General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Par]

par...i did address your 'partition proposal'.
i said that you created a disconnect where none exists, since there is indeed a connection between responsibility and blame.
i'm with sam here....your partition proposal is bunk.

My proposal neither denies nor even mentions any such connection -- nor is anything of the sort entailed by it. Yet more evidence you haven't read it.

 

[AlBell]

You're being satirical. Right?

He was just beating The Fool and/or AUP to the punch.

 

[bikerdruid]

My proposal neither denies nor even mentions any such connection -- nor is anything of the sort entailed by it. Yet more evidence you haven't read it.

ah, yes...a disconnect and an overactive ego....

 

[Par]

ah, yes...a disconnect and an overactive ego....

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it.

 

[bikerdruid]

My position is laid out very clearly in the partition proposal above. I provide argument in its support. Yet seemingly you refuse even to read it, let alone to address it.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6970530&postcount=119

 

[Par]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6970530&postcount=119

Well, I hope the irony isn't lost on you!

 

[bikerdruid]

Well, I hope the irony isn't lost on you!

...no
ha ha....indeed, this irony is delicious.

 

[Par]

...no
ha ha....indeed, this irony is delicious.

Good! Anyway, if you, Bikerdruid (or anyone else, for that matter) would like engage with the following, I'd be interested:

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.

 

[Thunder]

No, The Fool is saying that. Which is why its such a ridiculous definition. Take it up with him, if you have a problem with it.

Its amazing how you have zero comprehension of what The Fool was saying.

I understand it, why can't you?

Israel can at any point in time, fly through Gaza's airspace, put troops on the ground, put ships in its waters, etc etc etc.

This is something no other country can do to another territory, unless that territory is under their ultimate sovereignty.

China CAN NOT use American airspace at its whim.

Russia CAN NOT put soldiers on American soil whenever it likes.

.....do you understand now?

thought not.

 

[Thunder]

So far as Thunder is concerned, Arabs in general and Palestinians in particular are like floods or animals:

err...no.

 

[Thunder]

The blame for the death of this family lays with the ones who wielded the knives.

But choosing to live in occupied territory, in settlements possibly built on stolen land, is asking for trouble. And even if you live in peace your whole life there, you are still a co-conspirator in a crime.

 

[bikerdruid]

Good! Anyway, if you, Bikerdruid (or anyone else, for that matter) would like engage with the following, I'd be interested:

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 did indeed read this before, and have commented on it several times, and it is still bafflegab.

 

[Soapy Sam]

I’ve some sympathy for what you say, Thunder, but one significant difference is that floods are not moral agents, whereas people are. Someone who lives on a floodplain only has themselves to blame. Someone who lives in an area where they’re likely to get themselves and their children killed is irresponsible, but, when it comes to the killing itself, blameless.

Here's where we differ. We are agreed that floods are not moral agents.
I infer we share the same view of landmines.
I presume we do not feel that about parents.

If a man sends a child through a minefield and that child is killed or injured, who is responsible? The child, or the father?
Or the people who planted the mines?
It is not just the minefield that is part of the environment. It is also the minelayers.

To my way of thinking there is a spectrum of responsibility, with the child (depending on age and other variables) at, or virtually at, the zero point. Where the minelayers and the father lie depends on circumstance. Was the field clearly marked and signed? If so, the onus shifts towards the parent who, knowing the risk, still chose to send the kid in. If neither father nor son knew it was there, the responsibility shifts drastically towards whoever laid it. There may be other factors- was the kid going for cigarettes, or to deliver a message for help? These details count.

Making a simple and simplistic binary split- It's your fault if it's a river, but someone else's if it's a man with a gun- is simply not good enough. Men with guns are a major part of the human environment in some places. If a man's mindset ignores that risk, he is ill adapted to his environment. The result of that is , statistically, predictable.

Landmines , like any other weapon, are non moral agents- simple mechanisms. But they are used, like other weapons, by people and people have motivations that depend on circumstance. Just as settlements are weapons, based on past circumstances.

But young children do not have such motives. These were not "Jewish children". They were children. They had a right to expect their parents to keep them out of danger and that right was ignored for whatever reason.

Whether the weapon is a mine, a knife or a gun, knowingly taking children, who are given no choice in the decision, into an area known to be full of dangerous , armed men who hate you and are liable to use lethal weapons against you is an irresponsible decision.

Now, I appreciate that you clearly share that view.

Your partition even makes this clear:-

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.

It strikes me as bunk, and dangerous bunk, simply because it ignores the causal connection between 1 and 2, by assuming that environment is somehow morally neutral. It is not. The single primary factor in the human environment is other humans. The distinction between passive environment and active humans is spurious. They are one and the same.



However-

I would gently add, though, that upon hearing of a brutal murder, “What the **** were the victims doing there?” is not the first question one should ask – nor the second, neither.

With this, I agree. Few people will ask it of those drowned by the Japanese Tsunami, though we might say that such events are far from unknown on Japan's east coast. I'm unclear if you would consider the deaths of children in Miyagi Prefecture to be their parents' fault- after all, it's a known earthquake area.

You may note that the sole individual washed away in California has received scant sympathy on this forum. WTF was he doing there? is indeed the relevant question in that case.

The fact the question is asked in this thread is because we are all aware of the idiotic tit-for-tat war that has been going on in the so-called "holy land" these last few millennia- and most of us are heartily tired of it and of the special pleading on both sides. If we have developed a "plague on both your houses" attitude it is sad, but I think, understandable.

 

[mortimer]

Its amazing how you have zero comprehension of what The Fool was saying.

I understand it, why can't you?

Israel can at any point in time, fly through Gaza's airspace, put troops on the ground, put ships in its waters, etc etc etc.

This is something no other country can do to another territory, unless that territory is under their ultimate sovereignty.

China CAN NOT use American airspace at its whim.

Russia CAN NOT put soldiers on American soil whenever it likes.

.....do you understand now?

thought not.

Really? You don't think that the U.S. can fly over Cuba, put troops on the ground in Cuba, put ships in it's waters? Replace Cuba with just about any other country on Earth. You don't think we could fly over and put troops on the ground in Canada, Mexico, any number of other countries? Seriously? We did it in Iraq. We did it in Afghanistan. We did it in Grenada, Haiti, Pakistan, France, Germany, Italy, and dozens of other countries. Are you seriously saying we couldn't do that to just about any country on Earth?

And, yes, China and Russia could easily put troops on American soil on a whim. They likely wouldn't last very long, but it would be trivial to do. Remember, The Fool's definition only meant that "troops" would be in the territory for only a few hours to complete "occupation".

 

[Thunder]

Really? You don't think that the U.S. can fly over Cuba, put troops on the ground in Cuba, put ships in it's waters? Replace Cuba with just about any other country on Earth. You don't think we could fly over and put troops on the ground in Canada, Mexico, any number of other countries? Seriously?

not legally, no. it would violate international law and the internationally recognized sovereignty of these nations.

do you understand that? please tell me you do.

And, yes, China and Russia could easily put troops on American soil on a whim.

sure, they can try. it would be illegal, and they would be annihilated in 20 seconds, but they sure can try.

meanwhile, Israel can put troops in Gaza and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Israel can do fly-overs in the airspace of Gaza, day and night, and its perfectly legal. Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "illegal"???

Remember, The Fool's definition only meant that "troops" would be in the territory for only a few hours to complete "occupation".

err....no its not. It's very rude of you to consciously misrepresent his statements.

 

[Thunder]

If a man sends a child through a minefield and that child is killed or injured, who is responsible? The child, or the father?
Or the people who planted the mines?

thank you!!!!!! I believe that Israeli settlers have made the choice to pretty much live in a war-zone, and bare some moral responsibility if their children are attacked, because of their choice of residency.

however, living in Israel proper, is not illegal under any international law, and being a victim of a terror attack in Israel proper can ONLY be blamed on the perpetrators, both morally and legally.

You may note that the sole individual washed away in California has received scant sympathy on this forum. WTF was he doing there? is indeed the relevant question in that case.

good to have some more common sense on this issue. thanks man.

 

[WildCat]

What do you think is the probability that it was or was not an execution? It's not easy to shoot someone 4 times in the head by accident, after you have already shot them once in the chest...all at close range. You think the guy was still fighting after he had one bullet in his chest and one bullet in his head?

You think whoever shot him paused after every shot to check for vital signs? Most likely he rattled off about 10 shots in 1.5 seconds. And at any rate, executions are typically one shot to the back of the head. It makes far less sense as an execution than it does as a result of close quarters combat.

I love it when people on a skeptic board fail to address the argument presented. It's usually a sign they can't.

You presented an argument? Looked like unsupported accusations to me, without any evidence at all to back them up.

 

[mortimer]

not legally, no. it would violate international law and the internationally recognized sovereignty of these nations.

do you understand that? please tell me you do.

Of course I do. The Fool did not specify legality as part of his definition of "occupation". If you have a problem with his definition, please feel free to take it up with him.

sure, they can try. it would be illegal, and they would be annihilated in 20 seconds, but they sure can try.

Or several hours, or days, or never, depending on where they decided to invade.

meanwhile, Israel can put troops in Gaza and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.

Israel can do fly-overs in the airspace of Gaza, day and night, and its perfectly legal. Do you understand the difference between "legal" and "illegal"???

Sure I do. It wasn't part of The Fool's criteria, however. Feel free to take him up on his definition of "occupied".

err....no its not. It's very rude of you to consciously misrepresent his statements.

I quoted his entire post earlier, and his original post is still available for you to critique. That you and others continue to criticize me for a claim made by someone else is what is rude.

 

[Thunder]

That you and others continue to criticize me for a claim made by someone else is what is rude.

intentionally or unintentionally, you misunderstood his point and continue to misrepresent it.

perhaps you should ask him for clarification.

 

[WildCat]

Of course I do. The Fool did not specify legality as part of his definition of "occupation". If you have a problem with his definition, please feel free to take it up with him.

Oh dear, anyone who wants to use legality as a criteria will have to abandon the claim that Operation Cast lead was illegal, because by claiming Gaza is occupied they forfeit any right to arguing that Cast lead was illegal, because it is by their own definition definition legal if occupied.

Damn, it's tough applying a rule that applies exclusively to Israel while claiming it's not meant to apply exclusiveley to Israel!