freeman3 wrote:No, you're wrong to justify the moral equivalency between the Holocaust and Israeli treatment of the Palestinians coming from Ricky.

I'm responding directly to what RJ wrote. He quoted a sentence, and then extrapolated a direct meaning that is not actually there.

If Ricky does that, he's pilloried, and told he's being dishonest.

No one is saying here that what Israel is doing with regard to Palestinians has any immunity because of the Holocaust.

No, but there is the argument that the Holocaust makes a moral case for the existence of Israel, which still ignores the question of the moral right of the people who were already living in the area to their own self-determination.

There are issues and we can go back and forth on whether Israel is being too harsh with the Palestinians or whether they are at fault for there being no peace agreement. But it is crossing the line to compare Israel's behavior with what was done to Jews in the Holocaust.

If one makes a direct comparison, yes. But there are - unfortunately - parallels. One is the demonisation of the 'other' by the dominant in the region. We see that in Israel, despite assertions that Arabs are better off there than in many Arab countries, we also have government members from right wing parties who want to treat them as second class citizens.

And Ricky was not that direct in making the comparison, but he was doing it. Oh it's ok for Jews to get money relating to the Holocaust but not Arabs to get Right of Return. Do you really think that is an appropriate comparison?

What amazed me was the assertion that Jews from Europe had not wanted their property back and it would be odd if they had. Ricky was pointing out the fact that this is not the case - to this day survivors and the descendents of victims are seeking recompense. And rightly so, if you have something taken from you, you are entitled to compensation of some kind. And the compensation you would want would depend on the circumstances. You may want financial restitution, or you may want what you had back.

I realise that for Americans they see the Jews who left Europe and didn't go back more than the ones who remained or who returned. But people did go back to Europe, as are emphatic about their right to be there. The problem with generalisations about a large group of people based on your perceptions of some of them is that they can be inaccurate. RJ seems to be prone to it both for 'the Arabs' and 'the Jews'.

The dispute between Israel and Palestinians is a complex one. But look at Israel what was done with the desert (for the most part) they inherited-- they have turned it into an economic powerhouse. Did they base their country on being victims of the Holocaust--no! They have turned their country into the economic powerhouse through hard work and ingenuity.

And socialism. The kibbutz system and nationalised organisations were the backbone of Israel's emergence.

Meanwhile , the Palestinians are quibbling over getting 91 percent (later raised to about 96% with land swaps) and putting ancient claims over rights to land as an impediment to having their own country.

I make it between 86% and 92%, even with the land swaps, and that only the 'maximum'.

They are also 'quibbling' about not having actual statehood under the same Camp David proposals, not having control over their own water supply, not having control over their borders and airspace, having entrenched settlements that are displacing people just accepted, the continued encirclement of East Jerusalem's suburbs, a violent settler movement still being in pockets...

That is what was offered to them. And that's better than they are being offered now by Israel's government, but it's not as rosy as the picture you are painting.

The Palestinians need to stop playing the victim and maybe they can turn their country into an economic powerhouse. And that will have zero to do whether they get 91 percent or whatever and has nothing to do with Right of Return. We would probably would be doing them a favor if we turned off the money spigots to their aid as refugees and withheld that money only to be used in nation development

You know what? It's been 14 years since a proper attempt to negotiate, and Israel has been refusing to talk as well. Likud under Netanyahu are offering none of the things you claim Israel is. They opposed Camp David (and Oslo), and they do not want to pull out at all.

Palestinian negotiation strategy was flawed, on the basis that they thought refusal in 2000 could bring a better resolution later. For the miscalculation of leaders (and Arafat is now dead), should all Palestinians be punished, collectively, for decades?

But yes, I do think that aid should be more tightly monitored across the board. One of the problems in Palestine was that corruption among the leadership and all the way down the heirarchies of Fatah and other PLO members. This gave Hamas an 'in' with ordinary Palestinians

( by the way Owen I was reading an article indicating that some British aid money was being used by the Palestine Authority to help terrorists in jail...nice)

Link? Because if you mean this scheme - http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... -terrorism, I think you'll find that US money goes to the same thing in the same manner.

Not that aid isn't used for all kinds of things - the US calls sending dictatorships weapons 'military aid' that is used to maintain their power.

