Internal vs external criticism of Israel

[Galactus]

You know whose really to blame for all this? The Romans.

edit: And I'm deadly serious.

Meh, I blame Perfidious Albion.

EDIT: Also the Assyrians. You can never hand too much blame to the Assyrians.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

But what exactly has that to do with the actions of Israel? The fact that other people are doing worse things (they are) in no way justifies Israel's actions. (There may be OTHER justifications for Israel's actions, and that's a much more complicated ethical/political debate) It feels like a very odd variant of the "But all my friends do it!" argument that kids make. Yeah, they might do that and worse. Doesn't make what you did any less wrong.

I think there are a couple of caveats to that, though. If the things other people do are being done to Israel or Israelis, those other actions are relevant because they put the Israeli actions in context. Otherwise, it's like describing a war and only mentioning that one side is trying to kill the other side. "British shoot and kill 15 Germans" sounds like a pretty nasty action unless you pair it with "While panzers advance on Dunkirk."

The second point is if the "disciplining authority" is the same for everyone involved. "All my friends do it, and they don't get punished" isn't very convincing. "My brother does much worse and you don't say anything to him" deserves a closer look. If other nations engaged in worse acts that the United Nations ignores or glosses over, then it is perfectly appropriate for Israel to challenge the U.N. by asking why, and for the U.N. to address the question. It may not make Israel's actions any more correct morally, but it certainly is relevant to the baises of the U.N., and whether Israel should have any significant trust in that organization.

[Altherion]

But what exactly has that to do with the actions of Israel? The fact that other people are doing worse things (they are) in no way justifies Israel's actions. (There may be OTHER justifications for Israel's actions, and that's a much more complicated ethical/political debate) It feels like a very odd variant of the "But all my friends do it!" argument that kids make. Yeah, they might do that and worse. Doesen't make what you did any less wrong.

The reason it is wrong in the case of children is that there is an authority above them (parents) that imposes its morality upon them. This does not apply in the case of nation states because they are an authority unto themselves (unless you want to bring in God or the categorical imperative or whatever) and make their own rules. If practically nobody is following certain rules, it does not make sense to single out any particular actor as being wrong for also not following them. In fact, trying to play by rules which your adversaries do not abide by is suicidal -- unless your forces are truly overwhelming, you will lose and even overwhelming force will rarely give you more than equilibrium with an unstable advantage (see the US in Afghanistan).

[Galactus]

The reason it is wrong in the case of children is that there is an authority above them (parents) that imposes its morality upon them.

That's a rather bold ethical statement to make, and could easily derail the thread into a standard moral philosophy one. I'll just leave you to think over that statement for a moment.

This does not apply in the case of nation states because they are an authority unto themselves (unless you want to bring in God or the categorical imperative or whatever) and make their own rules. If practically nobody is following certain rules, it does not make sense to single out any particular actor as being wrong for also not following them. In fact, trying to play by rules which your adversaries do not abide by is suicidal -- unless your forces are truly overwhelming, you will lose and even overwhelming force will rarely give you more than equilibrium with an unstable advantage (see the US in Afghanistan).

In that case, of course, it is absolutely hypocritical (not to mention pointless) to whine about being treated unfairly.

[Altherion]

That's a rather bold ethical statement to make, and could easily derail the thread into a standard moral philosophy one. I'll just leave you to think over that statement for a moment.

A freight train couldn't derail an Israel thread. ;)

In that case, of course, it is absolutely hypocritical (not to mention pointless) to whine about being treated unfairly.

It is not pointless. The drawing of attention to what Israel does as opposed to what everyone else is doing is a form of propaganda employed mostly by various Islamic states and the scum of the Earth NGOs. Pointing out that Israel is merely doing the same thing as everyone else is counter-propaganda. Neither makes much of a difference because there are very few who have not already taken a side, but it's still done for propriety's sake.

[Galactus]

It is not pointless. The drawing of attention to what Israel does as opposed to what everyone else is doing is a form of propaganda employed mostly by various Islamic states and the scum of the Earth NGOs. Pointing out that Israel is merely doing the same thing as everyone else is counter-propaganda. Neither makes much of a difference because there are very few who have not already taken a side, but it's still done for propriety's sake.

My point is that there is no real reason for anyone to care either way.

[the silent speaker]

I have no idea what Haaretz is, how mainstream it is, what its political bias is etc

As to both, think New York Post on the left wing. It is also the most nearly journalistically respectable "newspaper" put out in Israel.

