Palestine

[broncofan]

As a more general reply to posts above by Prospero, Odelay and Broncofan, let me first wonder what the reaction would have been if Vladimir Putin had decided to bomb IS in Iraq -how many would 'applaud' the Russian 'humanitarian' effort, even as they seem reluctant to endorse Russia's campaign of support for the Ba'ath government of Syria?

As for Amos Oz, I should say that my own position as a pacifist is open to all sorts of ridicule and concern, I am aware of that, and I probably ought not to define other people's views in terms of my own or use inflammatory language, but it happens, many of us do not spend hours editing our posts. But look again at the Amos Oz interview and the paragraph that I partially quoted from, because I think it is important, and this passage in particular:

The only alternative to continuing the Israeli military operation is simply to follow Jesus Christ and turn the other cheek. I never agreed with Jesus Christ about the need to turn the other cheek to an enemy. Unlike European pacifists I never believed the ultimate evil in the world is war. In my view the ultimate evil in the world is aggression, and the only way to repel aggression is unfortunately by force. That is where the difference lies between a European pacifist and an Israeli peacenik like myself. And if I may add a little anecdote: A relative of mine who survived the Nazi Holocaust in Theresienstadt always reminded her children and her grandchildren that her life was saved in 1945 not by peace demonstrators with placards and flowers but by Soviet soldiers and submachine guns.

My first reaction is to be disappointed with Oz's lack of knowledge of history -the armed forces of the USSR were focused on destroying the Third Reich, the liberation of the camps was incidental to the larger campaign. Moreover, and more pertinent still, Oz either doesn't know or chooses not to mention the fact that far from being ineffective, it was indeed German Christian pacifists across the Ruhr who saved thousands of Jews from being sent to the camps. They did not wave placards or throw roses at the SS, but they did put their lives in danger so it is very wrong of Oz to depict Christian pacifists as deluded when their record is superior to his (cf Martin Roseman, The Past in Hiding, 2000). He is also in a contradictory position by claiming to be a 'peacenik' whilst reserving the right -I assume he believes it is a right- to kill people.

If Oz is demonstrably wrong about Christian pacifism in Nazi Germany, and that was an extreme example, does it justify the recourse to violence in every case?

Look at this way -twice in fifty years a global war was fought to prevent Germany from dominating the international system, be it a system of Empires or states. Where is Germany now? Even more worrying is the thought that the ideology of national socialism, albeit in an edited form, has survived the war, and if there aren't enough Jews left in Europe to be worried about, the language some people use to vilify and abuse Muslims in Europe today is not so different from that which the Nazis used to demonise the Jews in the 1930s.
.

I meant to respond to this because I don't understand the reasoning. First, even if Christian pacifists have some noteworthy achievements, that does not mean that pacifism would have been sufficient to stave off the Third Reich. Even if the USSR did not have the best intentions, it does not mean that their violence was not a necessary component of the allied effort. Surely if every country other than Germany and Japan were comprised of ardent pacifists during WWII, the outcome could not have been good. Would the death toll have been greater or less?

I think the problem when both Israelis and others invoke the Holocaust and other instances of genocide is that their narrative promotes violence. If Israel believes Iran wants to commit genocide, then even someone who will resort to violence only when it is necessary will be wont to believe it's necessary. If people believe that Israel is committing a genocide they justify the use of violence when it should only be a last resort. This is why people who talk about Hitler returning or use the word genocide promiscuously are not friends of any party.

But I don't see how one's pacifism can ever be absolute (you might say you don't see how anyone can truly be a pacifist unless it's absolute). I think the problem is that people are too willing to believe violence is necessary when it isn't.

[broncofan]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-28688179

Re-evaluation of Gaza Statistics

This is an important article about the relative proportion of militants killed versus civilians. Among the civilian reported dead, men between the age of 20-29 were more than three times represented in proportion to the population. Women and children civilian casualties were underrepresented by more than 50%.

Again, that doesn't mean Israel's attacks have been targeted, but it does help to rebut the most extreme charges made against it. Further, it also substantiates charges against Hamas; that they want to maximize civilian casualties both before and after the damage has been done.

[Stavros]

I meant to respond to this because I don't understand the reasoning. First, even if Christian pacifists have some noteworthy achievements, that does not mean that pacifism would have been sufficient to stave off the Third Reich. Even if the USSR did not have the best intentions, it does not mean that their violence was not a necessary component of the allied effort. Surely if every country other than Germany and Japan were comprised of ardent pacifists during WWII, the outcome could not have been good. Would the death toll have been greater or less?

