Israil oversteps the mark

[CyberGnu]

That they lived there? You know, the same reason swedes are claiming sweden, for example...

[SpencerH]

But since Jews (if not called Israeli's) lived there too wouldnt they have a claim on the land by virtue of "you know, the same reason Swedes are claiming sweden" (btw does that include Skona).

Also, since the Arabs who lived in the area now known as palestine and Israel accounted themselves Syrians, wouldnt that mean that the Syrians could claim the whole area?

[Natan]

[QUOTE]
OK, I give you that one. Still doesn't pertain to the discussion, as the question was whether the palestinians are to blame for their arab neighbours going to war. (see next)
wanted to nail that down. Now we can move on.

Yes, I do believe the arabs were justified in trying to destroy the nascent Israel. I'm sad they didn't succeed, the world would most likely have been a better place without Israel, and with the ME jews living as part of a palestinian nation. Much like the whites in South Africa today. I don't believe in siros allegations that the arabs intended to kill all jews in the middle east... Quite frankly, muslims have never been particularly good at that genocide thing. That seems to be the forte of christianity and judaism. (with some sprinkling of far eastern nationalism as well).

There are the examples of genocide perpetrated by Arab muslims, for example against the Kurds in Iraq and against the blacks in Sudan. There are also more numerous examples of persecuted minorities in the Islamic world. Also, I don’t see the evidence that ME Jews would have been allowed to live as part of a Palestinian nation - pogroms were already driving Jews out of other parts of the Middle East where there was no war, so why would Jews in Israel be allowed to stay?

Now, whether the arab neighbours would have allowed the palestinians to form their own country I don't know. I think they would, most likely since the arabs had supported that idea since the 20's.

Most Arabs wanted to “unite” Palestine into “Greater Syria.” This was a demand of most Arab revolts in the Levant from the end of world war one to independence. This is what pan-Arabism is about. I hope that movement’s existence is not denied by Swedish schools.

Actually, I can't see how you fail to see the connection here... someone performing a crime is a criminal. the police, the defender of the law, have a mandate to stop the crime and to protect themselves while doing so. If the criminal is threatening the life or limb of a police officer, the police officer has the right to shoot the criminal. again, preferentially in a way not to kill the criminal, but if that happens it is not the fault of the police.

Perhaps most importantly, this is not an equal relationship. The police must not be in danger of being killed to have the right to shoot the criminal. Any kind of physical harm is enough to warrant a potentially deadly repsonse.

Thus, while the police officer does have a directive to minimize risk to the criminal, this is superceeded by a directive to minimize risk to self. ONLY IF THE POLICE OFFICER IS IN NO DANGER HIMSELF DOES HE HAVE TO CARE ABOUT SAVING THE LIFE OF THE CRIMINAL

The problem is that nations are not people. The question is not whether the it is okay to kill those directly involved in war/genocide/”aggression,” but whether it’s okay to kill anyone near them as well.

Now, regarding the 'innocent bystander', the people in Kosovo are not exactly analogous to innocent bystanders, more like accomplices in a crime.

The civilians in Serbia did allow the goverment to be in power. That makes them accomplices.

So if not preventing a crime makes you an accomplice, wouldn’t the citizens and especially the leaders of other countries which ignored the genocide be culpable as well? Does a Serbian citizen have a greater obligation to stop the genocide just because it is being done in his name? After all, a Serbian citizen who protests or fights against the genocide will be imprisoned, tortured, or killed, whereas even the American airmen who fought directly with Serbian forces suffered no combat losses.

They contribute to the economy, which makes them accomplices.

Again, the same could be said of the citizens of other countries. Switzerland traded with the Nazis, are they accomplices?

And if these people are accompliced to the crime, why can’t they be tried and punished for it?

Also, you exclue political prisoners - what about children?

Non-sequiter. The jsutification to kill ISraelis has nothing to do with nationality but the actions taken by the collective members. Stop the aggression, and the justification to kill israelis disappear.

The lumping of “Israelis” together as a group on the basis of citizenship is the issue. After all, I’m sure many anti-Semites throughout history have said “if the Jews would stop trying to undermine our nation, we would stop advocating their destruction.” I’m sure there are many who would say today that America should nuke Mecca if Saudi Arabia does not take further action against terrorism.

