Israel: Acknowledging the Divide

Politics and religion
1

1a. Israel MUST continue to exist.
1b. The necessity of Israel’s continued existence is not to be taken as an article of faith.

2a. Collective punishment is effective and therefore sometimes necessary, and morality is beside the point.
2b. Collective punishment is neither moral nor effective toward its intended goals.

3a. The armed forces of the government of a nation-state have the right to take any actions they deem necessary to preserve that nation-state.
3b. The armed forces of the government of a nation-state do not have the right to take any actions they deem necessary to preserve that nation-state.

4a. States must sometimes take legitimate military action that causes incidental, unavoidable, or necessary harm to civilians.
4b. States that use military force against civilians are engaging in state terror.

5a. It is right and proper that Israel should confer a special status on Jews.
5b. A government should not make distinctions based on ethnicity or religion.

6a. It is important to the safety of Jews as a whole that there be a Jewish state.
6b. It is not important to the safety of Jews as a whole that there be a Jewish state.

7a. Judging Israel by the same moral standards as anti-Israel organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah is wrong.
7b. An unethical or immoral action remains so no matter who performs it.

You get the idea. I don’t want to color this too heavily with my own opinion (as everyone who’s read one of my posts in P&R probably knows already, I’m in Camp B), so I welcome suggestions from both sides on how this list might be clarified, amended, and appended with new material to better and more fairly encapsulate both views.

Not every debate breaks down into two opposing sides, and even this one has some nuance to it, but damn, does it ever come close. Too often we have very predictable discussions that do nothing but break old lances over new chargers – in other words, we debate current events when our disagreements are rooted in our earlier conclusions.

I have once or twice brought up the idea of people visibly identifying their thoughts on this matter with icons, either in their profiles somehow or in the threads where it’s relevant. It may have seemed like I was kidding, but I wasn’t. An insignia that says “my fundamental assumptions are different than yours” is unlikely to generate consensus, but so is the internet, and it might make it easier to arrive at something else: a limited understanding and acceptance of our differences of opinion.

With that in mind, I have made two (admittedly crude) icons, one for Camp A and one for Camp B. (I have avoided naming these camps because I don’t wish to offend anyone thereby. It seems sensible enough to call one side “pro-Israel” and the other side “anti-Israel,” but while I am not uncomfortable with being called anti-Israel, I believe that some people who share many of my thoughts on the issue might well reject that label. On the other hand, Camp B could be called “pro-peace,” but this then suggests that Camp A is “anti-peace,” which hardly seems fair. And “Zionists” and “Peaceniks” just seem inflammatory. Suggestions on mutually acceptable nomenclature are welcome.)

Camp A

The Star of David in the colors of the American flag symbolizes the link between Israel and the United States, its staunchest ally. It also stands for the similarity of those two nations. I am not entirely content that this icon properly represents Camp A, because as an outsider I may fail to grasp many of its subtleties. Again, suggestions are welcome.

Camp B

The Star of David is barred by two white lines, indicating law and peace, and the remainder is colored in green, indicating the integration of Jews and Muslims. The Celtic knot formed by the green elements represents unity and amity. I’m pretty happy with this one, but open to better ideas.

Discuss.

2

McGriddle, are you serious or just trying to trap the unwary? Your “Camp A” arguments are, in many cases, obviously fascist.

1a. Israel MUST continue to exist.
1b. The necessity of Israel’s continued existence is not to be taken as an article of faith.
MUST? The inhabitants of the State of Israel must continue to exist, but if everybody voted tomorrow to join the EU or merge with Turkey or change the name to Falafelstan, I’m all for it. If Camp B is a cover for expulsion or worse, I’m also against it.

2a. Collective punishment is effective and therefore sometimes necessary, and morality is beside the point.
2b. Collective punishment is neither moral nor effective toward its intended goals.
Blowing up bridges to prevent resupply effects the civilian population but is not collective punishment, because its main purpose is not to punish civilians. Isn’t this a non-issue? No one I know is claiming collective punishment is OK, the argument is what is collective punishment.

3a. The armed forces of the government of a nation-state have the right to take any actions they deem necessary to preserve that nation-state.
3b. The armed forces of the government of a nation-state do not have the right to take any actions they deem necessary to preserve that nation-state.
You mean like the German army “deemed it necessary” to execute “partisans and Jews” captured in the USSR to protect its supply lines in WWII? Is anyone seriously advancing Camp A in this case?

4a. States must sometimes take legitimate military action that causes incidental, unavoidable, or necessary harm to civilians.
4b. States that use military force against civilians are engaging in state terror.
Is anyone actually in Camp B on this one.

5a. It is right and proper that Israel should confer a special status on Jews.
5b. A government should not make distinctions based on ethnicity or religion.
It’s embarrassing and archaic, but so is affirmative action. So put me in Camp C.

