Israelis-Palestinians: two questions

[Waverly]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
Apart from the state sanctioned oppressive kind obviously

Tsk, Tsk, Mr. Sleep and CE.

We must be careful to distinguish between terrorism and other actions we find objectionable. One man’s terrorist is not another man’s freedom fighter.

Terrorists take violence, intentionally, to non-military, non-strategic targets. The goal is not tactical but rather fear and disruption. There is no government or agency to treat with, nor identifiable military force to meet in conflict should negotiations fail. No terms of peace are submitted, no retreat, surrender, or compromise is offered. It is an exercise in cowardice.

[frogus]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
Who are y'all to talk about misery and moral repugnancy? Have any of you lost relatives to a suicide bomber?

What if I said yes, Gruntboy?

Please, contain yourself.

[Gruntboy]

No, CE its not necessary. I just think its amusing how people can empathise with one sides outrageous position but not the others. Personal experience would certainly explain that.

What if you did say yes frogus? I'd refer you to what I said above. Please don't patronise me. I think anyone condoning the murder of innocents (as several people in this thread have done) are the ones who need to redefine their realities and "contain" themselves within a less controversially idealistic point of view.

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by frogus
… Whether it is the military or the police, or a guerilla fighter, a death is a death, in terms of what suffering it causes. The important thing is that the Israeli nation (each individual contributing to the whole occupation) have caused much more death and suffering than the Palestinian nation. Therefore their crime is worse.

I couldn’t disagree more with this fabulously broad statement. A death is not a death. A person who serves honorably in the armed services is not a terrorist, and cannot be held to the same standards, regardless of how many people he has killed. Is every man who served in WWII a war criminal?

Your signature, frogus, indicates much the same as the statement quoted above. I would suggest you re-think it. For myself, I can see great differences between a man who cold-bloodedly guns down, oh, I dunno, say Saddam Hussein, and a man who cold-bloodedly puts a bullet through the head of some random civilian because they waved to American troops in the streets of Um Qasar. If you see no difference, well, I guess the tide of moral subjectivism has hit a new high water mark. Like Waverly says: “One mans terrorist is not another mans freedom fighter.” Even in criminal law, intent is taken into account in cases involving injury or death. (Which gets back to Morlock’s worthwhile observation that suicide bombers are something entirely different from the IDF.)

[Gruntboy]

Hooah, Lazarus.

In fact, I'd argue that some men's death free mankind. Mr Hussein's for example. He will not be missed when it is confirmed.

Stalin, Frogus? Are you prepared for mortality, for any deaths?

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Since the opinions you posted are based on your personal feelings I will not reply other than to this factual error:



Both Jews and Palestinians are semite people, their common ancestor is the Caanite people who came to the area around 3000 BC. If you mean that the Arab invasion in the 7th century AD is the immigration that lessens the Palestininas right to their country, then you do realise that you and all other white Americans have even less right you your country since you immigrated from Europe considerably later?

However, read some history :
here

No, actually I am refering to the Arab influx of transient workers during the construction boom of the early 20th century. These are the people who built in what has become the "settlements". As far as the Caananite people, The Hebiru have a long history of warring with the Caananites over this plot of desert. I would not want to begin to sort it out.

As far as the Palestinians:
14th century BC : Egyptian power began to weaken, new invaders appeared: the Hebrews, a group of Semitic tribes from Mesopotamia, and the Philistines (after whom the country was later named), an Aegean people of Indo-European stock.

Clearly the Palestinians were as much an invader of the region as the Hebiru were. It would appear if this is the argument neither have more claim than the other. The differnce is Israel is a nation at present. Palestine is not.

And I do check my history.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by fable
I don't want to hear justifications about the Israelis only responding to violence, or about Palestinians only responding to 50 years of having their land stolen and their rights eroded. Plenty enough blame to go around, IMO, at the top levels.