Or the Palestinians can keep complaining about their treatment as they elect Hamas and keep doing what they can to harm Israel. You can expect somewhat harsh treatment in those circumstances. The Palestinians have the key to their own freedom--they are quibbling over ridiculous issues as compared to their being able to run their country largely free from Israeli interference.

Hamas was elected once. Not by a majority (and only 3% above Fatah). You may believe such issues are minor quibbles, but then again you are not living in the West Bank or Gaza. They are not even being offered their own country 'largely free from Israeli interference' - At Camp David they were offered this:

Based on the Israeli definition of the West Bank, Barak offered to form a Palestinian State initially on 73% of the West Bank (that is, 27% less than the Green Line borders) and 100% of the Gaza Strip. In 10–25 years, the Palestinian state would expand to a maximum of 92% of the West Bank (91 percent of the West Bank and 1 percent from a land swap).[5][8] From the Palestinian perspective this equated to an offer of a Palestinian state on a maximum of 86% of the West Bank.

The Israeli negotiators proposed that Israel be allowed to set up radar stations inside the Palestinian state, and be allowed to use its airspace. Israel also wanted the right to deploy troops on Palestinian territory in the event of an emergency, and the stationing of an international force in the Jordan Valley. Palestinian authorities would maintain control of border crossings under temporary Israeli observation. Israel would maintain a permanent security presence along 15% of the Palestinian-Jordanian border.[22] Israel also demanded that the Palestinian state be demilitarized with the exception of its paramilitary security forces, that it would not make alliances without Israeli approval or allow the introduction of foreign forces west of the Jordan River, and that it dismantle terrorist groups.[23] One of Israel's strongest demands was that Arafat declare the conflict over, and make no further demands. Israel also wanted water resources in the West Bank to be shared by both sides and remain under Israeli management.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2000_Camp_ ... #Territory

I can understand why Israel makes these demands. But this does not result in a truly independent state, and it leaves a lot of 'interference'. Given the slow and conditional moves that were proposed as well, one may not be too surprised to wonder if some Palestinians would notice any actual difference at all.

There are other things that might help Palestinians - Arab states could grant them citizenship on request, rather than excluding them. Saudi Arabia is particularly guilty of this (although of course their autocratic monarchy is dependent on cheap powerless labour)

Danivon:

But people did go back to Europe, as are emphatic about their right to be there.

I understand that. I know that Jews went back to Europe. I've even met some. This is not key point about the morality of the Holocaust. My point is that Ricky (and you?) are trivializing the issue when he suggests that the Europe and Israel are similar in that they didn't allow refuges to go home, or that Germans is better than Israel because it compensated victims. The Holocaust is not about whether Jews were allowed to return to Europe afterwards. That's not the central question of the morality of the Holocaust.

One is the demonisation of the 'other' by the dominant in the region. We see that in Israel, despite assertions that Arabs are better off there than in many Arab countries, we also have government members from right wing parties who want to treat them as second class citizens.

Both sides are demonizing the other. Based on the media that I read, the Israelis are demonized a lot more than the Palestinians, especially in Middle East, but also in Europe. The Jews/Israelis and Arab/Palestinians have been fighting each other for almost 100 years. As a result there is a lot of demonization going on. But this is where the analogy does more harm than good. Were the Jews demonizing the Nazis prior to the Holocausts?. You are trying to compare a multi-year civil war between two peoples with the Holocaust. The comparison aren't working for me. Inevitably it either confuses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or trivializes the Holocaust. If you want to compare the Armenian genocide or Irish potato famine or Cultural Revolution or Stalin's treatment of Ukraine to the Holocaust, be my guest. Then at least you are in a similar paradigm.

Danivon:

RJ seems to be prone to it both for 'the Arabs' and 'the Jews'.

You keep saying that but don't show any quotes. Show how I've been "prone" to do that. I really don't see it. Brits are so annoying. (joke)

Danivon: Palestinian negotiation strategy was flawed, on the basis that they thought refusal in 2000 could bring a better resolution later.

They are not even being offered their own country 'largely free from Israeli interference'

But this does not result in a truly independent state, and it leaves a lot of 'interference'. Given the slow and conditional moves that were proposed as well, one may not be too surprised to wonder if some Palestinians would notice any actual difference at all.

I think this is the pattern. Abbas says he regrets that the Palestinians didn't accept the 1947 partition. Aren't all the offers better than what they have now? Why do they hold out for something better? Is it because they don't want to give the Israelis satisfaction? Or do they think Israel will disappear?

