Removing Palestine

[Violet_Crumble]

by Mike Whitney
October 07, 2004

"The significance of our disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process. It supplies the formaldehyde necessary so there is no political process with the Palestinians… effectively this whole package called a Palestinian state has been removed indefinitely from our agenda.” Dov Weinglass, Prime Minister Sharon’s bureau chief

The Israeli leadership is no longer interested is maintaining the façade that has accompanied 37 years of brutal colonial rule. Weinglass’s remarks confirm that Sharon’s unilateral “disengagement plan” from Gaza is really a scheme to prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and to crush all hope of implementing the abortive Road map.

Weinglass’s comments reinforce the belief that Israel never seriously entertained the idea of accepting the (internationally agreed upon) 1967 borders or of allowing a Palestinian state to take shape. The ruse of Oslo should now be strikingly apparent. For eight years during the “so-called” negotiations, Israel resisted the objectives of the plan; building more settlements and “Israeli only” roads, while pretending to the world that an honest effort was being made for peace. It was an Oscar winning performance choreographed in great part with friends in the United States.

Weinglass’s remarks signal that there’s no reason to pretend any longer. Sharon’s plan has been tacitly endorsed by the Bush administration (despite Bush promises to assist the Palestinians in achieving statehood) emboldening Israel to continue marauding as they please.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=107&ItemID=6370

[lastknowngood]

1. If the Israelis do not recognize the right of Palestine to exist why

should the Palestinians recognize the right of the manufactured state of Israel to exist?

[DELUSIONAL]

2. "freezing of the peace process"

These guys are as dangerous as bush is to world peace.

Is is possible for the UN to de-recognize Israel?

Separation of church and state -- seems like the behavior of bush and the idiots in power in Israel are making a good argument for the separation of church and state. It is the wack-o religious driving this policy.

[Fatima]

3. This was the plan all along

there was never any intent for that pig Sharon to give anything

same old same old.

[forgethell]

4. Typical "blame the victim"

bs. If the Palestinians had ever shown any ability to keep their agreements, they would not be in this situation. And "indefinitely" does not mean "never" or "forever".

When the Israelis have a true partner for peace, the peace can take place. Not before.

[Djinn]

5. that's actually NOT how it works

even if it WERE true that the Palestinians havn't kept agreements (the Israeli never did either both sides are to blame here although the Palestinians have no official body and have to rely on several groups keeping an agreement, the Israeli government which has an official policy has NEVER stopped building in the settlements and has therefore ignored every deal it ever made) it actually doesn't work that way.

Did the Brits say that until Irgun, Stern et al had ceased their violent campaign there would be no Israel? did the SA aparthied government get to say "until the black population stops it's violence" nope - they would have liked to but as I said it doesn't work that way.

[forgethell]

6. But those groups got beaten,\

LIke the United States in Vietnam, they decided the cost was not worth the prize. It's different with the IP conflict. If the Jews lose, they will be destroyed. The Palestinians are the losers here. But let it play out. Eventually one side will quit the struggle, if the other makes it costly enought for them. My money is on the Israelis.

[Djinn]

9. so you're advocating

making life as miserable and brutal as possible to make the Palestinians leave?

In that logic if the Palestinians keep the brutality up against Israel they win? and as we all know might is right...right?

Also Palestinians are fighting with ISRAEL not Jews - they don't have a problem with me or millions of other jews around the world and if Israel ceased to exist tommorrow judaism would still exist your hyperbole ". If the Jews lose, they will be destroyed " is bullshit - "the jews" aren't fighting so they wont loose. I know it's hard for some to get their head around but Israel does not and never has spoken for nor represented all Jews and not all Jews support or identify with Israel.

[forgethell]

10. You completely misrepresent what I said.

As long as the Palestinians, whom I will call Arabs for short, I keep misspelling and have to re-type, are attacking the Jews who happen to live in Israel, then the Israelis have the right to defend themselves. As they are "at war", they have the right to use methods restricted to war. That means they can attack the leaders of the resistance. That means they can impose curfews, or whatever it takes to defend their people.

If the Arabs win ( I don't believe that it will happen), then they can defend their states, likewise, just as the British did against the Jews in the 40s. And they will.

But I think you are mistaken if you believe that the Arabs don't have a problem with you as a non-Israeli Jew. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that they have threatened to attack Jewish and Israeli interests around the world.

If the Arabs want life to get better, then they should give up their war of extermination against Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I think yr mistaken...

But I think you are mistaken if you believe that the Arabs don't have a problem with you as a non-Israeli Jew. I could be wrong, of course, but it seems to me that they have threatened to attack Jewish and Israeli interests around the world.

Give me some examples of the Palestinian people or the legitimate representatives of the Palestinian people have threatened to attack Jewish interests around the world. As far as I'm aware, they haven't. Which makes you wrong. What's also wrong is to totally misrepresent the I/P conflict as a 'war of extermination' against Israel. Why would the representatives of the Palestinians have acknowledged the legitimacy of Israel within the 1967 borders if they were waging a war of extermination? That makes no sense. It could equally be said that Israel was waging a war of extermination against the Palestinian people. Even Rabin, who was touted as a dove, did not support a Palestinian state or believe in the self-determination of the Palestinian people...

btw, why do yr scenarios always involve an all-or-nothing theory for either Israelis or the Palestinians? Do you have some problem with a two-state solution?

Violet...

[forgethell]

15. I would guess that

they would acknowledge the "legitimacy of Israel within the 1967 borders" as a LIE to get land from Israel from which to launch further attacks in their war of extermination. That's my guess. And it makes perfect sense. You've never known anybody who lied to achieve their objectives? You're luckier than most, and have lived a most sheltered life.

Tell me, have they ever given up their demand for "the right of return"? No? Unless they do, Israel will cease to exist as a Jewish state.

The 1967 borders? After a few wars, perhaps Israel wants somewhat more defensible borders. My own thought is that this is perfectly acceptable. Every time the Palestinians attack, they should lose something more, and lose it permanently.

As for the two-state solution. I have no problem with that. One for the Palestinians, one for the Israelis. I think it is the only solution, in fact. Now if you can just get the Palestinians to accept that one state will not only be called Israel, but be Jewish, that there is no right of return to the Jewish state, that they must make a permanent peace with Israel and keep their word, and that the boundaries of the two states must be negotiated and agreed upon, then there can be peace.

But none of this should happen before the Palestinians give up the murder of civilians as a tool of their resistance

[Violet_Crumble]

18. You didn't answer the question...

Can you give some examples of where the Palestinian people or their legitimate representatives have threatened to go after Jewish interests world-wide? A hint here: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc, are no more representative of the Palestinian people than Kahanists and those Messianic Zionists are of Israelis. You are stereotyping the Palestinian people in yr last sentence. Don't blame the actions of extremists in their midst on the entire population...

Yr guess makes no sense at all. All it does is show that you possibly don't have any knowledge of the negotiations that led to the mutual recognition or what negotiations came later. Of course, to those who cling to the rather racist theory that Arabs are habitual liars, knowledge of events fades into insignifance beside calling everything that doesn't fit into their shoddily constructed version of events a lie...

Tell me, why should the Palestinian refugees give up their dream of returning to their homes? Why should they give a rats arse about demographics and a Jewish state when the Jewish state doesn't give a rats arse about them? Why should individual refugees place the interests of others over themselves? Do you expect the same of Israelis?

Yr own thoughts on it being acceptable to retain territory conquered in war is totally irrelevant to the hard, cold fact that international law and the international community does not find this acceptable...

The Palestinian people have accepted the legitimacy of a Jewish state. As for the Right of Return, there will be no fair and just settlement of the conflict until the issue is addressed, even if the solution to that is a symbolic one. And as for making peace, it takes two to do that, so how about you place some onus on Israel having to play its part as well....

btw, is it just me, or does this sound eerily similar to the stance you hold?

"The Jewish people, the chosen people, are the rightful owner of the promised land, the Land of Israel. The Palestinians are aliens in this land and, like all other Arabs, a sworn enemy. When the Palestinians talk of peace, they are not to be trusted. They want the territories that were liberated by Israel in 1967 in order to wage their war of annihilation against the Jewish people and the State of Israel."

Just curious, because those words are from Avi Shlaim describing the ideology of religious extremists in Israel...

Violet...

[forgethell]

20. Deleted by poster

[Djinn]

16. you're VERY mistaken

please provide ONE example of them attacking a non Israeli jewish target.

