I get the - perhaps mistaken - impression that you’re not really appreciating the geography of the sitution.

The central coastal plain is within several miles of the West Bank. Should Israel withdraw to the 67 borders, the areas under threat of rocket/mortar attack won’t be a small town and some kibbutzim, but rather Tel Aviv (and its environs) and (especially) Jerusalem - Israel’s most populated region and its capital, respectively. Such a risk might be acceptable if there were a Palestinian government willing to at least attempt to suppress those attacks - but presently, the Palestinian government at bests ignores and at worst is complicit in them, and I’m not optimistic about the situation changing.

Frankly, I’m not as confident in you that somehow, once the situation is supposedly morally ambigous, the world will suddenly decide to intervene - contrary to almost all previous behaviour. As one example, consider the aftermath of Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000. Even though the UN certified the withdrawal to be complete, Hizbullah continued attacks against Israel - and the UNIFIL forces already in place did nothing (except videotaping one of the attacks and the stonewalling).

There are numerous other examples I could give. Since the current Israeli military actions are at least partially successful in suppressing attacks*, taking the unilateral risk you suggest (in which the Palestinian government - by the nature of a unilateral move - is not required to do anything) is rather unpalatable to the Israeli public (which includes myself)

*regarding this:

None of the arguments I’ve seen in the past fifteen years or so that I’ve been paying attention have convinced me that settlements, barriers outside of 1967 borders, attacks which kill civilians, etc. lead to a reduced risk to Israeli lives.

Except for the settlements, distasteful as these measures are, they actually do serve to reduce attacks. Consider the difference in suicide attacks before and after Operation Defensive Shield, in which Israel reoccupied the West Bank. Or the drop in Hamas’ activity after a sustained campaign of assassinations.

The reason not to use the IDF should be obvious: Palestinians have every reason to distrust the IDF. The idea is to give protection to those Palestinians who want to live without violence, and I doubt they will feel very protected by the IDF.

Israel is in a part of the world […] in which the world very seldom intervenes effectively.

Well, yeah. I’ve already explained why I think that intervention would be less necessary, more likely, and more effective. If you don’t agree that the majority of Palestinians will resist violence once it is demonstrated to them that peace and justice are within their power to achieve, then my plan just isn’t going to make a whole lot of sense to you. Likewise if you don’t think that a conflict where one side is clearly in the right will draw more effective international intervention than one where both sides are doing reprehensible stuff.

You’re asking Israel to gamble the lives of its citizens that this time it will be different.

Actually, no. None of the arguments I’ve seen in the past fifteen years or so that I’ve been paying attention have convinced me that settlements, barriers outside of 1967 borders, attacks which kill civilians, etc. lead to a reduced risk to Israeli lives. Refraining from them will, however, lead to fewer Israelis settling outside the 1967 borders of Israel, and to more griping from hard-liners who think that not killing civilians makes them appear weak, not despicable. And I can live with that.

Oh, and given that the alternative, IMO, is someone eventually unleashing a devastating biological or nuclear weapon in the area, killing me and everyone I know, then yes, this is a “gamble” that I would be willing to take.

Gaza was once part of Egypt. If Egypt would be willing to annex it (say, if Israel were to offer them a very large amount of money to take it off their hands), then the Palestinians living there would be part of a state and have a relatively stable government.

The West Bank can’t be given away to another existing country (Jordan can’t handle it), but I can’t think of an obvious reason why Egypt annexing Gaza wouldn’t solve a lot of problems. (I’m sure someone else could think of a lot of reasons why this is an awful idea, but I don’t know of any.)

Quoth Bjartmarr :

If the Palestinians’ own sense of decency doesn’t stop the attacks, and international sanctions and political pressure don’t stop the attacks, an international, non-Israeli peacekeeping force could be used. We can’t do this now because of bleeding hearts like me (well…and other bleeding hearts who actually have power) who refuse to give one kid detention when both kids are picking the fight.