Israel was offered very little in 1947 and they said yes.

I think RJ did a good job explaining the problems with making comparisons with the Israeli- Palestinian conflict and the Holocaust so I won't belabor the point.
With regard to Israeli viewing the Palestinians as the other I thought it would it would be instructive as look at the differences or similarities in Israeli and Palestinian textbooks. Here is a discussion. http://www.thetower.org/article/the-pal ... ok-fiasco/
Here is a Zogby poll on opinions of various groups towards peace:
http://b.3cdn.net/aai/a63fe72b49ad6f485a_0hm6b33c9.pdf
Here is an article on how anti- semitism has risen in the Arab world since 1948
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemi ... Arab_world
Poll on relations between Jews and Arabs
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/js ... _arab.html

This polls indicates the following: Jews are viewed favorably by 2 percent of persons polled in Egypt, 2 percent in Jordan, 3 percent in Lebanon, and 4 percent in Palestinian Territories. http://www.pewglobal.org/2011/07/21/mus ... s-persist/

A rather shocking poll about Holocaust denial among Israeli Arabs.
http://www.haaretz.com/mobile/poll-40-o ... 485ADCEB41

Article on Holocaust denial by Palestinians
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=650

Another discussion on Holocaust denial

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/05/21/up ... rrer=&_r=0

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

But people did go back to Europe, as are emphatic about their right to be there.

I understand that. I know that Jews went back to Europe. I've even met some. This is not key point about the morality of the Holocaust. My point is that Ricky (and you?) are trivializing the issue when he suggests that the Europe and Israel are similar in that they didn't allow refuges to go home, or that Germans is better than Israel because it compensated victims. The Holocaust is not about whether Jews were allowed to return to Europe afterwards. That's not the central question of the morality of the Holocaust.

Well, I think it was you who brought the Holocaust up as being the reason for the moral justification of Israel's founding, which seems to form part of a continuum with your assertions that Israel is more moral than the Palestinians.

Interestingly, when I had said earlier (when we were discussing UK Muslim opinion)

"Of course, some people may be less sympathetic towards Israel even well understanding the history of anti-semitism that culminated in the Holocaust, precisely because they detect in Israel (from parts of society and from certain government actions) a similarity with treatment of Arabs.

That is not to say that it is the same as everything the Nazis did, but that there is some oppression there, and some may - insensitively, perhaps - assume that a people who have felt oppression may be loathe to oppress others."

your response was:

"I think that is all fair, but I don't think you can ignore the fact that the U.K. has a growing Muslim population. It's perfectly normal to feel kinship for those with whom you have a common faith. How can that not influence how you perceive the conflict?"

One is the demonisation of the 'other' by the dominant in the region. We see that in Israel, despite assertions that Arabs are better off there than in many Arab countries, we also have government members from right wing parties who want to treat them as second class citizens.

Both sides are demonizing the other.[/quote]Yes. And the dominant in each side is doing it partly to control their own people through fear and hate, and partly to court support against their enemies.

Based on the media that I read, the Israelis are demonized a lot more than the Palestinians, especially in Middle East, but also in Europe.

This may be based partly on the media, or how you find it, because there is a lot of anti-Islamic rhetoric floating around Europe as well (not specifically aimed at Palestinians, maybe, but they are part of the collective target).

The Jews/Israelis and Arab/Palestinians have been fighting each other for almost 100 years. As a result there is a lot of demonization going on. But this is where the analogy does more harm than good. Were the Jews demonizing the Nazis prior to the Holocausts?. You are trying to compare a multi-year civil war between two peoples with the Holocaust. The comparison aren't working for me.

No, and I am trying to be quite clear about it that they are not the same thing, but that aspects can be compared (and contrasted) without it making the comparer some anti-semite or apologist or denier.

Inevitably it either confuses the Israeli/Palestinian conflict or trivializes the Holocaust. If you want to compare the Armenian genocide or Irish potato famine or Cultural Revolution or Stalin's treatment of Ukraine to the Holocaust, be my guest. Then at least you are in a similar paradigm.

Danivon:

RJ seems to be prone to it both for 'the Arabs' and 'the Jews'.

