Israelis-Palestinians: two questions

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Lazarus
And yet, numbers do not an argument make. If, for instance, for one innocent Isreali, the Isrealis killed 5 known terrorists, I would cheer them on. This may not be the case, but bringing up numbers like this to make the Isrealis look bad just on the face of it, IMO, is a worthless argument.

The word innocent gets banded around a bit, what exactly does that mean?

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
The word innocent gets banded around a bit, what exactly does that mean?

For myself, in terms of the conflict in Isreal, I would say an "innocent" is anyone not aiming a gun at someone else, or preparing to blow up cafes with TNT strapped to their bodies. That is, an "innocent" is anyone who is not actively engaged in physical violence against someone else.

What's your view?

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Lazarus
For myself, in terms of the conflict in Isreal, I would say an "innocent" is anyone not aiming a gun at someone else, or preparing to blow up cafes with TNT strapped to their bodies. That is, an "innocent" is anyone who is not actively engaged in physical violence against someone else.

So you agree with me that settlers are no innocents then? That was suprising.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Lazarus
What's your view?

Well my opinion is much the same as yours, although perhaps one could also look at the situation in the respect that they also get their support from the citizens, if not it wouldn't continue. They get guns and bombs made for them by someone who probably illegally sells them those weapons.

My point I guess is that there is a long chain and innocent is a hard word to use in some respects. I'm innocent of all the civilians getting killed in that I do not directly murder them myself but if through apathy on my part I do not protest giving them weapons or a war then I can at least consider that I'm not completely innocent since it is my obligation to combat evil...see my point?

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
My point I guess is that there is a long chain and innocent is a hard word to use in some respects. I'm innocent of all the civilians getting killed in that I do not directly murder them myself but if through apathy on my part I do not protest giving them weapons or a war then I can at least consider that I'm not completely innocent since it is my obligation to combat evil...see my point?

I agree here, the meaning of innocent can be bent many ways, especially so in a democracy.

[Mr Sleep]

There is a long chain, that chain holds many parts, all of us of voting age have voted for whoever we think is appropriate, that was our choice, we effected the creation of that government, in fact even abstaining makes a difference.

So that government goes on to blow up the world, you are responsible for voting them in. Every vote counts as shown by the US elections, although that was also thanks to some interesting use of "friends" but my point is that if people have changed their votes to Gore, even 5% then things would now be different.

Same applies in every democracy.

[Lazarus]

@Dottie: I've surprised you before, and I'll do so again. Perhaps you should stop making so many damn assumptions.

@Mr. Sleep: I understand, and, to an extent, I agree. (I'm going to mention Hitler now, so I lose, but ... ) You can look at nazi Germany, and I think make an OK case that anyone who did not actively oppose that regime was guilty to an extent. It is a debatable point. But I think the Isreal/Palestine situation is one heck of a lot more murky.

But, just to annoy Dottie, I'll finish by saying that a terrorist is a terrorist, and there is no earthly justification or rationalization for the wonton slaughter of innocent civilians that the Palestinian suicide bombers engage in.

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Lazarus
@Mr. Sleep: I understand, and, to an extent, I agree. (I'm going to mention Hitler now, so I lose, but ... ) You can look at nazi Germany, and I think make an OK case that anyone who did not actively oppose that regime was guilty to an extent. It is a debatable point. But I think the Isreal/Palestine situation is one heck of a lot more murky.

But, just to annoy Dottie, I'll finish by saying that a terrorist is a terrorist, and there is no earthly justification or rationalization for the wonton slaughter of innocent civilians that the Palestinian suicide bombers engage in.

Oh absolutely it's a grey area conversation, there is no black and white but I don't think I should sit here and throw around justifications like my **** don't stink. Cause it does, although it does depend greatly on my diet and how much...erm, where was I?