I could not agree more. For instance, I think that the flagrant way in which the Palestinian people are denied equal rights under Israeli law is a travesty. If they were treated fairly, as equal citizens, this all might very well be a non- issue.

[VoodooDali]

@Lazarus - look up the UN's report on the current crisis in Israel. They are very critical of the Palestinian's actions and the PA, but they also are gravely concerned about widespread unlawful and indiscriminate killing by the IDF. I can no more admire the IDF, than I admired the military when I lived in Central America.


Thought I'd share this article I found about Martin Buber:

What Sort of Peace? by Dan Leon
Buber had been a Zionist since 1888, but as far back as 1918 (soon after in the Balfour Declaration the British recognized a Jewish National Home in Palestine) he rejected what he called the concept of "a Jewish state with cannons, flags and military decorations." He and his colleagues worked for a bi-national Palestine based not on a colonial alliance but on cooperation and parity between Jews and Arabs.

Sidebar: Israel's 1949 Declaration of Independence promised "full and equal citizenship" to the Israeli Arabs, yet in 1962 in a protest to David Ben-Gurion, Buber noted that Israel "has committed acts which have engendered in the Arab inhabitants of the State a feeling that they are but second-class citizens." Some thirty-five years later, this is still true.

A year after official Zionist policy achieved its aim of Jewish statehood in 1949, Buber (wrote in his diary, "I wept") and expressed his fears that after the war, peace, when it comes, will not be peace, a real peace which is constructive, creative (but) a stunted peace, no more than nonbelligerence, which at any moment, when any new constellation of forces arises, is liable to turn into war.

And when this hollow peace is achieved, how then do you think you'll be able to combat "the spirit of militarism" when the leaders of the extreme nationalism will find it easy to convince the young that this kind of spirit is essential for the survival of the country? The battles will cease -- but will suspicions cease? Will there be an end to the thirst for vengeance? Won't we be compelled, and I mean really compelled, to maintain a posture of vigilance for ever, without being able to breathe? Won't this unceasing effort occupy the most talented members of our society"? (1949).

Buber died two years before the Six Day War of June 1967 -- and this article is being written twenty-five years after the Yom Kippur War of 1977, when Israel suffered 2,697 dead. Israeli survival since 1948 has cost six wars and the Intifada, with terrible casualties on both sides. Buber, it seems, understood the nature of the conflict more deeply than many of the political pragmatists who scorned him as being merely an unrealistic visionary.


P.S.: About Martin Buber: Martin Buber a philosopher best-known for his book I and Thou, which he wrote in 1923. It focused on the way humans relate to their world. According to Buber, frequently we view both objects and people by their functions. For Buber, all such processes are I-It relationships.

Unfortunately, we frequently view people in the same way. Rather than truly making ourselves completely available to them, understanding them, sharing totally with them, really talking with them, we observe them or keep part of ourselves outside the moment of relationship. We do so either to protect our vulnerabilities or to get them to respond in some preconceived way, to get something from them. Buber calls such an interaction I-It.

It is possible, notes Buber, to place ourselves completely into a relationship, to truly understand and "be there" with another person, without masks, pretenses, even without words. Such a moment of relating is called "I-Thou." Each person comes to such a relationship without preconditions. The bond thus created enlarges each person, and each person responds by trying to enhance the other person. The result is true dialogue, true sharing.

[Lazarus]

@VoodooDali: Regarding the IDF, please note that I only made a tangential reference to it, and the main point of my post did not use the IDF as a basis for debate. All I am saying is: suicide bombers have no purpose whatsoever beyond that of slaughtering civilians. Period. It is important and worthwhile to question the methods of the IDF, but to simply throw them into the same thought-box as a bomber ... well, I guess I can't do that.

Regarding Buber: I'm with him, but however sad it may be, his arguments did not prevail at the critical moment of history. Maybe someday ...

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Waverly
We must be careful to distinguish between terrorism and other actions we find objectionable. One man’s terrorist is not another man’s freedom fighter.