You keep saying that but don't show any quotes. Show how I've been "prone" to do that. I really don't see it. Brits are so annoying. (joke)

Perhaps I presume you read your own entries. When I've mentioned it before, I have been mainly quoting the exact text I was referring to. But seeing as you ask, here's a selection of quotes from your posts from this thread:

Page 4
"The Arabs have been calling for death to the Jews since at least 1920, and to Israel since 1948. There is a hundred years of bad faith on their part."
"The notion that somehow the Arabs would give up Jihad if Israelis behaved differently has no evidence to support it, and a dangerous notion to bet your life on"
Page 6
"Based on history there is little confidence that the Arabs and Palestinians will ever choose peace."
Page 12
"The Arabs started this in 1920 when they called for killing as many Jews as possible. They haven't stopped saying or trying."
Page 17
"The Arabs do not want there to be a Jewish country"

And no, I have not simply lifted every time you used the phrase, but the ones where you ascribe an opinion to the entire people.

And here is freeman responding to me when I mentioned it a while back:

"You have critiqued RJ for using Arabs in place when Arab governments would be more appropriate and Arabs to stand for all Arabs when of course the term cannot accurately stand for all the different people that comprise that group . Fair enough. I think RJ had a good discussion earlier in this discussion regarding agency and how some members of a group , who have no culpability, including children, many women, and even men to a certain extent suffer for the actions of some members of a group."

It is interesting that vulnerable people and those with a lack of agency suffer for the actions of the wider group, or a powerful/vocal/violent minority within it. But if we collude with that by lumping all those people together and ascribing to them the opinions or actions of that subsection, are we not also diminishing the agency of the others? Or at the very least ignoring them?

I have always maintained that the people who suffer most are the ordinary Israeli and Palestinian people. And the people who cause that suffering are the leaders and blowhards on both sides who maintain the conflict.

I think this is the pattern. Abbas says he regrets that the Palestinians didn't accept the 1947 partition. Aren't all the offers better than what they have now? Why do they hold out for something better? Is it because they don't want to give the Israelis satisfaction? Or do they think Israel will disappear?

The answers as far as I am concerned to each of these questions are:

Yes, but they don't want what they have now, they want something better than it.

Probably because they believe they are entitled to better than the last offer they had. And they see that in the meantime land that was 'offered' to them even now has Israeli settlements on them, which are expanding at the expense of nearby Palestinians.

I've no idea, but frankly the gap at Camp David was clearly not bridgeable, and that was because neither side was willing to compromise.

I doubt most of them do. I think what they want is for Israel to get out of the West Bank though.

Israel was offered very little in 1947 and they said yes.

It did. Of course, there was a minority of Israelis who did not accept it:

Some Revisionist Zionists rejected the partition plan as a renunciation of legitimately Jewish national territory.[71] Menachem Begin's Irgun Tsvai Leumi and the Lehi (The Stern Group, also known by their opponents as the Stern Gang), which had been fighting the British, rejected the plan. Begin warned that the partition would not bring peace because the Arabs would also attack the small state and that "in the war ahead we'll have to stand on our own, it will be a war on our existence and future".[73] He also stated that "the bisection of our homeland is illegal. It will never be recognized."[74] Begin was sure that the creation of a Jewish state would make territorial expansion possible, "after the shedding of much blood."

And not all Arabs (and not all Palestinians) rejected the 1947 partition:

Few Palestinian Arabs joined the Arab Liberation Army because they suspected that the other Arab States did not plan on an independent Palestinian state. According to Ian Bickerton, for that reason many Palestinians favored partition and indicated a willingness to live alongside a Jewish state.[94] He also mentions that the Nashashibi family backed King Abdullah and union with Transjordan.[95] Abdullah appointed Ibrahim Hashem Pasha as the Governor of the Arab areas occupied by troops of the Arab League. He was a former Prime Minister of Transjordan who supported partition of Palestine as proposed by the Peel Commission and the United Nations.

(both excepts from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nat ... _Palestine)

Danivon, quoting me::

Page 4
"The Arabs have been calling for death to the Jews since at least 1920, and to Israel since 1948. There is a hundred years of bad faith on their part."
"The notion that somehow the Arabs would give up Jihad if Israelis behaved differently has no evidence to support it, and a dangerous notion to bet your life on"
Page 6
"Based on history there is little confidence that the Arabs and Palestinians will ever choose peace."
Page 12
"The Arabs started this in 1920 when they called for killing as many Jews as possible. They haven't stopped saying or trying."
Page 17
"The Arabs do not want there to be a Jewish country"

I stand by these comments. Regarding pages 4 and 12, I consciously didn't say Arab governments or Arab countries because they weren't governments at that point. Sometime is was religious figures. But in any case, I don't mean ALL Arabs. Of course not. I'm sorry if you got that impression.

