, but if you ‘assert’ ambiguity, you still have to PROVE it. Just because something MIGHT have deadly force as an acceptable outcome does not mean it DOES.
In short, you can’t just claim shit without proof.
Shame on you.
Ah, yes, sorry for being a little late.
Pretty sure that using deadly force on someone who was only stealing your stuff would be considered an unreasonable amount of force. In this case, someone broke into the plaintiff’s house, and he shot them, thinking that he was under threat of death.
Murder conviction quashed because he was found to be of diminished responsibility due to a paranoid personality disorder, substituted with manslaughter. Note that defence of property wasn’t even raised on the facts, even though he was getting burgled.
Finn gave you one cite, I’m giving you another:
The only possible exception that you might concievably apply to the case of Palistinians (wrongly, IMHO) is the “castle doctrine”; to wit: (from the same cite)
In all cases the prerequisite is the imminent threat of bodily harm or death if one doesen’t use deadly force to protect himself. Even if you are arguing that the Israelies occupying Palistinian territory is the exact same situation as that of an intruder in your home(a wild, wild leap, IMO), unless the Israelies are actively and immediately threatining a specific person, deadly force would only be justified against that specific Israele and at that immediate point in time. Shooting him 3 days later or killing other Israelies would be no more legal and equally as repugnant as a white person whose family was killed by a black person who goes on a killing spree in a black neighborhood and tries to justiy it “Well, a nigger killed my wife, so I figured I’d shoot me some niggers”. Absolutely abhorant, personally and morally.
I await your apology.
I was basing my statement on the Gush-Shalom commentary regarding the Camp David negotiations, shown at:
http://www.gush-shalom.org/media/barak_eng.swf
Given your exposition I retract the suggestion - fair settlements do appear to have been offered in the past. My apologies.
However, on the one hand we have your source which stated:
" At Camp David in July, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offers Arafat 92 percent of the West Bank, all of Gaza, Arab neighborhoods of East Jerusalem, Palestinian statehood and the dismantling of most settlements, but he rejects this and the Palestinians launch violence. In December, Barak agrees to negotiate a Clinton proposal for an Israeli withdrawal from 95 per-cent of the West Bank. Again, Arafat rejects the proposal."
all of which sounds like a fair offer has been rejected. But on the other hand we have the analysis from Gush-Shalom, apparently showing that it was a pretty shabby offer. There is more than one point of view here, and I hesitate to regard one as 100% “right”.
Fair offers have been made in the past. Offer them again. And then again. Over and over. Keep people talking to each other. There is never a true statis - eventually the current Palestinian leadership will die and be replaced. Their replacements may be even less constructive, or who knows? Sooner or later the Palestinians may produce a Ghandi or a Mandela. It only has to happen once. (Please note I am NOT drawing any parallels between the Palestinians and the Indians under the British or the black South Africans under Apartheid - I merely use Ghandi and Madela as examples of charismatic leaders with great moral authority and who renounced violence.)
Getting out of a combat zone was a good idea, whether or not they wanted to see the Israelis destroyed. But your last sentence is too definite - sometimes you CAN fix things that aren’t your fault, even though arguably you shouldn’t have to.
Don’t give up hope. Remember Mandela. There are people who can spend twenty six years in prison, be given the power and opportunity for revenge, and do nothing but work for reconciliation.
I don’t disagree with this… but I’ll again put the question to you:
When one has an enemy whose stated goal in writing is your total destruction, the elimination of your nation and the removal of your ideology from the world…
How can you make a meaningful first step?
See… I just don’t understand… It is fairly evident from the cites collected just in this thread that that PA and its various umbrella terrorist groups are out for genocide. How do you give them what they want short of letting them kill you all?
In short… I’m more than willing to accept peace, I think it’d be great, but while the Israeli can be sure of their deaths if they let their guard down, why should they?
Shouldn’t the first move come from the PA, a move like beginning to actually crack down on terrorism?
It seems, at least to me, that the PA has to wage its own war on terrorism, equal to Israel’s. Then they would be partners against a common enemy, and after the threat to BOTH their societies was dealt with, meaningful peace would ensue.
[Thanks Noone Special & Finn Again You know, space cake might be a good idea. Reduces the tension somewhat. See you there WeirdDave ;j ]
sevastopol: I don’t lie.
You say:*
- It is lawful
- in some circumstance
- to use deadly force in defence of property*
No.
It is not.
Deliberately shooting a pregnant woman and her three children repeatedly, is an act of scum
Thank you, and wholeheartedly accepted.
Something to keep in mind, however, is that while each side puts their “spin” on how fair or not fair it was, the one thing you must say about it is that it was a compromise on the part of Israel, a move towards peace, and and opportunity for the Palestinians to have something to call “home” and self-govern – a place to start. But instead of saying, “Well, it’s not everything we want, but it’s a homeland and we’ll take it and work towards further compromises based on an established atmosphere of concilliation,” they said, “All or nothing.” I tried to read your cite, but to be honest, I can’t stand all that flash stuff and what little I saw of it looked like a very biased site, to say the least. Admittedly, mine was, too, so I set out to find something that appeared to be neutral, and I think I may have found it.
http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm
What this site points out is that none of the specifics of the settlement offers is really known as facts from either side. All we really have are “leaks” and information gleaned from speeches and other sources. However, from reading that page, and following several of the links and reading further, you will see that the sticking point really has little to nothing to do with “contiguous area” or water rights or overall percentage of land at all, but rather, with the full Right of Return of the Palestinian refugees, as well as control over Jerusalem.
Per your suggestion that Israel keep offering and offering again, and then offering again, you’ll note that “the sides… agreed to continue talks during December and January 2001… and both sides hammered out proposals that came much closer to each other’s positions than ever before.” Sadly, Palestinian terror attacks once again suspended negotiations. (Are you seeing a pattern here?)
However, in spite of how close they came on pretty much every other issue, now we’re down to the refugees. Mighty interesting reading, here. I’ll refrain from copying and pasting bits and pieces, because the details are important, and it appears to present each side’s arguments in a straightforward manner, without prejudice. Please check it out. I will, however, note what I feel is the most compelling portion:
Any offer of settlement that doesn’t include 100% return of Palestinian refugees is to be completely rejected. And that is precisely what they’ve been doing for 50 years – completely rejecting any offer of settlement. Because it means sharing the land with the Jews.
It is pretty hard to negotiate with people who wish to destroy you entirely, wouldn’t you say?
Noone Special, I would be delighted to take you up on your offer to visit you in Israel. I hope to someday return, as it is the one place I’ve travelled that touched my very soul and that I would like to see again. Thank you. And if ever you’re in the United States, Southern California in particular, there will always be a place for you here, as well.
**Tabby-Cat, Weirddave ** thankyou for your replies and research. I do currently believe you both fairly represented your research and did not selectively quote from it to support your POV.
Looking at what I wrote:
From where this discussion is, it is best to focus on what those “some circumstances” are.
Tabby-Cat posts: “he had used an unreasonable amount of force.”
**Weirddave ** posts: *"Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as …robbery…
&
- …the “castle doctrine.” Under the castle doctrine, you need not retreat from your own home to avoid using deadly force against an assailant. This only applies when you are inside your home.
In all cases the prerequisite is the imminent threat of bodily harm or death if one doesen’t use deadly force to protect himself. Even if you are arguing that the Israelies occupying Palistinian territory is the exact same situation as that of an intruder in your home(a wild, wild leap, IMO), unless the Israelies are actively and immediately threatining a specific person, deadly force would only be justified against that specific Israele and at that immediate point in time. Shooting him 3 days later or killing other Israelies would be no more legal and equally as repugnant as a white person whose family was killed by a black person who goes on a killing spree in a black neighborhood and tries to justiy it “Well, a nigger killed my wife, so I figured I’d shoot me some niggers”. Absolutely abhorant, personally and morally".*
Both make worthy points. I have numbered the questions as I see them with corresponding numbered answers:
**Tabby-Cat’s **point raises the question that is also in **Tabby-Cat, Weirddave’s **post :
1 - What is a reasonable amount of force?
To this **Weirddave’s ** post adds the questions:
2 - Need the threat or crime be immediate?
3 - Need the victim target the actual perpetrators?
Answers:
1 - What is reasonable force varies in the circumstances. The Palestinians do not have the support of a law enforcement body to protect their rights. By contrast the occupiers are supported by armed professionals. Accordingly the measure of reasonable force is likely to allow the Palestinians more than the law would permit in the UK and the US. The UK and the US have effective law enforcement mechanisms.
2 - Partly this has the same answer as (1). Namely that the “immediacy” requirement should only apply in those places where there is a stable and independent body to untimately ensure the property rights are protected. A credible legal system with enforcement powers such as police force.
And partly, the answer is that the threat or occupation is immediate, it is ongoing. Again I refer you to the Israeli Housing Ministry scandal of this week, where expanded illegal occupation of Gaza is surreptitiously funded by the Israeli govt, while it simultaneously represents to the world the opposite.
If a malevolent person wished to make a pit thread “jew scum” this week they might launch from these events.
3 - Yes. However you must then ask: were these persons engaged in the illegal occupation? If yes, then the defence is legitimate.
Finally: what does ambiguity mean here? It means that legally, the contrary case could be made. Aside from law, it also means as Weirddave points out, the use of deadly force in this case can reasonably be thought repugnant.