Who should we be supporting Israel or the Palestinians

[probeson]

Reading the official statement from ARC on support for Israel sort of begs the question of: "Why not support political candidates who principles are diametrically opposed to the ARC in some sense but virtuous in others? Why wade into this particular morass? Furthermore, since when has US interests and Israeli interests converged to the point that they have become one? Why not challenge this idea on the basis that is not in Americas self interest to be joined at the hip with another country so that if they sniffle, we sneeze? Does it seem odd that the ARC has a such a strong position on Israel? Their entire statement is not even factual, what kind of statement is, "We understand that those who threaten Israel's freedom also threaten America"? Really? When was the last time you saw someone attacking Israel that was not in response to Israel's aggression. I'm sure you watch the news and have noticed that it is Israel who openly threatens its neighbors and has at one time or another invaded preemptively ( a euphemism for aggression) nearly every country that borders it,

One of the principles of Objectivism is the evil of the initiation of force. If one wanted to establish who the victim and criminal is in a given situation, this principle is all that is needed. I believe the aggressor and the victim are clearly defined, the NUMEROUS violations of the rule of law are well documented, and the attacks on the individual rights of the indigenous people rival those of apartheid South Africa. A close study of the facts will reveal that the lines between truth and lies have been blurred to the point where the average American would end up supporting policies that mirror the Nazis.

No, I am not using words loosely or engaging in hyperbole. If you would like for me to qualify any of these statements just let me know and I will be glad to do so. Each would require a lengthy response and would be too much for one post.

I am not as familiar with the positions of the ARC as I am with ARI but it seems they are unanimous in their support for Israel which is not surprising.

If there is one single issue that has united arab nationalists against the US, it is support for Israel. The 9/11 commission found that of all the terrorists captured and interrogated by the US-American support for Israel is the number one reason. Bin Laden in his fatwas repeatedly stated that American support for the humiliation of the Palestinians was proof that America does not desire peace only imperialism. But I do not want to get into politics .

It is difficult to understand the overwhelming support of Israel by Objectivist institutions. On nearly all accounts, Israel does not meet any of the conditions of the type of society that Objectivism advocates as a political ideal. Hell, it's a socialist paradise!

First-the rule of law and the initiation of force

Just as law is an extension of morality in the lives of individuals and society, so is international law in the realm of sovereign states. Just as it is illegal to initiate force against someone in domestic law, it is illegal to initiate force against people and countries outside your sovereign borders. It is also illegal to invade another entity and occupy their country and impose a military dictatorship and start transferring your population there. It is also illegal under international law to collectively punish 1.5 million people with a medieval siege for the policies of a freely elected democratic government. Currently, there are over 220 UN resolutions against Israel-keep in mind that at the time Saddam was attacked in the first war, there were only 69 violations.

Terrorism and indiscriminate attacks on civilians:

If the definition of terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose, then who is the more guilty? The one who kills 1400 and wounds 5000 in one fell swoop or the one who kills in self defense? According to the principles of Objectivism, the initiator of force forfeits ALL rights when he attacks his victim, including the right to his own life. If Israel has attacked, invaded, and annexes another entities' territory-isn't this an act of aggression? Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary? Isn't it also true that if the methods they use are unsavory that it would still have to be shown that they were not a response to the actions of the aggressor? It is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that a people invaded, have a right to defend themselves-why does this right not extend to the Palestinians.

Apartheid:

According to the international law -Apartheid is a crime against the humanity of a group of people.To be clear, the type of Apartheid that is practiced is religious apartheid. It is clearly defined under international law. It has criteria that is descriptive. Not to go too deeply but what else can be meant by the term "A Jewish State"? Doesn't it by definition mean that Jews will be given preferential treatment? Doesn't it mean that the laws and policies will benefit Jews more than any other group? Doesn't it mean Jewish emigration will be encouraged and non Jewish emigration discouraged? Doesn't it mean that the 700,000 Palestinians who were forced out will not be allowed to return because it would change the demographic of the state? Doesn't it also mean that the national symbols,flag, official language, etc.. will be of a Jewish nature irregardless of the indigenous people who live in Israel?

Proof:

Let me begin by defining my terms.

From the UN definition of Apartheid and international law:

--->c. Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to work, the right to form recognized trade unions, the right to education, the right to leave and to return to their country, the right to a nationality, the right to freedom of movement and residence, the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association;

d. Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by the creation of separate reserves and ghettos for the members of a racial group or groups, the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups, the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof; <----

First:

"Any legislative measures and other measures calculated to prevent a racial group or groups from participation in the political, social, economic and cultural life of the country and the deliberate creation of conditions preventing the full development of such a group or groups, in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including ..the right to freedom of movement"

First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does apply equally to all citizens. Proof:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html

They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits,movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html

Next:

"Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by...the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups."

The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints.

The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html

Next:

......the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof

Absentee Property Law (1950)

Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as "absentee property" and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ("internal refugees"), becomes "absentee property." This creates the category of "present absentees."

National Planning and Building Law (1965)

Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders.

DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html

Next:

.... in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country.

Law of Return (1950)

Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew." A "Jew" is defined as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning.

Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952)

Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.

Under the new interim policy for "family unification" passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens.

DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=840119&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title'Knesset%20extends%20law%20banning%20Israeli-Palestinian%20family%20unification%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

And there's more.......

By the way, all of these things are written into Israeli law. Can this be a true democracy?

