I would urge you to be sitting down as you listen to Jeremy Bowen’s latest report from Gaza. It’s amazing, isn’t it, to listen to such naked partisanship dressed up as reporting? Jeremy is nothing more than a pro-Palestinian talking head, doing everything possible to diminish the Israeli response to the savagery of Hamas. He concludes his ever so world-weary diatribe by saying “let’s hope there is a cease-fire soon”. Why? He is now offering opinion which favours one side (Hamas) in the conflict, is this not bias? And while we are at it, I notice the BBC is STILL pushing the death statistics of those in Gaza as one BIG media friendly number, whilst they breakdown Israeli deaths by military/civilian. We hear how many kids have allegedly died in Gaza, we never hear how many Hamas terrorists have been killed. Isn’t that a little odd? The BBC seem determined to portray the deaths of all those in Gaza as being the deaths of innocents. It’s sickening to behold.
GAZAN UPDATE.
Bookmark the permalink.
Cont…
“Whether there exists anyone in the real world who has absolutely no morals at all, which I doubt, every enemy has interests, which one can bargain with.”
Hamas has no morals at all. If it did, it wouldn’t use its own children as human shields. Hamas’ interests are the end of the Israeli state and the deaths of Israels. Sorry, no compromise.
“Israel seems to disagree, via Egypt. And with some success. And there is no such thing as sub-humans.”
Unless “some success” means “the end of terrorist attacks upon Israel” then again, no game. And sure, there is such a thing as “sub-human.” I have a clear idea of what traits count as human and what don’t – and the traits of people who use their own children as human shields and who blow themselves up in suicide attacks are not human. Most wild animals have more concern for their young than Muslim terrorists.
“Hamas cannot be held responsible for rocket attacks it does not carry out itself, any more than Israel can be held responsible for the settler who tried to fire a rocket back. If Hamas was indeed behind some of these rockets, yes, that would be a violation of the truce. The fact that it was unable to prevent others with 100% success is not necessarily its fault, any more than the police are responsible for bank-robberies.”
The police do not encourage, support or fund bank robberies. Furthermore, Hamas most certainly is responsible for rockets attacks on Israel. The rockets fired into Israel are not the work of isolated “rogue” Palestinians. Hamas has been responsible for literally thousands of rockets fired into Israel. They are also responsible for assembling rockets in mosques, schools and other civilian areas. None of this would be happening if Hamas were not a terrorist organization and if their primary motive was the peace and safety of its own citizens.
“Neither of which Israel has achieved. Which means, by your reckoning, 667 innocent people have died in vain. Reduction is better than nothing, and diplomacy rather than force achieved this.”
No, 667 innocent people (if we can even accept that figure, which is unlikely) have died in an ongoing operation which will continue if the rockets continue to fire. If “reduction” is all that diplomacy can achieve, then…no deal.
“Apart from the greater number of rockets than during the truce.”
Neglecting to mention of course that if Israel does nothing about the “reduced” amount of rockets fired at its civilians, more civilians will die in the future too. Big surprise – terrorists fight back when you attack them. That doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t be fought. It just makes their destruction more pressing.
“Sounds like collective punishment to me.”
That’s because you don’t have an objective sense of value judgment and you have an intellectually immature mindset. It’s not about punishing anyone. It’s about Israel defending themselves.
“”The ultimate goal of the Palestinians”? That’s something of a generalisation isn’t it? I might as well give you some quotes from Avigdor Liebermann and tell you that’s what Israelis want.”
By that, I meant the goal of the majority of Palestinians. They voted for Hamas, for instance. If they wanted to live in peace with their Jewish neighbors they could have achieved this long, long ago.
“Do you expect them to support Israel as it fires rockets at their children?”
No, but the “support of the Palestinian people” is not Israel’s primary concern. The protection of its civilians is.
“Another thing you seem to be insinuating is that all the paramilitaries that Israel is killing are behind rocket attacks against civilians. This is highly unlikely. I’m sure that a lot of the militants that Israel is killing are only involved in firing on IDF troops. Do Palestinians have the right to attack the IDF in self-defence, or does this right only extend to Israel?”
It’s not about singling out only those who physically light the fuses of the rockets, it’s about destroying the organization that organizes, funds and carries out the rocket attacks. They are a terrorist organization. Destroy them.
“Phew.”
I think we’ve said all that needs to be said here. You have so far failed to refute one of my arguments or convince me of your views in any shape or form whatsoever. It’s gotten to the point now where you’re quite obviously arguing for the sake of it, so in light of this, and to save myself typing the same arguments over and over and over for the benefit of someone who will quite clearly never understand the reasoning involved, I will simply refer you from now on to all of my arguments above. I do not care if you think this contitutes a “cop out” on my part or a “win” for you on any level – it doesn’t. I think it’s fair to say that anyone who is in any doubt whatsoever as to who has the upper hand in this debate can simply refer to the endless to and fro above. Perhaps, one day, you might develop the bottle to allow comments on your own blog, in which case you can engage in your time-killing word games to your hearts content.
Wot Jason says.
Heard the one about the King of England and Hitler.
Yes, our Royals are fond of the old swastika.
The current Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust,
But they would if they could though, eh?
and the opinions of one unelected leader don’t really change that.
Don’t lets start on unelected leaders now, Puh-lease.
In that case Sue, I would ask that you distinguish between “you” referring to me, and “you” referring to my ilk.
Bye Alex; Merry Christmas to **you**referring to you, and give yer Elk an apple from me. Oh sorry, yer Ilk. A bowl of milk for the ilk.
The current Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust…
Alex | Homepage | 22.01.09 – 10:12 pm
Isn’t that exactly what that nice Mr Ahmandinajad said?
“Now, if we’re going to impose conditions on the existence of the yet-to-exist Palestinian state, as you have done with regards Israel, I’d have to say that such a state as envisaged in this statement by a founder member of the PLO has no right to exist whatsoever, if the objective of that state, as declared, is solely to destroy the state of Israel:”
The only thing I could find along the lines of “destroying Israel” is “anti-Zionism”, which isn’t necessarily the same thing, considering the massive number of uses the word “Zionism” has taken on among Israel’s supporters and enemies alike. But assuming he did mean “Zionism” as in the existence of Israel, I still don’t see how one person’s opinion invalidates any claim to statehood.
Come on Alex, I don’t want to believe you’re really that thick.
It’s not “one person’s claim”, he was voicing the basis of the PLO’s aims, ie: to destroy the state of Israel and using the made-up “Palestinian” identity as a weapon against Zionism, which is the idea of a Jewish state.
“(note: return to, not “move to”)”
Let’s settle on ‘ascend to’.
No, let’s not.
“Jerusalem is not mentioned once in the Koran or the Hadiths and this claim to be the third most holy site is a recent invention.”
How recent, just so I know? Pre-1948 or post-?
Post 1948 and pre-1967 until Israel re-unified Jerusalem the city was a shit hole under Jordanian rule – even the Al Aqsa mosque was abandoned and in disrepair.
And since the importance of Al-Aqsa Mosque is largely due to what Mohammed did when he was dead, you wouldn’t expect him to say or write much about it when he was alive.
You’re wrong about that. Muslims claim he dreamed that he ascended to heaven on a winged horse from the site of the western wall. One must assume he dreamed while he was still alive, otherwise how did he recount that dream to his followers?
Jason:
“No Alex, it isn’t limited to instances in which the terrorist is the only casualty. As I have argued throughout this whole thread, the right to self defense includes defending yourself from deadly attacks when your attacker uses human shields. He is fully responsible for those deaths as if he had murdered them. You have done nothing so far to convince me otherwise.”
In order that it is pure self-defence and that no other moral rights apply, it is limited to simple avoidance and not even killing the aggressor. Most reasonable people would include the right to retaliate against an attack if it is necessary in self-defence. As soon as a non-aggressor, we’ve moved a long way from pure, unadulterated self-defence and into a complicated web of lots of different rights, which have to be weighed pragmatically, against each other. If it is possible, for example, for the human shield to kill you, but not the terrorist, does he have the right to do so in self-defence?
“And since killing a terrorist for a reason other than self defense is not at all applicable to the subject of this argument, I’m still wondering why you brought it up. In fact I know why you brought it up. Because your role in this thread is simply to argue for the sake of arguing. I will repeat: you have failed to convince me, or anyone else here, to change their minds since your arguments just aren’t good enough. I’m exceedingly open to having my mind changed by an argumentative adversary and indeed it has happend on many occasions since I started taking part in online discussions. But in this case, your arguments just aren’t good enough to convince me.”
My objective was not to convince you. The reason I came on here was that I was interested in how people justify giving Israel carte blanche for killing civilians. I couldn’t really understand it then and to be honest I’m still a little baffled as to how you do it.
“Yes, it’s very much a matter of opinion. I am of the opinion that they are not using disproportionate force and that they have the right to use force even if it means the unfortunate deaths of some of Hamas’ civilian supporters. You have done nothing whatsoever to dissuade me from this view. Furthermore, if it is simply a “matter of opinion” then Israel will, as you are no doubt aware, choose to ignore yours and carry on with doing what it decides it needs to do to protect its citizens.”
Israel obviously does care a lot about people’s opinions as this massacre has been accompanied by a massive PR drive. But yeah, I doubt it cares much about one bloke on the internet any more than another.
“There is no political solution to Hamas. Palestinians hate Jews and always will do.”
I heard the only thing they hate more than Jews is running out of fried chicken and watermelon. Or am I confusing my massive racist generalisations?
“Israel values its soliders as much as it values its citizens and rightly so.”
The fact that Israel is risking its soldiers to save its civilians sort of disproves that. Almost every society is willing to sacrifice its soldiers to protect its civilians. When this becomes nasty is when they don’t extend this privilege to other civilians.
“As long as Muslims possess the goal to end the state of Israel, there will be no “peace.” The Islamist mindset is a scourge, a virus, a cancer, which celebrates death over life…But as long as Palestinians vow the deaths of Israelis, the blockade will remain in place and Israel will not stop defending itself, as much as people like you believe they should.”
There’s some more interesting generalisations here as well. Firstly, you’ve slipped neatly from “Muslim” into “Islamist” without seeming to make a distinction. Also, when you say “Muslims” and “Palestinians”, how many are you talking about? Are you suggesting that all of them, to a man, want to destroy Israel or kill Israelis, which is ludicrous, or that as long as there are enough who believe it to make a plural, Israel will need to keep bombing? Or are you just waving your hand vaguely at a homogenous mass in the East and giving a country you like permission to slaughter them?
“Of course they have a right to live. That right is taken from them by Hamas”
Hamas almost certainly does not respect that right, but that does not make it disappear and therefore Israel is equally obliged to respect it. Nobody’s right can be “taken from them” by the actions of others.
“Sooner or later Alex, you HAVE to get it into your thick skull that Israel does not and should not base its actions on a “formula” which aims to match Palestinian deaths with deaths of Israelis. They are not in the bean counting trade, they are defending their country.”
How far, would you say, are Palestinians allowed to go to defend their country from Israel?
“Please read what I write carefully before responding. I did not say that Israel does not “dance to their tune” – I said that Israel has an excuse to dance to their tune. The excuse of self defense. The tune that Hamas wants others to dance to is the naive, gullible condemnation of Israel’s act of self defense and nobody has an excuse to dance to that tune.”
That’s true, I did misread you. It’s still fairly silly of Israel to give Hamas what they want.
“They do if the operation is one of self defense. They have every right to minimize the deaths of their own soliders, who, incidentally, are drafted into a compulsary military service. My blaming of the other side is not “vague,” it’s as clear as day.”
Israel is definitely the only one responsible for its conscription policy. If people are forced to serve, it is not Hamas that is forcing them.
“I will disregard your pathetic use of the term “racist” since leftists like you love to throw it around like confetti at a wedding, especially when you’re not winning an argument.”
Odd, considering this is the first time I’ve used the word, but I’ve been explicitly accused of racism towards Jews several times already.
“Israel will not sacrifice the lives of its people willingly in order to save the lives of Hamas’ human shields.”
So what you’re saying is that nobody should have to risk willing combatants in order to save innocent bystanders?
“– Funny, you argue the exact opposite with Israel’s reaction to the situations Hamas puts it in.
– And how do you suppose Israelis “save themselves”?”
Not what I was claiming, specifically. Israel’s response to its life-or-death situation is purely Hamas’ doing, yet for some reason the nearby civilians’ response is not. This is rather a double standard.
“A battered wife has the full responsibility to leave her husband if that’s a possibility (i.e. he’s not keeping her prisoner). But that doesn’t mean that the husband doesn’t also have the full responsibility to stop battering his wife.”
That’s not what you argue with Israel. You argue the husband bears no responsibility whatsoever.”
“If he held a gun to your head and forced you to eat one of the two options then that would be a different matter.”
It would indeed. But you would be entirely responsible for the size of your belly if you failed to choose the salad.
“I clearly pointed out that deterrence is not Israel’s goal or moral justification for its actions”
You claimed it was a factor which went towards justifying Israel’s actions. I’m not sure how that differs from moral justification.
“if you interpret the phrase “see above” as a cop out or an evasion – I’m simply sick of typing the same arguments over and over because you’re too stupid and/or too lazy to understand them.”
Ditto.
Jason cont’d:
“Not at all Alex. You don’t have the sense of value judgment or interpretation to discern what’s being implied and what’s not.”
So what you’re saying is, I’m too stupid to see that you’re clearly right.
“Hamas guarantees the deaths of Palestinian civilians by forcing Israel to defend itself and then hiding behind those civilians.”
It does not “guarantee” the deaths of civilians unless it is certain Israel will retaliate against that particular target. That is clearly not the case, as Israel may well focus its energies elsewhere. The IDF, however does guarantee civilian deaths when it shoots deadly weapons towards civilians.
“Since Israel’s actions are not “murderous” that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.”
Take “murderous” out then. You are attempting to entirely absolve a party for the results of its conscious actions, which makes no sense whatsoever.
“There you go again with the bean counting. It’s not about counting Alex, it’s about one side defending itself from the other.”
There is more than one side, unless you are counting all Gazans as Hamas. Which honestly wouldn’t surprise me.
“Hamas has no morals at all.”
I think they get pretty huffy about women not wearing veils and stuff. What you mean is Hamas doesn’t share any of your or my morals. Now this is a fairly academic distinction if you want to decide whether Hamas is good or bad, but we’re not interested in that. It is quite important if you want to know when you can trust Hamas.
“Hamas’ interests are the end of the Israeli state and the deaths of Israels. Sorry, no compromise.”
I think Hamas is also quite interested doing the work of their angry imaginary friend and going to Heaven. Getting re-elected and cashing their pay-cheques also seem quite important to them.
“Unless “some success” means “the end of terrorist attacks upon Israel” then again, no game.”
So “fewer terrorist attacks upon Israel” wouldn’t be any cause for celebration for you at all? Do you actually care about Israelis’ safety or is it just your excuse to see some fireworks?
“And sure, there is such a thing as “sub-human.” I have a clear idea of what traits count as human and what don’t – and the traits of people who use their own children as human shields and who blow themselves up in suicide attacks are not human”
You don’t know much about humans, do you?
“The police do not encourage, support or fund bank robberies. Furthermore, Hamas most certainly is responsible for rockets attacks on Israel. The rockets fired into Israel are not the work of isolated “rogue” Palestinians. Hamas has been responsible for literally thousands of rockets fired into Israel.”
Nor does Hamas fund, encourage or support Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In fact Hamas sort of fights with both of them on occasion, especially the latter which is affiliated with Fatah. And the rockets Hamas fired were not actually during the truce.
“No, 667 innocent people (if we can even accept that figure, which is unlikely) have died in an ongoing operation which will continue if the rockets continue to fire.”
True, it is unlikely. It could have been as high as 940. And they’ll probably find a few more buried under rubble. Like I said, it was based on Israel’s most conservative estimates. Although that seems to have changed to 550 for some reason, which I will accept for the sake of argument.
“If “reduction” is all that diplomacy can achieve, then…no deal.have died in an ongoing operation which will continue if the rockets continue to fire. Neglecting to mention of course that if Israel does nothing about the “reduced” amount of rockets fired at its civilians, more civilians will die in the future too. Big surprise – terrorists fight back when you attack them.”
Really? I would have said that if diplomacy can achieve a greater reduction than force, which seems to be the case, then it’s obviously the better option.
“That’s because you don’t have an objective sense of value judgment and you have an intellectually immature mindset.”
