But as to how people can have a knowledge of things, that is by observation, prediction and manipulation. This is called the scientific method. For arguments it works the same way by observation, prediction and manipulation of arguments but because we know that the way our minds work makes them subject to slanted perspectives at times it is best to get a variety of perspectives (ie "observation"), from different people.
Except that I think many people ARE sick of the fighting, unfortunately not the people with the guns, missiles and war planes.
I got an immediate flashback to John Sayles' Men with Guns, which describes an endless Central American war between the government and the guerillas from the perspective of a native population who no longer know who's on what side, only that they're constantly threatened by those 'hombres armados.'
The reason that popped into my head is because one of my roommates has a friend living north of Haifa. As of yesterday, he still hadn't evacuated, but she told me he must have now because "they're probably getting it from both sides." Can you imagine? What does nationality, ethnicity, history mean when you're getting shelled from both sides?
Nothing anymore. To that person, it's just men with guns.
Thanks again for this diary.
Also, O/T, I want to apologize to everyone here for losing my cool yesterday. I fully admit that I'm still getting used to how I handle myself in online debate (I didn't get involved in the blogosphere until Katrina), and sometimes I'm too easily duped into taking flamebait. If nothing else, this was instructive, and I'll try not to let it happen again. I'm happy to have the ability to discuss controversial topics with a people on both sides of the debate, but if people like me are losing tempers and throwing around insults, then it dissolves into nothing. For that, I apologize.
Also, back on topic, everyone should really read that MeteorBlades diary linked at the top. The bulk of it has nothing to do with the conflict per se, but with the ways that we form our opinions about the conflict, and why. It's an instructive exercise that's necessary if we're going to move forward with this.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
If you go through previous threads, it appears we (almost) all have a mixed bag going.
Common points I've seen:
Israel does have a right to protect it's soldiers, citizens & borders.
Israel's been a little heavy handed retaliating in Lebanon.
How peace is eventually found in the Israel/Palestinian issue will have concurrent effects on the whole Islam/rest of world issue.
Non common points:
Some people seem to want to blame one side completely. We've seen some blame Israel, we've seen some blame Palestinians or Islam or Hezbollah.
Now, I've stated my views. They're also a mixed bag. I read a couple of ME blogs, most of them have the arab slant. Their defense of Hezbollah is that Israel is still occupying the southern most 10 miles of Lebanaon as their DMZ. As such they say that Hezbollah is just trying to re-claim occupied territory.
Well, I see what they are saying, but I can't say I agree with everything. One thing that strikes me most is when the Lebanese civil war was settled, all parties were supposed to have been disarmed, and only the Lebanese governments Army was supposed to control borders & whatnot. Except Hezbollah has told them to take a hike. So, I'm not going to defend Hezbollah. They don't want peace in my view.
On this issue (Israel/Lebanon) I'd be happy if the Lebanese Army de-militarized Hezbollah, and took over the border functions. Israel should pull back to it's real border. Lebanon should transfer the Israeli Army guys back to Israel, and they should both begin negotiating peace with respect to the Golan Heights & Syria.
Sound easy? Yea, too easy. Fighting has always proved easier than finding peace. It's funny. Why would you think peace is mre difficult than war? I think that one is similar to personal relationships. It takes hard work to make marriages & couples work. It's easy at first, but requires more patience and perseverance than any of us would have imagined when we started out. It's easier to fight & divorce. So I do find it interesting that these same mechanisms can come into play on a larger, international scale.
Let's pray for peace. If not for our sake, for our childrens.
who don't have the time to read through the very long comments section to that diary (longer still because some of the comments are very in-depth), please read these:
DHinMI's comment about how he came to his understanding of the conflict. Probably the best comment on the board.
inclusiveheart's comment about what's really a liberal pathology of sorts - the perverse ability to connect with people even when (especially when) you're not 'supposed' to - which helps explain why people's sympathies in this conflict are so torn and complicated.
MissLaura's comment on balancing a remembrance of history with a forgetting of past grudges, also capturing the frustration of having anything productive to say on this topic.
JaciCee's touching comment on the surprises that history has in store for us - very subtle, but it says a lot about way we align ourselves.
John Campanelli's comment on the confusion and isolation of being an outsider to the discussion.
But if you have time, it's worth a read of all the comments - such a depth and breadth of experiences that help put the left's confusion and difficulties in a more positive light. This is a complicated conflict, and this is the sound of a lot of people trying to make sense of it. Pyrrho suggested it may be the best post in dailykos history. I'm inclined to agree.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I feel for the city of Lebanon, after having rebuilt and democratized, the newest democracy in the region is being destroyed.
Unless they kill every member of the evil threatening Hezbullah, they will have to go somewhere. Where wil they go? Will they become even more determined and reactionary?
Asking Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah without some form of moral and physical support from the UN and the US is so unrealistic.
It is like asking the US to rid itself of Neo-Nazi's, as a hate group. How in a democratic society to you take an element of that society that is part of it's history out. Waco and Timmothy McVeigh are perfect examples of terrorists in this country. We dealt with it, with force and with prosecution. We didn't ask all neo-nazi's to leave the country. And if they did, where would they go?
I do think Israel has a right to defend itself.
And I wonder the rumors I hear, which I do not know I know but have heard, about mowing down olive orchards, depriving people of water and farm land, and basically a Gaza Gitmo for the Palestian people, where they are surrounded with force and can not leave. Now they have rotting food, no water, and will soon starve. I wonder if the Israeli's hope they all die.
It would be like Iraq sending bombs and missiles into the US because one US soldier raped and burned a 14 year old girl and murdered her family. Do you hold the whole military to account for the actions of ONE person?
to me the subtext is that people with the opportunity to do so, even if they harbor the same anger as their families "back home" with no such opportunity... they play soccer
The olympics is a chance to do something for your country, to represent your country. The point being made is that the players felt that by representing their country internationally they were performing their duty but otherwise their patriotic duty would be to kill Americans. This is also why the Iraqi team was so steamed that Bush would use their playing as a pretext for making America look good. He was making them out to be traitors to their nation.
None of the rest of the stuff you mention would act as a substitute for the Olympics.
I disagree with this one. The aggressor has no right of self-defence. That's a nonsense as I demonstrated yesterday because if it were true you'd have to conclude that almost all the violence in any conflict was justified and moral which is a nonsense.
Israel does have a right to protect it's soldiers, citizens & borders
Not in any conflict that Israel started it doesn't.
UN mediated the "end" to that conflict in 2000 where Israel fully withdrew to satisfy the UN mandated conditions and Lebanon was to keep their troops on the border and with the help of UN prevent Hezbollah from attacking?
To pretend that the conflict was ongoing you have to disregard UN truce and Israel's abiding by that truce.
You are saying that all that is immaterial because as long as some time in the past the conflict was ongoing and at some point in the past (regardless of reasons for it) Israel was the "aggressor", Israeli opponents have blank check to attack back and Israel must stand with their hands tied behind their back?
I don't see any logic behind it. Not in international law that you've previously claimed as the moral absolute...
It seems like the international law that you speak so highly about is pretty much whatever you believe is right in the world and anyone who disagrees is in violation. That is irrational.
International community consensus is what makes international law a reality and if a vast majority of that same international community says something is right and good, then that's that. They are the arbiter. International community agreed with Israel on the conditions of their withdrawal. International community agreed with Israel that Hezbollah had no right to keep attacking Israel once they withdrew.
Your claim amounts to a blank check for Hezbollah to keep attacking based on prior history but completely disregards international consensus.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Rather than try to smack down moral axioms -- essentially arguing there is no morality or justice (which is what many do who support Israel) you need to answer that for yourself.
Because you better have an answer unless you are willing to accept the terms of the corrollary: namely that almost all violence is moral. If you don't believe almost all violence is moral then you need an answer to your own question, so what is your answer?
Don't you see that I don't need to answer your criticism because you didn't criticise my observation, you merely criticised the idea that violence generally ought to be considered immoral.
I do have an answer of course. Generally a period of attack lasts as long as the sides are engaged, including hostile occupation with an active resistance. American natives have ceased continuous hostilities against the US government as far as I am aware. But as I pointed out elsewhere since the formation of the UN there's also a lawful answer to this point (as opposed to a moral one). The UN security council in passing resolutions and staying appraised of the situation in Palestine recognises that there has been an ongoing conflict there which has not ceased.
In the end though I consider your question to be insincere. Why? Because while the theoretical question is of some interest it has no application to the problem in Palestine since it is abundantly clear that the conflict there is "hot" (active and on-going) and the native American situation is not. We can see this clearly enough whether we theorise why precisely this is so or not.
These questions are of more practical interest innexamining the very real claims by native Americans against the territry of the US. They really are (some of them) in a grey area. For example Hawaii was taken around 1893 and the US congress officially recognised the fault lay with the US a few years ago. This forms a basis for claims against the US by native Hawaian islanders. But they have a lot of problems with their claim none of which apply to the Palestinians.
why one has to be willing to accept that "almost all" violence is moral. Why can't one hold that some violence is moral and some is not depending on the situation?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
In the end though I consider your question to be insincere.
Firstly, I suggest you refrain from such considerations. You made a statement of principle and I was asking about its extensions. That I also disagree with the principle in no way entitles to make proclamation of a lack of sincerity.
If the law is your guide, then if you consider the results of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Wooster v. Georgia, one could easily argue that the law supports a Cherokee uprising against the state of Georgia at the very least. (Unless those cases were reversed and I was unaware)
Secondly, Hezbollah and Hamas are not the same entity, nor Lebanon and Palestine. While your arguement might apply to the latter, I don't see how it applies to the former.
International community consensus is what makes international law a reality and if a vast majority of that same international community says something is right and good, then that's that. They are the arbiter.
So do you say that if the international community were to oppose something America had done that would be the end of it? You'd agree with the international community and disagree with the US position? Yeah, right.
Please. You don't believe in international law at all. You don't care for what the "international community" says one bit. And as for truces how do you feel about Bush's absurd argument that the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the 1988 war against Iraq, despite the UN truce on that ocassion?
So basically you don't appear to beleive one word of the argument you just put forward.
-----------------------------
The conflict is ongoing since 1948 when Israel stole the land by force and started a policy of ethnic cleansing. Palestinians never quit resisting this. It's an active conflict. This is not about outside states such as Lebannon. It's not a state vs state situation where the rules are necessarily much more stringent and simple.
If we do consider the state vs state situation -- which is certainly a valid perspective -- then the activiities of Hezbollah are irrlevent and the legal situation reduces to Israel attacking Lebannon entirely without provocation. That's the plain facts.
Therefore I assume anyone who wants to try and defend Israel's behaviour here would appeal to the wider conflict involving Hezbollah and other occupied peoples.
Your claim amounts to a blank check for Hezbollah
That's correct because the innocent victim always has the right of self-defence. That's what self-defence means. Self-defence means you have a blank check(*) to hit the other guy back as long as they systain their attack. Defending yourself is a right. The aggressor doesn't have a right to contine fighting but the defender does. That's why it is a moral nonsense to speak of the aggressor's right to self defence. This is a point you have not replied to. You accuse me of giving Hezbollah a blank check while you give Israel a blank check. You give the aggressor the blank check. That's a moral nonsense.
So all three of your arguments here were insincere. You don't believe in international law, you don't have a problem with someone having a blank check and you don't really think of this as a state vs state conflict.
=================================
(*) within proportionality and limited response and other limits of defence -- which means (1) you don't overkill (2) you limit attacks to those likely to remove the threat you are defending against, not pointless attacks for vengenace, and (3) you attack the person who attacked you
Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative. For a conservative violence is good if the good guys do it and bad otherwise. But for people who live by moral rules and by the law violence is either good or bad by the same rules for everyone, friend or foe.
So if your rule is that it is always ok to respond to violence with more violence, then in a long sequence of events of violence by two sides the only action that could be described as immoral would be the very first. All other acts would be regarded as good.
Since violent acts typically do spawn these long sequences of reprisals, you'd be forced to conclude that almost all violence is acceptable and good. Since this is a ridiculous conclusion it follows the assumption that led to it --- that the attacker has a right to self-defence --- is false.
Do you understand the nature of this argument now?
So you weren't literally saying the native Americans were just like the Palestinians. Ok then. Sorry.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not the same entity, nor Lebanon and Palestine. While your arguement might apply to the latter, I don't see how it applies to the former.
I see them as connected but if you don't then my argument would not apply to the former that is quite true (or you'd have to pick a different date when "things started" and beleive that when Israel pulled out of Lebannon they didn't pull out all the way.)
if you consider the results of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Wooster v. Georgia, one could easily argue that the law supports a Cherokee uprising against the state of Georgia
Well it's two slightly different things. The right to self determination and the right to self-defence. While they could claim the former, I don't see they can claim the latter --- because the fighting stopped so long ago. The right of self defence doesn't require or imply a larger sense of righteousness. It's very limited to the question of basically who started throwing the punches.
Like for example if your neighbour owes you $200 so you go over next door and slug him, you have the law on your side concerning the debt but that ain't going to help you against the assault charge.
In the same way with nation states it's a strict liability sort of situation. There's legally no excuse for starting a war at all. No exceptions. It doesn't matter what they did to you (short of attacking you of course).
But the UN treaties don't deal with non-state actors the same way. People are guaranteed the right to their independence and resistance movements against occupation are always lawful, but most of the laws are treaty obligations and non-state actors don't go around signing the Geneva conventions and can't sign up for the UN for example. So I'm not sure about a bunch of guys starting a violent revolution for Cherokees after such a long absence of fighting. It seems to me they ought to exhaust peaceful means first, but assuming that's a bust at some point you have to balance their right to self-determination against a duty to not use violence and the latter will eventually fail because the former is absolute. It's more complex than that because you have other questions like are modern day Cherokees really the same group as had the treaty and so on. This is why I think it's a much greyer area if you have to rely soley on the right of self determination and not self-defence too.
Another example is was the American Revolution legitimate? I would have to say no because there was no self-defence issue and they hadn't exhausted peaceful measures, nor were the revolutionaries representative of all the colonists.
Like for example if your neighbour owes you $200 so you go over next door and slug him, you have the law on your side concerning the debt but that ain't going to help you against the assault charge.
Correct, and I'll take it a step further: if your neighbor owes you $200 and you slug him, his grandkids don't get to sue your grandkids for assault.
That's what we're dealing with now. The grandkids of the people who created Israel, who've never lived anywhere else. And the grandkids of the people who felt they were kicked off their land, who've never lived there. This is ultimately why I think your argument for the illegitimacy of the state of Israel holds no water - the more time passes, the more difficult it is to make this point. Historical wrongs give us important perspectives on how we got into this mess, but reversing them cannot be the bedrock of peace, since all the original players are dead and the people who've taken their place have a new set of relationships to the land.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
By becoming part of the parliamentary structure of Lebanon, it has agreed to abide by the state agreements, which include the peace agreement with Israel, which, to my understanding, Israel followed through on when they withdrew past the Blue line in 2000.
I'd argue that by becoming part of that government, they became legally and morally bound by the Lebanon-Israel peace agreement and the Lebanese interpretation on whether it had been met and how to deal with any issue that had not been met.
My discussion of the Cherokee was not meant to apply at the international stage, but at the national stage only.
As for the American Revolution, one could easily argue that the British started it. Americans declared independence in a peaceful manner, and then the British attempted to invade and use force.
"Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative."
You have not demonstrated, even if there were truth to it, and I don't think there is really insofar as it misses the point, that is, misses the issue of inconsistency in conservativism or any philosophy... it could well be that he's a conservative BECAUSE the incsonsitency doesn't bother him.
But basically, there is no causal relationship between the two, not that you have demonstrated.
Thinking violence is legitimate when the aggressor is "good" does not automatically defy consistency, so long as you think there is a consistent definition of "good".
As a moderate-relativist (meaning not the nihilistic and trivial sense of "relativism") I do deny there is a consistent definition of "good", and would agree that conservativism can be held to account for that inconsistency.
And Yet, it's still false and not necessary to say "Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative".
it's so... inadequate but really, that's all I know is that we have to look for a way to be at peace, and insofar as I'm not in the ME, they have to look for a way.
I wish we could just realize, governments are infrastructure, not "governing bodies"... and we all need infrastructure to survive, and given that, we want infrastructure that allows us to connect in networks of infrastructure with our neighbords (roads, power, water, etc)... and then, we focus on economy and creativity.
Mind you, I'm not into the bravado, I prefer calls for peace and understanding... but even speech I find inappropriate is better than violent action.
Now, I admit there is a limit, I do not like incitement to violence either and there is a thin line there.
However, there is also a difference, sheltered suberbanites writing about "what they would do if they were over there"... people like O'Reilly, are to be taken in the context of the knowledge they would not REALLY do that, and have not really any potential to take such action. They are inciting violence insofar as they are in a non-violent situation and wish to promote one.
The soccer team was different, it was a credible comparison between what they were doing and what they would otherwise have been doing.
"UN mediated the "end" to that conflict in 2000 where Israel fully withdrew to satisfy the UN mandated conditions and Lebanon was to keep their troops on the border and with the help of UN prevent Hezbollah from attacking?"
Hezbollah broke that treaty. You can nuance, and put all the "Zionist" spin you want on it, it is pretty simple. We all know the Lebanon government doesn't like Hezbollah, now is the time for them to STAND UP and get rid of them while they have help.
Well I interepreted his question as asking why do moral rules have to apply the same way to both friends and foe alike, or (equivalently) why do you have to be "consistent" (in the meaning I used it in the reply) with respect to friends and foes, or (equivalently) why can't the status of being a known friend or foe be a 'situation' or variable that a rule can take into account.
And the answer to that question is simply that it is a moral axiom which as far as I can see conservatives don't share with other people. If that is true then what more can be said? You either believe in this axiom or you do not, but of course to not endorse this view is inconsistent (immoral) as seen from a non-conservative (in the sense I've used it elsewhere) perspective.
I guess this is more appropriate for the other thread you started about why conservatives are the way they are but my way of thinking tends to link everything together.
It's an uncalled for put down in my opinion.
That was not my intention so I offer my apology to Ender. However how am I supposed to answer his question now? He's saying it makes no sense to him and I agree; from his perspective - if I am correct - it wouldn't.
If I am correct about this Pyrrho then we are in danger of running around presenting arguments that are sound from our own respective moral rules system's perspective but invalid from the other guy's. [I'm putting it this way to make you happier - I reject that the other system is valid]
If that is so then no amount of arguing about historic facts or logical arguments will help, and that would explain almost all of the problem people have discussing the Palestine issue IMO. At any rate, better to figure out if this is true sooner than later.
Firstly the original grandparents are still alive. Secondly every generation since then has been involved with the on-going fighting which has more or less continuously been going on since the fight started. Thirdly the analogy breaks down because the Israelis didn't just come and kill some Palestinians in 1948 and then go away. They came and occupied the land. Nearly every Palestinian suffers nearly every single day because of that act. The Israelis have basically turned the West Bank and Gaza into two giant ghettos. As in "death camps". As in "genocide". The violence of occupation happens every single day, even if no one happens to get shot on that day.
You do know that Israel is occupying the Palestinians land and controlling their lives by force, right? You do know that every single day Israel is inflicting violence on millions of people - whether the newspapers report it or not? That's sort of the whole point here. The Palestinians are not complaining principally because of an occassional bombing spree or murderous execution of some kid or other. Their entire life is being on the receiving end of ongoing violence. That is what "occupation" means. It means for example that currently most of Gaza has no water because Israeli soldiers bombed the electricity supply, endangering the lives of several hundred thousand people.
Were you aware of this?
Historical wrongs give us important perspectives on how we got into this mess
It's not a historical wrong. It's a present day wrong. It started way back and it's kept going ever since.
To use another analogy it's as if someone gets raped and half way through it you tell them to get over it because their rape was "a historical wrong". Sure it began in the past but there's never been any break from it since then. And frankly "rape" is a very good description of what is happening to the Palestinians.
If you knew the facts I mentioned above then please explain to me how you could characterise all this as "a historical wrong".
Your revolution began ("shot heard around the world") in Concord Massachusetts when some independence minded colonials fought with British troops trying to arrest someone. The colonials subsequently laid seige to Boston. The British hadn't invaded anywhere. They were exactly where they had always been, and hadn't had to do any fighting to get there.
After that the other states signed the Declaration of Independence.
In any case since the state assumes a monopoly on legitimate violence declaring independence is in effect a violent act -- because as soon as someone tries an otherwise perfectly ordinary police action like arresting someone suspected of criminal behaviour --- well that now becomes the turning point. If you let that happen then in what sense have you declared independence, and if you don't that's violence.
Interestingly both sides at Concord claimed the other guys shot first.
It is impossible to determine what the first 'violent' act is. The attempt to arrest the memembers of the provisional congress (for an executable offense) could likewise be seen as a violent act.
What btw, do you consider to be the violent act that the Israel began with? They attacked at the start of the 6 day war, but they were heavily threatened (also a violent act)
I just thought it sounded like you overgeneralized.
On the specifics of your reply that's your case to try to make and I think it's a reasonable line of argument.
As for running around, there IS a danger of that, and the danger is even greater if we do so at ideologically "pure" sites (though they are strictly speaking impossible, the illusion can be maintained more easily at ideologically narrow sites).
Frankly, that's just the way of things, people do create systems that suit their system.
HOWEVER, the fact is also that we share some values, like "someone should be consistent"... that's a common shared value. Even though we all violate it to various degrees, since it's shared we respond to arguments based on that value.
We share a lot more than just that value, and this is why we are not likely, if we debate fairly and don't isolate ourselves behind generalizations that stigmatize others, we can in fact find a lot more agreement than we see in today politics.
HOWEVER, I don't think that's really the only goal here, I think it's good to understand views you'll never agree on. When you realize your views differ because of a different take on a given value, then at least you understand what the issue rides on, and the value and continue to be debated. If it turns out the value will always have people on either side of it, then we can turn to discovering ways to live and let live.
Sometimes it's easy, if you don't believe in tattoos and I do... you don't have to have one, and I can. Sometimes it's hard, e.g. someone that doesn't believe in medical science and won't get a simple life saving operation for themselves... that's still simple for me, that's medical choice if you'd rather die. But if you don't get that simple operation for your child, that begins to be difficult, though I still side with the fact that you are the guardian of your child, and that is sacrosanct, and the medical decision is yours as their guardian.
And of course, if you believe it's ok to murder people driving 30 in the fast lane... that conflicts way too much, and we have to find out what value system we are going with.
But my view is there is a lot of these conflicts which are solved by space, and even those that are not real problems once we get our shared values in order.
We notice differences more easily than similarities sometimes when we debate a given issue starting from our similarities as givens.
So do you say that if the international community were to oppose something America had done that would be the end of it? You'd agree with the international community and disagree with the US position? Yeah, right.