Hamas would claim it as a victory, that they'd outlasted the Israeli siege and so on, and try to claim greater legitimacy but then so what? Is that a reason to continue to punish a million people for the actions of a few?

My problem with categorizing the blockade as "collective punishment" and simply leaving it at that is that by that definition, all actions taken on a national scale are automatically "collective punishment". The powers that be in any country are going to see to it that the first impacts of actions aginst them on a national level are felt by the poorest. This will be true even of basically decent powers that be, and trebly so of the kind of people (like Hamas) who do the sort of things that make them deserve to be blockaded. Look at the Iraq sanctions and how many of the half-a-million who died were Saddam Hussein. So how is Israel to arrange that the only person without access to doom cement and nuclear coriander is Khaled Meshal? What sort of things would Israel ever be allowed to do to Hamas?

Elmis:

How many Israelis have died since 48, how many Arabs?

What is the relevance of this question? Before you say "proportionality", casualty parity is not and has never been what proportionality means.

[TrueMetis]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockade_of_the_Gaza_Strip

It isn't just Israel, it is Egypt to. Thus international.

Egypt ended it's blockade, and even if it wasn't can we really call 2 nation working together "international."

[Shryke]

My problem with categorizing the blockade as "collective punishment" and simply leaving it at that is that by that definition, all actions taken on a national scale are automatically "collective punishment". The powers that be in any country are going to see to it that the first impacts of actions aginst them on a national level are felt by the poorest. This will be true even of basically decent powers that be, and trebly so of the kind of people (like Hamas) who do the sort of things that make them deserve to be blockaded. Look at the Iraq sanctions and how many of the half-a-million who died were Saddam Hussein. So how is Israel to arrange that the only person without access to doom cement and nuclear coriander is Khaled Meshal? What sort of things would Israel ever be allowed to do to Hamas?

Attack them directly?

The Gaza Blockade is a picture perfect example of Collective Punishement.

How does Coriander, Almonds, Pasta and Fresh Meat help Hamas?

Hell, let's ask the ISraeli government itself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/apr/16/israel

Israel's policy was summed up by Dov Weisglass, an adviser to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli Prime Minister, earlier this year. 'The idea is to put the Palestinians on a diet, but not to make them die of hunger,' he said. The hunger pangs are supposed to encourage the Palestinians to force Hamas to change its attitude towards Israel or force Hamas out of government.

All the blockade does is make the populace suffer. And that's the point of it. To make the people of Gaza suffer till they change their minds.

ie - Collective Punishment

[Mr. Norrel]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-youtube-gaza-flotilla

See the difference between Israel and the terrorists is that when Israel hires actors, gets costumes, writes lyrics, directs, and produces a video mocking its victims, and releases it to the press, it's on accident.

[Happy Ent]

http://www.guardian....e-gaza-flotilla

See the difference between Israel and the terrorists is that when Israel hires actors, gets costumes, writes lyrics, directs, and produces a video mocking its victims, and releases it to the press, it's on accident.

Bah. I think it’s a pretty funny video, certainly better sung that Israel’s entry to the Eurovision Song Contest.

*rimshot*

Sure, it’s trolling, like all satire. But if you want to compare approaches: when the Hamas is trolling, they send people to their death. When Israel is trolling, they produce a video. My sympathies lie with the latter. And I’m fully behind any kind of satire, no matter its qualities, that attacks terrorists or their willing accomplices, such as the useful idiots on the European Left that help to dress up deadly, blood, repulsive violence (not to mention tribalism, totalitarianism, xenophobia, genocide, religion, and patriarchy) as a peace movement.

Also, I haven’t yet seen an apology from the Ship to Gaza people for deliberately provoking violence in order to derail the peace process. (See how easy this kind of argumentation is?)

[lumer]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jun/06/israel-youtube-gaza-flotilla

See the difference between Israel and the terrorists is that when Israel hires actors, gets costumes, writes lyrics, directs, and produces a video mocking its victims, and releases it to the press, it's on accident.

It's not an official video. It's prodiced by a local, private satire site. So some clerk found it funny and mailed if forward.

It's another example how Israel is always found guilty until proven innocent (which of course can never be :ohwell:)

[Datepalm]

It's not an official video. It's prodiced by a local, private satire site. So some clerk found it funny and mailed if forward.

It's another example how Israel is always found guilty until proven innocent (which of course can never be :ohwell:)

To be fair, Dani Ayalon running the foreign ministry as a really bad improv comedy show probably shouldn't be regarded kindly either.

