Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Who should we be supporting Israel or the Palestinians

Rate this topic


probeson

Recommended Posts

You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion. I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.I don't think it controversial to say that Israel attacked first but it is now being suggested that rhetoric is equivalent to dropping a bomb. To begin discussing history at this point will only muddle the issue and it will deteriorate into your version against mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.

Ah, but you must necessarily appeal to historical events, as I have done, to prove any such thing.

You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion.

You can call it propagandistic if you want. All I need to know is that all of the events contained in my argument are well documented, and the timeline of events here and the intention regarding initiating these events is clear. While your arguments have had very little in the way of sources provided for them, which is a special concern in this case because you have a habit of making extreme statements regarding every element of this conflict re: atrocities, fault, deniability. Further, the statements that bolster my argument are not made by people within the Jewish/Israeli community, but by Palestinians, other discontented Arabs, and to quite an extent, the U.N. during public discussions. I would like to see what alternative historical knowledge you have that, even if presented, would refute the fact that these statements were made, etc.

You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion. I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.I don't think it controversial to say that Israel attacked first but it is now being suggested that rhetoric is equivalent to dropping a bomb. To begin discussing history at this point will only muddle the issue and it will deteriorate into your version against mine.

You deciding to focus on everyone else's statements first is of no issue actually. I am done participating in this thread any further unless things change course as to what kind of arguments are considered satisfactory and legitimate.

Edited by CapitalistSwine
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope, try again. Of course a bomb is not the same thing as a verbal threat, however, only inasmuch as they are different stages of the same process. A threat of physical violence is the beginning of the process of the initiation of violent force.

If I say “give me your wallet or I'll stab you” I can't legitimately claim “oh but officer, I didn't actually make physical contact with him, it was just rhetoric.” You don't have to wait for the knife to be plunged into your body to act defensively. If I have used the intimidation or threat of invasion of your body to obtain your wallet, then this is morally equivalent the invasion itself because I have interposed the threat of physical destruction between your mind and reality, you cannot act on the basis of reason. Defensive action therefore may be legitimately used against the threatened invasion of a person's body or property if the right to life is to have any meaning whatsoever. If a man has the right to live, we mean he may not be legitimately threatened with physical violence. You do not, and indeed it would be utterly foolish to wait for the physical force to be actualized to act.

You are mistaking individual rights with some kind of quasi-pacifism. Sorry, if your final answer is “Oh but it was just rhetoric! They didn't really mean it!” then consider this my last post with you on this topic. It seems I overestimated your argument and your intellectual sincerity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you actually defending taking property and keeping it by force? Seriously? It is immoral, unequivocally immoral PERIOD! [...]it is not taking property -it is seizing TERRITORY.

No, I wasn't defending the taking of property. I think you're still confused about my position. Jurisdictional control is about which body administers laws in a given area. Private property is about who gets to use/dispose of property. I advocated the expansion of Israeli jurisdiction because the surrounding nations governed unjustly (or didn't govern at all). I think property rights are better defended by Israel's western-style system. I'll condemn Israel for each failure to uphold property rights over the territories it has taken. But I don't see any surrounding nation protecting property, life, or the pursuit of happiness in a way that even approaches Israel's. Especially the Palestinian territories, which I have previously likened to anarchy.

In addition to jurisdictional expansion, there is jurisdictional creation. This is what happened when Israel was born. You seem to think that such a creation is moral only when a completely, unequivocally just government is created. Such a government has never existed, so it seems to me that you are holding Israel to a higher standard than every other nation. I propose that the Israeli government was an improvement to what existed prior and better than any other realistic alternative. For that reason, I am happy it was created and I support its continued existence.

I am familiar with the lexicon and I am surprised you would mention it. Still it does not negate what force actually is , it only strengthens my argument. For instance:

[...]

on the dictionary definition and the "precise definitions" you require then it should obvious that rhetoric is not physical force or violence.

This is a point you are going to have to concede if we are going to continue. Force presents a special evil because it disrupts the human mind's capacity to reason. Rhetoric alone is not force. But threatening rhetoric combined with threatening troop movements combined with a previous history of violence are enough to present an emergency, disrupting the ability to reason. Do you think a man can reason when a thug with a history of violence gets his friends to surround you and tells you he's going to kill you? Will you wait to defend yourself until he points his gun at you? Until he fires?

Here is a summary of things I think we need to agree on before we continue:

-Jurisdiction and property are different, and jurisdictional usurpation does not necessarily mean property exchanges.