Please. You don't believe in international law at all. You don't care for what the "international community" says one bit. And as for truces how do you feel about Bush's absurd argument that the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the 1988 war against Iraq, despite the UN truce on that ocassion?
So basically you don't appear to beleive one word of the argument you just put forward.
Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case? You are clearly sidestepping my point that it was Hezbollah that broke the terms of the truce at least partly orchestrated and supported by the International community while Israel was abiding by it.
What I say next is simply my personal view and has no bearing on the flaws in your logic that I exposed. What I said was about your argument and not about my own views! I was not pretending to support anything and thus was not dishonest.
I certainly do not believe in international law because to do that I would have to grant legitimacy to the body of nations crafting it and I simply cannot because I can't presume the basic goodness of most of these nations intentions in dealing with the rest of the World. I view the world as a giant sesspool filled with scum barking viciously at each other and especially at the best of them. There are very few shining stars amongst the general trash.
In those cases where I believe the international "community" to be correct in breaking up a conflict and designing an honorable solution (according to my personal morality) I would definitely support nation states abiding by the terms.
-----------------------------
The conflict is ongoing since 1948 when Israel stole the land by force and started a policy of ethnic cleansing. Palestinians never quit resisting this. It's an active conflict. This is not about outside states such as Lebannon. It's not a state vs state situation where the rules are necessarily much more stringent and simple.
You are conflating Palestinians with Hezbollah and are projecting that Hezbollah is in fact continuing the palestinian struggle. That would be rather difficult to prove but you would have to for your point about continuing conflict that never stopped to be remotely close to the truth.
If we do consider the state vs state situation -- which is certainly a valid perspective -- then the activiities of Hezbollah are irrlevent and the legal situation reduces to Israel attacking Lebannon entirely without provocation. That's the plain facts.
We do know that parts of the truce included Lebanon checking Hezbollah's behavior with the help of UN. Not only did that not happen but Lebanese allowed Hezbollah's participation in their own government which by any rational person's conclusion would totally violate the the conditions under which Israelis left. As an elected part of Lebanese government, Hezbollah committed an act of war, breaking the truce explicitly. That would put even more culpability on the Lebanese. Now of course Israelis and I understand that Lebanese government is fairly impotent and incapable of changing the course of events but that does not change the fact that Israel can defend against the explicit breaking of the truce as designated by the "world community". That's how truce works... One party breaks it and it's off.
Your claim amounts to a blank check for Hezbollah
That's correct because the innocent victim always has the right of self-defence. That's what self-defence means. Self-defence means you have a blank check(*) to hit the other guy back as long as they systain their attack. Defending yourself is a right. The aggressor doesn't have a right to contine fighting but the defender does. That's why it is a moral nonsense to speak of the aggressor's right to self defence. This is a point you have not replied to. You accuse me of giving Hezbollah a blank check while you give Israel a blank check. You give the aggressor the blank check. That's a moral nonsense.
With everything both of us said here, only one of us has the onus of proving their own words. I've explained why I believe Hezbollah is the aggressor, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the World Community (well respected by the Left). You have yet to explain what makes Hezbollah with their incursion into Israel and firing missiles aimed specifically at civilians (their aim is bad but there is no question who they want to hit) an innocent victim. I am all ears.
So all three of your arguments here were insincere. You don't believe in international law, you don't have a problem with someone having a blank check and you don't really think of this as a state vs state conflict.
Again, I was not attempting to present my own views but simply disprove your claims. You have not done much more than turning it on me, making it personal accusations of insincerity, all the while avoiding the argument. You should do better.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
the present day situation. When Israel was founded, the population was roughly a million people. Now, it's up to seven million - that's a combination of immigration and births, and I think we can safely assume that not all the original million are still alive. Check your numbers: less than 10% of Israelis were even alive when the country was founded, and of those that were, many came via later immigration waves from Russia, etc. By this point, Israel is no more an occupation than any other country on this planet, as inconvenient a fact as though that may be.
Furthermore, let's be honest about our history. The Israelis didn't just 'come and occupy the land' in 1948. I assume you know that, and that comment was just a hyperbolic slip. See - it's the rhetoric that gets you into trouble, not necessarily the ideas.
O/T - the best source I've found for information both on the current conflict and its historical roots is, of all things, the talk pages on wikipedia. Because the moment someone posts something controversial, ten people jump on with linked sources, then ten more from the other side, etc.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Because it is run by Americans and Americans are rightwing. You understand that what is normal in America is way the hell out on the right in terms of the rest of the planet. You've got a guy who was working for Nixon writing a book saying 23% of Americans are fascists. Nixon's lawyer is now considered a lefty in America. Do you get that? Do you understand how off the tracks your country has become? How insane that is? NIXON's lawyer is scared because he thinks the country is going fascist. 23%.
So from my perspectiuve this left / right thing among Americans... well you're all rightwing to me. Almost all, and that goes for much of the planet who in general see America not Palestine or Iraq or Iran or North Korea as the biggest threat to world peace there is -- and Israel would be number 2. This bizarro attitude to Israel is a part of that.
The Zionists did invade and occupy the land in 1948. They had guns and they killed people and threw them off their land.
Israel is currently occupying Palestine.
Israel is no more an occupation than any other country on this planet
I guess you think Iraq isn't occupied either, huh? By an American definition maybe you are right but in most of the world when you invade a country kill the occupants, enslave them and kick them off their land --- yeah that's an occupation. When your tanks are on their streets and your soldiers guard checkpoints in their country, when they have to suffer under whatever conditions your military dictates then that is an occupation.
The people who were living there were thrown off their land by Zionists. Ergo it is an occupation.
Please go ahead and explain how you manage to figure that none of that matters because there's no occupation.
The declaration of independence by Israel on soil belonging to other people and the inevitable subsequent military attacks by Israel to secure the land they were stealing by ethnically cleansing the original inhabitants.
Ender has admited he didn't believe at least one of the arguments he was making. He said, "Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case?" How do you interpret that remark?
I think you stepped in too early here. Let's see what Ender says.
There has to be some common value to make an argument... a desire to be consistent really is generally a common goal, even when it's not achieved.
You would hope so, but I suspect what we are seeing is a failure of that assumption. That would explain a lot IMO.
Again you're reading what you want to read. First, wikipedia is a bit more honest than you - whenever there's a disagreement about sources, editors are forced to find multiple sources and back up their claims, and saying "they're slanted right/left because they're American" or whatever doesn't cut it. It's not 'right-wing' - it's whoever wants to post there. You don't like it, you post there. If you have the information to back you up, it'll stay - if not, it's because you failed to provide the information.
Israel is not 'currently occupying Palestine' any more than the United States is currently occupying native territory.
Do I think Iraq is occupied? Yes, I do. If you've paying attention to the criteria I've been laying out, you'd have known the answer to that question.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The original intent was to do exactly that to the Israelis.
The history is one of escalation and one can argue who started what (or who escalated the situation beyond an arbitrary line), the major moral distinction here was who achieved victory.
The 1948 war started with ethnic strife where both sides strove to expel the others. The 6 day war began in response to brinkmanship from Egypt and many of the Arab nations and the Yom Kippur war began with an invasion launched by Egypt and Syria.
I'm not sure how any of this precludes a right to self defense (the original subject raised) If you want to argue whether the self-defense was overly forceful, from either a strategic or moral perspective, that's a fair discussion, but it hardly seems to be something that was started by Israel, or a situation where the victorious side enforced a penalty beyond that attempted by the losers.
As always, if I have made a factual error or you have a difference in interpretation, feel free to point it out.
By the way... I wasn't talking about Hezbollah. I was making a general point about the nature of self-defence and how the aggressor cannot be considered to have a right of self-defence. This was a response to someone else claiming that it was "commonn ground" that everyone knew Israel had a right to defend itself. You didn't address that argument or anything I said in your reply.
I guess you were... just starting a new conversation?
So what you are saying is that when you wrote,
International community consensus is what makes international law a reality and if a vast majority of that same international community says something is right and good, then that's that. They are the arbiter.
You thought you were repeating something I had said in some other comment maybe? So you really meant to introduce that statement with something like, "I don't beleive any of this crap of course, but you claim that...."
I never said that stuff and I don't beleive it. Does that observation answer everything you've said here to your satisfaction? If you don't beleive it and I don't beleive it... that's it then? I don't have to respond, right? or do you think I should respond to an argument that neither one of us beleives is valid?
Is there any way for me to be able to tell in the future which parts of your comments are arguments you beleive are true and which are not?
-----------------------------------
The stuff you are saying about Hezbollah doesn't make much sense to me either.
Are you claiming that Hezbollah was a party to the truce?
if you are not then why do you feel Hezbollah is bound by a truce it didn't sign? That makes no sense. Are you saying the truce between Lebannon and Israel stipulated Hezbollah could not run for election? and if not on what basis do you say that allowing Hezbollah to run for election breaks the terms of the truce?
Do you beleive that a truce is worth anything or are you saying you don't beleive in truce's but I do?
Do you beleive the words you wrote here:
Israel can defend against the explicit breaking of the truce as designated by the "world community". . That's how truce works... One party breaks it and it's off.
How it actually works is that starting a war is illegal by the terms of the UN charter which Israel has agreed to. Now you don't appear to really give a crap about the UN but at the same time you seem to think that abiding by "a truce" is something Lebannon ought to do. So what exactly do you beleive here? Are you saying countries should abide by their treaties --- in which case you must agree that Israel is in breach of the UN charter (which is a treaty) --- or are you saying countries don't have to abide by their treaties --- in which case what are you going on about truces for (because they are treaties too)?
Or is that entire argument another example of something you don't beleive but you are claiming I do beleive? Or do you think truces are treaties which should be abided by but other treaties not?
I've explained why I believe Hezbollah is the aggressor, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the World Community
Ok forget the "World Community" you don't beleive in -- what part of the argument was the part that you --- personally *you* --- thought had validity?
you should address my last comment or is there too much logic in there for you? :)
I said: "Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case?", meaning that facts present a better picture than my own personal convictions about what is right and wrong. In the case of what we were discussing, my personal views on the matter are rather irrelevant, because the facts of what actually happened prove you wrong.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Get back to me when you want to answer those questions because until you can explain why in effect you beleive there's nothing bad being done to Palestinians -- no ongoing crimes, no occupation -- well that's just too ridiculous for me to reply to.
At this point you seem to be trying to make out there was some sort of symmerty in these historic events. In response to my saying the Zionists started ethnic cleansing you claim that the other guys wanted to do the same. That's not relevent to a determination of who started it. I'm not asking who wanted to do it. I am asking who did it.
There was not an incremental escalation. The Zionists declared war the day after the British left. No build up at all. There was no symmetrical declaration by groups of terrorist or armed arabs. It's true there were various attacks in small amounts before the British left (including attacks against the British) but since the British were the major military force there was no possibility of any group attempting to dominate the region or ethnically cleanse areas prior to their departure. There was no open warfare nor any precedent for open warfare. The Zionists waited until the British left. They declared war immidiately. There was no time for any tit for tat.
In declaring the state of Israel the Zionists announced their intention to use force to dominate the Palestinians and then they did exactly that. When someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and then they punch you in the face it's hard to argue they didn't start the fight.
So what's your argument?
the major moral distinction here was who achieved victory.
Are you saying "might makes right"? On the whole might usually makes wrong in my experience. Weak parties very rarely attack stronger parties and that certainly didn't happen here.
