Dave,
You put the challenge there – to stop criticising the US, to take on other challenges.
There are two things that I want to take up as a parting shot as much as anything and I have posted them here rather than in the comments to “Ïnside a terrorist’s bomb” or elsewhere on your page simply for reasons of space.
The first is “continuous criticism of the US” (and one can add in Israel here too because the same logic applies as far as I am concerned.
Dave, when GWB took the Iraq question to the UN, all those three years back I was fulsome in my praise for what I saw as a diplomatically wise and correct gesture. When that opportunity was squandered on the dissemination of “intelligence” (and I still can not get away from smiling at the pun that comes from that word in the context) that was clearly at variance with the reports of successive UN inspection teams, I said as much.
When GWB has the good sense and wisdom to seek international support for action against Iran; when GWB bases his case for action on fact and not the kind of hyperbolic propaganda that the US electorate seems to thrive upon; then I will be fulsome in my praise of him once more. If, as seems far more likely, he decides once more on unilateral action “justified” by less than believable “intelligence” then I shall be equally scathing in my opinion. Not, just to take the words from your mouth, that there is any doubt about the position that Ahmenabijad is holding.
None of this is to say that I do not believe Iran to be a threat to world peace. The nation of Iran is not a threat per se. Iran’s leadership certainly is.
I can say with equal certainty that I do not see the US nation as a threat per se to world peace. I can say with certainty that the US leadership has shown the same propensities and attitudes as Iran’s and hence I would consider both as equal threats to world peace.
I suspect that distinction is probably a shade to subtle for you. Well, it is the shade of difference that I see.
OK. Let us just look at Israel for a moment then.
I am in total agreement with your sentiment that there is equal fault on both sides, on Israeli and Palestinian alike. Of that there is no question, there is no debate.
It is in the following discussion that we part ways. Like so many Americans, you support MSOI without stint or question. There is never any doubt about which side is right, which is wrong.
Conversely, the Palestinian is seen as the aggressor, the terrorist, the killer of innocents, the invader, the alien.
As an expression of that attitude, Greg speaks the extreme of it – that Israel occupies territory in the Levant by dint of conquest, invasion and capture. That in his mind gives Israel the right to do any act within that territory that it desires. There is no morality that speaks against what is done in the name of Israel.
That Dave, is why I called your statement – that Israel was freely giving land to Palestine – a lie. We have been through that; there is no reconciliation or common ground in there. Pedantically, you are right, legally and morally you are wrong. In my mind they are returning what was Palestine before 1967. In the case of Gaza it was part of Egypt prior to 1947 and was then incorporated as inalienable territory in the proposed Palestine state.
That too, is where the parallel between US and Israel is found. Neither nation recognises the validity of international opinion. There is no international morality that can be applied to either. International law is recognised only when it can be abused to the interests of the US (or Israel). If the interests of either are hindered in any way by international law then the law is simply ignored.
(BTW, sitting here composing this and listening to “Fat Freddys Drop” means that there is no way that I can lose my temper. Nor could I get personal or immoderate. Try it some time.)
___________________________________________________________________
The second is a single word – hypocrisy.
To describe an Indonesian suicide bomber as a “terrorist” is valid and acceptable. But what are the definitive aspects that make that so? How does that differ from a missile fired from a helicopter into a Palestine home, or a bomb dropped on Baghdad from a B2 at 40,000 feet?
To invade another country and occupy it is a crime in international law. Well it is if your name is Saddam Hussein. But if your name is George Bush it is a “war on terror”, or a “war to remove WMD”, or a “war of liberation”...
For the UN to interefere in the internal affairs of a nation would be in breach of its charter. For an individual nation to unilaterally interfere in the internal affairs of another is in breach of international law. For an the US to use covert intervention, or overt invasion to overthrow democratically elected governments is not.
That is as brief as I can make it.
____________________________________________________________________
Dave, I leave you with a challenge –
To post objectively and with balance on the Israel / Palestine conflict, giving equal weight to Palestine and Israeli sources.
Wednesday, April 26, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
You say that you agree that Iran is a threat to world peace, yet you hinge any possible military action to end that threat upon Russia and China agreeing to authorize the use of force in the UNSC.
It is obvious to any who observe that this will not happen.
It also seems obvious to me, that nothing short of a credible threat of force (and the threat alone may not be enough) will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
Under your plan, we are therefore ensured of a nuclear Iran and all of the possible horrors that could come of it.
We can of course delay war, and seek peace in our time. It seems much much less likely to me that we can prevent war, and that a war delayed will likely be more bloody.
That is my bottom line on Iran. No matter how costly the effort would be now, it will be much worse in the future.
On to Israel.
I have, and do, support the two state solution. As to the precise boundaries of those states I am open to negotiation. I don't think that the 1948 or 1967 lines are necessarily the only, or even the best, solution.
It seems to me though that until the Palestinians are willing to accept Israels existence, Israel is legitimately authorised to occupy any territory they desire as a defensive measure. They should not, and I have also said this before, build Jewish settlements in that occupied territory.
Until and unless the Palestinians acknowledge Israels right to exist, there can be no meaningful negotiations between the two parties, and Israel and the Palestinians are in a de facto state of war.
To describe an Indonesian suicide bomber as a “terrorist” is valid and acceptable. But what are the definitive aspects that make that so? How does that differ from a missile fired from a helicopter into a Palestine home, or a bomb dropped on Baghdad from a B2 at 40,000 feet?
There are several we can look at. The most telling is intent. If the suicide bomber was attempting to blow up Israeli soldiers at a check point, for example, that would be in the realm of an act of war. Even if some innocents were killed as a result, it would still be in the realm of an act of war. On the other hand, if the suicide bomber is attempting to blow up civilians shopping or eating pizza, that is an entirely different thing. That is terrorism. It is designed to intimidate an enemy by killing the weakest amoung them.
If the goal of the helicopter or the bomber was to destroy innocent people and thus intimadate the populace it would also be morally wrong. From what I can tell, that isn't policy either in Iraq or in Palestine.
The best evidence for this, are these graphs, which I have shown you before, although you have made no comment on. From the data, it is clear that one side is focused on killing non combatants, while the other side is focused on killing combatants.
My sympathies in such a situation are on the side that is focused on killing combatants.
I do not believe that international law is reflective of morality. I would, in all cases choose to be moral rather than legal if the two are in conflict.
The U.N. as an organization is dedicated to protecting the rights of Nation States. I don't hold that Nation States, in and of themselves, have any rights. Only individuals have rights, and Nation States can only have rights by virtue of being an aggregate of individual rights. No nation in which the people are not sovreign is, in my opinion, deserving of 'rights'.
I believe that under certain circumstances it is entirely proper to interfere in the internal affairs of a nation. I believe that the illegal NATO intervention in Bosnia was the right thing to do to stop Genocide. I wish that someone, anyone, had illegally intervened in Rwanda and stopped the Genocide there. The Sudan is another case of this.
I do not believe that the U.S. should attempt to overthrow democratically elected governments. There is more to democracy than a vote though, and certainly more to it than a rigged vote. Saddam's 99% yes votes were certainly not indicative of a democracy. Venezuala and Iran both have held ostensible elections, but neither, especially Iran, are in my opinion democratically elected governments.
Even then, I don't advocate overthrowing their governments without good cause. Iran has presented that cause in spades in my opinion. Venezuala has not.
Despite all of that, I don't advocate an invasion or forcible regime change in Iran. Desirable though that outcome would be, it is not sufficiently in our interests to be worth the cost. I do support U.S. (and other) support for pro-democracy groups in Iran though.
To post objectively and with balance on the Israel / Palestine conflict, giving equal weight to Palestine and Israeli sources.
I of course believe that I provide fair coverage. I am not a news service, I write my opinions. I think my opinions are justified, and I provide reasons for them. I also fully allow comments from those who dissent.
I do think that the Palestinians are more in the wrong than the Israelis. I think that the Palestinians could have peace anytime they wanted it, and get more land than they will ever get from armed struggle or terrorism. They are the ones, in my opinion, who can end this conflict.