It's interesting to note that the courts after the Nazi regime collapsed were mostly aiming for the leaders rather than the troops but at any point the troops could have said no, they probably would have died but at least they would have made a stand against tyranny. Difficult decision though, eh?

Yes it's all a bit murky but the people still have the power, that is the key.

I would never make such a definitive statement about terrorism, it's note my place and I am way too much of a fence sitter!

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Lazarus
@Dottie: I've surprised you before, and I'll do so again. Perhaps you should stop making so many damn assumptions.

Yes.

But, just to annoy Dottie, I'll finish by saying that a terrorist is a terrorist, and there is no earthly justification or rationalization for the wonton slaughter of innocent civilians that the Palestinian suicide bombers engage in.

Annoyed. ... But just about the terrorist remark. Palestinian suicide bombers does indeed target innocent civilians, wich I do consider immoral.

[Nippy]

@ Sleep, the reason why the Hague courts targetted the leaders of the Nazi regime was because of a variety of reasons. The fact that the entire armed forces swore an oath to obey the Fuhrer was the key point, they had to do what he said.

Secondly, the Hitler myth, and the fact that everyone saw him as a charismatic individual meant that the people followed him anyway, he had a power over people, and was able to sway their thoughts. An ordinary soldier can't refuse a superiors commands - it's ingrained.

A bit beside the point, but important I think.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Lazarus
(I'm going to mention Hitler now, so I lose, but ... )

If we should start using that rule, we should really start using some other debating rules as well...like no sarcasm - I notice in this and other political threads that sarcasm and ad hominems is still part of the so called debate... (Not directed at you Lazarus, just a general comment about the climate in the "debate" threads)

[Mr Sleep]

Originally posted by Nippy
@ Sleep, the reason why the Hague courts targetted the leaders of the Nazi regime was because of a variety of reasons. The fact that the entire armed forces swore an oath to obey the Fuhrer was the key point, they had to do what he said.

Secondly, the Hitler myth, and the fact that everyone saw him as a charismatic individual meant that the people followed him anyway, he had a power over people, and was able to sway their thoughts. An ordinary soldier can't refuse a superiors commands - it's ingrained.

A bit beside the point, but important I think.

Ah but you see people can and do overcome brain washing, I do see your point and it is an important one to this discussion, most countries are brain washed to hate jews, maybe not openly but the hate is there. Just like intrinsic racism in society the situation is caused by brainwashing if not just by parents also by peers. However not everyone agrees with what they have been "taught" some revolt agains their parents ideals.

I bet their were soldiers who did the same thing but they were extinguished by other soldiers or the SS.

Society has changed so much but at the same time so much stays the same.

[Littiz]

@Dottie:
I wasn't suggesting you are a Vindicator
The point imho is that the step is short, though.
Stating that killing settlers is fair (you're not specifying for instance, killing them "while they're
pointing a gun at you") is a strong legitimation.
You can kill them, whatever the circumstances, whatever the story of their life, *because* they are
settlers. Well, I don't like it. It's a matter of conscience after all.

@CE:
I didn't say only poor countries are violating human rights, I'm saying those are the most in need
of help that would be lost, IMHO, applying your logic.
And forgive me, but your arguments don't convince me.
Of course whatever the *direct* purpose of the money you're donating (ex: help the population), you
allow the receiving country to *spare* other funds, and use *those* to different ends.
Can you assure me that the receiving country won't do any harm, here?
Answer this question, how many nations support the palestianian terrorists? I mean, if I wanted to
use TNT to let myself explode, I for one wouldn't have any clue about where some TNT could be found.
But it seems the poorest palestinian willing to die has easy access to it.
Who keeps in shape the organization?
Oh, and given the fact that the Iraqi regime was violating human rights every minute of the day
(and it was backing Hamas too!), I suppose, by that logic, you were supporting the embargo?
You wouldn't want to help a country which is violating human rights, by keeping it up and running?