Yet this is what is the two Institutions support and advocate for. If you haven't noticed, there has been an overwhelming consensus against Islamic countries and Muslims in general by the ARC and ARI. The two institutions were advocating for war against Iran even before the nuclear issue came up. They were saying we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq as early as 2003. Iran and Iraq are enemies of Israel not the US. So why do they do it?

[DavidOdden]

Reading the official statement from ARC on support for Israel sort of begs the question of: "Why not support political candidates who principles are diametrically opposed to the ARC in some sense but virtuous in others?

Yes, these are the same basic principle. In the last election, the dichotomy was between Obama, and McCain/Palin. The fact is that the choice of president has a huge impact on our lives, so it is not a trivial matter. Thus you must make a judgment and decide which of the two candidates is the best, even though neither candidate was close to perfect.

However, there is a major non-parallelism w.r.t. Israel, that with political candidates you have named alternatives. We know that it's either Obama or McCain. In the case of Israel, you have to say what the alternative it, and this is not something that the anti-Israel camp is willing to do explicitly. The choice is, in fact, between the existence of Israel as a nation, or the destruction of Israel as a nation and an outpost of civilization, and the death of millions of her citizens. Once you make the nature of the dichotomy clear, the reason for supporting Israel becomes self-evident.

Furthermore, since when has US interests and Israeli interests converged to the point that they have become one?

Since Israel established a civilized government in the region. Our interest is in the continues spread of rational government.

Does it seem odd that the ARC has a such a strong position on Israel?

No, not a bit.

I believe the aggressor and the victim are clearly defined, the NUMEROUS violations of the rule of law are well documented, and the attacks on the individual rights of the indigenous people rival those of apartheid South Africa.

Yes, the aggressor and victim are very well defined. The aggressor operates under many names -- Al Fatah, Hamas, Hezbollah -- but the underlying principle is the same.

[Hairnet]

I don't think of any that explains why Israel is of value to me or other Americans.

What makes a nation civilized? And why does that matter to us?

[softwareNerd]

What makes a nation civilized?

Are you implying that the U.S. and Somalia are equally civilized, or that you cannot formulate your reasons for calling one more civilized than the other though you know the U.S. is the more civilized?

[Hairnet]

I agree for the most part. I don't like Israel either. I don't look at that country and think "Ah, a grand example of a nation built on enlightenment values!". I think "Conscription is evil.".

However, Islam, as a religion taken seriously, is a threat to what America is. Making Islamists (people who support Islam through war, terrorism, or government) enemies of America.

Taken Seriously? Christianity used to be taken seriously, it isn't any more, and people who do, or try to do are looked down upon as crazy. The best of them are seen as being overly idealistic. During the Crusades, I would say that the Muslim nations were the much more civilized people, and that America (if it existed) would be obligated to support them against Europe because of the fact that Islam at that time was heavily influenced by rational philosophy, so don't take this as a hatred of Muslims in particular, this is hatred of medievalists.

[CapitalistSwine]

David Odden did an excellent job of summing up the main points, however I would like to make a few comments as well:

Why not challenge this idea on the basis that is not in Americas self interest to be joined at the hip with another country so that if they sniffle, we sneeze?

While this isn't directly referenced, one must keep in mind that ARI has never condoned financial support of Israel as far as I am aware and even Yaron Brook (who is from Israel originally)has stated that we should merely be political allies (as our long-term interests are the same and we gain from their presence as opposed to the alternative), not support them financially.

"We understand that those who threaten Israel's freedom also threaten America"? Really?

Yes really. Israel is the hub of civilization in that region and helps to (on the most fundamental level at least) keep them in check in respect to certain important factors. Further, Israel's enemies are terrorist factions that advocate and act upon the code of Islamic totalitarianism. Even if they are not a direct threat, they are still a threat.

When was the last time you saw someone attacking Israel that was not in response to Israel's aggression. I'm sure you watch the news and have noticed that it is Israel who openly threatens its neighbors and has at one time or another invaded preemptively ( a euphemism for aggression) nearly every country that borders it.

If you continue with such obviously biased (and in the big picture, incorrect) comments then this thread is likely to become nothing more than a short discussion. This is one subject you most certainly cannot be doing any context dropping on and I won't discuss it with someone that chooses to do so as it will only be a waste of my time.

One of the principles of Objectivism is the evil of the initiation of force. If one wanted to establish who the victim and criminal is in a given situation, this principle is all that is needed.

Objectivism is not libertarianism. We do not treat the "non-aggression" principle as an axiomatic concept, there are strings attached to its proper implementation.

I believe the aggressor and the victim are clearly defined.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is one of the most complex subjects you can speak about in respect to international conflict. However you are correct that, in the big picture, things are clearly defined. I have a guess that your conclusions are not the same as mine however.

the NUMEROUS violations of the rule of law are well documented

If you are speaking about international law...those fat, corrupt politicians won't do more than write an angry letter which is why they are not taken seriously, aside from the fact that those international institutions have long been a sham and that none of these people have probably seen a level of conflict great than that of a serious paper-cut on their index finger. International law is broken regularly by many nations, often by those in prominent positions in these international bodies. All of these facts aside, it is irrelevant if they are obeying international law. They do not have an obligation to the other nations of the world to act on arbitrary rules of conduct, their own interests as a government to the protection of the individual rights of their population come first.

and the attacks on the individual rights of the indigenous people rival those of apartheid South Africa.

Context dropping.

