Might makes right in Middle East

[Gatorade]

Okay, I have had a couple beers.....We like to prop ourselves up by saying humans are different than other animals. But the bottom line shows that might makes right just like any other animal.

The US took the Native Americans land. The US had slavery. Our morality has changed and we now say it was bad. But at the time we didn’t really have that much of a problem doing it. With regards to slavery, we had to have a civil war – to show who was right on this issue.

Now we go to the Middle East and the current conflict with Israel and the Palestinians.

You might think that if might makes right, why is suicide bombing wrong? It is wrong because after 9/11 the might’s morality has evolved to say it is wrong. (This new morality really started post WWII but it really came into strength after 9/11).

The mighty have declared it illegitimate to try to gain political advantage through this type of methodology.

Palestinian leaders don’t understand where they would have their greatest might. They mistakenly believe their might must be from an armed struggle. They understand that they cannot beat the IDF with force, so they try to attack the Israeli psyche by randomly attacking innocent civilians. Palestinians don’t understand they would have much more power if they came to the negotiation table in peace. The treaty where Israel gave up a large mass of land that contained oil to Egypt shows Israel is willing to give up land won in war if Israel is assured peace.

Palestinian supporters often try to make a distinction between the means and the message. They say just because the methodology(suicide bombing or other terror acts) the Palestinians use is unjust that does not mean the Palestinian demands to for a homeland is a injust cause.

Regardless if the cause is just or not, the Israelis have a just war against those who commit terror acts against its people. And until the Palestinians end using this methodology, the most likely results will be either:

(1) (a) The suicide bombers will bring devastation to the Palestinian people because Israel will unleash the military into Palestinian controlled areas to crush the terrorists. At first the Israelis will try to protect innocent Palestinians lives. However, if the terror attacks continue, (b) the IDF will use more raw force and have less regard to trying to protect innocent lives.

(2) Suicide bombing will (out of fear or from pressures from other countries believing that suicide bombers are so desperate that something has to be done) be successful and the Palestinians will have their demands met based upon their terrorism. If it proves to be successful, we will likely see more of it because it had been proven that an apparently weak military force could beat a powerful force through this technique.

(3) The Palestinains reform and come to the table in peace.

(4) Isreal blocks off the West Bank by building a big wall. There are less terror attacks but they continue. Again many Palestinian's lose out since many would like to be able to work in Israel would be denied.

At first it looked like Isreal was at point (2). Newsweek had a big story on how the Israel was suffering. Right now we are at point 1(a).

Any comments?

[L@mplighterM]

Stop drinking!

[elke]

Define "might".

Is it the power to kill the most of your enemy? Scientific know-how? Economic power? Or utter disregard for life, own and others'?

The reason the suicide murders are wrong is that it runs counter to the natural laws of survival of the species, not because the powers-that-be decreed it so. That's why even when suicide is allowed under religious and cultural principles (such as Shintoism), - it is very closely controlled. There are few concepts that present as much danger to humanity as suicide: the only other one is murder. These people combine both.

[Gatorade]

I would define might as the ability to impose your will through the use of force (economic, militiaristic, or shame, ect.) or threat of force to make others change their actions.

I would say Israelis understand might makes right. When Nazis were in power, they killed 6 million Jews and barely anyone raise a finger. If the Nazis had won the war, there might have been some token talk about how bad they were in history books, but it would be just talk and the guilt from it wouldn't prevent it from future holocausts to recurring.

If the Nazis won, we more likely we would be watching movies about how Jews (even though they were being killed) fought heroically to support Germany instead of watching movies about how the Navajo helped the US win the war even though Americans were responsible for killing and talking most of the Native Americans land. In both cases, the highlight isn't how the society persuctated the peope. but rather how some few individuals overcame it, thus minimizing the true impact of the persecution.

The IDF knows might makes right. That is why they built up a strong force. They know the first war Israel loses a war will be the last because no matter what international law says, if there is no one to enforce it with might, it is useless.

[Gatorade]

In an attempt to clarify my earliar post. I tried to edit it for clarity.

Palestinians understand that they cannot win a fight against the Israeli Military so they are trying to impose their will on the Israelis through the use of suicide bombers targeting civilians. Why is this wrong if might makes right?

It is wrong because the mighty make the rules. The countries with power do not accept suicide bombing as a legitimate means to achieve political gains. This methodology is a threat to powerful nations and they want to crush it before its use becomes more widespread.

Unless the Palestinians change their methodology, they will be fighting on two fronts: (1) Since the US President called a war against terror, they will be fighting against powerful nations from the pro-terror side, which the powerful have defined as immoral. (2) They will be fighting for arguably a just cause, the creation of Palestinian state.