Terrorists take violence, intentionally, to non-military, non-strategic targets. The goal is not tactical but rather fear and disruption. There is no government or agency to treat with, nor identifiable military force to meet in conflict should negotiations fail. No terms of peace are submitted, no retreat, surrender, or compromise is offered. It is an exercise in cowardice.

I do make a clear distinction between terrorist methods and other objectionable methods. The US&UK's current use of clusterbombs (is this the correct term?) in Iraq although human rights groups have condemned due to the fact that 10% of them do not detonate, and they have caused thousands of civilian casualites much the same way landmines do, is an example of a method I condemn, but do not define as terrorism. The Uzbek and Israel laws that allows torture as a means of interrogation, is also a practice I condemn but do define as terrorism. Note that I do not necessariy find terrorism worse than other objectionable methods it is just a classification of a certain type of acts.

I don't agree with you that there is a simple way of deciding objectively what is terrorism and not, remember that as late as 1988 the US and UK branded ANC in South Africa as a terrorist group.

Terrorist acts may be easier to define than "terrorism" as a concept. If we use all criteria in your definition above, we can see clearly that some Palestinian groups who organise suicide bombings are not terrorists, since they give conditions for cease of suicide attacks. Same thing with some of fundamentalist groups in Algeria, and in Northern Ireland. If we use some of the critera you define above, then it is a question of which combination we should use.

The FBI give the following definition:

Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.

Very broad, and highly applicable to some Israeli acts as well as Palestine acts.

The US State Department uses the following definition of terrorist activity._

TERRORIST ACTIVITY DEFINED

As used in this Act, the term "terrorist activity" means any activity which is unlawful under the laws of the place where it is committed (or which, if committed in the United States, would be unlawful under the laws of the United States or any State) and which involves any of the following:"_

"(I) The highjacking or sabotage of any conveyance (including an aircraft, vessel, or vehicle)."
"(II) The seizing or detaining, and threatening to kill, injure, or continue to detain, another individual in order compel a third person (including a governmental organization) to do or abstain from doing any act as an explicit or implicit condition for the release of the individual seized or detained."
"(III) A violent attack upon an internationally protected person (as defined in section 1116(b)(4) of title 18, United States code) or upon the liberty of such a person."
"(IV) An assassination."
"(V) The use of any--"
"(a) biological agent, chemical agent, or nuclear weapon or device," or
"(b) explosive or firearm (other than for mere personal monetary gain), with intent to endanger, directly or indirectly, the safety of one or more individuals or to cause substantial damage to property."
"(VI) A threat, attempt, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."_

Palestine terrorist groups practise intentional targetting of civilians and also use threats of such targetting. The state of Israel use violence and threats to unlawfully keep territory (remember they have signed the Geneva convention and not withdrawn from it). As I mentioned in an earlier post, independant sources confirm intentional targeting of civilians. It is also documented that it has also practised assassination (for instance, remember the poor Moroccan waiter who was murdered by Mosad by mistake in Norway?)

So, both Palestine and Israel use terrorist methods, and I condemn terrorist methods equally much regardless of who use them. However, I'd like to point out that Israeli use of unlawful violence started before the first suicide attack. The present Intifada had been on for several month by then, and Israel had committed warcrimes by stopping medical staff, as you can read in the Mitchell report. So people who try to justify Israel's use of unlawful and unproportional violence by calling it "self defence" or "reaction on suicide bombings" are in error here. There is no justification for suicide bombing of civilians. Apart from being immoral it is also incredibly stupid since, as Littiz pointed out, those madmen might kill civilians that are actually for their cause and they draw a just cause in the dirt by using unacceptable methods. There is also no justification for smashing people to death by bulldozing down their houses although they come out and wave and scream to show their presense, and especially not so on terroritory which you occupy illegally.

posted by Sleep
Apparently (strong emphasis on) the Israelis have said that for every Israeli that gets killed in a suicide attack they will kill 5 Palestinians.

