It’s yet to be determined that the Wall won’t stop it; I suspect it will, if not stop suicide bombings entirely, at least reduce them quite a bit.

You’re right that it’s unproved that the Wall won’t stop suicide bombings. We’ll just have to wait and see. But other security measures haven’t stopped suicide bombings. It seems to me that the more you repress people to stop anyone suicide bombing you, the more people want to suicide bomb you.

However, Israel’s possession of much more power should not be used to excuse terrorist attacks on civilians, or to put aside the fact that Israel’s desire to be free of such attacks is entirely legitimate.

I’m not sure desires can be considered legitimate or not legitimate, only actions. In this case Israel’s actions are doing the opposite from creating the desired outcome.

I think the starting point of this argument was whether Palestinians who supported suicide bombers were responsible for the situation in Israel/Palestine. I don’t support bombing as a tactic, there’s too much collatarel damage. I think people who commit bombing are responsible for that. But I don’t hold the powerless suicide bombers responsible for

With all due respect, Richard, this analogy dehumanizes the civilians killed in suicide bombings, and should therefore be rejected. Analogizing a twelve-year-old girl who was riding a bus to a the elbow of an abuser has the effect of covering up the immorality of the situation, because the girl has a mind and is a person, unlike the elbow.

This was in response to this rather carelessly worded statement of mine:

It seems to me that “poverty, landlessness and lack of civil rights” are analogous to wife-battering”“in the same way that military occupation is analogous to rape”“and aren’t the civilians killed in a suicide bombing part of the body of “the abuser,” no differently than the civilians killed as a result of the “abuse” are a part of the abused people’s body?

You are, of course, right, and I should not have made it appear like I was comparing individual people killed in a suicide bombing attack to body parts. What I meant to get at was the question of whether anybody is really innocent. The people killed in suicide bombing attacks, even 12 year old girls, live their lives of relative privilege on the backs of the Palestinians; the occupation is what makes those lives of relative privilege possible. I certainly do not approve of suicide bombings, but I do think it is problematic to think about Israeli civilians, whose lives depend in direct and immediate ways, as innocent in the same way that, say, the Iraqi civilians killed during the US invasion were innocent–which is what I think your original point was getting at. The Iraqi civilians who were killed did not represent a threat to the US, but, Israeli civilians do represent a threat to the Palestinians to the extent that the quality and shape of their (the Israeli’s) lives depend on the ongoing occupation and exploitation of Palestinians and to the degree that the Israelis are unwilling and/or unable to give up that privilege in the interests of justice for the Palestinians.

Again, I do not support suicide bombings, but I can comprehend the way of thinking I have just outlined as part of the logic behind them.

So does this mean that you think genocide does justify the random murder of civilians? In Nazi Germany, or in Rwanda, or in Armenia”“pick your genocide”“would it have been okay, morally justifiable, since you’re original comment put this in moral terms, for the people who were the objects of genocidal aims randomly to murder civilians as a form of resistance? Why? Does the difference inhere in the people whose existence is at stake or in the status of “civilian” in a society/nation the government of which is attempting to commit genocide or both?

I’d say that the difference inheres in the difference between being threatened with poverty and being threatened with extinction. I admit, this is not an entirely rational distinction on my part; rather, it is a intuitive understanding that wholesale murder of civilians is so serious and so disgusting an act, that the only thing which can really justify it is an attempt to prevent the wholesale slaughter of civilians.

To some extent, your response seems to be attacking the threshold issue; why do I set the moral threshold at this point, and not some other point? However, the same problem exists in anyone’s position, not just mine. Many threshold standards are at least a little bit arbitrary (why is 59mph acceptable, but 61 speeding?), but they are also necessary.

I also think you underestimate the degree to which “poverty, landlessness, and lack of civil rights” can constitute a form of “collective” soul murder when they purposefully promulgated on an entire people.

Admittedly, I’ve never been to Palestine. But I’ve known Palestinians who came to the USA to study, and I’ve read accounts of travels in Palestine (I highly recommend Joe Sacco’s in particular). These people do not seem to have dead souls to me; instead, the kindness and warmth of Palestinians is often emphasized.

Again, my analogy comes from patriarchy: when a battered woman kills the man who has been abusing her, even when he is sleeping, when he is at his most helpless, I think we would agree that she is still acting to save her life, even though she is not at the moment she kills him in mortal danger.

This is because she has observed her batterer go through the cycle of repentance-warmth-abuse several times, and she has legitimate reason to fear that next time he will kill her. In contrast, I don’t think there is a legitimate fear that Israel is about to commit genocide on the Palestinians, which would be the equivalent.

Furthermore, as a practical matter, the abused woman’s actions can be justified as effective self-defense; whatever else happens, if she kills her abuser, he won’t beat her any more. The same cannot be said of a suicide bombing which kills Israeli civilians; the act will not bring Israeli abuses of Palestinians to an end, and may have the opposite effect.

It seems to me that “poverty, landlessness and lack of civil rights” are analogous to wife-battering”“in the same way that military occupation is analogous to rape”“and aren’t the civilians killed in a suicide bombing part of the body of “the abuser,” no differently than the civilians killed as a result of the “abuse” are a part of the abused people’s body?

With all due respect, Richard, this analogy dehumanizes the civilians killed in suicide bombings, and should therefore be rejected. Analogizing a twelve-year-old girl who was riding a bus to a the elbow of an abuser has the effect of covering up the immorality of the situation, because the girl has a mind and is a person, unlike the elbow.

But that’s why suicide bombings are a strategy of the weak, because it doesn’t matter how powerful you are, you can’t stop suicide bombings. Can’t be done, wall won’t stop it, checkpoints won’t stop it.

It’s yet to be determined that the Wall won’t stop it; I suspect it will, if not stop suicide bombings entirely, at least reduce them quite a bit.

Even closed borders won’t stop it, because people are willing to die there isn’t really much threat you can hold over them.

If the targets can be changed from pizza parlours and buses to armed border stations, however, that will be a significant improvement from the Israeli point of view.

I think Richard’s comparison is an apt one, there is no situation where one side has all the power, but a comparative power analysis is still useful.

I certainly agree with this. However, Israel’s possession of much more power should not be used to excuse terrorist attacks on civilians, or to put aside the fact that Israel’s desire to be free of such attacks is entirely legitimate.

Again here comes the important difference, if Palestinians disengaged from the Intifada they’d be left poverty, landless and lacking civil rights, if Israel disengaged (as in withdrew from the occupied territories) there’d be, at minimum, a hell of a lot less suicide bombings.

I’d like to think that’s true, but of course it’s all speculation. My speculation is that there would probably be a long-term drop in suicide bombers, but only after a short-term increase caused by bombers seeking to veto any chance of a peaceful coexistence with Israel.

Contrary to Daytrader, I don’t think the Gaza example is telling, both because of the short-term analysis and because Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza happened concurrently with increased land-grabbing on the West Bank.

I did, and would never say that. I say the Palestinian people are struggling because of Israeli government oppression.

There’s a really important difference.

Allow ME to “unpack” this one.

So if the Palestinians stop blowing up civilians in pizza parlors, they are doomed to eternal poverty. And if the Jews would just further appease the terrorists, peace would break out all over.

Wrong on all counts Reddecca,

The Palestinians are poor, landless, and without civil rights because they seem more than happy to keep propping up thug-governments who toss them the red meat of Jew hatred. Why…it’s not our fault you’re destitute…it’s the stinking jooos. They eat that stuff up over there.

You can say the Palestinian people are struggling because of Jewish oppression, but you’d be dead wrong. The Palestinian people are struggling because of institutionalized Anti-Semitism mixed with religious fanaticism. Until they stop blaming Israel for all of their problems and start blaming the people in charge, nothing will change. Nothing.