It all makes sense now. Thanks for telling me. If I change it to “Collective guilt” can please I add a few more years to my mental age?
“By that, I meant the goal of the majority of Palestinians. They voted for Hamas, for instance.”
Even assuming that this one goal was the sole factor in the entire election (Which is generally not the case in elections), your majority only comes to 44% of votes cast. You then have to knock off a quarter for the 75% turnout. Which gives us 33% of the electorate, which would be a particularly small electorate considering how many Gazans are under 18.
“No, but the “support of the Palestinian people” is not Israel’s primary concern. The protection of its civilians is.
“It’s not about singling out only those who physically light the fuses of the rockets, it’s about destroying the organization that organizes, funds and carries out the rocket attacks. They are a terrorist organization. Destroy them.”
It’s a valid point, but does it still make those firing on the attacking IDF terrorists? Does it still make that an act of terrorism? I’m interested in seeing how wide you cast your net.
“I think we’ve said all that needs to be said here. You have so far failed to refute one of my arguments or convince me of your views in any shape or form whatsoever.”
What you mean is that you‘ve so far failed to accept a single one of my flawlessly-presented arguments.
“Perhaps, one day, you might develop the bottle to allow comments on your own blog”
No idea what you mean by this. There are comments on my blog. If you’re upset at not getting to type in your name, take it up with the website.
Sue:
“– Heard the one about the King of England and Hitler.
– Yes, our Royals are fond of the old swastika.”
I’m assuming by the ‘our’ that you’re British too. Does this make you equally fond of the swastika?
“– The current Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust,
– But they would if they could though, eh?”
I honestly don’t know. Are you suggesting a legal system where people are punished according to what you think they would do if they got the chance?
“– and the opinions of one unelected leader don’t really change that.
– Don’t lets start on unelected leaders now, Puh-lease.”
Why not? Do you feel that the Palestinians, even the Palestinians of the time, should be held responsible for the actions of one man who they had no say in choosing?
“Bye Alex; Merry Christmas to **you**referring to you, and give yer Elk an apple from me. Oh sorry, yer Ilk. A bowl of milk for the ilk.”
Thanks for that, and may I extend the same wishes to you.
Biodegradable:
“– The current Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust…
– Isn’t that exactly what that nice Mr Ahmandinajad said?”
You know I’m pretty sure that on one occasion he’s said “Oh yes, I’d love a cup of tea.” And I just drank a cup of tea. Does that make me an anti-Semite? You know, if you can’t actually prove that the current Palestinians were partially responsible for the Holocaust, it means you agree with Ahmadinejad too. Is that really something you want?
“It’s not “one person’s claim”, he was voicing the basis of the PLO’s aims”
Once. In one interview. Do you have any other evidence that this was the PLO’s policy, or that this is confirmed by the majority of Palestinians, or that it actually is the only thing holding Palestinians together?
“ie: to destroy the state of Israel and using the made-up “Palestinian” identity as a weapon against Zionism, which is the idea of a Jewish state.”
No, ‘Zionism’ is the idea of a Jewish state in Eretz-Yisroel. I think the ones who wanted a Jewish state but didn’t care what it was called themselves Territorialists and sort of faded off the radar after Balfour. And, of course, even Zionists themselves dispute where exactly and how big this state should be. And, of course, we’re not talking the Israeli usage of the word ‘Zionism’ here, we’re talking the Arab usage, which can basically be anything from “Aggressive pursuit of an Arab-free Greater Israel” to “Jews”. You’re extrapolating a lot from one word, and making the fatal mistake of analysing it according to your definition and not that of the speaker.
“Post 1948 and pre-1967 until Israel re-unified Jerusalem the city was a shit hole under Jordanian rule – even the Al Aqsa mosque was abandoned and in disrepair.”
Means nothing. If the locals had looked after it before 1948, which wikipedia suggests, then what happened under Jordanian rule does not prove that it was spontaneously dreamed up as an excuse to blow up Jews. Wikipedia also claims, with references, that Jerusalem is mentioned quite a lot in the Quran and that it was considered quite holy in the middle ages. Which sort of implies you’re just making this stuff up.
“You’re wrong about that. Muslims claim he dreamed that he ascended to heaven on a winged horse from the site of the western wall. One must assume he dreamed while he was still alive, otherwise how did he recount that dream to his followers?”
How long have they been saying that? I’ll bet it’s longer than sixty years.
This thread reminds me of the bus with the gold that’s hanging over the edge of a cliff.
Alex, before we go over the edge, I think you are completely bonkers now.
1.I AM British too, but I don’t see how the Royals’ partiality to the old jackboot could make me the same. So no, of course it doesn’t.
2. There IS a law a bit like that, called incitement. There’s also ‘intent’ which fits the bill too.
3. Unelected leader to whom I was alluding is known here as the one-eyed fat jock, and I certainly hope I am never held responsible for his actions.
4. Mazeltov. ( I’ve never said that before in my life, but you seem to have forced me to now.)
:
“- The current Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust…
– Isn’t that exactly what that nice Mr Ahmandinajad said?”
You know I’m pretty sure that on one occasion he’s said “Oh yes, I’d love a cup of tea.” And I just drank a cup of tea. Does that make me an anti-Semite? You know, if you can’t actually prove that the current Palestinians were partially responsible for the Holocaust, it means you agree with Ahmadinejad too. Is that really something you want?
The point is Alex that by saying that “Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust” both you and Imamaddinnerjacket are inferring that somehow Israel is taking revenge on the Palestinians for the Holocaust, which of course nobody blames on them, although the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did encourage Hitler and did offer to help him find a “solution” for the Jews in what was then called “Palestine”.
I hope both you and he enjoy your cup of tea together. I have no doubt you’d find much in common, other than a taste for tea.
“In order that it is pure self-defence and that no other moral rights apply, it is limited to simple avoidance and not even killing the aggressor. Most reasonable people would include the right to retaliate against an attack if it is necessary in self-defence. As soon as a non-aggressor, we’ve moved a long way from pure, unadulterated self-defence and into a complicated web of lots of different rights, which have to be weighed pragmatically, against each other. If it is possible, for example, for the human shield to kill you, but not the terrorist, does he have the right to do so in self-defence?”
I have answered most of this response in previous posts and I don’t intend to retype it all again for your benefit. However, I will respond to your last question. Yes, the human shield has the right to defend himself in exactly the same way if it was possible. The moral dynamic here is that the terrorist has forced two innocent parties into a situation in which they have to fight each other to the death. The most capable of defending themselves wins. Again, the blame for this terrible situation lies entirely with the terrorists.
“My objective was not to convince you. The reason I came on here was that I was interested in how people justify giving Israel carte blanche for killing civilians. I couldn’t really understand it then and to be honest I’m still a little baffled as to how you do it.”
Well, if we haven’t convinced you by now then there’s no point trying really, is there? You don’t understand and that’s that. I’ve explained it the best I can and I fully stand by everything I’ve said and will point out that you didn’t even begin to make the slightest dent in it. At the end of the day of course, Israel will do what it deems necessary with or without your blessing and I’m just glad that they’re not swayed by the kind of simple indignation you’ve displayed throughout this thread.
“Israel obviously does care a lot about people’s opinions as this massacre has been accompanied by a massive PR drive. But yeah, I doubt it cares much about one bloke on the internet any more than another.”
Israel will of course do its best to counter the propaganda of Hamas and sympathizers to their cause. Obviously it would be to their advantage if fewer people believed Hamas propaganda (especially the useful idiots of the West) but they’re not going to refrain from defending themselves for the sake of PR, this much is obvious.
“I heard the only thing they hate more than Jews is running out of fried chicken and watermelon. Or am I confusing my massive racist generalisations?”
The “fried chicken and watermelon” stereotype is based on hugely outdated perceptions which don’t apply today. The hatred for Jews on display among Palestinians and indeed most of the Middle East is widespread, which is why of course you’ll see clips of Palestinian TV for children which features uncloaked antisemitic hate, often expressed in violent terms. Now I’m pretty sure that if Sesame Street featured puppets which urged children to “kill and eat blacks,” you’d have no problem surmizing that America was an extremely racist country and that the majority, white Americans, must hate blacks. It’s certainly true that hatred of Jews is part of Palestinian culture – you’re simply trying to equate it with a genuinely false and offensive stereotype in order to “borrow” the bigot card. Typical leftist tactic. Not buying, sorry.
“The fact that Israel is risking its soldiers to save its civilians sort of disproves that. Almost every society is willing to sacrifice its soldiers to protect its civilians. When this becomes nasty is when they don’t extend this privilege to other civilians.”
Every society needs a military to defend itself. Without a military, Israeli citizens are screwed. With it, they will of course do everything they can to minimize their own casualties in their attempt to defend themselves. “Extending” that “privilege to other citizens” in this case, means leaving Hamas terrorists alone to fire more rockets into Israel. No deal.
“There’s some more interesting generalisations here as well. Firstly, you’ve slipped neatly from “Muslim” into “Islamist” without seeming to make a distinction. Also, when you say “Muslims” and “Palestinians”, how many are you talking about? Are you suggesting that all of them, to a man, want to destroy Israel or kill Israelis, which is ludicrous, or that as long as there are enough who believe it to make a plural, Israel will need to keep bombing? Or are you just waving your hand vaguely at a homogenous mass in the East and giving a country you like permission to slaughter them?”
You can at this point set aside all questions along the lines of “is Jason a bigot who makes unfair generalizations.” The answer is no, he is simply referring to a prevalent culture, the one which for instance manifests itself in the fact that virtually all terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims and that Islam seems to be virutally alone in encouraging a widespread culture of suicide bombings, which are perpetrated by Muslims from many different countries.
Additionally, I see you are once again attempting to warp my arguments into something they’re not – this time by insinuating that my argument is that Israel’s justification for bombing has to do with the percentage of Palestinians who want to destroy it, or some such baloney. This is not the case at all and has nothing to do with what I said. My point was that as long as there is a prevalent culture which vows the deaths of Israelis (which there is), then this will manifest itself in the form of terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens which of course Israel has every right to defend itself against. You’re in the final throes of your role in this debate, since you seem to be set upon twising words from their obvious meaning in order to construct a straw man you feel more confident debating. Please stop it.
“Hamas almost certainly does not respect that right, but that does not make it disappear and therefore Israel is equally obliged to respect it. Nobody’s right can be “taken from them” by the actions of others.”
Israel does respect it otherwise it would not go to great lengths to avoid their deaths in the course of the fully justifiable acts of self defense they must take. Hamas is the one who takes their right away. For Israel to guarantee no civilian casualties, they’d have to refrain from defending themselves. No deal.
“How far, would you say, are Palestinians allowed to go to defend their country from Israel?”
Oh, let’s say…by stopping the terrorist attacks against it. That would be, without a shadow of a doubt, the most effective way possible to “defend” itself against Israel’s acts of self defense. Funny how these things work, isn’t it?
“That’s true, I did misread you. It’s still fairly silly of Israel to give Hamas what they want.”
No it’s not – they’re just defending themselves, as they must. The “silly” parties are the ones who play into the hands of Hamas propaganda by marching through Western cities calling Israel “Nazis.” They have no justifiable need to do this….Israel has a fully justifiable need to defend itself.
“Israel is definitely the only one responsible for its conscription policy. If people are forced to serve, it is not Hamas that is forcing them.”
If it weren’t for Hamas, there would be no need whatsoever for them to risk their lives in self defense in the first place. I’m not particularly a fan of Israel’s enforced conscription policy and would be much happier if their military was entirely voluntary (like America’s for instance) – I have no doubt whatsoever that they’d have no trouble attracting volunteers. However, if there was sufficient opposition to Israel’s national service then this is obviously something they’d be able to change given that Israel is a democratic country. But at least Israel takes great measures to minimize the risk to its conscriptions. None of the above, of course, makes any difference to the argument and you’re merely clutching at straws.
“Odd, considering this is the first time I’ve used the word, but I’ve been explicitly accused of racism towards Jews several times already.”
It’s not odd, since I didn’t say that leftists always use it more than once in an argument, but the fact is that leftists play the race card in this way extremely liberally as a way of sabotaging a debate they’re not winning, which is why I felt justified in using the phrase “like confetti at a wedding.” There was, of course, no justification at all for you to use the word in this context.
“So what you’re saying is that nobody should have to risk willing combatants in order to save innocent bystanders?”
Not when the choice is between the citizens of another country and the citizens of their own country (soldiers are still citizens). You will of course, call “racist” the fact that states have a responsibility to the citizens within their own borders first and foremost. This is not racist (Palestinians are not a “race,” for example) – it’s just a consequence of the existence of separate countries with borders and juristriction, etc. Furthermore, Israel is a tiny country surrounded by much larger countries which would quite like to see it wiped off the face of the map. Therefore, its dedication to protecting the lives of its own citizens first and foremost is even more justifiable than in most cases.
“Not what I was claiming, specifically. Israel’s response to its life-or-death situation is purely Hamas’ doing, yet for some reason the nearby civilians’ response is not. This is rather a double standard.”
The fact that Hamas has a responsiblity to stop attacking Israel does not mean that Israelis do not have a responsiblity to defend themselves. Once again you’re viewing “responsibility” as a finite pie in which an increase on one side is automatically matched by an identical decrease on the other. As I explained to you, responsibility does not work in this way. You’re displaying the classic Marxist mindset in which everything is “shared” and one group’s loss is automatically another group’s gain.
“That’s not what you argue with Israel. You argue the husband bears no responsibility whatsoever.”
Israel is not an “abusive husband.” Please stop it Alex, you’re simply ridiculous.
“It would indeed. But you would be entirely responsible for the size of your belly if you failed to choose the salad.”
Since the eater is not “forced” into anything as means of self defense, we’ll just put this other hysterically irrelevent anaolgy to bed, shall we?
“You claimed it was a factor which went towards justifying Israel’s actions. I’m not sure how that differs from moral justification.”
I did no such thing. It is a factor which “sweetens the deal” so to speak, but is in no way the moral justification for Israel’s actions. Put another way – in the absense of this factor, Israel would still be entirely justified.
“Ditto.”
I think it’s clear to any rational person following this thread who has the upper hand. You have as of yet failed to refute one of my arguments.
“So what you’re saying is, I’m too stupid to see that you’re clearly right.”
You took the words right out of my mouth.
“It does not “guarantee” the deaths of civilians unless it is certain Israel will retaliate against that particular target. That is clearly not the case, as Israel may well focus its energies elsewhere. The IDF, however does guarantee civilian deaths when it shoots deadly weapons towards civilians.”
Alex, Hamas is certain that Israel will respond with force against it. It does not matter if it does not know “exactly” which targets Israel will strike. It hides itself among civilians because it knows that whichever Hamas targets Israel strikes at, civilians will be in the way. Israel, moreoever, makes an effort to get civilians out of the way first. The opposite morality of Hamas. I can’t believe you’re still flogging this dead horse.
“Take “murderous” out then. You are attempting to entirely absolve a party for the results of its conscious actions, which makes no sense whatsoever.”
It does make sense, for exactly the reasons I’ve outlined 12,678 times before (see above).
“There is more than one side, unless you are counting all Gazans as Hamas. Which honestly wouldn’t surprise me.”
Well, given that most Palestinians side with Hamas, it’s certainly getting there, isn’t it? That’s something which should interest a moral bean-counter like you. But essentially, there is a hierarchy of sides important to Israel. At the top, is Israel, of course. Next up are Gazan civilians, who Israel makes an effort to get out of the way first before it defends itself. Lastly, there are Hamas terrorists, who should be killed in as great a quantity as possible.
“I think they get pretty huffy about women not wearing veils and stuff. What you mean is Hamas doesn’t share any of your or my morals. Now this is a fairly academic distinction if you want to decide whether Hamas is good or bad, but we’re not interested in that. It is quite important if you want to know when you can trust Hamas.”
You want to play the child’s game of moral relativism – no deal. Using children as human shields is not “moral” and I do not give a gnat’s ass if you think there is some “academic distinction” about it. Hamas is a moral-free organization who should never be trusted under any circumstances. Period.
“I think Hamas is also quite interested doing the work of their angry imaginary friend and going to Heaven. Getting re-elected and cashing their pay-cheques also seem quite important to them.”
Ok, add those to “wiping Israeli’s off the map” as Hamas’ motives. Just makes it all the more pressing to incinerate them, doesn’t it?
“So “fewer terrorist attacks upon Israel” wouldn’t be any cause for celebration for you at all? Do you actually care about Israelis’ safety or is it just your excuse to see some fireworks?”