Yes, I remember that, but I don't remember who said it. I'll see if I can find the source...whoever said it, luckily they didn't really keep their word since the killing numbers I lasty read were:

Israeli: 700
Palestinians: 1900

[Lazarus]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Yes, I remember that, but I don't remember who said it. I'll see if I can find the source...whoever said it, luckily they didn't really keep their word since the killing numbers I lasty read were:

Israeli: 700
Palestinians: 1900

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.

[C Elegans]

posted by Waverly

I consider this question of US aid a curiosity, but not altogether relevant. I put the number at about 1/3 (not 1/2) of the governments foreign aid budget, and there is a schedule to scale it back to nil. Huge for the moment, but so what? I’d rather see the money spent on reducing the deficit or on education, but I don’t get the point. It’s brought up like it is an indicator of something important, but I can’t tell what it is. Someone spell it out for me. Am I supposed to think “aid here equals endorsement of oppression there” or “aha! Those Jews always get the money” or possibly “*shrug* it’s a 60 year old nation under siege”?

Sorry I forgot to reply to this earlier: I can only answer for my own opinion, but to me it is very simple:

No country should give unconditional fincancial and/or military aid to a country or actor who is constantly violating human rights and UN conventions with this same aid.

I even think no country should sell weapons to such actors, without conditioning them. (Which for instance the UK does)

[C Elegans]

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.

Those are the numbers. As you can see in my post I did not present them as an argument for anything at all. It is description, I cannot take responsibility for your pesonal interpretation.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde
No, actually I am refering to the Arab influx of transient workers during the construction boom of the early 20th century.

I am not sure I understand what you refer to here. Do you have a link with further information? I don't understand what these workers have to do with the Palestinians people right to their homeland At the end of the 19th century when the Zionist movement was formed, Israel/Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire as an occupied Arab state. A lot of Arab people lived there, the same people who we now call Palestinians.

In the end of WWI, the Brits occupied the land. It was then called the British mandate Palestine. The Brits had not only promised the Arab people this land, they also promised the Zionist movement the very same land. Over 300 000 Jews immigrated to Palestine during the 20's and 30's.

By 1947 1/3 of Palestines population were immigrated Jews (many of course fled from Europe during WWII) and conflicts got worse. The 1947 UN partition stated that 56.5% of the land should be a Jewish state, 43.5 and Arab state and Israel an international enclave.

So what happened to Arab state, why did it disappear? Because Israel took conquered it. Please read this

Then came the Six days war, Israel doubled it's territory, and regardless of what you think of the Geneva convetion and UN, I cannot understand how anyone can defend the occupation since Israel violates a contract it has signed, and still has not withdrawn from neither the contract nor the land.

Clearly the Palestinians were as much an invader of the region as the Hebiru were. It would appear if this is the argument neither have more claim than the other. The differnce is Israel is a nation at present. Palestine is not.

And I do check my history.

I agree that both groups have equal rights to the area based on historical events. But I am totally at loss at the argument that Palestine is not presently a nation. No, it isn't because Israel occupies the land that should have been Palestine. Do people's right to a nation dimish if another nation takes that land by force? Kurdistan is not a nation either. Latvia was not a nation when Soviet occupied it. I do not understand that argument.

Good

I think that the flagrant way in which the Palestinian people are denied equal rights under Israeli law is a travesty. If they were treated fairly, as equal citizens, this all might very well be a non- issue.

This I agree 100% with...

[Lazarus]

@CE: I read your post, and I understand your point of view. But my post was also a re-iteration of my discussion with frogus, who believes that a life is a life, and a death is a death. I disagree strongly with this view, and I think that listing numbers is one way people like to win over support without having a basis for their beliefs.