The Zionist literature of the time makes it crystal clear that their attitude was that it was "us or them" and that their intention was to start a war they knew they would likley win and kill or ethnically cleanse Palestinians from as much land as they could grab, and carry on grabbing land until there was no Palestinians left - run off, killed or subjugated.
They were pretty damn honest about it.
They had a choice to live at peace or go on a war of extermination and they chose extermination. Living at peace with their neighbours was not an option because they were determined to have their own homeland for jews. The Palestinians did not push for war - they defended against a Zionist attack that everyone knew was coming. They lost badly because they didn't have anything like the military the Zionists had.
Are you saying that hypothetically if the Palestinians had had the military advantage they would have exterminated the Zionists? That's something we'll never know but we do know that Jews had lived in peace in Palestine for centuries until the Zionists turned up preached the idea of wiping out the non-Jews and at that point oddly enough the non-Jews became a bit pissy. And when huge numbers of armed terrorist Zionists turned up they became really quite put out about it, yes. Gee, I wonder why. Must be because they were anti-semetic.
But while as far as I can see the resentment to the Zionists was entirely rational this really has nothing to do with the question of who initiated the aggression.
it hardly seems to be something that was started by Israel, or a situation where the victorious side enforced a penalty beyond that attempted by the losers.
It was started by Israel.
Your other assertion is irrelevent.
I'm not sure how any of this precludes a right to self defense
As I demonstrated above the aggressor has no right of self-defence.
Osama would have to be your 1% case since he had more opportunity than almost anyone born. Therefore you need some other explanation for why he fought and he's told us why he fights --- for justice.
It is for justice that people fight Pyhhro, not because they didn't have anything else better to do. These people are righteous warriors. They fight because of duty.
If you were correct then we'd expect the stereotype of islamic terrorists to be correct --- that they were all poor people who's familly got bombed by Americans and they are hell bent on revenge / had no "opportunity".
In fact most terrorists are well educated, relatively wealthy (eg going abroad to be educated) and have had none of their famillies killed by anyone. Like Osama they fight because of justice.
Again it's wealthy middle-class and relatively less utterly screwed-with Iraq that has far more trouble for America than poverty striken land mine capital of the world Afghanistan which also has a bigger population.
Ask yourself why would you kill someone. Because you had nothing else to do? Or because you were convinced it was the only righteous thing to do?
Forgot to add the obvious conclusion: if people fight because of justice then the only way peace will come to the region is if the original crime of Israel is addressed.
Look at Northern Ireland. Those guys had a ton of "opportunities". What really matters most is whether the general population who is not fighting supports the minority who are. Once again that is a question of justice. If the majority consider that the goal is just then they will support those who fight.
And as you know outside of America and Israel, and especially throughout the muslim world the question of justice is settled: Israel has to go. The original crime must be undone.
"Given the opportunity to do something they loved, while they still harbored resentment, while they still spoke out, they played soccer."
I can't help but think this is the obvious point of trying to establish a peaceful and democratic establishment over there in the first place. When the average Middle Eastern Joe has the opportunity to do things he loves (or just builds a comfortable life for himself), he'll be less likley to strap a bomb on his chest.
I'd wager the militants facing Israel would also lose some intensity if they had more opportunity, as well. So what's the quickest route to give it to them?
It just might be the violent stamping out of groups that hamper any possibility of economic and social reforms which could lead to positive change.
No. I was saying that this was an escalatory ethnic uprising on the part of both sides and that one side won. That there was not a clear cut aggressor and a clear cut victim in the initial hostilities. There were many attacks before the British left and that all literature I have read indicates that both side were preparing and in fact engaging in hostilities before this time.
When someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and then they punch you in the face it's hard to argue they didn't start the fight.
I'd argue that a more accurate analogy would be two fighters talking about how after the cop leaves they are SO going to beat each other up. They each threaten that when they knock the other down, they are going to break arms and legs and take the other one's wallet. They then fight and one of them proceeds to do just that.
I think we are at an impasse based upon source acceptance. I have never seen ANY source that argues that the Arab Palestinians were really interested in a peaceful maintainance of the seperate areas.
Again, we are discussing Hamas instead of Hizbollah, basically arguing that all Arabs everywhere can legitimately attack Israel over the Palestine war. Not a completely illegitimate arguement, but I don't think it is appropriate in this case. The various later wars were not intended to put things back to their pre-1948 war and right that wrong, but had a stated goal of completely elimiate Israel. A mission that Hamas and Hizbollah are still officially dedicated to.
So going back to your analogy for a moment, once someone has been punched in the face, do they not get to defend themselves when their victim pulls a gun?
Certainly at the national level the opposite is true: those countries which are the richest appear to be the most criminal, vicious and violent with the US leading the pack.
You seem to be aware of the Zionist propaganda narrative. Or rather since the Zionists were more honest about it, I should say a post-invasion Israel propaganda narrative. After the fact they came to realise, for reasons that I've covered before, that it was vital to present an image of Israel as a weakling country being attacked and bullied on all sides, whereas of course the exact opposite is true.
But it's usually possible to see through the propaganda by noting one or two facts and you seem to reject the Israeli narrative at this point.
I'd argue that a more accurate analogy would be two fighters talking about how after the cop leaves they are SO going to beat each other up.
Again you try to place a symmetry on the situation. So already you have seen that the initial Israeli narrative that has Israel just sitting around innocently when it gets attacked by hordes of Arabs all of whom it manages to miraculously beat the crap out of every time, is false.
But the symmetry doesn't work either. First of all as you know the Zionists hadn't been living in Palestine. They specifically came to Palestine with the intention of starting a fight and killing the other guy. I'm not saying Zionists like killing people for the sake of it, but they wanted a specifically Jewish homeland and the other guy was "in the way". So this fight that you talk about was happening inside one guy's home. It's a home invasion in your analogy.
It's two guys fighting inside one guy's home after the other person turned up drunk and waving a gun and shouting something about how he's going to kill the guy who's home it is because it's really the drunk guy's house.
I say the intruder has a gun to point out another fact that you know: namely that the Zionists had the superior military. You know this because they not only had enough troops to beat the Palestinians but also several other (rather crappy admitedly) "armies" sent to the region after the hostilities began by neighbouring countries who had an interest in keeping Palestine stable.
And of course the fact that the Zionist initiated the war shows they felt they would win it. (Also the view held by the Americans at the time I beleive)
Now you say that the Palestinians don't deserve to be considered righteous because they resisted the invasion. But isn't that exactly what any group of people would do?
I have never seen ANY source that argues that the Arab Palestinians were really interested in a peaceful maintainance of the seperate areas.
But you do know that it was not a symmetric situation. You do know Palestinians had no reason to want to expell Jews before the arrival of the Zionists because Jews had been living in that area for centuries. If they wanted the Zionists gone who can blame them? The Zionists were largely illegal immigrants who came armed to the teeth and with the promise of extreme violence.
The various later wars were not intended to put things back to their pre-1948 war and right that wrong, but had a stated goal of completely elimiate Israel.
But to put things back to the pre-1948 situation you would necessarily eliminate Israel. Israel was created by that declaration of war on the Palestinians. There were not two separate sections at the time. The Zionists created Israel as a result of the use of force.
If a bunch of people invaded America and captured half of it and called it a new state wouldn't you call for the destruction of that state? Let's say these people come from Mexico. There's already a lot of Mexicans in California so would you say they get to keep California? or would you say California is US territory even if it did contain previously a lot of peaceful Mexicans, some legal and some illegally? How would you feel if third parties tried to tell you it was only fair for "both sides" to get half of the disputed land?
So what the Arabs and Iranians refer to as "the destruction of Israel" is really just the return to the political lines prior to the use of force by the Zionists. Which is to say Palestine was one country that had mostly arabs but also some jews and others living more or less peacefully.
So going back to your analogy for a moment, once someone has been punched in the face, do they not get to defend themselves when their victim pulls a gun?
That comment makes no sense. You're trying to suggest that the Palestinians reacted with inproportionate force. But your actual claim is only that they reacted with rhetoric. So for that reason alone it's void. But I don't see that the Palestinians ever did mean a Nazi-style or even Zionist-style genocide. And as I just pointed out the Zionists really and genuinely did have plans to exterminate the Palestinians --- they felt they had to to secure their specifically Jewish homeland. Another reason your point makes no sense is that you claim the Zionist violence was a reaction to this rhetoric by the arabs. But you know that si not true. Zionists were using the rhetoric of ethnic cleansing even before they came to the Middle East.
So in conclusion your argument that 1948 didn't constitute and armed attack by Zionists rests only on pushing the conflicts origins back a little further. However when you look back a little further it is clear that at each point it is the Zionists pushing for conflict as can easily be seen by the one fact that rises over everything else here: all the fighting took place on the Palestinians land. No Palestinians ever dreamt of running over to Europe and killing Jews. There was no symmetry in this fight and the Zionists were the clear aggressor - a point which their own honest literature of the time admits.
The UN rules are much stricter as befits nation states who can do a lot more damage than stateless groups. The criteria for the use of force by America was whether the state of Afghanistan had initiated an armed attack on the territory of the United States which was ongoing.
No Palestinians ever dreamt of running over to Europe and killing Jews.
There were plenty of Jews living legally in the area under discussion. Quite a few were killed before formal declarations of hostilities (and yes, there was ethnic strife going the other way as well).
And of course the fact that the Zionist initiated the war shows they felt they would win it. (Also the view held by the Americans at the time I beleive)
Every estimate I have seen was that the Jewish leadership saw their odds in the 1948 war as about 50/50 and Europe at least thought the Arab nations would win. They lost mostly because of conflicts in command and control that created a complete inability (unwillingness?) to coordinate.
So what the Arabs and Iranians refer to as "the destruction of Israel" is really just the return to the political lines prior to the use of force by the Zionists.
Is that when the situation started? Is that the only reasonable baseline? The period of the Ottoman Caliphate could also be considered relevent. Or the more recent peace treaties.
My big issue with your argument is that you seem to go back and forth a bit as to whether this is a conflict between Israel (recognized as a state by the UN) and the Arab world or between Israeli Jews and the Palestinian people. In doing so, you've ignored one of my questions which is why is Hizbollah not bound by the peace agreement between the Lebanese government and Israel even after becoming a party in the government?
terrorism is a phenomenon of more than a single individual.
a single individual does not create a whole phenomenon. If ONLY OBL were inclined to be a "terrorist"... he'd just be a psychotic criminal of the sort we see at times.
his wealth does not reflect on the explanations for terrorism as a phenomenon.
Comments :
For a discussion of what drives these things
See here:
http://www.swordscrossed2.org/showComment.do?commentId=20605
But as to how people can have a knowledge of things, that is by observation, prediction and manipulation. This is called the scientific method. For arguments it works the same way by observation, prediction and manipulation of arguments but because we know that the way our minds work makes them subject to slanted perspectives at times
it is best to get a variety of perspectives (ie "observation"), from different people.
All this you know Pyrrho.
Excellent diary,
and thank you.
This comment struck me as particularly on-target:
I got an immediate flashback to John Sayles' Men with Guns, which describes an endless Central American war between the government and the guerillas from the perspective of a native population who no longer know who's on what side, only that they're constantly threatened by those 'hombres armados.'
The reason that popped into my head is because one of my roommates has a friend living north of Haifa. As of yesterday, he still hadn't evacuated, but she told me he must have now because "they're probably getting it from both sides." Can you imagine? What does nationality, ethnicity, history mean when you're getting shelled from both sides?
Nothing anymore. To that person, it's just men with guns.
Thanks again for this diary.