A close study of the facts will reveal that the lines between truth and lies have been blurred to the point where the average American would end up supporting policies that mirror the Nazis.

Man, so we are on the path to reduction ad hitlerum (and necessarily reductio ad absurdum) in the first post of the thread!? If you think Israel's actions are on par with that of the Nazis you need to pick up a history book.

No, I am not using words loosely or engaging in hyperbole. If you would like for me to qualify any of these statements just let me know and I will be glad to do so. Each would require a lengthy response and would be too much for one post.

I don't think you are using your words loosely or engaging in hyperbole (aside from the Nazi comment) however I do think you are doing an awful lot of context dropping which is just as bad if not worse. None of us here need a history lesson on the inappropriate things either side has done. What needs to be examined are the essentials, not the non-essentials.

If there is one single issue that has united arab nationalists against the US, it is support for Israel.

Good for them. As if they really needed a reason to hate other people that are not like them. I hardly care about what nationalists think, especially less arab nationalists. Primitive minds resorting to primitive actions to support unforgivable levels of individual rights violations don't deserve any respect in regards to retaliatory actions. They will be treated the way they deserve to be treated, they certainly don't have any moral base to stand on.

The 9/11 commission found that of all the terrorists captured and interrogated by the US-American support for Israel is the number one reason. Bin Laden in his fatwas repeatedly stated that American support for the humiliation of the Palestinians was proof that America does not desire peace only imperialism. But I do not want to get into politics .

You are criticizing the Israeli's actions in their conflict and you don't want to get into politics!? The 9/11 commission was a hatch job put together by the government and isn't a good source of information on those terrorists, and if you have watched any of the Bin Laden videos or other documents allegedly from him then you should know that this is not the main reason for his radicalism or his attacks.

It is difficult to understand the overwhelming support of Israel by Objectivist institutions. On nearly all accounts, Israel does not meet any of the conditions of the type of society that Objectivism advocates as a political ideal. Hell, it's a socialist paradise!

Context dropping. Failure to understand Objectivism, etc. It is not at all difficult to understand their overwhelming support. Rand makes it clear why they should be supported (not in those youtube clips, but in her writings) as do a number of other authors.

[CapitalistSwine]

First-the rule of law and the initiation of force

Just as law is an extension of morality in the lives of individuals and society, so is international law in the realm of sovereign states. Just as it is illegal to initiate force against someone in domestic law, it is illegal to initiate force against people and countries outside your sovereign borders.

Unless they are launching tons of rockets into your territory, bombing buildings, indoctrinating children with false history, and openly advocate the destruction of your country while simultaneously acting upon it (showing they are willing to not just talk the talk but walk the walk).

It is also illegal to invade another entity and occupy their country and impose a military dictatorship and start transferring your population there.

I do not agree nor advocate particular situation regarding bulldozing, population supplantion, etc. However you must keep in mind these territories would not be under the control of Israel if it were not for the aggression of the other countries. To the winner goes the spoils. This has been the case all throughout history and this is no exception.

It is also illegal under international law

What bearing does international law have on a nation that is required to defend itself perpetually if it wishes to continue to exist? What bearing does international law have if it is against the legitimate interests of that country? None whatsoever. See my earlier comments on international law.

to collectively punish 1.5 million people with a medieval siege for the policies of a freely elected democratic government.

1. They started it

2. They refuse any offers of peace given, some of them more than reasonable.

3. Medieval siege? Have you ever been to Gaza? Do you know anyone that lives there? What about that 40,000 tonnes of humanitarian aide the Israeli's transport into there regularly? What about the recent changes in aid policy to allow everything in but things that can be used for weapons etc.? as long as it goes through secured checkpoints to search for contraband?

4. If you think that was a freely elected democratic government you don't know enough about this situation to be criticizing either side. That population was conned.

5. A population has the right to elect who they wish. If they wish to elect an overt terrorist organization that is an objective threat to the powers in its vicinity those governments have the right to respond in a fitting way to neutralize that threat. This is a terrorist organization they elected...one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations in the world no less, it is not like they elected Germany's Christian Democratic Union.

Currently, there are over 220 UN resolutions against Israel

So? They could have 2,000 for all I care. The U.N. has been an instigator of conflicts, collusion, and catastrophe since its inception.

keep in mind that at the time Saddam was attacked in the first war, there were only 69 violations.

So we are basing legitimacy of actions on what some faceless, uninvolved political bureaucrat decide is legitimate now? I thought you were for objectivity.

Terrorism and indiscriminate attacks on civilians:

If the definition of terrorism is the killing of innocent civilians for a political purpose, then who is the more guilty? The one who kills 1400 and wounds 5000 in one fell swoop or the one who kills in self defense? According to the principles of Objectivism, the initiator of force forfeits ALL rights when he attacks his victim, including the right to his own life. If Israel has attacked, invaded, and annexes another entities' territory-isn't this an act of aggression? Do the Palestinians have a right to defend themselves by any means necessary? Isn't it also true that if the methods they use are unsavory that it would still have to be shown that they were not a response to the actions of the aggressor? It is written in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that a people invaded, have a right to defend themselves-why does this right not extend to the Palestinians.

There is so much context dropping and poor logic throughout this I am getting stomach pains and I don't think it is even worthy of a response.