However, I do mean Arab society in the main I mean Arab political institutions whether they be part of the clergy or government representatives, or the Arab street. I'm not saying that All Arabs are a certain way. But I am saying that this is where Arab society is today.

Take a look at the Pew poll that Freeman cited. It shows that fewer than 4% of the populations of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan, the West Bank, and Gaza have a favorable view of Jews.

Danivon, responding to me:

Israel was offered very little in 1947 and they said yes.

It did. Of course, there was a minority of Israelis who did not accept it:

And not all Arabs (and not all Palestinians) rejected the 1947 partition:

Yes, I understand that. However, the Israeli political leadership did accept the plan, and the Palestinian political leadership did not. There will always be people on the Israeli side who act inappropriately and immorally. There will always be righteous Palestinians. However, you cannot evaluate the conflict on the individual level. You have to look at what each side did in the main. You have to look at the political forces operating on both sides.

Danivon:

which seems to form part of a continuum with your assertions that Israel is more moral than the Palestinians.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think that the creation of Israel in 1948 is a moral endeavor.

It is complicated to develop a moral equation for each country. Which countries have been forces for good and which have been forces for evil? Probably the U.S. and the U.K. are the most complicated. On the one hand the Native American population was decimated and slaves were used and abused. On the other hand the U.S. has given the world so much as it relates to economic prosperity Democracy, beating fascism and Nazism, and communism. But I digress ...

I also think that Israel has operated more morally than the Palestinian leadership and many Palestinians. There were 2 Intifadas and rockets fired at civilians and the use of other civilians as human shields. I don't think that the Israelis have been moral as it relates to the West Bank. On the other hand, I do think that the moral imperative for any government is to protect its own people, and the Israelis are not shirking from that responsibility.

But I'm not really getting your point.

Danivon

That is not to say that it is the same as everything the Nazis did, but that there is some oppression there, and some may - insensitively, perhaps - assume that a people who have felt oppression may be loathe to oppress others."

"I think that is all fair, but I don't think you can ignore the fact that the U.K. has a growing Muslim population. It's perfectly normal to feel kinship for those with whom you have a common faith. How can that not influence how you perceive the conflict?"

I just don't know what you are getting at. We were discussing why the UK (or Europe?) is sympathetic to the Palestinians. You gave one reason. I gave another. I don't see why my opinion is insensitive or invalid. This is a common human trait. We empathize with people who are more like ourselves. There is a large Muslim population in the UK (or Europe?) and they naturally have more empathy for Palestinians.

Danivon:

No, and I am trying to be quite clear about it that they are not the same thing, but that aspects can be compared (and contrasted) without it making the comparer some anti-semite or apologist or denier.

I described Ricky as a provocateur;

a person who provokes trouble, causes dissension, or the like; agitator.

I don't think either of you are anti-Semites or deniers. But when one compares Israel to the Nazi regime there is a subtext in the comparison that screams louder than the text. For example, how would a Catholic respond if someone said that the Vatican acted just like the Nazis with the child abuse scandal because they remained silent. Or that the way the police acted in the Rotherhan sex abuse scandal is as bad as the Nazis for the same reason. It's even worse when you use the comparison for the Jewish state.

ray

and the use of other civilians as human shields.

This has been a standard claim by the IDF. It has not been substantiated.

The Israeli authorities claim that Hamas and Palestinian armed groups use Palestinian civilians in Gaza as “human shields”. Does Amnesty International have any evidence that this has occurred during the current hostilities?
Amnesty International is monitoring and investigating such reports, but does not have evidence at this point that Palestinian civilians have been intentionally used by Hamas or Palestinian armed groups during the current hostilities to “shield” specific locations or military personnel or equipment from Israeli attacks. In previous conflicts Amnesty International has documented that Palestinian armed groups have stored munitions in and fired indiscriminate rockets from residential areas in the Gaza Strip in violation of international humanitarian law. Reports have also emerged during the current conflict of Hamas urging residents to ignore Israeli warnings to evacuate. However, these calls may have been motivated by a desire to minimize panic and displacement, in any case, such statements are not the same as directing specific civilians to remain in their homes as “human shields” for fighters, munitions, or military equipment. Under international humanitarian law even if “human shields” are being used Israel’s obligations to protect these civilians would still apply

http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/israelga ... 2014-07-25

ray

I described Ricky as a provocateur;

My basic positon is that israel needs to apply the Ethic of Reciprocity in order to find a way out of the comflict. That, by the way, is a tenant of the Jewish faith. What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
Behave towards the Palestinians as they would have the Palestinians behave towards them.

You and Freeman and others claim that Israel has always displayed a moral superiority over the Arab populations and governments. And yet I've asked you to look at how a horribly wronged people were treated in compensatory measures and compared that with how they currently behave towards Palestinians. Have they even treated others, as they have been treated?
The comparisons ar there to illustrate how far short of the Ethic, and moral superiority the israelis government falls.
Period.
You find this provocative? Fine.

I've also asked you to consider Desmond Tutus views on the security zones and fences through the West Bank. as "apartheid". You ignored that. Was Tutu being provocative? Certainly.Was his opinion informed? Certainly. So? It has never provoked a considered response directly about Tutu's claims from you. Or Freeman.

The comparisons of Israels behaviours are pretty clear. They reflect a nonchalance towards the plight of the Palestinians and no genuine attempt to secure a positive relatonship.

That the attitude of Arabs to Jews is so poor, is unsurprising. But, what has Israel done to change this attitude? What do they do every day to reinforce tthe attitude? (consider the use of water in Palestine as a specific ilustration of the exploitation of Palestinians by Israel, consider the security zones, consider the blockade ogf Gaza...._
And you can say the same thing about Arab governments, including Palestinian's
The point really is, that Israel is the dominant power in the region, and can afford to be generous if they genuinely seek a peaceful resolution with an equal partner.
The evidence is that they prefer an exploitive, extractive and controlling relationship and seek to expand their nation at Palestines expense... Its not a morally superior position, when compared to
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Will you be willing to apply other aspects of the Talmud? Just curious...

Also, and by the way, should the Palestinians be applying the tenets of their Koran?

rickyp wrote:ray

I described Ricky as a provocateur;

My basic positon is that israel needs to apply the Ethic of Reciprocity in order to find a way out of the comflict. That, by the way, is a tenant of the Jewish faith. What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a.
Behave towards the Palestinians as they would have the Palestinians behave towards them.

I agree with you that there is a disconnect between the actions of the Israeli government as it relates to the West Bank and the Friday night services that I attend.

You and Freeman and others claim that Israel has always displayed a moral superiority over the Arab populations and governments.

I've said that the Israeli government has behaved more morally than the Palestinians. It's a low bar.

And yet I've asked you to look at how a horribly wronged people were treated in compensatory measures and compared that with how they currently behave towards Palestinians. Have they even treated others, as they have been treated?

No, they've treated the Palestinians much better than they were treated. It ain't even close.

The comparisons of Israels behaviours are pretty clear. They reflect a nonchalance towards the plight of the Palestinians and no genuine attempt to secure a positive relatonship.

Perhaps they got tired of trying.

Ray Jay wrote:Danivon:

which seems to form part of a continuum with your assertions that Israel is more moral than the Palestinians.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I think that the creation of Israel in 1948 is a moral endeavor.

Even if in doing so there were immoral acts, cf: Irgun & the Stern gang?

I also think that Israel has operated more morally than the Palestinian leadership and many Palestinians. There were 2 Intifadas and rockets fired at civilians and the use of other civilians as human shields.

The infadas both started off as street level protests. The Israeli responses being heavy handed did nothing to stop them from escalating - firing live ammunition at children throwing rocks is 'more moral' than what? Dropping fragment shells into civilian areas is different from firing rockets how?

And the IDF itself has been had up for using civilians as human shields. So that moral comparison leads to what conclusion?

I don't think that the Israelis have been moral as it relates to the West Bank. On the other hand, I do think that the moral imperative for any government is to protect its own people, and the Israelis are not shirking from that responsibility.

However, when a country is occupying somewhere - and it's clear that the West Bank (and for much of the time, Gaza) have been occupied territories.

And the government of an occupier has an additional moral imperative to protect the people it is occupying.

But I'm not really getting your point.

So I see.