It would be better than “no attacks” of course, but not “cause for celebration.” Let’s hold off on the Champers until the attacks stop Alex. “Just a few attacks” is not a desirable end goal. Yes, I care about Israelis’ safety. No, it’s not an excuse to see some fireworks. Grow up son.
“You don’t know much about humans, do you?”
Actually, a lot. I know that it takes a pretty dramatic deviation from the instincts of a human to strap bombs to yourself and willingly blow yourself up, or to willingly use children as human shields. Such people are sub-human.
“Nor does Hamas fund, encourage or support Islamic Jihad or Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade. In fact Hamas sort of fights with both of them on occasion, especially the latter which is affiliated with Fatah. And the rockets Hamas fired were not actually during the truce.”
Hamas, or anyone else, have no moral justification for launching terrorist attacks at Israeli citizens under any circumstances, truce or no truce. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades have carried out several joint attacks from Gaza with Hamas. Similarly, Hamas has also carried out dozens of attacks in conjunction with Islamic Jihad. “Sort of fighting with each other on occasion” is not the same as being completely separate entities who oppose each other and work alone.
“True, it is unlikely. It could have been as high as 940. And they’ll probably find a few more buried under rubble. Like I said, it was based on Israel’s most conservative estimates. Although that seems to have changed to 550 for some reason, which I will accept for the sake of argument.”
Since we don’t know and since I refuse to be drawn into the bean counting school of ethics, then let’s just forget about numerics.
“Really? I would have said that if diplomacy can achieve a greater reduction than force, which seems to be the case, then it’s obviously the better option.”
If diplomacy cannot completely stop the rocket attacks on Israel then it will continue to use force, again and again, until they do stop. Once more you’re trying to promote the idea that Israel should just accept a few rocket attacks now and then. They’re not going to do that and if that’s all diplomacy can achieve then they will continue to use force. Of course, there is always the chance that they could decimate Hamas to the point where diplomacy – leading to a complete cessation of rocket attacks – is the only chance Hamas has to survive.
“It all makes sense now. Thanks for telling me. If I change it to “Collective guilt” can please I add a few more years to my mental age?”
No.
“Even assuming that this one goal was the sole factor in the entire election (Which is generally not the case in elections), your majority only comes to 44% of votes cast. You then have to knock off a quarter for the 75% turnout. Which gives us 33% of the electorate, which would be a particularly small electorate considering how many Gazans are under 18.”
No we don’t have to knock off a quarter for the 75% turnout. Where the hell are your brains tonight? You can take that 25% and divide it into those who support Hamas and those that don’t, just as you can with set of people who actually voted. Ditto with those under 18. Furthermore, a survey from last year showed that most Palestinians favor violence over talks.
“It’s a valid point, but does it still make those firing on the attacking IDF terrorists? Does it still make that an act of terrorism? I’m interested in seeing how wide you cast your net.”
No it doesn’t necessarily make “firing on the attacking (defending) IDF” a terrorist attack in itself. Terrorists launch attacks, deliberately, against civilians with the express desire to kill them. But when Hamas attack the invading IDF, so are they too acting in “self defense.” Everyone will try and defend themselves if attacked. Yet that does not affect the justification for Israel’s actions in defending itself in the first place, nor give Hamas any kind of legitimacy whatsoever. Again Alex you’re trying to twist this argument into pointless pretzels. I think the point you’re trying to make here is that when Hamas fires back at Israeli troops, they’re not being “terrorists” anymore because they’re attacking military targets and not civilians. But it’s not the fact that they fire back at the IDF which gives Israel moral justification for killing them, it’s their previous (and continuing actions) which are targeted against Israeli civilians which gives the IDF that justification.
“No idea what you mean by this. There are comments on my blog. If you’re upset at not getting to type in your name, take it up with the website.”
My apologies, I did not see that when you actually click the title link for your posts, that it takes you onto a separate screen on which only then can you submit comments. Perhaps it would be better if you had comment links on the main page of the blog under each post, as is standard practice. I do however, note that the majority of your posts have no comments at all and those that do have very few. I suggest that you either market your blog better, or write some more interesting content. Perhaps we’ll have to wait a few more years of intellectual development for that. There, I’ve said it.
Sue:
“This thread reminds me of the bus with the gold that’s hanging over the edge of a cliff.
Alex, before we go over the edge, I think you are completely bonkers now.”
An excellent point, expressed clearly and concisely.
“I AM British too, but I don’t see how the Royals’ partiality to the old jackboot could make me the same. So no, of course it doesn’t.”
And by the same token, having one representative who rather liked it too does not make Palestinians Nazis.
“2. There IS a law a bit like that, called incitement. There’s also ‘intent’ which fits the bill too.”
I don’t know if ‘intent’ works on its own. Certainly I’ve never heard of anyone ever being convicted of murder on the grounds that if they had had a knife instead of an olive-picker they would have used it.
“3. Unelected leader to whom I was alluding is known here as the one-eyed fat jock, and I certainly hope I am never held responsible for his actions.”
Sauce for the goose and all that.
“4. Mazeltov. ( I’ve never said that before in my life, but you seem to have forced me to now.)”
Your definition of “forced” is even stranger than Jason’s.
Biodegradable:
“The point is Alex that by saying that “Palestinians had nothing to do with the Holocaust” both you and Imamaddinnerjacket are inferring that somehow Israel is taking revenge on the Palestinians for the Holocaust, which of course nobody blames on them, although the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem did encourage Hitler and did offer to help him find a “solution” for the Jews in what was then called “Palestine”.”
See my post to Sue, who actually did try to implicate the Palestinians in the Holocaust for the very same reason.
“I hope both you and he enjoy your cup of tea together. I have no doubt you’d find much in common, other than a taste for tea.”
I heard he’s well into King Crimson and has the ‘Curb Your Enthusiasm’ boxed set.
Jason:
“Well, if we haven’t convinced you by now then there’s no point trying really, is there? You don’t understand and that’s that.”
I’ve argued with blowhards like you before. You seem to have real trouble with the distinction between “understand” and “agree”.
“At the end of the day of course, Israel will do what it deems necessary with or without your blessing and I’m just glad that they’re not swayed by the kind of simple indignation you’ve displayed throughout this thread.”
You know what’s sad though? They probably don’t care that you agree with them either.
“The “fried chicken and watermelon” stereotype is based on hugely outdated perceptions which don’t apply today.”
Thanks for that. I’m learning so much from you.
“It’s certainly true that hatred of Jews is part of Palestinian culture”
Hatred and dehumanisation of Palestinians seems to be fairly entrenched in Israeli culture. And similar attitudes towards Arabs/Muslims in general seems to be prevalent in the West too. What’s your point?
“you’re simply trying to equate it with a genuinely false and offensive stereotype in order to “borrow” the bigot card. Typical leftist tactic. Not buying, sorry.”
As I said before, this is a tactic I’ve been far more on the receiving end of.
““Extending” that “privilege to other citizens” in this case, means leaving Hamas terrorists alone to fire more rockets into Israel. No deal.”
And we’re back to the main point again. Is several hundred dead Palestinian civilians and a thousands of injured a fair trade-off for the kind of danger Israelis are facing from rocket attacks.
“[I am] simply referring to a prevalent culture, the one which for instance manifests itself in the fact that virtually all terrorist attacks are carried out by Muslims and that Islam seems to be virutally alone in encouraging a widespread culture of suicide bombings, which are perpetrated by Muslims from many different countries.”
How “prevalent” is this culture? Opinion polls or something? I think the Telegraph made it about 1% among British Muslims.
“For Israel to guarantee no civilian casualties, they’d have to refrain from defending themselves. No deal.”
Now guaranteeing no civilian casualties was never my suggestion.
“Oh, let’s say…by stopping the terrorist attacks against it. That would be, without a shadow of a doubt, the most effective way possible to “defend” itself against Israel’s acts of self defense. Funny how these things work, isn’t it?”
You know, for Gazans to stop attacks on Israel they have to root out, fight and defeat the relatively well-armed terrorists. That’s pretty dangerous. For Israel to stop attacks on Gaza, it just has to stop attacking Gaza. And as I’ve shown several times, “rolling over and dying” stops more rocket attacks than “self-defence”.
“The “silly” parties are the ones who play into the hands of Hamas propaganda by marching through Western cities calling Israel “Nazis.” They have no justifiable need to do this….Israel has a fully justifiable need to defend itself.”
I agree, that is as stupid as any other spurious comparison to the Nazis, more so considering how bluntly and simplistically the comparisons are usually phrased. But, if killing civilians is exactly what Hamas wants, do you not think its just a bit of a strategic blunder to do it?
“I’m not particularly a fan of Israel’s enforced conscription policy and would be much happier if their military was entirely voluntary (like America’s for instance) – I have no doubt whatsoever that they’d have no trouble attracting volunteers. But at least Israel takes great measures to minimize the risk to its conscriptions.”
Of course it does. The fact that Israel uses conscripts should not affect the value of the Palestinians’ right to life.
“It’s not odd, since I didn’t say that leftists always use it more than once in an argument, but the fact is that leftists play the race card in this way extremely liberally as a way of sabotaging a debate they’re not winning, which is why I felt justified in using the phrase “like confetti at a wedding.””
I would advise you in that case to have another look through the thread, count accusations of racism towards Palestinians by leftists and accusations of anti-Semitism by the B-BBC locals. You might be surprised at what is being thrown about like confetti.
“There was, of course, no justification at all for you to use the word in this context.”
There was every justification. Either you believe all humans have an equal right to life regardless, you believe that soldiers decision to risk their lives and take others’ means they are a more legitimate target, or you believe that some lives are worth less than others based solely on who they are. This may not be “racist” as such, if you claim Palestinians are not a race, but it is certainly morally comparable.
“Not when the choice is between the citizens of another country and the citizens of their own country (soldiers are still citizens)…It’s just a consequence of the existence of separate countries with borders and juristriction, etc.”
Now here we get into the tricky area of “jurisdiction”. Israel clearly has a lot of jurisdiction over Gaza – if not legal jurisdiction then complete control over its borders. The fact that Israel exercises overwhelming power over the Occupied Territories should mean it has a responsibility to protect their occupants in the same way as it does its full citizens. You seem to be arguing the opposite.
“The fact that Hamas has a responsiblity to stop attacking Israel does not mean that Israelis do not have a responsiblity to defend themselves.”
And the fact that Gazans have a responsibility not to be hit by missiles does not mean that the IDF does not have a responsibility to stop attacking Gaza. Now whether you see it as a pie chart (because it says “Pie Chart” in the Communist Manifesto) or a bar graph does not diminish the fact that the responsibility of innocent bystanders is dwarfed by the responsibility of active participants.
“Israel is not an “abusive husband.” Please stop it Alex, you’re simply ridiculous.”
It’s an analogy. I believe you started it.
“I did no such thing. It is a factor which “sweetens the deal” so to speak, but is in no way the moral justification for Israel’s actions. Put another way – in the absense of this factor, Israel would still be entirely justified.”
So it is part of the moral justification, but not the entirety?
“I think it’s clear to any rational person following this thread who has the upper hand. You have as of yet failed to refute one of my arguments.”
As have you mine. Though you seem to be getting much more frustrated.
“You took the words right out of my mouth.”
It’s amazing how far you can get in the world without any sense of self-awareness.
“Alex, Hamas is certain that Israel will respond with force against it. It does not matter if it does not know “exactly” which targets Israel will strike.”
In that case, with each civilian area it hides in, it is not certain that Israel will hit those civilians. Therefore, by hiding among them, it is not guaranteeing their deaths, only risking them. On the other hand there is a direct, one-to-one correlation between what Israel shoots at and what is shot at by Israel.
“It hides itself among civilians because it knows that whichever Hamas targets Israel strikes at, civilians will be in the way. Israel, moreoever, makes an effort to get civilians out of the way first. The opposite morality of Hamas. I can’t believe you’re still flogging this dead horse.”
Israel’s efforts to clear civilians out are irrelevant. It may reduce the number of human shields, but the fact that Israel then shoots at the remainder means it makes no difference.
“Well, given that most Palestinians side with Hamas, it’s certainly getting there, isn’t it? That’s something which should interest a moral bean-counter like you.”
As long as Israel kills only the Palestinian civilians who support Hamas, yeah, you’ve almost got a point. All you need now is some beans to practice counting so you can develop a sense of proportion.
“But essentially, there is a hierarchy of sides important to Israel. At the top, is Israel, of course. Next up are Gazan civilians, who Israel makes an effort to get out of the way first before it defends itself. Lastly, there are Hamas terrorists, who should be killed in as great a quantity as possible.”
This is where we differ you see. I, being a moral bean-counter, see this hierarchy as a multiplier, and that Israel should, after the ratio of people at risk, start valuing large numbers of Gazan civilians over small numbers of Israelis. Ideally, of course, this ratio should be 1:1, but I accept this does not work in practice. You, however, having an amoral lack of sense of proportion, see these tiers as utter absolutes, and any number of those further down the hierarchy are a worthy sacrifice for one a level above it.
“Hamas is a moral-free organization who should never be trusted under any circumstances. Period…Just makes it all the more pressing to incinerate them, doesn’t it?”
The fact that Hamas’ morals and interests are not yours, or mine for that matter, is irrelevant. They have something driving them. They have objectives, and therefore, they have things they can be pushed to compromise over and incentives to respect this compromise. And, as I pointed out, it has worked in the past.
“It would be better than “no attacks” of course, but not “cause for celebration.” Let’s hold off on the Champers until the attacks stop Alex. “Just a few attacks” is not a desirable end goal.”
Not a desirable end goal, no. But we’re not just concerned with desirable end goals. We also want achievable goals in the short and medium term. Reducing rocket attacks to a minimum while working towards a sustainable agreement could actually end rocket attacks completely. Blowing up civilians hasn’t done it yet.
“Actually, a lot. I know that it takes a pretty dramatic deviation from the instincts of a human to strap bombs to yourself and willingly blow yourself up, or to willingly use children as human shields. Such people are sub-human.”
Again, this is rather academic. But I reckon if you have a look at history or the news, there’s an awfully large proportion of the human population you’d have to disqualify.
“Hamas, or anyone else, have no moral justification for launching terrorist attacks at Israeli citizens under any circumstances, truce or no truce. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades have carried out several joint attacks from Gaza with Hamas. Similarly, Hamas has also carried out dozens of attacks in conjunction with Islamic Jihad. “Sort of fighting with each other on occasion” is not the same as being completely separate entities who oppose each other and work alone.”
Of course not, but it is absurd to claim that because Hamas collaborated on one thing that they are definitely behind another, any more than Germany and England were on the same side in WWII because they had allied against Napoleon.
“If diplomacy cannot completely stop the rocket attacks on Israel then it will continue to use force, again and again, until they do stop. Once more you’re trying to promote the idea that Israel should just accept a few rocket attacks now and then. They’re not going to do that and if that’s all diplomacy can achieve then they will continue to use force. Of course, there is always the chance that they could decimate Hamas to the point where diplomacy – leading to a complete cessation of rocket attacks – is the only chance Hamas has to survive.”
And the civilian cost of this doesn’t bother you at all? Both Israeli and Palestinian? Or is victory higher up your list of priorities than peace?
“– It all makes sense now. Thanks for telling me. If I change it to “Collective guilt” can please I add a few more years to my mental age?
– No.”
Avoiding the issue a little, aren’t we?
“No we don’t have to knock off a quarter for the 75% turnout. Where the hell are your brains tonight? You can take that 25% and divide it into those who support Hamas and those that don’t, just as you can with set of people who actually voted. Ditto with those under 18.”
Not such reliable numbers, though, are they? And your “majority” is still under 50%.
“Furthermore, a survey from last year showed that most Palestinians favor violence over talks.”
How many Israelis hold similar opinions? Does that mean it’s ok to shoot rockets at Sderot? Interestingly enough, it also says 66% favour a two-state solution.
“I think the point you’re trying to make here is that when Hamas fires back at Israeli troops, they’re not being “terrorists” anymore because they’re attacking military targets and not civilians. But it’s not the fact that they fire back at the IDF which gives Israel moral justification for killing them, it’s their previous (and continuing actions) which are targeted against Israeli civilians which gives the IDF that justification.”
My point is that Israeli civilians are not under threat from these attacks. Are IDF troops therefore within their rights to write off civilians in the interest of preventing legitimate attacks on uniformed soldiers?