-The right government is the one best suited to protect the rights of those it governs. We can address later which is best, UN, Israel, P.A., etc.

-Force is not reduced to mere physical action. A credible threat initiates force.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's one question I forgot to address:

So please let's dispense with the rants against the UN, we are talking about international laws that prohibit aggression. We both already agreed these were moral laws-correct?

No, we haven't. You haven't established that UN law actually prevents the initiation of force. Most of UN law is put into place to protect the status quo. In many places the status quo is a statism. Laws banning defensive actions against statists do not prohibit aggression nor are they moral. Such laws enshrine aggression. I've not yet begun to rant.

This argument really should wait until we have agreed on the second bullet point at the end of my last post, but it wouldn't have been fair of me to let you assume I agreed with your statement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am and always was a supporter of Israel, but also a harsh critic of her. I hold her to the highest standards, and am dismayed at any errors she commits.

I particularly am against the power that the religious Jewish extremists wield there - it is imperative to keep separation of "church" and State, anywhere, for that matter - and am very glad when those extremists are forcibly removed from settlements.

I am, iow, no knee-jerk apologist for Israel.

However, one thing emerges every time one enters a debate with nice, reasonable people who only want to tell you that the poor Palestinians are being treated unjustly:

They infrequently apply double standards.

They hold Israel to one set, and Hamas/ PLO to another.

It is a bit of a reverse compliment, in a way; what they're really saying is "we know Israel is better, but why don't they treat their neighbours nicely - the poor Palestinians can't think for themselves, or hold any morality."

This is condemning the better, for being the better.

That's why I consider this debate as futile.

'Facts' are raised - apartheid, starvation, land grabs - which are at best disingenuous, at worst, lies.

'Principles' are invoked, on the basis of these false premises.

The principle involved goes beyond International Law, or IOF, or any libertarian principles. It's the principle of altruism that applies here.

When, and if, Hamas is overthrown by Gazan citizens, who commit themselves to lasting peace, Israel will respond with good-will; that is certain.

Israel is being held to hostage by its superior morality, and desperately wants peace. Not at all long- term costs, though.

But the Palestinians will, for once, have to begin thinking rationally, and SELFISHLY, for that peace to result.

As long as Hamas holds in its Charter the destruction of Israel, Israel will rightly treat it as the enemy.

A nation has to demonstrate self-respect, before it can be treated with respect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am and always was a supporter of Israel, but also a harsh critic of her. I hold her to the highest standards, and am dismayed at any errors she commits.

I particularly am against the power that the religious Jewish extremists wield there - it is imperative to keep separation of "church" and State, anywhere, for that matter - and am very glad when those extremists are forcibly removed from settlements.

I am, iow, no knee-jerk apologist for Israel.

However, one thing emerges every time one enters a debate with nice, reasonable people who only want to tell you that the poor Palestinians are being treated unjustly:

They infrequently apply double standards.

They hold Israel to one set, and Hamas/ PLO to another.

It is a bit of a reverse compliment, in a way; what they're really saying is "we know Israel is better, but why don't they treat their neighbours nicely - the poor Palestinians can't think for themselves, or hold any morality."

This is condemning the better, for being the better.

That's why I consider this debate as futile.

'Facts' are raised - apartheid, starvation, land grabs - which are at best disingenuous, at worst, lies.

'Principles' are invoked, on the basis of these false premises.

The principle involved goes beyond International Law, or IOF, or any libertarian principles. It's the principle of altruism that applies here.

When, and if, Hamas is overthrown by Gazan citizens, who commit themselves to lasting peace, Israel will respond with good-will; that is certain.

Israel is being held to hostage by its superior morality, and desperately wants peace. Not at all long- term costs, though.

But the Palestinians will, for once, have to begin thinking rationally, and SELFISHLY, for that peace to result.

As long as Hamas holds in its Charter the destruction of Israel, Israel will rightly treat it as the enemy.

A nation has to demonstrate self-respect, before it can be treated with respect.

:thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You raise some interesting points but it is a propagandistic version of events, in my opinion. I will respond to them but it does not seem appropriate yet as I am trying to prove my claim that Israel is the aggressor.I don't think it controversial to say that Israel attacked first but it is now being suggested that rhetoric is equivalent to dropping a bomb. To begin discussing history at this point will only muddle the issue and it will deteriorate into your version against mine.

The Israelis didn't bombed the Egyptian airforce because of rhetoric - the Egyptian army was massed on the border.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...