Why Israel

[Mr. Tea]

Aaargh, will you please stop bringing up the Palestinians-are-bad-because-they-kill kids thing? Israeli soldiers do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, I have seen it on TV with my own eyes. The only difference is the Israelis are a bit sneakier about it and make up some bullshit about 'targeting terrorist leaders' before (or quite possibly after) they blow up a house containing twelve members of the same family. "Hey, we're just doing our job - that eight-year-old would probably have grown up to be a suicide bomber!". Maybe ONE person in the house really was a militant, but does that justify blowing up his grandma? How many new militants does that action create, do you suppose?

So no, I do not condone terrorist activity, which by definition targets civilians - but this is just what the Israeli military do quite often. Christ, they've even shot dead foreign journalists. But because they operate under the aegis of a 'proper country' they are somehow soldiers rather than terrorists.

Edit: and Gek's right, they're not killing for the sake of it, they have a clearly defined objective. You might not agree with it but it's definitely there.

 

[gek-opel]

Also Vim for someone who despises the state in so many ways you seem pretty keen on it in the context of conflict, as if the legal imprimatur of authority and safety and legitimacy it conveys ACTUALLY delivers some kind of accountability or actively prevents atrocities! Of course Palestinian terrorists are not publicly accountable- this is the very fact at the core of asymmetric warfare, the lack of a state apparatus and the fact the are vastly outgunned out-equipped and out-manned by the IDF means that one of their few tools is indiscriminate terror. To that extent such tactics are hyper rational!

 

[vimothy]

QUOTE=gek-opel;109109]It might be immoral, but they kill with a purpose and an aim- they know from experience that terrorism does work, that eventually (in situations where the terrorists have clearly defined and achievable political objectives- ie Palestinians, or in Northern Ireland the IRA, rather than Al-Qaeda or Baader Meinhof) governments ALWAYS end up talking, no matter what they may claim. And therefore while again you might consider that they are going about achieving their aims in entirely the wrong manner, (or at least, a deeply sub-optimal manner) they certainly have them and are pursuing them in a historically recognizable form.

Ok, but you are more cynical than me, Gek. Hamas obviously has goals in mind when it kills civillians: killing civillians. This taps into the wider goal: killing all the Jews and destroying the dhimmi state. Hopefully, that's a deeply partisan view and not prevelant across the Palestinian political spectrum.

In NI the Catholic community very clearly wanted to be treated like humans and not dogs, but there struggle was not the same as the struggle of the IRA, which also killed Catholics, just like the loyalist paras. The success of the struggles of ordinary peaceful men and women does not reflect a success for the IRA. They were always just a bunch of idiots, although not anywhere near as hateful or murderous as the loyalist paramilitaries (not that you'd care about that if it was your husband dead on the front step or buried up on the moors).

And even then: most of the Palestinians support the murder of Israeli civillians, their leadership wants to destroy Israel and set up a tryanny. Neither of these things are achievable by the Israeli government, whereas the IRA's goals have all been acheived and they are happy to go back to being ordinary criminals.

 

[vimothy]

Edit: and Gek's right, they're not killing for the sake of it, they have a clearly defined objective. You might not agree with it but it's definitely there.

What are their goals?

 

[vimothy]

Vimothy doesnt know anything other than what he reads on the internet. That has been shown again and again and again. The moment he met his first Persian in a kebab shop, and actually spoke to him, he felt the urge to post it here. Imagine the overwhelming terror he must have felt walking into there the first time, and his ferocious sense of courage walking out.

Actually it was the pizza shop where my friend works and I only brought it up because you asked me when the last time I'd spoke to an Iranian was!

 

[crackerjack]

I still don't think there's enough infomation there to make a sound judgement. If the British Army intentionally killed civillians in the style of a terrorist group, then there is obvious moral equivalence. Did they? I expect (possibly unfairly) that the answer probably is yes, but as no one is being clear I'm beginning to think no.

One British killing of civillians vs the IRA killing several hundred civillians throughout the Troubles. Doesn't sound like moral equivalence to me, but I don't know if your figures are right. Are you sure it was intended? Are you sure it was only once?