6a. It is important to the safety of Jews as a whole that there be a Jewish state.
6b. It is not important to the safety of Jews as a whole that there be a Jewish state.
I would say that it’s important to the safety of the Jews of Israel that there be a Jewish state, depending on what alternative you are proposing.

7a. Judging Israel by the same moral standards as anti-Israel organizations such as Hamas or Hezbollah is wrong.
7b. An unethical or immoral action remains so no matter who performs it.
B seems inarguable and I have no idea what you’re even talking about with A, so yeah, Camp B.

3

What is the point of this thread? To see where QT3 members lie? You didn’t cover all the groups here if you meant to. The one I belong too would have a star of David drawn with Red, Orange, and Yellow lines, with a little tank in the middle. Ill let you infer the meaning from that.

4

Maybe it was for irony. You know, everyone could wear their little Stars of David on their coats when the evil Bush sends them to the rape camps or something.

5

Maybe it was for irony. You know, everyone could wear their little Stars of David on their coats when the evil Bush sends them to the rape camps or something.

I’m sure I could come up with just as objectionable a list from the other perspective. You know, something like:

8a. Nations should protect their citizens from aggressors.
8b. Except ones we don’t like, they should lay down and die peacefully.

6

My attempt at cleaning up the bias. I’m sure you could learn a lot by comparing and contrasting. Interestingly, my views personally are not evenly down the line on this list.

Also, for bitter laughs, the Islamic miilitant answers (as taken from rantings from Iranian and pan-Arab sources) have been added as option C.

1a: The State of Israel has a special reason to exist, thanks to the Holocaust and the travails of the Jewish people through the ages.
1b: The State of Israel is not exceptional and should be treated like any other member of the international community.
1c: The State of Israel is a Crusader dagger in the heart of the Islamic world and must be destroyed.

2a: Citizens bear a responsibility for the conduct of their government. Therefore imposing “collective punishment” is sometimes justified.
2b: “Collective punishment” is not only inherently immoral, but ineffective.
2c: Collective punishment is bad, when it’s done to Arabs. However we reserve the right to cheer on fedayeen that kill Westerners, because of the many crimes our people have suffered.

3a: When a state prosecutes a war, they should aim to win, regardless of the cost to civilians on the opposing side.
3b: No “just war” is worth the death of innocents, on either side, and the impact of armed conflict must minimize the civilian death toll, even at the cost of effectiveness in battle.
3c: Any action taken against Israel is justified. Any action taken by Israel is a war crime.

4a. Warfare by its nature implies the occasional incidental, unavoidable, or necessary harm to civilians.
4b. Any civilian death is a war crime and should be prosecuted.
4c: The deaths of civilian Arabs are horrible crimes and we’ll play snuff films of broken bodies of Arab children nightly until you get the point. The deaths of civilian Jews are entirely justified.

5a. Israel was founded as a Jewish state and as such can and should legislate based on religion to maintain its Jewish character.
5b. Israel engages in state-sponsored “apartheid” through its laws favoring Jews.
5c: Israel is a racist Zionist entity unworthy of being called a nation and must be wiped off the map.

6a. Only a strong Jewish state will prevent the Holocaust from ever happening again.
6b. Israel is not the sole guarantor of the safety of Jews globally and in fact does them harm by its hamfisted actions on occasion.
6c: The Jews must live under Islamic dominion; only then will there be peace. Muslims are the only virtuous rulers, as history has shown.

7a. Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and judging its actions by Western democratic standards is idealistic and unrealistic.
7b. Israel claims to be a Western democracy and should be judged by its actions the same as we would the UK or the USA.
7c: Any action Israel takes is a crime against the Arab and Islamic world and Israel must be destroyed.

7

Also, for bitter laughs, the Islamic miilitant answers (as taken from rantings from Iranian and pan-Arab sources)

1c: The State of Israel is a Crusader dagger in the heart of the Islamic world and must be destroyed.

2c: Collective punishment is bad, when it’s done to Arabs. However we reserve the right to cheer on fedayeen that kill Westerners, because of the many crimes our people have suffered.

3c: Any action taken against Israel is justified. Any action taken against an Arab nation by the West or Israel is a war crime.

4c: The deaths of civilian Arabs are horrible crimes and we’ll play snuff films of broken bodies of Arab children nightly until you get the point. The deaths of civilian Jews are entirely justified.

5c: Israel is a racist Zionist entity unworthy of being called a nation and must be wiped off the map.

6c: The Jews must live under Islamic dominion; only then will there be peace. Muslims are the only virtuous rulers, as history has shown.

7c: Any action Israel takes is a crime against the Arab and Islamic world and Israel must be destroyed.

Amazingly, this does not bode well for future negotiations.

8

Alleged Holocaust.

9

You forgot to put the smiley at the end to indicate you were kidding.

10

The purpose of the thread is to present unbiased options, therefore, alleged.

11

Anyone who seriously believes the Holocaust somehow magically never happened is picking a straight slate of option C anyway.

12

In a similar vein to Lum’s options, how about parody option d for the Islamophobic neo-cons.

1d: The state of Israel shall be used as a bulkhead for the crusade against evil Muslims.

2d: Muslims breed at a faster rate than Westerners, and so their lives are less important when calculating the value of collective punishments.

3d: Might is right, and as we have the might and the Muslims don’t, then they are wrong and any action taken against them is justified.

4d: Just kill Muslims. Their ideology is a menace and there are just too many of them.

5d: All Arab nations should be treated as the same, as they are all the same: evil and bent on world domination. We must crush them.

6d: Who cares about the Holocaust? Muslims are evil, and if we must use the Jews to destroy them, then so be it.

7e: All actions by Muslims nations must be judged out of context of history, lest we actually present them in a sympathetic light.

13

I was thinking along similar lines as Tim, we need a “AA” slate with gems like

“Arabs are congenitally traitorous and no agreement with an Arab is possible without overwhelming force”

and

“The Arabs were committed to Hitler’s war effort and genocide, and all deserve to be treated as Nazi war criminals”

14

For the most part, good.

I would delete option c in each case, as it somewhat undermines your point. If you choose to keep it, you may wish for a cynic’s option d for each question. Question 4 option b is too strongly worded, it should have something along the lines of, “Every civilian death is a cause for alarm and the cause of each should be investigated when possible.” 5b, although it is my position, is incongruent with the form of option 5a, whereby religious motivations are seen as legitimate. The issue of the propriety of apartheid would better be compared against the interest of a majority of the population’s day to day fears or security interests.

Question 6 option a should substitute “can” for “will,” otherwise, good, the Holocaust was only one incident in the history of the Jewish Diaspora, and Theodore Herzl found a Jewish state to be necessary in anticipation of a Holocaust level event but before the hammer fell, so you may want to reword this option to include widespread institutional racism against Jewish people across the board. In that case, keep the word “will.”

Question 7 in both versions combine two issues, and as such, question 7 should be broken into two distinct questions. New 7 should question whether Israel is free to fight dirty if Israel’s opponents fight dirty, but it should not include consideration of the nongovernmental status of her opponent, Israel has not only struggled with NGO aggressors in the past, so to prevent the question from six day obsolecence, it should allow for comparison with other state actors. New question 8 should examine if Israel has greater human rights responsibilities in light of her ability to discharge her foreign policy obligations and status as a Western Democracy. For new question 8, it should be understood that she is under attack by one or many organizations that cannot or will not meet the criteria to be recognized as a state.

15

Yeah, where’s the smiley lest we think you’re a rabid David Irving fan…

16

I think question 1 in any of its forms is pretty much irrelevant–Israel is a state like any other at this point, with millions of people living in it who don’t particularly wish to see it dismantled. Unless you feel the existence of every state created in the 20th century is up for grabs, of course.

I think question 2 is also misleading. Nobody, not even most rabid right-winger that I’ve ever talked to, thinks of Israel’s attacks as some sort of punishment. They just consider it an effective way to stop terrorism. (I’m not trying to argue that they’re correct, incidentally, just that people who argue against collective punishment aren’t really arguing with a policy that exists).

As far as the general survey goes, contra Unicorn, I don’t know anyone who falls all in one side. In fact, most folks I know would fall more-or-less in the middle.

17

That latter one’s actually awfully close to being a mirror image of an imam’s speech last week, which said that Israel was fascistic because the nation was actually founded by Nazis who disguised themselves as Jews and fled Germany at the end of the way. It’s kind of funny – meaning, ha-ha, charade you are, Partlett – to be putting all the blame on Islamophobic evil Zionist neocons when the Arab world is filled with crap like TV shows showing Jews killing Christian kids for the blood to make matzoh, Sharon drinking Arab blood, TV mini-series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, Jewish doctors dissecting Arabs to organ harvest, and other insane conspiracy theories like the one above. The past couple of Arab generations have been reared on hate.

Yeah, there are exaggerations on the neocon or whatever front, but I’ve yet to see ANYTHING that compares with the hate being spewed in the Arab media, or the neocons setting up fascist camps and schools – complete with the brownshirts, goosestepping, and fascist salute – that teach kids the glories of killing themselves and Jews for God.

18

Todd, using that logic, the problem with the USSR was the citizens of the USSR. Their public media was full of genocidal lies! Yet somehow that all worked out.

19

I don’t think I’ve ever heard the entire Cold War so trivialized as now. “Somehow that all worked out”.

Someone shoot me in the face.

20

Well what? To apply what I’ve gathered from Brett’s posts, the only way to win the Cold War was to butcher lots of Soviet civilians until they stop supporting their government. Right?