I think the problem when both Israelis and others invoke the Holocaust and other instances of genocide is that their narrative promotes violence. If Israel believes Iran wants to commit genocide, then even someone who will resort to violence only when it is necessary will be wont to believe it's necessary. If people believe that Israel is committing a genocide they justify the use of violence when it should only be a last resort. This is why people who talk about Hitler returning or use the word genocide promiscuously are not friends of any party.

But I don't see how one's pacifism can ever be absolute (you might say you don't see how anyone can truly be a pacifist unless it's absolute). I think the problem is that people are too willing to believe violence is necessary when it isn't.

"I think the problem is that people are too willing to believe violence is necessary when it isn't"
This is the key point, but it does not often translate into foreign policy and I am not going to end the belief that violence is a solution, that killing someone is an achievement, no matter how it is done or who is doing the killing.
Pacifism has to be an individual choice, and the point I was making was to contradict the claim Amoz Oz made that pacifism did not make a difference in the Third Reich because it did for some Jews.

The problem is that people do believe that violence or the 'use of the military' is sometimes necessary, but it then it turns out that is because they have taken sides in a dispute and most of all because they have abandoned the politics that created the crisis, in despair, and foolishly believe the military will solve the problem. It means they are willing to see hundreds, thousands or even millions killed because 'there is no alternative'. People who are supporting the attacks on IS are doing it out of despair because they cannot see past the violence to ask what the politics of it is, and whether or not it can be dealt with politically. The urgency of the moment leads people to jump up and down and say 'Somebody do something!' but in the end this sickening hypocrisy becomes just a beauty competition in which those making the judgement insist a military strike on IS is justified but not on Israel, not on the warring factions in the Central African Republic (choose your favourite side), not on the Russians, the Ukrainians, and so on. Thousands of people rounded up and thrown into prison without trial in Egypt? Tough -but 'we' support the new government so it must be right.

Here, for example is what the Israeli historian Benny Morris said in an interview in Ha'aretz in December 2004 (I cannot find the whole interview on the Ha'aretz web site), justifying the argument that it was right for the nascent Israeli to expel 700,000 Palestinians in 1948 and that if anything every Palestinian should have been thrown out of the new country -
Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history

'the final good', sounds like....So you see, anyone can justify mass murder-when they are choosing the victims.

[yosi]

The FPA protests in the strongest terms the blatant, incessant, forceful and unorthodox methods employed by the Hamas authorities and their representatives against visiting international journalists in Gaza over the past month.
The international media are not advocacy organisations and cannot be prevented from reporting by means of threats or pressure, thereby denying their readers and viewers an objective picture from the ground.
In several cases, foreign reporters working in Gaza have been harassed, threatened or questioned over stories or information they have reported through their news media or by means of social media.
We are also aware that Hamas is trying to put in place a "vetting" procedure that would, in effect, allow for the blacklisting of specific journalists. Such a procedure is vehemently opposed by the FPA


http://www.fpa.org.il/index.php?categoryId=73840

[yosi]

"I think the problem is that people are too willing to believe violence is necessary when it isn't"
This is the key point

The key point is that you never had to run for your life because a missile was shot at you to KILL YOU.

you NEVER had to do it on an almost daily basis for the last 13 years.

not even once...........

it's easy to sit far away from it and be a pacifict , it's different when you and your children have 15 seconds to find shelter and SAVE YOUR LIFE constantly for 13 years.

trust me , it's impossible to live normal life like that , the normal life which you have.

[admires69]

BUT WHY do those missiles need to be shot?

It is not possible to live a normal life in the worlds largest prison living on handouts given to you by others either Yosi, you are too partisan. What happened to the Israelis since their expulsion from "israel" by the Romans has been awful. but they have gone from the bullied to the bully.

I do not think the Palestinians are blameless. But the means to end this conflict lie with the Israeli's starting to respect the Sovereign interests of another nation and the human rights of its people.

As i said. stuck in the same position. we would all do the same thing - take up arms so that the people we love may live in a better world.

To borrow an old saying. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

[admires69]

Broncofan and Yosi - "I was puzzled by that myself. It's a distinction without a difference. What is the significance of it being an internal affair? A dictator slaughters 170,000 people and if they live within the same internationally recognized boundaries it's less of a crime? The international community should be less interested because the gassing of civilians was completely domestic in scope?