If the Palestinians stopped using terrorism, their power would be greatly increase. Public outpouring from powerful nations would pressure Israel to the negotiation table. But Israel would probably go to the table anyway if the Palestinians came in peace since most Israelis accept the demand for a Palestinian state as necessary for long lasting peace.

[elke]

I am sorry, Gatorade, but I do find your analysis disturbing.

What I am trying to say is that while "might" is a relative term, "right" is not. The Romans had might, as did the Ottomans, as did the British, as do the Americans today. Yes, they all had - and have - their norms, which were - and are - imposed through various means on the others. However, these norms have changed through the ages, even within a culture at times; but "right" has essentially stayed unchanged.

To me, the more accurate statement would be "might makes right possible".

[Mediocrates]

Might makes right implies that whomever has the clout can impose their culture on anyone they choose. This is specifically not the case with Israel. Never have they or will they try to make the mid east 'Jewish' or even 'Israeli'. That's simply a ludricrous thought - you could drop 500 Israels into the mid east and still have room.

What Israel has done and will do forever is insure that might guarantees survival. At the very least, for any land or aircraft based attack on Israel the force of the IDF is built around inflicting 10x the damage they absorb. If this were not the case, if the IDF were intended as a forward looking stragtegic instument of influence and policy then they would switch from a defensive posture to one that includes more long range stealth technology coupled with the ability to deliver strategic damage to arab capitals. This is probably a stretch today though not impossible.

Vis a vis Palistan, what might? Which overwhelming forces have they employed? A few tanks and ground troops, a few helicopters, staffed by weekend warriors. And frankly, if the PLO was fighting a war then they would have shot down those helicopters and blown up those tanks. The technology is available and cheap it's simply matter of deciding to use it. So it's not a matter of overcoming and overwhelming invasion army. It's posturing and PR.

[Gatorade]

Thanks for the response. It is just a line of thought I have had lately. I am trying to figure out where it goes wrong.

Originally posted by elke
To me, the more accurate statement would be "might makes right possible".

Maybe your quote is better. What is the distinction you make between right and norm? Who has been afforded the protection of rights has evolved throughout history. Therefore, depending on who you are, rights have not been consistent throughout time.

Might makes right implies that whomever has the clout can impose their culture on anyone they choose. This is specifically not the case with Israel. Never have they or will they try to make the mid east 'Jewish' or even 'Israeli'. That's simply a ludricrous thought - you could drop 500 Israels into the mid east and still have room.

Most Israelis don’t value expansion into other areas of the Middle East because they have less historic ties to those land. Others take a risk assessment and determine that it would be too costly to attempt. So they don’t expand.

Israelis do impose their culture in Israel. People aren’t free to do anything they wish,nor are Israelis ruled by divine law. Isrealis culture happens to be a culture that values openness and democratic principles where power comes from the people. It is a culture ruled by law made by the majority.

Some wish it to be more religious based rule and that battle will be fought after peace with the Palestinians is achieved, but right now the secular and religious join together to fight for security, because that threatens both groups.

I am not sure what Mediocrates is saying in his last paragraph.

[Mediocrates]

They impose their will internally there is nothing expansionist about it.

My last paragraph implies that no real force was used, hardly more than your average south american police force.

and the PLO response is hardly anything heroic - it's basically something sufficient to keep outsiders outraged who are determined to be outraged anyway. Sheeee-it the Venezuelan president gets arrested and 11 people are shot in the street and there's hardly a blip on the news.....

Good thing the Palistanians aren't in Algeria, there'd be hardly any of them left alive (100,000 civilian deaths and counting)

[elke]

What is the distinction you make between right and norm?

Parallel to that between "Morals" and "Mores", where "morals" are the absolute values, while "mores" are relative. Mores vary from culture to culture - and even within a culture over time; but "morals" do not.

To get to the bottom of this distinction, IMHO it is easier to look at the animal kingdom rather than humans, since human societies are rather complicated, and over the centuries we have often blurred the lines between the two. The Great Apes give good examples, since although they don't have concepts such as religion, they do have very well-developed societies and even "cultures".

In Chimpanzee societies, protecting babies, their mothers, and fellow members of the troop is universal among all the observed groups. Using a cleaned stick to get at termites, on the other hand, is unique to a particular troop in Uganda, I think.

While the distinction between the morals and mores in human societies becomes somewhat blurred when we leave the stark reality of the life-and-death scenarios, in the instance of the Suicide Murderers we are still within that realm. The society in which suicide and/or murder was a legitimate "more" would self-destruct. Therefore, it's the matter of morals or "right and wrong", rather than mores or "cultural differences".