Should they make an effort to do so, and Israel proves intractible, I would perhaps revise my opinion on the matter.
Israel in contrast could only end the conflict should it cease to exist.
I return the challenge to you. Do you honestly think you have provided fair coverage? I have never once seen you condemn a Palestinian terror attack or praise an Israeli action. The only input you have provided on the conflict is that Israel is in the wrong, and further, behind all the other problems in the Middle East. Iran would be reasonable if it weren't for Israel for example.
"It is obvious to any who observe that this will not happen. "
I add -
"... given the present circumstances and attitudes."
"nothing short of a credible threat of force (and the threat alone may not be enough) will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons."
I add -
"... and gives them all of the justification they need to continue."
Dave, with respect to the graphs, I will respond when the data is extended to 1948. Then we might have a clearer picture of the truth. At the moment, 7/2000 onward is a very limited (and I suspect slanted) sample.
Yes, I do present Palestine "from one side only". I do it with intent, and with one single reason.
It is because there is no one else who I believe is looking at the picture objectively, and presenting any balance to the argument.
LofC goes too far the other way sometimes, even for my liking.
I was hoping that my challenge to you might bring that home. I was hoping (against all hope) that you might start giving some thought to the real world of the Palestinians.
Vain hope indeed...
At the moment, 7/2000 onward is a very limited (and I suspect slanted) sample.
7/2000 onward covers the most recent outbreak of violence, the second or al-asqa intifada. That seems like a reasonable time frame to me.
I highly doubt that you would find evidence that before 7/2000 Israel had a purposeful campaign to slaughter innocents. Even the most famous Jewish terrorist act, the bombing of the King David hotel, was probably not designed for mass casualties as an evacuation warning was given before (tragically, the evacuation didn't occur fast enough.) This isn't to say that I aprove of that bombing, merely to demonstrate that killing of innocents does not seem to be something that Zionist Jews have, for the most part, condoned.
Regardless, I would think that it would behoove you to have some evidence before you suspected otherwise.
You have made strong claims that Israel is currently trying to kill innocents and that they are no different from the Palestinian terror groups. You have used LoC as evidence for this, based upon happenings in the current intifada. When presented evidence that this is not happening though, you try and claim that the facts do not matter (once again!) and that you were talking about some other time period anyway. Hardly an honest debating position.
I am used to disagreement with you, but I am frankly surprised recently by your refusal to worry at all about those pesky things called facts. There is much in a debate that is open to interpretation or alternate views, but if what the facts are meaningless, then debating interpretations of them seems pointless.
I also find it ironic that you admit to giving a biased view, only telling the Palestinian side of the story and then go on to claim that this is a good thing, and that this is the 'real world.'
As to your comments on Iran in the last comment post, I have no idea what, if anything, you are trying to say. Do you agree or disagree with the things you repeated that I said. Do you have any reasons for this, or is this another thing you 'suspect' without any data?
Try this for just 5 secs search dave...
Or this perhaps
Both of those well before the start of the Second Intfada.
"I also find it ironic that you admit to giving a biased view, only telling the Palestinian side of the story and then go on to claim that this is a good thing, and that this is the 'real world.' "
Dave do me a favour and read again what I wrote...
"I was hoping that my challenge to you might bring that home. I was hoping (against all hope) that you might start giving some thought to the real world of the Palestinians."
WRT the Iran comments...
I would agree with -
"It is obvious to any who observe that this will not happen given the present circumstances and attitudes."
"...nothing short of a credible threat of force (and the threat alone may not be enough) will prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons and [unfortunately] gives them all of the justification they need to continue."
Clear now?
I am familiar with Sabra. It seems to me that Israel and Sharon were negligent in not preventing that massacre, they did not cause it themselves though, and it was not part of Israeli policy to destroy destroy Palestinians.
The other one I have heard about some, but I admit I don't know all the details. Fisk is not a terribly unbiased reporter, so I take what he writes with a grain of salt.