[C Elegans]

EDIT: @Lazarus: Ok, I see, that explains why I thought your comment was out of context and that you responded as if I had claimed it was an argument when in fact I did not. Good that you clarified, thanks for that.

Originally posted by Gruntboy
No, CE its not necessary. I just think its amusing how people can empathise with one sides outrageous position but not the others. Personal experience would certainly explain that.

In general, not only in this issue but in all issues, I think there are many different reason for this...one reason wouls be personal experience/connection, another reason would be identification, a third reason might be that one see something symbolic in it (for instance, I've actually heard people view the US as Messiah-like because they've meant so much in the formationa and protection of Israel).

But I really think discussions like this one makes people look more polarised and one-dimensional than we really are.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Gruntboy
I think anyone condoning the murder of innocents (as several people in this thread have done) are the ones who need to redefine their realities and "contain" themselves within a less controversially idealistic point of view.

Who have done that exactly? My reasons for aproving of attacks against settlers built on the fact that I do not consider them innocents, and I have yet to se anyone else support any attacks on cilvilians at all.

To tell someone that they need to get more mainstream opinions is also a rather weak argument for anything.


Generarly I do think that this debate would have much to gain if certain people stoped with their guessing why someone have a certain opinion, guessing what opinions they actually have, takeing a fragment of a sentance out of context and blowing it up 1000 times etc, instead of just reading what people does write and work from that.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
I am not sure I understand what you refer to here. Do you have a link with further information? I don't understand what these workers have to do with the Palestinians people right to their homeland At the end of the 19th century when the Zionist movement was formed, Israel/Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire as an occupied Arab state. A lot of Arab people lived there, the same people who we now call Palestinians.

Exactly, just calling them "Palestinians does not make them more ethnically connected to the land than the Hebiru. They are Arabs. Not Caananites, not Philistines, not Habiru. They have a homeland. It is called Saudi Arabia. In the article you cited above, you made heavy reference to the Caananites. The Palestinians use this argument frequently to justify their claim to the land. In my opinion, this is a very weak justification, since they were not the Caananites, they are not even the Philistines, which were not Simetic but Indo-European. The are Arabs who came late to the area, long after the Caananites, Habiru, Philistines, Syrians,

So what happened to Arab state, why did it disappear? Because Israel took conquered it. Please read this

That is history seen through one perspective. A perspective sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. Here is another which includes facts left out by that article.

I agree that both groups have equal rights to the area based on historical events. But I am totally at loss at the argument that Palestine is not presently a nation. No, it isn't because Israel occupies the land that should have been Palestine. Do people's right to a nation diminish if another nation takes that land by force? Kurdistan is not a nation either. Latvia was not a nation when Soviet occupied it. I do not understand that argument.

Neither has Palestine ever been a nation. It is the opinion of some that Israel occupies the land which should have become Palestine. They are entitled to that opinion. There are also many who do not feel this way. Just because it is a persons opinion that the land occupied by Israel should be Palestine, does not make it a fact. I understand that promises were made, which were broken to the Arab people of the area, but the Promise of a gift does not equal the right to a gift, and the giver has the prerogative to change their mind. Is it wrong to break a promise? I think so, but that is a moral question, not a question of fact. It damages the credibility of the giver. It is not the fault of the recipient who receives it instead. The facts are that the land was never a sovereign nation, it was a territory called Palestine. It only became a sovereign nation in modern times as the nation of Israel.

[VoodooDali]

@Scayde: actually a lot of research is being done on the genetic origins of Ashkenazi Jews, Sephardic Jews, and Palestinians.

The following study done by the University of Arizona and New York University, and published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, states that new DNA-based Y chromosome research reveals a genetic link between Jews and Palestinians, suggesting the two peoples, locked in a bitter struggle for more than a century, indeed share a common ancestry dating back 4,000 years.

