Why Israel's position is immoral

[Berzerker]

Natan -

Did I say you introduced Waco the discussion?

No, but if you're going to say a topic we were discussing is unsuitable for this thread, it would be nice if you acknowledged being the one who introduced the topic.

-Self-determination depends on private property so the two are inseparable...

I'm not sure what you mean here.

One does not have self-determination if other can do what they please with their property. The most fundamental piece of property a person has is themself, and from this ownership derives all other forms of private property...

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
By your definition, the strike at the Pentagon was a guerilla attack, then?

As soon as the laws of war recognize a passenger aircraft (with passengers) as a legal weapon of war, then that definition is well on it's way.

-----

People are willing to fight over land, and this is a pretty conventional theme throughout history. We shouldn't be surprised that with typical 20th century grandiosity we outlaw war (for the second time if you count the Kellogg-Briand pact), and our upright and moral pronouncement is immediately and widely ignored. You can equate law and morality if you want to (as the starter of this thread does) but suffice it to say that that comparison is a double edged sword (at least). I don't accept that equation on anything other than a case by case basis.

The Jews were displaced by WWII, and in turn ended up flocking to British held Palestine in large numbers especially after the war. They brought what capital they could with them, including that most valuable of capital, human capital (ie knowledge and skills) from Europe. This resource more than any other meant that they were more successful than the previous inhabitants of Palestine. The fact of the Holocaust also gave the Jews of Israel a determination (or fanatacism) to see their enterprise through.

I don't blame the Israelis any more than I blame the Celts, Germans, Slavs or Turks for behaving as any dislocated people have behaved throughout history. They go somewhere where there is less pressure and in the process sometimes dislocate other peoples. If you want to lay blame, than as good a place to start as any is the anti-Semitism of Western Europe, the pogroms in Eastern Europe and of course the Nazis. In my opinion this process is so common that it can be described better in physical terms than moral.

So there is a predictable conflict between the new arrivals and the mostly Arab population of Palestine. There is open warfare immediately after the British pull out, and not just between the inhabitants of Palestine, but also the surrounding Arab states who jump in with their Arab brothers. The Israelis prevail, and there is low intensity conflict broken occasionally by larger state to state conflicts between the Israelis and the surrounding Arab states, and in each case the Israelis prevail.

As long as both sides are willing to pay the costs and unwilling to moderate their war aims then this warfare will continue. There is no means to stop it even if we wanted to, short of starting an even larger war (complete with nukes if intervention occurs against the Israelis). So we watch in horror as the war continues. The Palestinians are particularly frustrating to watch, because they are so unimaginative. They lose war after war, and rise up to lose again. They try to gain an advantage by using terror tactics (targeting civilians) and by doing so waste opportunities to save some of their land from complete Israeli domination through negotiation. These tactics (if they continue) will eventually lead them to the point where the Israelis will start to target civilians as well, and this will be the end of the Palestinian people and problem.

I hope that negotiations can bring some peace. Perhaps then the Palestinian children can go to school where they can hopefully learn (unlike now) that there is more to life than losing wars and being "martyred". They live in what is largely self-imposed misery in the name of nationalism for what has never been a state, and for absolute control of their religion's "third holiest site". What a waste. Nonetheless they have free will, and if this is what they choose then it is up to the Israelis to then make their choice. Fortunately for them the status quo is a lot rosier, and their strategic options a good deal more robust.

As for what is moral, I don't care for some of the Israeli police tactics and I abhor Palestinian targeting of civilians. Given the balance of power I lay more of the blame for the continuance of the conflict on the Palestinians. Their war aims are ridiculous considering their military capabilities. I mean when did they pretend to give up the idea of wiping Israel off the map? They have been fortunate indeed that the Israelis give a damn about human rights at all. Most states in most periods of history would have simply wiped them out and scattered the survivors to the four winds by now.

[Natan]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Natan -
No, but if you're going to say a topic we were discussing is unsuitable for this thread, it would be nice if you acknowledged being the one who introduced the topic.

Yes, but you are the one who kept talking about it after I explained why I had brought it up and why it, as only an example of a larger phenomenon, was not essesntial to the point.

One does not have self-determination if other can do what they please with their property. The most fundamental piece of property a person has is themself, and from this ownership derives all other forms of private property...

It's not clear to me what you're saying here. Maybe we are reffering to different concepts?

[nato]

I think I have a good point about situations like Israel, so I would like to share it.

Basically, I agree with GePap. Israel clearly stole Palestinian land from the original occupants. There is no way to deny this.

Therefore, those original people who came in and stole the land were clearly in the wrong.

However ... it gets complicated when those original invaders give birth to and raise children there.

No one can control where they are born, and its not fair to expect young children to control where they are raised.

Therefore, those Israelis born and raised in Palestine have as much right to call that land home as the original Palestinians. It is not their fault they were born there, and they are not in the wrong to want to live at "home".

But of course the Palestinians are totally justified in wanting the land that was stolen from them back!

So my point is once "land thieves" have children there, there is no longer a simple right and wrong side. Both sides are right. That is why it is a big ugly insoluable mess.

Two other identical situations are the U.S. vs all the Native Americans and the British in Northern Ireland. The U.S. and Britain clearly stole the land, and were clearly in the wrong. But once they had children there ... those children can claim the land as home fairly.

So I agree with GePap's original post in that the original Israelis were clearly wrong ... however now it is not clear cut. There is no good solution as long as Israelis and Palestinians cannot adjust to each other and give each other a fair share of "home".

Thats just how I see it, I could be wrong. Thanks for reading.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by nato
I think I have a good point about situations like Israel, so I would like to share it.

Basically, I agree with GePap. Israel clearly stole Palestinian land from the original occupants. There is no way to deny this.

Therefore, those original people who came in and stole the land were clearly in the wrong.

However ... it gets complicated when those original invaders give birth to and raise children there.

No one can control where they are born, and its not fair to expect young children to control where they are raised.

Therefore, those Israelis born and raised in Palestine have as much right to call that land home as the original Palestinians. It is not their fault they were born there, and they are not in the wrong to want to live at "home".

But of course the Palestinians are totally justified in wanting the land that was stolen from them back!

So my point is once "land thieves" have children there, there is no longer a simple right and wrong side. Both sides are right. That is why it is a big ugly insoluable mess.

Two other identical situations are the U.S. vs all the Native Americans and the British in Northern Ireland. The U.S. and Britain clearly stole the land, and were clearly in the wrong. But once they had children there ... those children can claim the land as home fairly.

So I agree with GePap's original post in that the original Israelis were clearly wrong ... however now it is not clear cut. There is no good solution as long as Israelis and Palestinians cannot adjust to each other and give each other a fair share of "home".

Thats just how I see it, I could be wrong. Thanks for reading.

I think that what some people don't realize is that there was a significant number of Israelis in Israel pre-1948 who bought the land - literally - from the Arabs. They didn't steal it, or grab it underhandedly. And these people after 1948 were attacked by the Arabs who, until then, were living peacfully next door. Then, Israel safeguarded its population, and the Arabs living within Israel mostly withdrew - of their own accord.

[nato]

Well that would change things for me a little.

I had not heard that; I was under the impression the Israelis took most land under the benign neglect of the British.

That would help the original Israelis legitimacy.

However ... buying land does not give you the right to declare it a sovereign nation. If the Arabs sold it, thinking it would still be Palestine, just Jewish owned ... its not right to declare it a seperate country, paid for or not.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by nato
Well that would change things for me a little.

I had not heard that; I was under the impression the Israelis took most land under the benign neglect of the British.

That would help the original Israelis legitimacy.

However ... buying land does not give you the right to declare it a sovereign nation. If the Arabs sold it, thinking it would still be Palestine, just Jewish owned ... its not right to declare it a seperate country, paid for or not.

Nationality was given them by the country that posessed the land previously - and by the UN. It was never an Arab state either. Israel was not "declared independant" it was given its independance.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Sikander
The Jews were displaced by WWII, and in turn ended up flocking to British held Palestine in large numbers especially after the war.

That is not quite true: It is not their war displacement, but the Zionist ideology which made the Jewish settlers flock to Palestine. The intention to drive non-Jews out of the country was also there from the start, so this reminds me too much of Nationalsocialism to gain any of my sympathies.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


That is not quite true: It is not their war displacement, but the Zionist ideology which made the Jewish settlers flock to Palestine. The intention to drive non-Jews out of the country was also there from the start, so this reminds me too much of Nationalsocialism to gain any of my sympathies.

Zionist ideology doesn't count for sh*t when you've been living in a displaced person's camp for 3 years. If there's a country that will take you no questions asked, you go dammit!

The only intentions to drive out nonjews were made when said nonjews tried to drive out all the Jews. Comparing Israel to Nazism is blatantly false - Israel has consistently shown that land is more important to it that peace (1974-1995), and they just realized that the Palestinians would rather have both land and war

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
That is not quite true: It is not their war displacement, but the Zionist ideology which made the Jewish settlers flock to Palestine.

Not true. The first wave who came under the Ottomans were thus motivated, but the subsequent waves were motivated by the need to get out of Europe. From the late nineteenth century until the resettlement of the Holocaust survivors, Jews in Eastern and central Europe were desperately trying to get to whereever they could. America was usually the first choice, followed by Britain, but they would go anywhere they could. I know that my Great-Grandfather sent his relatives in Russia tickets to Palestine because the change in immigration laws barred them from America. Later, Holocaust survivors were allowed to come to Germany or America if they had relatives to sponsor them, but otherwise, they went to Israel, albeit after a few years in refugee camps in Cyprus. If you look at the statements of contemporary Zionist ideologists, they were actually quite upset by the non-ideological nature of immigrants from the 1920s on.

The intention to drive non-Jews out of the country was also there from the start

Not true. Ben-Gurion (Israel's first Prime Minister) and the other Zionists were not so much malevolant towards the Arabs as they were misinformed. (Incidentally, I think the same can be said of most Arab leaders, except for Faisal Husseini) They believed that the Arab population would be grateful for Jewish technical expertise and that the two ethnic groups would cooperate in a socialist system - as it happened, this didn't work out, but I hardly think you can say their intent from the beginning was to drive out the Palestinians. They even placed the new Jewish communities in the more sparsely inhabited coastal plain rather than the historically more important central mountains to avoid conflict with the Arab inhabitants.

so this reminds me too much of Nationalsocialism to gain any of my sympathies.

There difference between expulsion and extermination is quite wide. Comparing the two is an insult to the victims of the latter.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Goingonit
Israel has consistently shown that land is more important to it that peace (1974-1995), ...

I am afraid I agree.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by Natan
There difference between expulsion and extermination is quite wide. Comparing the two is an insult to the victims of the latter.

I didn´t compare expulsion and extermination. I compared two racialist ideologies. Would you say the Nazis were OK, if they had just expulsed the Jews and taken their homes away?

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


I didn´t compare expulsion and extermination. I compared two racialist ideologies. Would you say the Nazis were OK, if they had just expulsed the Jews and taken their homes away?

If you want to talk about racialism, there are many, many, better choices. But please, feel free to address the other 90% of my post.

[Comrade Tribune]

I don´t see where you are driving at. You don´t say there can be unintentional ethnic cleansing?

And I hope you are not meaning to say that ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified, dependent on who does it?

[Natan]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune
I don´t see where you are driving at. You don´t say there can be unintentional ethnic cleansing?

And I hope you are not meaning to say that ethnic cleansing is sometimes justified, dependent on who does it?

I said neither of those things and I don't see how you could ever have thought that I did. All I'm saying is that driving people out of their homes is very different from killing them, and that resorting to an example of the latter to condemn the former isn't a good thing. And please, address the rest of my previous post.