From Oxfam:
Humanitarian agency Oxfam International today said there is an increasing risk to public health in Gaza as water and sanitation services begin to buckle under the strain of Israel’s restrictions on fuel, vital maintenance goods and spare parts into Gaza.
According to Oxfam International’s partner the Coastal Municipalities Water Utilities (CMWU) 15% of Gaza’s population – 225,000 people – is not receiving an adequate amount of drinking water due to the lack of diesel.
Oxfam is also worried at the latest reports of Israel’s Attorney General’s Office giving approval to its new Defense Ministry’s plan to reduce the quantity of electricity delivered to the Gaza Strip. This decision comes on top of Israel’s fuel reductions since 28 October 2007, which are having an immediate impact on the water and wastewater systems in the Gaza Strip.
According to Oxfam International Executive Director Jeremy Hobbs:
“There has to be an immediate resumption of fuel supplies to Gaza if we are to avoid a public health crisis. Access to clean water is a fundamental human right and must not be used as a tool to collectively punish the population of Gaza. As international efforts increase to breathe new life into progress towards peace, the international community is ignoring Gaza’s plight, allowing it to slip further into a crisis. Ordinary civilians in Gaza are being punished for crimes they have not committed, in clear violation of international humanitarian law. This illegal policy of collective punishment must stop at once.”
Israel’s Supreme Court recently placed a temporary injunction against Israel cutting back Gaza’s electricity supply, which is good. But the disaster caused by lack of fuel and other supplies continues unabated.
I find it fascinating that there can be a group in power in gaza, possessed of a considerable number of weapons, with an extraordinary amount of anti-Israeli sentiment (up to and including the desire to kill many citizens,) who has expressed their goals and managed to actually do so… and that they can get court protection. That’s democracy at work, and a nice change from a lot of the surrounding countries.
The collective punishment issue is troubling, though. I never know how to judge it in the long run. Say that this results in a peace agreement being signed–will it have been worth it? How many deaths would be justified by peace? Who makes that call?
Can anyone who objects to collective punishment please come up with a better alternative?
We are talking about the non-stop bombardment of Israeli civilians in villages and towns within Israel proper – daily, for months.
Exactly what defensive actions taken by Israel *would* you support?
When Israel pioneers the techniques of “targeted assassinations” to take out the terrorist henchmen, the press covers this up with misleading headlines about “Israeli Strikes in Palestinian Residential Areas”, without giving the telling details – that the terrorists purposely hide in such areas, and that Israel is the only army in the world that took pains to develop the techniques for pinpoint strikes (the Americans came to Israel to learn how to do this).
So: what would YOU do if your civilians were being bombarded by missiles launched from civilian areas by highly mobile bands of terrorists – terrorists that were elected by a large majority of the Palestinian people, and seem to still have much support among those people?
It’s probably worth mentioning that the US uses very similar tactics in our wars — including notably the systematic destruction of civilian infrastructure in Serbia during the ’99 war, and the US-backed UN sanctions on Iraq from 1991 to 2003. In both cases, the harm to civilians was very substantial.
It’s unfortunately very hard to fight a war without hurting bystanders. Avoiding war at all costs is a hard sell in Israel — the population is all too aware that “all costs” can be very expensive when your opponent’s goal is “death to the Jews”. (If you think that’s an exaggeration, I invite you to read the Hamas charter, particularly Article 7.)
Sure. A better alternative to inflicting collective punishment, is NOT inflicting collective punishment. In other words, take any situation you like involving collective punishment, and remove the collective punishment, and it will be a better situation.
Exactly what is depriving these folks of clean water supposed to accomplish? Is the theory that if they get really thirsty, then folks who are angry at the Israelis will decide that they aren’t angry any more? Or that they’ll be so afraid of dying of dehydration that they will decide to be docile and cooperative? I don’t get it.
The court acted to protect the vast, vast majority of people in Gaza who are not terrorist, nor criminals, nor wannabe murderers.
It’s not democracy. Democracy is when people get to vote for their rulers. In effect, Israel is the government ruling Gaza (they decide if Gaza gets electricity, for example); the people living in Gaza, however, do not get the opportunity to vote for the people who decide if they have electricity or not; who decide what roads they can or cannot drive on; who have the ability to confiscate land and destroy homes without a trial; etc..
And I objected bitterly in both cases, especially the Iraq case. It was wrong of us to do that, and it’s wrong of Israel to do that, too.
I’m aware that many people in the US and elsewhere protested the Kosovo war. However, the US and NATO conducted it nonetheless — and it’s very much too late to unset the precedent.
A full discussion of the Kosovo war would probably be out of scope, but I do want to make one point. We intervened to stop what was arguably an incipient genocide. There’s no easy way to coerce a government other than collective punishment of the population, and saying “don’t coerce governments by punishing their populations” is just a roundabout way of saying “don’t fight” — and that’s a hard sell when the alternative is ethnic cleansing and mass murder.
Ben-David writes:
If Dan is torturing Bob in order to cure cancer, I don’t have to have a “better alternative” for curing cancer in order to be able to legitimately object to Dan’s disgusting acts.
The collective punishment of Gaza will not stop missile attacks; it will not save Israeli lives. It will, however, cause Palestinians — and in particular the elderly, the sick, and the children, all of whom are especially susceptible to this kind of attack — to suffer and die.
I don’t have a magic answer to the Israel/Palestine conflict. But collective punishment is not the answer, and demanding that we must be able to wave a magic wand and make all the terrorists go away before you’ll agree that cutting off a population’s water supply is irrational and inhumane.
“Probably”? :-P
In the case of Gaza — which is the subject of my post — the alternative to collective punishment is not ethnic cleansing and mass murder. Not every case in the word is genocide, and a rationalization for collective punishment that depends on treating all instances of collective punishment as the prevention of genocide is nonsense.
Bjatmarr wrote:
Obviously, I agree. Thank goodness you posted, I was beginning to feel very alone in this thread. :-)
The blog Rational International made a similar argument to yours, which is all the excuse I need to quote it:
Mmm. The harm the Israelis are trying to prevent is having their southern cities bombarded into uninhabitability — which, while not genocide, is a serious enough threat to plausibly justify harsh responses, particularly given that a series of less harsh measures and attempts at negotiation have failed.
(Re)direct the Palestinian leadership’s attention to their people’s welfare, instead of to aggression.
(Re)direct the Palestinian leadership’s attention to their continued dependence on Israeli goodwill.
Undercut the terrorists’ strategic decision to exploit the restraints of Western morality – and Western distinctions between combatant and civilian – even as they themselves behave without any such moral restrictions.
Reassert that Palestinian civilians will not be left in peace if Israeli citizens are not also left in peace.
Prod Palestinian civilians to reject the reign of terror – if not on moral grounds (although liberals can keep holding their collective breath if they wish) – then on practical grounds.
All of these are perfectly reasonable strategic/moral positions by the schoolyard rules of geopolitical conflict. And Israel is defending itself in a pretty rough (and by Western standards, immoral) corner of the world.
I suspect that many Israelis feel differently, yes? But it may be beyond discussion and into belief .
In your quoted text, you quoted:
Correct me if I”m wrong, but the elections weren’t especially “tacit” in nature. Nor were the demonstrations.
basically, it’s just two conflicting theories.
You seem to believe that punishment will be ineffective (or at least that’s what you tacitly argue by quoting above) because it will unite the Gazans. That claim of ineffectiveness is quite important to the eventual claim that the punishment is wrong. After all, there’s obviously no point in punishing people when it doesn’t work. (while the punishment may be unjustified even if it does work, it’s much harder if not impossible to justify it if the effects are nil.)
Others seems to believe that punishment will be effective. For example, they might believe that the Palestinian population of Gaza voted for hamas with the belief taht they could simultaneously have a revolutionary anti-israel stance, moral certainty of hatred, and a good economy with relatively open border crossings. Isreal seems to be makig the point that those are two separate choices: if you want reasonable relations with your neighbor, you probably shouldn’t openly detest them. As with the other side, the eventual efficacy of the punishment is very important.
If one is especially conservative, one can justify collective punishment based on past acts. But I think that’s rare.
I personally am somewhere in the middle. I don’t like the collective punishment aspect. But I think that if it works it may be worth it in the end.
There’s an assumption here that denying water to a population over which one has power is okay if you get what you want out of it.
Phrasing it in general terms clouds the issue I think.
Obviously the vast majority of things you want people to do don’t justify denying them water, or killing them. But some things do, right?
For example, I don’t generally support shooting people to get them to do what I want. But if “what I want” is “stop attacking my daughter with a baseball bat” then all of a sudden that shooting seems pretty justified. So my anti-killing-people creed is not universal–it depends on the details.
But that’s an exception. I don’t think it would be accurate to classify me as “a guy who thinks it’s OK to shoot people to get them to do what he wants.”
Same here. Except that (for me at least) it’s much less clear that it’s OK to deny water to Gaza than it is to shoot that hypothetical attacker. Still, though, it’s unfair to speak of a technique of last resort as if it were used on a daily basis.
“Obviously the vast majority of things you want people to do don’t justify denying them water, or killing them. But some things do, right?”
Really? Do you support torture of prisoners on the same grounds?
Oh yeah:
As they did in gaza, right?
Of course they do. Their votes are indirect–what isn’t these days?–but they have an effect.
Would Gazans like electricity? They can, of course, generate it themselves. They can elect a government who will be able to negotiate the purchase of electricity. They can elect a government who will be able to raise foreign aid to help them build generators and/or purchase power, for example. It seems oh so simple to put the blame on Israel for the lack of power, right? But it is somewhat inaccurate to do so.
Reminds me of my law school course on false imprisonment: if I put you in a room and lock one door, are you really a captive? That depends on whether there’s another way out, and how plausible the “other way out” is: you dn’t have to scale a 4 story wall, but you’re expected to be able to step over a garden fence.
So is there a way out for the Gazans? Seems like there is. Israel isn’t asking for fealty and prostrated allegiance. Instead they appear to be asking for people to stop trying to kill Israelis and motivate other people to kill Israelis.
In order for this to be Israel’s fault, the options that the Gazans have to “cure” the problem have to be unacceptable or unrealistic. I.e., even if Israel is giving them what amounts to a Hobson’s choice, it’s still OK if the forced choice is morally acceptable (unless you think Israel has no standing to defend itself against that sort of thing.)
In order for this to be Israel’s fault, the options that the Gazans have to “cure” the problem have to be unacceptable or unrealistic.
What about the proposed option do you find acceptable? Israel’s “solution” to the situation involves 1) no right to reclaim ancestral lands, 2) continued existence (and possible expansion) of settlements, outposts, and a wall built on Palestinian territory, 3) no shared custody of Jerusalem, and 4) no assurances that innocents will not be collectively punished if lawless individuals or groups continue to attack civilians.
But that’s all beside the point. The point is that collective punishment is wrong, period, and just because you think it might get you what you want (or, if you prefer, what you have a right to) doesn’t make it right.
Bjartmarr wrote:
That isn’t right. Israel’s solution to the situation is for Hamas to stop the rocket bombardment of Israeli villages and towns. The Israeli government didn’t propose power cuts as a tool for imposing a permanent peace, they were proposed as a measure for pressuring Hamas to stop bombarding them, with a permanent settlement to be postponed until the shooting has stopped.
It can’t be that Hamas has a moral right to bombard civilians in pursuit of their goal (destroying Israel), but the Israelis have no moral right to cut electricity to achieve their goal (stopping the bombardment of southern Israel). Either both sides are entitled to fight a war by imposing penalties on civilians, or neither is. The view of the elected Palestinian leadership, whose public platform is “war to the death” seems to be that both are; in that case, Israel is within its rights to fight back.
Saying that neither side is entitled to its tactics begs the question of precisely how they are morally entitled to defend themselves against unjust aggression. The obvious answer “by following the accepted laws and customs of war” brings us right back to the fact that there’s ample precedent for the actions being taken by both sides.
Generally, no.
Are you saying that I should stand by and watch while someone beats my daughter to death with a bat? And while you’re answering questions, have you stopped doing [insert crime here] yet?
/snark Sheesh.
Primarily the part where both sides stop killing people on the other side.
You may be right, and it may be an untenable choice. But I have a feeling you are missing my point above. To put the onus on the Israelis, the choice has to be untenable, not merely undesireable.
So for example, look at your list of options. Palestinians WANT all of them. But some things are untenable like, for example, being subjected to randomly getting kicked out of your home for a new settlement. Some things are more in the category of undesirable, like having your capital somewhere other than Jerusalem but being allowed to go there.
Saying “period” doesn’t make it any more wrong, you know. And i’ve not debate that CP is bad in general, i’m wondering whether this is an exception to the rule.
Cookie:
On your last paragraph, I’m right there with you until the “ample precedent” part. “Ample precedent” does not equate with “morally right”. It’s wrong when the USA does it, it’s wrong when Hamas does it, and it’s wrong when Israel does it.
Sailor:
I guess I’m still missing your point. You argue that “in order to put the onus on the Israelis, the choice must be untenable”. And then you point out that the choice is indeed untenable. And then you imply that the onus is not on the Israelis. The logic doesn’t add up.
As far as “period” goes, I think that you are also missing my point. Saying “period” is intended to emphasize the lack of the “…except sometimes when…” clause that you are trying to add. I get that you disagree with me, but given that I’ve got the Geneva Convention on my side, while all the pro-collective-punishment-sometimes camp has on its side is a bunch of blood-soaked lawless yahoos, I’d like to see a lot more evidence and justification before we start (continue?) trying to realize goals through CP.
“Generally, no.
Are you saying that I should stand by and watch while someone beats my daughter to death with a bat? And while you’re answering questions, have you stopped doing [insert crime here] yet?
/snark Sheesh.”
Sailorman, you seem to have a real problem being challenged. If you actually looked at the argument that I made, maybe you’d see where I was coming from instead of dismissing me.
To explain further, your original baseball bat example has nothing to do with either example I brought up.
I’m talking about
*instutitional power
being used to
*inflict human rights abuses
on
*people who have no institutional power
These are related.
Now, if you used your baseball bat to defend your daughter by bashing in the head of the perp’s mother? You might be talking about something related to the example here. Particularly if you were a policeman, and your government had made it legal for you to do this while continuing to protect your own mother and child.
By the by — the problem here in terms of snark is you, not me. You need to calm down when you’re posting and consider whether the people who are established members of this community — like me and Charles — might actually have half a brain in our heads.
I missed typing a “more” modifier. That’s confusing as heck as I wrote it, sorry it’s too late to fix.
Most of the problem is that i haven’t reached my own internal conclusion about whether this particular occurrence might be justified. It seems clear to me that the answer is, well, not so clear. At least in this case. So while I don’t agree with the concept that “it is CP, therefore it is, always, improper,” I also am extremely uncomfortable with how it is working out.
Mandolin:
Your post, to which I responded, appeared to conflate the specific instance of whether this situation justifies israel’s actions, with a general accusation regarding a feeling that CP was A-OK. My reply was primarily to point out that problem.
Then you brought up torture–and would you mind explaining what on earth torture has to do with anything in this thread, or what I wrote? Because I don’t assume you’re stupid, but I’ll be damned if I can figure it out.
Torture is a human rights abuse perpetrated by an institutional power on someone who it holds helpless. Often, proponents justify it by suggesting that exceptional circumstances make it acceptable for an institutional power to contravene its treaties and perpetrate human rights abuse on helpless victims.
You’re making the pro-torture argument here, and using it on a practice similar to torture in important ways — in that you suggest that it’s okay for an institutional power (check) to deprive a disenfranchised population (check) of a basic human right (check).
I think, Mandolin, that the disconnect is that I DON’T see the population of Gaza as disenfranchised in this instance.
If 60% of the population of Gaza were solidly hostile (say, as hostile as you are to rape) to rockets being fired from Gaza into Israel, I think a LOT fewer rockets would be fired. Not, necessarily, none–but very many fewer.
When he was removed out of the highway, all the people went on after Joab, to pursue after Sheba the son of Bichri. And he went through all the tribes of Israel unto Abel, and to Bethmaachah, and all the Berites: and they were gathered together, and went also after him. And they came and besieged him in Abel of Bethmaachah, and they cast up a bank against the city, and it stood in the trench: and all the people that were with Joab battered the wall, to throw it down. Then cried a wise woman out of the city, Hear, hear; say, I pray you, unto Joab, Come near hither, that I may speak with thee.
And when he was come near unto her, the woman said, Art thou Joab? And he answered, I am he. Then she said unto him, Hear the words of thine handmaid. And he answered, I do hear. Then she spake, saying, They were wont to speak in old time, saying, They shall surely ask counsel at Abel: and so they ended the matter. I am one of them that are peaceable and faithful in Israel: thou seekest to destroy a city and a mother in Israel: why wilt thou swallow up the inheritance of the LORD?
And Joab answered and said, Far be it, far be it from me, that I should swallow up or destroy. The matter is not so: but a man of mount Ephraim, Sheba the son of Bichri by name, hath lifted up his hand against the king, even against David: deliver him only, and I will depart from the city. And the woman said unto Joab, Behold, his head shall be thrown to thee over the wall. Then the woman went unto all the people in her wisdom. And they cut off the head of Sheba the son of Bichri, and cast it out to Joab. And he blew a trumpet, and they retired from the city, every man to his tent. And Joab returned to Jerusalem unto the king.
For those of you that didn’t grow up with the story, Joab was David’s great general. Not a whole lot has changed in 4000 years.
We disagree, i think, about whether or to what degree the Gazans are helpless. (see my comments to Bjartmarr regarding untenable situations vs. unpleasant situations.) For example, the Gazans could have elected not to vote for a party who had the goal of, in essence, war with israel. They could, even now, attempt to rally against and/or vote out said party.
Is that taking away their right to democracy? I’m not sure. Certainly they can do what they want (as they did;) people voted for hamas knowing that Israel and Hamas would, shall I say, not get along. But though we should allow them their own choice, I’m not clear on how much Israel is obliged to insulate them from the consequence of their choices.
And though I haven’t settled on this myself, perhaps you have: to what degree does their helplessness matter? Does it matter at all if the Gazans could solve the problem on their own, by acting? Or is it simply true that the Israelis should not, under any circumstances, be entitled to shut off power to Gaza? Because obviously, it’s not literally impossible for the Gazans to act in a manner that will prompt Israel and/or the rest of the world to act differently towards them, right?
Also, I am not sure that the institutional-torture argument holds here, because I see the Israelis and Hamas more as warring powers than as institutional enemies. You seem to think that Israel owes Hamas the same sort of consideration as it does to the rest of the folks in and around Israel. Why do you look at this like a governmental conflict, and not as something more akin to a war?
Mandolin, your full argument was not obvious at first to me either.
No opinion on who’s being snarky.
I don’t think anyone in that area has ‘good’ options. I think all of the choices are bad. Since Israel has more power and wealth they have more options. But I still don’t think they have good options.
Incredibly rude, condescending post deleted by Ampersand. Please read the moderation policies before posting again.
Yet it is what increasingly weary Israelis actually hear and think when presented with such arguments…
The Israeli decision to restrict water/electricity to Gaza is a last, desperate attempt to restore order and protect its citizens. It comes after a long, grueling process in which Israelis thought they were making peace – and the Palis apparrently misinterpreted Israeli concessions as weakness, and continued to attack.
This policy was explicitly endorsed by the vast majority of Gazans, who elected Hamas by a landslide.
The decision to restrict water/electricity comes AFTER:
– a well-funded, decades-long attempt to partition the land – which resulted in withdrawal of Israeli military administration and almost a decade of Pali autonomy, including elections.
– continued Pali aggression throughout this “peace” process, despite Israeli concessions.
– aggression that targets Israeli civilians like no Israeli policy ever did to the Palis.
– the cynical Pali use of their own women and children as human shields for terror.
– Israel’s development and application of painstaking techniques for pinpoint strikes – demonstrating more care for Pali civilian lives than the Pali leaders themselves seem to manifest – which often resulted in the death of Israeli soldiers.
Yet a certain strain of PC thought sweeps all this context away, and insists that it’s still all those nasty Israelis’ fault.
Why? Because a static, ideological calculus has been made, and the Palis have been awarded the gold star of multi-culti victimhood. The Israelis – despite the fact that most of them are the children of refugees – have been assigned the role of the “white colonial oppressor” in this ideological drama.
And all facts that contradict this set-piece of PC wisdom are ignored.
The official “victim group” is never held responsible for its actions.
How else does a discussion of how to contain ARAB violence against ISRAELIS suddenly get spun into:
Do you see what a non-sequitir this is in relation to the previous discussion?
Gone with a wave of the rhetorical wand is all semblence of context:
– the valid connection of Jews to what they consider their “ancestral lands”
– the consistent willingness of the Israelis to compromise
– the violent upending of agreeements by the Palestinians
– the immoral targeting of Israeli civilians during a “peace process”
Especially erased are the points that contradict the PC “apartheid” scenario:
– the fact of almost 10 years of Palestinian autonomy.
– the fact that Hamas are not a splinter-group of thugs, but widely supported elected representatives carrying out just what they promised their voters.
Instead the litany of grievance is offered as the always-sufficient excuse for the atrocity du jour.
It doesn’t matter that the Palis voted to attack Israeli civlians, and are doing so with gusto despite international agreements – all that context is swept away with a reassertion of their indelible victimhood, which can never be modified, balanced, or unseated by their actual actions.
In this scheme, the Palis can never lose their halo, no matter what they do to Israelis – by the coddling rules of victimology politics, it is always someone else’s fault. They are judged by what they are – the square they occupy on the ideological playing board – rather than by their actions.
(This is the subtext of other threads here – individual blacks, women, and others find themselves valued/evaluated – and often infantilized – because of the PC victim group they belong to.)
At some point – here in the real world! – people demanding sovereignty have to be held responsible for their actions. At some point the Israelis have a right to visit upon the Palis the consequences of their choices and actions. But this is anathema to the sort of PC mindset we are talking about.
And because we Israelis have to actually deal with the real, violent fallout of enabling Pali terror – we have less and less patience for people who keep looping back to the received litany of PC Pali victimhood when the reality on the ground is very different.
We wonder exactly how these folks define Palestinian independance and sovereignty if it doesn’t include responsibility for Palestinian actions.
Suppose I know that, next week, my neighbor is going to take his gun and attempt to shoot you with it. Despite this, I take no action whatsoever to prevent this from happening. I don’t call the police. I don’t try to warn you. In fact, when he tells me about his plan to kill you, I tell him that it’s a good idea, and that he ought to go and do it.
How much responsibility do I have for the attempt that my neighbor is going to make on your life? Should I be arrested and charged with a crime? Should I be punished for my behavior, so as to serve as an example to others who would not otherwise be inclined to prevent their neighbors from making murder attempts against people they dislike?
It is extremely difficult to wage war against forces other than armies, and, to be frank, Israel has shown admirable restraint in dealing with the Palestinians. What would Stalin have done? What would Saddam Hussein have done? What would Genghis Khan have done? What would the British empire have done? What would General William Tecumseh Sherman have done?
Incidentally, according to my understanding of international law, using civilians and civilian infrastructure as a “shield” for military targets is a war crime; Hezbollah and other such groups are, apparently, rather fond of this tactic.
Sailorman argues that the Palestinians in Gaza could generate their own electricity and/or negotiate foreign aid to pay for power plants. In an ideal world, yes.
I seem to remember that an earlier Palestinian administration negotiated with the European Union the financing and building of an international airport in Gaza with the express purpose of boosting the Palestinian economy towards self-sufficiency. Then someone came along and blew the new airport to smithereens: I seem to remember that it was the Israelis!
Then there’s the slight problem that Israel controls all entry and exit for both goods and people. Even if that control were not being exercised in an arbitrary and capricious manner – which it is – it still presents the ordinary Palestinians with real obstacles to any attempt to get their economic act together and thus come up with a credible alternative to Hamas.
——-
And, Amp, you are NOT alone!
There is also a rather utilitarian effect in that the rockets are quite conventional steel weapons manufactured in underground machine shops–it is in Israel’s interest that Israeli electricity NOT turn the lathes in these shops, nor diesel transshipped through the Erez crossing power generators to replace Israeli electricity. In the past, Israel has directed strikes against the machine shops themselves, with some effect but never enough to stop the bombardment.
One-sided total war against a democracy is fun. Israel might be able to stop all light industry in Gaza–which is what would stop the rockets–using reprehensible means. It chooses not to for reasons associated with the core value of the protection of innocent life*. I suggest Asa Kasher’s _Military Ethics_ for Hebrew-language readers seeking the standard text on the current state of IDF praxis.
*it may be that there IS NO effective countermeasure consonant with this value, however, the “double effect” and “sliding scale” doctrines might only allow the cessation of all Israeli electricity to Gaza IF bombardment conditions in Southern Israeli cities already reached the level of harm anticipated by such a cut-off.
They are taken for granted all over this blog:
– I can perform life-saving surgery on an infant, but if circumcision is useless or damaging, then my surgery becomes assault.
– Are black men accused of murder based on the circumstances of their actions, and their likely motives – or based on something else entirely?
– While some men may like to go to pole-dancing bars in their spare time, it’s not appropriate for a work-related event.
We can’t discuss morality without these underlying assumptions:
1. Context matters in determining an action’s moral weight.
2. People and groups are responsible for their choices and actions.
In contrast, Political Correctness declares certain groups to be victims BY DEFINITION – without any relation to actual circumstances, events, or their own actions.
These official victims classes are excused of some or all responsibility for their actions – that it, their moral stature and worthiness of support is unrelated to their actual behavior in context.
That’s what’s going on when people cherry-pick the facts to bolster the notion of Palestinian victimhood.
What happens when when put Palestinian action in context, and require Palis to accept responsibility for their actions – that is, apply a real moral judgement rather than forcing reality to match a static PC tableau?
Fortunately maureen has given us a fairly typical example of contextless pro-Pali sentiment. Let’s put the assertions in context, and see how the moral judgement shifts:
That ideal world actually existed – the power plant was built with international monies, and Israeli support.
Then it was closed due to Hamas’ corruption and continued violation of the peace:
And then there was that airport:
The airport – also built with Israel’s aggreement and international funding – was destroyed just days after the Karine-A was intercepted. A boat laden with heavy weaponry, Karine-A clearly indicated that the Palis were not working towards peaceful coexistence:
So in context, the picture of the arbitraily thuggish Israeli and the innocent, peaceloving Palestinian is replaced by something quite different.
The most telling elision in the contextless PC recitation of Palestinian victimhood is how it totally ignores the past decade of autonomy – including elections – to reassert the “original sin” of Israeli apartheid. The underlying implication – typical of all victimology politics – is that whatever the Palis do is the Israelis’ fault:
We’ll ignore for a moment the many opportunities the Palestinian people have had to appoint “credible alternatives to Hamas” – and their choice to give Hamas credibility by voting them into office.
Instead let’s put Israeli control of Pali borders in context:
– Gaza’s borders are also Israel’s borders – which Israel has a right to secure.
– We are still technically in the process of “building confidence” towards a final agreement – and the Israel had every right to insist on some control of Gaza’s borders until they knew the dispostion of the Palestinian Authority towards peace.
– Now that the Palestinians have clearly chosen continued attack across those tentative borders, Israeli is even more justified in securing them.
Once more – the international community poured millions into Industrial zones that were supposed to allow the Palis to benefit from Israeli industry while building their own.
These industrial parks were closed – because they were targeted for Palestinian terror attacks:
So: who is responsible for the thousands of Pali familes plunged into poverty by this?
Nothing up my sleeves, no tricks – all we’ve done is apply the same basic rules to Palestinian action that we apply to every other moral calculation:
– what is the context?
– people are responsible for their actions.
Okay, Ben, let’s start with this.
Please give me a couple of examples of who is “Politically Correct” under this definition, and link to in-context quotes in which they explicitly declare that “certain groups” are “victims by DEFINITION – without any relation to actual circumstances” etc..
And then — since you’re presumably claiming that I and other posters here share this fictional “Politically Correct” philosophy you’re talking about — show me where I, or other posters here, have EVER said such a thing. Again, with a direct, in context quote.
If you can’t support your claims about “Political Correctness” with evidence, then please retract them.
Hang on a minute, Ben-David!
I have an interest here. My taxes helped pay for that airport. I was reasonably supportive of the airport, less so of the bombing. The historian lurking in me somewhere is already fairly certain that in time the action will be seen as inappropriate and disproportionate – even by Israelis.
You are picking many of us up on individual points but ignoring the elephant in the room – that elephant knows that no amount changes to security arrangements, no amount of military action, no amount of slagging off those of us who display a passing interest in the well being of the Palestinian people will prove to be effective because none of it addresses the underlying problem. You know perfectly well what that underlying problem is and also that it has been outstanding for quite some time.
I agree that each of us is responsible for our actions. I also believe that each of us has the same responsibility in respect of groups – including nations – of which we are part. On top of that, I believe that international law should be applied with equal rigour to the powerful as to the weak and that those of us who do have the power of choice should make our choices in the light of the rest of this paragraph.
Probably makes me a nutter but there you go!
I want us to get past those on all sides who are, in effect, arguing that we can’t sort this out because the other guys are baddies. That is the language of the junior school playground and we need adults on this job.
Oh, and stop using the term sentimental to put down people who disagree with you. It does nothing to support your argument and only draws attention to the emotionally driven tone of your last piece. (Clue: not all of Gaza’s borders are borders with Israel.)
Seems to me that there is a problem here not only of context, but of perspective:
1. If you see Hamas as “freedom fighters” working to end the Israeli occupation, even if you see some of their strategies, tactics and actions as extreme and counterproductive, then that makes it much easier to see any Israeli action as growing out of the occupation and therefore as victimizing, by definition;
2. If, especially from within Israel, you see Hamas as an organization one stated goal of which is the elimination of the sovereign state of Israel, then it is difficult to reconcile any action by Hamas with the desire/intent/any steps taken, on any side of the conflict, to resolve the problem of the occupation in a way that maintains Israel’s sovereignty and security, while at the same time granting the Palestinians the same sovereignty and security;
3. If you see the situation as more complex than either of the previous two positions, if not in historical terms, then at least in terms of what the reality is as it exists on the ground today, then any action taken by any side is going to be morally fraught.
Personally, I am appalled at the notion of collective punishment; as a strategy, it devastated the people of Iraq; nor did it work to change Sadam Hussein’s stance, policies, etc. At the same time, however, to the degree that Hamas sees itself as being at war with the State of Israel, with the very idea of the existence of the State of Israel, and to the degree that as far as I know–and here maybe there are people who have more information than I do–Hamas has, at best, suggested that it would be willing to negotiate an end to hostilities, but that it would never recognize Israel’s right to exist (which should lead anyone to wonder what Hamas means by “end to hostilities”), how is Israel not to respond as if it, too, is at war with Hamas, especially if Hamas is the duly elected government of Gaza?
Please do not misunderstand: I do not, on a personal level, approve of or support what Israel has done; Israel has been and is an occupying power, and it certainly is not, taking the long historical view, the wronged party (or the only wronged party) by any means. However, unless you take the position that Israel is not interested in a peaceful solution–which, if it were the case, would justify Hamas taking the position it takes–then it seems to me irresponsible not to consider Israel’s actions relative to Hamas in the context of Hamas’ stated positions regarding Israel’s very existence; and I doubt there has ever been a country that has waged a war in which it has not taken actions that were morally questionable at best.
I also want to say this: the fact that Israel is interested in peace does not mean that the proposals it has made, the positions it has taken at the bargaining table, etc. have been fair to the Palestinians; but the fact that those positions, etc. may have been unfair does not negate a desire for peace. No one goes into negotiations willing to give the other side everything it wants; nor should either side expect to get everything it wants out of a negotiation.
Just on the off chance that your elephant isn’t the same as my elephant, would you mind posting a sentence explaining what you’re referring to?
Ampersand:
I wasn’t making any claims – I was summarizing a well-known and widely used shorthand used in public discourse in the Western(ized) world.
The terms “conservative” and “libertarian” and “right” generally denote a pattern of thought that builds on Judeo-Christian notions of the unique value of the individual, and that individual’s free will. This train of thought leads to a view of government as a necessary evil, to be limited in favor of free individual action and private property.
This mindset leads to public discourse that emphasizes wide-open, rational argument and counter-argument, followed by democratic vote, to determine public policy.
The terms “liberal” and “politically correct” and “left” generally denote a pattern of thought that builds on socialist notions of class struggle and class unity, defining special interest “communities” as I described. This train of thought views government as an explicitly moral instrument for active redistribution of privilege according to the scheme of special interests.
Because individuals are primarily viewed – and ranked – as representatives of “privileged” or “disadvantaged” groups, and because the government is given heavy moral authority rather than being viewed as a necessary evil – the notion of unobtrusive government by consent of the governed matters less than the imposition of morally correct policy (one example is the imposition of gay marriage rights by the Massachusetts Supreme Court, rather than by voter referendum).
The political and social discourse that flows from the “PC” view often answers rational argument with a fundamentally emotional argument based on a sense of grievance, and imposes conformity by trying to shame people into “retracting” their opinions, well-reasoned arguments – or even facts that contradict the established pecking order of interest groups.
This elicits amused bewilderment from the “conservative” party in the exchange, who thought they were having another conversation entirely.
And that’s basically how I receive your comment.
Do you see how, instead of directly addressing the issues and arguments I put forth, you have diverted the conversation to a confrontation based on a sense of grievance – followed by an incredible demand that I retract….. what, exactly? A commonly known shorthand for describing modern political opinions?
Because it’s easier to shut down challenging opinions by saying they insult you than it is to actually engage them. A classic PC technique.
Sorry, but:
1) I cannot possible “retract” the widely current terms and opinions I have described. They’re bigger than both of us.
2) No fair reading of my post supports your sense of personal grievance or attack. Believe me – Israelis encounter the “PC” attitudes I describe often, way beyond the confines of this blog. I am writing from bitter – and sometimes tragicomic – experience.
3) I flatly reject the attempt to use that sense of grievance to avoid actually dealing with my arguments – and even get me to retract them!
4) I cite your attempt to use the lever of grievance in this way as a classic example of just the rhetoric I – and many others! – mean when we refer to “political correctness”.
“Because it’s easier to shut down challenging opinions by saying they insult you than it is to actually engage them. A classic PC technique.”
It may have escaped your attention that Ampersand is both the author of this post and a moderator here.
Your flawed attempts to summarize what you see as the positions of the various bits of the political spectrum are irrelevant to the conversation, and to Ampersand’s requests. In the future, please respect the moderation policy. If you’re incapable of doing so, you will be asked to leave.
Well, yeah. If you consider Rush Limbaugh broadcasts to be the sum total of the Westernized world.
For the rest of us, it is blindingly obvious that you are setting up what we like to call a “Straw Man”.
Richard Jeffrey Newman:
Even in a multivalent and complex situation it is possible to draw moral conclusions and distinctions.
It is also necessary to draw these distinctions, if we are interested in saving lives and promoting peaceful, equable solutions.
Let’s start with these general values, by which we will evaluate the situation:
Any objections so far?
It is necessary – and possible – to analyze Israeli and Palestinian actions according to these values, and to reach a moral/strategic determination of who we consider worthy of our support, and who we wish to censure.
Now we look at actions in context, against these values. (This is what I claim many using the PC template for this issue refuse to do).
Palestinians:
Recruit young suicide bombers, glorify them, and fund them.
Indoctrinate their youth with incitement/glorification of “holy” war.
Hide among civilians as an explicit strategy.
Target civilians as an explicit strategy.
Spread propaganda denying the historical Jewish connection to Israel.
Widely proclaim their intention to “drive the Jews into the sea”.
Repeatedly break the basic term of several negotiated agreements – to stop attacking Israel and recognize its right to exist.
All this is undertaken – organized, sponsored, and funded by the PA – even in the middle of an internationally sponsored peace program that has already delivered tangible autonomy.
Israelis:
Have a long-standing peace movement that has influenced public discourse.
Have a prosperous Arab minority that enjoys full civil rights.
Conducted a largely humane occupation after winning a defensive war, and did not annex or ethnically cleanse occupied areas.
Repeatedly made painful concessions for peace.
Take great pains to avoid collateral civilian damage in their attempts to take out Palestinian attackers.
Have largely rejected the dream of a Jewish state “on both sides of the Jordan” – Menachem Begin himself invited Sadat to Jerusalem, and facilitated the current peace process. Extreme right wing parties are largely fueled by continued Arab violence – which also motivates continued Israeli presence in Palestinian-controlled areas.
———–
Please don’t explain to me how angry, sad, or disrespected the Palis feel – or about your own personal conviction to always stick up for the perceived underdog – or about the global struggle against capitalist Western colonialism – instead please tell me:
What do their ACTIONS – in the context of an internationally-brokered, heavily funded peace process – tell us about whether they are worthy of our support?
Look at these two statements:
and then we have:
My bitter, extensive experience is that many “liberal/PC” people in the world have no problem rattling off the first statement – indeed, I’ve encountered many who rush through the obligatory “even-handed” disclaimers about the Holocaust-blah-blah to get to the real meat – the damning catalog of cherry-picked factiods that “prove” the standard PC script of “colonial white oppressor” and “noble, third-world freedom-fighter”.
I don’t hear the second statement much. Why is that?
Is it because Palestinian conduct is so obviously pure, so obviously matches our values?
Or is it because political sympathies are determined by an static ideological template of victimhood, rather than a real-world moral evaluation of Palestinian action.
You don’t have to love the Israelis – and we certainly haven’t done everything right. But it’s very hard to miss the overarching trends in Israeli and Arab behavior.
Please judge BOTH sides by their actions, in context.
You’re trying to pull a switch with your long and racist list. You’re trying to use the Israeli peace movement as emblematic of Israel and the suicide bombers as emblematic of Palestinians.
If it’s fair to judge Palestinians by suicide bombers, then it’s fair to judge Israelis by settlers and the butchers who sewed Palestinian fields with poison.
Ben-David writes:
What you fail to mention, Ben, is that the power plant you refer to — Gaza’s one and only power plant — was destroyed by the Israeli Air Force.
And that’s also, Sailorman, why it’s not possible to build a new power plant in Gaza, as you suggest in comment #17. No investors would be willing to risk money on a new power plant while it seems very possible that any such new plant will be bombed into wreckage within years.
Mandolin:
Who has influenced Israeli policy more: the settlers or the peace movement? Israeli policy for the past 2 decades has been largely determined by the arguments of the peace camp. Even Binyamin Netanyahu is no longer talking about Israeli sovereignty from the Jordan to the Mediterranean. And Israel forcibly removed the settlers from Gaza just a year ago.
And who has influenced Palestinian policy more: the racists who would kill all Israelis, and send suicide bombers to do so, or the peace move —-Ooooopsie, there IS NO PALESTINIAN PEACE MOVEMENT! The suicide bombers ARE the Palis’ duly elected representatives.
…. and I’d be happy to receive a link to a non-Pali site corroborating the “poison fields”
canardnarrative….Ampersand:
Why was the plant bombed?
Why did the EU shut down their subsidy of the power plant before this?
If people no longer want to fund the Palestinian dream – isn’t that, maybe-kinda just a teensy-weensy bit because of the chaotic, violent climate that Hamas and Fatah have created?
Can’t you picture a lot of investors saying:
“If the Palis aren’t honoring their peace agreements – who says they will honor business agreements?”
or:
“Who knows if the guy I sign a deal with will be alive in a few months – maybe there will be another thug in charge, and there goes my investment.”
So: who is ultimately responsible for the situation?
If people don’t want to invest, it’s a natural consequence of Palistinian policy choices and actions.
Amp,
Yes, I know the Israelis destroyed the power plant. Do you remember why, or what was going on at the time? It’s not as if they woke up one day and said “Hey, I know, even though we are at a happy peace let’s go find something Palestinian, and bomb or destroy it!”
It is true that an investor would be unlikely to build, right now, a new power plant. But I think that’s actually more an issue of Palestinian behavior. Israel acts in a reasonably predictable manner, and has for a while. (note: predictable does NOT imply “acceptable.”) IMO there’s some decent ability to link “what happens to and around Israel” to “what the Israeli government chooses to do next.” They don’t, for example, generally mount military excursions unless the shots into Israel get high enough. They don’t generally bomb airports or power plants unless they have some reason to believe that they’re being used to attack Israel.
For example, I’d say that absent bombings or military action, the Israelis would not bomb a power plant. Would you disagree? because I think that puts the burden of “it’s impossible to get investors” more on the Palestinians than on Israel. And it also suggests that the transition to “able to get investment” could be achieved fairly quickly.
(And BTW: Ben David, can you stop calling them “Palis?” It sounds like an insult a la “Japs” and whether or not you intend it to be insulting, it’s not helping your argument any.)
Ben-David–
Leaving aside your own cherry-picking of factoids and the rather callous disregard that I find in your posts here for what the current situation might look like from the Palestinian perspective, I will say, simply, this: When I wrote that it seems to me entirely reasonable for Israel to see itself at war with Hamas–not necessarily with the Palestinians pre se, but with Hamas specifically–I was, in part at least, supporting your point that Hamas needs to be judged according to its actions. I also think the same is true of Israel, however, and given what I know of the history of the region, Israel has not only not done everything right, but it is also guilty, in the same ways that the Palestinians are guilty, of acts that are morally questionable at best.
I grew up with the narrative of Israeli best-intentions that you are putting forth here, at least by implication. Frankly, I find it tiresome; it is, in its structure, not much different than the narrative of American best-intentions that people use in this country. The Israelis and the Palestinians are both morally compromised–I find your phrase “largely humane occupation” to be an especially egregious form of double-speak–and they are each morally culpable, though in different ways–and, depending on the point in history one is talking about, perhaps to different degrees–in their failure to arrive at peace. That seems to me to be the only honest point from which to start thinking about this whole situation.
No. Or at least, not evidently.
You would need to have at least some basis of comparison showing frequency, support, etc.
Think of it this way: We have the death penalty. Most countries don’t. But there are surely some groups in every country who support it. It’s OK to judge us by our support for the death penalty, because it’s common enough to make the attribution reasonable, and, after all, it’s the policy of our elected government: if we don’t like the attribution, we can change the government. It’s not OK to judge other countries by the death penalty advocates, because they obviously aren’t representative.
Same here.
Take those Palestinian actions which are supported by, well, “most” Palestinians. These actions include Palestinian violence against Israeli civilians, which tactic is (depending on where they’re talking) either tacitly or openly supported by the democratically elected government of the Palestinians, which won a majority of votes. There are, of course, other actions which are supported by the Palestinians and by the Palestinian government, some of them good and some bad.
Where do suicide bombers fall in that spectrum? Hard to say exactly. I’d say that they are relatively well accepted if not supported, though I realize that opinions may differ.
On the other hand, you have the Israeli actions which are supported by a similar proportion of Israelis. Do the poisoners fall into that category? I don’t think so. But if you do, I’m curious as to why.
Sailorman:
1) You must be a better typist than I.
2) This is pretty standard usage among English speakers here in Israel – but thanks for the feedback.
“Take those Palestinian actions which are supported by, well, “most” Palestinians. ”
Uh huh. No cherry-picking here, either.
Ben-David,
As Ampersand wrote this post, I defer to his call on whether or not to ban you. However, you’ve more than crossed the line in my opinion.
Sailorman, no one in Palestine has the practical ability to stop Palestinian terrorists from shooting missiles at Israelis. Suggesting that they could just choose to stop attacking Israelis, and then Israel wouldn’t bomb their infrastructure is giving any madman with a bomb veto power over whether or not Gaza can have needed infrastructure that — beyond any doubt — saves lives.
A UN official quoted in Haaretz said that in the last year, two Israeli civilians have been killed by missiles from Gaza. That’s tragic — but the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed in that same time period are a tragedy, too. I do think that Israel has a right to self-defense, but it has to be proportionate; it’s not the case that it’s reasonable to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of Palestinian lives, including dozens of children, in order to protect the handful of Israelis living within five miles of Gaza.
It’s also interesting that when Israelis kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza, you say that’s legitimate self-defense and they shouldn’t have voted for a group that includes violent militants (even though there was no alternative group to vote for that does not include violent militants). But you apparently don’t feel that it’s legitimate for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians in Israel; that is never legitimate self-defense, in your view.
The Palestinians have been invaded, occupied, and killed in numbers far outnumbering Israeli deaths. What you’re saying to them is that no matter how many Palestinian children are killed, it is never acceptable for even one Israeli citizen to be killed in response, and if one Israeli citizen is killed that justifies collective punishment of all Palestinians. Can you understand why your belief that Israelis are allowed to collectively punish innocent Palestinians, but Palestinians have no parallel right to attack Israelis, wouldn’t be very persuasive to most Palestinians? (At least, most of the ones I’ve met.)
Personally, I don’t think Palestinians have any right to attack Israeli civilians, except in acts of direct and immediate self-defense, or in the case of police arresting specific accused criminals for specific crimes (and then, only if there’s a legitimate trial to follow).
I also don’t think Israelis have any right to attack Palestinian civilians, except in acts of direct and immediate self-defense, or in the case of police arresting specific accused criminals for specific crimes (and then, only if there’s a legitimate trial to follow).
(I don’t think either side has a right to kill civilians in order to knock off non-civilians, either.)
Quoth Ampersand:
Hamas has enough gunmen that they were able to effectively crush the Fatah presence in Gaza. It’s very plausible that they could stop the rockets; certainly, Israeli military intelligence seems to believe so, and I suspect they know better than any poster here.
Also, Hamas claims they can stop the rockets. The key premise of the peace process is that the Palestinian leadership can deliver peace. If Hamas can’t stop the rockets, it makes no sense to treat them as the negotiating agent of the Palestinian people.
Under international law, if Hamas wants to be treated as a sovereign government, it must be responsible for the actions of its citizens. There can’t be a peace process if the Palestinians can’t stop their citizens from conducting acts of war.
So, this is basically saying “neither side should attack civilians, but neither has any practical remedies if the other side does.” It isn’t possible for either the Palestinians or the Israelis to arrest their enemies without an armed incursion that would kill substantial numbers of civilians. Israeli police can’t go into Gaza without tanks and helicopters; Gaza has no normal police force, and certainly none that can operate in Israel.
Politically, that’s a non-starter.
Seconding the above response… then why on earth should Israel negotiate with them at all? If they’re going to bomb or not bomb irrespective of whether “the palestinians” want them to, then Israel’s unilateral actions make a heck of alot more sense.
You and I both know darn well that the Palestinian government is nowhere near the point at which only “madmen with bombs,” who are eluding honest and serious attempts to stop them, are the ones getting through. If that WERE true, then the veto power would be ridiculous–but that’s sure as heck not what’s happening now.
Yes, at some point is becomes unbalanced. I don’t know how to accurately weight it. Is it only lives? Does that mean that you’d be fine with Israel randomly shooting missiles into Gaza, meaning that everyone there had to either live in fear of
Sometimes it’s legitimate self defense. Sometimes it’s not.
Poppycock. Hamas and fatah are not equivalent, and you know damn well that is true.
You are substituting the words “kill” for “target.” That HAS to be intentional, and that’s what makes your comment ridiculous.
If the Palestinians were to attack an Israeli military base, and happened to get a civilian collaterally, that would be “legitimate.” OTOH, if the Palestinians act in a manner that deliberately targets civilians, that is not.
And what is up with this level of argument-twisting and “what you’re saying is…?” It’s not your usual style.
Actually, I CAN understand that.
Can you understand that the concept that Palestinians are deliberately mixing civilian and military life in a way which makes it almost impossible to avoid collective punishment, makes the Palestinian argument a heck of a lot less persuasive?
If your response is “don’t use collective punishment; use ___ equally effective method instead” then that is a real strike against the Israelis. If the argument is “don’t respond to military action in a manner that endangers civilians; respond in _____ equally effective method instead,” likewise.
But if ALL you say is “don’t use collective punishment” or “don’t endanger civilians” then surely you’re smart enough to see the inevitable response: The Palestinians can easily enact procedures where Israel can only respond through “banned” tactics, and thus Israel’s response is limited. Do you think that is reasonable? Fair? Appropriate?
As an example:
This is a reasonable belief. But again, this decision gets exploited.
Let’s say that tomorrow, Israeli soldiers to start shooting at Gaza from civilian-heavy areas.
In such an instance, exactly what would you expect the Palestinians to do? Hold fire and duck? Hope nobody gets hit? Move out of Gaza, and tack it up as an unrecoverable loss?
It seems to me that you are asking Israel do do the equivalent.
Not really. That neither side has practical military remedies is not just a suggested course of action, but an obvious fact. Absent genocide, the problem isn’t going to be solved via a military solution. But practical non-military remedies are available.
For example, either side could capture the moral high ground by unilaterally imposing a fair settlement to the conflict. For the Palestinians, this would involve a cessation of attacks on Israeli civilians, and aggressively prosecuting individuals or groups that continue to do so. For the Israelis, this would involve a cessation of attacks on civilians, a retreat to pre-1967 borders, and allowing access or providing compensation to Palestinians who own land inside of Israel.
The international community has been unable to unite on a solution to the problem in part because there has been no clear, unambiguously moral party in the conflict. Once such a party exists, international pressure on the other party will increase significantly.
The sentiment behind the initial one-sided capturing of the moral high ground needs to be something like, “We’re not taking these actions in order to get something from you. It’s not a trade. We’re doing this because it’s a fair solution and we’re a fair people.”
How realistic do you think this is as a demand to make on Israel?
And do you understand that you are offering the Palestinians the “moral high ground” for doing what we are all supposed to be doing, namely not targeting civilians and/or actually attempting to stop people who do?
Talk about moving the goalposts. Maybe Israel should start sending rockets into Gaza–then they can claim the moral high ground when the stop, hmm?
Bingo. You got it. You get the moral high ground when you stop misbehaving.
Sure, as long as they stop doing all the other crap that I mentioned above also.
To clarify what I thought was obvious, the Palestinians have no such other requirement about stopping all the other crap only because, as far as I’m aware, they’re not doing anything objectionable other than the attacks on civilians.
Furthermore, I’m a little mystified as to where this comment came from. Do you think that Israel has already taken a morally just position? Because that’s the only way that your comment makes even the slightest bit of sense. But it would have been much clearer if you had just said that, rather than making the snarky, ridiculous comment that you did.
No, I don’t think Israel currently holds the moral high ground. It’s just that those two lists, well, don’t really seem the same:
For the Palestinians
1) Stop targeting civilians.
2) Prosecute and/or seriously attempt to stop people who target civilians.
That’s it. Now, I DON’T think Israel holds the moral high ground. But if that’s all it takes (which I don’t believe is the case) then golly, perhaps they do. Did Israel hold the moral high ground before they shut off power to Gaza? I don’t think they generally target civilians, after all.
For Israel:
1) cessation of attacks on civilians Does this mean the same thing it does for the Palestinians?
2) A retreat to pre-1967 borders I am really not sure about this one. 1967 is a long way back. Wars change territories all the time. I don’t think that countries are generally required to give back territory to attain the moral high ground. In fact [scratches head] haven’t quite a few of the borders in that area changed since 1967? Isn’t the political climate also quite different?
I’m often unsure whether people who claim pre-67 borders are serious. Sometimes it seems that they are imposing those conditions as a method of concluding that Israel is not acting morally. But I suspect you really do mean it; what I’m less sure about is whether you think it’s realistic. It’s certainly a huge advantage that you don’t ask for the “right of return.”
3/ allowing access or providing compensation to Palestinians who own land inside of Israel.
Yes, I agree that this would be preferable.
I have to admit that I’m in the camp who would complete that sentence with “….because, in all likelihood, Israel has managed to make such other actions impossible,” and not with “…because the Palestinians wouldn’t try.”
There is a lot of nervousness there, for good reason I think. Say that the Palestinians want more access to internal Israel, and fewer checkpoints. Say that they would want to occupy land near Israeli settlements.
If you were responsible for Israeli security, would you let them? Why?
Quoth Bjartmarr:
This fact isn’t merely unobvious, in all probability it’s simply false. Israel has defeated the suicide bombing campaign based in the West Bank. Their measures were by no means genocidal — they were far more modest than were used to pacify the American South during and after the Civil War. No rockets are being fired from the West Bank. Why couldn’t they repeat the same trick in Gaza?
I think the Israeli strategy is reasonably clear at this point — wear down Hamas, cripple their leadership and armed forces, convince the Palestinian people they’ve lost, find alternate power brokers such as tribal leaders or local strongmen, and ultimately arrange a series of cease fires with them. It seems a pretty reasonable bet — it worked in the West Bank, after all.
I don’t think moral pressure will work on Hamas. The world expressed a great deal of opprobrium and imposed sanctions when they were elected. It didn’t work. Why would it work better after Israel makes unilateral concessions?
You’re asking Israel to do something rather difficult — expell hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, give up territory vital for defense, abandon the Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem to a regime whose stated goal is their extermination — in exchange for…your good opinion of them? That doesn’t seem like a good trade. If the war continues, despite these concessions, moral high ground will be no substitute for the actual high ground that you’re asking Israel to abandon.
If the last 70 years have taught us nothing else, it’s that the world won’t fight, or even sacrifice, for moral principle. Why should Israel rely on the international pressure that has been so spectacularly ineffective on Burma, Zimbabwe, China, Rwanda, etc ad infinitum? Imagine for a moment that you’re an Israeli citizen. International pressure did nothing for your parents’ generation during the late 1940s, when Jewish populations were systematically eradicated in almost every Arab state. What happened to the Jews of Iraq, who were historically one of the world’s largest Jewish communities? Did the world do anything for them?
No, I don’t think Israel currently holds the moral high ground. It’s just that those two lists, well, don’t really seem the same:
Well, Sailor, if you like, I can add the requirement that the Palestinians retreat to pre-1967 borders, and that they allow any Israelis who own land in the OT access to that land or just compensation. But that would be kind of silly, wouldn’t it? Since the Palestinians aren’t doing any of those things, requiring that they stop doing them is ridiculous.
Often folks who argue that what Israel is doing is just, make a distinction between killing civilians on purpose, and killing civilans accidentally-on-purpose while shooting at bad guys. They often use the language “targeting”, as you have done, as a method of excusing what Israel does while vilifying what the Palestinians do. I really don’t buy that distinction — I think that killing civilians is wrong, always***– which is why I avoided using the language “targeted”. I don’t think you’re trying to muddle the issue with language, but I think you’re in danger of doing so nonetheless.
I didn’t mention “right of return” because it’s become a loaded term. But it’s basically what I was getting at when I talked about allowing access to displaced people or providing compensation. (I don’t buy for one second the argument that when folks got out of the way of an invading army, they were implicitly abandoning their land, so nyah nyah finders keepers no give-backs. When I leave my house to go on vacation, you don’t get to take my house just because you “found it abandoned”.)
And, because I think you are seriously asking, yes, I do think that countries are wrong to take land by force that doesn’t belong to them. It’s wrong when Israel does it, it’s wrong when China does it, and it was wrong every time the US did it. And Israel will be in the wrong until they give it back, and China will be in the wrong until they give it back, and the US will be in the wrong until we give it back (and since the US killed everybody who the land belongs to and thus can’t return it, we’re pretty much permanently in the wrong on that issue.)
You ask if I think this is “realistic”. Realistically, I think the most likely solution is that both sides are going to continue to act like spoiled children. But there are no barriers other than the attitudes of the people involved — it’s not like I’m asking them to do something that’s physically difficult or impossible, so in that sense, yes, I think it’s realistic. It’s going to cause much inconvenience to those who are living on other people’s land — but hey, they shouldn’t have moved onto somebody else’s land in the first place (“God told me to” ain’t an excuse), and they should take it up with the Israeli government that urged them to move there in the first place. But I don’t think they should refrain from doing it just because it will be inconvenient, any more than I think that companies should refrain from hiring women because it would be inconvenient to build an extra bathroom.
*** A reasonable person could argue that it is not wrong to shoot someone who is deliberately using their body as a shield for someone who is shooting at you. The person doing the shielding has, in that case, implicitly volunteered to become a combatant. The difference between this situation and the one the Palestinians are in, however, is that I don’t think they all volunteered to serve as human shields, so I really don’t think it’s relevant in this case.
If you want, you can think of all killing as “equally bad.” But why would you?
We’re obviously talking about two different things:
-accidentally killing a civilian while engaging in a justified act (whatever it may be), and
-purposefully targeting a civilian for death.
The definitions are different. The intent is different.
The main reason to deliberately use the same viewpoint seems to be if you want to ignore intent. But do you do that elsewhere? I certainly don’t: I distinguish between murder and manslaughter, for example, and I think murder is worse. And I don’t think that is “muddling with language;” I think it is an important distinction.
I think killing civilians is always bad, so I think doing it intentionally is worse; this is fully consistent with my general belief system. In other words, I give some credit for effort.
I don’t know you, but I have a hard time thinking that you consistently ignore intent. Most people don’t (perhaps you’re an exception.) Someone who deliberately pushes you in front of a bus is more culpable than someone who does the same thing because they tripped. And so on.
If that’s not what you generally believe, why make an exception here? Do you see that I might think you’re deliberately trying to remove some of the Israeli’s moral advantage?
OK, but no fair accusing me of muddling with language then ;) since that’s a well-accepted definition.
There is a difference between physically impossible and functionally impossible. And neither of those have anything to do with realism.
If I said that I thought Israel was entitled to attack the Palestinians unless 99% of them voted for a resolution praising Israel for its good graces, and 30% them converted to Judaism, that demand would be neither physically nor functionally impossible–but it would be practically so.
If your goal is to have a debate about theory, I’m interested in that, sure. But to date, this thread has been talking about, to a large degree, functional solutions. Or, as I might call them, “realistic” ones. The right of return isn’t in that category, largely because it would result in Arab control of Israel–or, shall I say, the destruction thereof.
And given your statement about countries, maybe you think that’d be OK, but if so, I doubt that we can have an especially productive discussion.
it worked in the West Bank, after all
Well, part of the problem has been temporarily solved, I’ll grant you. I am very doubtful that the violence will not re-emerge in time, or that other issues are going to get solved without that violence.
The world expressed a great deal of opprobrium and imposed sanctions when they were elected. It didn’t work.
Because neither side yet held the moral high ground. Hence, not enough pressure.
The pressure involved isn’t just sanctions, by the way. Hamas (etc) gains their power in large part from the consent and support of the Palestinian population. The Palestinians support them, in part, because they are scared and they percieve that Hamas will stick up for them. If Israel stops taking their land and killing them, the need to
hire the Mafiasupport Hamas for self-defense will evaporate, and they will choose government that doesn’t turn them into international pariahs.give up territory vital for defense,
Yeah, this is another argument that I just don’t buy. I’m actually fairly well convinced that the settlements aren’t primarily for defense, but are primarily to fulfill what some claim is their God-given right/duty to occupy all of the OT. Ditto for the barrier (dunno what to call it…apparantly “wall” and “fence” are loaded terms) — it may be useful for defense, but it’s primarily a land grab. You know the phrase “Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach”? Well, Israel must be “beyond reproach” when it comes to issues of taking land in the OT. I’m open to being convinced, but it will have to be via an actual argument that is rather less transparant than ones I’ve heard before.
The Palestinians aren’t doing it, but the Arab world as a whole is. Until the 1940s, Iraq was one of the major centers of the Jewish world; Jews had been there continuously since the biblical era. Jewish populations were likewise expelled in huge numbers from Syria and North Africa. Are you urging compensation for them? Can you even imagine it happening? I can’t.
This claim is contradicted by the available evidence. The Israeli withdraw from Gaza was a substantial unilateral concession, it occurred during a period of comparative peacefulness in Gaza, and it was followed by marked radicalization in the form of Hamas winning the election and the rocket bombardment.
The worry that Israelis have is that if they back down, that will vindicate Hamas, and actually radicalize the Palestinians further. There are all too many historical episodes, after all, where making concessions merely inflamed the recipient’s appetite. Look where land-for-peace got the American Indians. Or, more recently, the Czechs in 1938.
Neither of us can say what would happen if Israel makes yet more concessions. But let’s ask a hypothetical question. If Israel gives up territory, stops using forced to defend itself, and the problem worsens — what then? What would world pressure mean, in concrete terms? What more would the West do to weaken or moderate Hamas than it has done over the last few years? My sense is that all this talk of “western pressure” is basically a fraud, and that aside from the US, the West will do nothing whatsoever to help Israel, any more than they did for the Burmese or Zimbabweans. And I don’t think any sensible Israelis want to go that route.
The intent is different.
Let’s assume, for the purpose of this post, that it is.
Shooting an innocent because you don’t like them is wrong. Shooting an innocent because they wander in between you and the guy shooting at you is also wrong. Maybe one is wronger** than the other. The intent is certainly different. But I don’t care, “wronger” is beside the point, because they’re both wrong. Read the part again about “as a method of excusing what the Israelis do while vilifying what the Palestinians do”.
As for the “realism” issue, if I understand you, you’re saying that there’s just no way that Israel is going to agree to undo the border expansion, settlements, barriers and what-not (not sure if this includes refusing to halt the building of more settlements or not). And since they abjectly refuse to do that, it’s not reasonable to expect them to do it as a precondition to holding the moral high ground. Is that right? Because I don’t buy it.
As I alluded to before, this discussion is more or less about theory, because I think that the only “realistic” (or “likely” or “functional”, if you like) solution is that the violence continues on and off for some dozens more years, until Israel decides to use its nukes or some Palestinian group gets its hands on an effective biological agent, after which the remaining Israelis will be living in a hell-hole and the Palestinians won’t be living at all. But there’s always the chance that some charismatic peace-loving genius will get power long enough to convince their side to undertake my plan, in which case, everybody wins.
As for the “right of return” issue, we had an agreement back there using the other language, so let’s just stick with that, OK? We can argue about whether the package includes citizenship, or how much Israel pays to buy the land, or whatever, in another thread.
** I know that wronger isn’t a word. I’m using it because I think that introducing the concept of wronger, in this discussion, is counterproductive. So I’m mocking the concept.
Are you urging compensation for them? Can you even imagine it happening?
Yes to the first, No to the second. But holding Palestinians accountable for the actions of the Syrians and North Africans doesn’t make much sense.
Furthermore, I really don’t like where it looks like you’re headed (and where many have been before you) which is the argument that “The Arabs did it to us, so we get to do it to them!”. The problem is, of course, that this is code for “Those Arabs did it to us, so we get to do it to these other Arabs”, which is just another form of “He hit me, so I’m gonna hit you to make me feel better.”
If that wasn’t where you were heading, apologies, but sooner or later someone always does.
The Israeli withdraw from Gaza was a substantial unilateral concession,
Indeed it was. But the causus belli still existed. It gives us no evidence about what happens when you remove all reasonable causes for conflict, not just one of them.
Look where land-for-peace got the American Indians.
First off, this isn’t land-for-peace. This is land-for-nothing-because-it-doesn’t-belong-to-us, now please go grow your tomatoes and leave us alone.
Second, in both the examples you stated, the strong power overcame the weak power, not the other way around. If you want to show me examples where the US gave the Indians back all their land, and the Indians then overran and conquered the US, I suppose you’ll have a point.
If Israel gives up territory, stops using force to defend itself
Well, we’re not exactly agreed that Israel’s use of force has been solely in self defense.
and the problem worsens — what then?
First off — why would it? Sure, if the Palestinians were actually an evil, warlike, small-minded people with too much testosterone and excessive body hair, I can see why they would continue to attack. Many people believe that they are. I do not, and I’m not going to explain why.
If the Palestinians’ own sense of decency doesn’t stop the attacks, and international sanctions and political pressure don’t stop the attacks, an international, non-Israeli peacekeeping force could be used. We can’t do this now because of bleeding hearts like me (well…and other bleeding hearts who actually have power) who refuse to give one kid detention when both kids are picking the fight.
How come you didn’t ask, “What if the Palestinians stop using force to defend themselves and the problem worsens — what then?”
“But I don’t care, “wronger” is beside the point”
Spoken like someone who is on the side of the “wrongers,” so to speak. I think Israeli actions are bad. I think Palestinian actions are worse. That is a relative statement, yes? I simply cannot believe that you are trying to push this out of the way, or to suggest that maintaining this type of relativism is worthy of mockery.
Here, try these: I think that being an asshole to women is bad; I think that raping them is worse. I think that being somewhat antichoice is bad; I think that actively lobbying against choice is worse. I think that shooting someone accidentally while hunting is bad; I think that shooting someone intentionlally is worse.
Shall I go on? Do you want to claim that my above statements are “excusing” people who are assholes to women; antichoice folks; or Dick Cheney?
If not, can you please drop the “you’re just trying to excuse Israelis and vilify Palestinians” crap? Please? Because I have made it pretty damn clear that I’m applying a general rule, and I’ve explained it. And unless you want to get up on your soapbox and claim that no, of COURSE you don’t distinguish between anything else based on intent, I think it is more likely you who are exhibiting some pretty serious situation-specific bias here. Without explanation, I might add.
.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Israel will surely do some of those things, in whole or in part, as it should. But you appear to be unwilling to grant them morality unless they so all of those things in their entirety. Perhaps I’m reading you wrong.
Since you apparently know about the area, the history of Israel, the historical relations with Arabs, the history of Jews in the surrounding states, I am confused. I do not understand why you would consider it “reasonable” for Israel to make concessions which would quite probably result in serious damage to israel, and a significant increase in Israeli deaths. Hey, let’s live as one big happy family in a country full of people who want us dead! hoookay…
It’s not unreasonable because Israel refuses. It’s unreasonable because it makes no freakin’ sense unless you place an extraordinarily low value on Israelis and/or israel.** That fact is why Israel refuses.
Not EVERYTHING is unreasonable, and there are lots of things which Israel has (and will) refuse to do which it “could” or “should” do. But the ROR is probably in that category.
Well sheeeit, I wish you had said that way back when, before I wasted all this time. You basically present a polarized and idealized solution, and you don’t apparently see any particular need to adapt your solution, or your analysis, to the facts and/or political realities on the ground. Functionally speaking that may be useless, or make actually prove detrimental, but you don’t seem to distinguish between worse and worser, so perhaps those two bad outcomes seem the same to you.
Great. that’s about as useful as… well, i can’t really think of an example. Why are we talking, again? Sigh.
**which I have to admit I’m beginning to think is the case.
Spoken like someone who is on the side of the “wrongers,”
Please defend this or withdraw it. Preferably the latter, since it is blatantly false. And please avoid the use of ad-hominem attacks in the future, or I won’t talk with you any more.
Because I have made it pretty damn clear that I’m applying a general rule, and I’ve explained it.
Look. I said that you were using a term that other people use in order to draw a distinction that is irrelevant to the discussion. I said this to clarify that I see both actions as wrong. I even clarified that I didn’t think you were trying to pull a fast one. I just wanted to be sure we were both on the same page, that the distinction is irrelevant to the discussion.
But you thought that that it was “an important distinction”. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that you meant “an important distinction as it pertains to this discussion”. But why the heck else would you bring it up, if it weren’t relevant to the discussion?
I even conceded that perhaps one action was wronger than the other. Because I don’t want to argue about it. Because it’s not relevant to the discussion. Hell, just for you, I’ll even go one step further: one action is definitely wronger than the other. Now, can we drop the discussion of this “general rule” that is VERY VERY IMPORTANT IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES but COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO OUR CURRENT DISCUSSION?
But the ROR is probably in that category.
Huh? I was talking about retreating to pre-1967 borders. You responded with talking about ROR. And I explicitly avoided bringing in ROR because some versions of it envision a scenario where 8 million Palestinians of all sorts immigrate en-masse to Israel, while others envision only hundreds of thousands of known-peaceful Palestinians slowly returning to Israel and others receiving compensation for their land. It’s an overloaded term, it causes confusion, so I’m not using it. Instead I said that they get access to their land or are compensated for it, which is what I meant.
Why are we talking, again? Sigh.
See the above part about some charismatic peace-lover coming to power and implementing my plan.
Sailorman:
Wow, is this far, far over the line.
You can apologize for implying that if people don’t agree with your opinion, they just must not care if Israelis die. Otherwise, you can consider yourself banned from this thread. Your choice.
I think my actual point about the Jewish expulsion from the Arab world got lost. My point was that most Israelis have a visceral awareness that really nasty things happened to their parents and grandparents, and the world did nothing for them, even when it would have been comparatively easy to exert pressure. The world just doesn’t care enough about human rights to intervene, a fact that has been demonstrated beyond all possible question in dozens of blood-soaked regions from Darfur to Tibet.
Quoth Bjartmarr :
Now you’ve contradicted yourself. Either a military solution is possible, or not. If it’s not, then peacekeepers who don’t want to be there, whose countries aren’t willing to take serious risks, aren’t going to do better than the IDF, which is very focused on winning this particular conflict. I find it hard to believe that the world can defend Israel better than Israel can. Look how little good UN peace-keepers did for Lebanon.
As to why they need defense —
If I understand you right, you’re saying that if only Israel removes “all reasonable grounds for conflict” then the problem will be solved. Israel is in a part of the world in which bad things happen to innocent people, and in which the world very seldom intervenes effectively.
Israel has comparative little to fear from the Palestinians, alone. However, Hamas is armed, trained, funded, and supported by Iran and Syria, both of which are larger than Israel, well armed, and run by governments with atrocious human rights records, run by despotic leadership that could decide to use Israel as a convenient scape-goat or punching bag. Lebanon isn’t a well armed country, but last summer much of Northern Israel was uninhabitable due to armed factions based there. Israel is leery of having the same happen again, in the much more densely populated south.
I want to mention the expulsions of the 1940s and 1950s again — Syria, Iran, and Egypt* are all countries that committed atrocities against Jews in the past, even without “reasonable grounds for conflict”. You’re asking Israel to gamble the lives of its citizens that this time it will be different. That’s not a gamble I would bet my life on. Would you bet yours?
* At present, Israel and Egypt are at peace. However, nobody knows what the post-Mubarak government of Egypt will be, and there are grounds for pessimism.
Here’s a solution that probably won’t work. ;)
Gaza was once part of Egypt. If Egypt would be willing to annex it (say, if Israel were to offer them a very large amount of money to take it off their hands), then the Palestinians living there would be part of a state and have a relatively stable government.
The West Bank can’t be given away to another existing country (Jordan can’t handle it), but I can’t think of an obvious reason why Egypt annexing Gaza wouldn’t solve a lot of problems. (I’m sure someone else could think of a lot of reasons why this is an awful idea, but I don’t know of any.)
Now you’ve contradicted yourself.
I apologize. I should have been more clear that when I initially talked about military solutions; I was referring to military solutions similar to those currently being undertaken, such as rocket and gunship attacks, not a peacekeeping force.
The reason not to use the IDF should be obvious: Palestinians have every reason to distrust the IDF. The idea is to give protection to those Palestinians who want to live without violence, and I doubt they will feel very protected by the IDF.
Israel is in a part of the world […] in which the world very seldom intervenes effectively.
Well, yeah. I’ve already explained why I think that intervention would be less necessary, more likely, and more effective. If you don’t agree that the majority of Palestinians will resist violence once it is demonstrated to them that peace and justice are within their power to achieve, then my plan just isn’t going to make a whole lot of sense to you. Likewise if you don’t think that a conflict where one side is clearly in the right will draw more effective international intervention than one where both sides are doing reprehensible stuff.
You’re asking Israel to gamble the lives of its citizens that this time it will be different.
Actually, no. None of the arguments I’ve seen in the past fifteen years or so that I’ve been paying attention have convinced me that settlements, barriers outside of 1967 borders, attacks which kill civilians, etc. lead to a reduced risk to Israeli lives. Refraining from them will, however, lead to fewer Israelis settling outside the 1967 borders of Israel, and to more griping from hard-liners who think that not killing civilians makes them appear weak, not despicable. And I can live with that.
Oh, and given that the alternative, IMO, is someone eventually unleashing a devastating biological or nuclear weapon in the area, killing me and everyone I know, then yes, this is a “gamble” that I would be willing to take.
Bjartmarr
I get the – perhaps mistaken – impression that you’re not really appreciating the geography of the sitution.
The central coastal plain is within several miles of the West Bank. Should Israel withdraw to the 67 borders, the areas under threat of rocket/mortar attack won’t be a small town and some kibbutzim, but rather Tel Aviv (and its environs) and (especially) Jerusalem – Israel’s most populated region and its capital, respectively. Such a risk might be acceptable if there were a Palestinian government willing to at least attempt to suppress those attacks – but presently, the Palestinian government at bests ignores and at worst is complicit in them, and I’m not optimistic about the situation changing.
Frankly, I’m not as confident in you that somehow, once the situation is supposedly morally ambigous, the world will suddenly decide to intervene – contrary to almost all previous behaviour. As one example, consider the aftermath of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Even though the UN certified the withdrawal to be complete, Hizbullah continued attacks against Israel – and the UNIFIL forces already in place did nothing (except videotaping one of the attacks and the stonewalling).
There are numerous other examples I could give. Since the current Israeli military actions are at least partially successful in suppressing attacks*, taking the unilateral risk you suggest (in which the Palestinian government – by the nature of a unilateral move – is not required to do anything) is rather unpalatable to the Israeli public (which includes myself)
*regarding this:
Except for the settlements, distasteful as these measures are, they actually do serve to reduce attacks. Consider the difference in suicide attacks before and after Operation Defensive Shield, in which Israel reoccupied the West Bank. Or the drop in Hamas’ activity after a sustained campaign of assassinations.