I just don't know what you are getting at. We were discussing why the UK (or Europe?) is sympathetic to the Palestinians. You gave one reason. I gave another. I don't see why my opinion is insensitive or invalid. This is a common human trait. We empathize with people who are more like ourselves. There is a large Muslim population in the UK (or Europe?) and they naturally have more empathy for Palestinians.

What I am getting at, is that when I did respond on the question of the Holocaust, and mentioned that one there are parallels, you didn't disagree with me doing so, but when Ricky does it, it's the launchpad for calling him out. Maybe it's the way I tell 'em (this is an Ulster joke)

I don't think either of you are anti-Semites or deniers. But when one compares Israel to the Nazi regime there is a subtext in the comparison that screams louder than the text. For example, how would a Catholic respond if someone said that the Vatican acted just like the Nazis with the child abuse scandal because they remained silent. Or that the way the police acted in the Rotherhan sex abuse scandal is as bad as the Nazis for the same reason. It's even worse when you use the comparison for the Jewish state.

If there are parallels, there are parallels. But you are using completely different analogies. We do not say the Nazis were bad because they "remained silent". And we do not say that the Vatican or Police are 'as bad' as those who remained silent in Nazi Germany - but it is a parallel: in a heirarchy, not speaking out about the crimes and misdemeanors of others for fear of rocking the boat. There is a difference of degree. That does not mean the comparison and parallel cannot ever be made.

When you see people pushed out of their homes (even if they didn't own the land and it was sold under them by the feudal landlords), when you see there have been massacres of them, when you see they were 'encouraged' to leave by men with guns, when you see there are plans to ship them abroad to get them out of the way of the national project, when you see that there are colonial settlements, walls built that cut villages from their lands, ghettoisation, escalation of violence in response to protests, what seems like indiscriminate killing...

These are not objectively 'moral' things.

Well, I think you were being a bit more careful in how you compared the Israeli Occupation with the Holocaust than Ricky has been. Whether it is Ricky or yourself I still think comparing the Holocaust with the conflict between Israel and Palestinians is not appropriate. The differences are staggering: (1) the Jews did nothing to harm Germany in fact they were leading contributors in science, in universities, in law, in medicine (they were objectively speaking adding a lot to Germany society), whereas the Palestinians are in a war with Israel, (2) Where you draw the line may differ, but clearly Israel needs to take measures in SELF-DEFENSE to prevent Palestinians from harming them, no such measures needed to be taken by Germany, (3) 6 million Jews were killed while the Palestinian population is growing at a fast rate

You're assessing Israel's behavior in a situation where they have great power over an enemy that has demonstrated a desire and ability to harm them. And you complain about how people are treated in that context. Does Israel take too severe of measures to control Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza. Yeah, but the Palestinians have been their enemy and oh by the way the last time they attempted to make peace with them the Palestinians started the Second Intifada and 1,000 Israelis were killed. Do Israels value Jewish life far more than Palestinian life. Probably (yest) but again the Palestinians are their enemy...

You want to expect Israelis to act like saints--go ahead. I think their behavior is not unreasonable in view of the overall context. I don't think other peoples would behave differently. Power over an emeny does not lead to "moral" behavior--survival behavior kicks in.

Israel has bunkered down so the Palestinians have difficulty harming them. And when they do the reprisals are so great that they have a deterrent effect. It's not nice but it's effective

Sympathy is not going to get the Palestinians, anywhere. They need to take a realistic look at things, realize they cannot beat Israel, get the best deal they can and move on from their struggle with Israel. I understand that will be almost impossible to do because any peace less than their demands will be seen as being humiliating.

bbauska

Also, and by the way, should the Palestinians be applying the tenets of their Koran?

The Ethic of Reciprocity is found in every religion.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3

So yeah, apply the Ethic to all parties. But if one aspires to be, or claims to be, "the most moral army in the world", or claims to have a higher moral postion then measure up ...

rickyp wrote:bbauska

Also, and by the way, should the Palestinians be applying the tenets of their Koran?

The Ethic of Reciprocity is found in every religion.

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths." 3

So yeah, apply the Ethic to all parties. But if one aspires to be, or claims to be, "the most moral army in thw world", or claims to have a higher moral postion then measure up ...

I am not an expert on Islamic writing by any stretch, but I will defer to you. Does the term brother apply to Israeli peoples in the quote above?