Hamas probably wouldn't be too fond of me true, but that'd have more to do with my living in sin, being an atheist and being awfully fond of a drink, but the fact that I'm (genetically anayway have never believed in God myself) Jewish doesn't seem to have bothered any Palestinian I've met but no need to let facts get in the way of a nice piece of propaganda

"If the Arabs want life to get better, then they should give up their war of extermination against Israel."

If the Jews want their own country they should stop bombing civilians in Jerusalem - d'you think maybe that was opined 50 odd years back? do you honestly belive that might is right and that as long as one has a nation any and all options are open? including annexing land and shootnig children? Do you really beleive that what the Palestinians put up with daily is going to make them say "oh well that's it they've won we'll all piss of to Jordan now"???

But most importantly why do Jews worldwide have a right to "return" to a land their ancestors left thousands of years ago (yes there was always a Jewish population in the area but they were a SMALL MINORITY, the Christian and Muslim Arabs had ALSO lived there the whole time) yet arab families can not return to Haifa after being forced to leave just 50 years ago???

[Violet_Crumble]

19. Hamas wouldn't like anyone not the same as them...

Unless they're out of the ordinary for a bunch of religious extremists. Christians, Jews, Shi'ites, women, the list goes on and on to include anyone who doesn't fit into the extremists narrow view of what worthy people should be. When it comes to attacks on Israel, they're done for nationalistic reasons rather than for religious. Religion is a tool used to try to justify what's done. Though if they stopped attacking civilians, I'd still not have any time for them due to their unwillingness to compromise, their attempts to scuttle any attempts at a negotiated end to the conflict, and the fact that they're religious extremists who would just replace the oppression of an Israeli occupation with the iron-fisted oppression of any religious regime...

Violet...

[forgethell]

34. I'm not saying that the Jews

have a 'right' to return to Israel. I'm saying that they are there, they are not leaving, and they do not want to live under a dominant Arab and Muslim majority. Would you? Knowing what the rest of the Mid-east is like.

50 years is two generations. Maybe the Palestinian refugees should make a home for themselves where they are. Oh, what's that you say? Their Arab brothers won't let them settle in their own countries.

[forgethell]

35. delete dupe

[QueerJustice]

41. You may not like it...

But the truth is they DO attack JEWISH targets ..A shul (synagogue) in Tunisia, A JEWISH COMMUNITY CENTRE in Argentina,a Jewish Day school in Montreal, multiple Jewish headstones in Paris , Toronto , New Zealand.

You may not like it but the great MAJORITY of Jews Identify and support the state of Israel..maybe you do not but its the tiny minority you in including Natura Karta ,Noam Chomsky,Adam Shapiro...etc

You may not Like it but Jews in New York , Florida, Toronto , Sydney ,
Cuba ,Montreal, Johannesburg (where I come from) etc etc...Are way more homogeneously united in their support for Israel than you would like them to be.

The Arab resistance is not shy about their ANTI-SEMITIC/Jewish (not ANTI-ISRAEL) unity either..

I think its very safe to say MOST Jews think this way.

It may not square with some peoples ideal views but ITS TRUE.

Judaism would not survive without Israel , every morning millions of Jews worldwide face Jerusalem and the 1st words out of there mouth is ~ ``Hear O ISRAEL `` not ~``Hear o France ``

[AntiFascist]

42. Welcome to DU QueerJustice!

:hi:

Undoubtedly, Jews worldwide must support Israel, but do they support Israel defensively, or would most go so far as to support Israel's aggressive goals, even if these extended beyond the Gaza strip? Would they support Israel pre-emptively bombing another nation?

[Violet_Crumble]

43. What a load of crap...

"They"? Hamas have NOT attacked any target outside of Israel and the Occupied Territories. That's a hard cold fact for you...

Another thing for you to ponder is the question of if Arab resistance to Israel is out of anti-Semitism, and not nationalism, then why didn't this 'anti-Semitism' manifest itself prior to the Second Aliyah? Jews and Arabs co-existed reasonably well in Palestine prior to the arrival of the Zionists....

What I think is pretty safe to say is that supporting Israel does not mean supporting a brutal occupation. Unfortunately there's some who appear to think this is a prerequisite for supporting Israel, but what they don't understand is that this sort of 'support' is more dangerous to Israel than any of their imagined anti-Semites (aka anyone who dares to criticise Israels policies in the Occupied Territories)...

I think yr completely wrong too that Judaism would not survive without Israel, even though it's a pretty silly argument as Israel ain't going anywhere. Judaism survived very well for an incredibly long time without a state to genuflect to, and I've never seen anything to indicate that if Israel hadn't been created in 1947 that Judaism would have gone belly-up...


Violet...

[QueerJustice]

55. ``What a load of crap``

```What a load of crap```....

.....you say about my argument?

Too intelligent for me on this debate.

I do not think I will reply.

[Forkboy]

56. "I do not think I will reply."

He said in reply.

[QueerJustice]

57. ha ha tooooo funny..

[Forkboy]

58. thanks,I liked it

[Igel]

120. self-delete

<...>

[Darranar]

76. "Israel" in that context means people of Israel...

that is, Jews, not the State of Israel.

The words predate the state by several thousand years.

[QueerJustice]

87. Oh I see...

Its a hidden meaning in The Shemah? i just dont understand The Shema?

...But you do? Your a great Rabbi? Rashi himself?

Us intellectually challenged people just arent capable of seeing that nothing seems as simple as it appears?

[Darranar]

90. Ah, so the writers of the Bible were prescient?

They knew that there would be a state called "Israel" thousands of years later, and therefore wrote verses directed towards it?

[forgethell]

92. Didn't you know

that they were 'prophets'?

[AntiFascist]

93. I've always felt much in the bible was intended....

metaphorically.

[Darranar]

99. Um, not quite...

they more likely were scribes with their own (or their employers') political and religious views. There were a variety of them, then a compilation of the various texts, with the inevitable result that much was lost and much changed before canonization.

And it's clear from the context and the grammar that the reference is to the people of Israel, not the land (which isn't called Israel in Deuteronomy, or in any of the Torah's five books, anyway); the phrase is Adonai Eloheinu, God is our God, which implies a sense of community that only really makes sense if Yisrael is interpreted as people and not state.

Also, the Shema was recited for centuries before the founding of the state of Israel, so obviously the Rabbis compiling the prayer service didn't interpret it that way.

It makes absolutely no sense to be telling a piece of land that "God is our God," anyway....

[Djinn]

112. thank you for speaking for millions of jews

with no evidence to back you up - Sharon would be proud

[QueerJustice]

62. No hes not mistaken...

In my reply I forgot Leon Klinghoffer.....


....or maybe he was a ``tool of the mossad``...or maybe just Jewish?

When Air France was HIJACKED by savages to Entebbe....they divided the passengers by.....(guess)

....Jewish passengers and Gentile passengers......not Israeli and the

rest of the world........


.....maybe it would help if you explained to them that Jews are not Israelis one of the same...(which of course they are)

They dont believe it....

..... and nor do the majority (vast) of US......

[DemFromMem]

83. Here are hundreds of examples

http://www.ict.org.il/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=505


Note this item in the chronology:

21 February 1970, Zurich
The PFLP-GC claimed responsibility for blowing up an in-flight Swiss Air plane bound for Tel Aviv which caused the death of all forty-seven passengers and crew.


One of those passengers was my Canadian (non-Israeli Jewish) cousin.

I'm sure you have some propaganda to spew back somehow dismissing all of these victims including my relative.

By the way, I would consider myself to be sympathetic to the Israeli left when it comes to peace, so please don't lecture me as if I apologize for everything the Israeli government does. That's like blaming me as a Democrat for everything that Bush does. But the Palestinians sure don't make it easy for the Israeli left given the complete ineptness of the Palestinian leadership.

[Violet_Crumble]

84. Damn, those Arabs are everywhere!!

I took a quick look at those 'hundreds of examples' and this one jumped out at me. Terrorism? Bullshit, this was a case of a terrorist getting what was coming to him...

5 November 1990, New York

Rabbi Meir Kahane, founder of the Jewish Defence League, was assassinated by El Sayyid A Nosair, a naturalised American of Egyptian origin. Nosair was acquitted of a murder charge, due to a faulty police investigation, but convicted of assault and illegal possession of a firearm.


btw, I thought this was about groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad, not some shonky list that appears to blame everything on 'the Arabs', even when neo-nazis take responsibility. Also, there's an attack on a synagogue in Sydney listed there. There has NEVER been an attack carried out by Palestinian groups in Australia...

Also, can you explain to me what the difference is between the Israeli left and right when it comes to attitudes towards the Palestinians? From where I sit the only real differences seem to be that the left talks of peace while it gets busy building more settlements and hopes that the nice sweet peace talk will make people not notice that it's not really all that different to the right...

Violet...

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Englander]

86. It proves the point that you believe Arab=terrorist...

if you cite that list as proof of Hamas/palestinian attacks outside of Israel,whilst throwing insults like "apologists for terrorists" around.

Y'know I bet you're a Democrat the same way that the Zellot or Joe Lieberman is a Democrat? That Israel is never wrong? That the idf never kill civilians deliberately?That the West Bank is "disputed" land,not an illegal occupation?

Thank you for the info. about Dr. Arun Gandhi,you can find an article about his visit and pictures here;

http://www.gush-shalom.org/english/index.html

[DemFromMem]

88. Did you read anything I said about my opinions on Israel?

I thought I was being the voice of reason.

For the record, I don't believe Israel is always right. In fact, I've donated money for Peace Now and I personally supported Amnon Mitzrah in the last Israeli election. I do think a full withdrawal to the green line boundaries is just and the Palestinians should have their own state. Not sure if I pass your litmus test. I suppose it would be a lot easier for you to demonize me instead.

[Englander]

94. Well then,I apologise for labelling you as a zellot....

but you have demonised yourself; your very insulting post has been deleted.I believe the "any attacks outside Israel" question was limited to Hamas since the beginning of this intifida,and there was no mention,not one, of any being tied to Hamas in your list.In fact your list also says "There have been no attacks by Palestinian secular groups nor leftist groups since Madrid(conference of Oct.'91)".

You will have to educate me about Amnon Mitzrah,as I've never heard of him,and googling the name drew a blank.

[Darranar]

100. That's probably because his name is Amram Mitzna...

the Labor candidate for Prime Minister last election, and a crafter and supporter of the Geneva Accords.

[Englander]

107. Many thanks for that.. it's highly unlikely that the Voice of Reason

voted for him,when they cannae even spell his name!!

[Darranar]

91. So wait, killing terrorists = terrorism?

Berrt tell that to both Bush and Kerry, who have pledged to kill more terrorists....

And Violet is Australian, I doubt she is part of any segment of the Democratic Party....

[Djinn]

113. you cite

a bunch of bampots like this and claim I'M gonna come back with propaganda hahahahaha

The Chairman of this group is Shabtai Shavit a former director of the Israeli Intelligence Agency (Mossad)

General (Ret.) Shlomo Gazit. Former Head of IDF Military Intelligence and co-ordinator of Government operations in the Administered Territories

&

Major General (Ret.) Eli Zeira Former Director of Military Intelligence, IDF

Would you think it spurious for me to cite ex Fatah/Hamas strongmen as credible sources...thanks for this though it gave me a laugh

One of the Australian "terror" incidences was proven later to be an insurance fraud

Many of these were not claimed by any group and were the result of people (often a wee bitty disturbed) acting on their own behalf (kinda like that nut Goldstein you know)

And I'm with VC - Kahane was a piece of shit who if there is a hell is burning as we speak.

BTW - One of my relatives was killed in the King david Hotel bombing, but I guess my family made that up - after all the early Israeli wouldn't have resorted to terror would they and they wouldn't have elected half of those terrorist leaders to political office afterwards woudl they.

[foo_bar]

106. there was a fatwa to that effect

please provide ONE example of them attacking a non Israeli jewish target

It wouldn't be the first time someone took scriptural advice from an imprisoned Egyptian.

[venus]

7. Right; Arafat bad guy, Sharon good guy. Well he certainly gets

plenty of my tax dollars to fund his war.

[forgethell]

11. So you think that

Arafat is a "good" guy? Nothing further of interest can be said by you to me.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. And you think Sharon is a "good" guy??

Why?

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackie97]

21. Israel is hardly the victim....

They have spent too much time trying to crush the Palestinians for them to take the Israelis seriously. The world is not going to let Israel get away with this. They feel too strongly about it.

[forgethell]

22. It is rediculous

to think that they Israelis have any real interest in "crushing" the Palestinians. they may very well be interested in "crushing" the "resistance", though. It is, after all, their lives at stake.

[Djinn]

23. what??

I'd say that the interest in crushing Palestinians is blindingly obvious - they want the land, powerful Israeli individuals and groups have always seen Israel as extending much further than it ever has legally - and given the resistance (why the quotes btw??) is pretty much universal crushing it means crushing the Palestinian people.

[forgethell]

24. Well then, we'll just

have to agree to disagree. Still, you are right in one regard. To stop the murders of innocent civilians, both Israelis and Palestinians, the leadership, at least, of the Palestinians, and the various independent?? groups like Hamas and Islamic whatever and whatever Jihad, will have to crushed, obliterated, destroyed, killed, wiped-out.

[Djinn]

25. you can add

the IDF to that too - they've killed more people (and more children) than all the fundie and secular Palestinian groups put together

[forgethell]

26. But they are doing it

to stop the murders. And they DO NOT TARGET women and children. there is a significant difference, morally, between what the IDF does, and what Hamas and the PA does, and if you cannot see that, then we will never agree.

[Englander]

27. So,all the women and kids killed;are the IDF pathetic shots?

All those incinerated,or shredded by flechette
tank shells,or hit by snipers?

Murder is murder;Iman,13,murdered.
Those killed by Hamas;murdered.

[forgethell]

28. Murder is murder; but

war is played differently. International law recognizes that civilians will be killed in combat, and permits it as long as steps are taken to minimize it. This is what the IDF does. Compare this to the cowards who strap a bomb to some dumb teenager and convince her to blow herself up in the midst of a shopping mall or school killing innocent women and children as the only targets. No IDF soldiers around.

Even if the Palestinians were NOT targeting women and children, and were targeting armed soldiers, they are still illegal combatants under international law. Because they do not wear uniforms, they are guerillas.

