Israel, continued

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
41

alex: this isn’t a perfect world, and to me violence is justified in situations of oppression. if you take the example of pre-1917 ireland, the killing of british soldiers, and to a certain extent british civilians, WAS justified to secure the freedom of the irish people and an end to their oppression.

it is a similar situation in palestine, they have their backs to the wall, israelies are killing their men, women and children. their only chance to have their own country is through violence, as the israelies are doing everything in their power to prevent a palestinian state (remember barak is gone, his deal is not and will not be offered). the israelies are war criminals, and their leaders should be dealt with as such, but seeing as they are friends of america it is doubtful there will ever be any trials.

(war criminals as they have broken the geneva convention, as i stated before hooding is a form of torture and therefore a war crime, and many of the palestinian men are hodded before being taken for ‘interrorgation’).

42

macca, please please please, follow the course of a debate rather than being on your own agenda. If that post was a response to me saying that violence is not justified then surely you should have been moved slightly by what Daniel has said to try and move the debate one. I don’t believe violence is justified…you do. Great - lets agree to disagree. And this ‘violence is not justified’ stance does not depend on the countries involved. I am not criticising Palestinian terrorism because it attacks Israelis. Irish terrorism is just as wrong, as is Sri Lankan terorism etc. My case is quite simple - civilians (both Palestinian and Israeli) don’t deserve to get cought up in what is essentially a political (and not a religous) conflict.

But just to further my case. You accuse me of idealism (fair enough - I’d rather be accused of being an idealist than a cynic) when you write “this isn’t a perfect world.” But then you never stop talking about the specifics of the Geneva Convention as if you expect many countries to abide by its every letter. You keep talking of how “hooding is a form of torture.” But I don’t think we should get to destraught about this when people are dying. The SAS are trained in how to cope with torture, including hooding, so it’s obvious that many countries use these practices. In the grand scheme of things a lil bit of hooding is not the end of the world when we consider what else is going on.

Please respond to mine and daniel’s posts regarding the future of the Middle East and how peace can be achieved.

43

my previous post was meant to have been posted earlier, but i couldn’t, so it’s kind of out of sync

alex: i know not all the palestinian groups are fighting for their freedom, but the reason they have so many supporters is the oppression of their people, and sheer poverty they live in. if they start to have improved conditions, their rights and an end to israelie oppression then, and only then, will their support begin to end.

frankly israelie concerns should not be the number on priority, it should be the people suffering from their actions. you don’t see israelies living in refugee camps over flown by F-16’s with invading troops and tanks on the street corner.

land gained by the israelies through wars they won, whether or not they were started by them, should be returned, maybe not at the same time as a palestinian state but over time.

birth rates and such are something that is a point of contention, but palestinains should be allowed to return. anyway it’s been shown that brith rates will fall when living conditions are raised.

politics is all very well to discuss, but it is failing the people, of both sides.

44

i apologise fo the general confusion cause by the timing of our posts there. oops :slight_smile:.

I still think macca that your response to the affair is slightly partial and daniel/lucy we must still debate to move forward to a peaceful solution. To say:

“frankly israeli concerns should not be the number one priority”

is to ignore one side caught up in the terrible situation surely.

Plus, fair enough if you’re not a Zionist (I’m sure you’re not and I won’t criticise that in itself if your against religious states) but you must appreciate that Israeli Jews are Zionsts are therefore they cannot give the right of return to all Palestinian refugees and still maintain a Jewish homeland. I don’t want to sound rude but you’re simplifying the issues!

45

Alex, you want me to respond to ur earlier response in response to mine ?! If I do I just thought it might not quite fit in with the whole constructive debate idea !! Its entirely up to u !! I’ll give my input into the whole constructive debate after I’ve responded to Alex !

46

i’m kind of confused at the moment as to how this discussion is going, points are being burried and others getting lost. i tired to message ben to suggest we have a live debate about this issue, as i’m sure it would work much better in that situation, (i’ll reply to the other issues in a little bit).