No, I'm not sure it was only once. But they most definitely opened fire on unarmed civilians in the Bogside (effectively a no-go zone which soldiers had been instructed to reclaim). Did they intend to kill or simply cower and conquer? When no serious measures were taken to avoid killing, the difference is fairly immaterial.

No, there is no moral equivalence between the UK govt and the IRA over the course of the conflict. But the IRA did not have a monopoly on the use of terror tactics.

Likewise in Israel. State terrorism is condoned because the soldiers wear uniforms and are accountable to a democratic govt. That may make a difference but it is not a sufficient excuse.

 

[vimothy]

Aaargh, will you please stop bringing up the Palestinians-are-bad-because-they-kill kids thing? Israeli soldiers do EXACTLY THE SAME THING, I have seen it on TV with my own eyes.

Do Israelis explicitly target kids (not accidents in theatre but actual operations which target kids)?

Do IDF commanders tell their troops to kill civillians on purpose?

The IDF have rules of engagement. Do the Palestinians?

Can you find any instances of Israeli terrorism?

Have you ever seen crowds of Israelis dancing in the streets at the news of Palestinian civillian deaths?

There is no moral equivalence. There is a political case on both sides, but there is no moral equivalence.

 

[vimothy]

Also Vim for someone who despises the state in so many ways you seem pretty keen on it in the context of conflict, as if the legal imprimatur of authority and safety and legitimacy it conveys ACTUALLY delivers some kind of accountability or actively prevents atrocities! Of course Palestinian terrorists are not publicly accountable- this is the very fact at the core of asymmetric warfare, the lack of a state apparatus and the fact the are vastly outgunned out-equipped and out-manned by the IDF means that one of their few tools is indiscriminate terror. To that extent such tactics are hyper rational!

Hyper-rationality = fine for the non-human!

In any case, surely one of the most legitmate uses of state power is to protect its citizens from the attacks of hostile groups or nations. The state is not the best mechanism that can be imagined, granted (see some of John Robb's recent work for e.g.), but we are still a long way from being able to dismember the leviathan (even more so on this board).

 

[gek-opel]

Ok, but you are more cynical than me, Gek. Hamas obviously has goals in mind when it kills civillians: killing civillians. This taps into the wider goal: killing all the Jews and destroying the dhimmi state. Hopefully, that's a deeply partisan view and not prevelant across the Palestinian political spectrum.

In NI the Catholic community very clearly wanted to be treated like humans and not dogs, but there struggle was not the same as the struggle of the IRA, which also killed Catholics, just like the loyalist paras. The success of the struggles of ordinary peaceful men and women does not reflect a success for the IRA. They were always just a bunch of idiots, although not anywhere near as hateful or murderous as the loyalist paramilitaries (not that you'd care about that if it was your husband dead on the front step or buried up on the moors).

And even then: most of the Palestinians support the murder of Israeli civillians, their leadership wants to destroy Israel and set up a tryanny. Neither of these things are achievable by the Israeli government, whereas the IRA's goals have all been acheived and they are happy to go back to being ordinary criminals.

Terrorist struggle is a common form, and it does ultimately allow those people, or at least their political associates to get to the negotiating table eventually, and if not achieve all their aims then at least get closer to them than they would have been able to do otherwise. Do you really imagine these people are so ridiculously thick as to not realise this? Even if we presume that the ground level troop is motivated largely by anger rather than more clearly thought-through political position, then I think it would be extremely safe to imagine that higher up the command chain they have a decent understanding of what terrorism can achieve, how to target it to achieve the ultimate purpose, which is of course to claw back as much land for the Palestinian people as possible, and as much of Jerusalem as possible (ideally for them of course the whole of it). Also Vim, I think fairly up their list of priorities is to no longer be treated "like dogs" as you put it, by the Israeli government and security services.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Likewise in Israel. State terrorism is condoned because the soldiers wear uniforms and are accountable to a democratic govt. That may make a difference but it is not a sufficient excuse.

Exactly. Vimothy asks, rhetorically, "Can you find any examples of Israeli terrorism?", while we both know that anything I come up with will be met with "Well it's not terrorism because they're a state military", or something equivalent, and that's the end of that.