“My apologies, I did not see that when you actually click the title link for your posts, that it takes you onto a separate screen on which only then can you submit comments.”
Yeah, LiveJournal was a rubbish choice really.
“Perhaps it would be better if you had comment links on the main page of the blog under each post, as is standard practice.”
You have to click on the link saying “comment”.
“I suggest that you either market your blog better, or write some more interesting content.”
I would, but shameless self-promotion feels so embarrassing.
“I’ve argued with blowhards like you before. You seem to have real trouble with the distinction between “understand” and “agree”.”
Not a bit of it! I haven’t seen any evidence at all that you have fully understood a single argument throughout this thread.
“You know what’s sad though? They probably don’t care that you agree with them either.”
That isn’t sad in the slightest.
“Thanks for that. I’m learning so much from you.”
Face it Alex, you haven’t learned a thing.
“Hatred and dehumanisation of Palestinians seems to be fairly entrenched in Israeli culture. And similar attitudes towards Arabs/Muslims in general seems to be prevalent in the West too. What’s your point?”
Israelis can hate and/or dehumanize Palestinians “in their culture” as much as they like – freedom of choice. However, they don’t launch terrorist attacks against them with the deliberate intention of killing innocent civilians. Furthermore, it’s a little rich to attempt to equate the hatred of Jews among Palestinians with the hatred of Palestinians among Jews when the democratically elected Israeli government obviously cares more about Palestinian civilians than the democratically elected Palestinian government.
“As I said before, this is a tactic I’ve been far more on the receiving end of.”
I don’t care what you’ve been on the receiving end and from whom; your characterization of me as a racist was completely false and uncalled for.
“And we’re back to the main point again. Is several hundred dead Palestinian civilians and a thousands of injured a fair trade-off for the kind of danger Israelis are facing from rocket attacks.”
Ask Hamas. The imbalance is a direct product of Israel’s inalienable need to defend itself and the deliberate use of Palestinians as human shields by Hamas. Since Israel cannot be blamed for having to defend itself yet Hamas can certainly be blamed for using civilians as human shields, Hamas is at the root of this problem. Hamas needs to be destroyed outright, or decimated to the point at which they have no option but to completely stamp out terrorist attacks against Israelis.
“How “prevalent” is this culture? Opinion polls or something? I think the Telegraph made it about 1% among British Muslims.”
A third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. These are the ones who were prepared to admit to a pollster that they support terrorism. This is Europe, in which Muslims have more rights and access to more opportunities and prosperity than they do anywhere else in the word (apart from maybe America and Australia). The figure rises to almost two thirds among those who are members of campus Islamic societies. By contrast, only 2% of non-Muslims agreed. We should of course expect those figures to be far higher still in Muslim countries in which this violent, oppressive, hateful culture is not tempered or kept in check by Western culture.
“Now guaranteeing no civilian casualties was never my suggestion.”
Yet to minimize civilian casualties further, they have to sacrifice more Israeli lives. Still no deal.
“You know, for Gazans to stop attacks on Israel they have to root out, fight and defeat the relatively well-armed terrorists. That’s pretty dangerous. For Israel to stop attacks on Gaza, it just has to stop attacking Gaza. And as I’ve shown several times, “rolling over and dying” stops more rocket attacks than “self-defence”.”
Israels’ attacks on Gaza are carried out in self defense against terrorists. There is no “he says she says” dynamic about it at all. If the rockets attacks stopped and Gaza ceased to be ruled by a terrorist organization, there would be no problem. Gazans could help matters considerably by refraining from voting for Hamas in the next elections. Also, since Gazans are effectively held hostage by terrorists, they have a responsibility to fight back against them. Rolling over and dying, as you put it, does not stop the rocket attacks. It just reduces them. This is not an acceptable conclusion, therefore physical force will be used until such a time as the rocket attacks do stop, as you well know.
“I agree, that is as stupid as any other spurious comparison to the Nazis, more so considering how bluntly and simplistically the comparisons are usually phrased. But, if killing civilians is exactly what Hamas wants, do you not think its just a bit of a strategic blunder to do it?”
No, since the popular opinion of other countries is not Israel’s primary concern. Stopping the rocket attacks is. International public relations are something they can afford to indulge in once the attacks stop. Of course, it would help if the international community supported Israels’ right to defend itself or even rose up together against the terrorist organization which uses Palestinian children as human shields.
“Of course it does. The fact that Israel uses conscripts should not affect the value of the Palestinians’ right to life.”
Whether Israel uses volunteers or conscripts, it doesn’t matter. It will still seek to minimize the loss of Israeli lives first and foremost.
“I would advise you in that case to have another look through the thread, count accusations of racism towards Palestinians by leftists and accusations of anti-Semitism by the B-BBC locals. You might be surprised at what is being thrown about like confetti.”
The inevitable ratio of leftists to non-leftists on B-BBC is such that any numerical comparison is meaningless. Furthermore, the accusation of antisemitism toward the anti-Israeli left is a fair one. When you have, for instance, leftists marching through the streets yelling abuse at Israel and expressing their solidarity with the Palestinians, when such people have never once in their lives organized or attended a march in solidarity with the Israeli victims of terrorism or against the Hamas scum who oppress Palestinians and use them as human shields or against any other form of Muslim oppression anywhere in the world, it’s pretty obvious that a “respect for human rights” is not their prime motivation. Their anger against Israel for defending itself – indeed the anger of both citizens and governments all over the world – is highly disproportionate and therefore it’s safe to say that a large part of their motivation is antisemitism, a scourge which has plagued the world for centuries. Since this accusation is based upon a reasonable assessment and comparison of treatment and motive, then yes, throw it around like confetti.
“There was every justification. Either you believe all humans have an equal right to life regardless, you believe that soldiers decision to risk their lives and take others’ means they are a more legitimate target, or you believe that some lives are worth less than others based solely on who they are. This may not be “racist” as such, if you claim Palestinians are not a race, but it is certainly morally comparable.”
It is nothing of the sort Alex. The role of a state is first and foremost to protect the rights of its own citizens. For instance, the role of the British military is first and foremost to protect British lives. Countries exist. Borders exist. Governments exist. The object of their concern is not unlimted. It is confined primarily to its own citizens. The role of German firefighters, for instance, is to save the lives of people within the borders of Germany, not the lives of the people within neigboring Poland. Does this make them “racist” or “bigoted” on any level? Hamas is fully responsible for the use of Palestinians as human shields, which is the reason why there will be civilian casualties when Israel defends itself.
“Now here we get into the tricky area of “jurisdiction”. Israel clearly has a lot of jurisdiction over Gaza – if not legal jurisdiction then complete control over its borders. The fact that Israel exercises overwhelming power over the Occupied Territories should mean it has a responsibility to protect their occupants in the same way as it does its full citizens. You seem to be arguing the opposite.”
If Israel has juristriction over Gaza then what is the point or the role of Hamas? Oh that’s right – to terrorize Palestinians, use them as human shields and launch terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Israel does not exercise “overwhelming power” over the “occupied” territories in the sense that it “governs” them. Its first responsibility is to protect the lives of the people it does govern. Furthermore, the “power” that Israel exercises over Gaza is an act of self defense as well – there would be no need for this if Gaza wasn’t governed by a terrorist organization which attacks Israel, or if Israel hadn’t been on the receiving end of suicide bombings against its citizens for years.
“And the fact that Gazans have a responsibility not to be hit by missiles does not mean that the IDF does not have a responsibility to stop attacking Gaza. Now whether you see it as a pie chart (because it says “Pie Chart” in the Communist Manifesto) or a bar graph does not diminish the fact that the responsibility of innocent bystanders is dwarfed by the responsibility of active participants”
Israel has no such responsibility to “stop attacking Gaza.” That’s because it’s a fully justifiable act of self defense. Pie charts, bar graphs – whatever. The responsibility of Gazans to protect themselves from Hamas is certainly not “dwarved” by the alleged “responsibility” of Israel to refrain from defending itself.
“It’s an analogy. I believe you started it.”
I made an appropriate anaology for the point under discussion, which was a general point about the nature of “responsibility.” I did not attempt in any way to equate Israel with an abusive husband. You’re not getting very far are you Alex? Again.
“So it is part of the moral justification, but not the entirety?”
Exactly as I said. In the absense of this factor, Israel would still be entirely justified.
“As have you mine. Though you seem to be getting much more frustrated.”
I’ve refuted all of them, in turn, thoroughly. I’ve noticed for example that my responses to you contain your responses in italics in their entirety – which I respond to in full – while your reproduction of and subsequent response to my points are not complete.
“It’s amazing how far you can get in the world without any sense of self-awareness.”
I’m glad you’re beginning to realize this.
“In that case, with each civilian area it hides in, it is not certain that Israel will hit those civilians. Therefore, by hiding among them, it is not guaranteeing their deaths, only risking them. On the other hand there is a direct, one-to-one correlation between what Israel shoots at and what is shot at by Israel.”
Hamas guarantees the deaths of Palestinians by hiding among them and then launching attacks against Israeli civilians to which Israel must respond. It does this with the full intent that Palestinian civilians are killed. Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties but it is impossible because Hamas hides among them. Your point ” there is a direct, one-to-one correlation between what Israel shoots at and what is shot at by Israel” is moot, like saying “there is a direct one-to-one correlation between what Tom puts into his mouth and what is put into his mouth by Tom.” It just doesn’t affect the moral dynamics of the situation at all. Israel does its best to avoid civilian casualties short of refraining to defend itself; Hamas does its best to ensure civilian casualties for all the reasons mentioned before. Your attempt to shift the blame from Hamas to Israel by saying that Hamas “only risks” civilian lives is nothing short of disgraceful.
“Israel’s efforts to clear civilians out are irrelevant. It may reduce the number of human shields, but the fact that Israel then shoots at the remainder means it makes no difference.”
Israel’s efforts to clear civilians out are not irrelevant. You say it “makes no difference” right after conceding that it reduces the number of human shields. Was your face straight when you wrote that? Would you rather Israel didn’t make any attempt to warn civilians? Of course it makes a difference. Israel would much prefer that there were no human shields at all, not one. Hamas prefers that there are and takes deliberate measures to ensure this. You’re still having absolutely no success in changing the moral dynamics of the situation.
“As long as Israel kills only the Palestinian civilians who support Hamas, yeah, you’ve almost got a point. All you need now is some beans to practice counting so you can develop a sense of proportion.”
Since it is not the intention of Israel to kill Palestinian civilians and since it has no way whatsoever of distinguising between supporters and non-supporters of Hamas anyway – and since it is you who is the bean counter, not I – then this is, once again, a thoroughly impotent argument.
“This is where we differ you see. I, being a moral bean-counter, see this hierarchy as a multiplier, and that Israel should, after the ratio of people at risk, start valuing large numbers of Gazan civilians over small numbers of Israelis. Ideally, of course, this ratio should be 1:1, but I accept this does not work in practice. You, however, having an amoral lack of sense of proportion, see these tiers as utter absolutes, and any number of those further down the hierarchy are a worthy sacrifice for one a level above it.”
The bean counting does not come into it at all. There is no way in the world that Israel is going to accept the deaths of its civilians in an attempt to “balance the books.” I don’t see my sense of proportion as being immoral at all, it’s just that it doesn’t come into this argument. The moral dynamics of the situation – in which Israel’s first and foremost concern is with the protection of its own citizens – do not change.
“The fact that Hamas’ morals and interests are not yours, or mine for that matter, is irrelevant. They have something driving them. They have objectives, and therefore, they have things they can be pushed to compromise over and incentives to respect this compromise. And, as I pointed out, it has worked in the past.”
There you go again with the appeal to moral relativism. There is no “compromise.” The goal has to be, without compromise, the end of terrorist attacks against Israel. Since they have never stopped entirely, then it has not “worked in the past.” If it had worked, there would be no more attacks.
“Not a desirable end goal, no. But we’re not just concerned with desirable end goals. We also want achievable goals in the short and medium term. Reducing rocket attacks to a minimum while working towards a sustainable agreement could actually end rocket attacks completely. Blowing up civilians hasn’t done it yet.”
As long as Palestinian terrorists have the intent and the will to fire rockets into Israel, there can be no “agreement.” If a “sustainable agreement” was what Hamas wanted then the rocket attacks would have stopped long, long ago. Since Hamas has no intention of completely stopping terrorist attacks and since they betray their ideological and moral premises every day by using children as human shields, then ultimately the only lasting solution is going to be an end to Hamas. For this reason I would fully support the complete destruction of Hamas and occupation of Gaza by Israel until such time as a non-terrorist government of Gaza can be constructed.
“Again, this is rather academic. But I reckon if you have a look at history or the news, there’s an awfully large proportion of the human population you’d have to disqualify.”
It is not “rather academic” in the slightest, nor do an “awfully large proportion of the human population” strap bombs to themselves or willingly use children as human shields. Those who do engage in such behavior are not human, regardless of the proportion of the human population they are.
“Of course not, but it is absurd to claim that because Hamas collaborated on one thing that they are definitely behind another, any more than Germany and England were on the same side in WWII because they had allied against Napoleon.”
Since nobody was alive and active in WWII who was alive and active in Napoleon’s time, that’s another completely stupid point.
“And the civilian cost of this doesn’t bother you at all? Both Israeli and Palestinian? Or is victory higher up your list of priorities than peace?”
Yes the civilian cost bothers me. It makes me angry against the primary agents of this civilian cost – Hamas. There will be no peace as long as Hamas exist.
“Avoiding the issue a little, aren’t we?”
Not at all.
“Not such reliable numbers, though, are they? And your “majority” is still under 50%.”
A majority of Palestinians favor violence over talks. Therefore, a majority of Palestinians are part of the problem.
“How many Israelis hold similar opinions? Does that mean it’s ok to shoot rockets at Sderot? Interestingly enough, it also says 66% favour a two-state solution.”
How many Israelis favor the use of terrorist attacks intended to kill civilians? Sure, they may favor the use of force against Hamas in self defense but this is not the same as favoring the use of indiscriminate violence which deliberately targets civilians. 66% favor a “two state solution” but most support violence against civilians. Sorry Alex, one does not cancel out the other.
“My point is that Israeli civilians are not under threat from these attacks. Are IDF troops therefore within their rights to write off civilians in the interest of preventing legitimate attacks on uniformed soldiers?”
Israeli civilians are not under threat from attacks against IDF troops who are in the process of protecting Israelis from attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists, sure. Israeli troops, however, will of course protect their own lives in the course of carrying out their operations. Again, the responsibility of the deaths of civilians used as human shields as Israeli troops carry out the joint goal of protecting both their own lives and the lives of Israeli civilians, falls at the feet of Hamas. Once again, you’re twisting yourself into logical pretzels (ha! I knew Steely Dan had to come into it somewhere) in a vain attempt to ignore the right of Israel to both defend its own citizens and its own soldiers.
“Yeah, LiveJournal was a rubbish choice really.”
I’m pretty sure there must be an option somewhere to configure a comment link in the place you’d like it. Otherwise, I would suggest WordPress. I use it for my own business-related blog and it’s excellent.
“You have to click on the link saying “comment”.”
There is no link which says “comment” on the main page of the blog.
“I would, but shameless self-promotion feels so embarrassing.”
It’s all part of the business of life, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.
Jason:
“I’ve refuted all of them, in turn, thoroughly. I’ve noticed for example that my responses to you contain your responses in italics in their entirety – which I respond to in full – while your reproduction of and subsequent response to my points are not complete.”
You’ve disagreed with most of them, yes, usually by reiterating the same thing. I have refuted a lot of your posts in the same way and often with more detail or a different explanation, but yes, when things have tailed off into pointless repetition or abuse, I’ve not bothered with them. From this post on, I will refute similar arguments in batches to avoid repetition and maybe, eventually get the whole thing down to one post each at a time.
“Not a bit of it! I haven’t seen any evidence at all that you have fully understood a single argument throughout this thread.”
“Face it Alex, you haven’t learned a thing.”
Oh, I’ve understood and learned a great deal. You just didn’t understand any of my posts. That’s the only reason we disagree on anything. Because you don’t understand.
“That isn’t sad in the slightest.”
Odd, as you really seemed to think I’d be hurt by Israel not caring about my opinion.
“Israelis can hate and/or dehumanize Palestinians “in their culture” as much as they like – freedom of choice. However, they don’t launch terrorist attacks against them with the deliberate intention of killing innocent civilians.”
It has been blowing them up quite a lot though, hasn’t it?
