This is why the Israeli side is morally superior to the Palestinians.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Lincoln
In the example stated however in the original post Israel was doing the right thing.

The only difference is that Israel has said certain civilians are not allowed to murder Palestinians.This then is supposed to mean that Israel is somehow much more morally superior to the Palestinians?

People like Berzerker and I (who come from opposite ends of the political spectrum) disagree. 1), the IDF kils far more Palestinian civilians and almost no one is every punished for it, even when the act is egregious. 2), many settlers get away with shooting at and murdering Palestinians. Therefoer this seems like either too little too late or a show effort to say, see, we're doing somethhing.

I am horrified by both sides. I am disgusted by both sides. I have great love and sorrow for the people of both sides. I have friends on both sides of the actual struggle. How can I not be enraged and depressed by both sides? They're both ****ing idiots!

[Berzerker]

Me too, but the standard should apply to everyone, including the people who get elected to the highest office in the land.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I thought this thread was about punishing civilians who target innocent civilians. Israel clearly has the high ground here morally. Until killing innocent children is frowned upon by the Palestinians there is no way those who support that tactic can claim to be anything but immoral cowards. People have been oppressed throughout history by stronger groups and they did not feel a need to kill the innocent children of their oppressors. How many German children did the Jews kill in WW2 even though they were hunted like animals by their oppressors? How many innocent children of whites did the blacks kill in the 60's or during slavery for that matter? Israel punishes and the Palestinians praise the heartless killers of innocent women and children. There is no question of who has the moral high ground.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al_Aqsa brigades.

That is just laughable.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Berzerker


Whose land was it in 1945?

British.

I've heard something like 3 x as many Palestinians have died as Isreali Jews, why?

Try comparing the number of civilians (eg, not terrorists, gunmen, etc) that died - the numbers are about the same. And given that Israel easily has the power to kill many many more, and has been working to decrease the number of civilian deaths.

Have these offers of "peace" included a sovereign Palestinian state

Yes.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
That is just laughable.

I suppose so if the murder of Palestinian children isn't to be mourned. **** it, it's not like Arabs are deserving of human rights anyway. They're just animals.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Azazel
I don't think that the punishment was harsh enough. But it's rather similar to palestinian cases, so that point is void.

Their defense attorney complained about the
sentence, saying that Arab would-be suicide
bombers are given lighter sentences than his
clients.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=345552

Of course, he would be biased.

[Az]

Originally posted by elijah
"I'd like to get along, but he started it, its his fault"

That's not what I've said. I said that getting along as in living peacefully in respective countries, I accept that. Living in the same country: no way.

obviously it is not meaningless if people are willing to blow themselves up to kill Jews. During the Indian wars, people called them savages (yesterday's terrorists) for retaliating against settlements. That can't justify murdering the innocent, but to ignore the catalyst for such behavior is shortsighted.

Again, if you're talking about individual property: I already talked that I am willing and so are the Israeli governemnts, to compensate the loss of land, if the compensation will be resiprocated by the compensation of the Jewish property in arab countries. If you're talking about the ownership of that land as a 'nation', then since the area and the current 'indegenous' inhabitants were never a sovereign nation, that question is void, since then: We took it from the Brits who took it from the Ottoman empire, who took it..... during the last time the area was self-governed was about the last time we were here.

Yes, both the Brits and the Turks mainly wanted resources, but they were still occupiers lacking the moral authority to keep or give away the land. The Israelis want more though, not that I blame them for wanting their own state, but it was a big mistake giving them that land. Think of all the violence that could have been avoided if the west let them stay in peace instead of trying to push the problem off on others.

Think of all of the violence that could've been avoided if the arabs would accepted the emergence of the Israeli state!
.
.
.
irrelevant. 'What if's are for civilization games, and apolyton threads, sadly.

Oerdin started this thread to show there is no "moral equivelance", i.e., one side is bad, the other is good.

"One side is better than the other" is hardly black and white.

You don't think 3x as many people killed by "heavy equipment" is just a bit peculiar?

Erm, no. What does the amount of casualties both combatant and non-combatant has to do with moral value of it?

And trying to compare this to cars hitting pedestrians is illogical, you can't throw bombs around at people and then act as if the innocent killed by such reckless behavior was "unintentional".

You were making a certain comment on how you'd prefer to die. I said it was irrelelvant to the discussion.

That would be like using a machine gun on a crowd when someone in the crowd shoots at you.

A) more often than not, not a fair comparison. Cases of mistakenly identifying the victim as a threat, returning fire to a building, etc. are more often.
B) Not outlawed in the rules of war, and the geneva convention, btw.

I'd call that "involvement", but I heard he allowed a Christian militia to go in and slaughter a bunch of people as part of his plan. Perhaps you can explain what he has to answer for (your words) if he wasn't involved.

Yes, It was a direct order from the MoD, that was in the process of co-ordinating tens of thousands of troops to order a certain company to let the christian militia enter. His goal was pure blood.

I don't even think that about the suicide bombers.

What he HAS to answer for is purpetrating a war to install a friendly regime in Lebanon, Without the government's, and the Prime Minister's approval.

What part of "two wrongs don't make a right" do you find perplexing? If Arab dictators stole from Jews, that doesn't mean Jews can steal from other Arabs.

The part that it's gets kinda tiring to remain all the time with the 'historical justice' scroll in one hand, and the 'up yours!' note in the other.

Of course, but morality requires that once the combatants are done with their "adventures", they leave.

And we were ready to, for a lasting peace deal with the arab states. ( There is an Israeli governent memorandum on it from the late 60s. There is also a very nice answer to it in the Khartoum declaration.)

I'm not sure that qualifies as an endorsement

And he was a "terrorist" who got elected, that was my earlier point, both sides elect terrorists.

okay, I can play along with that statement. Now how does this reflect on the rest of the arguement?

Azazel, correct me if I'm wrong, but according to that map, those triangles are Israeli settlements within Palestianian "sovereignty" (the lighter shade of brown).

The triangles inside the light-gray territory are the settlements to be removed. The blue spots in the Israeli territory are the ones to remain.

The IDF is the moral equivalent of Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the al_Aqsa brigades.

The only difference is that Israel has said certain civilians are not allowed to murder Palestinians.This then is supposed to mean that Israel is somehow much more morally superior to the Palestinians?

quote?

Seriously, I guess you know very little of what happens to such soldiers. It's not punishment enough, but saying that people don't get punished is a lie, as well. I know of people who have been jailed for that.

[Edan]

Originally posted by Ramo


The offered state was split up into 5 cantons, without control over its water resources, borders, or air space. Doesn't seem all that sovereign to me.

Cantons my eye.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/story.php?storyID=13826

[Lincoln]

That map looks like some kind of sick puppy pissing on Israel...

[Berzerker]

[MrFun]

Actually, it looks like some kind of body organ, with a vein or some other tube connected to it.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


Yes they do. Israeli snipers pick off non-combatants all the time.

Proof? If snipers are competent enough to hit their targets at range, they're also competent enough to not be observed doing it. And if Israeli snipers wanted to rack up Palestinian bodycount, I'm sure they could collectively bag a few hundred a day without much trouble.

[MrFun]

Just because we don't have proof of something happening, does not mean that it's not happening.

Let's say hypothetically there was no proof of the Holocaust as it was being carried out in Nazi Germany. Does that mean that the Holocaust was not happening?

[Berzerker]

Azazel -

Again, if you're talking about individual property: I already talked that I am willing and so are the Israeli governemnts, to compensate the loss of land, if the compensation will be resiprocated by the compensation of the Jewish property in arab countries.

So you guys will "compensate" for stolen land if other thieves will do the same? Gee, I'll stop murdering people if someone else does too.

If you're talking about the ownership of that land as a 'nation', then since the area and the current 'indegenous' inhabitants were never a sovereign nation, that question is void, since then: We took it from the Brits who took it from the Ottoman empire, who took it..... during the last time the area was self-governed was about the last time we were here.

That's a bogus argument, it doesn't matter if the people living there were a "nation". That's like saying the USSR could have morally kept eastern Europe since Germany conquered it first and abolished the victim's nationhood.

Think of all of the violence that could've been avoided if the arabs would accepted the emergence of the Israeli state!

Yeah, all those people who are robbed of their land should just keep quiet and embrace the people who took their lands.

irrelevant. 'What if's are for civilization games, and apolyton threads, sadly.

Apparently it is relevant or there wouldn't be a problem over there. Arabs aren't crossing the Atlantic to bomb Jews in NYC...

"One side is better than the other" is hardly black and white.

Tell that to Oerdin.

Erm, no. What does the amount of casualties both combatant and non-combatant has to do with moral value of it?

When one side is portrayed as causing all or most of the death and destruction while the other side has actually killed ~3x as many people, that argument takes on the appearance of a peculiarity to say the least.

You were making a certain comment on how you'd prefer to die. I said it was irrelelvant to the discussion.

Irrelevant? Hardly, over here we get a picture of brutal savages blowing up children while these numbers are rarely mentioned. Your "justification" for these numbers was "heavy equipment",
meaning you guys are just guilty of being sloppy?

A) more often than not, not a fair comparison. Cases of mistakenly identifying the victim as a threat, returning fire to a building, etc. are more often.

B) Not outlawed in the rules of war, and the geneva convention, btw.

If it's a war and killing civilians is acceptable (albeit perhaps lamentable?), then why complain about the bombings of civilians? Yes, ~3x as many Arabs are "mistakenly" killed...

The part that it's gets kinda tiring to remain all the time with the 'historical justice' scroll in one hand, and the 'up yours!' note in the other.

You can't ignore recent history, the people who got screwed won't. And telling them they'll be compensated when someone else comensates you won't convince them you have the moral high ground.

And we were ready to, for a lasting peace deal with the arab states.

But not the Arabs living there. What is the "right of return"? Isn't that about Arabs who fled their lands during these wars only for the victors to keep what was theirs when they came back?

okay, I can play along with that statement. Now how does this reflect on the rest of the arguement?

You expressed confusion when I said both sides elect terrorists.

The triangles inside the light-gray territory are the settlements to be removed. The blue spots in the Israeli territory are the ones to remain.

Ah, okay. But I thought that was sovereign lands belonging to the Arabs, so why are there any settlements there to begin with?

Btw, can you identify the source of your quotes, you mixed 3 people into your last post.