The most stunning bit:
“if Israel disengaged (as in withdrew from the occupied territories) there’d be, at minimum, a hell of a lot less suicide bombings. ”

If you were better informed about what is going on in that part of the world, or simply bothered to google “Gaza withdrawal”, you’d know that Palestinian suicide attacks inside Israel increased after Israel pulled back, Reddecca.

Please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli-Palestinian_conflict_timeline#August.2C_2005

Nor is it true that “The Israeli government has the power in Israel and Palestine,” if by “the power” you mean they are the exclusive holders of power. The Israeli government holds most of the power, but they do not hold the power to stop suicide bombers from attacking civilians. That power is, to a great extent, in the hands of the bombers and of organizations that support and encourage suicide bombings.

But that’s why suicide bombings are a strategy of the weak, because it doesn’t matter how powerful you are, you can’t stop suicide bombings. Can’t be done, wall won’t stop it, checkpoints won’t stop it. Even closed borders won’t stop it, because people are willing to die there isn’t really much threat you can hold over them. I think Richard’s comparison is an apt one, there is no situation where one side has all the power, but a comparative power analysis is still useful.

Again here comes the important difference, if Palestinians disengaged from the Intifada they’d be left poverty, landless and lacking civil rights, if Israel disengaged (as in withdrew from the occupied territories) there’d be, at minimum, a hell of a lot less suicide bombings.

If all Palestinian terrorists & terrorist supporters gave in to the Israelis completely and stopped resisting in any way, the result would not be the extermination of the Palestinians. Rather, the result would be ongoing poverty, landlessness, and lack of full civil rights.

To me, poverty, landlessness, and lack of civil rights - awful as those things are - are simply not dire enough evils to justify the random murders of civilians.

So does this mean that you think genocide does justify the random murder of civilians? In Nazi Germany, or in Rwanda, or in Armenia–pick your genocide–would it have been okay, morally justifiable, since you’re original comment put this in moral terms, for the people who were the objects of genocidal aims randomly to murder civilians as a form of resistance? Why? Does the difference inhere in the people whose existence is at stake or in the status of “civilian” in a society/nation the government of which is attempting to commit genocide or both?

I am asking these questions because, while I am also shocked and horrified by and deeply opposed to suicide bombings, there is something in me that resists your reasoning. I also think you underestimate the degree to which “poverty, landlessness, and lack of civil rights” can constitute a form of “collective” soul murder when they purposefully promulgated on an entire people. Again, my analogy comes from patriarchy: when a battered woman kills the man who has been abusing her, even when he is sleeping, when he is at his most helpless, I think we would agree that she is still acting to save her life, even though she is not at the moment she kills him in mortal danger. It seems to me that “poverty, landlessness and lack of civil rights” are analogous to wife-battering–in the same way that military occupation is analogous to rape–and aren’t the civilians killed in a suicide bombing part of the body of “the abuser,” no differently than the civilians killed as a result of the “abuse” are a part of the abused people’s body?

Well, I am being interrupted. Gotta go.

To me, poverty, landlessness, and lack of civil rights - awful as those things are - are simply not dire enough evils to justify the random murders of civilians.

I’d probably agree with you, for me. And if I was facing those situations then I’d make choices about how to react. But I’m not in Palestine, or Iraq or anywhere else where I’m facing those situations. I believe in people’s right to self-determination, and that includes self-determination of their struggle.

However, I’m unwilling to extend that so far as to say that Palestinian murderers and those who support them bear no responsibility at all.

See I’m willing to say they’re responsible for murdering people, but I don’t actually think they’re responsible for ‘the current situation’. Because I see their current situation as one of occupation which pre-dates the resistance. The resistance arose because of the occupation, not the other way round. I don’t think it’s useful to hold the resistance responsible for that oppression. Resistance, non-violent or not, usually leads to repression and not just of those who are resisting. That doesn’t make them morally responsible for the situation.

Comparing this to the South Africa situation actually makes this clearer:

The ANC committed terrorist acts, does that make them morally culpable for apartheid?