[Artas]

such as the useful idiots on the European Left that help to dress up deadly, blood, repulsive violence (not to mention tribalism, totalitarianism, xenophobia, genocide, religion, and patriarchy) as a peace movement.

That's not the typical view of the European left. Since we're having national elections tomorrow, I might as well quote from the political programme of our Green Party, which I think does a good job of summing up leftwing sentiments on this issue:

"The Green Leftwing party also condemns the Palestinian suicide attacks. These mostly make victims among innocent Israeli civilians and only make it harder to find a solution. The Palestinian authority does too little to prevent these attacks. Hamas, as well as Israel, should limit itself to peaceful means."

(GroenLinks veroordeelt ook de Palestijnse zelfmoordaanslagen. Deze treffen vooral onschuldige Israëlische burgers en maken een oplossing alleen maar moeilijker. De Palestijnse autoriteit doet te weinig om deze aanslagen te voorkomen. Hamas moet zich, net als Israël, beperken tot vreedzame middelen.)

Both Israel and Hamas are blamed for their violence. And rightly so, IMO.

[Elrostar]

You people keep derailing my thread! Get off my lawn! :shakes cane:

[Happy Ent]

Both Israel and Hamas are blamed for their violence. And rightly so, IMO.

In my view, intent and sequence of events makes a difference. One side’s express political agenda is to obliterate the other. That side is also the aggressor and the provocateur. How can both side be equally guilty of using violence in such a set-up?

You want Israel to fight violence and a threat of genocide with peaceful means. Perversely, Israel largely does that. Yet they still lose the battle for hearts and minds, because Netanyahu cannot see a pile of shit without stepping into it.

[Artas]

In my view, intent and sequence of events makes a difference.

Granted. However, my perception of Israel's intents and the nature of the sequence of events differ from yours. I'm not getting into that, since I have little interest to repeat the discussion people have been having in the other thread for 20 pages, and it's not the point I wanted to make. The point is that, although the European left in general tends to be more sympathetic towards Hamas than you are, they hardly regard them as just a "peace movement", nor do they sweep Hamas's violence and crimes under the carpet.

[Galactus]

In my view, intent and sequence of events makes a difference. One side’s express political agenda is to obliterate the other. That side is also the aggressor and the provocateur. How can both side be equally guilty of using violence in such a set-up?

While one side does indeed hold an agenda of obliteration of the other side, I wouldn't neccessarily say that Hamas is the aggressor. (rather than say, people who retaliate in wholly disproportionate and reprehensible ways)

After a certain point and a enough rounds of vengeance, labels like "aggressor" stops being meaningful. Hamas has been attacking Israel but in response to percieved Israeli aggression, which was in turn in response to previous arab aggression, which in turn goes back to earlier events of aggression (Can't you just agree to blame the british? That seems to work most of the time)

[Datepalm]

While one side does indeed hold an agenda of obliteration of the other side, I wouldn't neccessarily say that Hamas is the aggressor. (rather than say, people who retaliate in wholly disproportionate and reprehensible ways)

After a certain point and a enough rounds of vengeance, labels like "aggressor" stops being meaningful. Hamas has been attacking Israel but in response to percieved Israeli aggression, which was in turn in response to previous arab aggression, which in turn goes back to earlier events of aggression (Can't you just agree to blame the british? That seems to work most of the time)

There is difficulty in hitting a pause button when Hamas refuses to recognize Israel at all - ie, Hamas officially defines Israeli agression as Israeli existence.

[Galactus]

There is difficulty in hitting a pause button when Hamas refuses to recognize Israel at all - ie, Hamas officially defines Israeli agression as Israeli existence.

My point is, even if you don't agree with Hamas on this, it's not exactly hard to define Israel as the aggressor. (they are after all the ones who has expanded their territory)

Which is why my point is that trying to define either side as the "aggressor", is pointless: Both sides (all sides, rather, since there are far more than two) have committed acts of aggression. And I don't think it's possible to go back in history and find that one, single Act of Aggression that started the entire thing, to point out and say "Okay, HERE, these guys started it. They're the bad guys."

Because at this stage we're just too far into vendetta logic. It doesen't MATTER who started it because both side have accumulated so many grievances that they're both (pretty much) equally justified in wanting the other's blood.

Which does not mean that they should get it, obviously. Blood is bad. That's kind of the point.