“Furthermore, it’s a little rich to attempt to equate the hatred of Jews among Palestinians with the hatred of Palestinians among Jews when the democratically elected Israeli government obviously cares more about Palestinian civilians than the democratically elected Palestinian government.”
I know. The Palestinians’ murderous, terroristic hatred of Jews has killed far fewer people than Israel’s magnanimous restraint towards Gazans.
“Israeli civilians are not under threat from attacks against IDF troops who are in the process of protecting Israelis from attacks carried out by Palestinian terrorists, sure. Israeli troops, however, will of course protect their own lives in the course of carrying out their operations.”
“It is nothing of the sort Alex. The role of a state is first and foremost to protect the rights of its own citizens. For instance, the role of the British military is first and foremost to protect British lives. Countries exist. Borders exist. Governments exist. The object of their concern is not unlimted. It is confined primarily to its own citizens. The role of German firefighters, for instance, is to save the lives of people within the borders of Germany, not the lives of the people within neigboring Poland. Does this make them “racist” or “bigoted” on any level? Hamas is fully responsible for the use of Palestinians as human shields, which is the reason why there will be civilian casualties when Israel defends itself.”
No, the role of a state is first and foremost to follow the law. This generally involves protection of civilians.
“I don’t care what you’ve been on the receiving end and from whom; your characterization of me as a racist was completely false and uncalled for.”
You seem to value Arab lives a lot less than Jewish ones. And you seem to think people should forfeit their inalienable right to life based on the actions of their countrymen. And your apologies for killing non-combatants in order to protect soldiers based on who they are is also fairly dubious.
“The inevitable ratio of leftists to non-leftists on B-BBC is such that any numerical comparison is meaningless. Furthermore, the accusation of antisemitism toward the anti-Israeli left is a fair one. When you have, for instance, leftists marching through the streets yelling abuse at Israel and expressing their solidarity with the Palestinians, when such people have never once in their lives organized or attended a march in solidarity with the Israeli victims of terrorism or against the Hamas scum who oppress Palestinians and use them as human shields or against any other form of Muslim oppression anywhere in the world, it’s pretty obvious that a “respect for human rights” is not their prime motivation.”
Again, some inadvertent revelations there. Leaving aside the distinction of criticising a government’s actions and hating its people, since when is expressing solidarity with one people expressing hostility to another? Would you argue that the people concerned over Darfur are anti-Arab or anti-Muslim because they didn’t care about the Lord’s Resistance Army? Besides, if you protest about human rights, it makes sense pick the side who is abusing them on the largest scale and with most impunity.
“Their anger against Israel for defending itself – indeed the anger of both citizens and governments all over the world – is highly disproportionate and therefore it’s safe to say that a large part of their motivation is antisemitism, a scourge which has plagued the world for centuries. Since this accusation is based upon a reasonable assessment and comparison of treatment and motive, then yes, throw it around like confetti.”
Rubbish. The anger over Zimbabwe, China and the Sudan is also disproportionate, massive human rights abuses have also been ignored in Laos, Uganda, Uzbekistan and, until recently, Burma and the Congo. Israel is in the news far more often because it is in the news far more often, and people want to be updated on stories that they already know about. The fact that debate and criticism has reached such a high level is for two reasons. Firstly, Western leftists feel more comfortable criticising Israel because we see Israel as one of our own, as its people live like us and fight like us (not to mention using our countries’ money and weapons). The second is that, I imagine for the same reasons, the Right in the West is willing to defend Israel’s actions far further than it would other countries doing similarly, which obviously fans the flames a lot.
“A third of British Muslim students believe killing in the name of Islam can be justified, according to a poll. These are the ones who were prepared to admit to a pollster that they support terrorism. This is Europe, in which Muslims have more rights and access to more opportunities and prosperity than they do anywhere else in the word (apart from maybe America and Australia). The figure rises to almost two thirds among those who are members of campus Islamic societies. By contrast, only 2% of non-Muslims agreed. We should of course expect those figures to be far higher still in Muslim countries in which this violent, oppressive, hateful culture is not tempered or kept in check by Western culture.”
What do you mean “killing”? Unless you’re a pacifist, you believe killing in the name of your beliefs is justifiable. Unless they said “killing civilians”, it is nowhere near terrorism, and even then, it is no more radical than your beliefs. And I’m slightly dubious about the 2% of non-Muslims. What did they agree with? Because if it was “Is killing in the name of Islam justifiable?”, well, 2% is surprisingly high for non-believers. If it was “is killing for your beliefs/religion/convictions justifiable?”, then I honestly don’t believe the statistic.
“Israels’ attacks on Gaza are carried out in self defense against terrorists. There is no “he says she says” dynamic about it at all. If the rockets attacks stopped and Gaza ceased to be ruled by a terrorist organization, there would be no problem. Gazans could help matters considerably by refraining from voting for Hamas in the next elections. Also, since Gazans are effectively held hostage by terrorists, they have a responsibility to fight back against them.”
“What if the rockets stopped” is pure whimsy. There is no realistic way the Palestinians can stop minorities of extremists firing rockets, any more than the police can ever hope to stop bank robberies. Israel can, however, simply stop its incursions. They may not be obliged to in your opinion, but, unlike the Palestinians, it is a physical possibility.
“Rolling over and dying, as you put it, does not stop the rocket attacks. It just reduces them. This is not an acceptable conclusion, therefore physical force will be used until such a time as the rocket attacks do stop, as you well know.”
To be honest, if the choice was between rolling over and dying a little, and fighting back and dying a lot, I’d be tempted to roll over and die. The Israeli hawks, just like Hamas, clearly value victory over peace, and victors’ pride over the safety of their own citizens.
“No, since the popular opinion of other countries is not Israel’s primary concern. Stopping the rocket attacks is. International public relations are something they can afford to indulge in once the attacks stop. Of course, it would help if the international community supported Israels’ right to defend itself or even rose up together against the terrorist organization which uses Palestinian children as human shields.”
When you say “supported Israel’s right to defend itself”, do you mean just “support” or “support unconditionally”? As I have said before, there is a world of difference, and the fundamental distinction is not whether, but how Israel has the right to defend itself. It’s all very well to say Hamas should avoid densely-populated civilian areas, or that locals should leave areas from which Hamas is firing rockets, but in a place like Gaza this is basically impossible. And do you have a proposed strategy for how an unarmed population suffering from malnutrition and petrol shortages might go about “rising up” against an armed militia?
“If Israel has juristriction over Gaza then what is the point or the role of Hamas? Oh that’s right – to terrorize Palestinians, use them as human shields and launch terrorist attacks against Israeli citizens. Israel does not exercise “overwhelming power” over the “occupied” territories in the sense that it “governs” them. Its first responsibility is to protect the lives of the people it does govern. Furthermore, the “power” that Israel exercises over Gaza is an act of self defense as well – there would be no need for this if Gaza wasn’t governed by a terrorist organization which attacks Israel, or if Israel hadn’t been on the receiving end of suicide bombings against its citizens for years.”
A negotiation partner with Israel, and a large amount of internal legislation. Palestine is not an internationally recognised state, not does it have control of its own borders or any opportunity to acquire it. Israel may not have total jurisdiction, or may have signed over some powers to the PLO, but it still wields a large amount of direct political power without a shred of accountability to the Palestinian people. You know most Jewish ghettos were largely self-governing? The fact that Gaza and the West Bank are even partially controlled by Israel but that the inhabitants have fewer rights than Israelis would be unacceptable even if Israel wasn’t killing them. Israel valuing the lives of one set of people within borders it controls far less than those of another is frankly appalling.
“I made an appropriate anaology for the point under discussion, which was a general point about the nature of “responsibility.” I did not attempt in any way to equate Israel with an abusive husband. You’re not getting very far are you Alex? Again.”
You’re doing it again. You make analogies tailor-made so I have no choice but to agree with you on them (and just in case, you tell me the answer in no uncertain terms), and then castigate me for doing the same. At least my self-serving analogies have the courtesy to pretend to be real questions.
“Exactly as I said. In the absense of this factor, Israel would still be entirely justified.”
Does this mean, in my finicky bean-counting scenarios, that we can disregard Israeli casualties that would be prevented by deterring Hamas?
“– It’s amazing how far you can get in the world without any sense of self-awareness.”
– I’m glad you’re beginning to realize this.”
I couldn’t have put it better myself
“It does this with the full intent that Palestinian civilians are killed. Israel goes to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties but it is impossible because Hamas hides among them. Your point ” there is a direct, one-to-one correlation between what Israel shoots at and what is shot at by Israel” is moot, like saying “there is a direct one-to-one correlation between what Tom puts into his mouth and what is put into his mouth by Tom.” It just doesn’t affect the moral dynamics of the situation at all. Israel does its best to avoid civilian casualties short of refraining to defend itself; Hamas does its best to ensure civilian casualties for all the reasons mentioned before.”
“Hamas guarantees the deaths of Palestinians by hiding among them and then launching attacks against Israeli civilians to which Israel must respond.”
This is only true if Israel responds to all attacks and shoots all the Hamas fighters. There are still Hamas fighters, therefore this is clearly not the case. As I said before, it is not “guaranteed” in this case as there is still a very good chance Israel will not hit that particular target. It’s not a case of moralising, it’s simple probability.
“Your attempt to shift the blame from Hamas to Israel by saying that Hamas “only risks” civilian lives is nothing short of disgraceful.”
And your attempt to exhonerate one conscious actor entirely would be irrational enough, but you seem to be trying to exhonerate the one who actually pulls the trigger and therefore has the final say over the outcome of the situation. Look, you’re doing it again:
“Yes the civilian cost bothers me. It makes me angry against the primary agents of this civilian cost – Hamas. There will be no peace as long as Hamas exist.”
“Again, the responsibility of the deaths of civilians used as human shields as Israeli troops carry out the joint goal of protecting both their own lives and the lives of Israeli civilians, falls at the feet of Hamas.”
“Ask Hamas. The imbalance is a direct product of Israel’s inalienable need to defend itself and the deliberate use of Palestinians as human shields by Hamas. Since Israel cannot be blamed for having to defend itself yet Hamas can certainly be blamed for using civilians as human shields, Hamas is at the root of this problem. Hamas needs to be destroyed outright, or decimated to the point at which they have no option but to completely stamp out terrorist attacks against Israelis.”
I can honestly say I’ve never come across the phrase “inalienable need”. We’ve covered this exact same point ad nauseum, so I’ll just ask you what “inalienable need” actually means precisely. Is it like an inalienable right, which I would not class self-defence under as it is clearly trumped by the right to life, or is it like a pressing need?
“Israel’s efforts to clear civilians out are not irrelevant. You say it “makes no difference” right after conceding that it reduces the number of human shields. Was your face straight when you wrote that? Would you rather Israel didn’t make any attempt to warn civilians? Of course it makes a difference. Israel would much prefer that there were no human shields at all, not one. Hamas prefers that there are and takes deliberate measures to ensure this. You’re still having absolutely no success in changing the moral dynamics of the situation.”
It makes no difference to the fact that Israel is willing to kill civilians in pursuit of its objectives. I can find quite a few estimates, all in the hundreds, of how many civilians Israel was willing to write off. Any ideas how many Israel managed to save?
“Yet to minimize civilian casualties further, they have to sacrifice more Israeli lives. Still no deal.”
“Whether Israel uses volunteers or conscripts, it doesn’t matter. It will still seek to minimize the loss of Israeli lives first and foremost.”
“There you go again with the appeal to moral relativism. There is no “compromise.” The goal has to be, without compromise, the end of terrorist attacks against Israel. Since they have never stopped entirely, then it has not “worked in the past.” If it had worked, there would be no more attacks.”
“I don’t see my sense of proportion as being immoral at all, it’s just that it doesn’t come into this argument. The moral dynamics of the situation – in which Israel’s first and foremost concern is with the protection of its own citizens – do not change.”
“Since it is not the intention of Israel to kill Palestinian civilians and since it has no way whatsoever of distinguising between supporters and non-supporters of Hamas anyway – and since it is you who is the bean counter, not I – then this is, once again, a thoroughly impotent argument.”
In all of these statements, you seem to be arguing that Israel should completely secure the safety of Israelis before it thinks for a second about protecting (or should I say) sparing Palestinians. The fact a total end to attacks on Israelis trumps even the slightest concern for Palestinian welfare on your list of priorities is, again. Can I assume, in that case, that if, in order to prevent one Qassam attack, Israel had to kill everyone in Gaza, that like David you would consider that justified?
“The bean counting does not come into it at all. There is no way in the world that Israel is going to accept the deaths of its civilians in an attempt to “balance the books.””
Israel accepts the deaths of its civilians every day. Israelis die in road accidents, and nobody bombs Toyota factories. They die of heart disease and lung cancer and nobody bombs steakhouses and tobacconists. But as soon as their deaths are caused by lunatics with rocket launchers, deaths become unacceptable and anyone who happens to live near said lunatics forfeits the right to life. Why is Israel willing to let its citizens die to protect the rights to smoke, drive and eat fatty food but not to protect Palestinians’ right to live?
“As long as Palestinian terrorists have the intent and the will to fire rockets into Israel, there can be no “agreement.” If a “sustainable agreement” was what Hamas wanted then the rocket attacks would have stopped long, long ago. Since Hamas has no intention of completely stopping terrorist attacks and since they betray their ideological and moral premises every day by using children as human shields, then ultimately the only lasting solution is going to be an end to Hamas. For this reason I would fully support the complete destruction of Hamas and occupation of Gaza by Israel until such time as a non-terrorist government of Gaza can be constructed.”
Again, a funny choice of words. I always thought governments were “elected” rather than “constructed”. Or did Palestininians maybe forfeit the right to democratic representaion by exercising it?
“It is not “rather academic” in the slightest, nor do an “awfully large proportion of the human population” strap bombs to themselves or willingly use children as human shields. Those who do engage in such behavior are not human, regardless of the proportion of the human population they are.”
Quite a large proportion of the human population kill, abuse and exploit each other, including children, in rather nasty ways. You seem to be defining inhumanity fairly narrowly to fit it neatly round Hamas.
“Since nobody was alive and active in WWII who was alive and active in Napoleon’s time, that’s another completely stupid point.”
Yes, it would be completely stupid provided no political events happened whatsoever between Hamas and Islamic Jihad collaborating and Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighting. I’m not sure about this one. Did anything political at all happen anywhere?
“Not at all.”
Good to hear it. So does the phrase “Being ‘nicer to Palestinians’ would only be possible if Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel outright. Then Israel could be as nice to Palestinians as they wanted.” not sound a tiny bit like holding the entire population responsible for the actions of a minority?
“A majority of Palestinians favor violence over talks. Therefore, a majority of Palestinians are part of the problem.”
“How many Israelis favor the use of terrorist attacks intended to kill civilians? Sure, they may favor the use of force against Hamas in self defense but this is not the same as favoring the use of indiscriminate violence which deliberately targets civilians.”
I think the levels of support in Israel for Operation Cast Lead were in the nineties. That’s an awful lot of Israelis who think killing between 550 and 940 Palestinian civilians is justified. Sure, it may not be “terrorism” by your definition, but it’s definitely killing innocent people to further your political objectives, it definitely “targeted” civilians insofar as it shot at them expecting to hit them, and it did rather seem that intimidation of the civilian population was involved on some level.
“66% favor a “two state solution” but most support violence against civilians. Sorry Alex, one does not cancel out the other.”
True. It’s just a handy statistic, as it proves the overwhelming majority of Palestinians do not reject Israel’s right to exist. Which is worth knowing.
“Once again, you’re twisting yourself into logical pretzels (ha! I knew Steely Dan had to come into it somewhere) in a vain attempt to ignore the right of Israel to both defend its own citizens and its own soldiers.”
I had a feeling that pretzel gag wasn’t original. It’s a pity, as I don’t really know much Steely Dan and would eventually have let you have the benefit of the doubt and given you credit for it.
“I’m pretty sure there must be an option somewhere to configure a comment link in the place you’d like it. Otherwise, I would suggest WordPress. I use it for my own business-related blog and it’s excellent.”
I contribute to a site on WordPress. It’s been embarrassingly unreliable in the past.
“There is no link which says “comment” on the main page of the blog.”
True. It actually says “speak” because LiveJournal, I’ve discovered, is a pretentious twat.
“It’s all part of the business of life, I wouldn’t worry too much about it.”
I suppose getting over the anti-shameless-plug-reflex is just another of these rites of passage.
