Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Israeli Pullout Of Gaza

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

While I certainly believe that Israel should take an aggressive foreign policy and not be afraid to assert control over some of its dictatorial neighbors, there is certainly NO reason why they should expel Arabs from any region that they occupy. Such a policy would be, as Moose correctly identified, racist, and would have very harmful consequences.

The problem that I assume Ariana sees with Israel occupying foreign lands would be that Arabs would resist by causing violence and using terrorism, as has happened in the occupied Palestinian lands for many years. Thus, she wants to deport all of the Arabs so that this problem could not exist.

There is one huge problem with such a plan. Forgetting about how it would even be practically possible to deport tens or hundreds of thousands of Arabs, where are you going to send them once Israel conquers this land?! Even if one were to assume that somehow a place could be found for these Arabs and it were feasible to deport them, you would still have the same problem as before. All of these people will be furious about their deportation and will continue to launch terrorist attacks against the larger Israeli state.

If Israel were to occupy, and subsequently annex foreign land, the proper course of action would be to assimilate the occupied as new citizens and subject them to the OBJECTIVE RULE OF LAW. Full freedom should be granted to all citizens under such a government (unlike what they experience in their former countries) and those that initiate violence through terrorism and other criminal acts should be punished accordingly.

Of course any Israeli occupation of a foreign land (such as the Palestinian territories) would be difficult and long-term. But the fundamental reason why the Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands has failed so far is not because of this racist notion that Arabs are the problem but rather that Israel is not a government fully ruled by objective law and has not had the moral certainty to defend itself.

And by the way, just to clarify, when you talk about removing Arabs, I think you mean to refer to Muslims. The term Arab refers to a particular race of people and has nothing to do with a belief system. Islam is the religion that many Arabs follow, but to be Arab does not necessitate being a Muslim. The possibility always exists for many Arabs living in the Middle East to convert to better ideas such as a more moderate Islam or Objectivism and thus why no mass-deportation of Arabs would ever be justified. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

All of these people will be furious about their deportation and will continue to launch terrorist attacks against the larger Israeli state.
That's a pretty bad argument: that's tantamount to saying that if someone threatens your life, you shouldn't defend yourself because they might attack you. If you assume that that's the case, then yo have a reason to kill them rather than just deporting them.
If Israel were to occupy, and subsequently annex foreign land, the proper course of action would be to assimilate the occupied as new citizens and subject them to the OBJECTIVE RULE OF LAW. Full freedom should be granted to all citizens under such  a government (unlike what they experience in their former countries) and those that initiate violence through terrorism and other criminal acts should be punished accordingly.
You're assuming that citizenship should be automatic -- I don't see the argument for that. Freedom is a great thing but nobody in Israel enjoys full freedom. They are still in a state of war, where all rights are curtailed to some extent. Obviously, when there is no longer a threat, life will be possible with restrictions on freedom -- restrictions which are rather minimum (compared to what exists in, say, Syria or Egypt, where Arabs supposedly live "freely").
And by the way, just to clarify, when you talk about removing Arabs, I think you mean to refer to Muslims. The term Arab refers to a particular race of people and has nothing to do with a belief system.
Nothing intrinsic, but it's a fact that racial identity is as much a cause for irrational behavior as religion. Palestinians are not all Muslim -- some are Christian and some are atheist. What they have in common is an ethnic identity which leads them to distinguish themselves from Israelis in general.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The groups that cause the greatest harm in Palestine are Islamic, however. Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the 2 worst. The secular groups (PLO, Al Aqsa, etc.) have basically become political parties. While their goals are certainly evil, they have largely stopped using violent means to attain them and, thus, the use of force against them is not much more justified than the use of force against the American Communist Party. Granted, they are probably more dangerous and may committ more violence in the future but, for the time being, they seem to have laid off of the terrorism strategy.

And you addressed nothing of his points about how it is racist to uproot and deport all Arabs.

Edited by Moose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So are you advocating a nanny-state that imposes "what's best" for the citizens with the use of force?