47

Maybe I’m missing something, but what gives you the right to a Jewish homeland? As you say, I appreciate that “they cannot give the right of return to all Palestinian refugees and still maintain a Jewish homeland.”. To be honest, and this isn’t going to be eloquent… but so THE FUCK what?

Anyone who starts from the basis of having a “insert religion here” homeland in Israel is going to be royally fucked up the arse from the outset.

So this also goes for anyone trying to set up an Islamic state of Israel… They’re going to get attacked by Jewish freedom fighters (who could equally strap a bomb on if they found themselves in circumstances as dire as the Palestinians) as they were prior to the establishment of the current state of Israel.

48

You’re a citizen of the UK, what gives you the right to a British homeland? What gives anyone the right to own a certain piece of land. If your a monotheist, then all land belongs to God and humans only have the right to look after flora and fauna. Therefore can own land. If you are not Religious then you have several options. Either you can take a Darwinian attitude, in which case, the strongest people get the land, or a historical attitude, in which case people fight over the land and the strongest people get the land, or a legal/‘who was there first atttitude?’, in which case the strongest people still get the land because they are stonger than the law and the people who were there first.

So how can you talk of rightful claims to land? You can’t. Therefore either, you, Archie, can adopt a Lennonesque approach:

“Imagine there’s no countries,
It isnt hard to do,
Nothing to kill or die for,”

or a religious approach or a ‘the strongest guy gets the land’ approach.

Assuming you don’t accept the Lennon approach because a majority don’t and therefore it can’t work or the religious approach then what are you left with. The Israelis are currently the strongest for whatever reason and thereofre the land is theirs. N.B. This is not why I am a Zionist, it is a way of looking at the problem objectively.

As a Zionist I believe that all peoples/races/religions (whatever) deserve a homeland, a place where they can be free from oppression and live with their own people (because the world has proved that people cannot live harmoniously together). Martin Luther King would agree as he said:

“When people criticise Zionism, they mean Jews…What is anti-Zionist? It is the denial of the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the globe.” – Reverend Martin Luther King (1968)

Therefore I believe that Jews deserve a homeland (Zionism) in the same way that I believe that Palestinians deserve a homeland. The only way one cannot be anti-semitic, if one is anti-Zionist (given my simple definition of Zionism) is if one doesn’t believe in the right of any people/religion/race to have a homeland. Otherwise one is discriminating against Jews. And if you don’t think that people deserve a homeland then your attitude must be comparable to Lennon. And whilst that approach may be simple and beautiful, it cannot work because it is pure idealism.

49

“Assuming you don’t accept the Lennon approach because a majority don’t and therefore it can’t work”
Oh dear. If history has taught us anything it’s that good ideas are almost NEVER accepted by the majority straight away. If at all. People did’nt believe the world went round the sun until recently. People are notoriously slow on the uptake when it comes to new ideas, it usually takes a few generations.

“because the world has proved that people cannot live harmoniously together”
Let me guess, “rivers of blood will run through the streets” right?. All that “the world” has proved is that leaders are very good at getting people to do what they want and convincing people that “them next door” are the real threat.

Peace is possible in our time, it’s just that right now most of the world’s powerful have a lot to gain in conflict. To hope for peace is not to be “idealistic” is to be the most rational you can be, since many more benefits can be gained from peace than war. The irrational is to believe that conflict is desirable, which unfortunately is the current attitude of mopst people.

------------------
Wall mounted keyboards? This must be THE FUTURE!
“What happened to Space Chef?” “You mean Chief” “Chief Chef?”

[This message has been edited by HVD (edited 17 April 2002).]

50

I was just thinking more about what would happen if we segregate more. Since we are all minorities in some way we would eventually arrive at my 6,000,000,000 nation states scenario. Which is exactly what would happen if we abolished borders. So if we remove borders we end up at the same scenario as if we build more of them. Odd that.

------------------
Wall mounted keyboards? This must be THE FUTURE!
“What happened to Space Chef?” “You mean Chief” “Chief Chef?”