Alex | Homepage | 25.01.09 – 6:54 pm
Top of that post re: Sue
I didn’t realise this thread was still there. I had forgotten all about it what with Bilal an’ all.
An excellent point, expressed clearly and concisely
Thank you Alex, compliment accepted most graciously.
And by the same token, having one representative who rather liked it too does not make Palestinians Nazis.
Yes, the British Royals, the Grand Mufti and the loyal citizens of each, all much of a muchness. The token is just the same. You win I must be a Nazi after all.
Next:
Depends what they did with the olive picker.(What is an olive picker?)
Your definition of “forced” is even stranger than Jason’s
Thank you Alex, another compliment accepted most graciously! Can we stop now?
http://www.gotmartini.com/images/OliveImages/OlivePick1.jpg
It’s a special little device for people who like olives but consider common or garden forks beneath them.
Test
My apologies for not addressing your replies sooner, Alex. The workers on the roof of my building severed the cable and I had no internet for 2 weeks, then of course I completely forgot about it until I saw the link to this thread in my bookmarks.
Let’s go then, shall we….
“You’ve disagreed with most of them, yes, usually by reiterating the same thing. I have refuted a lot of your posts in the same way and often with more detail or a different explanation, but yes, when things have tailed off into pointless repetition or abuse, I’ve not bothered with them. From this post on, I will refute similar arguments in batches to avoid repetition and maybe, eventually get the whole thing down to one post each at a time.
I’ve found myself repeating things over and over because you just didn’t address them and simply restated the same arguments I refuted without offering your own refutation of my refutation. In contrast, I’ve addressed every single one of your points in turn, methodically.
“Oh, I’ve understood and learned a great deal. You just didn’t understand any of my posts. That’s the only reason we disagree on anything. Because you don’t understand.”
You’re absolutely wrong Alex, I’ve understood everything you said and explained to you in depth why I think you are wrong. I know exactly where you’re coming from and why that mindset is so flawed.
“Odd, as you really seemed to think I’d be hurt by Israel not caring about my opinion.”
I never said, hinted at or insinuated anything of the sort. I just pointed out that at the end of the day, Israel is well aware of your set of opinions, and doesn’t care. That’s because it has a duty to protect its own citizens which goes well above and beyond any need to avoid offending or angering people like you.
“It has been blowing them up quite a lot though, hasn’t it?”
Completely unintentionally, in self defense. For all the reasons mentioned above. Wheras the express goal of Palestinian terrorists is to blow up innocent women and children.
“I know. The Palestinians’ murderous, terroristic hatred of Jews has killed far fewer people than Israel’s magnanimous restraint towards Gazans.”
The deaths of those Palestinians are a direct result of the actions of Palestinian terrorists, from their attacks on Israel and their deliberate use of civilians as human shields. The fact that more Palestinians have died than Israelis does not alter the moral dynamic or the justification of Israel’s actions whatsoever.
“No, the role of a state is first and foremost to follow the law. This generally involves protection of civilians.”
Absolutely wrong. The very purpose of any just, rational state is to protect the rights of its citizens – which means protecting their right to live first and foremost.
“You seem to value Arab lives a lot less than Jewish ones. And you seem to think people should forfeit their inalienable right to life based on the actions of their countrymen. And your apologies for killing non-combatants in order to protect soldiers based on who they are is also fairly dubious.”
That’s not true at all and I resent the accusation. If Palestine was instead comprised of a rogue band of Jews who had set up a rival country and were systematically pounding Israelis with rockets, I would expect and defend exactly the same response. Additionally, I do not “seem to think” that people should forfeit their inalienable right to life based on the actions of their countrymen. They should do everything they can to defend that right to life. In the case of Palestinians, that “everything” should be….doing everything they can to rid themselves of the terrorist scum who bring such pain and misery down upon them. I also make no apologies for stating that Israel cares about the lives of its soliders as much as the lives of its civilians and has just as much duty to protect them. There is nothing “dubious” about it at all.
“Again, some inadvertent revelations there. Leaving aside the distinction of criticising a government’s actions and hating its people, since when is expressing solidarity with one people expressing hostility to another?”
When that “solidarity” involves denouncing the right of the “other” people to defend themselves.
“Would you argue that the people concerned over Darfur are anti-Arab or anti-Muslim because they didn’t care about the Lord’s Resistance Army?”
The Lord’s Resistance Army is a terrorist organization, Alex.
“Besides, if you protest about human rights, it makes sense pick the side who is abusing them on the largest scale and with most impunity.”
Which is why someone who cares about human rights should direct their anger at Hamas. They are responsible for the deaths of Palestinians, after all. They are the ones abusing human rights.
“Rubbish. The anger over Zimbabwe, China and the Sudan is also disproportionate, massive human rights abuses have also been ignored in Laos, Uganda, Uzbekistan and, until recently, Burma and the Congo. Israel is in the news far more often because it is in the news far more often, and people want to be updated on stories that they already know about.”
Oh so it’s all down to the agenda of news broadcasters then is it? Your concern about world events should match the agenda of news editors? The point is, Israel is simply defending itself from terrorism and as such the anger against it is not only disproportionate, it’s also unjust to the core.
“The fact that debate and criticism has reached such a high level is for two reasons. Firstly, Western leftists feel more comfortable criticising Israel because we see Israel as one of our own, as its people live like us and fight like us (not to mention using our countries’ money and weapons).”
Poppycock. This is nothing more than an impotent rationalization. The lengths that some people go to in order to defend and excuse antisemitism is ridiculous. Furthermore, what you’re suggesting is, to a large extent, that Western leftists are racist, since they expect a higher standard of behavior from people who “look like them.” The behavior of people who don’t look like them, like Palestinians, is not to be judged to the same degree because they “can’t help it.” They’re just stone age Arabs, after all, eh? In fact there is some truth to this idea.
“The second is that, I imagine for the same reasons, the Right in the West is willing to defend Israel’s actions far further than it would other countries doing similarly, which obviously fans the flames a lot.”
Give me an example of the “right” refusing to defend the actions of another democratic country in their defense against terrorists. Also, what you are suggesting that a motive for the leftist protests against Israel is that they see it as a way to attack the right by proxy. Charming! It’s all coming out now. Again, I think there is some truth in this. To conclude: the left’s attacks on Israel are a combination of antisemitism, a low opinion of Arab morality and a spiteful hatred of the right.
“What do you mean “killing”? Unless you’re a pacifist, you believe killing in the name of your beliefs is justifiable. Unless they said “killing civilians”, it is nowhere near terrorism, and even then, it is no more radical than your beliefs. “
Alex, you’re being downright stupid. There is nothing morally similar whatsoever between killing reluctantly in self defense and killing intently in the name of religion. You’re trying to claim that the defense of life against terrorism is simply another “belief” no more valid than the “belief” that infidels should die in order to protect the religion. In short, you’re claiming that there’s little difference between the right to kill to defend your life and right to kill to defend your religion. This is just getting ridiculous now.
“And I’m slightly dubious about the 2% of non-Muslims. What did they agree with? Because if it was “Is killing in the name of Islam justifiable?”, well, 2% is surprisingly high for non-believers. If it was “is killing for your beliefs/religion/convictions justifiable?”, then I honestly don’t believe the statistic.”
Why? Because you find it hard to believe that non-Muslims would agree with killing in the name of religion, while you have no problem ascribing the same opinion to Muslims. Use your common sense. The question was “is it acceptable to kill in the name of religion.” Muslims are more likely by far than anyone else to agree with this view.
“”What if the rockets stopped” is pure whimsy. There is no realistic way the Palestinians can stop minorities of extremists firing rockets, any more than the police can ever hope to stop bank robberies.”
Nonsense. They could for example fully support the efforts of Israel in stopping weapons getting into the hands of these “extremists” – knowing fine well that the only way their civilians are going to lead peaceful, prosperous lives is if Israel has no further reason to defend itself. Besides which, these “extremists” are not only Hamas themselves but also groups with ties to Hamas. There is a sphere of influence and support. Please also stop trying to equate regular crimes with terrorism. The purpose and intent of bank robberies is not an ongoing ideological war which deliberately targets innocent civilians.
“Israel can, however, simply stop its incursions. They may not be obliged to in your opinion, but, unlike the Palestinians, it is a physical possibility.”
Israel cannot just “stop its incursions” – they happen for a reason, not just to piss off extremists. The bottom line is that Arab terrorists have no intention whatsoever of living in peace with their Jewish neighbors. Their stated goal – stated by Islamists across the Middle East – is the removal of Jews from the land of Israel. The destruction of Israel. The goal of Israel, either stated or implied, is NOT the destruction of Muslims, it is to live in peace and prosperity. There is no moral symmetry about it whatsoever.
“To be honest, if the choice was between rolling over and dying a little, and fighting back and dying a lot, I’d be tempted to roll over and die. The Israeli hawks, just like Hamas, clearly value victory over peace, and victors’ pride over the safety of their own citizens.”
You would be tempted to roll over and die – but the Israelis, rightly, would not. They see value in fighting now so that they can stop the attacks entirely at some point, even if it doesn’t happen right away. There is NO acceptable level of rocket firing which Israel is going to tolerate and nor should it. The “Israeli hawks” value victory AND peace. Peace IS their victory. Besides which, the Israeli government is not acting on the agenda of “hawks,” it’s a democratically elected government acting on the agenda of the safety of its own citizens and their right to live in peace.
“When you say “supported Israel’s right to defend itself”, do you mean just “support” or “support unconditionally”? As I have said before, there is a world of difference, and the fundamental distinction is not whether, but how Israel has the right to defend itself.”
Diplomacy will not stop the rocket attacks. Diplomacy will not curtail Islamic extremism. Not for Israel or for anyone else. Physical force is the only way to stop these attacks. If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians and their intent was to kill as many as possible, then no, the international community should not support them. But their intent is to kill Hamas and to achieve that goal while making a great effort to avoid civilian casualties – which is hard, obviously, since Hamas deliberately uses its civilians as human shields. The international communitiy should support Israel in the aforementioned goals and it should unconditionally denounce Hamas’ deliberate attacks on civilians and their use of civilians as human shields.
“It’s all very well to say Hamas should avoid densely-populated civilian areas, or that locals should leave areas from which Hamas is firing rockets, but in a place like Gaza this is basically impossible.”
How so? Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason why Hamas situates its terrorists and weapons in civilian areas is because there is literally no other physical area for them to be? You’re officially stupid – and a Hamas apologist.
“And do you have a proposed strategy for how an unarmed population suffering from malnutrition and petrol shortages might go about “rising up” against an armed militia?”
Not voting for them would help. So would getting themselves out of the way and letting Israel destroy them.
“A negotiation partner with Israel, and a large amount of internal legislation. Palestine is not an internationally recognised state, not does it have control of its own borders or any opportunity to acquire it. Israel may not have total jurisdiction, or may have signed over some powers to the PLO, but it still wields a large amount of direct political power without a shred of accountability to the Palestinian people. You know most Jewish ghettos were largely self-governing? The fact that Gaza and the West Bank are even partially controlled by Israel but that the inhabitants have fewer rights than Israelis would be unacceptable even if Israel wasn’t killing them. Israel valuing the lives of one set of people within borders it controls far less than those of another is frankly appalling.”
Don’t be so goddamed stupid Alex. You know as well as I do that the reason why Palestinians have “fewer rights” than Israelis is a) because they live under the oppression of Hamas and b) because Israel has to take steps to stop the flow of Palestinian terrorists into Israel. The blame for the living conditions of Palestinians lies squarely with the terrorists. Should Britain be chastized for valuing the lives of Brits more than the lives of Germans during the Second World War? Should any country be chastized for protecting the rights of and providing services to the people within its own borders and not making the same effort for the people of the rest of the world? Otherwise, what is even the point of a national border and a national state?
“You’re doing it again. You make analogies tailor-made so I have no choice but to agree with you on them (and just in case, you tell me the answer in no uncertain terms), and then castigate me for doing the same. At least my self-serving analogies have the courtesy to pretend to be real questions.”
No Alex, I make analogies which are suited to and relevant to the point I am making – you make them without any relevance or resemblence to the subject. Once again – I did not attempt in any way to equate Israel with an abusive husband.
“Does this mean, in my finicky bean-counting scenarios, that we can disregard Israeli casualties that would be prevented by deterring Hamas?”
Not at all.
“I couldn’t have put it better myself”
Well that one went right over your head, didn’t it!
“This is only true if Israel responds to all attacks and shoots all the Hamas fighters. There are still Hamas fighters, therefore this is clearly not the case. As I said before, it is not “guaranteed” in this case as there is still a very good chance Israel will not hit that particular target. It’s not a case of moralising, it’s simple probability.”
Poppycock. It is pretty much guaranteed that if a terrorist uses human shields and then forces a country to defend itself against their attacks, then some of those human shields will be killed. Also, the fact that “there are still Hamas fighters” doesn’t come into it at all. It simply means that Israel was not successful in killing every Hamas fighter. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the right to act toward that goal.
“And your attempt to exhonerate one conscious actor entirely would be irrational enough, but you seem to be trying to exhonerate the one who actually pulls the trigger and therefore has the final say over the outcome of the situation. Look, you’re doing it again:”
We’ve been over the whole issue of “intent” a million times before and I stand by everything I’ve said. The fact that Israel pulls the trigger in self defense does not mean that the ultimate moral responsibility for the deaths of Palestinian civilians lies at their feet. The responsibility lies entirely with Hamas. There is nothing irrational about this whatsoever.
“I can honestly say I’ve never come across the phrase “inalienable need”. We’ve covered this exact same point ad nauseum, so I’ll just ask you what “inalienable need” actually means precisely. Is it like an inalienable right, which I would not class self-defence under as it is clearly trumped by the right to life, or is it like a pressing need?”
Don’t be a big baby. Go look up the word “inalienable” and then apply it to the word “need.” Israel has an inalienable need to defend itself just as I have an inalienable need to eat. The word “right” applies in both cases, too.
“It makes no difference to the fact that Israel is willing to kill civilians in pursuit of its objectives. I can find quite a few estimates, all in the hundreds, of how many civilians Israel was willing to write off. Any ideas how many Israel managed to save?”
Israel is reluctantly willing to kill civilians in self defense, yes. The reason it is forced into that decision is because Hamas uses those civilians as human shields and for no other reason. The fact that there are no figures available which show how many civilians Israel saved in its efforts to save civilians does not mean that that figure does not exist.
“In all of these statements, you seem to be arguing that Israel should completely secure the safety of Israelis before it thinks for a second about protecting (or should I say) sparing Palestinians.”
I may “seem to be arguing” to you, but this doesn’t mean that this is the case. Israel does indeed think about protecting the lives of Palestinians. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t take the steps it does to protect them. Its first and foremost responsibility is to Israelis, of course it is. But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make an effort to protect Palestinians too. In fact, Israel makes more effort to protect the lives of Palestinians than Hamas does.
“The fact a total end to attacks on Israelis trumps even the slightest concern for Palestinian welfare on your list of priorities is, again.”
This doesn’t make grammatical sense, but the sense I can make of it is once again, completely false. You’re still choosing to deliberately misrepresent my opinions. At no point have I ever denied “the slightest concern for Palestinian welfare.” Please stop lying Alex. I’ve asked you to stop lying on many occasions and yet you refuse.
“Can I assume, in that case, that if, in order to prevent one Qassam attack, Israel had to kill everyone in Gaza, that like David you would consider that justified?”
If it was part of an ongoing series of attacks and the only possible way on Earth to stop those attacks was to kill everyone in Gaza, then yes. But since the reality of the situation is that there is no need whatsoever to kill everyone in Gaza to stop one attack, it’s just a stupid question to ask.
“Israel accepts the deaths of its civilians every day. Israelis die in road accidents, and nobody bombs Toyota factories.
That’s because road accidents are not the fault or intent of Toyota.
“They die of heart disease and lung cancer and nobody bombs steakhouses and tobacconists.”
That’s because people choose to eat steak and smoke tobacco of their own volition.
“But as soon as their deaths are caused by lunatics with rocket launchers, deaths become unacceptable and anyone who happens to live near said lunatics forfeits the right to life”
Not at all, they have the right to remove themselves from the vicinity of the rocket launchers. Nobody decides to be a target of a terrorist of their own volition. Road accidents, heart attacks and lung cancers are not part of an express intent and goal to destroy Israel and kill as many Israelis as possible. Please Alex would you stop making these stupid, stupid claims of equivalence because you really are showing your intellectual immaturity here.
