Debates
26 Dec 09
26 Dec 09
I've seen both Zionists and pro-Palestinian people claim that there is no moral equivalency in the conflict between the two; each side of course has it's own conclusion as to which side is the one with the moral superiority.
I am on the side of moral equivalency. Both sides have issues, both sides have a grain of truth to their position.
What do you think?
27 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungWhat I think is that to start a thread by indicating that you can't decide something, to declare yourself to be "on the side of moral equivalency", and that you are bamboozled by contrary "grains of truth" is very underwhelming - especially when you are apparently new to the issue.
...each side of course has it's own conclusion as to which side is the one with the moral superiority. I am on the side of moral equivalency. Both sides have issues, both sides have a grain of truth to their position.
What do you think?
Why not exhibit some "moral" fibre yourself, nail your underpants to the past, and suggest a way out - peace plan - solution - a hypothetical 'final status' for 10 years from now - and how it might be arrived at. Then debate that. I used to be far more Zionist-ish in my outlook until facts on the ground and debating with people moved me to a different stance where Zionism, as it currently manifests itself, appears to me to be a key obstacle.
Waffling on about "moral superiority" and "moral equivalency", and delivering thunderclaps like "Both sides have issues" and "both sides are obnoxious" does little or nothing to liberate the Palestinians or offer the Israelis security. You claim to understand "both sides", well then, you're well positioned to offer a suggestion.
Many people here have traded and compared ideas - ranging from the hard-nosed concrete to willfully wishful, from ultra-Zionist to lingering Trotskyite - in order to debate the way out of the impasse. Why don't you do the same?
29 Dec 09
Originally posted by AThousandYoungHere's an approximate comparison of the dead in the last year. "Israeli" means Israeli death, and "Palestinian" means Palestinian death.
I've seen both Zionists and pro-Palestinian people claim that there is no moral equivalency in the conflict between the two; each side of course has it's own conclusion as to which side is the one with the moral superiority.
I am on the side of moral equivalency. Both sides have issues, both sides have a grain of truth to their position.
What do you think?
Israeli Israeli Israeli Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by FMFFWIW, I abhor Zionism as a concept; i.e, that there "ought to" be a Jewish state in Israel based on some sort of Biblical directive. I don't think anyone should be bound by someone else's interpretation of their scripture.
What I think is that to start a thread by indicating that you can't decide something, to declare yourself to be "on the side of moral equivalency", and that you are bamboozled by contrary "grains of truth" is very underwhelming - especially when you are apparently new to the issue.
Why not exhibit some "moral" fibre yourself, nail your underpants to the past ...[text shortened]... - in order to debate the way out of the impasse. Why don't you do the same?
I do not equate this concept of Zionism with supporting Israel, however.
As I see it, the Jewish people living in Israel (regardless of when or why they arrived) had every right to self-determination and the UN compromise in 1947 was a perfectly fair and equitable solution. It was primarily the Arab states that rejected the partition and warred on the newly formed state in an attempt to strangle it in its cradle. Everything that's happened thereafter can be debated, but that's the genesis.
This may surprise people, but I agree that "Zionism" per se, is an obstacle to peace the same way Islamic fundamentalism is. Any doctrine that says "My God says this" or "My scripture says that" or "My forefather did this" or "My belief system dictates that"... and so YOU have to capitulate to my doctrine, is an obstacle to peace.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by scherzoYou can't possibly believe that you look at death ratios to see who is morally wrong.
Here's an approximate comparison of the dead in the last year. "Israeli" means Israeli death, and "Palestinian" means Palestinian death.
Israeli Israeli Israeli Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Pale ...[text shortened]... stinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian
If my country was the victim of one terrorist bomb, I would hope they would use every single weapon in their arsenal to completely whipe out the perpetrators. If that meant that my country needed to killed hundreds of thousands of people and no one was hurt in the bombing than they ought to do it. I fully understand that there would be an infinte ratio of people killed, but my country would meet its moral responsibility to prevent terrorism.
To me the US blew it in pre 9/11 bombings by not taking terrorists threats serious enough. New York still suffers economically from a single bombing which occured almost a decade ago. Isreal fights the same Arab fundimentalists that the US does. The only difference is they face suicide bombers in their schools and market places constantly. Israel should get our full suppport economically, militarily and morally. Suicide bombing, popularized by the Arab world must stop immediately and all forced use to stop it and those who fund it is at all times fully justified.
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by scherzoHere's an approximate comparison of the dead in World War II between the US, UK and Germany. "American" means American death, "German" means German death, "British" means British death.
Here's an approximate comparison of the dead in the last year. "Israeli" means Israeli death, and "Palestinian" means Palestinian death.
Israeli Israeli Israeli Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Pale ...[text shortened]... stinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian
American American American American British British British British German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German German
Gosh darn immoral Americans and British.
The USSR must have been super-moral. Their deaths would be represented by something like this
Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian Russian
04 Feb 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis is what I think:
I've seen both Zionists and pro-Palestinian people claim that there is no moral equivalency in the conflict between the two; each side of course has it's own conclusion as to which side is the one with the moral superiority.