I don’t know enough about the history of South Africa to be able to answer that question with any sophistication. But if the ANC bore no responsibility at all for Apartheid (and it’s my impression they did not), then that just emphasizes the significant differences between Israel now and South Africa then.

But that begs the question I was trying to ask, in what way are people responsibile for repression that results from resistance? Resistance in South Africa, both violent and non-violent, resulted in further repression from the apartheid regime, and it didn’t do anything to assuage the fear of whites about what would happen if they gave up their power. I don’t think that makes the ANC morally culpable, for their actions sure, but not for the regime they were fighting.

Given the choice between blowing up a pizza parlor full of innocent civilians, or losing a war against a more powerful colonizer, the moral thing to do is to lose the war.

This requires a great deal of unpacking, I think, and so before I dive into any discussion about it, I need to ask you: Why?

Because, frankly, Israel is not driven by genocidal desires; that is to say, Israel does not have a goal of killing every last Palestinian. Rather, Israel is driven in this conflict by greed for land, which combined with anti-Arab racism has led to a situation of endless abuses to drive Palestinians from their land and crush the Palestinian resistance.

If all Palestinian terrorists & terrorist supporters gave in to the Israelis completely and stopped resisting in any way, the result would not be the extermination of the Palestinians. Rather, the result would be ongoing poverty, landlessness, and lack of full civil rights.

To me, poverty, landlessness, and lack of civil rights - awful as those things are - are simply not dire enough evils to justify the random murders of civilians.

I’d apply much the same formula in reverse; nothing the Israelis have gained through the deaths of hundreds of Palestinian civilians (including hundreds of children), the use of torture, the destruction of proprerty and livelihoods, etc., is important enough to justify the death and terror the Israelis have spread. There is no serious case that the Israelis are in danger of extermination at the hands of the Palestinians, and to my mind it would require an extermination -level danger to justify the evils Israel has committed.

Are you suggesting that the power the Palestinians have is the same kind of power as that possessed by the Israelis.

No, not at all.

In fact, although doubtless I’ve slipped up countless times, I try to avoid using the term “the Palestinians” at all when referring to political power. The Palestinians do not have a legitimate government that can effectively claim a monopoly on the use of force; therefore, I don’t think one can correctly refer to what “the Palestinians” do. For this reason, I think Palestinians clearly do not have the same kind of power - or bear the same level of responsibility - as Israelis.

However, I’m unwilling to extend that so far as to say that Palestinian murderers and those who support them bear no responsibility at all.

Nor is it true that “The Israeli government has the power in Israel and Palestine,” if by “the power” you mean they are the exclusive holders of power. The Israeli government holds most of the power, but they do not hold the power to stop suicide bombers from attacking civilians. That power is, to a great extent, in the hands of the bombers and of organizations that support and encourage suicide bombings.

There is almost no situation of the sort in which the Israelis and Palestinians find themselves in which one party is entirely powerless. The question, Amp, that I have about this reasoning are:

Are you suggesting that the power the Palestinians have is the same kind of power as that possessed by the Israelis. If so, this seems to me wrong. To have institutionalized power over a group of people is very different from the power one can find through resistance. Think about it in terms of patriarchy and women. Clearly women are not powerless and clearly power between men and women is always negotiated, contested, etc. on various levels. As well, there are ways in which women can use their power to put men at a disadvantage, but that power does not exist independently of the context created by patriarchy. So, for example, the power that adheres to false rape accusations–either actual ones or the fear of them that exists in men because of, to use a shorthand, feminism–only exists because the culture in which we live is, in a variety of ways, saturated with rape. I am not justifying false accusations by saying this; I am merely pointing out that it is an exercise of power that we would agree is criminal and unjustified but that I think we also would agree needs to be understood in a context and not in terms of moral absolutes–on which, see my question in the previous post.

Given the choice between blowing up a pizza parlor full of innocent civilians, or losing a war against a more powerful colonizer, the moral thing to do is to lose the war.

This requires a great deal of unpacking, I think, and so before I dive into any discussion about it, I need to ask you: Why?