There IS such a thing as 'collateral damage". There are accidents. The rightness of the Palestinian cause does not justify their murderous tactics. Their is NO moral equivalency between the two sides. The IDF has finally begun to respond in a brutal, but legal, manner to their crimes, and they are beginning to feel the pain. I mean the leaders, not the P. people, who have been in pain all along.

I just hope the whole thing ends soon.

[Englander]

33. Nice try,but being killed for not wearing a uniform is not...

a convincing reason.

Examples of "collateral damage" (all this is off the top of my head,so
I've probably missed a few);

-F-16 atttack on a block of flats;
-'copter attack on car with Hamas leader and family aboard;
- " " on car in busy street;
-" " on car,then attack on gathered crowd;
-UK,US citizens killed;
-schoolgirl killed,while in classroom;
-using flechette shells as crowd control.

Also, it is a bit rich to cite legal/illegal,
when Israel (and US) is involved in an illegal
occupation.

[forgethell]

36. So, let's cut the BS

are you telling me that Israel tries to kill civilians because they are civilians just like the PA and Hamas, etc do?? Are you really trying to say that?

coptor attack on car with Hamas leader & family aboard? they were targeting the Hamas leader. that's OK. He shouldn't have been hiding among his children.

US, UK citizens? well, I dond't know which circumstances to which you are referring, but what does their citizenship have to do with anything.

I could answer more if you would quote the specific incidences so I could look up the circumstances. But again, the occupation is not illegal. Israel took possession of the land defending itself against an aggressive war by its neighbor Jordan. The Palestinians have NEVER controlled the land. Let's just be honest here and call them the 'disputed territories'.

Finally, the intifada and the 'cycle of violence' started before the US invaded Iraq, and has nothing to do with it.

[Englander]

44. I'm going by the results of IDF action;whether children are killed..

or not doesn't seem to be of concern.
If they aren't,strike was legitimate;
If they are,strike was legitimate.

I'll give some of the details of the incidents, it would take forever to give details for all.They were all last year or this year.

Hamas member & family;
http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/06/12/israel.terror.crackdown/
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/75c84c8303865a7585256d49004c3692?OpenDocument

UK citizens;
http://www.nuj.org.uk/inner.php?docid=577
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1128176,00.html

Flechette tank rounds;
http://www.janes.com/regional_news/africa_middle_east/news/jdw/jdw010522_2_n.shtml
http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=203111&contrassID=2&subContrassID=1&sbSubContrassID=0


The point I am making is that defenders of IDF cannot
claim that they have the moral high-ground;
idf is guilty of some horrific acts.

And you say "disputed",I say "occupied",
let's call the whole thing off.....


:)

[forgethell]

46. Suits me.

[Djinn]

29. if you really beleive

that you can without any dishonesty say "well yes we shot amissile into an apartment building but we didn't mean to kill civilians, or if you can explain why children are repeatedly shot by snipers, or why someone wearing kevlar and heavilly armed needs to use lethal force on CHILDREN throwing rocks then yeah maybe there'd be some point in talking - if you can't then you're simply swallowing more propaganda.

Lets face it if Hamas et al had the hardware and infrastructure to target only military installations the occupation would still be with us and the IDF would still be shooting children, settlers would still be roaming around looking for children to harrass.....

And if you're going to bring international law into well there's one you're conveniently forgeting - the one about ILLEGAL OCCUPATION

[forgethell]

30. the question is

wee there terrorists in the apartment building? why were they there? If they were hiding behind their women's skirts, doesn't that make them responsible for the deaths, rather than the Isralies?

[Forkboy]

31. I agree

that's why we're bombing the shit out of Fallujah.Can't have them terrorists hiding behind women's skirts.If they do,why,let's just kill the women too!

It's all so simple...the pacifists just dont get it.The only way we'll all ever be safe is to kill as many people as possible.

[bemildred]

32. LOL.

Yeah, the women should have stopped the terrorists, so it's their OWN
fault they got killed.

[forgethell]

38. No, Mr Mildred

it's the terrorists fault.

[bemildred]

39. A civil answer deserves a civil reply.

It is the fault of the people who killed them.
This is not to say the "terrorists" are without fault mind you,
but the guy who pulled the trigger cannot escape responsibility
for his act, and to say they are collateral damage is an
unacceptable diminishment of their importance and humanity.
If one intends to assert the moral value of human life, one must
assert it for all human lives, including Palestinian women. I do
not buy the argument that there was no other way to kill these
terrorists than to go through the women. A decision was made that
their lives were less important than getting the "terrorists", that
has moral consequences whether that is comfortable or not.

[forgethell]

45. I agree that the decision has

moral consequences. So does the decision NOT to strike and let them continue to murder Israelis.

In war, civilians suffer. The glory of the American and Israeli militaries is that they TRY to MINIMIZE unavoidable civilian casualties. That they are not always successful is a traagedy. The Palestinian resistance, Al- Queda, and other terrorists, try to MAXIMIZE civilian casualties.

They are NOT morally equivalent. Or perhaps you are a post-modernist? In any event, they do not have the military power to prevail, so thye resort to these tactics. And our governments are resolved to stop them. This is called the "cycle of violence".

Wars generally continue until one side, or the other, is beaten (for example, WW2) or gives up (Vietnam).

There may have been a possibility to find some other way to kill the terrorists. But at what cost in Isreali lives? While all human beings are of equal and infinite worth to God, it is not reasonable to expect that the Israelis are willing to continously and continually risk their innocent's lives to protect the lives of the enemy population.

It is very sad. But until the Palestinian are willing to accept Israel as a Jewish state to which they have to 'right of return', the war will continue. Unless, of course, the other Arab states invade and commit genocide upon the Israeli population.

Who knows? Maybe the fundies are on to something with thei Apocalype theories.

[bemildred]

47. Hypothetical future damage does not justify present murder. nt

[forgethell]

48. An attack on

a legitimate target is not murder. Accidntal death of others in the attack is not murder. Nothng at all is hypothetical about the "future damage".

We seem to have a disagreement about the definition of "murder". It is not the same as "violent death". But, Mr. Mildred, in war stuff happens. do you agree that the Israelis and Palestinians are at war, or not? If not, what is the situation. Should the Israelis fight only through law enforcement methods, or are they justified in striking the snake in his den?

[bemildred]

49. Incoherent emotional appeals are not an argument.

It is murder to kill innocent people when no necessity requires it.
There is no necessity here, one could and should wait.

[forgethell]

51. I aagree, incoherent emotional

appeals are worthless as a argument. Have you checked out the discussions that the palestinians use? Obviously not.

Where we disagree, is not only on the definition of murder (is a traffic accident murder? It is surely unnessary.), but on the defintion of necessary. I think it is necessary to kill the terrorist leaders when the opportunity presents itself.

I do not blame the innocent companions of the terrorists for their own deaths. but if I was a Palestinian, I would certainly not knowingly come with 100 feet of one. They surround them and idolize them instead, knowing the risks.

[bemildred]

52. The commandment says "Thou shalt not kill"

There are no codicils or amendments to it. I am not defending the
Palestinian's arguments or the terrorist attacks. I'm just saying the
pretensions of moral superiority claimed by Israel and the IDF are
ludicrous and contrary to simple observation. If you are going to
operate on the basis of "an eye for an eye" at least have the moral
cojones to be honest about it. The actions of Israel are completely
"morally equivalent" to the actions of the Palestinian "terrorists".
If you aren't willing to walk the walk of moral behavior, spare me
the moralistic bullshit too.

[forgethell]

53. Well, the commandment is really

"thou shalt not commit murder", but I didn't think we were arguing religion.

But let's assume you are right for a minute. Then they are both bad, and the Israelis are every bit as justified, or not, as the Palestinians.

"eye for an eye". What do you mean by that, sir? Can you possibly be so morally obtuse as to mistake self-defense, even preemptive self defense, for revenge? I would hope not, but you are not making a good case for that conclusion, IMO.

To say that the two are morally equivalent is total and outrageous nonsense. There is no equivalency between the murderer and his victim, even if the victim successfully defends himself by killing his attacker.

But do you not understand, sir, the moral difference between killing in war and murder by private individuals? Do you not understand the difference between deliberate, targeted killing of unarmed civilians, and their inadvertent deaths in a legitimate attack upon combatants? Are you at all a nuanced thinker?

But I will cut all the moralistic BS, as you insist. The Israelis have the power and at long last the will to crush the Palestinians. You can't get much more post-modern than that. So if the Palestinians do not want to die, then maybe they should stop provoking attacks. This is reality. I am very sorry for them, but they have the power to stop the attacks by ceasing their loathsome 'resistance'.

Is that clear enough for you?


On edit: I am going offline, now, and will not be back on till later this evening, or possibly tomorrow. I'm not bugging out, and eagerly await your reply. Best wishes, FH

[bemildred]

54. Very clear, thank you for your candor. nt

[forgethell]

66. Was it clear enought that

you could answer some of my questions??

[bemildred]

68. Off our meds today?

I doubt it will do any good, but to "answer" your "questions":

"thou shalt not commit murder", but I didn't think we were arguing religion.

We are not.

But let's assume you are right for a minute. Then they are both bad, and the Israelis are every bit as justified, or not, as the Palestinians.

Right, morally equivalent.

"eye for an eye". What do you mean by that, sir? Can you possibly be so morally obtuse as to mistake self-defense, even preemptive self defense, for revenge? I would hope not, but you are not making a good case for that conclusion, IMO.

Preemptive "self-defense", LOL. Everything done by the IDF is not
self-defense, some of it is and some is murder, that is the point.
Killing women and children that have neither the means or the intent