Perhaps I am confused, but I was under the impression that Palestinians lived in our world, not that they had one of their own. If they have their own world, I would think that a homeland for them shouldn't be an issue. If you are trying to say that the 'real world of the Palestinians' is a mythological construct built on falsehoods and distortions of reality, than I have no particular arguement with that claim, but I question the utility of giving thought to it.
I prefer to analyze the really real world, as best as I can.
Last try Dave.
Is B'Tselem spinning figments of my imagination, or are they presenting what you might consider to be the truth? Is B'Tselem presenting the real world in Israel, or are they lying for some reason?
I have no reason to believe that B'Tselem is lying or that any facts that they write about is not accurate.
That doesn't address any of the issues I am talking about. B'Tselem is an advocacy group trying to convince the Israeli government to adopt a specific course of action. They do not proport to be neutral. They certainly highlight those facts which bolster their position and ignore issues that weaken it. There is nothing necessarily wrong with this, but it behooves us to look at more than one advocacy position when determining the truth.
Actions that are not justified in some circumstances are justified in others. For example, If I said that the government had seized a man and was holding him in prison for the rest of his life with no possibility of reprieve, in most circumstances, such an action would be wrong. If the man was a mass murderer though, such action would be entirely justified, and even required of a just government.
The 'Palestinian World' isn't the real world unless you include the Israeli world as well. You can't advocate the return to the 1967 boundaries unless you talk about why those boundaries changed and explain how and why it would be workable this time. You can't talk about how Israel needs to work with the Palestinians for peace unless you also talk about how Hamas, the winner of the recent Palestinian elections, advocates the destruction of Israel.
I want peace in between Israel and Palestine. I have always maintained that their are elements of both sides that also want peace, and elements in both sides that simply want the destruction of the other. In Israel, it appears that those who want peace are in the majority, but are thwarted by the peace lovers in Palestine seem to be in the minority. There is no reasonable expectation that this will change anytime soon, and there is not much useful negotiation you can have with those who simply want you destruction.
As a result of that, I support the wall. It is regretable that it is needed, but it certainly does seem to be needed. Once it is complete, it is my hope that Israel will for the most part be able to ignore Palestine, and that Palestinians will begin to figure out that most of their problems are caused by their own leaders, not Israel.
The boundaries that the wall will define may not be perfectly fair. I concede that. It doesn't seem that important to me though. Seperation is the first goal, and will, I believe, allow better behavior from both sides. Perhaps in the future a Palestine that acknowledges Isreals right to exist and has demonstrated that it wants peace will be able to negotiate a better deal.
The bottom line facts that I see are these: Israel would be willing to work with a Palestine that wants peace (not all, but a majority.) Palestine has not demonstrated the reverse at all. Israel attempts, with mistakes assuredly, to eliminate militant threats to Israeli citizens and not harm innocents. Palestinian militants attempt to harm innocents as a means of gaining concessions. Lastly, Israel should not build settlements in the occupied territories and those that have been built should be abandoned.
The last though is much less relevant to me than the other two. It is a 'wrong' but of a completely different scale than the others.
Dave, from the conclusion of your last post...
Is there any legitimate means by which Palestinians could regain the lands taken by the Israelis in the 1967 war?
If the answer is "Yes, recognise the right of Israel to exist as a free and independant nation" and I will know that you have been at the funny baccy again.
The regrettable part of all this mess that is Palestine is included in your statement that "The 'Palestinian World' isn't the real world unless you include the Israeli world as well."
The truth is that the real world of the Palestinian people is that imposed by the Israeli government. I know flat out that you will not agree with that, it is anathema to you. In your mind I believe you would describe it as the world the Palestinians deserve.
Perhaps the answer might be for the US to even up the odds for both sides - give the Palestinians the same $84 billion that they have given to the Israelis over the years in interest free cash grants, access to the same weapon and munition supplies and then just walk out and lock the doors.
"Is there any legitimate means by which Palestinians could regain the lands taken by the Israelis in the 1967 war?"
Certainly. They will get the vast majority of them automatically when the Israelis finish building their fence. As to the rest, it is a matter of negotiation.