51

“The only way one cannot be anti-semitic, if one is anti-Zionist (given my simple definition of Zionism) is if one doesn’t believe in the right of any people/religion/race to have a homeland. Otherwise one is discriminating against Jews.” I don’t believe in the right of any religion or race (ethnic group) to a homeland, as I explained earlier above. If you think I’m being anti-semitic by being against religions that advocate their own special state so be it.

Only multi-cultural states have any justifiable basis… they are set up for a “people”, not a race, nor religion, but a geographic. If they happen to be largely one race through history, so be it, but I don’t think that race will ever have a justification for treating other races differently (for instance, I believe in free travel throughout Europe).

52

And I don’t want to get in the who was there first game, but the Africans Martin Luther King was refering to have lived in Africa a long time… unlike the vast majority of the Israelis.

Anybody should have the right to move into Israel, I’m not denying that, but no single religion should claim the land.

53

You clearly do want to get into that debate if you then say “but the Africans Martin Luther King was refering to have lived in Africa a long time… unlike the vast majority of the Israelis.”

Let’s look at who has ruled over the land that is now Israel in the past then:

Israel - 1010 BC
Egypt - 992
Phillistine - 830
Israel - 786
Assyria - 701
Babylon - 612
Persia - 538
Greece - 333
Israel - 167
Rome - 63
Persia - 614 AD
Egypt - 969
Seljuks - 1071
Crusaders - 1089
Egypt - 1098
Saladin - 1187
Khawarcs - 1224
Egypt - 1247
Ottoman - 1517
British - 1917
Israel - 1948

Does that answer the question? Jerusalem was made the Jewish capital before the religion of Islam/1600 years before Muhammed’s birth. Jerusalem is also not mentioned in the Koran. The Palestinians therefore have what claim to Jerusalem?

I did not want to have this debate because it is essentially stupid. Land switches back and forth all the time which is what I have already mentioned. History and the current situation shows that the strongest power possesses the land. This renders this argument irrelevant but I have written it to respond to Archie’s incorrect assumptions.

54

Like I said, I didn’t want to get into this debate… but fine.

I was trying to point out that the Martin Luther King quote has no application to either side of this debate… since it was refering to people who have essentially lived continuously in a single continent since the beginnings of the human race. This is all the more true if you accept the out-of-africa theory of human evolution.

Following this, if we do accept out-of-africa evolution (which I accept you won’t if you believe in any kind of creationism), humans lived in israel long before the invention of any modern religion, so your placement of Israel at the topic of your list is inaccurate.
I said the majority of Israelis (I actually meant Israeli Jews, sorry) haven’t lived in Israel for such a long time since the jewish population of Palestine in 1920 was only 63,000. “Does that answer the question? Jerusalem was made the Jewish capital before the religion of Islam/1600 years before Muhammed’s birth. Jerusalem is also not mentioned in the Koran. The Palestinians therefore have what claim to Jerusalem?”
As you say “land switches back and forth all the time”, so I don’t know what point you are making here. The zionists have no historical basis either to make a claim. So I don’t see what you meant by my “incorrect assumptions”. You’ve made no attempt to answer any of my real points regarding secular states.

55

I feel at this point we are moving into a completely new topic… the divisions of land around the globe and the rights to live there, this would include Zionism, as well as immigration, asylum seekers and such like… hence i suggest that a new topic be posted, and in this one there be a return to the main issue, israel!

My take on the situation is that it will not be resolved, until an agreement is made with land being shared. It will be in the same way as before, or more land to Israel as they are stronger (yes faz, with all the US aid they receive). However, much like Ireland, there will be people that continue to fight… terrorists if you like, or as they will call themselves, freedom fighters! They will be on both sides and the situation will begin to escalate again.

I see the only final option/ resolution will be an invaision and mass war by either side… the killings will get worse before it gets better. The arab nations could unite, in which case the US could use it as an excuse to fight Iraq?? possibly!.. the only factor will be whether the West allows them to get on and fight… or keep stepping in and taking it back to square one!

this is my take on the situation, obviously i would prefer it if there was no war… against loss of human life and all that but i dont see it happening…

lastly, this could be a catalyst for world war 3… it could be the west against the arab world with north korea etc… so the muslims would claim it is a holy war… getting more suicide bombers (sorry faz but its the usual tactics)… world war 3???