Now you’ve contradicted yourself. Either a military solution is possible, or not. If it’s not, then peacekeepers who don’t want to be there, whose countries aren’t willing to take serious risks, aren’t going to do better than the IDF, which is very focused on winning this particular conflict. I find it hard to believe that the world can defend Israel better than Israel can. Look how little good UN peace-keepers did for Lebanon.

As to why they need defense —

If I understand you right, you’re saying that if only Israel removes “all reasonable grounds for conflict” then the problem will be solved. Israel is in a part of the world in which bad things happen to innocent people, and in which the world very seldom intervenes effectively.

Israel has comparative little to fear from the Palestinians, alone. However, Hamas is armed, trained, funded, and supported by Iran and Syria, both of which are larger than Israel, well armed, and run by governments with atrocious human rights records, run by despotic leadership that could decide to use Israel as a convenient scape-goat or punching bag. Lebanon isn’t a well armed country, but last summer much of Northern Israel was uninhabitable due to armed factions based there. Israel is leery of having the same happen again, in the much more densely populated south.

I want to mention the expulsions of the 1940s and 1950s again — Syria, Iran, and Egypt* are all countries that committed atrocities against Jews in the past, even without “reasonable grounds for conflict”. You’re asking Israel to gamble the lives of its citizens that this time it will be different. That’s not a gamble I would bet my life on. Would you bet yours?

* At present, Israel and Egypt are at peace. However, nobody knows what the post-Mubarak government of Egypt will be, and there are grounds for pessimism.

It’s unreasonable because it makes no freakin’ sense unless you place an extraordinarily low value on Israelis and/or israel.**

**which I have to admit I’m beginning to think is the case.

Wow, is this far, far over the line.

You can apologize for implying that if people don’t agree with your opinion, they just must not care if Israelis die. Otherwise, you can consider yourself banned from this thread. Your choice.

Please defend this or withdraw it. Preferably the latter, since it is blatantly false. And please avoid the use of ad-hominem attacks in the future, or I won’t talk with you any more.

Because I have made it pretty damn clear that I’m applying a general rule, and I’ve explained it.

Look. I said that you were using a term that other people use in order to draw a distinction that is irrelevant to the discussion. I said this to clarify that I see both actions as wrong. I even clarified that I didn’t think you were trying to pull a fast one. I just wanted to be sure we were both on the same page, that the distinction is irrelevant to the discussion.

But you thought that that it was “an important distinction”. Perhaps I was wrong in assuming that you meant “an important distinction as it pertains to this discussion”. But why the heck else would you bring it up, if it weren’t relevant to the discussion?

I even conceded that perhaps one action was wronger than the other. Because I don’t want to argue about it. Because it’s not relevant to the discussion. Hell, just for you, I’ll even go one step further: one action is definitely wronger than the other. Now, can we drop the discussion of this “general rule” that is VERY VERY IMPORTANT IN MANY CIRCUMSTANCES but COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO OUR CURRENT DISCUSSION?

But the ROR is probably in that category.

Huh? I was talking about retreating to pre-1967 borders. You responded with talking about ROR. And I explicitly avoided bringing in ROR because some versions of it envision a scenario where 8 million Palestinians of all sorts immigrate en-masse to Israel, while others envision only hundreds of thousands of known-peaceful Palestinians slowly returning to Israel and others receiving compensation for their land. It’s an overloaded term, it causes confusion, so I’m not using it. Instead I said that they get access to their land or are compensated for it, which is what I meant.

Why are we talking, again? Sigh.

See the above part about some charismatic peace-lover coming to power and implementing my plan.

Spoken like someone who is on the side of the “wrongers,” so to speak. I think Israeli actions are bad. I think Palestinian actions are worse. That is a relative statement, yes? I simply cannot believe that you are trying to push this out of the way, or to suggest that maintaining this type of relativism is worthy of mockery.