I don't want to seem sarcastic, but it seems to me your arguments are applied only one way.
While the point about giving such "conditional" help has a good merit (which I even approve), I say,
let's start using it for real and let's see how many countries will be still receiving funds tomorrow.

Israel is violating UN resolutions and human rights, it's "enemies" are also violating human rights
and are supported in unclear and treacherous ways by many agents.
The US are helping, in the cauldron, the state that they consider a friend.
I'm not really shocked by this.

[Nippy]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Ah but you see people can and do overcome brain washing, I do see your point and it is an important one to this discussion, most countries are brain washed to hate jews, maybe not openly but the hate is there. Just like intrinsic racism in society the situation is caused by brainwashing if not just by parents also by peers. However not everyone agrees with what they have been "taught" some revolt agains their parents ideals.

I bet their were soldiers who did the same thing but they were extinguished by other soldiers or the SS.

Society has changed so much but at the same time so much stays the same.

I think the answer to your point is within your post. "Some". I agree absolutely that there were people who managed to overthrow the political ideas and brainwashing from the Ministry for Propaganda and Enlightenment, the issue is, however, that they were a minority.

Professor Sir Ian Kershaw is a noted historian on this period, and his book The Nazi Dictatorship is counted as one the most definitive and crucial pieces of analysis. He takes a very middling line in it, and his work on resistance and resistenze (very subtle difference, resistance is an open show of disregard and resistenze is a covert and quiet form of rebellion) shows how groups like Weisse Rose (White Rose; a student group) had a form of opposition (distributed pamphlets etc); groups of dissenters (those who paid little heed to Nazi laws and regulations, but were quiet and did not have an open dispute with the Nazi's; and finally the third 'core' group, those people that openly showed resistance to the Nazi regime, and in 1944 von Stauffenburg and aides in the military finally took measures in the Operation Valkyrie bomb plot. Now, whilst this was late and delayed it does show resistance - but it shows it too late, too weak and too unorganised to defeat the Nazi regime.

Kershaw made a brilliant point on this:

The story of dissent, opposition and resistance in the Third Reich is indistinguishable from the story of consent, approval and collaboration.

[InfiniteNature]

Quote"I mean, if I wanted to
use TNT to let myself explode, I for one wouldn't have any clue about where some TNT could be found.
But it seems the poorest palestinian willing to die has easy access to it." Quote


Actually Littiz it really isn't all that hard to simply make some high quality explosives, it doesn't even require all that much support from any nation, just some of the basic ingredients in your average sink, You can do some searches for stuff like that on the Internet, check out the anarchists cookbook, stuff like that, In fact I think groups like Hamas actively put out videos of how to build bombs correctly.

But anyway, just interjecting on that for the moment.

[Littiz]

@InfiniteNature:
So, either our "poorest" aspirant kamikaze has an easy internet access, and the cultural preparation to read those
instructions and make a good use of them (it seems their home-made bombs always work), or he has to rely on Hamas, an organization, indeed.
And what about the kalashnikovs (sp?). I always see them shown, again at funerals or other manifestations.
Who gives them those weapons? Terrorists are not a regular militia, where are they getting them from?
Terrorists that are not even arrested or persecuted, except from Israel.
While I'm sure the fashionable Kamikaze-Belts(TM) are easily home-made, and maybe even some of the bombs themselves (and the detonators, the bombs placed upon cars...), there's an organization behind the attacks.
And this organization is supported by some nations.
This is evidence AND common sense.
No, I don't have any proofs. I have my brains, which I trust more than links that people can provide to me.
Saddam for instance, as I've already said, was openly distribuiting donations to the kamikazes'
families, don't tell me he wasn't supporting the kamikazes themselves (with less publicity, of course).

[InfiniteNature]

No I was just stating that it didn't require all that much support with regard to building the bombs, I mean it doesn't require high tech facilities to make this stuff, the fact is one could easily make it at home. I wasn't making a argument either way on the topic, just stating what was possible.