The most disturbing thing about the suicide murderers is just such a degradation of the societies in which this anti-social, destructive behavior is looked upon as "legitimate". It cannot be legitimate, because it is destructive to human society - and therefore, immoral.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elke
What is the distinction you make between right and norm?

In Chimpanzee societies, protecting babies, their mothers, and fellow members of the troop is universal among all the observed groups.

Yet in Palestinian society they teach children that there is nothing more glorious than to become a martyr. They send their children out to throw stones at Israeli troops and then shoot from behind the children, hoping to draw fire on them.

[elke]

Originally posted by ibrodsky


Yet in Palestinian society they teach children that there is nothing more glorious than to become a martyr. They send their children out to throw stones at Israeli troops and then shoot from behind the children, hoping to draw fire on them.

Yes, but the question is: how do they get their termites? :D

But seriously: to me, that's the disturbing part. This suggests that as a group, the Palestinians are not ready to be a society - democratic or otherwise. This is not because they can't build roads or collect garbage - one can learn that; but rather because their collective moral foundation is faulty.

[ibrodsky]

Originally posted by elke


Yes, but the question is: how do they get their termites? :D

But seriously: to me, that's the disturbing part. This suggests that as a group, the Palestinians are not ready to be a society - democratic or otherwise. This is not because they can't build roads or collect garbage - one can learn that; but rather because their collective moral foundation is faulty.

Yes, I think you are on to something.

The problem is, at its heart, militant Islam. There is no difference between Palestinian terrorists and Al Qaeda terrorists. There is no difference between the US War Against Terrorism and Israel's War Against Terrorism.

As Daniel Pipes recently pointed out, it's not really a War Against Terrorism, but a War Against Militant Islam. Neither the US nor Israel can win until they figure this out.

As for how they get their termites, I suspect they raise them like normal people raise livestock. :D

[elke]

Actually, come to think of it, this may be the whole problem with not only the Palestinians but the Third World in general, as well as Russia. It all stems from the destruction of the bedrock of society: the "right".

When the Europeans came to the various places in Africa, Americas, Asia, Australia, and - yes, Middle East, - they in effect, destroyed the old societal values that evolved through many generations to protect the group. While the areas were governed by the Europeans, it was OK, since the Europeans provided the structure. But once these countries became independent, they found the old structure gone, and the new-not really internalized. Their society collapsed like a house of cards, because no foundation was there to support it.

[Gatorade]

Originally posted by elke
[B]The most disturbing thing about the suicide murderers is just such a degradation of the societies in which this anti-social, destructive behavior is looked upon as "legitimate". It cannot be legitimate, because it is destructive to human society - and therefore, immoral.

I don’t know where to begin with the responses…I got lots to say. I ‘ll start with some ideas and then try to show how they apply them with Israel later.

What is moral/right is a matter of opinion. Many people thought slavery or Hitler were right. Only force changed things. Without force discussion of right and wrong are merely opinions. Again force isn’t limited to use of violence, if everyone agrees with you, you have power and don’t need to use violence to wield it.

The battle right now is to get everyone to agree with Israel, or at least not use violence as a means of protest when they don't agree with Israel.

Israel has a lot of military might but cannot fully utilize it because Palestinian's best defense is world opinion. I'll try to explain this more in a later post. But for a tease - Both Palestinians and Israel try to claim the high moral ground to get others to agree with them.

But before I get into that I want to take a step back to get a broader view of the situation. I think sometimes we don’t realize that we think from our cultural bias. We think in terms of individual survival not in terms of group survival because in the west we value individual rights so much. But when you look at evolution, it is not important what individual survives, all that matters is the species survive. Evolution is more based on group survival. (Please, note I am not saying Palestinians and Israelis are different species)

The military understands the importance of group suvivial. The whole purpose of boot camp is to brain wash/teach soldiers that their life is less important than the group. Each soldier is taught to ignore their instinct for self-preservation and, instead, to think more in terms of duty to protect their county and their countries values. An extreme example of this is an US soldier jumping on live grenade so he could save other US soldiers lives. If that kind of behavior was widespread, the society would self-destruct, but this duty is only called upon for soldiers.

As far as the third world, those are some interesting comments. The vacuum of power makes the third world ripe for dictatorships to take control. In some ways a dictatorship is advantageous to chaos. Very little economic development at all can be created without any power enforcement of law. Where dictatoriships have problems is that there is too much uncertianity and

-----------------------------------------
Israel should adhere to Theodore Roosevelt’s advice, “"Speak softly and carry a big stick."