Here, try these: I think that being an asshole to women is bad; I think that raping them is worse. I think that being somewhat antichoice is bad; I think that actively lobbying against choice is worse. I think that shooting someone accidentally while hunting is bad; I think that shooting someone intentionlally is worse.

Shall I go on? Do you want to claim that my above statements are “excusing” people who are assholes to women; antichoice folks; or Dick Cheney?

If not, can you please drop the “you’re just trying to excuse Israelis and vilify Palestinians” crap? Please? Because I have made it pretty damn clear that I’m applying a general rule, and I’ve explained it. And unless you want to get up on your soapbox and claim that no, of COURSE you don’t distinguish between anything else based on intent, I think it is more likely you who are exhibiting some pretty serious situation-specific bias here. Without explanation, I might add.

As for the “realism” issue, if I understand you, you’re saying that there’s just no way that Israel is going to agree to undo the border expansion, settlements, barriers and what-not (not sure if this includes refusing to halt the building of more settlements or not)

.
No, that’s not what I’m saying. Israel will surely do some of those things, in whole or in part, as it should. But you appear to be unwilling to grant them morality unless they so all of those things in their entirety. Perhaps I’m reading you wrong.

And since they abjectly refuse to do that, it’s not reasonable to expect them to do it as a precondition to holding the moral high ground. Is that right? Because I don’t buy it.

Since you apparently know about the area, the history of Israel, the historical relations with Arabs, the history of Jews in the surrounding states, I am confused. I do not understand why you would consider it “reasonable” for Israel to make concessions which would quite probably result in serious damage to israel, and a significant increase in Israeli deaths. Hey, let’s live as one big happy family in a country full of people who want us dead! hoookay…

It’s not unreasonable because Israel refuses. It’s unreasonable because it makes no freakin’ sense unless you place an extraordinarily low value on Israelis and/or israel.** That fact is why Israel refuses.

Not EVERYTHING is unreasonable, and there are lots of things which Israel has (and will) refuse to do which it “could” or “should” do. But the ROR is probably in that category.

As I alluded to before, this discussion is more or less about theory, because I think that the only “realistic” (or “likely” or “functional”, if you like) solution is that the violence continues on and off for some dozens more years, until Israel decides to use its nukes or some Palestinian group gets its hands on an effective biological agent, after which the remaining Israelis will be living in a hell-hole and the Palestinians won’t be living at all. But there’s always the chance that some charismatic peace-loving genius will get power long enough to convince their side to undertake my plan, in which case, everybody wins.

Well sheeeit, I wish you had said that way back when, before I wasted all this time. You basically present a polarized and idealized solution, and you don’t apparently see any particular need to adapt your solution, or your analysis, to the facts and/or political realities on the ground. Functionally speaking that may be useless, or make actually prove detrimental, but you don’t seem to distinguish between worse and worser, so perhaps those two bad outcomes seem the same to you.

Great. that’s about as useful as… well, i can’t really think of an example. Why are we talking, again? Sigh.

**which I have to admit I’m beginning to think is the case.

Furthermore, I really don’t like where it looks like you’re headed (and where many have been before you) which is the argument that “The Arabs did it to us, so we get to do it to them!”. The problem is, of course, that this is code for “Those Arabs did it to us, so we get to do it to these other Arabs”, which is just another form of “He hit me, so I’m gonna hit you to make me feel better.”

If that wasn’t where you were heading, apologies, but sooner or later someone always does.

The Israeli withdraw from Gaza was a substantial unilateral concession,

Indeed it was. But the causus belli still existed. It gives us no evidence about what happens when you remove all reasonable causes for conflict, not just one of them.

Look where land-for-peace got the American Indians.

First off, this isn’t land-for-peace. This is land-for-nothing-because-it-doesn’t-belong-to-us, now please go grow your tomatoes and leave us alone.

Second, in both the examples you stated, the strong power overcame the weak power, not the other way around. If you want to show me examples where the US gave the Indians back all their land, and the Indians then overran and conquered the US, I suppose you’ll have a point.