Study finds genetic links between Arabs and Jews

"In the center of the Jewish group (and indistinguishable from the Jews) were non-Jewish Palestinians and Syrians, while other non-Jewish Middle-Easterners (Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Druze) were on the periphery of the Jewish group. Further genetic tests confirmed a “close genetic affinity of Jewish and Middle-Eastern non-Jewish Populations.”" from another article on the same study.

I hope CE comments on this. Y-chromosome research is revealing, but will not be definitive until the Human Genome Project is completed, from what I understand.

At any rate, we Americans have no right to talk about genetic claims to a land - it's the pot calling the kettle, IMO.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde
Just because it is a persons opinion that the land occupied by Israel should be Palestine, does not make it a fact. I understand that promises were made, which were broken to the Arab people of the area, but the Promise of a gift does not equal the right to a gift, and the giver has the prerogative to change their mind.

It was not one person's opinion, it was the 1947 UN vote. And it was not the UN to claimed back the "gift" as you choose to call it, the territory was conquered by Israel.

You post a link describing the attack on Israel from 5 Arab countries. (I will read it more thoroughly tomorrow, must go to bed now). Yes - how does that attack justify occupation? It is still against the conventions Israel itself has signed.

However, you claim BBC's timeline is "sympathetic to the Palestinian course". The site you linked to, claims to be "dedicated to providing comprehensive and accurate information regarding the historical, military, and political background to the on-going struggle between the State of Israel and the Palestinian Arabs." The FAQ says that "Every fact and assertion on this web site is backed-up by elaborate documentation hyperlinked right into the materials presented or available in the supplemental references. If you question anything, follow the links for more and more in-depth discussion and information. The most authoritative sources were sought and are presented for each topic. Lies and propaganda are excluded.

Ok, so they say, sound good. But...the first link I followed started with the words:

"As the most visible Arab-American critic of Yasser Arafat and the phony "Palestinian" agenda, I get a lot of hate mail."

The second link I followed started with:

EDITORIAL: Another UN obscenity

Adding to the impression that the convention was an exercise in political theater, Syria tried to add a clause defining terrorism as a war crime - presumably out of a perpetrator's close familiarity with the subjec. Not to be outdone, India, which has just reintroduced to the world the concept of building self-esteem through nuclear explosions, argued for labeling the use of nuclear weapons a war crime.
But these attempts at politicization, for all their creativity, paled beside what Arab nations succeeded in including, as another tool with which to bludgeon Israel.
<snip>
Far from being war crimes, Israeli settlements are not illegal, as even the US has effectively admitted. As much as the US opposes Israeli settlements, in 1983 it shifted from calling them "illegal" to branding them "obstacles to peace."
The reason was that it could no longer argue with Israel's plain reading of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which speaks of "forced" transfer of populations.
Further, Israel does not "occupy" the West Bank, since that term applies to controlling territory that was captured from another country in a war of aggression. Judea and Samaria were not legally part of any country, but were unallocated portions of the British Mandate, and in any case were captured by Israel in a defensive war.
<snip>
Now the perverse legal interpretation that rendered settlements "illegal" - which was embraced by most countries simply because of the political clout of the Arab world - has been ratcheted up to the level of a "war crime."

The third link I followed led to this article at an organisation called christian action for Israel:
http://christianactionforisrael.org/un/equalracism.html

When the Words 'United Nations' Equal Racism

If history can be described as a mere chronicle of the foolishness of mankind, then perhaps certain self- righteous Arab nations, oblivious of their own hypocrisy, can be said to be making an important contribution to posterity. But those internationalists among us, looking for wisdom, honorable intentions, a respect for human life and moderation, should be searching for their models outside the Arab world and its bully pulpit in the United Nations General Assembly.
For in the end, there is usually only one sense in which many of these nations are ever united - and that is in their contempt for democratic, pluralistic and humanistic Israel.

[color=CC00CC]Scayde, do you understand why I have reason to believe the website you linked do not provide "comprehensive and accurate" information even if they claim to do so? [/color]