Apartheid:

According to the international law -Apartheid is a crime against the humanity of a group of people.To be clear, the type of Apartheid that is practiced is religious apartheid. It is clearly defined under international law. It has criteria that is descriptive. Not to go too deeply but what else can be meant by the term "A Jewish State"? Doesn't it by definition mean that Jews will be given preferential treatment? Doesn't it mean that the laws and policies will benefit Jews more than any other group? Doesn't it mean Jewish emigration will be encouraged and non Jewish emigration discouraged? Doesn't it mean that the 700,000 Palestinians who were forced out will not be allowed to return because it would change the demographic of the state? Doesn't it also mean that the national symbols,flag, official language, etc.. will be of a Jewish nature irregardless of the indigenous people who live in Israel?

1. People are not forced to live in Israel first of all. If they don't like how its run they don't have to move there.

2.International law is what put Israel there in the first place and designated it as a Jewish state.

3. While there is some preferential treatment this is mostly due to pcokets of racism or nationalistic zionism within the government. The population as a whole is quite open to those of the Arab community and these cases are the exception not the rule, they have much more respect for their individual rights than either Fatah or Hamas and it is continuing to improve over time.

First Israeli Arabs are prevented from visiting family members that live in countries that Israel does not approve. This law does apply equally to all citizens. Proof:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/997986.html

Even your own linked article acts against you. Your level of bias on this subject is crystal clear now.

It states:

"Balad MK Said Nafaa submitted a petition to the High Court of Justice on Tuesday in efforts to overturn a new law banning people who have visited an enemy state from being elected to Knesset."

1. There are efforts to overturn it, its not sitting there without contention.

2. The new law link just links back to the homepage, making it difficult to look at the actual wording of the law without going through extra effort.

3. It is not simply "banning Arabs from visiting their family members in unapproved countries", it is banning people from becoming a member of the LEGISLATURE (Knesset) that may have entered into countries viewed as hostile to Israeli interests. They have been in perpetual war for how long? While this may not be the most ideal law it is certainly understandable given the context of the situation. This is an effort to keep those that may be affiliated with anti-israeli interests from having governmental seats of power. You realize that the United States government is setup in a specific way specifically because they were worried of the British doing just that during this nations inception. In fact I believe there were a few cases where they did or were caught trying which is what led to that preventative structure to begin with.

The article even says this:

The law, which was approved by the Knesset in its second and third readings on Monday, stipulates that anyone who travels to enemy states ? Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, Saudi Arabia ? is disqualified from serving in the Knesset on the grounds that the visit constitutes support for an armed struggle against Israel.

Iran and Saudi Arabia are two of the largest terrorist centers in the world. Iraq? Obvious why. Lebanon? Obvious why. Syria? Obvious why, among other reasons they were involved in the '67 war and this is why the Golan Heights were annexed, because they were being shelled from atop there by the Syrians. Yemen? Obvious why.

They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful , wide , and well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way. May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either. Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement. Based on a series of long curfews in the majority of Palestinian towns and villages and hundreds of CHECKPOINTS navigable only with Israeli-issued permits,movement between towns and villages is extremely restricted, and often impossible. DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/804600.html

1. It is not stolen land, they initiated a conflict with Israel,Israel took pro-active action in retaliation, and it took these territories as payment, to the winner goes the spoils. How many times has this happened in history? Are you going to complain that America needs to give all of its stolen land back to the natives? I am guessing you won't. Why are you not complaining about Jordan? They have plenty of this "stolen land".

2. "They have also set aside lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads." Not debatable and I agree that this is an inappropriate type of law, however this is simply cause-effect. The government does corrupt things sometimes in a nightwatch setup. The nightwatch setup is there because of aggression on the part of its neighbors. If the aggression by the neighbors is ended the nightwatch government is not as likely to stay around, and will be replaced by more proper politicians, and in effect, laws and actions by said government...sooner. Cause and effect, that is all this is. The ball has been in their court for quite some time, not Israel's.

3. "May I also add that humanitarian activists cannot transport Palestinians either." Humanitarian activists? Like who? Those flotilla activists? That is mild compared to many of the humanitarian activists in that region. This is why this is not allowed.

4. "Curfews also fall under restriction of freedom of movement." If you have ever been to Israel it is self-evident why there are curfews.

5. "DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?" Yes I do. A particular racial group that in that region has initiated conflict numerous times through racially-specific groups/organizations, and of which more often that not follows a religion based on fundamentalist sharia law. War is ugly, thats why the Palestinians should get real, stop making themselves and their generations of children afterward suffer, and make a deal with Israel. Israel is not going anywhere, ever, and it is time for them to accept that. Things in the Israeli political institutions have gotten a LOT more intense since they decided to usher in Hamas as their new government and I cannot say I blame them. Many specific political action plans that were originally being considered were thrown in the trash after that event because it showed that the Palestinians as a majority had a certain mindset that is not within the range of acceptable behavior for friendly and tolerable policies and negotiation.

6. This part of the article draws my curiosity, "This is a protest against the apartheid road that will be constructed," said Ta'ayush activist Avihai Sharon. "Route 60 will be for Palestinians, while above it a viaduct will be built for Jews only." This makes it sound like they go along the exact same route, due to the "above it". My guess is that this isn't primarily for segregatory purposes but to help filter out security levels. They can have higher security on the Palestinian roads and much less on the Israeli only roads. This is also one of those cases I mentioned where I disagree with the house demolishing's that are an effect of this law.

"Any measures, including legislative measures, designed to divide the population along racial lines by...the prohibition of mixed marriages among members of various racial groups."

The Citizenship and Entry Law-The law, passed July 31, 2003 prohibits Palestinian spouses from obtaining citizenship, permanent residency and temporary residency status in Israel by marriage to an Israeli citizen. Under the new law, thousands of Palestinians living in Israel must go back to the West Bank or Gaza, and they will be denied identity cards—their passports to get past police checkpoints.

The Nationality and Entry law forbids the marriage of Palestinians and Israelis and also forbids spouses of Arab citizens, who reside in the occupied territories from joining their families in Israel? THESE LAWS PROHIBIT INTERMARRIAGE AND MEETS THE CONDITIONS ABOVE- DO YOU AGREE YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1135963.html

1. Are you aware of the vast issues regarding marriage on many many fronts in Israel? There are religious aspects that are involved, as well as other politics. Jewish Israeli's have plenty of issues regarding marriage themselves. Marriage isn't a Palestinian specific problem. Notice that Israeli's suffer from this law as well.

2. Why should a law banning Palestinians from moving to Israel be Racist ? No country at war allows enemy aliens into their country. Again, history books ftw.

3. All around the western world there are laws that will allow you to marry a citizen of their state but marriage isn't an automatic qualification for citizenship. Marriage will give you a long term residency permit so you can live with your partner it just doesn't give you full citizenship. In the US a foreigner can marry an American citizen and although they will be allowed to live there with their American partner the don't get automatic citizenship. Also the idea that just because you have relatives living here means that you have a right to come and live in Israel as a full citizen is rediculous. If I discovered I had some long lost relative living in Australia what do you thing the authorities would say if I told them I want citizenship because my relative lives here? These rules are not breaching an individuals human dignity it is simply that Israel has always had very lax laws when it comes to granting non jews citizenship. This is just introducing tougher laws.

4. Let's not be silly here, you assume all of these marriages described are romantic,legitimate marriages, rather than paper work shams designed to sneak Palestinian terrorists past Israeli security, of which there have been many prior incidents. I have found articles on it in the past (there are many examples/evidence), but I don't have the time to dig about right now so I will give you examples via medical permits, which follows the same principle and reinforces my point:

"Wafa Albaz – She was arrested (June 2005) in Erez crossing-point wearing an explosive belt. Albaz was carrying an authentic medical certificate for treatment in a hospital in Israel, and was planning to commit a suicide attack there."

" Fatma Zik and Rawdah Habib – two female suicide bombers, planning to execute a double suicide attack in Tel Aviv and Netanya. They were arrested in Erez crossing-point (May 2007), carrying a false medical certificate, which they meant to use in order to enter Israel."

Here is a marriage one:

"Talat Jamil Abd El Nabi, Gaza Strip resident, born in 1974, applied for an entrance permit to Israel for the purpose of conducting medical treatment in the Muqased hospital in Jerusalem. In his debriefing (June 2008) he admitted to possessing faked medical documents, which have been purchased for 3000 NIS. He stated he wanted to leave for the West Bank in order to get married there."

It should be noted, that Palestinians who enter Israel with false documentation for allegedly personal needs, also constitute a risk potential since they are illegal aliens, and might be taken advantage of by terrorist organizations in order to execute attacks.

There have been many instances of Palestinian Arabs marrying Israelis or getting Israeli Jewish girlfriends or Arabs in order to smuggle drugs, commit acts of terrorism, spy and many criminal acts in Israel using marriage or the relationship as the way in.

The meticulous screening performed by Israel makes possible the spotting of these individuals using false medical documentation and preventing their entry. Nevertheless, the examples provided above demonstrate the risk potential which Israel has to confront.

5. There are no Jews living in Gaza, they were forcibly removed by the Israeli government in 2005 in a bid to buy peace for land from the Arab invaders of Israel. But just as in the past trying to make land for peace deals with these people is useless. They destroyed everything that was handed to them on a silver platter, including more than 3,000 greenhouses that provided more than 10,000 jobs and enough food to feed a good portion of their population. Their way of thanking Israel was to vote in Hamas to start a war with Israel using the excuse that Israel caused their high unemployment and their children to go hungry. But it's not surprising that there are no Jews welcome in Gaza when more than 95% of all Jews have been expelled from every Arab country in the Middle East. For people that demand so much tolerance from everyone in the world, they have absolutely none for anyone else. The issue is with Palestinians marrying Israeli Arabs in order to move to Israel, the motivation is to live and raise a family under better social conditions. This is a natural desire given the sub-standard conditions of the West Bank. The problem for Israel is that Jews wanting to live in the West Bank are are forbidden under PA law, and actively resisted by the Arab Palestinians. If Arabs want to live in Israel, Jews should be able to live where they want to in West Bank, guaranteed protection and rights by PA law. The pendulum has to swing both ways for demographics to shift fairly for everyone.

......the expropriation of landed property belonging to a racial group or groups or to members thereof

Absentee Property Law (1950)

Classifies the personal property of Palestinians who fled during the Zionist terror campaign of 1947/48 as "absentee property" and places it within the power of the Custodian of Absentee Property. According to the law, even the property of Palestinians who are present within the newly created state of Israel, but are not physically present on their property ("internal refugees"), becomes "absentee property." This creates the category of "present absentees."

National Planning and Building Law (1965)

Creates a system of discriminatory zoning that freezes existing Arab villages while providing for the expansion of Jewish settlements. The law also re-classifies a large number of Arab villages as "non-residential" creating the "unrecognized villages." These villages do not receive basic municipal services such as water and electricity; all buildings are threatened with demolition orders.