Non-sequiter. Not once have I expressed an intention to kill innocent people.

Okay, I was wrong in that you have merely said that you wished others would kill them, and that, in your view, living in the wrong country makes you guilty.

Actually, you have... It was a while ago.

If you agree in principle that I argue with people who believe Israel shouldn’t exist and that Israel commits war crimes etc. and do not call them anti-semites, then the point is proven.

The west didn't actually know about the genocide until long after the Allies started carpet bombing german cities. You think Churchill and Roosevelt were warcriminals? Were they just lucky that Hitler was conducting genocide,so their actions were justified in afterhand?

The Allies knew quite a lot about the Holocaust; reports were being published in the New York Times and elsewhere throughout the war.

Any thoughts on why the US let Japan rape China for ten years before joining the war? No connection with Pearl Harbor, I assume.

You’re saying that America joined the war because we were attacked rather than to stop attacks on China - this seems to prove my point, not yours.

And you obviously doesn't agree with the realization that the US got from WW2, that letting aggressors occupy other nations only leads to more suffering in the end...

I don’t think we got that realization, or we wouldn’t continue to support aggression against Tibet, Chechneya, Kashmir, Palestine, Western Sahara etc. Even when we do complain about what goes on in this areas, it is in terms of human rights issues rather than aggression.

What about UN intervention in Quwait? Are the US morally repsonsible for the Iraqi civilian casualties? I don't know anyone in the entire western world who thinks Churchill or Bush Sr. should stand on trial for warcrimes... Well, apart from you, I guess...

I guess you haven’t talked much with chegitz.

You’re the only person in the western world who thinks that it would be morally acceptable to use nuclear weapons on China to end their presence in Tibet.

From what I can tell, non-sequiter. I might be wrong, but you would have to explain it.

You’re explanation of why Israeli Jews today must give over the country to the Palestinians was the car analogy, with the UN, the allied powers, and/or the early Zionists as the car thief and later immigrants/descendants of the Israelis of 1948 as the recipient of the stolen car. But since you agree that native Americans do not deserve back all the land taken from them, I have to ask when the car stolen from you becomes the property of the thief or whoever he gave it to.

I thought that was selfobvious as well... The ones suffering casualties in the attempts to stop it. It is likely that some of the victims would be killed as well, but as you said yourself, the total number of innocent lives saved would be greater.

Okay . . . I’m still not quite sure how this relates to genocide at home vs. in conquered territory.

Genocide is the killing of people of an ethnic group, translated into 'people that can't stop belonging to this group, i.e. being born into or religiously affiliated with'. (AFAIK, religion is treated as something that is non-changeable by conscious actions...). The point is: If you are killed for being a jew, that is genocide. If you are killed for being homosexual, that is a hate crime, which is genocide on a smaller scale. But if you are killed because your country invades another country, that is not genocide.

So what if I’m killed because my ethnic group attacked another one?

In WW2, more 'aryan' german civilians died than jews. This does not make the Allied actions genocide. If was called 'defense'.

Source please? Germany’s population was about 80 million at the time, and I don’t think 10+ percent of the population (6+ million civillians and millions of soldiers) died in the war.

Umm, that has been my position all along... You were the one who brought up some UN declaration of a minimum two weeks vacation, and how nations not adhering to that would be evil...

Okay, but I’d like to see your basis for saying that a particular human rights violation is worse than another. While I agree in principle that some are worse than others, we disagree on which ones are worse than others. You seem to cite the UN and international agreements as your sources for what actions constitute violations of human rights (with some exceptions relating to treatment of civillians), so what other source do you use to determine which UN decisions and agreements are the important ones?

You specifically asked about the UN, did you not?

I asked about the international community, I think. You can go back and check if you really want to know.

But apart from the UN, every single human rights organization has publically critisized China. Most european goverments likewise. The U.S. as well. I don't read news from South America, but I wouldn't be suprised if Brazil, Argentine has done likewise.

Firstly, they criticize it for violating human rights, not for occupying Tibet and parts of Kashmir. Secondly, their criticism does not translate into any action whatsoever. What international humanitarian organizations there were in WWII condemned the Holocaust, yet what we remember is that the world was silent and allowed it to happen - because it’s actions which count in these cases, not words.