Also, O/T, I want to apologize to everyone here for losing my cool yesterday. I fully admit that I'm still getting used to how I handle myself in online debate (I didn't get involved in the blogosphere until Katrina), and sometimes I'm too easily duped into taking flamebait. If nothing else, this was instructive, and I'll try not to let it happen again. I'm happy to have the ability to discuss controversial topics with a people on both sides of the debate, but if people like me are losing tempers and throwing around insults, then it dissolves into nothing. For that, I apologize.
Also, back on topic, everyone should really read that MeteorBlades diary linked at the top. The bulk of it has nothing to do with the conflict per se, but with the ways that we form our opinions about the conflict, and why. It's an instructive exercise that's necessary if we're going to move forward with this.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Yea Pyrrho, this isn't a right or left issue.
If you go through previous threads, it appears we (almost) all have a mixed bag going.
Common points I've seen:
Israel does have a right to protect it's soldiers, citizens & borders.
Israel's been a little heavy handed retaliating in Lebanon.
How peace is eventually found in the Israel/Palestinian issue will have concurrent effects on the whole Islam/rest of world issue.
Non common points:
Some people seem to want to blame one side completely. We've seen some blame Israel, we've seen some blame Palestinians or Islam or Hezbollah.
Now, I've stated my views. They're also a mixed bag. I read a couple of ME blogs, most of them have the arab slant. Their defense of Hezbollah is that Israel is still occupying the southern most 10 miles of Lebanaon as their DMZ. As such they say that Hezbollah is just trying to re-claim occupied territory.
Well, I see what they are saying, but I can't say I agree with everything. One thing that strikes me most is when the Lebanese civil war was settled, all parties were supposed to have been disarmed, and only the Lebanese governments Army was supposed to control borders & whatnot. Except Hezbollah has told them to take a hike. So, I'm not going to defend Hezbollah. They don't want peace in my view.
On this issue (Israel/Lebanon) I'd be happy if the Lebanese Army de-militarized Hezbollah, and took over the border functions. Israel should pull back to it's real border. Lebanon should transfer the Israeli Army guys back to Israel, and they should both begin negotiating peace with respect to the Golan Heights & Syria.
Sound easy? Yea, too easy. Fighting has always proved easier than finding peace. It's funny. Why would you think peace is mre difficult than war? I think that one is similar to personal relationships. It takes hard work to make marriages & couples work. It's easy at first, but requires more patience and perseverance than any of us would have imagined when we started out. It's easier to fight & divorce. So I do find it interesting that these same mechanisms can come into play on a larger, international scale.
Let's pray for peace. If not for our sake, for our childrens.
For those of you
who don't have the time to read through the very long comments section to that diary (longer still because some of the comments are very in-depth), please read these:
DHinMI's comment
about how he came to his understanding of the conflict. Probably the best comment on the board.
inclusiveheart's comment
about what's really a liberal pathology of sorts - the perverse ability to connect with people even when (especially when) you're not 'supposed' to - which helps explain why people's sympathies in this conflict are so torn and complicated.
MissLaura's comment
on balancing a remembrance of history with a forgetting of past grudges, also capturing the frustration of having anything productive to say on this topic.
JaciCee's touching comment
on the surprises that history has in store for us - very subtle, but it says a lot about way we align ourselves.
John Campanelli's comment
on the confusion and isolation of being an outsider to the discussion.
But if you have time, it's worth a read of all the comments - such a depth and breadth of experiences that help put the left's confusion and difficulties in a more positive light. This is a complicated conflict, and this is the sound of a lot of people trying to make sense of it. Pyrrho suggested it may be the best post in dailykos history. I'm inclined to agree.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
The endless grudge
of history.
What I know. It's a mess.
And taking either side makes people hysterical.
I think Israel is over reacting.
Many Palestinians are suffering.
I see no end in sight.
I feel for the city of Lebanon, after having rebuilt and democratized, the newest democracy in the region is being destroyed.
Unless they kill every member of the evil threatening Hezbullah, they will have to go somewhere. Where wil they go? Will they become even more determined and reactionary?
Asking Lebanon to get rid of Hezbollah without some form of moral and physical support from the UN and the US is so unrealistic.
It is like asking the US to rid itself of Neo-Nazi's, as a hate group. How in a democratic society to you take an element of that society that is part of it's history out. Waco and Timmothy McVeigh are perfect examples of terrorists in this country. We dealt with it, with force and with prosecution. We didn't ask all neo-nazi's to leave the country. And if they did, where would they go?
I do think Israel has a right to defend itself.
And I wonder the rumors I hear, which I do not know I know but have heard, about mowing down olive orchards, depriving people of water and farm land, and basically a Gaza Gitmo for the Palestian people, where they are surrounded with force and can not leave. Now they have rotting food, no water, and will soon starve. I wonder if the Israeli's hope they all die.
It would be like Iraq sending bombs and missiles into the US because one US soldier raped and burned a 14 year old girl and murdered her family. Do you hold the whole military to account for the actions of ONE person?
I deplore this whole situation.
How do we encourage peace?
I'm only half stupid
last link is wrong (n/t)
Oh, and sorry about jumping on you yesterday.
Not soccer - the Olympics
to me the subtext is that people with the opportunity to do so, even if they harbor the same anger as their families "back home" with no such opportunity... they play soccer
The olympics is a chance to do something for your country, to represent your country. The point being made is that the players felt that by representing their country internationally they were performing their duty but otherwise their patriotic duty would be to kill Americans. This is also why the Iraqi team was so steamed that Bush would use their playing as a pretext for making America look good. He was making them out to be traitors to their nation.
None of the rest of the stuff you mention would act as a substitute for the Olympics.
Thanks, -
that last link, to John Campanelli's comment, should work here
.
And my apologies, likewise.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Israel has no right of self-defence
I disagree with this one. The aggressor has no right of self-defence. That's a nonsense as I demonstrated yesterday because if it were true you'd have to conclude that almost all the violence in any conflict was justified and moral which is a nonsense.
Israel does have a right to protect it's soldiers, citizens & borders
Not in any conflict that Israel started it doesn't.
When does the offense expire?
If a group of Native Americans decided to attack a town would you argue that European descendents had no right to self-defense?
After all, we started it.
Or am I misunderstanding you here?
regardless of the fact that
UN mediated the "end" to that conflict in 2000 where Israel fully withdrew to satisfy the UN mandated conditions and Lebanon was to keep their troops on the border and with the help of UN prevent Hezbollah from attacking?
To pretend that the conflict was ongoing you have to disregard UN truce and Israel's abiding by that truce.
You are saying that all that is immaterial because as long as some time in the past the conflict was ongoing and at some point in the past (regardless of reasons for it) Israel was the "aggressor", Israeli opponents have blank check to attack back and Israel must stand with their hands tied behind their back?
I don't see any logic behind it. Not in international law that you've previously claimed as the moral absolute...
It seems like the international law that you speak so highly about is pretty much whatever you believe is right in the world and anyone who disagrees is in violation. That is irrational.
International community consensus is what makes international law a reality and if a vast majority of that same international community says something is right and good, then that's that. They are the arbiter. International community agreed with Israel on the conditions of their withdrawal. International community agreed with Israel that Hezbollah had no right to keep attacking Israel once they withdrew.
Your claim amounts to a blank check for Hezbollah to keep attacking based on prior history but completely disregards international consensus.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
apparently never
regardless of what has happened since. I think you got it right.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
So they are 'chickenhawks'?
Given the opportunity to do something they loved, while they still harbored resentment, while they still spoke out, they
played soccerblogged.You need to answer this for yourself
Rather than try to smack down moral axioms -- essentially arguing there is no morality or justice (which is what many do who support Israel) you need to answer that for yourself.
Because you better have an answer unless you are willing to accept the terms of the corrollary: namely that almost all violence is moral. If you don't believe almost all violence is moral then you need an answer to your own question, so what is your answer?
Don't you see that I don't need to answer your criticism because you didn't criticise my observation, you merely criticised the idea that violence generally ought to be considered immoral.
I do have an answer of course. Generally a period of attack lasts as long as the sides are engaged, including hostile occupation with an active resistance. American natives have ceased continuous hostilities against the US government as far as I am aware. But as I pointed out elsewhere since the formation of the UN there's also a lawful answer to this point (as opposed to a moral one). The UN security council in passing resolutions and staying appraised of the situation in Palestine recognises that there has been an ongoing conflict there which has not ceased.
In the end though I consider your question to be insincere. Why? Because while the theoretical question is of some interest it has no application to the problem in Palestine since it is abundantly clear that the conflict there is "hot" (active and on-going) and the native American situation is not. We can see this clearly enough whether we theorise why precisely this is so or not.
These questions are of more practical interest innexamining the very real claims by native Americans against the territry of the US. They really are (some of them) in a grey area. For example Hawaii was taken around 1893 and the US congress officially recognised the fault lay with the US a few years ago. This forms a basis for claims against the US by native Hawaian islanders. But they have a lot of problems with their claim none of which apply to the Palestinians.
I don't understand
why one has to be willing to accept that "almost all" violence is moral. Why can't one hold that some violence is moral and some is not depending on the situation?
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Don't
In the end though I consider your question to be insincere.
Firstly, I suggest you refrain from such considerations. You made a statement of principle and I was asking about its extensions. That I also disagree with the principle in no way entitles to make proclamation of a lack of sincerity.
If the law is your guide, then if you consider the results of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Wooster v. Georgia, one could easily argue that the law supports a Cherokee uprising against the state of Georgia at the very least. (Unless those cases were reversed and I was unaware)
Secondly, Hezbollah and Hamas are not the same entity, nor Lebanon and Palestine. While your arguement might apply to the latter, I don't see how it applies to the former.
Conservatives make insincere arguments
Do you beleive your own words Ender?
International community consensus is what makes international law a reality and if a vast majority of that same international community says something is right and good, then that's that. They are the arbiter.
So do you say that if the international community were to oppose something America had done that would be the end of it? You'd agree with the international community and disagree with the US position? Yeah, right.
Please. You don't believe in international law at all. You don't care for what the "international community" says one bit. And as for truces how do you feel about Bush's absurd argument that the 2003 invasion was just a continuation of the 1988 war against Iraq, despite the UN truce on that ocassion?
So basically you don't appear to beleive one word of the argument you just put forward.
-----------------------------
The conflict is ongoing since 1948 when Israel stole the land by force and started a policy of ethnic cleansing. Palestinians never quit resisting this. It's an active conflict. This is not about outside states such as Lebannon. It's not a state vs state situation where the rules are necessarily much more stringent and simple.
If we do consider the state vs state situation -- which is certainly a valid perspective -- then the activiities of Hezbollah are irrlevent and the legal situation reduces to Israel attacking Lebannon entirely without provocation. That's the plain facts.
Therefore I assume anyone who wants to try and defend Israel's behaviour here would appeal to the wider conflict involving Hezbollah and other occupied peoples.
Your claim amounts to a blank check for Hezbollah
That's correct because the innocent victim always has the right of self-defence. That's what self-defence means. Self-defence means you have a blank check(*) to hit the other guy back as long as they systain their attack. Defending yourself is a right. The aggressor doesn't have a right to contine fighting but the defender does. That's why it is a moral nonsense to speak of the aggressor's right to self defence. This is a point you have not replied to. You accuse me of giving Hezbollah a blank check while you give Israel a blank check. You give the aggressor the blank check. That's a moral nonsense.
So all three of your arguments here were insincere. You don't believe in international law, you don't have a problem with someone having a blank check and you don't really think of this as a state vs state conflict.