If Israel gives up territory, stops using force to defend itself

Well, we’re not exactly agreed that Israel’s use of force has been solely in self defense.

and the problem worsens — what then?

First off — why would it? Sure, if the Palestinians were actually an evil, warlike, small-minded people with too much testosterone and excessive body hair, I can see why they would continue to attack. Many people believe that they are. I do not, and I’m not going to explain why.

If the Palestinians’ own sense of decency doesn’t stop the attacks, and international sanctions and political pressure don’t stop the attacks, an international, non-Israeli peacekeeping force could be used. We can’t do this now because of bleeding hearts like me (well…and other bleeding hearts who actually have power) who refuse to give one kid detention when both kids are picking the fight.

How come you didn’t ask, “What if the Palestinians stop using force to defend themselves and the problem worsens — what then?”

Shooting an innocent because you don’t like them is wrong. Shooting an innocent because they wander in between you and the guy shooting at you is also wrong. Maybe one is wronger** than the other. The intent is certainly different. But I don’t care, “wronger” is beside the point, because they’re both wrong. Read the part again about “as a method of excusing what the Israelis do while vilifying what the Palestinians do”.

As for the “realism” issue, if I understand you, you’re saying that there’s just no way that Israel is going to agree to undo the border expansion, settlements, barriers and what-not (not sure if this includes refusing to halt the building of more settlements or not). And since they abjectly refuse to do that, it’s not reasonable to expect them to do it as a precondition to holding the moral high ground. Is that right? Because I don’t buy it.

As I alluded to before, this discussion is more or less about theory, because I think that the only “realistic” (or “likely” or “functional”, if you like) solution is that the violence continues on and off for some dozens more years, until Israel decides to use its nukes or some Palestinian group gets its hands on an effective biological agent, after which the remaining Israelis will be living in a hell-hole and the Palestinians won’t be living at all. But there’s always the chance that some charismatic peace-loving genius will get power long enough to convince their side to undertake my plan, in which case, everybody wins.

As for the “right of return” issue, we had an agreement back there using the other language, so let’s just stick with that, OK? We can argue about whether the package includes citizenship, or how much Israel pays to buy the land, or whatever, in another thread.

** I know that wronger isn’t a word. I’m using it because I think that introducing the concept of wronger, in this discussion, is counterproductive. So I’m mocking the concept.

If Israel stops taking their land and killing them, the need to … support Hamas for self-defense will evaporate, and they will choose government that doesn’t turn them into international pariahs.

This claim is contradicted by the available evidence. The Israeli withdraw from Gaza was a substantial unilateral concession, it occurred during a period of comparative peacefulness in Gaza, and it was followed by marked radicalization in the form of Hamas winning the election and the rocket bombardment.

The worry that Israelis have is that if they back down, that will vindicate Hamas, and actually radicalize the Palestinians further. There are all too many historical episodes, after all, where making concessions merely inflamed the recipient’s appetite. Look where land-for-peace got the American Indians. Or, more recently, the Czechs in 1938.

Neither of us can say what would happen if Israel makes yet more concessions. But let’s ask a hypothetical question. If Israel gives up territory, stops using forced to defend itself, and the problem worsens — what then? What would world pressure mean, in concrete terms? What more would the West do to weaken or moderate Hamas than it has done over the last few years? My sense is that all this talk of “western pressure” is basically a fraud, and that aside from the US, the West will do nothing whatsoever to help Israel, any more than they did for the Burmese or Zimbabweans. And I don’t think any sensible Israelis want to go that route.

Well, Sailor, if you like, I can add the requirement that the Palestinians retreat to pre-1967 borders, and that they allow any Israelis who own land in the OT access to that land or just compensation. But that would be kind of silly, wouldn’t it? Since the Palestinians aren’t doing any of those things, requiring that they stop doing them is ridiculous.