How friendly the Palestinians are to the Israelis will make a difference of course. The original 1948 plan was for two nations, with an economic union. Obviously that is unworkable if one of the nations is hellbent on destroying the other.
The 1948 borders do not make any sense at all for two antagonistic nations. They are simply not workable.
If the nations were not antagonistic, then we could see what would make sense at this point.
Do I expect the 1967 boundaries to be restored? No. It is highly unlikely that will ever happen. Part of that is Israel's 'fault' if you will, but part of it is the Palestinians fault.
It is of course untrue that the 'real world' of the Palestinians is imposed by the Israeli government. If, Israel had complete control over everything the Palestinians did, I would imagine that there would not be any suicide bombers blowing up Israelis. That doesn't even mention the Palestinians in Arab refugee camps who are treated horribly. I would much, much rather be a Palestinian in Israel, or even the occupied territories than one in Jordan.
I think that the Palestinian people deserve to live in a prosperous democratic state with a improving economy and cordial relations with their neighbors, including Israel. Unfortunately, many of their own leaders and certainly a lot of other Arab nations, have used them as a tool for personal gain and as a means of drawing off internal criticism. Arafat did more damage to the Palestinian people than Israel ever has. I expect that Hamas will not do any better.
I have never once heard you offer any condemnation of suicide bombing. I have never once heard you mention anything that a Palestinian person has done wrong. Why is that?
Very simple Dave -
Israelis kill Palestiniians with rockets and machine guns mounted on helicopters, with tanks and with snipers.
Palestinians fire mortars, the occasional Katushka, and rifle fire, but the most effective weapon that they have is still the human body.
There is a continuous and continual barrage of anti-Palestinian propaganda through the legitimate news and through the blogosphere.
Perhaps I am lucky that in NZ the MSM publish BOTH news of Israeli action against Palestinians and Palestinian action against Israelis.
There is something missing in most of the propaganda - the FACT that there is a continuing war between the two. As the US keeps pleading about its action in Iraq, "...war is hell...".
We have agreed in the past and can agree again here and now that there is wrong on both sides.
What seems to be impossible to agree is that there is also RIGHT on both sides.
I try and think of the whole thing from a personal - if I were a Palestinian - point of view. I would be (I think) resigned to the fact that the only counterbalance to madmen is more madmen. That is why you get people like Sharon and Arafat and Netenyahu and Abbas elected to positions of power.
[shrug]
I can not help wondering what I would do if the Israeli army turned up on my doorstep at 3 a.m. with a tank and a bulldozer and gave me five minutes to leave. It is not a thought that I enjoy.
I can not help wondering what I might do if my eight year old daughter were shot while playing on the roof of the house.
And, in the interests of fairness, I can not know what I might do if my wife were killed in the local market by a suicide bomber or Katuschka.
I would be interested in hearing what you think the "motive" and "agenda" is behind B'Tselem.
I don't think that the 'motive' or 'agenda' of B'Tselem is difficult at all to determine. They are trying to change Israeli policies in regards to the occuppied territories. They are not trying to change Palestinian policies in regards to Israel.
There is nothing wrong with that. But knowing what they are trying to do is important. They do not exist to report accurately or present a balanced picture, they exist to change policy.
If, as you claim, the proper course to balance a madman is with your own madman, then I would think that you would support Israeli actions as much as you support Palestinian actions. That does not seem to be the case.
It seems to me that you view Palestinians as innocent victims of circumstances beyond their control. That they have no choice but to respond in certain ways and thus bear no moral responsibility for their actions.
Your view of Israel on the other hand, seems to be that they can act morally, but choose not to.
I have more respect for the Palestinians then that. I think that they can make choices and respond in a moral manner.
You said "the most effective weapon that they have is still the human body." One has to look at what that 'weapon' is effective against. It is not a useful weapon for targeting soldiers. Soldiers are both alert and armed and not an easy target for a suicide bomber. It is a usefel 'weapon' against civilians however.
If your only effective weapon is only effective against an illigitimate target, then you should not employ that weapon.
There are parralled here between this and our discussion of tacticle nukes and Iran.
I hold that using a nuclear bunker buster to destroy a hardened enrichment facility is justifiable because the target is legitimate and colateral damage would be minimal. You find the weapon itself to be automatically immoral, regardless of the target.
There is a case that could be made for proportionality. I hold it proper, for example, to respond to a nuclear attack on a city with another nuclear attack on a city. This is because I believe deterence would work in this situation.
If, it could be shown that Israel was attacking Palestinian civilians with the purpose of killing them and spreading terror then perhaps one could justify that. The evidence, as I have already shown you doesn't support that though. At best, you are able to produce a couple of isloated incidents that are not terribly recent and perhaps a few individual tradgedies.
It seems obvious to me that these are aberations. To some extent, one could even claim, if we want to follow the proportionality idea above, that they were proportionate responses.
The Palestinians on the other hand have made the targeting of civilians their primary strategy. That is the goal and the central means by which they hope to achieve their political ends. Regardless of whether these ends are justified, the means simply cannot be.
This is why I maintain that treating the two as morally equal is not 'balanced' but an error. On can only reach this view by a consistant excusing of Palestinian actions by attributing to them a dimished ability to act in a moral manner.
Here are some more questions for you.
Do you think that the Palestinians should recognize Israel's right to exist?
Do you think that Palestinian recognition of Israel is a legitimate thing for Isrealis to consider in regards to their policies?
Do you think that the Palestinians should recognize Israel's right to exist? ).
Yes, in accordance with the terms set down in 1947. (On my actual birth day as it happens
Do you think that Palestinian recognition of Israel is a legitimate thing for Isrealis to consider in regards to their policies?
Yes, in exactly the same way as Israel must recognise the right of Palestinians to live on their land in accordance with the terms of the 1947 UN Resolution.
Can I a couple more to the mix?
Do I believe that the international community has treated Israel and Palestine equally?
No, very far from it. One nation in particular (which I can not name for fear of further upsetting its people) has been very one handed. The reasons for that are many and varied and likely include -
The fact that Palestine did not formally accept the 1947 resolution with the gratitude expected by the international community.
The existence and power of a related and recognised portion of the electorate in the US indirectly ( and perhaps directly)influencing that nations foreign policies as they affect the Levant.
The direct encouragement of Jewish emigration to Israel from France, Germany and Britain.
The direct encouragement of illegal Jewish emigration from Russia to Israel - an emigration that I personally admire btw.
Do I believe that there is fault on both sides?
Yes, as I have said many times before.
Do I believe that Israel has committed atrocities against the Palestinians?
Yes I do as I have said many times before.
The difficulty is that when evidence to support those contentions is presented, it is rejected as "slanted", "propaganda", "wrong", or "lies".
It should be noted that I do not take the same approach to the evidence presented to me. I do not call statistics from IDF "slanted", or "false" even though I might think that they are... But that is just the difference between us.
Some people keep an open mind (at least to listening to what is being said, and weighing the evidence. Others have their confirmation bias filters firmly in place and stick with that position.
Dave, whatever you might say in support of the Israel actions in the Levant - both as a matter of history and currently - I can still not help feeling that there is only one side in the debate. I will not change that, I know, and to that extent this debate has been futile.
I do not know what you mean when you say 'there has only been one side in this debate.' It seems clear to me that we are debating different sides.
I think you misunderstood my second question, understandable since I phrased it fairly poorly. It would be better stated: Do you think that actions by Israel which would not be legitimate if Palestinians recognized their right to exist could be legitimate given the failure of Palestinians to do so?
A yes does not of course mean a blanket endorsement of any and all actions Israel has taken, or may yet take.
I am not all that excited on any particular historical boundary. I prefer to look forward, rather than to the past. The 1947 agreement seems particularly foolish and destined to fail, it called for an economic union of the two states. Given the high level of antipathy that existed then, and will in all liklihood continue to exist for some time, this doesn't seem like a workable solution.
Similarly, I am not particularly invested in the 1967 boundaries.
What I want is peace between Israel and Palestine. For now, this will only be accomplished by seperation. Israel should, in my opinion, be looking to end the occupation of Palestinian territories and Palestine should be looking much more at promoting the welfare of its own people, rather than focusing on historical injustices. Life isn't 'fair' and there will never be a fair solution that satisfies everyone.
As a result of that, I support the wall. It is of little concern to me if the wall takes a bit more territory than it should. If the Palestinians acknowledged Israel's right to exist and abandoned terror as a tactic, I would more favorably look on their claims of unfairness. As it is, seperation is more important to me than fairness.
I believe strongly that the biggest danger to the Palestinian people isn't Israel's occupation, but their own leadership. A physical barrier, and hopefully a reduction in terror may help them worry about fixing their own problems, rather than killing Jews.
Their is a ton of unfairness in the history of Israel and the middle east. Expulsion of Jews from Arab nations after the establishment of Israel is as big of a displacement as that of the Palestinians. Of course the Israelis took in those Jews and made them a part of their society, so they are now no longer a problem. The Arabs on the other hand left the Palestinians in refugee camps as a propaganda point.
I didn't reject any evidence you have sited (you actually haven't sited any particular evidence, merely pointed at a web sight of a groups who advocates, by their own admission changing Israeli policy) and I pointed out that the picture they present is constructed for that purpose. If you have particular statitistics you think are relevant we can discuss them.
On the other hand, I have presented direct evidence and talked about why I think it is important and what I think it means. You only real attempt to respond to that is to claim that it does not extend backwards far enough, without providing any evidence that if we had more historical data the graphs would look different.
Even then, that is not very relevant to my main point that the two sides are using vastly different tactics currently. And that one set of tactics (targeting militants) and the other set of tactics (targeting civilians) are not morally equal.
I think I have kept an open mind. I have certainly tried to address all your arguments. I have explained my own arguments at length, and for the most part you seem to have ignored them.
You accuse me of being biased and close minded, yet you admit to being biased and as far as I can tell unwilling to even address other arguments.
I will however provide my own answers to your additional questions.
Do I believe that the international community has treated Israel and Palestine equally?
No. Israel it has treated them very differently. In some ways Israel has been advantaged by this, in other ways disadvantaged. Palestine not being a nation state of course isn't as easy for the international communitity to deal with. There is also a different dynamic when one considers Israel vs. Palestinian and Israel vs. Arab nations as a whole.
The U.S. has been quite supportive of Israel. Part of that can be explained by Jewish and Evangelical voters, but a lot of it is simple rational calculus of supporting a democracy, and supporting a nation that supports us. During the cold war, Israel was a firm U.S. ally. Many of the Arab states on the other hand tried to play both sides. In that environment, it is quite simple to determine who should recieve our greatest support.
Do I believe that there is fault on both sides?
Yes. That doesn't mean though that the fault is equal. If I say mean things to you, and you kill me, there would be 'fault' on both sides, but the two are not in any way morally equivalent. I do believe that the Palestinians have engaged in more reprehensible behavior than the Israelis, and that they continue to do so.
Do I believe that Israel has committed atrocities against the Palestinians?
Certainly there have been individual soldiers who have done wrong. There is a good case to be made that Israel has, at minimum, allowed mass atrocities to happen when it should have prevented them. Beyond that, there is always terrible things that happen in an armed conflict. I do not believe that these atrocities are the policy of Israel or are part of a strategy to quell the Palestinians. I do not know of any mass atrocities that have taken place during the second intifada (although false media reports of a Jenin massacre tried to bolster that claim.) I also believe, as Jenin demonstated, it is a propaganda ploy of Palestinians and some of their supporters to claim atrocities when none have happened. I trust information out of Israel more than that out of Palestine or other Arab nations because I believe that a free press provides more accurate information.
I remain firmly oppossed to the us of violence against civilians as a means of achieving politicals goals. This is, at the root, what terrorism is. It is without a doubt the policy embraced by the Palestinian terrorist groups, including Hamas. It certainly does not seem to me that Israel has embraced this policy. If you can convince me that this is the policy of Israel, I will certainly condemn them for it.
Post a Comment