DO THESE LAWS TARGET A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP WITH THE EFFECT OF SEIZING THEIR PROPERTY? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.co.il/hasen/spages/1076058.html

Next:

.... in particular by denying to members of a racial group or groups basic human rights and freedoms, including the right to leave and to return to their country.

Law of Return (1950)

Grants right of immigration to Jews born anywhere in the world. Amended in 1970 to extend this right to "a child and a grandchild of a Jew, the spouse of a Jew, the spouse of a child of a Jew and the spouse of a grandchild of a Jew." A "Jew" is defined as "a person who was born of a Jewish mother or has become converted to Judaism and who is not a member of another religion."

Non-Jewish native-born Palestinians - most importantly those who fled during the Zionist massacres in 1947 and 1948 - are in most cases prevented from returning.

Nationality (/Citizenship) Law (1952)

Confers automatic citizenship upon all who immigrate under the Law of Return. Non-Jews - including native-born Palestinians - must prove residency and pass other tests; citizenship is granted at the discretion of the Minister of the Interior.

Under the new interim policy for "family unification" passed by the Israeli Cabinet in 2002, and made part of the Nationality and Entry into Israel Law by the Knesset in 2003, a discriminatory system has been put in place preventing applications for residency or citizenship from Palestinian spouses of Israeli citizens.

DO THESE LAWS PREVENT PALS FROM EXERCISING THE RIGHT OF RETURN? YES OR NO?

proof: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArtStEng.jhtml?itemNo=840119&contrassID=1&subContrassID=1&title'Knesset%20extends%20law%20banning%20Israeli-Palestinian%20family%20unification%20'&dyn_server=172.20.5.5

I won't be able to get to this until later, I have to tend to some things IRL.

Yet this is what is the two Institutions support and advocate for. If you haven't noticed, there has been an overwhelming consensus against Islamic countries and Muslims in general by the ARC and ARI.

No that is not what they support or advocate, and yes let us just ignore the reasons why there is a consensus against these Islamic countries. There is also not an overwhelming consensus against Muslims in general but Islamic Totalitarianism which is a subset of the religion of Islam. (Objectivism is technically against all religions)

The two institutions were advocating for war against Iran even before the nuclear issue came up. They were saying we should have invaded Iran instead of Iraq as early as 2003. Iran and Iraq are enemies of Israel not the US. So why do they do it?

You really need to read up on Iran. The main reason for attacking them is not nukes, nukes is a big worry not necessarily because they will use them but because it is very difficult to keep rogue states in check if they have nuclear weapons, and they can use these weapons as a strong arm in political situations between countries as well as within the international community. Even if they will never use them (I don't think they would tbh) that is not what makes them truly dangerous. What makes them dangerous is that no one is willing to risk pissing them off enough that they will use one.

[Hairnet]

How could I imply that with a question? I was asking that question in a very non rhetorical manner, I wanted to know why DavidOdden thought israel was civilized, and why that (the property that makes them civilized) mattered to us.

Like above I said that the Arabs in medieval times were more civilized than the Christians, because of them being far more advanced technologically and philosophically. Now while Israel certainly has more industry and science than its neighbors, I am not sure about their philosophical nature.

So, a good question to ask would be, "Is china civilized?". That way we know if we are saying that philosophy makes us civilized or technology does.

Don't read my questions as arguments, they are actual questions.

[Marc K.]

I wanted to know why DavidOdden thought israel was civilized, and why that (the property that makes them civilized) mattered to us.

What makes your friends civilized and why should that matter to you?

Now while Israel certainly has more industry and science than its neighbors, I am not sure about their philosophical nature.

You are not sure about Israel's philosophy as compared to their neighbors?

[Hairnet]

My friends are actually rational, believe in reason. Even my christian and agnostic friends do to a great extent.

Israel? A nation founded by reds... they draft all young adults... nationalism and statism are very popular there, and there reasons for founding their nation where it is rely on some ridiculous idea of being related to some illiterate barbarian from the bible (Abraham). Yeah I question their philosophical underpinnings.

Are they better than than the Palestinians? Absolutely. Do they believe in reason? I am not sure about that.

[2046]

probeson:

Does the United States have a right to exist? Or did the Europeans steal the land that belongs to the various indigenous peoples? That is the context in which we support Israel.

You'll notice nobody denies that Israel is a socialist state. You'll notice nobody is denying that Israel violates rights. You'll notice nobody here is a Zionist. But what we do support is not surrendering a little piece of Western civilization, rotting though it may be (as all of Western civilization is), to the bloodthirsty Islamic masses that surround it. We are not “Israel firsters” either. We don't support Israel based on its race. We only support Israel relative to the harmony of interests the US has (homesteading, private property, liberty, science, reason, technology, trade, secular government, rule of law) in eradicating the anti-civilizational forces who hold total submission to God as their highest ideal, savages who stand for slavery, serfdom, oppression, socialism, theocracy, racism, nationalism, total economic and mental stagnation, brutes that want to kill the both of us, and morally supporting each other relative to the alternative, which is nonexistence. We don't even approve of every measure Israel has taken to defend herself. In fact, I think most of us don't even support the current blockade and would rather Israel just conquer Gaza and throw out Hamas and its allies with extreme prejudice, and enact laissez-faire.

Edited June 25, 2010 by 2046

[DavidOdden]

What makes a nation civilized? And why does that matter to us?