Dorktastic wrote:

At the same time, I think it is important to remember that suicide terrorism is a method of the weak, and is therefore illustrative of the power dynamics that Redecca mentions above. [...] The point being, that it is a popular tool for those groups that don’t have much of a chance of winning using regular military or political strategies.

I understand that, but I don’t care. Given the choice between blowing up a pizza parlor full of innocent civilians, or losing a war against a more powerful colonizer, the moral thing to do is to lose the war. (And by saying this about Palestinian terrorists, I am in no way excusing the IDF for the innocent civilians it has killed).

Besides, although I understand that suicide bombing is a tactic, I am not convinced that it is the only available tactic, or that in the long run it’s more effective than other tactics. But even if it were effective, terrorist attacks on civilians would not be justified.

(I’m not assuming that you’d disagree with me about that.)

I don’t think there was anything in that article that was either dishonest or irresponsible.

Point well taken. When I wrote “honest and responsible,” I was thinking more broadly of some of the extreme rhetoric I’ve seen about Israel, and not about this article in particular; but I didn’t make that clear in what I wrote. Sorry about that.

The main reason I find people holding the Israeli government and Palestinian militants co- responsible, is that it ignores who holds power. The Israeli government has the power in Israel and Palestine.

I don’t understand how you can see people resisting a government that is oppressing them as being morally culpable for the situation they are in, even if you don’t agree with their aims or their tactics.

But their tactics contribute hugely to a situation in Israel in which it is impossible for any political candidate advocating anything but a hardline stance to be credible; and in which all Palestinians are stereotyped as child-murderers. The actions of the terrorists directly contribute to empowering the worse, most right-wing Israelis. Why on earth should I not hold them accountable for the effects of their own acts?

The security wall is a terrible evil, but it’s an evil that has been made necessary by the sucide bombers above. The Israelis alone are responsible for using the wall as an excuse for yet another land grab, but the wall itself is politically viable because of suicide bombers. And a wall along the green line - which would have still had horrible effects for many Palestinians - would have, in my view, been justifiable under the circumstances created by suicide bombers.

Nor is it true that “The Israeli government has the power in Israel and Palestine,” if by “the power” you mean they are the exclusive holders of power. The Israeli government holds most of the power, but they do not hold the power to stop suicide bombers from attacking civilians. That power is, to a great extent, in the hands of the bombers and of organizations that support and encourage suicide bombings.

The ANC committed terrorist acts, does that make them morally culpable for apartheid?

I don’t know enough about the history of South Africa to be able to answer that question with any sophistication. But if the ANC bore no responsibility at all for Apartheid (and it’s my impression they did not), then that just emphasizes the significant differences between Israel now and South Africa then.

At the time, there was an article circulating by Jeff Halper of the Israeli Committe Against House Demolitions who suggested the term ‘Nishul’ or displacement as something which came from the vocabulary of the region and could describe & emphasize the valid, unique, and important-to-recognize-and-act-on ways that Palestinians are being abused by the Israeli state.

Personally, I don’t see any problem with *comparisons* between Israel and South Africa — for me, that’s great, because it’s a way of highlighting the importance of the problem in a way that will grab the attention of Americans who may not understand it. What I don’t like is what I saw a lot in the material I was researching for the article - not comparison, but equation A = B, end of discussion. Comparisons are great. Equations are less helpful. If nothing else, each atrocity is its own unique horror.

What about the second article, the one that talks about the relationship between Israel and South Africa, and the fact that they helped each other develop Nuclear weapons. Do you think that shouldn’t be written about because it might inflame people.

I reject the idea that we should stop talking about ideas because people might get upset. I don’t think the only reason to discuss issues is to persuade. If there are people who are really so close-minded that as soon as they hear ‘Israel’ and ‘South Africa’ (and I’m sure they are), then I don’t think we get anywhere by softening our words.

The very choice of “apartheid,” rather than broadening the discussion, narrows it, inflames defenders and critics alike, has us offering up dictionary definitions and making other semantic distinctions, and generally focusing on a tangent to “the real issue.”