Yeah, you are right. Confused the two there... Well, in Clintons defense, he actually had a plan... By allowing more capitalist influences in China, he believed that Chinas political scence would change as well. I don't think that he was right in his belief... Overall was Clintons grasp of foreign politics fairly bad...

When did Clinton ever say that China should pull out of Tibet and Kashmir? When did he ever suggest that getting China to withdraw from these areas was one of the goals of his China policy?

Anyway, I don't think this really has any bearing on the argument...

It was your claim that America and the world oppose border changes. So I’m giving you an example of a nation which has changed several borders with impunity.

Refer back to 'ideology vs. practicality'.

Which brings up another point - how is there any deterrent whatsoever to “aggression” if you actually allow it whenever it is “practical” to do so? I’m not talking about China, where there’s risk of nuclear war, but issues like Western Sahara. Isn’t this saying that there is no deterrent for those who already had the best chance at getting away with “aggression” before?

although, I don't think you understand what it means to be a economical body as opposed to a political one. As en economic body, the IMF is not supposed to have a politcal agenda of its oen. This emans that the purpose of the IMF is to promote free trade for all member states. It is no the place of IMF to ponder political issues. That is the task for the goverments of the states IMF consists of. If those goverments come up with the idea that Iraq should be embargoed, then the IMF has to take that into account. It's an abstract process, totally separated from issues of morality.

IIRC, the US supported China’s entry into the WTO, which we did not have to do, and we also gave them Most Favored Nation trading status, which we certainly didn’t have to do.

What durress? Germany lost an aggressive war... they have themselves to blame. The only duress in this process would have been France/England/US, who signed a peace treaty without unconditional surrender... Which I think is the only morally just action from an aggressor. They were concerned with minimizing their own casualties, so they accepted a less than unconditional surrender.

So the claim is that the allied powers were justified in taking away German land because Germany fought an aggressive war - so you’re saying that land conquered in a defensive war can be kept and that the loser of an aggressive war can have land and money taken away?

Any sources for this?

I could try to dig them up, but I don’t think it’s necessary. I think we both agree that whether the prosecution at Nuremburg thought that “waging aggressive war” was a strong charge (strong enough to stand alone) or a weak one (thus needing other charges to back it up) doesn’t prove anything signifigant to this debate.

I have no idea how this supports your claim... I think it supports mine.

Which again supports my claim... Nowing that aggression could lead to nuclear annihilation, even non-nuclear nations hesitate to wage war.

Your claim is that there are fewer wars because the world has decided aggression is wrong - I’m saying it’s because of practical reasons rather than ideological decisions.

Well, I think this shows that nothing in life is perfect, but we should still strive for a better world. If it was left to the US alone, I think the US would have opposed Stalins takeover. Unfortunately, russia was to strong for the US to protest... Much like the China/Tibet situation.

But witht eh fall of the Berlin wall many people hoped that the stalemate was over, and aggression could be fought every time, as was shown in Quwait. Unfortunately, the U.S. is loosing all moral capital by actively supporting aggression in Israel...

Why is it that America is allowed to support Morroccan “aggression” out of “practicality” yet can’t support Israeli “aggression” for the same reason? Israel is a nuclear power, and now has submarines armed with nuclear weapons.

As you said yourself, not interstate conflicts. Civil wars are tricky, it is hard to assign an aggressor and defender... Doesn't mean we shouldn't try to calm down both sides, as in Somalia, but they are tricky.

When did borders change in South America last? When did one country actually invade another?

IIRC there hasn’t been a border change in some time, but there have been some interstate wars.

Civil wars can actually be far nastier than interstate ones, and usually are. Cambodia’s civil war was much nastier than the Sino-Vietnamese war. Yugoslavia’s civil war was far nastier than the Balkan wars of earlier in this century. India’s war in Kashmir and Bangladesh’s fight for independence a good deal worse than the straight out India-Pakistan wars. Also, there’s been a general trend towards dominating other states rather than annexing them outright; such as Serbia’s allies in Bosnia and Croatia, or Syria’s domination of Lebanon, so there are fewer examples of naked conquest.

Well, that doesn't make sense. Well, it is in line with your arguemtn that if you are strong enough you can take whatever you want and call it moral, I guess...

***

Actually, this is the official policy of the US state department. Ideologially, that is. Based on some tract which says that a goverment has their mandate from the masses, or something like that.

Naturally, the US still deals with those goverments as if they were legitimate. I vs P.

Ah yes, the US really needs to maintain good relations with Bashar Assad.

And I think you are wrong. Have you read the news the last few days? Have you seen Bush backpedal like a dog facing a shark because of the venezualan faux pas?

I could easily argue that was a case of practicality over ideology - we (allegedly) favored a dictator over an elected leftist, and we backpedelled once it become public to pacify other regimes in Latin America who don’t like the idea that America can overthrow them.

I had no idea about this, actually. Moot, though, since it would be covered by the China/Tibet thing again, wouldn't it?

I think China would be much more willing to withdraw from one bit of Kashmir than Tibet. But yes, I suppose it is just supplementary to Tibet, although I don’t see any criticism of China’s occupation of Kashmir from the UN or anyone else.

No, they were legitimate occupying powers, as opposed to illegitimate occupying powers such as China and Israel.

See above about mandate of the masses. Unless the german people got to vote for a US president (and french, english and russian, of course), the german people can't have a US legitimate goverment...

Look, this is basically a philosofical question. It has no practical value, I think... and my time is limited. Is there anywhere you want to get with this?

This whole debate is a philosophical question about the nature of borders and the protections afforded to civillians in war. The practical value here is that you raised the US as an example of the fact that most people/nations consider non-democratic governments illegitimate. If you don’t want to press the point any further, I don’t either; again, the results of the discussion won’t be proof either way.

Umm, I don't understand your point, then.

The question is whether a democratically elected government can or cannot legitimately refuse to grant independence to a part of its territory which desires it.

This goes to show that one shouldn't write these things when one is too tired...

That the south was not allowed to cesseede is based on womething else altogether... It did not have the mandate of the masses as well. About 60% of the voters in the southern states were for independence. However, the blacks did not have a vote, and since they constituted well more than 20% of the population, I think we can safely assume that a majority of the population was against independance.

So just to speak theoretically for a moment, if 90% of the voters had come down in favor of seccession, that would have been okay, and the Union would not be justified in trying to end Southern independence?

[Natan]

Haven't thought much about timelimits, since I don't think they are valuable for anything but moot points for Israeli aopologists... It is like saying 'when did the western world become civilized?'. 1945? 1814? 1632? 1945 would be my latest date...

I think this is a key issue. All agree that a law does not apply retroactively, so it’s important to decide when a law was created.

Well, I think it is a question about minimizing innocent casualties. Invading a country to save ten lives is not 'cost-effective', as even the Quwait conflict cost 20 or so casualties. You see what I mean? And even nuking a city might kill more of the genocide victims than would be killed by the nuked country in the first place...

Defending from invasion, on the other hand, is up to the invaded nation. If they feel that sending out a suicide bomber is worth it, well they have the moral authority to do so...

Genocide, according to the generally accepted use of the term, involves killing a lot more than ten people.

I repeat them, but you don't seem to read them. I have never said that we should not minimize civilian casualties IF WE CAN DO SO WITHOUT INCURRING CASUALTIES OURSELVES. See the nuking of Japan, for example.

I don’t believe it was argued that America was killing civillians in Serbia and Iraq out of stupidity or for fun - it was argued that we were too chicken to send in ground troops. Now there are a number of criticisms which could be made of this line of argument, but clearly, it was based on the idea that we could not kill any number of civillians to avoid casualties - were that so, carpet bombing Belgrade and Baghdad would have given us quick success.

As long as it doesn't put the liberators in danger.

Okay, so if one of the “liberators” would be put at risk by making the threat known, it’s okay to go straight to the nukes.

Umm, it was part of your original hypothetical setup that nuclear retaliation was impeded, remember?

No I don’t; but even if so, this is another case which I want to know about.

I don't think there is room for grey areas in a yes/no question... Refusing to answer is just a way to avoid stating your own view, knowing that most people would find it repugnant.

Let’s take some examples of where grey areas crop up in a yes/no question:

Is it okay for the government to seize your property?
Well, most everyone would say that it is okay for a democratically elected government to force you to pay taxes, and certainly okay for it to make you pay fines for legal violations or pay money you owe by contractual obligation. On the other hand, most people would say that it’s not okay for a dictatorship to take your house, clothes, and all means of liveliehood and throw you out onto the street. As you can see, there are two sources of ambiguity here, the nature of the government and the nature of the property. Some would add a third, the manner of the seizure.

Should criminals be killed?
Well, many people, you and me included, think that a death penalty imposed on murderers by a legitimate court is an acceptable, even a good thing. On the other hand, most people are opposed to executing traffic offenders, and are opposed to killing criminals without trial unless doing so is necessary to protect innocent life. Others think that while it’s okay for a court to execute a murderer by lethal injection, the death of a thousand cuts should be off limits. So again, three causes for grey areas.

So, now let’s go back to the original question of whether or not it would be moral/okay for the Arab states to wage war on Israel and take it’s land. There are several grey areas. One is what we mean by moral. Another is how the Arab states wage their war, which for many people, myself included, is a factor in determining the morality of a side in a given war. Another is what they would do with the territories conquered. And all these could also be applied to an attack by Israel on an Arab state or states.

Also, I don’t believe the person defending suicide bombers, firebombing Dresden, and the use of nuclear weapons on cities should be the one telling me that people find my views repungent.

[Drake Tungsten]

In every post Natan makes:

" = �

and ' = ’

Is anyone else having this problem? I've changed the character set on my browser to try and fix it, but it doesn't work. I don't have a Hebrew set, however, so that could be the problem. It's annoying the hell out of me, so I'd like to figure it out.

[Natan]

I don't know how to fix it, but I assume the problem is because I have a Mac.

[Drake Tungsten]

Originally posted by Natan
I don't know how to fix it, but I assume the problem is because I have a Mac.

I have a Mac too.

[Natan]

Maybe it's my font then, I don't know.

[Guardian]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Guardian, yes, in that hypothetical situation you would be right. What bearing does this have on the argument though?

So... if anybody attacked Israel from anywhere within these areas before the occupation started, then Israel is the defender, in which case any action take by Israel is inherently justified and whatever happens to civilians - Palestinian or foreign - is not Israel's responsibility.

In short: The end justifies the means and people are not responsible for the consequences of their actions.

As long as there are people who think that way, there will never be peace.

That's what I'm trying to show you.

[GeneralTacticus]

You don't see the logic flaw in that sentence?

Hint: consider the sentence 'He started it when he hit me back'.

Israel was attacked from the territories it occupies well before it actually occupied them. The fedayeen from the Sinai (which they gave back later, and, AFAIK, has been quiet since then), the Syrians, (I recall the statement someone made about the Israeli tractors - quite frankly, why the **** should the Syrians care about the Israelis driving tractors around? Tanks and stuff like that yes, but tractors??), and there were many incidents from the West Bank as well. Not to mention the fact that the Jordanians were the first to fire in the Six Day War (and this couldn't have been falsified either, the Israelis didn't just produce some spent shells or Jordanian corpses), and the Israelis retaliated by occupying the place.

As for the 'it started when he hit me back' analogy, it would be the Palestinians saying that, not the Israelis. They seem to think they should have the right to do anything they want to the Israelis, while the Israelis may not do anything in return. If I told you I wanted your $500 watch, and when you refused I started hitting you, would you consider it immoral to start hitting me back? If the Palestinians shoot at the Israelis, thjey should expect the Israelis to shoot back.

If the Pals realized that the only thing violence will produce is more violence, then there will be peace. The Israelis aren't going to give up, because they have everything to lose. The Aplestinians, in fact, do have something lose - the potential for their own independant state. It would be totally unrealistic to expect Israel to allow the Palestinians to form a state when it is obvious that such a state would merely be a platform for terrorism.

The Israeli actions certainly aren't helping the situation, but the Palestinian suicide bombers are the root of the problem. As long as the Israelis feel they are dealing with someone who they can negotiate with, and they will negotiate. Sharon came to power and has been doing as he has been because the Israeli people are sick and tired of negotiating with Arafat and getting nothing out of it.