As to what aims Palestinian militants have, of course some of the more fanatical ones do really want to sweep Israel into the sea (a viewpoint which sn't going to help the Palestinian cause at all in the long run, but is hardly surprising given the history of the last sixty years) while I'm sure some of them want a two-state solution, an end to illegal settlements and roadblocks and discrimination, and still others are of course trying to bring about these goals through entirely non-violent means, which unfortunately isn't so headline-grabbing. Just the same way that some Israelis simply want their military to defend them from terrorists while some look on with glee as the heathen subhumans across the Jordan are crushed underfoot by God's own army.

 

[RobJC]

It might be immoral, but they kill with a purpose and an aim- they know from experience that terrorism does work, that eventually (in situations where the terrorists have clearly defined and achievable political objectives- ie Palestinians, or in Northern Ireland the IRA, rather than Al-Qaeda or Baader Meinhof) governments ALWAYS end up talking, no matter what they may claim. And therefore while again you might consider that they are going about achieving their aims in entirely the wrong manner, (or at least, a deeply sub-optimal manner) they certainly have them and are pursuing them in a historically recognizable form.

If you want to bring modern morals into it, all killing is immoral, unless you have the god given right to do it - no seriously, the parallels you have drawn between the IRA, Al-Qaeda and the Palestinians cannot be supported if you have any experience of those separate situations so I think its unfair, especially on the Palestinians, to make those comparisons. Using your own life as a political or military tool must take a certain set of circumstances and values, however motivated or not, but it is clear that the effect of the suicide bomber mentally is having on the Palestinians is clearly doing them no favours, however justified. Its heartbreaking to think that any society would see the ultimate out as killing yourself as a martyr, and convince itself that it is making a difference. Surely its more damaging to the Palestinians themselves as a whole, rather than to the individuals killed by them (and thats not belittling the act or the consequences), but the Israelies are so separated from the need to perform that action that they are emotionally insulated from it in some way, while the Palestinians emotions feed of the action and therefore continue to re-validate it. its vicous cycle that can only be broken when the Palestinians are allowed to take the positve step of not feeling like hopeless victims everyday of their lives.

This could go on and on as a topic....

 

[vimothy]

Terrorist struggle is a common form, and it does ultimately allow those people, or at least their political associates to get to the negotiating table eventually, and if not achieve all their aims then at least get closer to them than they would have been able to do otherwise. Do you really imagine these people are so ridiculously thick as to not realise this? Even if we presume that the ground level troop is motivated largely by anger rather than more clearly thought-through political position, then I think it would be extremely safe to presume that higher up the command chain they have a decent understanding of what terrorism can achieve, how to target it to achieve the ultimate purpose, which is of course to claw back as much land for the Palestinian people as possible, and as much of Jerusalem as possible (ideally for them of course the whole of it). Also Vim, I think fairly up their list of priorities is to no longer be treated "like dogs" as you put it, bu the Israeli government and security services.

Yeah but these territories would not be occupied in the first place were it not for the '67 war started states who lost territory to Israel. The occupation would not be so harsh and unfair on the Palestinians if the Palestinians weren't trying to kill Israeli civillians. think back to the Troubles. How likey would the Brit government be to negotiate with the IRA if the IRA (sorry Mr Tea) shot British babies in their prams in cold blood? There would be no negotiation - the British people would not accept it. In terms of a military campaign, killing civillians is incoherent. The West has already recognised this. Pro-Palestinian writers who don't care about Israel recognise this. Even the IRA recognised this and at least nominally tried to fight "soldiers" (be they British or loyalist). Killing civillians is pointless. It will not make the Israeli government more likely to make concessions and it, quite obviously, serves no military purpose.

Killing civillians will not bring Palestine closer - and in fact it has already moved it much further away.

 

[vimothy]

Likewise in Israel. State terrorism is condoned because the soldiers wear uniforms and are accountable to a democratic govt. That may make a difference but it is not a sufficient excuse.

Of course it is not an excuse. But I'm not arguing that it is.

 

[vimothy]

Exactly. Vimothy asks, rhetorically, "Can you find any examples of Israeli terrorism?", while we both know that anything I come up with will be met with "Well it's not terrorism because they're a state military", or something equivalent, and that's the end of that.

No Mr Tea, you misunderstood my question.