You can approach the question inductively. On the one hand, we have the US, the UK, Canada, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Japan, South Korea, Italy, Norway, Australia, India, Singapore, Chile, Ecuador, Ghana. On the other hand, we have North Korea, Zimbabwe, Eritrea, Somalia, Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Belarus. The former are civilized nations, ones which are under the rule of law and which respect the rights of citizens. The latter are uncivilized, brutal dictatorships or failed states which hardly have any government at all. The root of the concept of "civilization" is that man's proper nature is to exist as a trader, surviving by reason, and that there is a significant benefit to banding together in cities, to facilitate production and trade. All of the trappings of society that you associate with the concept of "civilization" -- art, music, science -- are specific examples of what man can do if he is allowed to live according to his nature, free from force.

A vivid example of the reason why it matters to the US is here. The 9-11 attack was made possible because of the uncivilized Taliban government of Afghanistan. The rights of US citizens are facts about individuals, not facts about geography. Thus I have a right to engage in trade with anyone who is willing to trade with me, and my right does not come just from the fact that I happen to live in the US. My rights are a fact about man. What makes life in the US good is that my rights, qua man, are largely respected by the government. The same thing is true in Canada and Norway, and that is why I can actively engage in exchanges with Norwegians -- it is my right to do so, as a man, and that right is recognized by Norway, as well. Therefore, it is in the interest of the US that Norway be a rights-respecting state: because my interests are the interests of the US.

This interest is not limited to just the US and Norway, it also includes Iraq, Iran, Somalia, North Korea, Burma, and so on. It is right and proper that Americans be allowed to engage in trade with rational Iranians, North Koreans, Burmese and any other people who have something of value for us.

As for China... IMO, they are not as civilized as Tanzania, yet. However, I believe that they have great potential. I would put them in a middle category which includes a lot of African and Pacific Island countries, along with a bunch of Middle Eastern countries like Morocco, Jordan, Tunisia.

[SapereAude]

Since David Odden has already stated the answers to your questions better than I could I have only one thing to point out about your post.

That is your constant referencing of "international law".

There is no such legitimate thing.

[Ragnar69]

The philosophies of Israel and its enemies are completely irrelevant. What it comes down to is Israel's enemies want to destroy the US because we are capitalist swine, not because we are allies with Israel. Israel does not want to destory us. I think it is perfectly rational to support the country that fights the countries that want to bomb the shit out of me.

[Hairnet]

Respect the rights of citizens? I don't think that can be an answer, because only a few of the countries you listed do that even to a certain degree, many are outright crazy. For instance, Singapore, while being a pretty good place, will hang people for drug trafficking.

There has to be a broader definition for "respecting rights" that you are using. In which case, could you elaborate on what that is? Is it respect for civil liberties? Or is it just being consistent (the laws are understandable to a certain degree, and the government can't arbitrarily hurt you)?

[Marc K.]

My friends are actually rational, believe in reason. Even my christian and agnostic friends do to a great extent.

Good, and why does that matter to you? Why don't you have any irrational, uncivilized friends? What is the difference to your life?

Israel? A nation founded by reds... they draft all young adults... nationalism and statism are very popular there, [...]

This country once had the draft, has many many nationalists and statists. Does that mean that it would be rational to choose to live in or support Palestine over the US?

[...] and there reasons for founding their nation where it is rely on some ridiculous idea of being related to some illiterate barbarian from the bible (Abraham).

Now apply this standard to the rest of the Middle East.

Are they better than than the Palestinians? Absolutely.

I guess you've answered your own question.

Do they believe in reason? I am not sure about that.

Come on, they are self-sustaining. Do you think they would have thriving industry without reason? Do you think they would have been able to defend themselves for so long without reason? Compare them to the Palestinians who can't feed themselves, who can't build a house, who voted overwhelmingly to be lead by a Terrorist organization. They are brutal savages and they are getting what they deserve.

[Marc K.]

Respect the rights of citizens? I don't think that can be an answer, because only a few of the countries you listed do that even to a certain degree, many are outright crazy.

Seriously?

You have to be able to essentialize here and draw a conclusion. Please don't evade the point David was making: Do you see a difference between the two sets of countries he enumerated? If so, what is that difference? If not, then you are blind.

[Hairnet]

You are setting up a false Dichotomy, and so is the OP.

I oppose Palestine, and think the Israelis would be better off doing really nasty things to it.

That does not mean I support Israel. For instance Russia invaded Afghanistan, we shouldn't have supported either side. We supported Afghanistan because Russia is a big evil empire, now the terrorists we trained are after us.

Israel Vs. Palestine is a completely different situation, but I think the principle remains true even if we have to apply it differently.

The Principle is- The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. They are just my enemy's enemy. Israel should be "supported" in the sense that they let us fly Aircraft out of their countries, and we bomb people who both of us don't like. Anything beyond that (funding, big speeches about our "commitment" to israel), is wrong.

Back to the friends Analogy. The fact that the nation is self sustaining does not make them rational in the same way that my friends are. Most people are self sustaining, that doesn't make them friend worthy.

[softwareNerd]

Israel Vs. Palestine is a completely different situation, ...

This might be the source of misunderstanding here. Clearly, the focus on Israel (not just by Objectivists, but by intellectuals of all stripes) is driven by the specific situation in which Israel finds itself: threatened by ostensible enemy states. It is precisely this that creates all the issues that people discuss about Israel, and this that drives people to take a stand either for or against Israel.