The Palestinians aren’t doing it, but the Arab world as a whole is. Until the 1940s, Iraq was one of the major centers of the Jewish world; Jews had been there continuously since the biblical era. Jewish populations were likewise expelled in huge numbers from Syria and North Africa. Are you urging compensation for them? Can you even imagine it happening? I can’t.

Well, part of the problem has been temporarily solved, I’ll grant you. I am very doubtful that the violence will not re-emerge in time, or that other issues are going to get solved without that violence.

The world expressed a great deal of opprobrium and imposed sanctions when they were elected. It didn’t work.

Because neither side yet held the moral high ground. Hence, not enough pressure.

The pressure involved isn’t just sanctions, by the way. Hamas (etc) gains their power in large part from the consent and support of the Palestinian population. The Palestinians support them, in part, because they are scared and they percieve that Hamas will stick up for them. If Israel stops taking their land and killing them, the need to hire the Mafia support Hamas for self-defense will evaporate, and they will choose government that doesn’t turn them into international pariahs.

give up territory vital for defense,

Yeah, this is another argument that I just don’t buy. I’m actually fairly well convinced that the settlements aren’t primarily for defense, but are primarily to fulfill what some claim is their God-given right/duty to occupy all of the OT. Ditto for the barrier (dunno what to call it…apparantly “wall” and “fence” are loaded terms) — it may be useful for defense, but it’s primarily a land grab. You know the phrase “Caesar’s wife must be beyond reproach”? Well, Israel must be “beyond reproach” when it comes to issues of taking land in the OT. I’m open to being convinced, but it will have to be via an actual argument that is rather less transparant than ones I’ve heard before.

Often folks who argue that what Israel is doing is just, make a distinction between killing civilians on purpose, and killing civilans accidentally-on-purpose while shooting at bad guys. They often use the language “targeting”, as you have done, as a method of excusing what Israel does while vilifying what the Palestinians do. I really don’t buy that distinction — I think that killing civilians is wrong, always***– which is why I avoided using the language “targeted”. I don’t think you’re trying to muddle the issue with language, but I think you’re in danger of doing so nonetheless.

If you want, you can think of all killing as “equally bad.” But why would you?

We’re obviously talking about two different things:
-accidentally killing a civilian while engaging in a justified act (whatever it may be), and
-purposefully targeting a civilian for death.

The definitions are different. The intent is different.

The main reason to deliberately use the same viewpoint seems to be if you want to ignore intent. But do you do that elsewhere? I certainly don’t: I distinguish between murder and manslaughter, for example, and I think murder is worse. And I don’t think that is “muddling with language;” I think it is an important distinction.

I think killing civilians is always bad, so I think doing it intentionally is worse; this is fully consistent with my general belief system. In other words, I give some credit for effort.

I don’t know you, but I have a hard time thinking that you consistently ignore intent. Most people don’t (perhaps you’re an exception.) Someone who deliberately pushes you in front of a bus is more culpable than someone who does the same thing because they tripped. And so on.

If that’s not what you generally believe, why make an exception here? Do you see that I might think you’re deliberately trying to remove some of the Israeli’s moral advantage?

I didn’t mention “right of return” because it’s become a loaded term. But it’s basically what I was getting at when I talked about allowing access to displaced people or providing compensation.

OK, but no fair accusing me of muddling with language then ;) since that’s a well-accepted definition.

You ask if I think this is “realistic”. Realistically, I think the most likely solution is that both sides are going to continue to act like spoiled children. But there are no barriers other than the attitudes of the people involved — it’s not like I’m asking them to do something that’s physically difficult or impossible, so in that sense, yes, I think it’s realistic.

There is a difference between physically impossible and functionally impossible. And neither of those have anything to do with realism.

If I said that I thought Israel was entitled to attack the Palestinians unless 99% of them voted for a resolution praising Israel for its good graces, and 30% them converted to Judaism, that demand would be neither physically nor functionally impossible–but it would be practically so.