If you can demostrate to me that the Israeli government / military leadership tells its soldiers to go out and kill civllians on purpose to show the Palestinians what for, and that the Israeli people are happy with this and celebrate it, I will concede moral equivalence.

If you can demonstrate to me that Israeli terrorism (i.e. civillians taking matters into their own hands) exists and is responsible for Palestinian civillian deaths and that the Israelis celebrate it (so it is not just a lone nut-case or group of nut-cases), I will concede moral equivalence.

As to what aims Palestinian militants have, of course some of the more fanatical ones do really want to sweep Israel into the sea (a viewpoint which sn't going to help the Palestinian cause at all in the long run, but is hardly surprising given the history of the last sixty years) while I'm sure some of them want a two-state solution, an end to illegal settlements and roadblocks and discrimination, and still others are of course trying to bring about these goals through entirely non-violent means, which unfortunately isn't so headline-grabbing. Just the same way that some Israelis simply want their military to defend them from terrorists while some look on with glee as the heathen subhumans across the Jordan are crushed underfoot by God's own army.

The Palestinians were offered a state. It was rejected. Then we had the second intifada. Ending the struggle would make everyone's lives easier. It would be a true win-win situation. I hope that it will happen soon, but I doubt it will. I think that a lot of time will have to pass in the MId East before the Palestinians are ready for their own state.

 

[gek-opel]

Yeah but these territories would not be occupied in the first place were it not for the '67 war started states who lost territory to Israel. The occupation would not be so harsh and unfair on the Palestinians if the Palestinians weren't trying to kill Israeli civillians. think back to the Troubles. How likey would the Brit government be to negotiate with the IRA if the IRA (sorry Mr Tea) shot British babies in their prams in cold blood? There would be no negotiation - the British people would not accept it. In terms of a military campaign, killing civillians is incoherent. The West has already recognised this. Pro-Palestinian writers who don't care about Israel recognise this. Even the IRA recognised this and at least nominally tried to fight "soldiers" (be they British or loyalist). Killing civillians is pointless. It will not make the Israeli government more likely to make concessions and it, quite obviously, serves no military purpose.

Killing civillians will not bring Palestine closer - and in fact it has already moved it much further away.

The IRA might not have shot "babies in prams". But they did bomb general populations. One difference might be that a lot of the time they issued a coded warning [shortly] before hand.

 

[vimothy]

The IRA might not have shot "babies in prams". But they did bomb general populations. One difference might be that a lot of the time they issued a coded warning [shortly] before hand.

Exactly - I suspect that the numbers of IRA civillian murders was actually quite small, on the mainland anyway.

EDIT: And if you listen to ex-IRA men talk, they say that they were soldiers killing other soldiers.

 

[vimothy]

look at this kebab merchant
i bet he gets government assistance
maybe they are running a funnel of money to hezbollah
its my duty to check this place out
i wonder if they want to poison me

And they totally hate Hezbollah as well.

 

[gek-opel]

Yeah but these territories would not be occupied in the first place were it not for the '67 war started states who lost territory to Israel. The occupation would not be so harsh and unfair on the Palestinians if the Palestinians weren't trying to kill Israeli civillians.

Nice slight of hand Vim, why exactly did the Arab states start the 1967 War?

Do you believe Israel has a legal/moral right to exist in the first place?

Do you believe that such questions are entirely illegitimate?

 

[vimothy]

Nice slight of hand Vim, why exactly did the Arab states start the 1967 War?

A variety of reasons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/67_War.html

Do you believe Israel has a legal/moral right to exist in the first place?

Yes.

Do you believe that such questions are entirely illegitimate?

I believe that you should ask them if you want to.

 

[sufi]

it seems to me that he constructs these elaborate theories of moral equivalence in total absence of real insight.

Do you think that Palestinian terrorism is morally equivalent to Israeli military actions in the occupied territories?

sorry i missed that you asked me this question a while back.

no i absolutely don't - i consider that the "brave Palestinian terrorists" are morally in a stronger position than the "cowardly Israeli oppressors" precisely because of the occupation and the massive disparity in strength - & that point seems to be what you dont grasp at all - i reckon if you had any actual experience of these matters at all (rather than virtual experience of the issues - as someone pointed out above) then you might have some genuine insight & your toxic rants might be worth taking seriously,
as it is: