This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Israel, Honourable Defender or Aggressor?
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
It does trivialise it somewhat, because chocolate is a fairly meaningless thing, when you've got rockets being fired over your heads on a semi-regular basis. In their position, I'd much rather a bowl of rice, than half a Kit Kat that's probably going to make me sick anyway.
Well fair enough, simplifying down to simply "chocolate" does trivialize it. My point was that the motivating goal of the embargo is to
promote
misery... that's the 'wrong' part.
It really depends what the rest of the world wants the end result in the region to be. It's hard to determine whether the US wants a unified Israel, or for the West Bank to be considered a separate entity. I certainly don't know the Australian view, though I think that our view is more of a "as long as you don't have conflict, we don't care" perspective. The apathy doesn't help though.
Yeah, I don't know what should be done. I don't think you'll ever get a large portion of the world to agree on one answer.
P.S. -- I'm working on a reply to the Vatican question HSR.
Post by
Heckler
I know the whole of Israel is contested by Muslims and Jews alike, but it is true that Jerusalem is a hot stop. What if Jerusalem was given independent status, much like the Vatican State. It could perhaps be overseen by an international committee of the various religions and ethnicities that make it up. I think there is some good that would come of that, but I can also see it turning into a post-WWII Berlin.
I would think the rest of the area could be divided by whatever nationality/religion makes up the majority.
I know it would take a lot of diplomatic negotiation to make something like that happen, but in the end, I see it as the most stable setup.
I agree with you, if I were to make an semi-ignorant assumption, I would say that
Israel
would be opposed to this solution (Also, as I said on like page 2, if you haven't read The Sum of All Fears, you should -- the Swiss military guards the Vatican, your idea is nearly identical to the events in the book).
I don't know enough about the regional politics or the situation at large to be sure about my assumption above, but it seems to me that if Israel thought that was a good solution, they could have already implemented something along those lines (as far as I understand it, the city is basically in sections already, and each religion is more or less welcomed in their section). The catch is that Israel controls the doors, and I think Israel likes it that way.
All that aside, if we could actually come up with a global compromise on the Holy Lands, I think that would be a landmark achievement for humanity as a whole. The ability for
reason
and
good
to overcome war and hatred (especially war and hatred with religious motivation, which seem to be extra strong) would definitely be something the whole world could smile about.
As I alluded to earlier, if this is the ultimate goal, then it is our duty to "be the change we wish to see" to put it in Ghandi's terms...
we
have to do what's right, and watch out for each other and make sure we're keeping each other on track, and hope that eventually the entire world will be on our side -- at which point the term 'side' will lose meaning (cue sunshine and rainbows).
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
As I alluded to earlier, if this is the ultimate goal, then it is our duty to "be the change we wish to see" to put it in Ghandi's terms... we have to do what's right, and watch out for each other and make sure we're keeping each other on track, and hope that eventually the entire world will be on our side -- at which point the term 'side' will lose meaning (cue sunshine and rainbows).
Ultimately this the root of the problem. They are the ones who need to fix the problem. We can't do it for them. We can offer support and can back their attempts at peace, but when we start "fixing" the Middle East according to our agenda, we're no different than the factions already fighting over it.
Which is why America's policy of imperialist democracy really makes me mad.
Post by
Heckler
Ultimately this the root of the problem. They are the ones who need to fix the problem. We can't do it for them. We can offer support and can back their attempts at peace, but when we start "fixing" the Middle East according to our agenda, we're no different than the factions already fighting over it.
Yes, I think all we should be doing is defending what's
right
. If that means funding Israel's military because they're on the verge of being eradicated, then so be it (though I don't think this has been the case for a great number of years, and I struggle to justify our current level of support). If it means diplomatic pressure
against
Israel's anti-humanitarian actions that eventually leads to a breakdown in our alliance and the U.S. military running their blockade to help Gaza, then so be it.
In the dream-world in my head, Israel would begin to actively implement radical ideas rooted in compromise and mutual respect all on their own, simply because it's the right thing to do. Neither side would need the support (moral, monetary, or otherwise) and a solution like the one you suggested would materialize all on its own.
Again to make an ignorant assumption, an Israeli might say "are you crazy, as soon as we let our guard down they'll be a nuke in Tel-Aviv" and a Palestinian might say any number of other things. In reality, I don't think the "victory over hatred by the forces of good" will ever actually happen. But even if we knew as a fact that this were true -- that instability would perpetuate forever -- I would
still
advocate that everything that is done be done in a way that is conducive to the idea of making the world a better place through the power of superior example.
Which is why America's policy of imperialist democracy really makes me mad.
I couldn't agree more. One thing people seem to forget about democracy in general is that it must be borne from within in order to survive, as a rule. Hamas was elected democratically, weren't they? Forced democracy is no better than anarchy or despotism. But I suppose this rant can wait for another time.
Post by
Squishalot
Ultimately this the root of the problem. They are the ones who need to fix the problem. We can't do it for them. We can offer support and can back their attempts at peace, but when we start "fixing" the Middle East according to our agenda, we're no different than the factions already fighting over it.
Which is why America's policy of imperialist democracy really makes me mad.
The key difference between the Vatican and Jerusalem is that you're proposing that Jerusalem is to be ruled by a committee of different faiths and denominations, whereas the Vatican is ruled by a single faith.
Do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be a conflict at some point that escalates into further military violence?
Post by
MyTie
How are we supposed to "not treat them with absolutes" unless we're allowed to measure their respective "wrongness"? If you don't measure, any way you do treat them will either be absolute or arbitrary to the situation
Eloquent, yet false.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I couldn't agree more. One thing people seem to forget about democracy in general is that it must be borne from within in order to survive, as a rule. Hamas was elected democratically, weren't they? Forced democracy is no better than anarchy or despotism. But I suppose this rant can wait for another time.
Yes, they were, in Palestine's first more-or-less fair election. It should be noted that they were elected on the platform of "a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," not the "erase Israel from the map" stance that they were created with.
How are we supposed to "not treat them with absolutes" unless we're allowed to measure their respective "wrongness"? If you don't measure, any way you do treat them will either be absolute or arbitrary to the situation
Eloquent, yet false.
Yet, you haven't provided a standard that fits both those criteria yet.
Post by
Heckler
Ultimately this the root of the problem. They are the ones who need to fix the problem. We can't do it for them. We can offer support and can back their attempts at peace, but when we start "fixing" the Middle East according to our agenda, we're no different than the factions already fighting over it.
Which is why America's policy of imperialist democracy really makes me mad.
The key difference between the Vatican and Jerusalem is that you're proposing that Jerusalem is to be ruled by a committee of different faiths and denominations, whereas the Vatican is ruled by a single faith.
Do you honestly believe that there wouldn't be a conflict at some point that escalates into further military violence?
I think the Vatican analogy was simply meant because the Vatican uses Military Guards from a neutral Nation for defense, not about 'Ruling' Jerusalem... But either way, I said above that the idea that any solution would bring lasting peace seems implausible. At this point, I think everyone is just "seeing what sticks."
Honestly, even if the "Vatican Solution" worked like a charm, there may be parties out there who would instigate violence simply because Peace was happening... That is, extremists who would rather see Jerusalem leveled than shared with everyone.
Post by
Squishalot
Honestly, even if the "Vatican Solution" worked like a charm, there may be parties out there who would instigate violence simply because Peace was happening... That is, extremists who would rather see Jerusalem leveled than shared with everyone.
That's my point. The sharing is what I see would escalate into violence. The Vatican doesn't suffer that because it's not shared.
Post by
MyTie
This is related.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I think the Vatican analogy was simply meant because the Vatican uses Military Guards from a neutral Nation for defense, not about 'Ruling' Jerusalem... But either way, I said above that the idea that any solution would bring lasting peace seems implausible. At this point, I think everyone is just "seeing what sticks."
Honestly, even if the "Vatican Solution" worked like a charm, there may be parties out there who would instigate violence simply because Peace was happening... That is, extremists who would rather see Jerusalem leveled than shared with everyone.
The Vatican doesn't need a committee because it only represents one religion. Jerusalem would need multiple people with multiple views to run it fairly. Either way, both Jerusalem and the Vatican would rely on International acknowledgment for their existence. As awesome as it might be, there isn't going to be an army of priests there to keep Vatican City safe. Both the Swiss Guards, and Italy, and the UN all play their part. Much the same would have to happen in a "Jerusalem State."
Post by
Heckler
That's my point. The sharing is what I see would escalate into violence. The Vatican doesn't suffer that because it's not shared.
Then i think we agree. As I said before, Religion is powerful. Human diplomacy, decency, logic, reason, compassion... all of these pale in comparison to the zealous emotions of Religion. There is likely no solution, because any solution to one problem will create at least one new problem.
Probably all we can hope for is 'unstable equilibrium' with corrective forces standing by when the slightest perturbation sends everything into chaos.
But again, even if peace is a known impossibility, that doesn't justify giving up the quest to create it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
This is related.
The guy is lying there with a knife wound to the gut. Obviously there was a knife involved.
News agencies are biased and stupid, both Fox and Reuters, and what they do is really no concern of mine.
Post by
MyTie
HSR:
Let's take a look at the conversation one more time for illustrative purposes. Attempt to understand my frustration, and why you have so much difficulty finding common ground, even with people whom you have a LOT in common, such as me. Here we go:Both sides are wrong and shouldn't be treated with "absolutes". I can't say what we should do specifically, but I do know that a medium has to be struck. Just because I can't pin down this perfect conclusion doesn't mean I can't deduce a medium must be struck.So, what I am saying, is that just because someone is wrong, you can't treat them in absolutes. Pretty self explanatory. This is your reply:How are we supposed to "not treat them with absolutes" unless we're allowed to measure their respective "wrongness"? If you don't measure, any way you do treat them will either be absolute or arbitrary to the situationYou seem to do two things. You ask for clairification about how someone could "not be treated in absolutes" without a "measure of wrongness". You then back that up with the statement that any way without the measure would be either "arbitrary" or "absolute". However, since "wrongness" cannot be "measured", because there is no standard measuring system for wrongness, situations have to be resolved with at least some sense of practicality, and ethical/moral standards, which are developed by international customs and social norms. Simply because a measureing stick doesn't exist, and doesn't apply, you seem to think that we are left with the choice of absolutes, or complete arbitrary judgement. This simply isn't true. Which is why I replied: Eloquent, yet false.To this, you replied with this:Yet, you haven't provided a standard that fits both those criteria yet.And this is where you either don't fill in what you are specifically talking about, or don't really understand what I was saying. You need to specify what these "criteria" are. However, even if there are some unspecified "criteria", which, I don't believe there are, my point still makes logical sense. Obviously I can't provide a method for measuring wrongness, and I certainly couldn't clarify "criteria" in such a dynamic and complicated thing as international diplomacy. That doesn't mean that my logic of not treating countries with "absolutes" is wrong. Demanding that I specify these "criteria", whatever they may be, seems beside the point.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Both sides are wrong and shouldn't be treated with "absolutes". I can't say what we should do specifically, but I do know that a medium has to be struck. Just because I can't pin down this perfect conclusion doesn't mean I can't deduce a medium must be struck.So, what I am saying, is that just because someone is wrong, you can't treat them in absolutes. Pretty self explanatory.
In itself, yes. But it contradicts the argument you made against me earlier. I've been arguing this whole thread that we have to stop treating Israel like the good guys and Palestine like the bad guys. Both have their faults, but when compared, Israel is doing much more of the killing (which is bad), which begs the question why we are funding the Israelis. I've been arguing for relative measures since the beginning. It's modern America that wants to view it as an absolute situation.
That all said, you came are said this:
This argument about who is "more wrong" is ridiculous. The Isrealites are not right. The Palastinians are not right. They both have issues they need to resolve within themselves.
So from what I can gather from this tiny post is that you're advocating that we treat them equally because the are both "not right." If that's not an absolutist view, I don't know what is.
So then later on, when you go on to say that we shouldn't treat them with absolutes, I can't help but notice an inherent contradiction between those two views. And so I question how you can hold both.
We are in this thread to make a judgment. What
should
be done. Without some criteria, we can make no pertinent judgment. My criteria is that we should base our judgment on oppression and killing of innocents. If two guys wanna duke it out between themselves, more power too them; but when either starts harming innocents, it's over. And I'm going to deal with them based on the magnitude of that harm.
You seem not to like that criteria, because it's a relative measure. Another possible criteria would be to judge them equally: "both kids were fighting, so they both get grounded" sort of mentality. You seem to be against that also based on what you said about not treating them with absolutes.
So I'm asking what your criteria of judgment is. The only other possibility I can see is some arbitrary standard, like which ever will give America more support in the long run (which is arbitrary because it is irrelevant to the actual situation). I never said that your belief that absolutes shouldn't be applied to citations like this is wrong. All I said was once you rule that and my position out, there's not much left to use.
Post by
MyTie
This argument about who is "more wrong" is ridiculous. The Isrealites are not right. The Palastinians are not right. They both have issues they need to resolve within themselves.
So from what I can gather from this tiny post is that you're advocating that we treat them equally because the are both "not right."No. Not at all. I'm saying, Israel is wrong, and must be treated according to what it has done wrong. I'm also saying that Palastine is wrong, and must be treated according to its wrong. I am also saying, and I think the point is this: Comparisons of the two states are ridiculous. You cannot possibly contrast the two accurately. They are very different states and must be treated as such. Israel is our ally, in fact, the closest ally in that area. It's very isolated in a neighborhood of bullies that don't like it. That has to be taken into account when you look at situations it is involved in. Palastine has its own circumstances that also must be taken into account. You can't just run numbers next to them and somehow arrive at a conclusion that one or the other is "more wrong". That doesn't mean I am saying they are to be treated equally. They simply cannot be accurately contrasted as the people in this thread are doing.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No. Not at all. I'm saying, Israel is wrong, and must be treated according to what it has done wrong. I'm also saying that Palastine is wrong, and must be treated according to its wrong. I am also saying, and I think the point is this: Comparisons of the two states are ridiculous. You cannot possibly contrast the two accurately. They are very different states and must be treated as such. Israel is our ally, in fact, the closest ally in that area. It's very isolated in a neighborhood of bullies that don't like it. That has to be taken into account when you look at situations it is involved in. Palastine has its own circumstances that also must be taken into account. You can't just run numbers next to them and somehow arrive at a conclusion that one or the other is "more wrong". That doesn't mean I am saying they are to be treated equally. They simply cannot be accurately contrasted as the people in this thread are doing.
The problem is that the killing of innocents is inexcusable in my book. Circumstances have no bearing. And thus it's the perfect measure.
Maybe you believe that it's justifiable to kill innocents. I don't know.
Post by
MyTie
No. Not at all. I'm saying, Israel is wrong, and must be treated according to what it has done wrong. I'm also saying that Palastine is wrong, and must be treated according to its wrong. I am also saying, and I think the point is this: Comparisons of the two states are ridiculous. You cannot possibly contrast the two accurately. They are very different states and must be treated as such. Israel is our ally, in fact, the closest ally in that area. It's very isolated in a neighborhood of bullies that don't like it. That has to be taken into account when you look at situations it is involved in. Palastine has its own circumstances that also must be taken into account. You can't just run numbers next to them and somehow arrive at a conclusion that one or the other is "more wrong". That doesn't mean I am saying they are to be treated equally. They simply cannot be accurately contrasted as the people in this thread are doing.
The problem is that the killing of innocents is inexcusable in my book. Circumstances have no bearing. And thus it's the perfect measure.
Maybe you believe that it's justifiable to kill innocents. I don't know.
No, they aren't. Do they make it their policy to kill innocents? Killing innocents isn't justified, this is true. This must be handled appropriately, however I don't believe it is their generally accepted practice, as it is in Iran, Thailand, N. Korea, etc. They have no governmental policy that allows for innocent people to be gunned down. That is a noteworthy factor in my opinion. No military can be expected not to make mistakes, but at least they realize that these are mistakes.
Post by
Squishalot
The problem is that the killing of innocents is inexcusable in my book. Circumstances have no bearing. And thus it's the perfect measure.
A doctor who's patient dies generally didn't intend to kill.
Circumstances still have no bearing?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
No, they aren't. Do they make it their policy to kill innocents? Killing innocents isn't justified, this is true. This must be handled appropriately, however I don't believe it is their generally accepted practice, as it is in Iran, Thailand, N. Korea, etc. They have no governmental policy that allows for innocent people to be gunned down. That is a noteworthy factor in my opinion. No military can be expected not to make mistakes, but at least they realize that these are mistakes.
What is this silly word "policy"? Just because something is not in writing doesn't mean it's not happening. Innocent people are dying because of the goverments' decisions. Year after year. That's the distinction I was making earlier between terrorism and contained terrorism. If you can contain your killing of innocents within the confines of an occupation or a blockade, then modern society doesn't seem to care, and you get away with it.
There is a huge difference between "oops I killed one, I'm going to stop doing whatever it was that lead to his death," and "oops I killed one, and I didn't intend it so oh well" and then move on "accidentally" killing more.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.