General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

In retrospect, Thunder, perhaps you are conflating the notions of the legal and the moral – essentially using them as synonyms?

in many cases, what is illegal is also immoral.

clearly, it is immoral to live in a settlement that was built upon confiscated private property. as is it illegal.

 

[Par]

in many cases, what is illegal is also immoral.

In many cases, cars are Fords. But the two are by no means coextensive; “car” and “Ford” are not synonyms. Many cars are not Fords – and many Fords are not cars. Legality and morality have the same relationship.

clearly, it is immoral to live in a settlement that was built upon confiscated private property. as is it illegal.

I think we have the root of the problem. You have things precisely reversed. Something can’t be immoral simply in virtue of the fact it is illegal. A good law will typically mirror some moral principle or other. Laws are thus reflective of morality, not vice versa. How about we amend your original claim such that it focuses on morality rather than legality? Things might get clearer then.

 

[WildCat]

Where does it say that an occupation requires boots on the ground?

So now you're claiming that the IDF has established authority over Gaza? Hamas serves at the pleasure of the IDF?

So you can meet the challenge I set Mycroft?

Was the US occupying Iraq betwen 1991 and 2003?

Man, that was easy!

 

[bikerdruid]

this is a very complex issue. the murder of the innocents is a great tragedy, no one is disputing that.
that said, the west bank, by treaties signed by israel, is palestinian land.
the parents who took their children to live on confiscated land, put their children in harm's way.
they at least must have known that they were settling their children on disputed land, in an area that is a hot spot of problems.

the parents acted irresponsibly and put their children in danger.
the parents, the government of israel as well as the murderer are all responsible for this horrible tragedy.

 

[Arcade22]

in many cases, what is illegal is also immoral.

clearly, it is immoral to live in a settlement that was built upon confiscated private property. as is it illegal.

Using such inane logic having gay sex would be immoral if it's illegal but perfectly moral if it's legal. Don't conflagrate moral with legal.

 

[WildCat]

I don't read TF's definition the same way as you.
He used the term 'effective control' and that is what Israel has over Gaza which the USA doesn't have over Canada.

So you're claiming that the IDF has "efffective control" over Hamas? Still trying to ram that square peg into the round hole?

ETA: Please comment on why the CIA says
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gz.html

You actually think the CIA determines that, or do you think they just parrot whatever the State Department's position is?

And the State Dept. position is based on diplomatic convenience, not actual reality. Since the official position is that both Gaza and thre West Bank are part of the PA, it gives them the same status. But anyone can see that Gaza and the WB are not controlled by the same authority any longer.

Tell me FG, is Kosovo an independent state?

 

[Skeptic]

this is a very complex issue.

Only when Jewish children are stabbed to death in their sleep do things suddenly become "complex" for some people. Who is to say it is really bad? On the negative side, babies were murdered with repeated knife stabs; on the positive side, they were Jews. It sort of evens out. It's a terribly difficult to decide who's really in the wrong here: is it the crazed terrorist who killed a family of five in their sleep, of the family of five for being where the terrorist could get them in the first place? Very complicated.

 

[Par]

this is a very complex issue. the murder of the innocents is a great tragedy, no one is disputing that.
that said, the west bank, by treaties signed by israel, is palestinian land.
the parents who took their children to live on confiscated land, put their children in harm's way.
they at least must have known that they were settling their children on disputed land, in an area that is a hot spot of problems.

the parents acted irresponsibly and put their children in danger.
the parents, the government of israel as well as the murderer are all responsible for this horrible tragedy.

I think you were going very well until right at the end there; I have to take issue with your last sentence. The parents indeed accrue moral responsibility, but not for the murder. I propose we partition the event into two separate crimes.

1. The gross dereliction of parental duty inherent to using one’s children as pawns in a game of LandTheft.
2. The brutal murder of a whole family.

The parents are entirely culpable for 1, but not at all culpable for 2. The Palestinian in question are entirely responsible for 2, but not at all responsible for 1. Some support for this idea comes when we reflect on the fact that many settler families commit 1, but through sheer luck are not murdered. The fact they ended up dead in this case does not make the parents any guiltier of anything. They did the precise same thing as the luckier settlers. It took a completely different moral agent and his/her personal decision to butcher them for them to end up dead.

 

[WildCat]

IDF forces raiding a flotilla in international waters and executing people

I love it when people on a skeptics board back up their claims with absolute nonsense.

 

[Giz]

this is a very complex issue. the murder of the innocents is a great tragedy, no one is disputing that.
that said, the west bank, by treaties signed by israel, is palestinian land.
the parents who took their children to live on confiscated land, put their children in harm's way.
they at least must have known that they were settling their children on disputed land, in an area that is a hot spot of problems.

the parents acted irresponsibly and put their children in danger.
the parents, the government of israel as well as the murderer are all responsible for this horrible tragedy.

Wow. Textbook example of blaming the victim.

What do you say about rape victims who wore short skirts? Do you also assign blame to them?

 

[Skeptic]

Another thing: what about Palestinian civlians killed by the IDF? Aren't we guilty of a double standard here?

Well, not exactly. When an Israeli randomly kills innocent Palestinians for no reason -- like Baruch Goldstein and Ami Popper did -- the general reply in Israel is that of utter revulsion, just like the reaction here to the Palestinian murder of innocent Israelies.

When would the situation be equivalent to Israel's actions in Gaza? If (like Hamas) a crazed Israeli gunman took over this family's home... and constantly fired rockets at Palestinian houses from it... and declared repeatedly his goal is to kill all Palestinians he can see from the apartment... and after thousands (literally) of rockets fired the Palestinian security forces finally got sick of it, stormed the apartment, killed him and in the firehight the family was killed too.

Would Israelies, in such an hypothetical situation, see the deaths of the family members as different than they view them now? You bet your bottom dollar they would. Would they blame the Palestinian security forces or the gunman? Well, they might blame the security forces for not being careful enough of botching the job, perhaps, but there is no doubt they would say the lion's share of the guilt lies with the crazed Israeli gunman for taking over the family's home and using it as a base for attacks in the first place.

So there is no double standard: there is a single standard. The double standard, so far as I can see, come solely from the "enlightened progressive left" on this forum, who see Jews as constantly guilty for their own deaths, including babies.

 

[Skeptic]

What do you say about rape victims who wore short skirts? Do you also assign blame to them?

Well, it's a complex issue. On the one hand, rape is bad; on the other, according to the Bible, St. Paul says women should be subservient to men, so...

 

[FireGarden]

So now you're claiming that the IDF has established authority over Gaza? Hamas serves at the pleasure of the IDF?

Why does the first imply the second? And what has that to do with boots on the ground?

Was the US occupying Iraq betwen 1991 and 2003?

Man, that was easy!

Lots of things seem easy when you don't do them properly.

List of military occupations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_occupations

ctrl-F to find where Iraq is listed, you'll find two occurences:
Occupation of Kuwait by Iraq during the Gulf War, 1990–1991
Occupation of Iraq by the United States, United Kingdom, Poland and others: (2003–2004)

America didn't BEGIN an occupation of Iraq in 1991, so it couldn't have ended one.

Care to try again? Or do you want to admit that you don't know as much about this as the CIA?

You actually think the CIA determines that, or do you think they just parrot whatever the State Department's position is?

And the State Dept. position is based on diplomatic convenience, not actual reality.

I think the CIA knows enough to get the answer right. And so does the state department.

I also think you don't know enough to get it right, or to guess the motivations of the State dept.

 

[bikerdruid]

Wow. Textbook example of blaming the victim.

What do you say about rape victims who wore short skirts? Do you also assign blame to them?

i'm blaming the parents, not the children.
there is no correlation to a rape victim here.
the parents put their children in harm's way.

i said, "the parents, the government of israel and the murderer are all responsible for this tragedy."
no where did i say that the children were to blame.

 

[bikerdruid]

Well, it's a complex issue. On the one hand, rape is bad; on the other, according to the Bible, St. Paul says women should be subservient to men, so...

bogus argument.
why would i care what paul says?

 

[Par]

Only when Jewish children are stabbed to death in their sleep do things suddenly become "complex" for some people. Who is to say it is really bad? On the negative side, babies were murdered with repeated knife stabs; on the positive side, they were Jews. It sort of evens out. It's a terribly difficult to decide who's really in the wrong here: is it the crazed terrorist who killed a family of five in their sleep, of the family of five for being where the terrorist could get them in the first place? Very complicated.

I know what you mean. We have a remarkable and utterly appalling crime on the one hand and a much lesser one on the other. Yet some people wish to focus on the latter largely to the exclusion of the former. This is peculiar. It suggests to me something else is in play here. Further, were we to first conclude that the blame lies with the parents it would be all too easy to forget about – and thereby exculpate – the culprits of the far, far graver crime. That is a sinister trap – and one that must be neutralised.

 

[Par]

this is a very complex issue. the murder of the innocents is a great tragedy, no one is disputing that.
that said, the west bank, by treaties signed by israel, is palestinian land.
the parents who took their children to live on confiscated land, put their children in harm's way.
they at least must have known that they were settling their children on disputed land, in an area that is a hot spot of problems.

the parents acted irresponsibly and put their children in danger.
the parents, the government of israel as well as the murderer are all responsible for this horrible tragedy.

I think you were going very well until right at the end there; I have to take issue with your last sentence. The parents indeed accrue moral responsibility, but not for the murder. I propose we partition the event into two separate crimes.

1. The gross dereliction of parental duty inherent to using one’s children as pawns in a game of LandTheft.
2. The brutal murder of a whole family.

The parents are entirely culpable for 1, but not at all culpable for 2. The Palestinian in question are entirely responsible for 2, but not at all responsible for 1. Some support for this idea comes when we reflect on the fact that many settler families commit 1, but through sheer luck are not murdered. The fact they ended up dead in this case does not make the parents any guiltier of anything. They did the precise same thing as the luckier settlers. It took a completely different moral agent and his/her personal decision to butcher them for them to end up dead.

i'm blaming the parents, not the children.
there is no correlation to a rape victim here.
the parents put their children in harm's way.i said, "the parents, the government of israel and the murderer are all responsible for this tragedy."
no where did i say that the children were to blame.

I suggest, Bikerdruid, that it would be a mistake to continue this line of argument before clarifying whether you accept my partition proposal above or reject it (and, if so, on which grounds).

 

[Skeptic]

You know, the folks here who just can't figure out whether the terrorist who stabbed the babies multiple times in their sleep is to blame, or perhaps the victims are to blame for being there in the first place, rang a faint bell...

I remember Massingbird's most famous case: the Case of the Bloody Knife. A man was found next to a murdered body. He had the knife in his hand. 13 witnesses had seen him stab the victim. And when the police arrived, he said "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Massingbird not only got him off; he got him knighted in the New Year's Honours List. And the relatives of the victim had to pay to wash the blood out of his jacket!

Well, that's one mystery solved, namely, who the heck were on the jury in Massingbird's great triumph. Apparently some of the posters on this forum were. The victim was Jewish, I suppose.

 

[Skeptic]

i'm blaming the parents, not the children.

So am I: what made them let their little whore go out with such a leg-showing dress? No daughter of mine would be allowed to do that! It's all their fault she got raped.

 

[bikerdruid]

parents are ultimately responsible for the safety of their children.
if i took my children for a holiday to kandahar province in afghanistan, i would be in dereliction of that responsibility.
if my children or i were killed while on that holiday, i must concede that i was somewhat responsible for their deaths.