56

Daniel, I think that you are very right about WW3. The world is getting ready for a very big change in all areas of life. Whenever this has happened in the past a major war has been the catalyst. recently however, it has taken two wars. WW2 completed what WW1 failed to do, the ending of colonialism and the begging of social reform. And now WW3 will pick up where the Cold War left off, with the culmination of consumerist capitalism vs other ideologies. There will be tremendous loss of life, of course, but the results will either lead humanity onwards towards realisation of it’s ultimate destiny, or to destruction.

------------------
Wall mounted keyboards? This must be THE FUTURE!
“What happened to Space Chef?” “You mean Chief” “Chief Chef?”

57

World War 3? woah woah here WW3 isn’t 20 minutes away, theres no need to crack open the nukes just yet.

this situation is entirely resolvable. if israel is prepared to accept that it will lose land, and will have to stop acting like a spoilt child just because it knows the US president will fall with it. the palestinians are now, with most certaintity, prepared to accept the agreement offered by Barak, but Sharon will not offer that, whatever he says about looking for peace is total bollocks, you only have to look at his track record to see that. the main obstacle for peace is Sharon, but he is viewed by his popualtion, and the just as importantly the american Jewish population (in their latest march they hailed him as the new Churchill - now i don’t like Churchill as a man, but there is no way Sharon comes within a mile of Churchill), so there is zero chance of him not lasting to the next election, which i think is about 4 years away (?). with Sharon in power there can be no peace, with Arafat there can be peace as i’m sure he would accept it now rather than the current situation.

58

You guys are all very pessimistic, WW3…YOU GUYS ARE CRAZEEEEEEE !!! There simply would not be a world war 3 !! Let me ask you all a question, what practical action has any of the arab countries taken in helping the Palestinians out at this time !! A mesely $10 Million dollars a month and thats all !! The only country to do anything was Iraq, cutting of all Oil to the West ! Now I whole heartedly condemn the arabs for their inaction ! They are simply not strong enough to take on the West in a World War, neither would they want to !
A peace solution…hmmm…I think its rather OPTIMISTIC this time that we feel that perhaps us mere novices could possibly come up with anything when the greatest minds have been at it for years !! I think what has to happen is peace negotiations have to start IMMEADIATELY, I think a fair and unbiased organistation should be allowed in to monitor the actions of both the Israeli’s and the Palestinians and that this organisation should assess the full scale of the atrocities, if any (!!), committed by Israel in camps such as Jenin. The presence of this organisation with some power, maybe even military, is absolutely key !
Once we’re back on the table, I think the suggestions put forward by Crown Prince Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, even though unoriginal, were still helpful. The loss of innocent lives really has to stop. Another thing which should be emphasised is this, that Arafat reigns in all the potential suicide bombers, as hard as that maybe considering the Israelis destroyed the very centre who’s responsibility that was, and that he stops funding any terrorist organisation. That is imperative. Suicide bombers cannot be allowed to hijack the potential for peace ! If, and I say this with all sincerety, God forbid a bomb was to go off in Israel, then talks must still continue !! They cannot just stop and start, it must be an ongoing process !!
Hopefully something might come out of all this, the final point is this, a full and fair investigation should be carried out into the actions of Ariel Sharon in 1982 and in 2001.

59

I meant 1982 and 2002 !! Sorry !

60

Faz… i understand all that and actually said that talks would take place… but the trouble is the terrorists/ freedom fighters will continue and the situation will escalate again! (As it did after the last set of peace talks)

Do you think that the conflict will stop while the land which both sides claim, is shared? i stated above that i think a war between the two nations will be the only resolution… and even then the winner will have problems with the remaining population!

Lastly i would like to stick up for the jews… the last three posts seems to be talking about all these atrocities israel is committing; what about the suicide bombers?? not only are they taking their life and the life of others, they are doing it because they believe it is for God… i understand that in Islam it is the greatest thing to give your life for God, but i dont believe this to be a holy war, i think the politicians are disguising it as such, when really its the worlds leaders using it for political gain!

thoughts please