I will point out that the killing in Iraq is sectarian in nature. People are being killed for no reason other than sectarian and religious differences. So, it's not as though identity of the victim plays more of a role in the Israel-Palestine conflict when in Iraq people are chosen for slaughter purely based on their religious background."


and what about chemical Ali killing kurds in Iraq after the first Gulf war when George Bush senior promised assistance and then let them get slaughtered as the US troops affectively stood on the border and watched?

the fact is-
first Iraq war - justifiable - they invaded Kuwait.
Second War- Not at all - just a shameless grab for oil - never sanctioned by the UN.
Syrian Civil War - it is a civil war - which other countries have they attacked? Im not saying its not genocide, it is. But so is what the Israeli's are doing in Gaza. Both sides have reportedly used chemical weapons in Syria. Who's telling the truth? No doubt a war crimes tribunal will be set up afterwards to determine the guilt or otherwise of the parties.

BUT UN policy mandates that we will not get directly involved in the internal affairs of another nation and this is the difference.

Israel and Palestine are 2 states. Syria is 1. You can not makes plans for new Kibbutz's and cities on another nations soil whilst despriving them of their basic human rights.

[buttslinger]

Listen, GHANDI couldn't broker a peace when two peoples consider the others are desecrating their holy land. JESUS would be flipping tables at these peace talks.
It's not like with Egypt and Jordan, they didn't actually lose any real estate, but Palestine had to watch Europe steal it's land to send it's problem children to their turf.

[Stavros]

The key point is that you never had to run for your life because a missile was shot at you to KILL YOU.

you NEVER had to do it on an almost daily basis for the last 13 years.

not even once...........

it's easy to sit far away from it and be a pacifict , it's different when you and your children have 15 seconds to find shelter and SAVE YOUR LIFE constantly for 13 years.

trust me , it's impossible to live normal life like that , the normal life which you have.

You write as if Palestinians did not live every day with the same level of threat as Israelis which is why each side in this conflict should be talking rather than shooting. I have not, and do not defend the actions of Hamas, and I have said it enough times for you to know that, and yet you persistently refuse to criticise Israel's current government, even though you may know that Netanyahu once addressed a public meeting in Israel at which Yitzhak Rabin was depicted on a poster dressed as an SS Officer (there is even a youtube record of it)- and who was it who murdered Rabin, and why did he kill him?

As for my normal life, well, you don't have a clue how my parents and their generation survived genocide, war, poverty, and displacement -as did millions of others in those years- nor it seems can you understand how it was possible for them to raise me without a trace of bitterness or thirst for violent revenge, but to believe that it is always better to love than to hate. I can't force anyone to be a pacifist, it has to be a personal decision, but it works for me and I recommend it to you as a challenge, because anger and violence have done no good to the Middle East, or anywhere else, and we need people like you to join us in promoting peace in the middle of another futile war, and to keep calling for peace until war ends.

[broncofan]

As i said. stuck in the same position. we would all do the same thing - take up arms so that the people we love may live in a better world.

To borrow an old saying. It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees.

I thought about this one. If I knew that firing rockets would lead to a worsening of the situation and probable retaliation in the civilian area from which I launched them; I would not launch them.

If there were a cease fire and it was the first period of calm in a protracted conflict, I would not begin launching rockets immediately after it expired knowing what the blowback would be. To do that would be masochistic, and also sadistic to the people who would suffer the consequences from the probable (and perhaps now predictable) retaliation. We cannot hold one party up to scrutiny and moral blame and completely absolve the other without even acting like we possess higher order thinking skills.

As for the claim of genocide, I have thought about that too. There are a broad range of definitions for genocide. However, the primary definition seems to be the mass murder of individuals based on (read: because of; for that reason alone or primarily) their ethnic or religious background. This does not mean that in the course of a conflict there is a disproportionate number of lives lost on one side or a lot of civilian deaths. It means that a military is trying to maximize the number of civilian casualties in order to eliminate as many individuals of a particular religious or ethnic background as possible.

You can plausibly say that is taking place in regions where people are killed not because they are in a zone of conflict from which rockets are being fired but upon being asked how they pray or to whom they pray. You can say that where victims are chosen scrupulously for their ethnic or religious practices. If you include what Israel is doing as genocide, then you include in the same category several things which are of very different character. Choosing a category that subsumes several other categories is imprecise.

Now one cannot say I am gratuitously responding to the frivolous charge of genocide when it is so routinely raised.