Selective morality

[Behind the Aegis]

The bottom line is clear: The violence of the punks from Hebron is wrong, and the authorities must enforce the law and put a stop to it. Still, one should examine in depth why even the moderate settlers and the settlers council, which used to speak out immediately against the displays of violence in their midst, are keeping mum (except Bentzi Lieberman).

An honest examination would reveal that they are silent, to a large extent, because they feel betrayed by their left-wing rivals, who did not come to their help during the pullout from Gaza. They were silent when the prime minister denied a central clause in his election policy (against unilateral concessions) and his commitment to obey the referendum among the Likud members. They were also silent when teenage girls were sent to prison until the end of procedures for blocking roads, or in the face of police brutality directed at right-wing demonstrators.

The left-wingers were also silent because they believed the settlers were not in a position to "preach democracy to us." They believed that those who were willing to rule millions of people with no civil rights, or threaten civil war in reaction to the evacuation, did not deserve their protection.

Thus a vicious cycle of selective use of civil rights and democratic values was created, and each side protects them only when they suit its point of view. One need not be an expert in game theory to understand that every such "round" intensifies the rivals' anger, and leads them to ignore the "other's" rights in the following rounds.

more...

[julianer]

1. I don't understand this bit

'Therefore, people from both sides must break the cycle voluntarily. The right wing must act against the destruction of olive trees, the violence in Hebron and the violence in dispersing demonstrations of Arabs or anti-fence activists. The left wing must act against the violence and degradation of the settlers and their supporters. They must also help to create a climate in which crucial decisions facing us are made with democratic integrity. '

Is the left for or against the violence of the settlers? Is the left being criticised for not acting against the settlers? Where's the problem with democratic integrity.

I don't get it. This reads to me like 'the right have to stop being violent and the left have to stop the right from being violent'. This seems a touch unfair - 'you bastards didn't stop me thumping him, it's your fault'.

This also seems to be spurious reasoning to me:

'The same applies to the argument that the occupation has increased violence in Israeli society. If that were true, the settlers, who support the occupation, would have been expected to be the greatest violent offenders in Israel. However, that is not the case. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that it was the exaggerated liberal permissiveness that created, or at least enabled, the violence. In fact, it is possible that the overall permissive and lenient approach contributed to the violation of law and violence among the settlers as well.'

Seems like the left better just shut up so the violence and the settlement will end of itself :sarcasm: But it contradicts the advice to 'act against the violence of the settlers'.

[Behind the Aegis]

2. A little help for you.

Is the left for or against the violence of the settlers? Is the left being criticised for not acting against the settlers? Where's the problem with democratic integrity.

The wording could be construed as confusing. What the author is saying is: "'Therefore, people from both sides must break the cycle voluntarily. The right wing must act against the destruction of olive trees, the violence in Hebron and the violence in dispersing demonstrations of Arabs or anti-fence activists. {Right-wing, violence against others is wrong.} The left wing must act against the violence and degradation of the settlers and their supporters. {Left-wing, violence is wrong, even against settlers.} They must also help to create a climate in which crucial decisions facing us are made with democratic integrity.'"

The message: violence is wrong. It doesn't matter who the victim is.

Seems like the left better just shut up so the violence and the settlement will end of itself :sarcasm:. But it contradicts the advice to 'act against the violence of the settlers'.

Again, I guess this could be confusing. "'The same applies to the argument that the occupation has increased violence in Israeli society. If that were true, the settlers, who support the occupation, would have been expected to be the greatest violent offenders in Israel. {The supporters of the Occupation would be more violent because they are trying to keep the status quo.} However, that is not the case. Therefore it is more reasonable to assume that it was the exaggerated liberal permissiveness that created, or at least enabled, the violence. {But, it was not so because it was the other group who became more violent.} In fact, it is possible that the overall permissive and lenient approach contributed to the violation of law and violence among the settlers as well.' {The real problem is that the liberal permissiveness that let the settlers do what they wanted and let the occupied do what they wanted.}"

Does that help?

[julianer]

4. Not really

It seems to be a very slipshod piece of work from Haaretz.

I am utterly confused as to what the left is being blamed for - being too tough and not being tough enough, at one and the same time. Is there any left-wing violence against settlers? It's news to me, if there is. Did the left really have any authority or means to stop the occupiers' violence? I don't think so.

But thanks for trying.

[Behind the Aegis]

5. nothing.

The left is not being blamed for anything. BOTH sides are being blamed!

[julianer]

6. Well that's the point

isn't it? It's like the WP reporting of the Abramoff scandal as a bi-partisan affair.

The left is being blamed for the right's violence, it seems to me.

Where and when have the left been violent? I'm not being sneaky here, I genuinely don't know about any left wing violence and I'd be interested to know about any.

Edit: Pelsar, there's no point in replying to me. I have you on ignore.

[Behind the Aegis]

7. Whoosh!

The left is being blamed for "permissiveness" (allowing violence). The right is being blamed for violence.

[pelsar]

3. the letter of the law...

actually what the article is stating is that the laws of israel should protect both left and right and not be used selectivly.....the left and the human right activists decided that in the case of the settlers the state and its policies had the right to ignore civil rights of the settlers.

if one wants to claim and scream about universal rights for all, well then includes those of the settlers as well.....either its universal or its not, either one is hypocritcial or not......

[pelsar]

8. ignore....

thats your privilage.....but there are others who read these posts and simplistic, one sided ideals that have no application in the real world should be exposed for what they are: