General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[Thunder]

You don't know??

do you?

 

[FireGarden]

Actually this is exactly what you are doing, making a pathetic appeal to authority. "Oh look the CIA sez it iz occupied ur pwned lololol".

So somebody who has said that what the CIA publishes in its factbook isn't a 'window on its gathered intelligence' thinks that citing the CIA factbooks means reffering to the CIA's secrets.

You still haven't shown how the CIA is unreliable in the way it collates/publishes data.

I already explained to you why the State Dept. chooses to lump Gaza in with the West Bank. Because officially, they are both ruled by the PA. Even though the reality is the PA currently has no influence at all in Gaza or what goes on there.

Where does the state department say that the PA runs Gaza and that this is the reason for their determination that it is occupied?

And you laugh at my appeal to authority (a few, actually, all of them more qualified than you to speak on this matter) then respond with an appeal to 'this is what the authorities really believe'.

Yes FG, for diplomatic reasons governments often call a mouse a horse in public despite acknowledging reality in private.

You know what the state dept says in private on this matter? How did you learn this? It wasn't from wikileaks.

Tha fact remains that Gaza is not occupied by any traditional definition of the word. It is occupied according to a definition that applies exclusively to Israel.

Also, you don't get to claim Gaza is occupied and then screech in outrage every time the IDF enters the place, or puts restrictions on what enters and leaves.

Actually I do. Because being occupier doesn't give anyone carte blanche.

You still haven't given an example to back up your claim that Israel is treated differently on this. I won't bother requoting the original wording, but assume it applies.

Neither have you explained how, if Israel is occupying Gaza then Hamas must be 'serving Israel'. Does the PA 'serve Israel' because the West Bank is occupied?

Neither have you explained how the definition you gave of 'occupation' requires boots on the ground and ends when the boots leave.

 

[IDB87]

Where does the state department say that the PA runs Gaza and that this is the reason for their determination that it is occupied?

Well, it may not be exactly what you asked for, but it's close to the mark

Pursuant to negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians, the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established in the Gaza Strip and West Bank in 1994. Hamas, a U.S.-designated terrorist organization, took control of the Gaza Strip in June 2007 and exercises control there.

Sounds like the PA ran Gaza, and then power shifted to Hamas, who like to kill and kidnap members of the PA and PNA.

How does Israel give authority from themselves to an entity that is longer in control? Seems like the wheels are spinning in this one.

 

[Mycroft]

Thank you. This is what I was trying to say to Thunder who seems to believe that the settlers are comparable to people deliberately provoking indifferent forces of nature...

And in the comparison, the Palestinians play the role of the mindless forces of nature, incapable of being moral agents themselves. They seem unaware of the inherent anti-Arab prejudice in that point of view.

 

[Mycroft]

It's refreshing to see a Palestinian leader speaking so clearly against these murders:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4041875,00.html



I wish I could say the same about some of the forum members here.

Yeah, that's surreal when you actually get a more reasoned response from the guy who wrote his doctoral thesis supporting holocaust denial and who currently leads the former terrorist organization that governs the Palestinian people. You would think that being more anti-Israel than Mahmoud Abbas would give some people here reason to pause and reflect upon their views.

 

[Thunder]

And in the comparison, the Palestinians play the role of the mindless forces of nature, incapable of being moral agents themselves. They seem unaware of the inherent anti-Arab prejudice in that point of view.

its only natural to resist occupation, especially a brutal and inhumane one, that steals private property to settle illegal settlers.

 

[Mycroft]

What if the settlement isn't built on stolen land?

That's a good point that's often overlooked. This particular settlement was built on public lands. Other settlements are built on lands that were purchased. The anti-Israel side consistently portrays every "settlement" as being on lands confiscated from individual Palestinian land owners.

 

[stokes234]

I don't want to be construed as in any way supporting this - it is despicable. I just wanted to remind people that over 900 palestinian civilians were killed by the IDF in 2008. It's the conflict that is the issue, not whether either side is more evil than the other.

 

[Mycroft]

you must be one of those people that feels that nothing is ever your fault.
the blame must always lie with someone else.

This is pretty funny coming from the man who seems to be arguing that the blame for murder should lie with someone other than the people wielding the knife.

 

[Mycroft]

I don't want to be construed as in any way supporting this - it is despicable. I just wanted to remind people that over 900 palestinian civilians were killed by the IDF in 2008. It's the conflict that is the issue, not whether either side is more evil than the other.

I think an important part of resolving any conflict begins with sorting out what is or is not allowable within that conflict. For example, stabbing families to death should not be allowable.

 

[FireGarden]

Well, it may not be exactly what you asked for, but it's close to the mark

Actually it seems like the opposite of what I asked for. It says that Hamas exercises control in Gaza. I asked for where the state dept says that the PA runs Gaza (meaning at the moment).

The state dept seems to have no trouble in saying that Hamas exercises control of Gaza. They still regard it as occupied. Why? I don't have a statement from the US state dept, but I did quote the EU's rep, Solana, regarding what is necessary to end the occupation. From 2005:

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3135368,00.html

Only an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza will permit the international community to acknowledge the end of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security, said Tuesday during a meeting with Meretz-Yahad Party leader Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem.

Taking another look at Wildcat's claims:

I already explained to you why the State Dept. chooses to lump Gaza in with the West Bank. Because officially, they are both ruled by the PA. Even though the reality is the PA currently has no influence at all in Gaza or what goes on there.

And, earlier:

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.

I don't see these as being consistent with it being about Israeli boots on the ground. Because he's only concerned that the two territories aren't both being controlled by the PA.

Consider the situation in 2005-2006: Israeli troops absent; Hamas not yet in power -- surely no occupation.

Hamas wins an election, Fatah tries to stage a coup and loses the fight which follows. THAT ends the occupation? How?

 

[Thunder]

The Palestine Authority is an autonomous government with the Occupied Territories of Gaza and the West Bank. Before the 2nd Intifada Israel had no troops in Area A, which was under full Palestinian control. But this Area A was not "unoccupied territory". Any suggestion of such is just silly.

Territory is no longer occupied by Israel when it becomes soveriegn and fully-independent of Israel control and authority. Once such territory is soveriegn and independent, Israel cannot fly over this land or put troops in this land, without the consent of the new authority incharge.

Legally, Israel requires no permission from Hamas or the PA, to fly over Gaza or the West Bank. That is because while these lands are indeed autonomous from Israel, they are still under ultimate Israeli sovereignity. This shall be the case until a final peace accord between Israel & Palestine is formalized.

 

[Giz]

I don't want to be construed as in any way supporting this - it is despicable. I just wanted to remind people that over 900 palestinian civilians were killed by the IDF in 2008. It's the conflict that is the issue, not whether either side is more evil than the other.

The number of casualties on either side doesn't necessarily mean anything… more Axis died in Normandy than Allies but that doesn't mean that the Allies were wrong or that they should be condemned for using disproportionate force. This is the big moral blind spot for so many people on I/P… the idea that the "underdog" is either automatically in the right, or deserves to be cut more slack. This just encourages, excuses and facilitates intransigent extremism and prolongs the conflict.

 

[IDB87]

Actually it seems like the opposite of what I asked for. It says that Hamas exercises control in Gaza. I asked for where the state dept says that the PA runs Gaza (meaning at the moment).

I never said it was what you were looking for, only that it was 'close to the mark', as in relevant.

Only an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians regarding the control over the land, air and sea passages in Gaza will permit the international community to acknowledge the end of Israel’s occupation in Gaza, Javier Solana, the EU High Representative for EU Common Foreign and Security, said Tuesday during a meeting with Meretz-Yahad Party leader Yossi Beilin in Jerusalem.

Which is entirely dependent on Hamas taking on a more politically responsible role, or laying down its' arms, or at least enforcing the PA's responsibilities laid out in the Accords. I'm not disputing that there is technically an occupation, but it is entirely dependent on both sides making progress if there is to be an end.

 

[bikerdruid]

This is pretty funny coming from the man who seems to be arguing that the blame for murder should lie with someone other than the people wielding the knife.

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.

 

[Par]

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.


Whether the weapon is a mine, a knife or a gun...