No, I'm suggesting that the government act in its national security interests. Israel is in a defacto state of war, and as such the State is in an emergency situation which requires reasonable action to return to a more peaceful status quo. Evacuating territory which is not within Israel's standard borders, which it cannot indefinitely defend and which will inevitably return to non-Israeli possession is such a reasonable action.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The groups that cause the greatest harm in Palestine are Islamic, however.  Hamas and Islamic Jihad are the 2 worst.  The secular groups (PLO, Al Aqsa, etc.) have basically become political parties.
I don't think it's material that the worst two are religious and the two next-worst are secular. Bad is bad, however far down the list you go.
And you addressed nothing of his points about how it is racist to uproot and deport all Arabs.
That's because (1) I don't see that it matters and (2) I don't take the proposal seriously, in the first place. The whine that such-and-such is racist is well-taken in a civilized society where you can pursue rational values, and not when there are barbarian hordes inside the gates. The real question should be whether allowing Arabs to run wild inside Israel poses an overwhelming threat. It does not: the Israeli government has been able to keep things more or less under control and create a society where those who want to can pursue rational values (that is not possible in Gaza because of the irrational people, not he government policy). Yes, some curtailment of rights that would otherwise be recognised has been necessary. The root cause is clear: the mass of Arabs want to drive the Israelis into the sea (the moderates may have in mind Tel Aviv).

Clearly, there is a possibility of injustice when you extrapolate from "many" to "any", and it is clear that Israeli policy does restrict the rights of innocent individual Arabs, in a way similar to how Arab terrorist policies restrict the rights of innocent individual Israelis (though by no means to the same extent). But waiting until you have the irrefutable evidence that Ali, specifically, is indeed a terrorist because you can see his body parts intermingled with shrapnel from his bomb and the body parts of his innocent Israeli victims would be suicide. Killing or deporting all Arabs is simply unnecessary. Killing or deporting some of them has proven to be a good idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I already said "yes" to this.

Right, then your position isn't consistent with Objectivism nor reality.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate – not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that ‘man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday,’ just as you cannot say that ‘man has inalienable rights except in an emergency,’ or ‘man’s rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose.’

Either man’s rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as ‘semi-inalienable’ and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man’s rights who may violate them at his discretion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add to what Felipe has quoted by noting that an expansion of one particular freedom -- the freedom to discriminate -- might actually make it easier to fight terrorism.

If, for instance, businesses were permitted to choose their customers, then a restaurant in Tel Aviv would be free to exclude those who fit the terrorist profile. Such an exclusion would probably be a competitive edge and would make the terrorist's task more difficult.

If an airline in America, to use another example, had an express policy of excluding or searching all those matching a terrorist profile, they would certainly get my business.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right, then your position isn't consistent with Objectivism nor reality.

What you don't note is that in emergency situations, morality is "thrown out the window", so to speak, which includes the morality of violating people's rights. Israel is obligated to defend the rights of its citizens within its borders, its government, freely elected, has determined it cannot do this with these Settlers living outside its actual borders. It's taking extreme, but reasonable, measures to restore the situation to the point where it can fulfill its function of defending its people.

I know its little consulation, but they will be compensated for their homes, and their full freedom restored as soon as this situation ends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, morality is not "thrown out the window" in emergencies. It is when one is faced with alternatives at the point of a gun that morality is out the window, and only with respect to the individual(s) required to make a "choice" at the point of a gun (the gun-pointers remain immoral). The Jews in Gaza should be left to choose whether they wish to live with the Arabs or leave, of their own accord. I condemn the IDF for doing what they are doing, and the settlers have every right to fight back (for example, by pouring acid on them as they've done). There can be no such thing as "violating the rights of individuals for 'good' reasons."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, morality is not "thrown out the window" in emergencies.  It is when one is faced with alternatives at the point of a gun that morality is out the window, and only with respect to the individual(s) required to make a "choice" at the point of a gun (the gun-pointers remain immoral). 