=================================
(*) within proportionality and limited response and other limits of defence -- which means (1) you don't overkill (2) you limit attacks to those likely to remove the threat you are defending against, not pointless attacks for vengenace, and (3) you attack the person who attacked you
Consistency doesn't bother you
Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative. For a conservative violence is good if the good guys do it and bad otherwise. But for people who live by moral rules and by the law violence is either good or bad by the same rules for everyone, friend or foe.
So if your rule is that it is always ok to respond to violence with more violence, then in a long sequence of events of violence by two sides the only action that could be described as immoral would be the very first. All other acts would be regarded as good.
Since violent acts typically do spawn these long sequences of reprisals, you'd be forced to conclude that almost all violence is acceptable and good. Since this is a ridiculous conclusion it follows the assumption that led to it --- that the attacker has a right to self-defence --- is false.
Do you understand the nature of this argument now?
Hmm. Ok.
So you weren't literally saying the native Americans were just like the Palestinians. Ok then. Sorry.
Hezbollah and Hamas are not the same entity, nor Lebanon and Palestine. While your arguement might apply to the latter, I don't see how it applies to the former.
I see them as connected but if you don't then my argument would not apply to the former that is quite true (or you'd have to pick a different date when "things started" and beleive that when Israel pulled out of Lebannon they didn't pull out all the way.)
if you consider the results of Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and Wooster v. Georgia, one could easily argue that the law supports a Cherokee uprising against the state of Georgia
Well it's two slightly different things. The right to self determination and the right to self-defence. While they could claim the former, I don't see they can claim the latter --- because the fighting stopped so long ago. The right of self defence doesn't require or imply a larger sense of righteousness. It's very limited to the question of basically who started throwing the punches.
Like for example if your neighbour owes you $200 so you go over next door and slug him, you have the law on your side concerning the debt but that ain't going to help you against the assault charge.
In the same way with nation states it's a strict liability sort of situation. There's legally no excuse for starting a war at all. No exceptions. It doesn't matter what they did to you (short of attacking you of course).
But the UN treaties don't deal with non-state actors the same way. People are guaranteed the right to their independence and resistance movements against occupation are always lawful, but most of the laws are treaty obligations and non-state actors don't go around signing the Geneva conventions and can't sign up for the UN for example. So I'm not sure about a bunch of guys starting a violent revolution for Cherokees after such a long absence of fighting. It seems to me they ought to exhaust peaceful means first, but assuming that's a bust at some point you have to balance their right to self-determination against a duty to not use violence and the latter will eventually fail because the former is absolute. It's more complex than that because you have other questions like are modern day Cherokees really the same group as had the treaty and so on. This is why I think it's a much greyer area if you have to rely soley on the right of self determination and not self-defence too.
Another example is was the American Revolution legitimate? I would have to say no because there was no self-defence issue and they hadn't exhausted peaceful measures, nor were the revolutionaries representative of all the colonists.
This is instructive:
Correct, and I'll take it a step further: if your neighbor owes you $200 and you slug him, his grandkids don't get to sue your grandkids for assault.
That's what we're dealing with now. The grandkids of the people who created Israel, who've never lived anywhere else. And the grandkids of the people who felt they were kicked off their land, who've never lived there. This is ultimately why I think your argument for the illegitimacy of the state of Israel holds no water - the more time passes, the more difficult it is to make this point. Historical wrongs give us important perspectives on how we got into this mess, but reversing them cannot be the bedrock of peace, since all the original players are dead and the people who've taken their place have a new set of relationships to the land.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
I'll get back to you
I am busy at work now, so I'll reply to you later tonight when I get home.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Hezbollah has made a choice
By becoming part of the parliamentary structure of Lebanon, it has agreed to abide by the state agreements, which include the peace agreement with Israel, which, to my understanding, Israel followed through on when they withdrew past the Blue line in 2000.
I'd argue that by becoming part of that government, they became legally and morally bound by the Lebanon-Israel peace agreement and the Lebanese interpretation on whether it had been met and how to deal with any issue that had not been met.
My discussion of the Cherokee was not meant to apply at the international stage, but at the national stage only.
As for the American Revolution, one could easily argue that the British started it. Americans declared independence in a peaceful manner, and then the British attempted to invade and use force.
It is all in the perspective.
this is wrong
"Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative."
You have not demonstrated, even if there were truth to it, and I don't think there is really insofar as it misses the point, that is, misses the issue of inconsistency in conservativism or any philosophy... it could well be that he's a conservative BECAUSE the incsonsitency doesn't bother him.
But basically, there is no causal relationship between the two, not that you have demonstrated.
Thinking violence is legitimate when the aggressor is "good" does not automatically defy consistency, so long as you think there is a consistent definition of "good".
As a moderate-relativist (meaning not the nihilistic and trivial sense of "relativism") I do deny there is a consistent definition of "good", and would agree that conservativism can be held to account for that inconsistency.
And Yet, it's still false and not necessary to say "Consistency doesn't bother you because you are a conservative".
It's an uncalled for put down in my opinion.
since you can't read minds
I think you're better off assuming people believe their own words until you have a strong reason to think so.
i.e. saying "conservatives make ..." should be an argument in itself, drawing from some definition of "conservative".
What you've really done as far as i can see is argue that the believes are not consistent.
And when you argue that it "should be consistent" by implication, then you rely on the common value of consistency.
But you deny conservatives want consistency as well.
There has to be some common value to make an argument... a desire to be consistent really is generally a common goal, even when it's not achieved.
how do we encourage peace
it's so... inadequate but really, that's all I know is that we have to look for a way to be at peace, and insofar as I'm not in the ME, they have to look for a way.
I wish we could just realize, governments are infrastructure, not "governing bodies"... and we all need infrastructure to survive, and given that, we want infrastructure that allows us to connect in networks of infrastructure with our neighbords (roads, power, water, etc)... and then, we focus on economy and creativity.
so much more easily wished for than achieved.
interesting point
I think "opportunity" does stand in, but I get your point.
The olympic is "patriotic" for nations, but it's also and "opportunity" to be patriotic.
I still maintain opportunity trumps self-destruction 99 times out of 100.
valid
yes.
I'd rather people use their free speech.
Mind you, I'm not into the bravado, I prefer calls for peace and understanding... but even speech I find inappropriate is better than violent action.
Now, I admit there is a limit, I do not like incitement to violence either and there is a thin line there.
However, there is also a difference, sheltered suberbanites writing about "what they would do if they were over there"... people like O'Reilly, are to be taken in the context of the knowledge they would not REALLY do that, and have not really any potential to take such action. They are inciting violence insofar as they are in a non-violent situation and wish to promote one.
The soccer team was different, it was a credible comparison between what they were doing and what they would otherwise have been doing.
You totally skipped the meat of Ender's post
"UN mediated the "end" to that conflict in 2000 where Israel fully withdrew to satisfy the UN mandated conditions and Lebanon was to keep their troops on the border and with the help of UN prevent Hezbollah from attacking?"
Hezbollah broke that treaty. You can nuance, and put all the "Zionist" spin you want on it, it is pretty simple. We all know the Lebanon government doesn't like Hezbollah, now is the time for them to STAND UP and get rid of them while they have help.
Well I interepreted his question
Well I interepreted his question as asking why do moral rules have to apply the same way to both friends and foe alike, or (equivalently) why do you have to be "consistent" (in the meaning I used it in the reply) with respect to friends and foes, or (equivalently) why can't the status of being a known friend or foe be a 'situation' or variable that a rule can take into account.
And the answer to that question is simply that it is a moral axiom which as far as I can see conservatives don't share with other people. If that is true then what more can be said? You either believe in this axiom or you do not, but of course to not endorse this view is inconsistent (immoral) as seen from a non-conservative (in the sense I've used it elsewhere) perspective.
I guess this is more appropriate for the other thread you started about why conservatives are the way they are but my way of thinking tends to link everything together.
It's an uncalled for put down in my opinion.
That was not my intention so I offer my apology to Ender. However how am I supposed to answer his question now? He's saying it makes no sense to him and I agree; from his perspective - if I am correct - it wouldn't.
If I am correct about this Pyrrho then we are in danger of running around presenting arguments that are sound from our own respective moral rules system's perspective but invalid from the other guy's. [I'm putting it this way to make you happier - I reject that the other system is valid]
If that is so then no amount of arguing about historic facts or logical arguments will help, and that would explain almost all of the problem people have discussing the Palestine issue IMO. At any rate, better to figure out if this is true sooner than later.
Your response indicates you don't understand the Palestinian sit
Firstly the original grandparents are still alive. Secondly every generation since then has been involved with the on-going fighting which has more or less continuously been going on since the fight started. Thirdly the analogy breaks down because the Israelis didn't just come and kill some Palestinians in 1948 and then go away. They came and occupied the land. Nearly every Palestinian suffers nearly every single day because of that act. The Israelis have basically turned the West Bank and Gaza into two giant ghettos. As in "death camps". As in "genocide". The violence of occupation happens every single day, even if no one happens to get shot on that day.
You do know that Israel is occupying the Palestinians land and controlling their lives by force, right? You do know that every single day Israel is inflicting violence on millions of people - whether the newspapers report it or not? That's sort of the whole point here. The Palestinians are not complaining principally because of an occassional bombing spree or murderous execution of some kid or other. Their entire life is being on the receiving end of ongoing violence. That is what "occupation" means. It means for example that currently most of Gaza has no water because Israeli soldiers bombed the electricity supply, endangering the lives of several hundred thousand people.
Were you aware of this?
Historical wrongs give us important perspectives on how we got into this mess
It's not a historical wrong. It's a present day wrong. It started way back and it's kept going ever since.
To use another analogy it's as if someone gets raped and half way through it you tell them to get over it because their rape was "a historical wrong". Sure it began in the past but there's never been any break from it since then. And frankly "rape" is a very good description of what is happening to the Palestinians.
If you knew the facts I mentioned above then please explain to me how you could characterise all this as "a historical wrong".
Actually
Your revolution began ("shot heard around the world") in Concord Massachusetts when some independence minded colonials fought with British troops trying to arrest someone. The colonials subsequently laid seige to Boston. The British hadn't invaded anywhere. They were exactly where they had always been, and hadn't had to do any fighting to get there.
After that the other states signed the Declaration of Independence.
In any case since the state assumes a monopoly on legitimate violence declaring independence is in effect a violent act -- because as soon as someone tries an otherwise perfectly ordinary police action like arresting someone suspected of criminal behaviour --- well that now becomes the turning point. If you let that happen then in what sense have you declared independence, and if you don't that's violence.
Interestingly both sides at Concord claimed the other guys shot first.
Of course
It is impossible to determine what the first 'violent' act is. The attempt to arrest the memembers of the provisional congress (for an executable offense) could likewise be seen as a violent act.
What btw, do you consider to be the violent act that the Israel began with? They attacked at the start of the 6 day war, but they were heavily threatened (also a violent act)
a couple things
first, thanks for the clarification.
I just thought it sounded like you overgeneralized.
On the specifics of your reply that's your case to try to make and I think it's a reasonable line of argument.
As for running around, there IS a danger of that, and the danger is even greater if we do so at ideologically "pure" sites (though they are strictly speaking impossible, the illusion can be maintained more easily at ideologically narrow sites).
Frankly, that's just the way of things, people do create systems that suit their system.
HOWEVER, the fact is also that we share some values, like "someone should be consistent"... that's a common shared value. Even though we all violate it to various degrees, since it's shared we respond to arguments based on that value.
We share a lot more than just that value, and this is why we are not likely, if we debate fairly and don't isolate ourselves behind generalizations that stigmatize others, we can in fact find a lot more agreement than we see in today politics.
HOWEVER, I don't think that's really the only goal here, I think it's good to understand views you'll never agree on. When you realize your views differ because of a different take on a given value, then at least you understand what the issue rides on, and the value and continue to be debated. If it turns out the value will always have people on either side of it, then we can turn to discovering ways to live and let live.
Sometimes it's easy, if you don't believe in tattoos and I do... you don't have to have one, and I can. Sometimes it's hard, e.g. someone that doesn't believe in medical science and won't get a simple life saving operation for themselves... that's still simple for me, that's medical choice if you'd rather die. But if you don't get that simple operation for your child, that begins to be difficult, though I still side with the fact that you are the guardian of your child, and that is sacrosanct, and the medical decision is yours as their guardian.
And of course, if you believe it's ok to murder people driving 30 in the fast lane... that conflicts way too much, and we have to find out what value system we are going with.
But my view is there is a lot of these conflicts which are solved by space, and even those that are not real problems once we get our shared values in order.
We notice differences more easily than similarities sometimes when we debate a given issue starting from our similarities as givens.
alright David
Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case? You are clearly sidestepping my point that it was Hezbollah that broke the terms of the truce at least partly orchestrated and supported by the International community while Israel was abiding by it.
What I say next is simply my personal view and has no bearing on the flaws in your logic that I exposed. What I said was about your argument and not about my own views! I was not pretending to support anything and thus was not dishonest.
I certainly do not believe in international law because to do that I would have to grant legitimacy to the body of nations crafting it and I simply cannot because I can't presume the basic goodness of most of these nations intentions in dealing with the rest of the World. I view the world as a giant sesspool filled with scum barking viciously at each other and especially at the best of them. There are very few shining stars amongst the general trash.
In those cases where I believe the international "community" to be correct in breaking up a conflict and designing an honorable solution (according to my personal morality) I would definitely support nation states abiding by the terms.
-----------------------------
You are conflating Palestinians with Hezbollah and are projecting that Hezbollah is in fact continuing the palestinian struggle. That would be rather difficult to prove but you would have to for your point about continuing conflict that never stopped to be remotely close to the truth.
We do know that parts of the truce included Lebanon checking Hezbollah's behavior with the help of UN. Not only did that not happen but Lebanese allowed Hezbollah's participation in their own government which by any rational person's conclusion would totally violate the the conditions under which Israelis left. As an elected part of Lebanese government, Hezbollah committed an act of war, breaking the truce explicitly. That would put even more culpability on the Lebanese. Now of course Israelis and I understand that Lebanese government is fairly impotent and incapable of changing the course of events but that does not change the fact that Israel can defend against the explicit breaking of the truce as designated by the "world community". That's how truce works... One party breaks it and it's off.
With everything both of us said here, only one of us has the onus of proving their own words. I've explained why I believe Hezbollah is the aggressor, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the World Community (well respected by the Left). You have yet to explain what makes Hezbollah with their incursion into Israel and firing missiles aimed specifically at civilians (their aim is bad but there is no question who they want to hit) an innocent victim. I am all ears.
Again, I was not attempting to present my own views but simply disprove your claims. You have not done much more than turning it on me, making it personal accusations of insincerity, all the while avoiding the argument. You should do better.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
And your response indicates you don't understand
the present day situation. When Israel was founded, the population was roughly a million people. Now, it's up to seven million - that's a combination of immigration and births, and I think we can safely assume that not all the original million are still alive. Check your numbers: less than 10% of Israelis were even alive when the country was founded, and of those that were, many came via later immigration waves from Russia, etc. By this point, Israel is no more an occupation than any other country on this planet, as inconvenient a fact as though that may be.
Furthermore, let's be honest about our history. The Israelis didn't just 'come and occupy the land' in 1948. I assume you know that, and that comment was just a hyperbolic slip. See - it's the rhetoric that gets you into trouble, not necessarily the ideas.
O/T - the best source I've found for information both on the current conflict and its historical roots is, of all things, the talk pages on wikipedia. Because the moment someone posts something controversial, ten people jump on with linked sources, then ten more from the other side, etc.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Wikipedia is rightwing
Because it is run by Americans and Americans are rightwing. You understand that what is normal in America is way the hell out on the right in terms of the rest of the planet. You've got a guy who was working for Nixon writing a book saying 23% of Americans are fascists. Nixon's lawyer is now considered a lefty in America. Do you get that? Do you understand how off the tracks your country has become? How insane that is? NIXON's lawyer is scared because he thinks the country is going fascist. 23%.
So from my perspectiuve this left / right thing among Americans... well you're all rightwing to me. Almost all, and that goes for much of the planet who in general see America not Palestine or Iraq or Iran or North Korea as the biggest threat to world peace there is -- and Israel would be number 2. This bizarro attitude to Israel is a part of that.
The Zionists did invade and occupy the land in 1948. They had guns and they killed people and threw them off their land.
Israel is currently occupying Palestine.
Israel is no more an occupation than any other country on this planet
I guess you think Iraq isn't occupied either, huh? By an American definition maybe you are right but in most of the world when you invade a country kill the occupants, enslave them and kick them off their land --- yeah that's an occupation. When your tanks are on their streets and your soldiers guard checkpoints in their country, when they have to suffer under whatever conditions your military dictates then that is an occupation.
The people who were living there were thrown off their land by Zionists. Ergo it is an occupation.
Please go ahead and explain how you manage to figure that none of that matters because there's no occupation.
Hezbollah =/= Lebannon
I did address this. I said if you want to look at it soley in state vs state terms then Israel made an unprovoked attack.
The 1948 invasion of Palestine
The declaration of independence by Israel on soil belonging to other people and the inevitable subsequent military attacks by Israel to secure the land they were stealing by ethnically cleansing the original inhabitants.
He admited it
Ender has admited he didn't believe at least one of the arguments he was making. He said, "Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case?" How do you interpret that remark?
I think you stepped in too early here. Let's see what Ender says.
There has to be some common value to make an argument... a desire to be consistent really is generally a common goal, even when it's not achieved.
You would hope so, but I suspect what we are seeing is a failure of that assumption. That would explain a lot IMO.
Geez.
Again you're reading what you want to read. First, wikipedia is a bit more honest than you - whenever there's a disagreement about sources, editors are forced to find multiple sources and back up their claims, and saying "they're slanted right/left because they're American" or whatever doesn't cut it. It's not 'right-wing' - it's whoever wants to post there. You don't like it, you post there. If you have the information to back you up, it'll stay - if not, it's because you failed to provide the information.
Israel is not 'currently occupying Palestine' any more than the United States is currently occupying native territory.
Do I think Iraq is occupied? Yes, I do. If you've paying attention to the criteria I've been laying out, you'd have known the answer to that question.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
How did that war start?
The original intent was to do exactly that to the Israelis.
The history is one of escalation and one can argue who started what (or who escalated the situation beyond an arbitrary line), the major moral distinction here was who achieved victory.
The 1948 war started with ethnic strife where both sides strove to expel the others. The 6 day war began in response to brinkmanship from Egypt and many of the Arab nations and the Yom Kippur war began with an invasion launched by Egypt and Syria.
I'm not sure how any of this precludes a right to self defense (the original subject raised) If you want to argue whether the self-defense was overly forceful, from either a strategic or moral perspective, that's a fair discussion, but it hardly seems to be something that was started by Israel, or a situation where the victorious side enforced a penalty beyond that attempted by the losers.
As always, if I have made a factual error or you have a difference in interpretation, feel free to point it out.
Very confusing
By the way... I wasn't talking about Hezbollah. I was making a general point about the nature of self-defence and how the aggressor cannot be considered to have a right of self-defence. This was a response to someone else claiming that it was "commonn ground" that everyone knew Israel had a right to defend itself. You didn't address that argument or anything I said in your reply.
I guess you were... just starting a new conversation?
So what you are saying is that when you wrote,
You thought you were repeating something I had said in some other comment maybe? So you really meant to introduce that statement with something like, "I don't beleive any of this crap of course, but you claim that...."
I never said that stuff and I don't beleive it. Does that observation answer everything you've said here to your satisfaction? If you don't beleive it and I don't beleive it... that's it then? I don't have to respond, right? or do you think I should respond to an argument that neither one of us beleives is valid?
Is there any way for me to be able to tell in the future which parts of your comments are arguments you beleive are true and which are not?
-----------------------------------
The stuff you are saying about Hezbollah doesn't make much sense to me either.
Are you claiming that Hezbollah was a party to the truce?
if you are not then why do you feel Hezbollah is bound by a truce it didn't sign? That makes no sense. Are you saying the truce between Lebannon and Israel stipulated Hezbollah could not run for election? and if not on what basis do you say that allowing Hezbollah to run for election breaks the terms of the truce?
Do you beleive that a truce is worth anything or are you saying you don't beleive in truce's but I do?
Do you beleive the words you wrote here:
How it actually works is that starting a war is illegal by the terms of the UN charter which Israel has agreed to. Now you don't appear to really give a crap about the UN but at the same time you seem to think that abiding by "a truce" is something Lebannon ought to do. So what exactly do you beleive here? Are you saying countries should abide by their treaties --- in which case you must agree that Israel is in breach of the UN charter (which is a treaty) --- or are you saying countries don't have to abide by their treaties --- in which case what are you going on about truces for (because they are treaties too)?
Or is that entire argument another example of something you don't beleive but you are claiming I do beleive? Or do you think truces are treaties which should be abided by but other treaties not?
I've explained why I believe Hezbollah is the aggressor, not only in my eyes but in the eyes of the World Community
Ok forget the "World Community" you don't beleive in -- what part of the argument was the part that you --- personally *you* --- thought had validity?
This is giving me a headache.
maybe instead of talking about me
you should address my last comment or is there too much logic in there for you? :)
I said: "Why should I believe in something when I am just presenting the facts of the case?", meaning that facts present a better picture than my own personal convictions about what is right and wrong. In the case of what we were discussing, my personal views on the matter are rather irrelevant, because the facts of what actually happened prove you wrong.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
hmm
I am too tired to respond to that at the moment :) It's giving me a headache as well. Till tomorrow then.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Too much something
I can't figure out what you believe at all.
Why can't you just say what you think and why you think it? Plain speech.
Conversation terminated
Get back to me when you want to answer those questions because until you can explain why in effect you beleive there's nothing bad being done to Palestinians -- no ongoing crimes, no occupation -- well that's just too ridiculous for me to reply to.
Decalration of independence = Declaration of war
At this point you seem to be trying to make out there was some sort of symmerty in these historic events. In response to my saying the Zionists started ethnic cleansing you claim that the other guys wanted to do the same. That's not relevent to a determination of who started it. I'm not asking who wanted to do it. I am asking who did it.
There was not an incremental escalation. The Zionists declared war the day after the British left. No build up at all. There was no symmetrical declaration by groups of terrorist or armed arabs. It's true there were various attacks in small amounts before the British left (including attacks against the British) but since the British were the major military force there was no possibility of any group attempting to dominate the region or ethnically cleanse areas prior to their departure. There was no open warfare nor any precedent for open warfare. The Zionists waited until the British left. They declared war immidiately. There was no time for any tit for tat.
In declaring the state of Israel the Zionists announced their intention to use force to dominate the Palestinians and then they did exactly that. When someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and then they punch you in the face it's hard to argue they didn't start the fight.
So what's your argument?
the major moral distinction here was who achieved victory.