Well, the difference here, of course, is that brutal knife murders cannot be converted into non-moral agents and laid as traps. It isn’t possible to send a child into a field of brutal knife murders, liable to detonate with one false step. The creators of a brutal knife murder cannot have been inspired to do so with the intention of stopping an enemy assault on their county’s second city – an assault which was expected in the spring of 1992, but ultimately never came. Their creators cannot be long-dead, while their creations live on. The knife used to butcher the family was not an automatic mechanical device left by someone else for an unstated original purpose. This disgusting crime, in other words, was not part of the environment. Notwithstanding instances of insanity, mistaken identity, etc., brutal knife murders are willing, and conscious – and, in this particular example, premeditated – acts of visceral slaughter committed directly by a moral agent. Thus this case entails none of the potential complications – and I accept they are complications – of the landmine scenario. You’re blessed well right that my partition is overly simplistic if taken as a generalizable and universalizable moral principle. But that’s not what it’s for. It works perfectly well, I would submit, in this particular case.

...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.

I make it a lot clearer than that, in fact, stating that "The parents are entirely culpable for 1", but, "not at all culpable for 2."

t 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.

This looks interesting. But I’m not precisely sure what you are saying. Do you mean that the parents’ actions caused the killer(s) to choose to murder them and their children? If you could expand upon this a little for me, that would be helpful.

 

[Par]

In the meantime, Soapy Sam, perhaps you (or anyone interested) can see how you would anwer the following thought experiment. It isn’t intended to solve any of our crux issues directly, incidentally, but should serve to reveal one of your core moral axioms.

Picture two families – Family A and Family B. Each family consists of two parents and three very young children. The parents of the families decide to travel, with their children, to an extremely dangerous area. While sleeping in a house in that area, a group of killers break in with murder in mind. This event was quite foreseeable by both sets of parents. They knew full well this was a very real possibility before they set out. As it transpires, the killers murder the whole of Family A. But they spare all of Family B. The precise reasons for the killers’ decision are not very important. Perhaps they simply decided that, after slaughtering Family A, they had done enough killing for one night. Perhaps they took mercy on Family B for some reason. The only essential thing is that the reason Family B were spared was a conscious, willing and unilateral decision on the parts of the killers. But they might just as easily have killed Family B as well.

In summary, the thoughts, actions, knowledge and choices – i.e. presumably everything of moral relevance – of the parents of Family A were identical to those of the parents of Family B. The only thing that made the difference – the only thing that left Family A dead and Family B alive – was the decision of some separate moral agents: the killers.

Now, forgetting the killers for the moment – whose level of blame should be obvious to anyone with even a notion of a moral compass – I will list below two candidate blame distributions, D1 and D2*, for the parents of the families:

D1. Overall, the parents of Family A and the parents of Family B are roughly equally culpable.
D2. Overall, the parents of Family A are significantly more culpable than the parents of Family B.

So which distribution do you consider most accurate? Obviously, I favour D1, for the reasons expressed in the summary above. If you favour D2 (or D1 for reasons other than mine) then please let me know why.

Please note, I am not presupposing a strictly dyadic blame distribution (i.e. one based on my partition proposal). On the contrary, the above options are quite compatible with any form thereof, including a “spectrum” or whatever you like.

*I realise that, strictly speaking, there are more possible distributions. But as these are ones like, “Neither family is at all culpable” and “Family B is more culpable than Family A”, I won’t consider these seriously.)

 

[Par]

If you have evidence of insanity, present it, or perhaps use a different term.
"Someone who disagrees with me", for example.

My evidence is Bikerdruid’s repeated refusals to even read let alone address my proposal, despite me having outlined it clearly and politely and having supported it with argument and referred him to it numberless times. This did not stop him dictating to me what my must opinions be, however – attributing to me notions which were straightforwardly at odds with my posts, which he refused to read/address. To have missed this, I can only assume you, too, haven’t read the thread before posting.

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

 

[Par]

This is pretty funny coming from the man who seems to be arguing that the blame for murder should lie with someone other than the people wielding the knife.

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.

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

 

[pipelineaudio]

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

Ahhh another vote for carnage in hawaii. Thank you