[elke]

Hey, Gatorade, you cut off at the most interesting part... :D

You are right, it IS the matter of group survival rather than individual, but you still try to do it with minimum casualties to your side - after all, the group is made up of individuals. The idea is that the more specimen survive, the better off the group is (it's a genetic pool issue, among other things). The reason that in primate societies babies and females are protected, is that without them the troop as a whole is doomed. People - and Chimps - who understand that concept are considered "normal", because they are in a majority.

What I find disturbing about the suicide murders and the whole Palestinian mindset, is that they don't seem to follow this natural law. I don't think what is "right" is entirely the matter of opinion. The "right" things are the ones that allow the group to survive. The "wrong" things are destructive to the group overall. I know it's not quite as simple as that, but that's a beginning.

The might does not create "rightness" or "wrongness". It simply enables you to enforce your survival. In a perfect world, where every group is able to survive, might would be unnecessary.

[neutral]

Perhaps I should admire Israeli restraint in not pushing her military might further – for example evicting ALL the Palestinians (and if Jordan doesn’t want them too bad).

But then I don’t think they can’t really do that because down the line, bereft of international support, factories idle, helicopters falling apart – Israel would not be able to protect its borders, 1948 or not. And of course the first all-out war the IDF loses will be its last.

I certainly don’t understand all the forces acting on this conflict but one thing seems pretty clear; the more extreme viewpoints in these threads are dangerously complacent about American and world opinion. The Arabs are able to perpetuate this war indefinitely with or without the support of world opinion, and with or without the disputed territories.

Could world opinion swing against Israel sufficient to significantly damage her military capability (e.g. via sanctions)? What if the conflict were extended to fifty or one hundred years?

These are not meant to be rhetorical questions – I don’t know the answer! But I expect there must be a very convincing proof that this could not happen at all, and I’d be interested to hear it. Unless all these mass deportation strategies have been cleverly planted by Arab sympathisers, of course.

[elke]

There are a couple of things to keep in mind:

First of all, in the case of both the US and Europe, Israel is an important partner. For Europe, it's economic and for US - strategic. There have been few, if any, historical examples of countries being completely ostracized due to "immoral" conduct, certainly not when they are important to the others' interest.

Second of all, as far as the Arab countries are concerned, they can't survive indefinitely without world's acceptance either: most of them are either heavy recipients of foreign aid, or else dependent on their oil exports.

Given these circumstances, the likelihood of this crisis to blow out of all proportion due to direct actions of 3rd parties, is minimal.

[michael]

Another great addition to the peace think tank elke, Gatorade, et al.

Any chance you guys might stick to the topic here and open a thread in the general discusion area on the philsophy of conflict?

[elke]

Originally posted by michael
Another great addition to the peace think tank elke, Gatorade, et al.

Any chance you guys might stick to the topic here and open a thread in the general discusion area on the philsophy of conflict?

Admittedly being prone to "free-association" (I like that better than "going off on a tangent" :o ), I have thought about what you said. I think you are wrong. This is a part of "peace think tank" since it helps understand the philosophy underlying this conflict, and thus aids in generating ideas.

[Mediocrates]

Originally posted by michael
Another great addition to the peace think tank elke, Gatorade, et al.

Any chance you guys might stick to the topic here and open a thread in the general discusion area on the philsophy of conflict?

I guess that depends on, as the Jehovah's Witnesses ask, "What does peace mean to you?" Is it the absence of most killing? Is it a constructive process to that end? Is it shared goals and national objectives? Is it something else? Many of us are very angry at what we see as negotiated 'peace' where one side more or less gets what it wants and the other side gives up most of what given up in toto. A blackmail scenario. Surely peace might come of it but that's almost a hope and not a goal. It's a fatigue inspired wish. And there are many of us who see recalcirtrance as an excuse to make no progress, from either side. I submit that the first question you have to ask yourself is, what are the goals of peace? What does it look like. Is it a paper peace like the undeclared unresolved police action between the Koreas? Is it the interminable process in N. Ireland or the low grade endless war of acceptable losses in Chad? Do we say that of the three goals of Arafat: Control over Jerusalem, Right of Return and removal of all Jews from Yesha that for each objective Israelis are willing to accept an apportionment of violence? So that let's say all Jews are evacuated from the Suburbs of Tel Aviv in Samaria will they now accept a 33% reduction in killings? Will the Palistinians accept the rollback of Jews in Gaza with a corrsponding reduction of violence? And so on.....

I don't know - I only know that if you don't what the goals look like it's pretty stupid to march off in any direction.

So what does Peace look like?