“Why is Israel willing to let its citizens die to protect the rights to smoke, drive and eat fatty food but not to protect Palestinians’ right to live?”
It does take steps to protect the Palestinians right to live. It warns them to get the hell out of the vicinity of the terrorists it must kill in self defense. Alex, you are one dumb motherfu*ker. I’m sorry it’s come to this, I really am, but it just has to be said.
“Again, a funny choice of words. I always thought governments were “elected” rather than “constructed”. Or did Palestininians maybe forfeit the right to democratic representaion by exercising it?”
A government is constructed in two steps. First, a party is put together. Second, that party is elected. Yes Alex, governments are “constructed.”
“Quite a large proportion of the human population kill, abuse and exploit each other, including children, in rather nasty ways. You seem to be defining inhumanity fairly narrowly to fit it neatly round Hamas.”
Those who murder and abuse with evil intent are not human, no. Humans “exploit” each other every day since the word “exploit” means “to utilize.” But non-humans can “exploit” in an evil sense, yes. People who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up on buses are not human, no. People who support these acts are not human, no. Is this so hard for you to understand or is your intellect still in its embryonic stages?
“Yes, it would be completely stupid provided no political events happened whatsoever between Hamas and Islamic Jihad collaborating and Hamas and Islamic Jihad fighting. I’m not sure about this one. Did anything political at all happen anywhere?”
That’s not the point. The point was that your point about Napoleon was completely ridiculous because you’re talking about two groups of people who lived and existed in two different times, not two groups who exist at the same time and who have collaborated with one another.
“Good to hear it. So does the phrase “Being ‘nicer to Palestinians’ would only be possible if Hamas would stop firing rockets into Israel outright. Then Israel could be as nice to Palestinians as they wanted.” not sound a tiny bit like holding the entire population responsible for the actions of a minority?”
Only if the actions of Israel were intended to punish the innocent civilians in Gaza, which they weren’t. When I said “would only be possible if…” this was intended to convey the fact that Israel must defend itself from these attacks and that “being nice to Palestinians” in the context of “not exposing them to the self defensive measures of Israel” is only possible when Hamas stops forcing Israel to defend itself.
“I think the levels of support in Israel for Operation Cast Lead were in the nineties. That’s an awful lot of Israelis who think killing between 550 and 940 Palestinian civilians is justified.”
That’s not the same as saying that 90% of Israelis wanted those Palestinians dead or intended for them to die Alex. You might as well take a picture of a Jew and draw fangs and a hook nose on him.
“Sure, it may not be “terrorism” by your definition…
It’s not “terrorism” by any reasonable definition.
“but it’s definitely killing innocent people to further your political objectives…
Defending ones citizens against deadly attacks intended to kill them is not a “political objective.” Grow up.
“it definitely “targeted” civilians insofar as it shot at them expecting to hit them…”
If you choose to assign a different meaning to the world “targeted,” as you do, then yes. But since Israel takes great steps to avoid hitting them, then no.
“and it did rather seem that intimidation of the civilian population was involved on some level.”
That’s little more than conjecture on your part, based on your inherent perception of Israelis as evil.
“True. It’s just a handy statistic, as it proves the overwhelming majority of Palestinians do not reject Israel’s right to exist. Which is worth knowing.”
Actually, I take it back. One does cancel out the other. The fact that most Palestinians support the use against Israeli citizens does trump a statistic which says a small majority favor a “two state solution.” At the end of the day, the majority of Palestinians are neither rational or morally consistent. As long as a majority support the intentional targeting of civilians then it does not matter how many claim to support a two party state.
“I had a feeling that pretzel gag wasn’t original. It’s a pity, as I don’t really know much Steely Dan and would eventually have let you have the benefit of the doubt and given you credit for it.”
It’s not a gag, it’s a metaphor – and there are many commonly used metaphors in circulation. I did not seek your “credit for it” any more than you seek my credit for the use of a common phrase.
“I contribute to a site on WordPress. It’s been embarrassingly unreliable in the past.”
I’ve worked with many WordPress blogs and have made PHP templates for them. I’ve never had a problem with it. Maybe you’re thinking of an earlier version.
“True. It actually says “speak” because LiveJournal, I’ve discovered, is a pretentious twat.”
Which is possibly why there are relatively few blogs based around it!
“I suppose getting over the anti-shameless-plug-reflex is just another of these rites of passage.”
Yes, like getting over socialism.
“My apologies for not addressing your replies sooner, Alex. The workers on the roof of my building severed the cable and I had no internet for 2 weeks, then of course I completely forgot about it until I saw the link to this thread in my bookmarks. Let’s go shall we?”
Yeah, I’d sort of forgotten it too. Hello again.
“I’ve found myself repeating things over and over because you just didn’t address them and simply restated the same arguments I refuted without offering your own refutation of my refutation. In contrast, I’ve addressed every single one of your points in turn, methodically.”
“You’re absolutely wrong Alex, I’ve understood everything you said and explained to you in depth why I think you are wrong. I know exactly where you’re coming from and why that mindset is so flawed.”
Of course you do. That’s why I’ve had to correct your misunderstanding of my arguments so many times, especially when you misinterpreted them as accusations and called me a liar.
“I never said, hinted at or insinuated anything of the sort. I just pointed out that at the end of the day, Israel is well aware of your set of opinions, and doesn’t care. That’s because it has a duty to protect its own citizens which goes well above and beyond any need to avoid offending or angering people like you.”
Yeah, well, it’ll start feeling the pain come Christmas when it finds itself struck off my round robin list.
“‘It has been blowing them up quite a lot though, hasn’t it?’ – Completely unintentionally, in self defense. For all the reasons mentioned above. Wheras the express goal of Palestinian terrorists is to blow up innocent women and children.”
“But their intent is to kill Hamas and to achieve that goal while making a great effort to avoid civilian casualties – which is hard, obviously, since Hamas deliberately uses its civilians as human shields. The international communitiy should support Israel in the aforementioned goals and it should unconditionally denounce Hamas’ deliberate attacks on civilians and their use of civilians as human shields.”
Ah, this gross oversimplification again. No, the IDF’s primary intention is not killing Palestinian civilians, but it is a predictable secondary result they are quite willing to accept. It’s not as if they couldn’t possibly predict or prevent these deaths. They know exactly what the results of their actions will be and are perfectly happy to see them happen.
“The deaths of those Palestinians are a direct result of the actions of Palestinian terrorists, from their attacks on Israel and their deliberate use of civilians as human shields. The fact that more Palestinians have died than Israelis does not alter the moral dynamic or the justification of Israel’s actions whatsoever.”
“The blame for the living conditions of Palestinians lies squarely with the terrorists.”
“We’ve been over the whole issue of “intent” a million times before and I stand by everything I’ve said. The fact that Israel pulls the trigger in self defense does not mean that the ultimate moral responsibility for the deaths of Palestinian civilians lies at their feet. The responsibility lies entirely with Hamas. There is nothing irrational about this whatsoever.”
“Only if the actions of Israel were intended to punish the innocent civilians in Gaza, which they weren’t. When I said “would only be possible if…” this was intended to convey the fact that Israel must defend itself from these attacks and that “being nice to Palestinians” in the context of “not exposing them to the self defensive measures of Israel” is only possible when Hamas stops forcing Israel to defend itself.”
You might have said something along these lines before. As I think I said then, it is ridiculous to argue that any consciously acting party in this situation is completely absolved of responsibility. As you said yourself, it’s not a pie-chart. If one party commits heinous enough acts, it doesn’t mean there’s no murderousness, callousness or negligence left for the others. It is even more ridiculous to argue that it is the party making the final decision that is completely absolved, especially when you’re quite willing to blame the innocent victims for not running away fast enough.
“Absolutely wrong. The very purpose of any just, rational state is to protect the rights of its citizens – which means protecting their right to live first and foremost.”
“They should do everything they can to defend that right to life. In the case of Palestinians, that “everything” should be….doing everything they can to rid themselves of the terrorist scum who bring such pain and misery down upon them. I also make no apologies for stating that Israel cares about the lives of its soliders as much as the lives of its civilians and has just as much duty to protect them. There is nothing “dubious” about it at all.”
Rubbish. As with individual citizens, the duty to obey the law trumps any obligation to the interests of oneself or one’s loved ones. Reasonable laws, of course, make provisions for everyday or exceptional necessities, but that does not mean these necessities trump the law. Your need for money is not greater than your obligation to obtain it lawfully. Besides, where this comes down to Israel’s soldiers and Palestine’s civilians, your argument falls down fairly quickly. If there was some kind of right to sacrifice foreign civilians to protect your own soldiers, this would excuse half the war crimes ever committed.
“That’s not true at all and I resent the accusation. If Palestine was instead comprised of a rogue band of Jews who had set up a rival country and were systematically pounding Israelis with rockets, I would expect and defend exactly the same response.”
What if, rather than Palestinians/Rogue Jews, you had one Israeli lunatic firing rockets in all directions from the roof of an Israeli school? What measures, at what risk to the students inside, would the authorities be permitted to take to prevent this random, apolitical lunacy? Would it really be ok for them to blow up the school if they had no choice?
“Additionally, I do not “seem to think” that people should forfeit their inalienable right to life based on the actions of their countrymen.”
Odd, as you have stated explicitly:
“Of course they have a right to live. That right is taken from them by Hamas…Hamas is the one who takes their right away.”
You claim that because of Hamas’ actions, Gazans’ basic right to live does not apply. This is not a simple accusation of human rights abuse or callousness against Hamas. This is a clear statement that Palestinians’ rights cease to be valid based on the actions of Hamas. The mere idea that rights can be forfeited on others’ behalf, or contingent on the actions of others is ridiculous, but when, as in this case, a populous is forfeiting its rights based on the actions of its government, it becomes straightforward collective guilt with unsavoury racial overtones.
“When that “solidarity” involves denouncing the right of the “other” people to defend themselves.”
“The point is, Israel is simply defending itself from terrorism and as such the anger against it is not only disproportionate, it’s also unjust to the core.”
Israel is not “simply defending itself”. Israel is taking unusually drastic measures to defend itself, and it is the nature and extent of those measures, not their purpose, that is quite rightly attracting condemnation. The fact that Israel has clearly decided attack is the best form of defence means it is no longer as clear cut as you pretend. Nobody denies Israel the right to protect its population. But, as with anyone else, this right is not unconditional and is entirely contingent on the method used.
“‘Would you argue that the people concerned over Darfur are anti-Arab or anti-Muslim because they didn’t care about the Lord’s Resistance Army?’ The Lord’s Resistance Army is a terrorist organization, Alex.”
Not really answering the question there Jason.
“Which is why someone who cares about human rights should direct their anger at Hamas. They are responsible for the deaths of Palestinians, after all. They are the ones abusing human rights.”
No they are not “the ones” abusing human rights. As we’ve both now said, it’s not a pie. They are one of several parties abusing human rights, also including the IDF, extremist settlers and, I don’t doubt, Islamic Jihad, Fatah, the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, various unaffiliated lunatics and a good few more I’m sure.
“Oh so it’s all down to the agenda of news broadcasters then is it? Your concern about world events should match the agenda of news editors?”
The “agenda” of news broadcasters is to offer people information on subjects that interest them and therefore attract rapt viewers. A lot of people are very interested in Israel-Palestine because a lot of people know a little bit about Israel-Palestine and want to know more for various reasons, not least out of sympathy with one side or the other. Not so many people know about China’s rather rocky relations with Uighur Muslims and so aren’t really so concerned. Of course, you do get a little vicious circle of more coverage equals more news, but this is hardly limited to Israel-Palestine.
“Poppycock. This is nothing more than an impotent rationalization. The lengths that some people go to in order to defend and excuse antisemitism is ridiculous. Furthermore, what you’re suggesting is, to a large extent, that Western leftists are racist, since they expect a higher standard of behavior from people who “look like them.” The behavior of people who don’t look like them, like Palestinians, is not to be judged to the same degree because they “can’t help it.” They’re just stone age Arabs, after all, eh? In fact there is some truth to this idea.”
I’m assuming, from your spelling and from your use of the word “dollars”, that you’re an American, and as such I’m assuming you feel far more comfortable criticising Obama’s fiscal policy than you do Gordon Brown’s. I would also imagine you are a little more interested in it as well, and that it’s on TV more often where you live. This is not “racist” nor is it a pathetic attempt to justify anti-Semitism. This is simply a fact of life – people have a strong idea of what they are within their rights to interfere with and talk about. Even though I actually live in Germany, I still feel on an instinctive level that I have more right to criticise Brown than Merkel, even though Merkel’s policy probably affects me more directly. This is especially the case with the Left, I have noticed, that we feel obliged to criticise our own people and people we consider to be like us, and are wary of demonising people as an “Other”. Yes, of course this is a double-standard, and is even slightly racist in terms of how we tend to define “our own”. But it is not based on expecting a higher standard of behaviour, and it is not based on dislike of Jews, quite the opposite, because we now consider Jews and Israel to be part of the “West” and our allies, we feel we have more right to speak against them.
“Give me an example of the “right” refusing to defend the actions of another democratic country in their defense against terrorists.”
You’re defining this rather narrowly, and misunderstanding the issue. The fact that Israel is a democratic country and Hamas et al terrorists is probably one of the main reasons why the right tend to defend Israel so fiercely. But whether Israel is a democracy and whether Hamas are terrorists is largely irrelevant. Because Israel’s actions are more often defended, they are more often attacked, and therefore visa versa. Not so many people stick up for Putin in Chechnya, so not so many people feel the need to reiterate or refine their criticism.
“Also, what you are suggesting that a motive for the leftist protests against Israel is that they see it as a way to attack the right by proxy. Charming!”
No, I’m suggesting that as so many more people outside of Israel back its policies, Israel’s opponents feel more necessity to make their point.
“It’s all coming out now. Again, I think there is some truth in this. To conclude: the left’s attacks on Israel are a combination of antisemitism, a low opinion of Arab morality and a spiteful hatred of the right.”
Do you know, that’s almost exactly what I was saying. How clever of you to sum it up so concisely.
“Alex, you’re being downright stupid. There is nothing morally similar whatsoever between killing reluctantly in self defense and killing intently in the name of religion. You’re trying to claim that the defense of life against terrorism is simply another “belief” no more valid than the “belief” that infidels should die in order to protect the religion. In short, you’re claiming that there’s little difference between the right to kill to defend your life and right to kill to defend your religion. This is just getting ridiculous now.”
It’s getting ridiculous because you’ve deliberately misinterpreted it to sound ridiculous. The “belief” I had in mind was not defending yourself against terrorism, but more common ones like “democracy”, “free speech”, “the divine right of kings” and so on, all of which people have quite often been willing to kill for.
“Why? Because you find it hard to believe that non-Muslims would agree with killing in the name of religion, while you have no problem ascribing the same opinion to Muslims.”
I find it hard to believe that non-Muslims would agree with killing in the name of Islam, while I imagine Muslims, as followers of that particular religion, are more likely to. Though they might be a bit iffy about killing for Sikhism. Which is why I asked whether the question was killing for “Islam”, “Religion” or “Your beliefs”.
“ Use your common sense. The question was “is it acceptable to kill in the name of religion.” Muslims are more likely by far than anyone else to agree with this view.”
It depends who was being polled. Muslims, as far as I know, tend to be a little more pious than Britons on average. Were respondents also questioned on how important their religion was to them? And, as I was hinting at before, replace “religion” with “beliefs”, “convictions” or “principles” and a lot of people will probably agree with killing for them.
“Nonsense. They could for example fully support the efforts of Israel in stopping weapons getting into the hands of these “extremists” knowing fine well that the only way their civilians are going to lead peaceful, prosperous lives is if Israel has no further reason to defend itself. Besides which, these “extremists” are not only Hamas themselves but also groups with ties to Hamas. There is a sphere of influence and support.”
What do you mean by “support”? Write a strongly-worded letter to the Times? Sign up for the IDF? Not go to school in the morning in case it gets shot at and their mangled corpse makes Israel look bad? What exactly do you expect the Palestinians to do, in order that Israel magnanimously permits them to live in peace and prosperity?
“The bottom line is that Arab terrorists have no intention whatsoever of living in peace with their Jewish neighbors. Their stated goal – stated by Islamists across the Middle East – is the removal of Jews from the land of Israel. The destruction of Israel. The goal of Israel, either stated or implied, is NOT the destruction of Muslims, it is to live in peace and prosperity. There is no moral symmetry about it whatsoever.”
