Israel's Responsibilities

[pierom]

Let me first of all make it clear that I deeply sympathise with Israel, not only from a political standpoint, but also for family ties. This is because I wish to prevent my criticism to be dismissed as anti-Jewish, etc. and related to my being Italian and European, and we seem to be taking an equivocal position to say the least.

However I see two factors that make Israel partly responsible for the failure of the peace process. In the short term, I feel that Israel was drawn into the conflict also as a result of the political ambitions of Mr Sharon, who ruthlessly stirred up the Palestinian revolt to sink Mr Barak's government. On the long term, I also see Israel's reponsibility in the failure of the peace talks, for not halting the settlements in the occupied territories while negotiating with the Palestinians. How can you successfully negotiate with someone who is at the same time busy in purloining your purse?

The fact that I am not pointing out Mr. Arafat's or Bush's responsibilities in all this is just because I take them for granted and they are before everyone's eyes, but then I am writing to Israel Forum and not elsewhere.

[ibrodsky]

I think you have been too quick to accept Palestinian propaganda.

Did Sharon cause the current conflict? Let's look at the allegations against Sharon:

1. That he was "indirectly responsible" for the "massacres" in the south Lebanon "refugee camps."

2. That he provoked the Palestinians by visiting the Temple Mount.

3. That he uses excessive force in fighting Palestinian terrorism.

Answer #1: Having being defeated in Jordan by fellow Arabs, the PLO set up shop in Lebanon and plunged that country into a civil war. Many thousands of Christians were slaughtered. As the Irish Catholic author Coner Cruise O'Brien pointed out, the "refugee camps" in southern Lebanon are more like military bases than tent cities. The real cause of the Christian retaliation was the PLO's war against Christian Lebanon.

In a legitimate court of law, you are either guilty or innocent. The notion of being "indirectly responsible" is an Orwellian concept designed to indict the innocent of vague charges that are impossible to disprove. Surely the PLO was also "indirectly responsible" for the death toll. Plus, Palestinians call every defeat a "massacre" and every massacre they perpetrate a "legitimate act of resistance."

Answer #2: It is outrageous that Jews are not permitted to visit the Temple Mount. The reason they are not permitted is Arab/Muslim racism, plain and simple. The Palestinians are waging a campaign to deny/erase Jewish historical roots to Israel and the territories. If a Mosque is damaged in fighting they started, they go crazy. But they take every opportunity to destroy synagogues and Jewish holy sites.

In fact, they purposely built a mosque on the ruins of the Jewish temple in order to take control of the site. Note that Israel is respectful towards Islam and allows Muslims to control the site even though it is in the heart of Jerusalem.

Answer #3: Sharon has shown until now great restraint. Israel has responded to murderous assaults on innocent civilians by blowing up buildings, giving the Palestinians warning to evacuate. The Passover massacre -- an intentional attack to kill defenseless civilians motivated by Arab racism -- was an act so brutal and evil that Sharon had no choice. The Israeli public demanded a harsh response.

The bottom line is that the daily terrorism has been reduced and the Palestinians have suffered a huge but well-deserved defeat for their foolish and evil tactics. What did they think they would accomplish by blowing up Jewish elderly, teenagers, and toddlers? Apparently, they find killing Jews rewarding in itself.

Sharon has acted appropriately and yet still offers a negotiated settlement despite that fact that groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad have always been 100% opposed to any negotiations with the "Zionist entity."

[Mediocrates]

The Israelis are occupying and settling Israel. That they make up only 9% of the population of the West Bank is simply evidence of a long process. After all, that's 9% more than any other predominately Arab populated area in the mid east. In fact its one of the few outside of pre67 Israel that Jews are legally allowed to live side by side with Arabs. Or did you mean that in the long run when there is a free independent Palestine over all or most of the west bank that Jews won't have to be evacuated by helicopter, fleeing for their lives??? I wonder the world would say if Israel expulsed their 12% arab population who are Israeli citizens that way - let me guess, war crimes, genocide, blah blah blah.....

I'm tempted to simply throw up my hands and say let them have the west bank but of course after it collapses into anarchy and civil war it will once again be blamed on the Israelis, no?

[pierom]

Please allow for my ignorance, since this is my very first [virtual]contact with the Israel society. I find this experience very enlighting. However, living in Europe, I get the impression that Israel ought to be better represented than by Sharon. I was a great admirer of Rabin, as well as his wife's Leah and was deeply grieved by his assassination, that you can't blame on Hamas.

I think there is a communication gap.

[gev]

pierom,

To look at the conflict at a simpistic way, we must look at Interesses: Israel's Interess is simple - if Phalastanians are happy, their rights fullfilled, they earn a good living - They live Israel alone to live in peace.
so what Israel tried to do was to build an authority that will provide Phalastanians with this right and stop extrimists from harming Israel. Israel brought Yasser Arafat from tunis to be the head of this Authority. they started many projects in helping the Phalastanian society. brought them guns to help stop extrimists and so on. in a the last discussion there was an attemp by Ehud Barak to end the conflict: build a Phalastanian state, evacuate settelments, in short: A phalastanian dream coming true... what went wrong???

Lets look at Phalastanian's interess: The avarage Phalastanian would have settled for less than what Ehud Barak had offered, so you would think that Yasser Arafat would wrap up the ways of war and go about to the president of the newly borned state, right? wrong! he started a war, that we are experiencing up until now...

but why? what is the Interess of Arafat? what is the Interess of a suicide bomber? do you really think that its from desperation? who is really gaining from this terror attacks?

The suicide bomber thinks he is a martyr, he/she is brain-washed and in the name of Allah they think killing as many Jews will give them a key to paradise. Iraq is paying the families of suicide bombers 25,000 dollars. The senders of these Suicide bombers (including Arafat and Phalastanian Authority) are in contact with Iran which is getting a grip in the Phalastanian Authority to spread its "Islamic Revolution". Iran has another Interess to inflame the conflict: It is targeted by the US in the War against Terrorism, and the conflict is the only thing that stops the US from acting.

So the European media doesnt exactly show the whole picture, it would be too confusing... The truth is more comlex than Israel the big and the strong - there for the Bad. and the Phalastanian - the weak therefor the good.

In the Bible there is a law about a true Trial: it says that a judge should not tend to agree with a rich person or a poor person. the rich person it is obvious that unpure judges would tend to agree with, but why with a poor person? well, Judges tend to agree with the poor out of pity, he is weak therefor he is right, this is a human "flaw".
whoever is representing Israel, it is very diffuclt to fight this simple human nature.

[pierom]

Thanks for your stimulating replies. Seen from my viewpoint I can note the following facts:

- Israel is an outpost of Western World, surrounded by primitive, sometimes fanatic and despotic regimes.

- there has been a time when the Palestinians seemed to be ready for a mutual recognition
- there cannot be only evil Palestinians

- If you want to win, you should isolate the bad guys from the good guys and reward the latter. (What has become of Hannan Ashrawi, btw?)


- in turn, you should not isolate yourselves and should work for building up an international pro-Israel coalition

- on the long term your model should be South Africa, not Zimbabwe

I fail to see Sharon's long term objectives in all this.


Seeking light,


Piero Mattirolo

[Mediocrates]

I think "the World's" response thus far has served only to radicalize Israelis who are coming to the conclusion that whatever the outcome, Western Europe and the UN community, if it ever was on their side, never will be. There is simply nothing to be gained in the forum of world opinion by laying down to die quietly for the thrill of hearing the EU comment you didn't do it quickly enough or with enough genuflection.

We all agree that it's merely a matter of time and eventually, perhaps in only a few years if not less there will be some semblence of an independent Palestine. And the armchair communists in Paris and Berlin can feel smugly gratified that at least the rockets and bombers aren't landing in Concorde or the Ku'Damm.

[pierom]

Well, from your words, it looks to me like a chicken and egg situation, or worse still, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone should take up Rabin's heritage and try to break Israel's isolation.

[Mediocrates]

I'm afraid its a long story of good enough to trade with but not to have over to dinner. All one has to do is compare what Arafat does to his own people with other regimes like North Korea to understand that the one thing the West will no stand for is self inflicted extermination. Fixing it is relatively cheap and painless for all they have to do is ignore the politics and airlift food and supplies. Nothing really ever changes on the ground but at least we felt like we made a difference.

Sudan, Eritria, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, the Kurds are more examples.

[NewsGuy]

Originally posted by pierom
Well, from your words, it looks to me like a chicken and egg situation, or worse still, like a self-fulfilling prophecy. Someone should take up Rabin's heritage and try to break Israel's isolation.

It's interesting how the world now views Rabin's "heritage." For the most part, people completely forget what Rabin's positions actually were.

To start with, Rabin never agreed to Palestinian sovereignty in Jerusalem. He never agreed to negotiate while under fire from Palestinian terrorists. He never agreed to a Palestinian independent state, but instead agreed to discuss it if the Palestinians kept their agreement for long enough.

On the other hand, Ehud Barak, and even Ariel Sharon, have agreed to concessions to the Palestinians that Rabin was not willing to make.

Still, there is a myth about Rabin as though he is the foremost peacemaker, while all living Israeli Prime Ministers present and future, are just obtacles to peace.

It should be noted, though, that even the framework set by Rabin was proven to be a failure because as all can see, handing ot rewards to terrorists is a big mistake. The cities that Rabin handed over to Arafat were used to produce missile factories, bomb laboratories and suicide bomber training camps.

What did Israel get in return for handing over land to the Palestinians? Nothing but more terrorism. That's Rabin's true legacy so far, unfortunately.

[pierom]

I think we are coming to an agreement on one point at least, that in politics at certain times it is less important what you actually do than how you do it. In other words, it's about communication.

I am not pretending to suggest a simple solution to complex problems, but still I am convinced not to be too far off the mark

[Jorge]

Originally posted by pierom

- there cannot be only evil Palestinians

- If you want to win, you should isolate the bad guys from the good guys and reward the latter. (What has become of Hannan Ashrawi, btw?)
I fail to see Sharon's long term objectives in all this.
Seeking light
Piero Mattirolo

With the modest intention of bringing a little of light to the discussion, I'd like to analyze your query about Sharon's objectives and the issue of good and bad guys.

My argument is that Sharon's long term objectives are best served precisely by going against the bad guys and rewarding the good ones and that's precisely what he's been doing.
The catch 22 in the argument is that his bad guys might not be
the same ones of yours or mine.
Who are the good ones and who the bad ones? The question belongs to the field of Moral Philosophy which seems to be a particularly abstruse section of the discipline. Within it there
is a number of schools of thought that seem to contradict each other.
You might think that there's an ultimate criterion for discerning between the two but apparently there isn't, it depends on the particular Ethics one is applying. In Utilitarian Ethics (Stuart Mill &
fellows) an action may be considered good or bad according to
whether it benefits everyone or not; the bad chaps are the ones that perform bad actions and vice versa. Here comes another catch 22, namely that the everyone you're thinking off
might not be the same everyone you're opponent is thinking of.
Not very helpful I'm afraid but it is used frequently nevertheless;
a famous or infamous example was the sentence:
"what is Good for General Motors is Good for America."

Let's take by way of example who are the good israelis and the bad Israelis? Travel around Israel asking around and you'll get
all sort of answers. I'd say the majority will place Sharon and his boys, Netanihau, and other right wing characters as good israelis and anyone belonging to the peace camp as bad
ones. The rationale here being that they are willing to concede Jerusalem, the settlements, etc. and
this is considered a bad action for the interests of everyone in Israel.
Turning now to the Palestinians, opinions are similarly divided. For some a good arab is one willingto pack his bags
and go to live in Saudi, Oman,Yemen or wherever.
for others a good arab is one that contents himself with his
business and doesn't make any trouble,
irrespective of what happens with his brethren. Someone called NewsGuy open a thread in this Forum called "Where are the good arabs?" Interesting question indeed!
For him the good arabs are the ones that denounce terrorism and belong to the peace camp. I understand you're of the same opinion.
Others think that a good arab is a dead one; that's also the definition of a good israeli according to a Hamas militant.

If you were a Hamas militant bent on the destruction of Israel and the creation of a large pan-Islamic nation, the bad Israelis would be the ones willing to make concessions and obtain peace at any cost. The good ones would be the ones willing to use force, devastate the towns and humiliate
(they wouldn't say so, of course, but they have
proved again and again by the timing of their actions which side they favor).
Finally I arrive to Sharon's long term objectives. For him, in my opinion, the integrity of Jerusalem and the continuing existence and expansion of the settlements is of paramount
importance. Since peace obviously cannot be obtained without sacrificing those objectives, then all the worse for peace. Now if he goes against his bad guys, (your good ones) let's
call them PLO militants and supporters, there's no one left to conduct peace negotiations with and this is favorable to his
his main objectives.
(of course he wouldn't put it in those words, but if men should be judged according to their deeds and not by their words, that's exactly what's he's been up to).

I apologize if the above arguments sounded too cynical. My beliefs are that the paradox could be solved by changing the everyone so as to include the israelis, palestinians and even
all the population of the region.
Something on the lines of Shimon Peres New Middle East, but if I say it loud I might be sent to a lunatic asylum.

[A-Palestinian]

Jorge,

You are correct in stating that there exist a whole multitude of moral philosophies, often at contradiction with each other. However, you must realise, that morality is not invented - rather, it is discovered. Because of this, all talk on what some people consider good or bad becomes meaningless. People may consider anything good or bad. However, it remains, that morality is an absolute - not a creation of one's mind.

Starting with Plato, the view that reality - and thus morality are subject to "how one sees things", was finalised two centuries back with Immanuel Kant. Their bottom lines were that reality is not absolute - it is subjective. From here, one can extrapolate, (knowingly or unknowingly) and state that "What's right for me is wrong for you". It is no wonder then, that Heinrich Himmler, Goebells and the like were Kantians.

Subjective morals are very bloody. If one accepts subjective morals, then one cannot complain if something he considers "immoral" is done to him - because the perpetrator would kindly say "Its moral to me." If he accepts this false premise, then there is no argument with the aggrresor. This is why morals are *Objective*.

[Jorge]

Reply to A Palestinian ,04-30,

Thank you for your observations.
I am well aware of the danger of subjective morality,( or shall
we rather say utilitarian ethics) . In fact I tried to imply in
my last note that the terminology of good and bad can be made meaningless unless we define the type of Ethics we are
using to classify.
I strongly disagree with you about Ethics, or the whole of Philosophy for that matter not being a creation of our minds.
But of this more on a PM.

[ibrodsky]

I agree with "A-Palestinian" that morality is absolute. It isn't always easy to figure out the right thing to do is, but it is not just a matter of personal preference.

However, "A-Palestinian" needs a remedial course on philosophy. Plato was not a subjectivist. He believed in the very real and separate existence of absolute and eternal ideas. The whole point of his famous cave allegory was that there are "ideal forms," but we only see their shadows.

To label Kant a subjectivist is to miss the point of his achievement. Kant resolved the debate between subjectivists and materialists by explaining that there really are things-in-themselves (as he called them) but we can only know them through the a priori context provided by our mental faculties.

On morality, Kant was most definitely not a subjectivist. He believed fervently in moral imperatives -- and made frequent use of the word "duty." In fact, Kant argued that morality requires three things (as I recall them):

1. a creator;
2. an externally-provided purpose; and
3. that our souls are eternal.

To wit, Kant argued there cannot even be any concept of morality unless we are held accountable to a higher authority.

I don't know whether any Nazis imagined they were Kantians, but they clearly weren't. More accurately, Nazism traces its philosophical origins to Hegel and Nietzsche. Unlike Plato, Hegel believed that ideas evolve; unlike Kant, Nietzsche believed that morality is defined by supermen (i.e., might = right).