If Israel was nestled between France and Spain, and both those were friendly with her you would not be seeing any op-eds about it.

Edited June 25, 2010 by softwareNerd

[DavidOdden]

Respect the rights of citizens? I don't think that can be an answer, because only a few of the countries you listed do that even to a certain degree, many are outright crazy. For instance, Singapore, while being a pretty good place, will hang people for drug trafficking.

You've basically fallen for the libertarian fallacy of imperfection: that any element of rights-violation renders a government indistinguishable from a fascist dictatorship. Thus we are really living in North Korea. It is right for you to complain about taxes, laws against gay marriage, restrictions on business, drug laws, etc. in the US; or Canada. The draft in Israel, or Norway, is clearly wrong. And yet it's not really that hard to distinguish free nations like Israel, the US and France from slave states or anarchy, like North Korea, Somalia and Burma.

So get back to the fundamental question: existence, or non-existence. The choice that you must make is to either support the survival of Israel, or support the death of Israel. Similarly, we must choose between the survival of North Korea, or the death of North Korea. Death to North Korea; Life to Israel. I take it you disagree, without being able to accept what the death of Israel means. You cannot both have and eat that cake.

[Hairnet]

Seriously?

You have to be able to essentialize here and draw a conclusion. Please don't evade the point David was making: Do you see a difference between the two sets of countries he enumerated? If so, what is that difference? If not, then you are blind.

A colon, I believe, is meant to be followed with an explanation. I am not being a grammar Nazi, I am pointing out that you accused me of evasion then followed it the a question that was supposed to explain the accusation. Which it didn't.

You are treating a complex issue like it isn't complex.He said the words "Rule of Law", and "Respecting the rights of Citizens". That was his explanation, his. I pointed out that those terms are not being used in the way that they are not normally used (in objectivist circles) because no social democracy actually has rule of law or respect for rights in the usual sense. Social Democracy inherently doesn't believe in those concepts because the citizenry is allowed to vote to violate the rights of others, and they are perfectly capable and willing to establish arbitrary laws.

Is there a difference between Social Democracies and the rest of the world? Yes. They follow ideas like egalitarianism, humanism, secularism (political), and others. All of which are misunderstandings of enlightenment principles. Is that the difference that I am supposed to be essentializing? Or do you have a different take on it?

[Hairnet]

You've basically fallen for the libertarian fallacy of imperfection: that any element of rights-violation renders a government indistinguishable from a fascist dictatorship. Thus we are really living in North Korea. It is right for you to complain about taxes, laws against gay marriage, restrictions on business, drug laws, etc. in the US; or Canada. The draft in Israel, or Norway, is clearly wrong. And yet it's not really that hard to distinguish free nations like Israel, the US and France from slave states or anarchy, like North Korea, Somalia and Burma.

So get back to the fundamental question: existence, or non-existence. The choice that you must make is to either support the survival of Israel, or support the death of Israel. Similarly, we must choose between the survival of North Korea, or the death of North Korea. Death to North Korea; Life to Israel. I take it you disagree, without being able to accept what the death of Israel means. You cannot both have and eat that cake.

Fist paragraph, point taken.

Why is it up to us? Why is Israel's survival in our hands?

[TuringAI]

DO YOU AGREE THAT THIS IS DESIGNED TO RESTRICT FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR A PARTICULAR RACIAL GROUP-YES OR NO?

I agree. I think all rights respecting people who live in Gaza and want out out of Gaza should be escorted to other Palestinian territories, and all rights respecting Palestinians should be treated as individuals with the same rights and responsibilities as Israelis during the moving process.

Though even if they don't it doesn't make Israel the aggressor, in the same way and for the same reason that the segregation of Japanese people in America during WWII did not make America the aggressor.

Edited June 25, 2010 by TuringAI

[DavidOdden]

Why is it up to us?

I said you must choose. I hope that even if you decide to support the death of Israel, there will still be enough support for Israel that it will survive, so in that sense, it is not "up to you".

The reason why Israel's existence depends, to some extent, on people outside of Israel is the same reason why the free existence of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Tibet and so on depended on people outside of those countries. Estonia simply could not resist the invasion by the Soviets; Tibet could not resist the invasion by the Chinese. Israel is is a much better position than any of those countries, so technically speaking, Israel's existence probably is not contingent on the good will of supporters outside Israel. Nevertheless, as an individual moral choice, when faced with a choice between good and evil, you should choose good rather than evil. Choosing the good is the right thing to do; that is the reason to support Israel. Not some pragmatic desirable outcome type reason.

[Hairnet]

I said you must choose. I hope that even if you decide to support the death of Israel, there will still be enough support for Israel that it will survive, so in that sense, it is not "up to you".

The reason why Israel's existence depends, to some extent, on people outside of Israel is the same reason why the free existence of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Estonia, Tibet and so on depended on people outside of those countries. Estonia simply could not resist the invasion by the Soviets; Tibet could not resist the invasion by the Chinese. Israel is is a much better position than any of those countries, so technically speaking, Israel's existence probably is not contingent on the good will of supporters outside Israel. Nevertheless, as an individual moral choice, when faced with a choice between good and evil, you should choose good rather than evil. Choosing the good is the right thing to do; that is the reason to support Israel. Not some pragmatic desirable outcome type reason.

So your argument is that Israel is civilized country, and that all civilized countries have it in their interest to protect one another from non-civilized countries. Israel might need protection one day, and we should help them when they need it?