“Please also stop trying to equate regular crimes with terrorism.”
In terms of pure practicality, I see little difference. This is not about what Israel and Hamas want to do or should do, but what they can do. Or does the wildly different moral dimension increase the Palestinians’ responsibility to achieve the impossible?
“The purpose and intent of bank robberies is not an ongoing ideological war which deliberately targets innocent civilians.”
I think you should read that statement again and slap yourself hard on the forehead.
“Israel cannot just “stop its incursions” – they happen for a reason, not just to piss off extremists.”
There would be undesirable consequences, but it is physically possible. As I said, the modal verb is “can” and not necessarily “should”.
“You would be tempted to roll over and die – but the Israelis, rightly, would not. They see value in fighting now so that they can stop the attacks entirely at some point, even if it doesn’t happen right away.”
I see. So offered a choice between “fewer people dying now and for the foreseeable future” and “lots of people dying now, but maybe no people dying at some unspecified point in the future”, they wade right in with the lots of people dying. It’s one way of looking at it I suppose.
“There is NO acceptable level of rocket firing which Israel is going to tolerate and nor should it. The “Israeli hawks” value victory AND peace. Peace IS their victory.”
They seem to be losing quite badly.
“Besides which, the Israeli government is not acting on the agenda of “hawks,” it’s a democratically elected government acting on the agenda of the safety of its own citizens and their right to live in peace.”
As stated earlier, the population of Israel seems to be rather hawkish.
“Diplomacy will not stop the rocket attacks. Diplomacy will not curtail Islamic extremism. Not for Israel or for anyone else. Physical force is the only way to stop these attacks.”
How much physical force? As I have stated several times, my objection is not that Israel defends itself militarily, but how. You seem to be unable to make that distinction.
“Diplomacy will not stop the rocket attacks. Diplomacy will not curtail Islamic extremism. Not for Israel or for anyone else. Physical force is the only way to stop these attacks.”
How much physical force? As I have stated several times, my objection is not that Israel defends itself militarily, but how. You seem to be unable to make that distinction.
“If Israel were deliberately targeting civilians and their intent was to kill as many as possible, then no, the international community should not support them.”
What about “or”? What if Israel was just deliberately targeting civilians? Incidentally, how do you define “deliberately”?
“Are you seriously suggesting that the only reason why Hamas situates its terrorists and weapons in civilian areas is because there is literally no other physical area for them to be?”
Not a roomy place, Gaza. And of course, Israel was not just targeting Hamasniks. It was also destroying Hamas’ “infrastructure of terror” in civilian areas. And it’s perfectly reasonable to put “infrastructure” like police stations, politicians’ offices and mosques in town centres.
“You’re officially stupid – and a Hamas apologist.”
I’m applying for a job with The Jew-Hating Liberal Media, so could you print that on a certific
“Don’t be so goddamed stupid Alex. You know as well as I do that the reason why Palestinians have “fewer rights” than Israelis is a) because they live under the oppression of Hamas and b) because Israel has to take steps to stop the flow of Palestinian terrorists into Israel.”
Hamas is irrelevant. The Israeli government extends different rights to those outside the green lines and within them or in settlements, while exercising power over both. This is unacceptable in a democracy. And, if you read between the lines, you might spot that it is the nature of those “steps” that I’m objecting to.
“Should Britain be chastized for valuing the lives of Brits more than the lives of Germans during the Second World War? Should any country be chastized for protecting the rights of and providing services to the people within its own borders and not making the same effort for the people of the rest of the world? Otherwise, what is even the point of a national border and a national state?”
Germany was not under British power during World War II. If you ask, should Britain have been chastised had it valued the lives of Germans less than the lives of Brits while administering its section of Berlin after the war, or for valuing English lives over Scottish lives at several points in history, or should Germany have been chastised for valuing German lives over Polish lives during World War II, I imagine my answer would be the same as yours.
“No Alex, I make analogies which are suited to and relevant to the point I am making – you make them without any relevance or resemblence to the subject. Once again – I did not attempt in any way to equate Israel with an abusive husband.”
Yes, your analogies are perfect and mine are just silly little exercises that you don’t have to think about if you’re worried they’d affect your world-view. This is why you won right at the beginning with that brilliant little story about the house and the rockets.
“‘Does this mean, in my finicky bean-counting scenarios, that we can disregard Israeli casualties that would be prevented by deterring Hamas?’ Not at all.”
This has all got very complicated, so I’ll try and sum it up in one question. Should deterring future attacks help determine whether Israel has the right to kill civilians, or should it be limited to the physical prevention of an existing threat?
“Well that one went right over your head, didn’t it!”
I thought you Americans got irony now. I suppose there’s always one who’s behind the rest of the class.
“Poppycock. It is pretty much guaranteed that if a terrorist uses human shields and then forces a country to defend itself against their attacks, then some of those human shields will be killed.”
Some of. It’s pretty much guaranteed that if the country defending itself kills those civilians, then all of them will be killed. Furthermore, even if Hamas did not use human shields, there would still be a large chance of civilian casualties, so Israel would still not be totally exhonerated.
“Also, the fact that “there are still Hamas fighters” doesn’t come into it at all. It simply means that Israel was not successful in killing every Hamas fighter. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t have the right to act toward that goal.”
Was not what I was saying. It simply proves that Israel did not hit every target and that therefore Hamas was not “guaranteeing” attacks on civilians by standing next to them.
“Don’t be a big baby. Go look up the word “inalienable” and then apply it to the word “need.” Israel has an inalienable need to defend itself just as I have an inalienable need to eat. The word “right” applies in both cases, too.”
Your inalienable right and need to eat are not unconditional. You do not have the inalienable need to eat right after a large meal, and you do not have the inalienable right eat someone else’s dinner. Similarly, Israel’s right and need to defend itself is entirely dependent on the methods it uses and the level of danger.
“Israel is reluctantly willing to kill civilians in self defense, yes. The reason it is forced into that decision is because Hamas uses those civilians as human shields and for no other reason. The fact that there are no figures available which show how many civilians Israel saved in its efforts to save civilians does not mean that that figure does not exist.”
Yes, I’m sure there are numbers out there. How gracious of Israel to save a few undeserving Palestinians from its own aggression.
“I may “seem to be arguing” to you, but this doesn’t mean that this is the case. Israel does indeed think about protecting the lives of Palestinians. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t take the steps it does to protect them. Its first and foremost responsibility is to Israelis, of course it is.”
Exactly my point. Although Israel does consider Palestinians’ safety, it prioritises miniscule threats to Israelis far higher than an enormous threat to Palestinians. Israel does not factor in the level of risk, it prioritises all risks to Israelis over all risks to Palestinians, even the ones it is itself creating. See my arguments to David Preiser about multipliers versus rankings.
“But that doesn’t mean that it doesn’t make an effort to protect Palestinians too. In fact, Israel makes more effort to protect the lives of Palestinians than Hamas does.”
That’s true. Hamas manages to protect Palestinian civilians far more than Israel does by just not ordering airstrikes against them. That requires no effort whatsoever.
“‘The fact a total end to attacks on Israelis trumps even the slightest concern for Palestinian welfare on your list of priorities is, again. dubious‘ This doesn’t make grammatical sense, but the sense I can make of it is once again, completely false. You’re still choosing to deliberately misrepresent my opinions. At no point have I ever denied “the slightest concern for Palestinian welfare.””
I’ve inserted the missing word. I never claimed that it wasn’t on your list of priorities. I took exception to the fact that it was so far down.
“Please stop lying Alex. I’ve asked you to stop lying on many occasions and yet you refuse.”
I would, but it’s really difficult when you deliberately misinterpret my comments as false accusations.
“If it was part of an ongoing series of attacks and the only possible way on Earth to stop those attacks was to kill everyone in Gaza, then yes.”
Not what I said. One-off rocket attack.
“But since the reality of the situation is that there is no need whatsoever to kill everyone in Gaza to stop one attack, it’s just a stupid question to ask.”
It’s a hypothetical scenario, designed to illustrate one set principles and test another. You should try it, you might enjoy it.
“That’s because road accidents are not the fault or intent of Toyota…That’s because people choose to eat steak and smoke tobacco of their own volition.”
Irrelevant. Israel has the possibility to act to prevent those unnecessary deaths amongst its own population, but chooses not to.
“Not at all, they have the right to remove themselves from the vicinity of the rocket launchers.”
“It does take steps to protect the Palestinians right to live. It warns them to get the hell out of the vicinity of the terrorists it must kill in self defense.”
Do you not think the right to life should extend a bit further than “the right to run away if when try to kill you”?
“Nobody decides to be a target of a terrorist of their own volition. Road accidents, heart attacks and lung cancers are not part of an express intent and goal to destroy Israel and kill as many Israelis as possible.”
Nor are toothbrushes, potholing accidents or the September 11th attacks. What’s your point? That because it’s not EXACTLY THE SAME in EVERY POSSIBLE WAY, it’s a bad comparison?
“Please Alex would you stop making these stupid, stupid claims of equivalence because you really are showing your intellectual immaturity here.”
They are equvalent in as far as they are deadly, and that Israel has the power to reduce them but does not. It might not be equivalent in moral terms, but it is similar in practical terms. I fear you might be using the term “intellectual immaturity” to mean “not agreeing with Jason”, in which case you might find most intelligent people are rather immature in a great many respects.
“Alex, you are one dumb motherfu*ker. I’m sorry it’s come to this, I really am, but it just has to be said.”
And you have stupid hair and terrible halitosis. Glad we’ve cleared the air. I feel better. Group hug?
“A government is constructed in two steps. First, a party is put together. Second, that party is elected. Yes Alex, governments are “constructed.””
It’s true, but the fact that you used a passive and not the phrase “elected”, well, it made it sound like you meant installing a puppet government or something. How nice to know you still value the democratic rights of Palestinians enough to use a word which doesn’t rule it out entirely.
“Those who murder and abuse with evil intent are not human, no.”
So you keep saying, and as I pointed out, that means an awful lot of the world’s homo sapiens population doesn’t quite fit your definition.
“Humans “exploit” each other every day since the word “exploit” means “to utilize.””
I think there’s a bit more to it than that.
“But non-humans can “exploit” in an evil sense, yes. People who strap bombs to themselves and blow themselves up on buses are not human, no. People who support these acts are not human, no. Is this so hard for you to understand or is your intellect still in its embryonic stages?”
I find it a problematic, highly subjective and, above all, entirely useless distinction to make. In biological terms, their DNA is the same, in legal terms they remain entitled most basic human rights, in practical terms they’re still impossible to distinguish from anyone else when they’re out of their fatigues and reading a book on the toilet and in culinary terms you’re still not really allowed to eat them. All we really get out of it is a nice little rhetorical flourish we can use to talk about bad people, and the sense of superiority that comes with it.
“That’s not the point. The point was that your point about Napoleon was completely ridiculous because you’re talking about two groups of people who lived and existed in two different times, not two groups who exist at the same time and who have collaborated with one another.”
How about Rumsfeld and Saddam then? They were such good friends back in the ’80s, but then they stopped getting on. I definitely wouldn’t have called them allies this time three years ago.
“That’s not the same as saying that 90% of Israelis wanted those Palestinians dead or intended for them to die Alex.”
And I never claimed anything of the sort. But 90% of Israelis were willing to accept their deaths in pursuit of other objectives, or didn’t really understand the question.
“You might as well take a picture of a Jew and draw fangs and a hook nose on him.”
Nah, that got done to death when Michael Howard was Leader of the Opposition. Maybe I could send you a picture of myself and you could photoshop it to look like Hitler or Mel Gibson.
“Defending ones citizens against deadly attacks intended to kill them is not a “political objective.” Grow up.”
Increased safety of the population and maintenance of existing borders are though. They are even fairly reasonable ones in most cases. What is not reasonable about these objectives is the lengths taken to achieve them.
“If you choose to assign a different meaning to the world “targeted,” as you do, then yes. But since Israel takes great steps to avoid hitting them, then no.”
How would you define “targeted” then? Is it in some special way that includes what people you like do, and excludes what people you don’t like do? And as I said, even if Israel warns some of the Palestinians to leave, it still knowingly fires on the ones who didn’t or couldn’t leave in time. The minimisation is largely irrelevant.
“‘and it did rather seem that intimidation of the civilian population was involved on some level’ That’s little more than conjecture on your part, based on your inherent perception of Israelis as evil.”
No, it’s a stated aim among certain parts of the Israeli military.
“Actually, I take it back. One does cancel out the other. The fact that most Palestinians support the use against Israeli citizens does trump a statistic which says a small majority favor a “two state solution.” At the end of the day, the majority of Palestinians are neither rational or morally consistent. As long as a majority support the intentional targeting of civilians then it does not matter how many claim to support a two party state.”
Not as far as “supporting terror” goes, but as far as “denying Israel’s right to exist” and having no objectives save its destruction is concerned, it’s fairly significant. The fact is, both civilian populations support attacks which kill innocent members of the other. You might make your quaint little distinctions between one side that really really wants to and another that only thinks it’s fine as a means to an end, but it amounts to the same thing: it’s alright for our side to kill innocent people to get what we want.
“It’s not a gag, it’s a metaphor – and there are many commonly used metaphors in circulation.”
Not heard it before.
“I did not seek your “credit for it” any more than you seek my credit for the use of a common phrase.”
You did seem quite pleased with it, what with how often you used it.
“I’ve worked with many WordPress blogs and have made PHP templates for them. I’ve never had a problem with it. Maybe you’re thinking of an earlier version.”
Might be. It’s been better behaved these past few months.
“Which is possibly why there are relatively few blogs based around it!”
That and being full of whining teenage goths and self-indulgent memes.
“Yes, like getting over socialism.”
Is that one of yours? You should go into stand-up.
Basically, your argument seems to be that if Israel has no choice but to take certain actions, it bears no responsibility for them and that the blame lies with the party that forced its hand. And if Israel really does have “no choice”, I would agree with you. But that is clearly not the case. Israel has several choices.
It can simply accept the risk from rocket attacks. This is not a particularly desirable course of action, but some would say a reasonable one if it prevents far greater bloodshed. At the other end of the scale, Israel has the possibility of reoccupation, or even of going all-out and bombing, killing and expelling willy-nilly until the attacks stop.
Between the extremes there are even more possibilities. Israel has the option of diplomacy and negotiation. You might not like it personally, you might not think it would work, but it remains a possible option. Israel can retaliate militarily, but short of the measures it used. It can take its time over the campaign, only hitting targets when absolutely certain of avoiding civilian casualties, or it can completely rule out aerial attacks to minimise risk to civilians. Both of these have their downsides, a longer campaign could well mean more rocket attacks over time and therefore greater risk to Israeli civilians, a ground-only campaign would naturally cost more soldiers. You will probably argue that Israel is within its rights to value its soldiers over foreigners, but it is not forced to have these priorities.
Israel can even mix and match, first attempting diplomacy with the threat of ground attacks to strengthen its hand, then perhaps extending to airstrikes. It could limit its ground attacks to areas from which rockets can be fired at Israeli population centres, patrolling or occupying them to prevent attacks on its civilians, but not going for Hamas’ infrastructure.
You could (and I imagine you would) rule out the do-nothing option, and I might even be inclined to agree with you, but in wading in with large-scale aerial bombardment the moment the ceasefire ended, Israel has made several choices. It has chosen to finish the campaign quickly with a strategy that minimises risk to its soldiers, even though both vastly increase the risk to innocent Gazans. It has chosen immediate attack over diplomacy, even though reasonable compromises over Gaza’s borders or West Bank settlements might have brought greater peace. Israel could and did make several decisions about its reaction, the fact that you would make the same ones does not mean it had “no choice”.
Your little rocket-house scenario fails to represent Israel’s situation at all realistically. You see, not only are there far more hostages in your neighbours house than yours, you also have a much more powerful rocket launcher that will kill far more people than the terrorists’, an advanced sniper rifle that could take out the terrorist and only the terrorist with a little patience and longer risk to your family, and a telephone with which you may be able to negotiate with the terrorist to stop his rocket attacks completely, and you could maybe sneak out the back door and maybe fight back at a more opportune time. If, genuinely failing all else, you eventually resorted to blowing up the house, you could maybe be resolved of all responsibility. If you wrote off your neighbours unusually large family before even trying the phone, rifle or back door, simply to be certain that nobody you knew personally got hurt, yes, you would be very much responsible for how you reacted to the situation you found yourself in.