to harm you is murder.

To say that the two are morally equivalent is total and outrageous nonsense. There is no equivalency between the murderer and his victim, even if the victim successfully defends himself by killing his attacker.

You said it, why cannot I?
"and the Israelis are every bit as justified, or not, as the Palestinians"

But just because you get murdered, that does not mean you aquire some
sort of moral superiority, you might have had it coming. You all
seem clear enough about this in the case of Palestinians, but seem
to think all dead Israelis are innocent and saintly.

But do you not understand, sir, the moral difference between killing in war and murder by private individuals? Do you not understand the difference between deliberate, targeted killing of unarmed civilians, and their inadvertent deaths in a legitimate attack upon combatants? Are you at all a nuanced thinker?

No, I do not understand that difference, I think killing is killing;
and killing in war is just as immoral and perverse an activity as
killing in time of peace. The notion that deaths caused by the
dropping of a bomb or the firing of a missile are "inadvertent"
is moral cowardice from people not willing to face up to the evil
they are doing.

But I will cut all the moralistic BS, as you insist. The Israelis have the power and at long last the will to crush the Palestinians. You can't get much more post-modern than that. So if the Palestinians do not want to die, then maybe they should stop provoking attacks. This is reality. I am very sorry for them, but they have the power to stop the attacks by ceasing their loathsome 'resistance'.

This is the part I liked. One rarely gets an overt admission that
the purpose of this little mess is to "crush the Palestinians".

Being candid about ones intent has nothing to do with post-modernism.
Quite old-fashioned, actually.

[forgethell]

70. It wouldn't be necessary to "crush"

the Palestinians if they weren't being mislead and deceived by lying, murdering, evil men. This is not an ehnic thing.

But as we have reduced the equation to a power one, the Israelis have it; the Palestiniains don't. They refuse to recognize that they are beaten; they refuse to make a just and honest peace.

They have the power to stop the suffering in their own hands, and should use it by throwing out Arafat, houding Hamas into extinction, and showing the world that they truly want to live in peace. If the Palestinians were not so hot to "crush" and destroy Israel, there would be no fighting, and they could regain much, although not all, of what they lost by their own intransigence.

And no, I do not accept that there is a moral equivalence between the two. That was only assuming your arguments were correct, which I do not agree to.

When will you admit that the Palestinians, all the Arabic countries, in fact, with the possible exception of Jordan, wish to commit genocide on any Jews in Israel?

[bemildred]

77. Please return to posts #47 and #49 and repeat as needed. nt

[elsaamo]

78. I'm afraid I do not understand this

It seems very easy to enter into harmful invective in these type of debates, and I dare say I shall fall into that trap, but will do my best to avoid it, as I hope you will as well.

Your statement which I would like to discuss is this. "No, I do not understand that difference, I think killing is killing;
and killing in war is just as immoral and perverse an activity as
killing in time of peace."

To begin with, a definitional point. All too often we assume that "to kill" and "to murder" are one and the same. They are not. The definition of kill (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=kill) is, simply to end a life. It is very broad, and can be used to describe the massacring of millions of civilians and the judicial killing of Hitler. To murder is the unlawful and unjustifiable killing of a person (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=murder). Perhaps you are of the opinion that all killing is unjustifable. That is a worthy feeling, but consider the consequences. Should one aim a nuclear missle at New York City, one of this pacifistic tendency would say it is unjustifable to kill this attempted commiter of genocide (assuming there is no option to merely stop him from firing his weapon in a non-mortal way). Again, I understand the feeling behind such an opinion, and can respect you if this is what you truly believe, but I think you can recognize my position that there are some killings that are in fact justified, and perhaps understand why I think that governments must be of that position.

According to my position that there is a difference between killing and murdering, I am going to assume, and I apologize if this is presumptuous of me, and please correct me if I am in error, that you were referring to "murdering" in that sentence. In my opinion, it is justifiable to target and kill soldiers during war. Should you disagree, I would point out that otherwise you would be of the opinion that all American soldiers during World War Two be prosecuted for acts of genocide against the German and French people. They certainly killed both soldiers and innocent civilians alike. I would respond that their killings of soldiers was justified, as it was done to defend millions of others. Their killing of innocent civilians (assuming we are referring to inadvertant mistakes), while certainly mistakes, must be considered as necessary evils in their pursuit of the defence of millions of other civilians in their own nation and around the world. Similarly, the Israeli army is justified when it kills terrorists and attempted terrorists, and any who attempt to prosecute their struggle by unjustifiably targetting and killing civillians (returning to my earlier point, and unjustifiable killing can also be said as murdering civillians). Mistakes while doing such, i.e. the killing of civillians are wrong. They cannot be defended except to hope that they were unintentional. Others might disagree, but I do not believe that the Israeli army targets civillians, and while one could argue that they need to be more careful, I would agree, saying that every army should always be more careful in its exercises using weapons that can so easily end life.

Nonetheless, accepting my differentiation of killing and murdering, requires that there is a difference between the actions of the respecting forces in the region. Should you reject that differentiation, I can understand your position, but must, respectfully, stand in strong disagreement.

[bemildred]

79. A thorny issue, and a messy business.

I'm not willing to try to disentangle it today, but stick around
and continue the conversation in this same manner, and perhaps we can
help each other clarify what we think. I offer this now:

Killing is the ending of life. This may be justified or not.
When unjustified, or accidental but negligent, I call it murder.
This has nothing to do with law, everything Hitler did was "legal",
he was the law at the time, so I do not find law adequate to discern
whether a killing is murder, except in the sense used in court, which
is not the sense I am interested in. To decide whether a killing is
murder in the sense I mean, which is the moral and religious sense, one
must address issues of equity, moral justice, the context of the action,
and moral intent. These are all matters of opinion, not fact. So when
I say that such and such a killing was murder, I am expressing my
opinion about whether it was justified.

If you reread this thread, I believe I am fairly consistent in this.

Most of the justifications I see for the more egregious offenses
committed by both sides boil down to this:

The end justifies the means, i.e. getting "terrorists" justifies
killing innocent bystanders, or ending the occupation justifies bombing
pizza parlors. This is no morality at all, but just expediency, and
stupid too.

I say that if one is to claim to be a moral agent, one has be one all
the time. To be a moral agent only when it is convenient or expedient
is to be no moral agent at all.

[elsaamo]

80. I hope we can disentangle it together

I agree with your definition of "to kill" and "to murder," and concur that if it is legal is not nerely as important as if it is justifiable to reasonable people as I hope we are.
As it happens, the site I linked to used both, so in the interests of full disclosure, I thought I should mention both. I would be willing, though, to switch to "justifiable," if you like.

I would like to make one minor point. You describe murder as "unjustified, or accidental but negligent." I wholeheartedly concur with the first, but must comment on the second. There is a difference between targeting a civillian and trying to shoot a murderer and missing. If the miss was caused by negligence, it is wrong, but not exactly murder. To take the point to its most extreme case, it seems that one might argue that if during a battle, an American soldier in World War Two was not sufficiently careful and killed a civilian, that is the moral equivalent of somebody intentionally targetting and killing an innocent civillian. While it is true that in both case a civillian is unnecessarily killed, it seems to me that there is a difference. There is evidence that the Israeli army is at times negligent, and that should and must be corrected, but I do not believe that the vast majority are anything other than results of negligence or pure mistakes (as in, there are times when all proper precautions are taken, but people are still mistakenly killed. I am certain, for example, that some innoncent civilian was on the beaches of Normandy during D-Day and was accidentally killed, but I would not argue that the United States Army did not take sufficient precautions to avoid such.)

I believe I understand your point concerning the ends justify the means, but am not quite certain. I see the parallel that you are trying to construct between the Israeli army killing civillians in the process of killing terrorists and Palistineans killing civillians in the process of constructing their own state but am not certain if this is a fair comparison. Again, should you accept this fine line, while one should criticize the Israelis when they err, and criticize them harshly, and there is some form of equivalency between the two sides, they are not quite the same.

I concur that one should always strive to be a fully moral age, and while I recognize that none will ever achieve that, we must consistently seek it. I hope that we can work together, though, to reach the highest point of understanding.

[bemildred]

81. Murder == "unjustified killing" -- Done

I will stipulate that "accidental, but negligent" entails a lower
degree of culpability then when killing is intentional, more or less
as the legal distinction is commonly made between the two cases. And
accidental, just rotten luck, carries no culpability at all.

I must point out however that this distinction is easily misused. The
perpetrator may well convince himself, after the fact, that he didn't
really mean to do it, he was just trying to scare them, etc. Speculating
about states of mind is a murky business and best avoided when one can,
and argument from a claimed state of mind in the absence of any facts to
support it carries no weight in my mind. To put it candidly, people
can and do bullshit themselves about their own intentions all the time
when it is in their interest to do so. Sometimes one is forced to
leave the matter moot, or "not proven" as the legal verdict is.

In legal terms, the desire not to convict the innocent leads us to
overlook these issues, if one cannot reasonably prove intent, then it
is presumed there was no intent. We are allowed here to be more free
in our reasoning, to speculate and infer from what we know.

War in general has little to do with morality, it is after all the
use of force to get one's way when talk is not sufficient, in most
cases it is little more than brigandage. What little of ethics and
morality there is to be found in war relates to two issues: loyalty,
discipline, and courage in the fighting, and the treatment of civilians
and the defeated. The first has to do with the conduct of the soldier
as a soldier, comrade, and defender of his people. The second gets
closer to the issue we are talking about, and is the one area in
which I feel it makes some sense to talk about the laws of war.

I want to mention, so you know, that I consider bombing civilian
centers a war crime, if that term means anything, just slightly below
deliberate methodical genocide. It is random killing to inflict
terror. I am quite clear the the US did a fair share of that in
WWII, and I think we are the worse for it, morally speaking.

The ancient Greeks, when one city defeated another, would kill all
the men and haul all the women and children off into slavery. I think
it is a good thing that we don't do that anymore, or at least we are
not nonchalant about it, so in that sense I think having some
rules about war is a good thing.

One must distinguish between conventional war between organized forces
on a battlefield and the various disorganized versions where the
distinction between civilian and combatant is muddy. The latter
usually entails either the occupation of one population by the
forces of another, or civil conflict. The two cases are quite
different.

In total war there is only the first sort of morality to be considered,
the soldiers morality of loyalty and courage, if he has any. Between
the sides there are no rules and people get killed for any or no
reason, for being in the way. One only hopes that when one side wins
the killing will cease and the reparations not be too harsh.

(I find I am fatigued. To be continued.)

[elsaamo]

95. First of all,

Let me apologize for not answering quicker- I had a number of assignments that simply needed to be done at already the cost of sleep and was unable to respond quicker than now. I shall try to answer all of your points in a relatively orderly fashion.

I am also quite pleased that we can skip ahead past the discussion over whether any killing is ever justified. I am glad that we are in agreement on that point. Your comments on total war and civilian bombing are interesting, but at the risk of making this discussion even more complex and long, I will try to shift back into discussing the core issue, Israel/Palestine.

We both agree that kiilling people to directly protect another is justified (i.e. a police man killing a person with his hand to the trigger aimed at another). Attempting to do such, and by mistake killing an innocent person is understandable and somewhat justified, but obviously not ideal. Intentionally killing an innocent civillian is never justified (I hope that I am not misinterperting your position in this last paragraph. If I am, please correct me.)

The cruicial question is therefore intent. As you point out, it is virtually impossible to know what any person is thinking when they act, perhaps even for the person himself. The specific actions of one person at one time, while important, are not as critical as the preponderance of actions committed by one side. Let us try to see if we can discover anything about the intentions of either side from looking at the general statistics.

The Palistinean Red Crescent Society reports the casualty figures from Sept 29, 2000 till today of the Palistineans as 3222(http://www.palestinercs.org/intifadasummary.htm) Shin Bet says that it is at least 2,124. (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Intifada). Ha'aretz, a progressive Israeli newspaper pins the number two months ago at 2736 (http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Second+Intifada). Averaging the three numbers out, it is roughly 2700. I should also point out that all these numbers probably include people who personally blew themselves up, for which the Israeli army cannot be put directly at blame (though it is reminiscent of those states that make attempted suicide a capital offense). Over roughly four years ( a bit more, but regardless), the casualties are slightly less than 2 per day. This is certainly a significant number, but for those numerically challenged like myself, let us put this in some context.

The CIA puts the population of Gaza Strip at 1.3 million (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/gz.html). Another 2.3 million live in the West Bank, (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/we.html) giving a total number of 3.6 million. At a rate of roughly 675 deaths a year, that is less than 20 per 100,000 people. Washington DC had one of 46.5 last year (http://www.safestreetsdc.com/subpages/murdercap.html). Baltimore, where I have been living the past year and a half, 37.5 (http://baltimore.areaconnect.com/crime1.htm). This area, which is a warzone, supposedly, has a murder rate one half the one in some American cities.

Consider other contexts in which to put it. Since March 2003, 1150 American soldiers have died in Iraq. At this rate, 2300 will die by the end of one year from the start of the invasion, just slightly less than the Palistinean casulaties- though in one fourth the time. The numbers get a bit more lopsided if you take more context. It would appear to me that there are three factors determining the numebr of casualties. The firepower of the attacker. (as in, well-armed people will kill more than 4 year olds with sling shots) The training of the defender. (trained soldiers would presumably die less than random untrained civillians like myself). And how much the attacker wants to kill his opponents. Now, this is obviously the hardest one to quantify, but we seem to have some sort of equation here from which lessons can be learned. If we compare the respective firepower of the insurgents vs. the American soldiers to the Israeli soldiers vs. the Palistinean civllians, we get interesting findings. The insurgents are relatively underarmed in comparison to the Israeli army. the IDF has thousands of trained soldiers with automatic firepower, tanks, and missles. The insurgents have some bombs and guns, but much less weaponry and less training. The US army can react to an attack using their training and their immense firepower. The Palistinean civillians have neither. Presuming that the Israeli army wanted to kill Palistinean civillians as much as the Iraqi insurgents want to kill American troops, we would assume that the Israelis would kill much, much more than the Iraqis would. They haven't to the tune of 1/4. We still can't quantify it, but it would appear that at the very least, the IDF is significantly less bloodthirsty than the Iraqi insurgents.

Suppose these facts don't seem true to you. I can understand that you might not believe them- I myself didn't until I looked at all the sources and observed the facts. Let me just make one last point. The Israeli army has killed less than 2 people per day. Assume that there is simply one lunatic in the army who desperately wants to kill any Palistinean he can find- presumably a reasonable assumption. Think about it, though. If a soldier with a submachine gun, let alone a tank or a helicopter really wanted to kill civillians, and was allowed to by his superior officers, wouldn't he himself have killed more than two people a day? I mean, it's not as if anybody on the opposing side could have stopped him. Yet they haven't. Now, this isn't to argue that there has never been a single lunatic on the Israeli side, but it does seem that they must be cracked down on very early, or prevented by some other ways.

This is simply all by way of saying, that if the Israeli army, or any part of the Israeli army was trying to kill civillians intentionally and fake it by calling it forced upon them, the data does not support it. So, unless you can present another thesis, I only see two options. Either they aren't trying to massacre civillians, or they are, and are just damned incompetent. Either way, that isn't too bad.

[bemildred]

101. No apology is necessary. I'm in no hurry.

You will find I take my time too.

I have no disagreement with the points you make here, esp. that
Israel is not trying to kill all the Palestinians and the level
of violence in evidence is modest compared to some other past and
present conflicts. This is not total war, and is rather modest
by the standards of some guerrilla conflicts. It is clear that
Israel as a nation is deeply conflicted over how to deal with the
Palestinians, and that some of the best Palestinian advocates are
Israeli Jews. Credit where credit is due, as they say.

On the other hand, "we're not as bad as so-and-so" is faint praise,
and it must be admitted that the Palestinians do not live well, on
the whole, and have not been treated well by the Israeli state,
on the whole. But the problem is not genocide, and the American
treatment of the natives, for instance, was much worse, on the whole.

There certainly has been a strain in the Israeli political discussion
that would like the Palestinians to go away, and that has made efforts
to "encourage" that, but not with much success as you point out.

And all of this is in the nature of saying that one is less culpable,
a mitigation, not that one has done the right thing.

[elsaamo]

103. I agree entirely

We're basically in agreement, being in the center-left on this issue. Israel should and mustdo its part to improve the lives of the Palistineans, and I believe it will once the situation stables slightly. That should be our goal.

[bemildred]

89. OK, to continue, let's see if we can answer the questions.

With regard to the "killing is killing" statement,
see post #82.

We have covered the issue of legal vs moral/ethical
definition of "murder", and the gradations that might
exist in unjustified killing.

I will stipulate that, if a war itself is justified, then
it may be justified for soldiers in that war to kill in
pursuit of that war; but again, there is no carte blanche,
and as in the Eichmann case "just following orders" is not
sufficient justification, nor are statements on the order of
"they are defending millions". You have to make the case
that the particular person(s) killed needed to be killed to
defend something in particular, and that killing was the
imperative option at the time, to even begin to make the
case it was justified.

This is especially the case in unconventional conflicts where
the civilian/soldier distinction is not clear and the apparatus
of convention war with opposing forces and massed battles and
so on are not in play. Guerilla wars are very like police
actions and the standards one applies to police activities
are more appropriate than those used in heavy combat. This
is especially true if one accepts the requirements of the
Geneva Conventions.

There is plenty of evidence that dead Palestinian women
and children are not all inadvertent mistakes, and likewise
that the Government of Israel could care a fig about those
cases as such. The same can be said of course WRT the
other side in this dispute.

I will stipulate that the cases of bombing civilian areas
and suicide attacks on pizza parlors are different in
various ways, and some will assert that one or the other
is somehow less culpable on the basis of those differences.
I find these arguments ridiculous. The core feature of both
is the infliction of a large amount of harm on a large
collection of random persons going about their own business
in their own neighborhoods. I don't find any of the defenses
offered by either side anything but wishful babble, and
especially not the suggestion that it was thought that some
"terrorists" might be in the area where the bomb was aimed,
or that the Palestinians have no other means to "defend
themselves". We can examine that issue further in another
post if you like.

Finally, I am not exactly drawing a parallel between the
Israeli use of random violence and the Palestinian use of it,
I am rather drawing a parallel between the dishonest rhetorical
deflections and exuses produced by both sides to excuse
their conduct, and I an attacking the pretensions of moral
behavior on both sides. The precondition for improvement is
the honest admission of what requires to be improved, and I
submit that either side would be well served to unilaterally
improve it's conduct on both practical and moral grounds,
the present policies are clearly bankrupt.

I will concede that the "fine line" that you point to exists,
I just don't think it makes much difference that some people
on one side do things that are slightly more egregious than
some people on the other side, and I don't have a lot of
interest in elaborating those distinctions.

I must confess that I do have a bias towards the Palestinian
side in this, for a number of reasons, probably most importantly
because Israel has the big guns and the US to back them up, and
hence are in a better position to control what happens next.
I know it doesn't nesessarily feel that way to an Israeli living
in the middle of all that.

[elsaamo]

96. Am too tired for a subject

Greetings,

Some of the topics you bring up here I referred to in my response that you have obviously not yet had a chance to respond to, so I will avoid commenting on them again. One quick point, though. You seem to be under the impression that I am living in ISrael- in fact, I'm in Baltimore, originally from a suburb of New York City. I apologize if I spread any misconception.

I concur that too many civillians are dying on both sides, and that the Israeli army must do its fair share in working to reduce the amount of mistakes that are committed. As I comment in the other post, I do not believe there is serious evidence to support that the Israeli army is targetting, on a large scale, civillians. If they are, they are doing it in one of the most incompetent fashions ever attempted.

There is a significant difference from a moral perspective between those who target civillians for any reason, and those who miss terrorists and hit civillians. Again, I agree that both sides need to accept their share of the responsibiltiy and work to ameliorate it, and I hope we can do that together. But such actions do not begin based on large attacks on the other, accusing an army which seems to be trying, at the very least, to reduce casualties, of engaging in unintentional or intentional targetted killings of civillians. I truly believe that progressive supporters of Israel, mostly in the Jewish community, would back you to make the situation more moderate, if it can be stipulated that Israel must exist. There are alot of things that it must do to make itself better, but the situation in the region would be simply desperate were it not to exist.

Consider this for starters. If Israel is destroyed, we will be facing the largest human rights problem since certainly the 1950's if not earlier. In the very best scenario, six million refugees will be forced to flee across a sea, if not an ocean. The worst case scenario is significantly worse.

There is a bigger reason, though, to support Israel's existence. It is the only state in the region where women are completely equal to men. Abortions are legal. Homosexuals are accepted. Education is allowed. A strong democracy exists. This is not the makings of a perfect society, nonesuch exists and Israel is certainly not the first. It is a long way off, but the basic building blocks are there- toleration, moderation, freedom of speech.

A part of me shares the same bias you do towards the weaker group. I agree yet again that Israel needs to take its role as leader of the situation and work for a moderate form of peace, and I desperately hope they do. But military power is not the only determinant of a wrong nation. By that definition, the United States was wrong in World War Two because they were the eventual victors. We have a responsibility, as progressives, to support the spread of democracy and freedom around the world, in so far as it strengthens American foreign policy. There are not so many moderate democracies, especially in that region, to allow even one to fall in the mouth of the tiger.

[bemildred]

102. I had not taken a position on your location.

I live in LA, FWIW.

I was just admitting that it can be hard to be dispassionate when
you are subject to attack. Nevertheless, it will pay you to make
the effort in most cases. Fear and anger are lousy bases for
decision making.

I don't think we disagree much. My point is that the interests of
all parties would be better served by a less belligerent attitude,
where that is possible, and a more scrupulous attention to the
protection of those on both sides that want to get along. That is
why I dislike Mr. Sharon and his ilk, he's a bully and careless of
innocent lives, and that is why I have little use for Arafat as well.

It's all very well to use violence to protect yourself, but it's another
thing entirely when you are belligerent or careless. And it's all
very well to point out the other fellows failings, but your interests
are better served by addressing your own.

[bemildred]

82. A side point.

The statement about "killing is killing" was made in response to
a comparison of killing in war with murder in civilian life, with
the implication that killing in war is automatically justified or
in some sense intrinsically different.

My point was that killing in war is just like killing in peace, from
the standpoint of whether it is justified or not. The fact that
there is a war on does not give you moral or ethical carte blanche.

One can make a good argument that there is no morality in war,
or that war is inherently immoral, but one cannot say that killing
in war is inherently moral.

[elsaamo]

97. Side point, Part 2

I don't recall the specific implication to which you are referring, but I doagree that being in a war is not an automatic carte blanche, but does offer some more moral protection. Clearly, if guns are being fired all around you, one has greater moral right to simply fire in the direction of the opposing gun fire, as opposed to waiting to aim to make absolutely certain that a civillian is not crossing the road at the moment. (The so-called fog of war).

Nonetheless, a targetted killing of a civillian (i.e. a murder)in war is equivalent to a murder during peace time, certainly. I hope that I have answered any question you may have had about my position.

[bemildred]

98. Mr. Hell made the "War is hell" assertion, not you.

We agree on the "Fog of war" defense, where it applies - with
the caveat that it cannot be assumed to apply - especially in
the case you mention, disciplined return of fire in a combat
situation, and especially where the enemy picked the fight. In
cases where you picked the fight, there are still some issues
as to whether you should have picked the fight out of concern
for non-combatants present. Of course that is an issue for command,
the individual soldier will not be in a position to decide.

I have no doubts about you, Sir.

[elsaamo]

104. I am noticing that on virtually every point here

we are in agreement. Is there anything that I am overlooking?

Daniel

[bemildred]

105. I would guess that we might disagree about who is most to blame

for the present situation, and hence most obligated to take steps
to begin the process of making it right, at the government level.
That goes back the the issue of who has been most in control of the
course of events. But maybe not. I do think that if Israel waits
for the Palestinians to start fixing the situation, and Yasir, they
will be waiting a long time; and what are all those settlements,
expensive settlements, doing in the territories? :-)

[Lithos]

108. Thank you, bemildred and elsaamo

I enjoyed reading this exchange.

:thumbsup:

Thank you.

L-

[elsaamo]

109. Even there we are rather close

We both agree that both sides are in this situation and can only get out with some maturity on the part of their leaders. We both hope that both sides will achieve that. The question of the details is up for grabs- but as long as we can concur that both sides must exist at the end of this whole situation, Israelis as well as Palistineans, then the rest is negotiable.

I thank you for your patience and thought provoking comments- let's do it again some time!

Daniel

[bemildred]

110. Yes.

Going to have to live with each other.
Might as well get started.
This is all just wasting time and ruining peoples lives.

[Matilda]

60. If I may intrude and answer your question -

no, Israel and the Palestinians are not at war.

War must be officially declared, state to state. The Palestinians
currently have no state, and therefore no legal entity for declaring
war on another state, and Israel has not officially declared war
on the Palestinians.

The justification on each side for the fighting is: The Palestinians
are acting to prevent Israeli incursions into their territory, and
Israel is acting to prevent attacks upon their citizens by the
Palestinians.

Legally, I don't know where that puts such considerations as the
destruction of civilian life and infrastructure, but morally I'm
sure every reasonable person would think that both sides should
observe the international rules and conventions. I don't think
either side can claim any moral high ground in this conflict when
it comes to loss of innocent life.

[forgethell]

65. War is a state of conflict

and took place long before there were nice legal codes surrrounding it. So, let me see. Vietnam was not a war? Iraq 1 & 2 were not wars? Korea most definitely were not wars? I bet the people on both sides who were involved would respectfully disagree.

Israel occupied those land in a war against aggression by enemies who wanted to obliterate her. Let's assume that the Palestinians are doing just as you say, and only want the Israelis to go back to the pre-1967 borders. Their history has been one of trying to destroy Israel. Time and time again they have broken agreements. Why should the Israelis trust them, and why should they return to the indefensible 1967 borders?

[forgethell]

37. I don't want to defend the Iraq war here.

For the sake of argument, let's assume that all of *'s reasons for going to war were valid and true. The terrorists were there and were knee-deep in 9/11. It's just an assumption for argument.

So, OK, there we are in Fallujah, terrorists bombing us and beheading us. The whole country is united in the demand something be done. Or we could just have a mule-headed president too stupid and stubborn to admit he is wrong. Either way, we're fighting the terrorists and they are killing us. Should the American fighting-man (or woman) not do anything? should they just let them kill them. Are they entitled to attack terrorists in their lair. Yes or No, and if no, then what would you do?

I want to be clear here. I am not supporting bush, the war, or anything else. What I am saying is that the justification for the war (Israel or US) is an entirely separate issue from the justification of the tactics used to fight a war. And international law is clear that the party that hides among civilians is the one responsible for their deaths.

[Matilda]

61. Not a good idea to use the example of U.S. troops in Iraq

as a justification for action of any kind against a local population.
It is in fact a very good example of how not to conduct military
action against another state.

You can't mount a hypothesis based on the argument of supposing there
was a valid reason for invading Iraq, because if there had been a
clear-cut case, the current situation would be entirely different.
There would have been UN and European involvement, and in fact the
likelihood of the situation being resolved diplomatically would have
been increased by the co-operation of these entities.

The current situation in Iraq exists only because an ill-conceived
plan was poorly executed, and because the local population see
themselves as fighting for their very existence against an invading
army that has vastly superior fighting power. By any standards,
they are justified in defending their homeland by whatever means
they have, and because they lack an army that can match that of the
US, they are forced to resort to guerilla warfare.

Exactly the situation that exists in the Palestinian Territories.

[forgethell]

63. It is obvious that

you have understanding of the concept of a hypothetical argument. It is also obvious that you did not understand my point. I am sorry if it was too nuanced for you.

Let me simplify: the ends do not justify the means. I am not arguing against guerrilla warfare. It is illegal under international law, but, in my opinion, can still be seen as legitimate. When directed against the opposing armed forces. Terrorism is another matter. This is striking deliberately, targeting, civilians. If that is the only weapon that they have, then it is still wrong to do so.

Now, back to Iraq. It may be obvious to you that the Iraq war was a mistake. It may be obvious to me, and to everybody on this board. but there are a lot of people who think differently. Now, we may consider them to be evil or stupid or ignorant or mislead. And we may be right. But think of this: nobody thinks of himself as the bad guy. Hitler thought he was doing the world a favor to rid it of all those Jews. Stalin no doubt thought that he was advancing a noble ideal in slaughtering the kulaks by the millions. Even Saddam probably had a justification in his mind for the murders of his own peoples. And you can bet that * and the neo-cons think they are doing the right thing.

We don't have to agree; we don't agree. The Iraqis (and on the I/P question, the Palestinians) don't seem to agree. But that is one argument. What means can be used to inflict our separate viewpoints on the other party is a separate argument altogether.

My position is, and frankly there is nothing you can say that will change it, is that the deliberate targeting of civilians, men, women, and children, is an evil in and of itself, that no oppression can justify. And it must be fought and stopped.

[Matilda]

67. I do agree with you regarding the deliberate targeting of civilians

in any war, guerilla or otherwise.

And that applies to the Israelis as much as it does to the
Palestinians. Terrorists are no less terrorists just because they
wear an official army uniform and have expensive weaponry.

And BTW - No, I don't think people like Saddam and Hitler and Stalin
believe for one minute that they're following any high ideals when
they get rid of people who are a nuisance. They're just getting rid
of people who are a nuisance. And I think Sharon is doing the same.

And Bush knows bloody well that he's in Iraq to consolidate U.S.
power in the region. Maybe he's repeated his lies so often he
almost believes them himself, but that's not how it started. He
knew; he always knew.

[forgethell]

69. It is also

obvious that you do not understand "deliberate".

As for the other, nobody wants to believe that they are they bad guy. Nobody wants to believe that they will go down in history as evil scumbags. No, I'm pretty sure that all of the above believed that they were right, at least in the beginning. Later, they might have realized that they were wrong, but couldn't let go of the tiger's tail. I don't know.

[Matilda]

71. Oh, I think I do.

It's when an Israeli officer fires about twenty bullets into the
body of a schoolgirl, or when a bulldozer drives twice over a
peace activist. That kind of thing ain't no accident.

[Matilda]

72. And I'm not convinced that the deaths of so many children

are accidental, either.

Kill the children and you kill the future of the race. Simple,
really.

[forgethell]

73. Well, the Israelis have

procedures to punish officers guilty of such things. the Palestinians have made their murderers into heroes.

I think that we are just going to have to disagree on this one.

And the death of 1 or 2 children, even 1 or 2 hundred or even thousand, children, tragic and obscene as that may be, is not going to affect the survival of a race. Look how many children were killed in the Halocaust. Yet the Jewsih people thrive today.

[Matilda]

74. Procedures like these?

Israeli cleared of shooting schoolgirl:
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/front/archives/2004/10/22/2003207886

The death of Rachel Corrie:
http://www.countercurrents.org/pa-corrie15403.htm

Tom Hurndall:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/obituaries/story/0,3604,1128176,00.html

James Miller:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/3235155.stm


And so it goes on ..... the IDF is never seriously held accountable
for any of its actions, whether involving Palestinians or nationals
of any other country. This is not to say the PA is any better -
but please don't try to whitewash the IDF. The facts won't support
it.

[forgethell]

75. Hey, we

let off OJ. Looks like Scott Pereson will walk. The procedures don't always work, but at least they are there and are used.

I'm not trying to whitewash the IDF, but they are NOT trying to commit murder. The same can't be said for "the resistance".

[Djinn]

40. so it's OK then

if there's one "terrorist" who is one because teh Isarelis say so they can slaughter the people who are completely innocent, Palestinian lives aren't worth as much as Israeli I guess

[forgethell]

50. It's not a question of

whether Palestinian or Israelis lives are worth more than the other. It's a question that people are trying to kill each other. In this case, each side will value their own lives, and that of their families, friends, and countrymen more than those of the other side. And they will strive to protect them, even at some cost to their enemies.

To put it in crass material terms: my 5-year old Corolla is worth more to me than your 2004 Caddie is. And certainly more than your 5-year old Corolla is.

[Djinn]

59. I guess I see things differently

to me Israeli lives, Palestinian lives, Botswanan lives are not more or less important, not "worth" more or less than any Australian or Brit lives, people's worth is inherent and based on them being human beings not based on whether or not they happened to be born or live in the same nation as I.

oh and btw your car is almost definetly worth more than mine coz mine is a shitbox

[forgethell]

64. I think that

we all have an equal value in God's eyes. But the value of someone's life who is trying to kill me would definitely go down in mine. This is human nature. I will not sacrifice my life to somebody who is trying to kill me. I'm a Christian, but I have a way to go before I can match Christ.

But if Israelis lives are so important to you, why do you support terrorist activities? I know you will say that you don't, but, as I see it, if you support the individuals and institutions that are carrying these things out, then you are supporting terrorism.

Also, the way that I read your letter is that you would rather let a burglar burglarize your home, rape your wife, abuse your kids, and slit your throat than defend yourself by shooting him dead without warning???

BTW, my car, a 1999 Corolla has over 200,000 miles on it. I use this baby hard. This a totally unsolicited plug for Toyota.

[Djinn]

111. I think that your post is offensive and frankly

not worth responding to but I can never pass such an easy argument.

When have I said that I support any institutions or individuals carrying out terrorist acts? Unlike I see that nations can committ acts of terrorism too, Hamas AND the Israeli government are both guilty.

As for the other drivel - apart from anything it'd be hard for someone to rape my wife what with me being a straight chick who's not married

[bemildred]

8. Arafat says Palestinian state more likely with Netanyahu as PM

Interesting story in this context.

In a surprising statement, Palstinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat said that had Benjamin Netanyahu been the prime minister, it would have been easier for the Palestinians to establish an independent state.

In interview with the “Financial Times”, the Palestinian leader said, “With Sharon it’s much harder”.

According to Arafat, in spite of Sharon’s attempts to isolate him, the prime minister continues to send him secretive messages through his son, MK Omri Sharon.

The PA chairman also expressed his objection to the disengagement plan. “A withdrawal from the Gaza Strip had already been offered to us at Camp-David by Begin and Sa’adat. We discussed it and decided ‘no to Gaza only’”.

Maariv

[QueerJustice]

114. It seems maybe we dont know everything...

http://www.365gay.com/newscon04/11/110104arafat.htm

[bemildred]

115. I must say I'm skeptical.

AIDs does not have a sudden onset, and I've heard of
no opportunistic type "complications". Not ruling it
out, but you don't have to go there to explain this in
a man his age.

[QueerJustice]

116. the onset was not sudden...

He has been loosing weight and been sick quite a while...and this deterioration fits in quite well with AIDS...terminal stages..

Unless we got X rays WE(public) ain't gonna see the PCP pneumonia....If thats the opportunistic ``complication`` your talking about, or maybe a slit lamp is needed by US?(ain't gonna do us no good from this distance away tho)

How else can we see other opportunistic Infections(I think thats what you meant) over the INTERNET?

Or maybe you mean theres no Kaposi's sarcoma to be seen unless its hidden under that great big woolen hat hes wearing?

Or a brain biopsy because maybe theres something organic causing his coma?..........Cystercircosis?

I guess an HIV test would be best ;)

[bemildred]

117. I'm just saying I'm skeptical. This is all speculation.

There are other explanations. One would expect the French
MDs to check HIV out. Of course they might not want to talk
about it. But right now this is all babble, gossip.

[Djinn]

118. Oh for fuck's sake GIVE IT UP

or atleast post from something with a tad more news credibility?

[QueerJustice]

119. gay.coms...

...not credible? too rightwing??