I am on the side of moral equivalency. Both sides have issues, both sides have a grain of truth to their position.
What do you think?
Morality - we need to define it in this context, even if it is hard to do it. My proposition is this:
Those who don't believe in violence is of higher morals than they who think that violence is a method to solve the conflict.
According to this definition we can find people with high morality as well as people with low morality in both camps. If we get rid of the low morality people (not literary, but I don't know how to express it) and let the people with high morality discuss and eventually solve the conflict, then we will have a durable peace in the region.
If we accept the low moral people solve the conflict, then many more will die on both sides, and there will never be a solution until one of the parts is gone.
This is my thoughts.
04 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Yes, but religious Zionism is a subset, and was not the main motivating factor for the Zionist movement (or for people like Herzl). The fundamental principle behind the Zionist movement was (and is) that history demonstrated that Jews could ultimately not feel secure in even the most civilized and liberal nations, even when they had attained full citizenship. (The “smoking gun” for Herzl was the Dreyfuss affair.)
FWIW, I abhor Zionism as a concept; i.e, that there "ought to" be a Jewish state in Israel based on some sort of Biblical directive. I don't think anyone should be bound by someone else's interpretation of their scripture.
I do not equate this concept of Zionism with supporting Israel, however.
As I see it, the Jewish people living in Israel (regardless that"... and so YOU have to capitulate to my doctrine, is an obstacle to peace.
Palestine was chosen (and Herzl roundly drubbed for considering an offer of land in Uganda) because of its historical connection with the Jewish people (its historical heritage, if you will), not strictly, or even mainly, the religious connection. Many Orthodox Jews were anti-Zionist because of religious beliefs.
Not all Jews living in Europe wanted to live somewhere else; they had, they believed, fully assimilated. And Jews in Germany and Austria, for example, saw no reason to question their acceptance in civilized, educated and liberal countries. Anti-semitism (or “anti-Jewism”, since it is so often pointed out that Jews are not the only Semites; I see no reason to argue that, regardless of what the generally accepted meaning of anti-semitism has been)—anti-Jewism was seen as a being an ugly and dangerous, but a minority bigotry. They certainly didn’t expect to find themselves subject again to large-scale pogroms and ghettoization—let alone the Shoah.
The situation (as much as I understand the history, anyway) was different in other eastern European countries (e.g., the Russian Pale).
So, while I agree with you about religious Zionism, I am not sure that the fundamental Zionist principle is so easily dismissible. Jews living in the US, for example, likely see themselves in the country of which they are citizens much the same way that, say, the Austrian Jews did: “It couldn’t happen here”. Probably, they are right. But the Shoah is not such a distant memory as to be forgotten or discounted.
There are certainly non-Zionist and ant-Zionist Jews. And maybe it is unreasonable today to see the existence of a Jewish homeland as a “safety net”, even in the most unlikely event. But that, it seems to me, is an arguable—not simply a dismissible—question.
______________________________________
What does all this have to do with the moral equivalency question? Just this: For someone who views the very existence of Israel (or of Zionism) as immoral, and justifies the 1948 war and most (if not all; anti-Zionism does not equate with an apology for terrorism) subsequent attacks on Israel, any question of moral equivalency is moot from the get-go. And sometimes on here (where I read more than I post) long arguments about who did what to whom first, or worst, when and why—have ultimately spiraled down to that basic issue. If one wants to address the moral issues on either side (or both sides), one might as well start there, and save a lot of time.
About a year or so ago, I said that I would not participate in debates over Israel-Palestine until I had some history under my belt. I have some now, but probably not enough. That history (such as I have) leads me to support both the existence of Israel and the national aspirations of the Palestinians. And that means a two-state solution. And the question of whether current actions enhance or diminish the possibilities for that seem more crucial. (I also have biases; I just try to reign them in.)
I suspect that Ehud Barak went about as far as Israel can go—and didn’t even get a counter-proposal, or counter demands. That effort failed. I think that it is ludicrous to expect Netanyahu to go anywhere near that far. The always fractious Israeli politics changed once again. I don’t think that Hamas wants a two-state solution—or any agreement that might get too close to one—and I don’t think the PA has the ability, at this point in time, to get anything approaching that done. I might be wrong (on all counts). But my focus now is going to be on following current events to see what happens, and what might happen. At some point I might be able to contribute more to the thoughts that Sh76 and FMF have bandied about; but I am not there yet (everything that I thought of, and did post on some time back, they laid out with more detail).
I’m not trying to stroke these guys, but I thought they were taking the whole thing where it needs to be taken. (I would have liked to have seen Scriabin in that mix; there was no such discussion at that level back when he and FMF were slashing one another.) One day, maybe I’ll go back and bump that thread…
04 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Your history is poor. It was the Palestinian people who rejected the "fair and equitable" solution whereby a minority of 30% or less were given sole political control over about 60% of the land and people of Palestine. And 1948 was hardly the "genesis" of the problem.
FWIW, I abhor Zionism as a concept; i.e, that there "ought to" be a Jewish state in Israel based on some sort of Biblical directive. I don't think anyone should be bound by someone else's interpretation of their scripture.