Are you saying "might makes right"? On the whole might usually makes wrong in my experience. Weak parties very rarely attack stronger parties and that certainly didn't happen here.
The Zionist literature of the time makes it crystal clear that their attitude was that it was "us or them" and that their intention was to start a war they knew they would likley win and kill or ethnically cleanse Palestinians from as much land as they could grab, and carry on grabbing land until there was no Palestinians left - run off, killed or subjugated.
They were pretty damn honest about it.
They had a choice to live at peace or go on a war of extermination and they chose extermination. Living at peace with their neighbours was not an option because they were determined to have their own homeland for jews. The Palestinians did not push for war - they defended against a Zionist attack that everyone knew was coming. They lost badly because they didn't have anything like the military the Zionists had.
Are you saying that hypothetically if the Palestinians had had the military advantage they would have exterminated the Zionists? That's something we'll never know but we do know that Jews had lived in peace in Palestine for centuries until the Zionists turned up preached the idea of wiping out the non-Jews and at that point oddly enough the non-Jews became a bit pissy. And when huge numbers of armed terrorist Zionists turned up they became really quite put out about it, yes. Gee, I wonder why. Must be because they were anti-semetic.
But while as far as I can see the resentment to the Zionists was entirely rational this really has nothing to do with the question of who initiated the aggression.
it hardly seems to be something that was started by Israel, or a situation where the victorious side enforced a penalty beyond that attempted by the losers.
It was started by Israel.
Your other assertion is irrelevent.
I'm not sure how any of this precludes a right to self defense
As I demonstrated above the aggressor has no right of self-defence.
Osama bin Laden
Osama would have to be your 1% case since he had more opportunity than almost anyone born. Therefore you need some other explanation for why he fought and he's told us why he fights --- for justice.
It is for justice that people fight Pyhhro, not because they didn't have anything else better to do. These people are righteous warriors. They fight because of duty.
If you were correct then we'd expect the stereotype of islamic terrorists to be correct --- that they were all poor people who's familly got bombed by Americans and they are hell bent on revenge / had no "opportunity".
In fact most terrorists are well educated, relatively wealthy (eg going abroad to be educated) and have had none of their famillies killed by anyone. Like Osama they fight because of justice.
Again it's wealthy middle-class and relatively less utterly screwed-with Iraq that has far more trouble for America than poverty striken land mine capital of the world Afghanistan which also has a bigger population.
Ask yourself why would you kill someone. Because you had nothing else to do? Or because you were convinced it was the only righteous thing to do?
Corrollary
Forgot to add the obvious conclusion: if people fight because of justice then the only way peace will come to the region is if the original crime of Israel is addressed.
Look at Northern Ireland. Those guys had a ton of "opportunities". What really matters most is whether the general population who is not fighting supports the minority who are. Once again that is a question of justice. If the majority consider that the goal is just then they will support those who fight.
And as you know outside of America and Israel, and especially throughout the muslim world the question of justice is settled: Israel has to go. The original crime must be undone.
A quick aside...
When you say this:
"Given the opportunity to do something they loved, while they still harbored resentment, while they still spoke out, they played soccer."
I can't help but think this is the obvious point of trying to establish a peaceful and democratic establishment over there in the first place. When the average Middle Eastern Joe has the opportunity to do things he loves (or just builds a comfortable life for himself), he'll be less likley to strap a bomb on his chest.
I'd wager the militants facing Israel would also lose some intensity if they had more opportunity, as well. So what's the quickest route to give it to them?
It just might be the violent stamping out of groups that hamper any possibility of economic and social reforms which could lead to positive change.
Source please
Are you saying "might makes right"?
No. I was saying that this was an escalatory ethnic uprising on the part of both sides and that one side won. That there was not a clear cut aggressor and a clear cut victim in the initial hostilities. There were many attacks before the British left and that all literature I have read indicates that both side were preparing and in fact engaging in hostilities before this time.
When someone tells you they are going to punch you in the face and then they punch you in the face it's hard to argue they didn't start the fight.
I'd argue that a more accurate analogy would be two fighters talking about how after the cop leaves they are SO going to beat each other up. They each threaten that when they knock the other down, they are going to break arms and legs and take the other one's wallet. They then fight and one of them proceeds to do just that.
I think we are at an impasse based upon source acceptance. I have never seen ANY source that argues that the Arab Palestinians were really interested in a peaceful maintainance of the seperate areas.
Again, we are discussing Hamas instead of Hizbollah, basically arguing that all Arabs everywhere can legitimately attack Israel over the Palestine war. Not a completely illegitimate arguement, but I don't think it is appropriate in this case. The various later wars were not intended to put things back to their pre-1948 war and right that wrong, but had a stated goal of completely elimiate Israel. A mission that Hamas and Hizbollah are still officially dedicated to.
So going back to your analogy for a moment, once someone has been punched in the face, do they not get to defend themselves when their victim pulls a gun?
On a national level
Certainly at the national level the opposite is true: those countries which are the richest appear to be the most criminal, vicious and violent with the US leading the pack.
Ok, Israel made a unprovoked attack.
Because you believe Israel is the aggressor and has no right to defend itself right...
Last question, did the US have a right to defend itself invading Afganistan?
But your narrative doesn't make sense
You seem to be aware of the Zionist propaganda narrative. Or rather since the Zionists were more honest about it, I should say a post-invasion Israel propaganda narrative. After the fact they came to realise, for reasons that I've covered before, that it was vital to present an image of Israel as a weakling country being attacked and bullied on all sides, whereas of course the exact opposite is true.
But it's usually possible to see through the propaganda by noting one or two facts and you seem to reject the Israeli narrative at this point.
I'd argue that a more accurate analogy would be two fighters talking about how after the cop leaves they are SO going to beat each other up.
Again you try to place a symmetry on the situation. So already you have seen that the initial Israeli narrative that has Israel just sitting around innocently when it gets attacked by hordes of Arabs all of whom it manages to miraculously beat the crap out of every time, is false.
But the symmetry doesn't work either. First of all as you know the Zionists hadn't been living in Palestine. They specifically came to Palestine with the intention of starting a fight and killing the other guy. I'm not saying Zionists like killing people for the sake of it, but they wanted a specifically Jewish homeland and the other guy was "in the way". So this fight that you talk about was happening inside one guy's home. It's a home invasion in your analogy.
It's two guys fighting inside one guy's home after the other person turned up drunk and waving a gun and shouting something about how he's going to kill the guy who's home it is because it's really the drunk guy's house.
I say the intruder has a gun to point out another fact that you know: namely that the Zionists had the superior military. You know this because they not only had enough troops to beat the Palestinians but also several other (rather crappy admitedly) "armies" sent to the region after the hostilities began by neighbouring countries who had an interest in keeping Palestine stable.
And of course the fact that the Zionist initiated the war shows they felt they would win it. (Also the view held by the Americans at the time I beleive)
Now you say that the Palestinians don't deserve to be considered righteous because they resisted the invasion. But isn't that exactly what any group of people would do?
I have never seen ANY source that argues that the Arab Palestinians were really interested in a peaceful maintainance of the seperate areas.
But you do know that it was not a symmetric situation. You do know Palestinians had no reason to want to expell Jews before the arrival of the Zionists because Jews had been living in that area for centuries. If they wanted the Zionists gone who can blame them? The Zionists were largely illegal immigrants who came armed to the teeth and with the promise of extreme violence.
The various later wars were not intended to put things back to their pre-1948 war and right that wrong, but had a stated goal of completely elimiate Israel.
But to put things back to the pre-1948 situation you would necessarily eliminate Israel. Israel was created by that declaration of war on the Palestinians. There were not two separate sections at the time. The Zionists created Israel as a result of the use of force.
If a bunch of people invaded America and captured half of it and called it a new state wouldn't you call for the destruction of that state? Let's say these people come from Mexico. There's already a lot of Mexicans in California so would you say they get to keep California? or would you say California is US territory even if it did contain previously a lot of peaceful Mexicans, some legal and some illegally? How would you feel if third parties tried to tell you it was only fair for "both sides" to get half of the disputed land?
So what the Arabs and Iranians refer to as "the destruction of Israel" is really just the return to the political lines prior to the use of force by the Zionists. Which is to say Palestine was one country that had mostly arabs but also some jews and others living more or less peacefully.
So going back to your analogy for a moment, once someone has been punched in the face, do they not get to defend themselves when their victim pulls a gun?
That comment makes no sense. You're trying to suggest that the Palestinians reacted with inproportionate force. But your actual claim is only that they reacted with rhetoric. So for that reason alone it's void. But I don't see that the Palestinians ever did mean a Nazi-style or even Zionist-style genocide. And as I just pointed out the Zionists really and genuinely did have plans to exterminate the Palestinians --- they felt they had to to secure their specifically Jewish homeland. Another reason your point makes no sense is that you claim the Zionist violence was a reaction to this rhetoric by the arabs. But you know that si not true. Zionists were using the rhetoric of ethnic cleansing even before they came to the Middle East.
So in conclusion your argument that 1948 didn't constitute and armed attack by Zionists rests only on pushing the conflicts origins back a little further. However when you look back a little further it is clear that at each point it is the Zionists pushing for conflict as can easily be seen by the one fact that rises over everything else here: all the fighting took place on the Palestinians land. No Palestinians ever dreamt of running over to Europe and killing Jews. There was no symmetry in this fight and the Zionists were the clear aggressor - a point which their own honest literature of the time admits.
UN rules are strict
The UN rules are much stricter as befits nation states who can do a lot more damage than stateless groups. The criteria for the use of force by America was whether the state of Afghanistan had initiated an armed attack on the territory of the United States which was ongoing.
Do you think that was the case?
here is a good summary
of how the two sides fight: picture
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Too many different views here
No Palestinians ever dreamt of running over to Europe and killing Jews.
There were plenty of Jews living legally in the area under discussion. Quite a few were killed before formal declarations of hostilities (and yes, there was ethnic strife going the other way as well).
And of course the fact that the Zionist initiated the war shows they felt they would win it. (Also the view held by the Americans at the time I beleive)
Every estimate I have seen was that the Jewish leadership saw their odds in the 1948 war as about 50/50 and Europe at least thought the Arab nations would win. They lost mostly because of conflicts in command and control that created a complete inability (unwillingness?) to coordinate.
So what the Arabs and Iranians refer to as "the destruction of Israel" is really just the return to the political lines prior to the use of force by the Zionists.
Is that when the situation started? Is that the only reasonable baseline? The period of the Ottoman Caliphate could also be considered relevent. Or the more recent peace treaties.
My big issue with your argument is that you seem to go back and forth a bit as to whether this is a conflict between Israel (recognized as a state by the UN) and the Arab world or between Israeli Jews and the Palestinian people. In doing so, you've ignored one of my questions which is why is Hizbollah not bound by the peace agreement between the Lebanese government and Israel even after becoming a party in the government?
false in my view
terrorism is a phenomenon of more than a single individual.
a single individual does not create a whole phenomenon. If ONLY OBL were inclined to be a "terrorist"... he'd just be a psychotic criminal of the sort we see at times.
his wealth does not reflect on the explanations for terrorism as a phenomenon.
the original crime?
I find your definition of original crime a bit arbitrary if I'm to abstract it from your point about hostilities breaking off.
If we are to rectify the "original crimes" in all cases, then I don't know how far back we are to go, Eden I suppose.
To go forward will require accepting that history is full of original crimes.
Israelis soldiers shooting babies?
pretty harsh.
no
terrorists using babies as human shields.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR