Why Israel's position is immoral

[Comrade Tribune]

Well, I did so. What I meant to say is: Care to explain what happened?

The Palestinians didn´t leave their homes/country entirely of their own free will, right?

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Well, I did so. What I meant to say is: Care to explain what happened?

The Palestinians didn´t leave their homes/country entirely of their own free will, right?

Actually, many were asked to leave by the Arab governments and organizations. Many others did leave of their own free will.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Actually, many were asked to leave by the Arab governments and organizations. Many others did leave of their own free will.

Why does this somehow strike me as not being the whole story?

[GePap]

Still Immoral

The original hgeading of this post was that Israel's position is immoral, and Siritonov's answers to my orirginal questions simply, it seems to me , prove my point. Many issues have been raised, so i will address them 1 by 1.

First, on the nature of Zionism: Zionism was a nationalisitc, secular movement created by Jews to counteract the anti-semitic nationalism prevalent in Europe at that time. They sought to ccreate a homeland to have a 'normal' existance again, like all other nations. For political reasons, Palestine was chosen as the place to establish this homeland (becuase it was the spot most dear to most jews). So, the Zionists begun to buy land from absentee Ottoman landlords in Damascus and Istanbul and begun to settle the land- the problem, of course, is that the moniker a people without a land for a land without a people was false, there was a people, the Palestinians. Zionism invariably needs the removal of the Palentinians, since how can one create a democratic and Jewish state with large numbers of non-Jews? Ben Gurion was right when he said that the fundamental conflict between Jews and Arabs was LAND. At the same time that Zionism was gaining stranght, Arab nationalism begun to grow- and thus, two different nationalistic groups, Zionists and Arab nationalist, were eventually to come to conflict becuase they both claimed the entirety of the land (go to Zionistcentury and you'll see that some hard core Zionists still see Jordan as a rightful part of Israel taken away by the dastrdly Brits in 1922).
I generally hate all nationalism, so I am no fan of ither arab nationalism or Zionism, but, as long as we live in a world of nationalism, it is not possible to have a zionist state but deny the Palestinians their own. Jordan and Egypt deserve some blame, for not allowing a Palestinian state to form in 1948 becuase they annexed Gaza and The west bank for themselves.

2. On nato's issue. I think that the notion of self-determination trumps the whole emotional notion of having laid roots. All states have a right to decide who shall be part of them, thus immigration policy, which is why Israel gets to decline the right of return of millions of Palestinians. Now, the legitimacy of a government comes from the people. The Palestinians make up 99% in Gaza, and 85-90% majority in the West Bank, and any state in these regions should be based on their sovereign whishes, as those that lend legitimacy to their own rulers (part of why Israeli occupation is morally worng, cause it is not based on the wishes of those it seeks to govern). Now, personally, i think that the settlers should be given the choice to stay, but as Jewish memebers of a Palestinian state, not as Israeli citizens, and subject to the laws of the Palestinian state, much as one million Palestinians are now Israeli citizens.

3. the reason i brough up water, a think that none of the defenders of Israel have yet to really answer for, is that it shows the true intents of the Israeli occupation policy. For the last 34 years, Israel has built infrastcuture in the occupied Territories, but most of this infrastructure was desinged asolely around the needs of present and future settlers, and not the VAST MAJORITY of the inhabitants. No palestinians were allowed, even in times of peace, regular usage of the highways israel built in the occupied territories. They mus use (and again, this was true before the current fighting) side roads and have to pass several army checkpoints, so rieds that take settlers just a few minutes take palestininas living in almost the sameplace, hours. In any other place on earth, such a policy would be viewed as horribly oppresive. The Chinese inTibet at least make the roads for everyone- in the south, the monikers was separate but equal, and while they never really did this, the diparity was far lesser than the apartheid-like regiment Israel has created in the occupied territories.

4. Obviously by his answers, Siritnov believes that collective punishment is right. I think that is highly unethical and morally disgusting. Collective punishment is based on the notion of denying individual humanity, individual rights, individual choice. It makes one a criminal for what they are, not what they do- thus Sirinov and Israelis are criminalizing being a Palestinian when they state that all Palestinians can be punished for the acts of a small minority. This criminalizing step is an importan one in the process towards extermination or ethnic cleansing, though as Hanna Arednt said, they have yet to get to making Palestinians a vice. Yet, the way that extremist within israel are gaining power, how far can this be? [The moderate israelis still cling to the notion that they should keep any of the occupied territories, which make true peacee impossible, and unable to move forward, they turn to the extremists, who always have solutions, 'transfer', the nice euphamism used by the right for ethinc cleansing becomes something cabinet members get to espouse. This, of course mirros the Palestinains, in which the moderates, unable to show any real retuns from Oslo (the settlements got bigger, more checkpoints appeared, the palestinian economy shrunk all as Oslo was going on) are loosing to the 'answers' of the extremists].

I beleive in the rights of the individual, and in the notion that all Palestinans, and all israelis, are equally HUMAN BEINGS and not just pieces of bigger, amourphous, groups. Thus, the security needs of an Israeli do not outweight the security needs of a Paletinian, or their property rights, or their civil rights, or their human rights.
Now, before any comparisons between US and Israeli policies are made, let me say that the US rejects collective punishment. Even when it goes about it in a dumb way, it seeks to punish individuals or specific organizations, not entire peoples. Thus, we gat the fundamanetal difference between an afghan civilian killed and a Palestinian civilian, or Israeli civilian, killed (though defenders of Israel insits that they not be treated collectively, just like they insist on treating the palestinians):The death of an innocent while in the persiut of justice is Tragic, the death of an innocent while in the persuit of injustice (both by the israeli government and terrorist palestinians organizations) is a crime. Let me say at this point that the moniker 'collateral damague' is an imoral, dehumanizing term created to sweep under the rug wht we must instead pay close attantion to: the US must pay to investigate every allegation of innocent Afghans, or Somalis, or whoever, killed in our military opperantion, both to attone for their deaths, and to make sure such things are not allowed to ever happen again.

My great fear is that as long as israelis have their own 'we are born victims cause we are Jews,and Jews are perpetual victims (just look at the Holocaust), so we can never really be wrong or bad, cause we are victims' then Israeli admission of their guilt is impossible. Equally fearsome is that palestinians will (and perhaps they are already) are gaining such as screwed up world view themselves. As Zygmunt Bauman said in his 1988 book, "Modernity and the Holocaust, in the intro to the new, 2000 edition:

"The ethics of heredetary victimhood reverses all logic of the law: the accused remain criminals until proven innocent. And since it is the accusers and the prosecutors themselves who conduct the hearings and decide the validity of the argument, the defendents have a slim chance of thier argument accepted by the judges...."
" Thus the status of Hereditary victim may take the moral reprobation off the new victimization-this time perpetuated in the name of erasing the hereditary vulnerability.It is bannal thruth that violence breeds more violence; somewhat less banal, since not not repeated enough, is the truth that victimization breeds more victimization. Victims are not guaranteed to be morally superior to their victimizers, and seldom emerge from their victimization morally enobled..."

Finally, and my last entace on this Thread, still from Bauman:

"The pernicious legacy of the Holocaust is that today's porsecutors may inflict new pains and create new generations of victims eagerly awaiting their chance to do the same, while acting under the conviction that they are avenging yesterday's pain and warding off the pains of tommorrow; while being convinced, in other words, that ethics is on their side. This is perhaps the greatest among the Holocaust curses and Hitler's posthumous victories. The crowds who applauded Goldsteins masscre of muslim worshipers in occipied Hebron, who flockled to his funeral, and go on writing his name on political and relegious banners, are the most terminally afflicted but not the only beaters of that curse. They may count on the tacit, sometimes quite vociferous compassion from ruling political forces. Such forces want to keep reality conforting to the vision of hereditary victimhood and do their best to force it into conformity.Another bomb, another outbreak of intifada serves that purpose very well. BUt in somewhat diluted but still malignant form of the curse split far and wide, affecting a sizeable section of the Israeli population brought up to believe in living inside a besieged fortress."

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
Well, I did so. What I meant to say is: Care to explain what happened?

The Palestinians didn´t leave their homes/country entirely of their own free will, right?

Many different reasons, including fear of the war, propaganda, and finally an Arab "scorched earth" policy combined with Israeli fears of a fifth column leading to expulsions. But that has no bearing on whether, as you alleged without facts, expelling them was part of some grand Zionist plan - after all, many refugees were also expelled from India and Pakistan in 1947, but I don't think Gandhi and Ali Jenna can be accused of plotting the expulsion of these people from their respective countries.

[Natan]

Re: Still Immoral

Originally posted by GePap
First, on the nature of Zionism: Zionism was a nationalisitc, secular movement created by Jews to counteract the anti-semitic nationalism prevalent in Europe at that time. They sought to ccreate a homeland to have a 'normal' existance again, like all other nations. For political reasons, Palestine was chosen as the place to establish this homeland (becuase it was the spot most dear to most jews). So, the Zionists begun to buy land from absentee Ottoman landlords in Damascus and Istanbul and begun to settle the land- the problem, of course, is that the moniker a people without a land for a land without a people was false, there was a people, the Palestinians. Zionism invariably needs the removal of the Palentinians, since how can one create a democratic and Jewish state with large numbers of non-Jews?

Answer: immigration. This was quite realistic at a time when there were fifty percent more Jews in the world then there are today and many, many fewer Palestinians. So no, Zionism did not require anyone's expulsion.

I generally hate all nationalism, so I am no fan of ither arab nationalism or Zionism, but, as long as we live in a world of nationalism, it is not possible to have a zionist state but deny the Palestinians their own. Jordan and Egypt deserve some blame, for not allowing a Palestinian state to form in 1948 becuase they annexed Gaza and The west bank for themselves.

Apparently you are a fan of Palestinian nationalism though - Jews don't deserve a state, but Palestinians do?

Now, the legitimacy of a government comes from the people. The Palestinians make up 99% in Gaza, and 85-90% majority in the West Bank, and any state in these regions should be based on their sovereign whishes, as those that lend legitimacy to their own rulers (part of why Israeli occupation is morally worng, cause it is not based on the wishes of those it seeks to govern)

If a viable government which would prevent terrorism against Israel could be formed, Israel would leave. It already left the populated areas after the Oslo accords.

3. the reason i brough up water, a think that none of the defenders of Israel have yet to really answer for, is that it shows the true intents of the Israeli occupation policy. For the last 34 years, Israel has built infrastcuture in the occupied Territories, but most of this infrastructure was desinged asolely around the needs of present and future settlers, and not the VAST MAJORITY of the inhabitants.

No palestinians were allowed, even in times of peace, regular usage of the highways israel built in the occupied territories.

Only been true since the Oslo accords, and only because the Palestinians don't want settlers on their roads - hence the "bypass" roads. Before 1993, everyone used the same roads.

They mus use (and again, this was true before the current fighting) side roads and have to pass several army checkpoints, so rieds that take settlers just a few minutes take palestininas living in almost the sameplace, hours. In any other place on earth, such a policy would be viewed as horribly oppresive.

Actually, since Palestinian terrorists have their own system of unannounced checkpoints (i.e., randomn ambushes at passing motorists) Israeli road trips take hours longer than they should too.

The Chinese inTibet at least make the roads for everyone- in the south, the monikers was separate but equal, and while they never really did this, the diparity was far lesser than the apartheid-like regiment Israel has created in the occupied territories.

Come on, the situations are not vaguely comparable because here we have a separate government entity, the PA. As I said, before the PA, everyone shared the roads.

[The moderate israelis still cling to the notion that they should keep any of the occupied territories, which make true peacee impossible, and unable to move forward, they turn to the extremists, who always have solutions, 'transfer', the nice euphamism used by the right for ethinc cleansing becomes something cabinet members get to espouse.

Um, not clear what you're saying here.

the US must pay to investigate every allegation of innocent Afghans, or Somalis, or whoever, killed in our military opperantion, both to attone for their deaths, and to make sure such things are not allowed to ever happen again.

Not going to happen.

My great fear is that as long as israelis have their own 'we are born victims cause we are Jews,and Jews are perpetual victims (just look at the Holocaust), so we can never really be wrong or bad, cause we are victims' then Israeli admission of their guilt is impossible. Equally fearsome is that palestinians will (and perhaps they are already) are gaining such as screwed up world view themselves. As Zygmunt Bauman said in his 1988 book, "Modernity and the Holocaust, in the intro to the new, 2000 edition:

"The ethics of heredetary victimhood reverses all logic of the law: the accused remain criminals until proven innocent. And since it is the accusers and the prosecutors themselves who conduct the hearings and decide the validity of the argument, the defendents have a slim chance of thier argument accepted by the judges...."
" Thus the status of Hereditary victim may take the moral reprobation off the new victimization-this time perpetuated in the name of erasing the hereditary vulnerability.It is bannal thruth that violence breeds more violence; somewhat less banal, since not not repeated enough, is the truth that victimization breeds more victimization. Victims are not guaranteed to be morally superior to their victimizers, and seldom emerge from their victimization morally enobled..."

Finally, and my last entace on this Thread, still from Bauman:

"The pernicious legacy of the Holocaust is that today's porsecutors may inflict new pains and create new generations of victims eagerly awaiting their chance to do the same, while acting under the conviction that they are avenging yesterday's pain and warding off the pains of tommorrow; while being convinced, in other words, that ethics is on their side. This is perhaps the greatest among the Holocaust curses and Hitler's posthumous victories. The crowds who applauded Goldsteins masscre of muslim worshipers in occipied Hebron, who flockled to his funeral, and go on writing his name on political and relegious banners, are the most terminally afflicted but not the only beaters of that curse. They may count on the tacit, sometimes quite vociferous compassion from ruling political forces. Such forces want to keep reality conforting to the vision of hereditary victimhood and do their best to force it into conformity.Another bomb, another outbreak of intifada serves that purpose very well. BUt in somewhat diluted but still malignant form of the curse split far and wide, affecting a sizeable section of the Israeli population brought up to believe in living inside a besieged fortress."

This tirade seems to come out of and go to nowhere in particular. Or even in general. And please address my points, they were better than Siro's anyway!

[GePap]

Sorry Natan

I am breaking a statement here, but since I must move on, This trully will be my last words, though I expect, not yours:

I believe I have said all I must say. I will not engage your arguments any more than you did mine, and you cursosy reading of some of what i wrote shows me how much attention to my points you had. Finally, if you don't understand the last , as you call it, 'tirade', then you will never understand my argument, nor may you ever realize were morally,I belive you have gone wrong. I do hope this changes, for that sort of change will be vital if any peace will be reached.

[Natan]

Re: Sorry Natan

Originally posted by GePap
I believe I have said all I must say. I will not engage your arguments any more than you did mine, and you cursosy reading of some of what i wrote shows me how much attention to my points you had.

If you feel I did not adequately understand or address a point you were making, please specify and I'll try to do better. But I made a post on the first page which you never responded to at all.

Finally, if you don't understand the last , as you call it, 'tirade', then you will never understand my argument, nor may you ever realize were morally,I belive you have gone wrong. I do hope this changes, for that sort of change will be vital if any peace will be reached.

This is what I'm complaining about - you set up a strawman and and you're doing it again. Apparently, if I disagree with you on a factual matter (actually, a series of them) then you immediately assume that I believe in a whole series of utterances which have never passed from my lips or appeared next to my username.