No, you're limiting the definition of emergency situations to one example, when being forced to act immorally under the threat of force by another. There are other examples of emergencies, such as the shipwreck victim allowed to save their own life by violating the property rights of others (though not by "right"). Or, the nation of Israel (acting as the defender of its sovereignty and protection of its citizens, as granted to it by being a free state) deciding to, in an emergency situation, to act to restore peace and security to the nation and, as soon as possible, restoring the rights and properties of the settlers with just compensation.

The Jews in Gaza should be left to choose whether they wish to live with the Arabs or leave, of their own accord.

And risk instigated an armed conflict between the Jews in the Palestinians which will only hurt Israel in the long run? I think that's an unacceptable solution. The act of removing the settlers is extreme, but made reasonable by the extreme circumstances. Israel must act to defend its citizens and people within its borders, and it has determined it cannot do that with these Settlers living on what will ultimately become Palestinian territory. And, immediately after this act is done and stability restored, the rights settler's will recieve just compensation and take their place in Israel with the full rights of other citizens.

Edited by Captain Nate
Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

Israel must act to defend its citizens and people within its borders, and it has determined it cannot do that with these Settlers living on what will ultimately become Palestinian territory.

This is the part I do not understand.

If Israel wishes to abandon an occupied territory, fine. (There is an argument that doing so is not in Israel's best interest but that is another matter.) They give notice to the settlers that as of some future date, they will no longer be able to protect them. They offer to assist in relocating the settlers to Israel proper. Some will choose to relocate, others will choose to stay behind.

How can the settlers that stay behind pose a threat to Israel? Israel is no longer obligated to defend them. How does an attack by the Palestinians on the settlers that choose to remain constitute any sort of threat to Israel? How does the presence of these stay-behind settlers affect Israel's ability to defend itself?

Israel seems to be acting on the premise that once one becomes a citizen of Israel, one forfeits the right to live anywhere else. In effect, citizens become the property of the state. I cannot imagine why Israel is doing this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How can the settlers that stay behind pose a threat to Israel?  Israel is no longer obligated to defend them.  How does an attack by the Palestinians on the settlers that choose to remain constitute any sort of threat to Israel?  How does the presence of these stay-behind settlers affect Israel's ability to defend itself?

I think it's twofold. First, I think the Israeli government *does* consider it to be their responsibility to defend the settlers, even if the settlers wish to stay. Once the Israeli government has pulled out, the settlers are sitting ducks for the "Palistineans" - I doubt they would live long.

Secondly, such a bloodbath would no doubt result as well in "Palistinean" casualties, and that would be seen as more negative PR for Israel.

The more primary issue is whether Israel should keep pulling back, inch by inch, until there's no country left. Personally I doubt the viability of the country.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's twofold. First, I think the Israeli government *does* consider it to be their responsibility to defend the settlers, even if the settlers wish to stay. Once the Israeli government has pulled out, the settlers are sitting ducks for the "Palistineans" - I doubt they would live long.

I see. So the Israeli's are not claiming that the settlers remaining behind create a security risk. They are claiming that they have no choice but to defend them as long as they are there.

Secondly, such a bloodbath would no doubt result as well in "Palistinean" casualties, and that would be seen as more negative PR for Israel.
It's hard to see how Israel could be blamed if Palestinians die attacking the settlers in Gaza. But I grant you, Israel is deemed guilty no matter what happens.

Personally I doubt the viability of the country.
I would not count them out. The Israeli's have beaten the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria combined, more than once, gaining territory in the process.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would not count them out.  The Israeli's have beaten the military forces of Egypt, Jordan and Syria combined, more than once, gaining territory in the process.

While this may be true, Israel clearly lacks the moral convinction necessary to defend itself and wage war agaisnt its enemies.

Just as the we possess overwhelming military might over our enemies but are losing the war, so is Israel.

Whether or not we, and Israel, continue to allow ourselves to lack the moral certainty is another question. But based on the current policies of leaders like Bush and Sharon, I do not feel particularly hopeful. :dough:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While this may be true, Israel clearly lacks the moral convinction necessary to defend itself and wage war agaisnt its enemies. 