I do not equate this concept of Zionism with supporting Israel, however.
As I see it, the Jewish people living in Israel (regardless that"... and so YOU have to capitulate to my doctrine, is an obstacle to peace.
EDIT: The numbers were off the top of my head and are inexact but basically accurate to a few percentage points though there is some controversy regarding both numbers. Giving every benefit of the doubt, the Jewish population was at most 33% of Palestine's and the partition gave them sole political control of say 55%. That remains hardly "fair and equitable" even if the majority favored some partition which they did not.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by quackquackOn the issue of what "one can possibly believe", can you possibly believe what you have written here? If, for instance, a couple of Al-Qaeda-inspired Egyptian terrorists detonated a bomb in Los Angeles killing a hundred people and then escaped to Cairo, are you saying it would be legitimate to level the Egyptian capital, killing its seven million citizens? By what moral code should the people of Egypt in their totality be held responsible for the actions of a handful of rogue elements?
If my country was the victim of one terrorist bomb, I would hope they would use every single weapon in their arsenal to completely whipe out the perpetrators. If that meant that my country needed to killed hundreds of thousands of people and no one was hurt in the bombing than they ought to do it. I fully understand that there would be an infinte ratio of people killed, but my country would meet its moral responsibility to prevent terrorism.
05 Feb 10
4 edits
Originally posted by vistesdSecular Zionism is all but dead.
Yes, but religious Zionism is a subset, and was not the main motivating factor for the Zionist movement (or for people like Herzl). The fundamental principle behind the Zionist movement was (and is) that history demonstrated that Jews could ultimately not feel secure in even the most civilized and liberal nations, even when they had attained full citizenshi ...[text shortened]... k when he and FMF were slashing one another.) One day, maybe I’ll go back and bump that thread…
In Israel, there are 3 basic facets of society:
The secular (the decreasing majority). For the most part, these people don't give a damn about Zionism. Their grandparents, and to a lesser degree, their parents, did. But all most of these people want is to live in peace. Their dream is to be the 51st American state. They want a high tech booming economy and not to be shot at constantly and not to have to spend their wads on their defense budget. Most of these people would emigrate to Phoenix or Denver or San Francisco if their could. To the extent they support the settlements, they do so only because of the need for housing within commuting distance of Jerusalem. Most of them secretly wish the settlements would just go away. This groups is somewhat analogous to American Democrats and moderate northeast Republicans.
The religious and quasi-religious Zionists. These are the hawks; the Likud base. The are well overrepresented in the military command structure because they give a damn. They believe that Israel was promised to them by God and every inch of territory given to the Palestinians hurts; though they'll do it under some circumstances if they deem it necessary. Netanyahu is secular, but this is his constituency. This group is kind of like the Israeli version of the evangelicals.
The ultra-religious. They don't really give a hoot about the political structure. They're living in Israel because it's God's land, but they don't believe necessarily in the need for there to be Jewish hegemony. Fundamentally, the only issue that really concerns them is the welfare state, as they are underrepresented in the economy (choosing to focus on religious issues more so than economic ones) and are therefore a very poor community. They are perfectly willing to go along with whatever peace initiatives are put forth by the government as long as they get some cash in exchange in the form of government anti-poverty programs. If they were convinced that the Palestinians would give them more welfare money, they'd vote for Palestinians. As it is, they'd be lucky to live under Palestinian rule, let alone receive welfare. As such, most of them are willing to tolerate the Israeli state. But they care far more about whether the gay pride parade marches through their streets, for instance, than where or not Gaza is invaded. This group is most analogous to the American minority community.
My point is that secular Zionism is irrelevant, though of course it was once very relevant. Today, all most of the people want is to live in peace and prosperity.
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by sh76To what extent does the fear of being lulled into a false sense of security, by trusting the 'other' side and embracing peace, lead to a situation that neither side is ever willing to truly engage in the process of positively and actively constructing a plural society?
Today, all most of the people want is to live in peace and prosperity.
We often critique the US as being a nation ruled by fear and greed, but isn't this the very same situation in Israel? Fear of the other and greed over land?
Okay maybe thats just another grass is green observation or wet paint dries slowly sort of comment, but it seems to be the elephant in the room that no-one knows how to address. When Sharon visited the rock and kicked off the intifada of 2007, could anyone doubt that the issue still is deeply rooted in religious paranoia, with its attendant goddesses of mis and dis trust?
05 Feb 10
Originally posted by kmax87First of all, the intifada "kicked off" in 2000, not 2007.
To what extent does the fear of being lulled into a false sense of security, by trusting the 'other' side and embracing peace, lead to a situation that neither side is ever willing to truly engage in the process of positively and actively constructing a plural society?
We often critique the US as being a nation ruled by fear and greed, but isn't this the v ...[text shortened]... ll is deeply rooted in religious paranoia, with its attendant goddesses of mis and dis trust?
Second, the phrase "Sharon visited the rock and kicked off the intifada" itself shows how ridiculous a pretext it was. Sharon wasn't even PM at the time. Since when is one visit to one place justification for a war?