General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

its very simple folks: the settlements are illegal and many of them are built on stolen land.

living in these settlements is being a co-conspirator in a crime, and asking for trouble.

no one here supports the murder of this family, and especially the innocent children.

but when you CHOOSE to live in a war-zone, you might get hurt.

 

[Par]

its very simple folks: the settlements are illegal and many of them are built on stolen land.

living in these settlements is being a co-conspirator in a crime, and asking for trouble.

no one here supports the murder of this family, and especially the innocent children.

but when you CHOOSE to live in a war-zone, you might get hurt.

Do you think the blame on the parents would have been less if they have done all the same things (i.e. settled on the same land, etc.) but the killer had had a change of heart at the last moment and left them alive?

 

[IDB87]

i never proposed anything of the kind.
i said that the parents must share responsibility for putting their children in harm's way.
of course the murderer is to blame.

do not put lies in my mouth.

Watch what I do.

Are you ready?

Parents that move to Sderot, who knowingly put their children at risk from rocket attack, share the responsibility with the terrorists who fire the rocket which kills/mains said kid.

 

[Soapy Sam]

Just I know where we are: can I take the above matter as settled?

It appears to be settled in your mind.

Personally, before I label someone "insane", I would require rather stronger reasons than that he disagrees with me on a matter of moral opinion and is unswayed by my logic. Morality is not simply a matter of logic.

There are many threads on this board about the nature of morality. I note that moral views, while often different from place to place, very frequently coincide with the accepted local customs (temporally and geographically) of the arguer. Clearly, that would be survival oriented behaviour, as any other position automatically incurs the ire of one's own peer group, who apply such labels as "contrarian", " wierdo", "crazy" or "traitor".

The tendency to accept the mores of one's own culture as indisputably correct is one I observe in every nation - and one that always concerns me.
There is value in considering the views of others, but it is valuable only to those willing to accept the possibility that they may be wrong - or that there may be more than one "right" answer.

When you describe as "insane" someone who is unwilling to listen to your moral opinion, I am unsettled.

There are two possible positions on morality; relativism and absolutism.
Both lead to paradox.

Either some actions are always culpable, or circumstances alter culpability.

My own views lean towards relativism , but with certain underlying standards, which relate the individual to the group.
I am not always consistent in my views, because I consider total consistency impossible, so I will not be playing further hypothetical games on this, as no hypothetical ever specifies enough of the detail.
What might damn a citizen of 21st century Israel or Palestine by my definitions would probably not apply to a Jewish "trusty" in Auschwitz. Circumstances alter moral absolutes. People deserve tolerance.

By the same argument, taking a child on holiday to the coast at Sendai and taking him to live in an illegal settlement may deserve different degrees of tolerance.

 

[Soapy Sam]

its very simple folks:

Here we differ. It is anything but simple. That's the point.

It's easy to take simple positions
1. The responsibility for the deaths lies 100% with the killers.
2. The responsibility for the deaths does not lie 100% with the killers.

These two opinions are all this thread is about.

If the truth was simple, we should be able, easily, to prove one or other statement is false.

We can't.

I may convince myself of one view and Par may convince himself of another. But we seem to lack the means to convince each other.

It's perfectly possible that what is wrong here is the concept of "right and wrong" itself.

 

[applecorped]

The stabbers are 100% responsible.

 

[bikerdruid]

Irony of ironies, that is precisely my partition proposal. I’m glad we finally agree!

obviously you have not been reading my posts.
i have maintained in this thread, that although the stabber is to blame, the parents put their children in harm's way and must share responsibility.
i invite you to actually read my posts and you would see that.
you have been arguing against me, and now you say you agree.
weird, dude....figure out your story...

 

[IDB87]

obviously you have not been reading my posts.
i have maintained in this thread, that although the stabber is to blame, the parents put their children in harm's way and must share responsibility.
i invite you to actually read my posts and you would see that.
you have been arguing against me, and now you say you agree.
weird, dude....figure out your story...

What about the children of Sderot whose parents knowingly live in an area where rockets are shot?

 

[theprestige]

'fair' is relative.
maybe had they slit the throats of the first generation of land thieves, it would be comparable.

Once the current generation of land thieves is old enough to understand their ancestor's crimes and choose for themselves whether to keep the stolen land, or give it back and return to their ancestral home, why shouldn't the current generation of dispossed have every right to slit their throats if the thieves choose to stay?

What about you, BD? You're more than old enough to know better and yet you keep right on squatting on stolen land. How is that fair?

 

[quixotecoyote]

Once the current generation of land thieves is old enough to understand their ancestor's crimes and choose for themselves whether to keep the stolen land or give it back and return to their ancestral home, why shouldn't the current generation of dispossed have every right to slit their throats?

Because I'm smart enough to shoot the first Apache I see climbing through my window with a knife?

 

[Thunder]

Here we differ. It is anything but simple. That's the point.

oh really? the settlements are NOT illegal and many of them are NOT built on stolen land?

that is the simple point I was referring to, which you are perfectly aware of.

 

[bikerdruid]

Once the current generation of land thieves is old enough to understand their ancestor's crimes and choose for themselves whether to keep the stolen land, or give it back and return to their ancestral home, why shouldn't the current generation of dispossed have every right to slit their throats if the thieves choose to stay?

What about you, BD? You're more than old enough to know better and yet you keep right on squatting on stolen land. How is that fair?

i live on traditional beaver indian land, with the blessing of the elders.
i have worked with them quite a bit in their land claims process.
i'm a welcomed squatter.
how about you?

 

[theprestige]

i live on traditional beaver indian land, with the blessing of the elders.
i have worked with them quite a bit in their land claims process.
i'm a welcomed squatter.
how about you?

I'm not the one saying it's fair to slit people's throats if their ancestors stole your land.

But I guess it's up to the Beaver Indian Elders. If they think you've earned the privilege of not having your throat slit, who am I to disagree?

By the same token, if they thought your penance wasn't good enough, would you agree to go back to the old country? Would you complain when they came for your scalp?

 

[bikerdruid]

I'm not the one saying it's fair to slit people's throats if their ancestors stole your land.

i never said it would be 'fair'.
perhaps you should actually read posts before you comment on them.

 

[Giz]

oh really? the settlements are NOT illegal and many of them are NOT built on stolen land?

that is the simple point I was referring to, which you are perfectly aware of.

When will you be giving your home to native americans? Don't make them turn to violence!

 

[Thunder]

When will you be giving your home to native americans? Don't make them turn to violence!

when are YOU going to give your home back to the Welsch, Scots, Manx, and Irish?

 

[theprestige]

i never said it would be 'fair'.
perhaps you should actually read posts before you comment on them.

Of course not. You're not saying anything. Only, somebody stabbed somebody else, and you seem to be under the impression that the person who got stabbed is partly responsible for the stabbing.

Feel free to clarify your position any time you like. Until you do, though, your commentary so far leads me to conclude that if the Beaver Indian Elders do decide your throat needs slitting, you'll be the first to admit that you kinda had it coming.

ETA: I know, I know, you've been extremely helpful to the Beaver Indians. But that only means you've bought their grace, not that killing land thieves is wrong.

 

[bikerdruid]

Of course not. You're not saying anything. Only, somebody stabbed somebody else, and you seem to be under the impression that the person who got stabbed is partly responsible for the stabbing.

Feel free to clarify your position any time you like. Until you do, though, your commentary so far leads me to conclude that if the Beaver Indian Elders do decide your throat needs slitting, you'll be the first to admit that you kinda had it coming.

perhaps i would.

 

[Thunder]

I'm not the one saying it's fair to slit people's throats if their ancestors stole your land.

neither has anyone else.

how's that strawman coming along?

 

[Skeptic]

The stabbers are 100% responsible.

Unless they stab Jews, in which case things are "very complicated" (see the thread about it in "Current Events".)

Anyway, back to this thread, if Firegarden is correct, Israel's most rational move is to simply move troops into Gaza again. It would not be occupying it any more that it does now, and at least will limit the rocket attacks.