I believe the majority of Israelis (and Americans) possess the moral conviction that self-defense is proper and just. In the past, when Egypt, Syria and Jordan invaded Israel, the population overwhelmingly supported a war to eject the invaders. I believe if Israel were invaded today, they would react the same way.

Similarly, in the period right after 9/11, U.S. polls showed that over 90% of the people favored massive military retaliation against those responsible for the attacks.

Unfortunately, America’s and Israel’s leaders, as well as most of the population, have an additional moral conviction: they have swallowed the notion that we are responsible for the fate of foreign civilians in any conflict. This follows logically from today’s dominant ideas. Altruism promotes others over self, so we must value foreign civilian’s lives above our own soldier’s lives. Multiculturalism declares that we must preserve all cultures, so “if you break it, you must fix it”. And skepticism declares that we cannot possibly be sure who attacked us so any attempt to retaliate risks killing “innocent civilians”.

Just as the we possess overwhelming military might over our enemies but are losing the war, so is Israel. 
I don’t know that Israel is losing. The wall they are constructing has drastically reduced suicide attacks. They plan to build a similar wall between Israel and Gaza. I agree this is not the best strategy for stopping terrorist – better to kill them all – but I don’t know that it is a losing strategy.

The U.S. is in a stalemate, purchased by the on-going sacrifice of our soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is not too late to change that, but I agree that Bush is unlikely to do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please note that nationalism isn't racism or ethnic cleansing. It's normal and rational. India was partitioned into 3 states in 1947.  The basis was Muslim vs. Hindu. Palestine should have experienced something similar, also in 1947.

Italy and Germany were created based on 1800s nationalism. Let's be careful with our terms here. People of similar race, language, religion, history, culture, etc. seem to belong together.

Firstly, India was NOT partitioned into 3 countries in 1947. It was partitioned into 2 countries in 1947, India and Pakistan. Areas where most of the inhabitants were Muslim became a part of Pakistan. (With the exception of Kashmir). The next "partition" took place in 1971. Pakistan was made up of two geographically non-contiguous parts which were referred to as "East Pakistan" and "West Pakistan". Most people in "East Pakistan" were bengali speakers and in 1971 "East Pakistan" broke away to form Bangladesh.

Secondly, it would be true to say that nationalism is "normal". [in the sense that most countries and cultures have been nationalistic throughout history] But on what basis are you asserting that nationalism is rational ?

Are you saying "Germany and Italy were formed on the basis of nationalism, therefore nationalism is rational !". If not then on what basis do you assert that nationalism is rational ?

Let's be careful with our terms here. People of similar race, language, religion, history, culture, etc. seem to belong together.

The idea that people "belong together" based on "similarity of race" is extremely irrational.

Edited by shakthig
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say that Israel is losing their war. There's a reason why there are no longer daily suicide bombings on buses or discoteques. Most of the attacks in recent months have not killed anyone, have caused little or no damage, and have actually been inside Palestinian territory. It remains to be seen what will happen as a result of the Gaza pullout. I believe there may be a sudden surge of violence in the West Bank, but that doesn't mean Israel has lost.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: there will be another major attack on American soil. As soon as that happens, America will wake up, realize that it is strong, and Islamic terrorism will all but cease to exist within 10 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realize this discussion has been going for quite a while, so I would like to add some historical facts:

1. When Israel returned the Sinai peninsula to Egypt, there were several Israeli settlements there as well. Israel evacuated the residents of those settlements against their will, but the Israeli population was mostly supportive of this policy. Egypt was regarded as a reliable partner for peace, and kept its part of the peace agreement. In contrast, the Israeli population today is strongly divided about the forced evacuation of the Gaza Strip settlers. The PA is not regarded as a reliable partner for peace, and for good reason.

2. Israel annexed the Golan Heights in 1981 and granted the Arabs living there Israeli citizenship. They were Druze rather than Moslem, so they were second class citizens under the Syrian regime and were better off under Israeli rule. They did not mind the multitude of Israelis who came to live in the Golan Heights.

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...