If your goal is to have a debate about theory, I’m interested in that, sure. But to date, this thread has been talking about, to a large degree, functional solutions. Or, as I might call them, “realistic” ones. The right of return isn’t in that category, largely because it would result in Arab control of Israel–or, shall I say, the destruction thereof.

And given your statement about countries, maybe you think that’d be OK, but if so, I doubt that we can have an especially productive discussion.

Well, Sailor, if you like, I can add the requirement that the Palestinians retreat to pre-1967 borders, and that they allow any Israelis who own land in the OT access to that land or just compensation. But that would be kind of silly, wouldn’t it? Since the Palestinians aren’t doing any of those things, requiring that they stop doing them is ridiculous.

Often folks who argue that what Israel is doing is just, make a distinction between killing civilians on purpose, and killing civilans accidentally-on-purpose while shooting at bad guys. They often use the language “targeting”, as you have done, as a method of excusing what Israel does while vilifying what the Palestinians do. I really don’t buy that distinction — I think that killing civilians is wrong, always***– which is why I avoided using the language “targeted”. I don’t think you’re trying to muddle the issue with language, but I think you’re in danger of doing so nonetheless.

I didn’t mention “right of return” because it’s become a loaded term. But it’s basically what I was getting at when I talked about allowing access to displaced people or providing compensation. (I don’t buy for one second the argument that when folks got out of the way of an invading army, they were implicitly abandoning their land, so nyah nyah finders keepers no give-backs. When I leave my house to go on vacation, you don’t get to take my house just because you “found it abandoned”.)

And, because I think you are seriously asking, yes, I do think that countries are wrong to take land by force that doesn’t belong to them. It’s wrong when Israel does it, it’s wrong when China does it, and it was wrong every time the US did it. And Israel will be in the wrong until they give it back, and China will be in the wrong until they give it back, and the US will be in the wrong until we give it back (and since the US killed everybody who the land belongs to and thus can’t return it, we’re pretty much permanently in the wrong on that issue.)

You ask if I think this is “realistic”. Realistically, I think the most likely solution is that both sides are going to continue to act like spoiled children. But there are no barriers other than the attitudes of the people involved — it’s not like I’m asking them to do something that’s physically difficult or impossible, so in that sense, yes, I think it’s realistic. It’s going to cause much inconvenience to those who are living on other people’s land — but hey, they shouldn’t have moved onto somebody else’s land in the first place (”God told me to” ain’t an excuse), and they should take it up with the Israeli government that urged them to move there in the first place. But I don’t think they should refrain from doing it just because it will be inconvenient, any more than I think that companies should refrain from hiring women because it would be inconvenient to build an extra bathroom.

*** A reasonable person could argue that it is not wrong to shoot someone who is deliberately using their body as a shield for someone who is shooting at you. The person doing the shielding has, in that case, implicitly volunteered to become a combatant. The difference between this situation and the one the Palestinians are in, however, is that I don’t think they all volunteered to serve as human shields, so I really don’t think it’s relevant in this case.

That neither side has practical military remedies is not just a suggested course of action, but an obvious fact. Absent genocide, the problem isn’t going to be solved via a military solution.

This fact isn’t merely unobvious, in all probability it’s simply false. Israel has defeated the suicide bombing campaign based in the West Bank. Their measures were by no means genocidal — they were far more modest than were used to pacify the American South during and after the Civil War. No rockets are being fired from the West Bank. Why couldn’t they repeat the same trick in Gaza?

I think the Israeli strategy is reasonably clear at this point — wear down Hamas, cripple their leadership and armed forces, convince the Palestinian people they’ve lost, find alternate power brokers such as tribal leaders or local strongmen, and ultimately arrange a series of cease fires with them. It seems a pretty reasonable bet — it worked in the West Bank, after all.

The international community has been unable to unite on a solution to the problem in part because there has been no clear, unambiguously moral party in the conflict. Once such a party exists, international pressure on the other party will increase significantly.

I don’t think moral pressure will work on Hamas. The world expressed a great deal of opprobrium and imposed sanctions when they were elected. It didn’t work. Why would it work better after Israel makes unilateral concessions?

You’re asking Israel to do something rather difficult — expell hundreds of thousands of people from their homes, give up territory vital for defense, abandon the Jewish Quarter of Old Jerusalem to a regime whose stated goal is their extermination — in exchange for…your good opinion of them? That doesn’t seem like a good trade. If the war continues, despite these concessions, moral high ground will be no substitute for the actual high ground that you’re asking Israel to abandon.

If the last 70 years have taught us nothing else, it’s that the world won’t fight, or even sacrifice, for moral principle. Why should Israel rely on the international pressure that has been so spectacularly ineffective on Burma, Zimbabwe, China, Rwanda, etc ad infinitum? Imagine for a moment that you’re an Israeli citizen. International pressure did nothing for your parents’ generation during the late 1940s, when Jewish populations were systematically eradicated in almost every Arab state. What happened to the Jews of Iraq, who were historically one of the world’s largest Jewish communities? Did the world do anything for them?

For the Palestinians
1) Stop targeting civilians.
2) Prosecute and/or seriously attempt to stop people who target civilians.

That’s it. Now, I DON’T think Israel holds the moral high ground. But if that’s all it takes (which I don’t believe is the case) then golly, perhaps they do. Did Israel hold the moral high ground before they shut off power to Gaza? I don’t think they generally target civilians, after all.

For Israel:
1) cessation of attacks on civilians Does this mean the same thing it does for the Palestinians?
2) A retreat to pre-1967 borders I am really not sure about this one. 1967 is a long way back. Wars change territories all the time. I don’t think that countries are generally required to give back territory to attain the moral high ground. In fact [scratches head] haven’t quite a few of the borders in that area changed since 1967? Isn’t the political climate also quite different?

I’m often unsure whether people who claim pre-67 borders are serious. Sometimes it seems that they are imposing those conditions as a method of concluding that Israel is not acting morally. But I suspect you really do mean it; what I’m less sure about is whether you think it’s realistic. It’s certainly a huge advantage that you don’t ask for the “right of return.”

3/ allowing access or providing compensation to Palestinians who own land inside of Israel.
Yes, I agree that this would be preferable.

To clarify what I thought was obvious, the Palestinians have no such other requirement about stopping all the other crap only because, as far as I’m aware, they’re not doing anything objectionable other than the attacks on civilians.

I have to admit that I’m in the camp who would complete that sentence with “….because, in all likelihood, Israel has managed to make such other actions impossible,” and not with “…because the Palestinians wouldn’t try.”

There is a lot of nervousness there, for good reason I think. Say that the Palestinians want more access to internal Israel, and fewer checkpoints. Say that they would want to occupy land near Israeli settlements.

If you were responsible for Israeli security, would you let them? Why?

And do you understand that you are offering the Palestinians the “moral high ground” for doing what we are all supposed to be doing,

Bingo. You got it. You get the moral high ground when you stop misbehaving.

Maybe Israel should start sending rockets into Gaza–then they can claim the moral high ground when the stop, hmm?

Sure, as long as they stop doing all the other crap that I mentioned above also.

To clarify what I thought was obvious, the Palestinians have no such other requirement about stopping all the other crap only because, as far as I’m aware, they’re not doing anything objectionable other than the attacks on civilians.

Furthermore, I’m a little mystified as to where this comment came from. Do you think that Israel has already taken a morally just position? Because that’s the only way that your comment makes even the slightest bit of sense. But it would have been much clearer if you had just said that, rather than making the snarky, ridiculous comment that you did.

a retreat to pre-1967 borders

How realistic do you think this is as a demand to make on Israel?

And do you understand that you are offering the Palestinians the “moral high ground” for doing what we are all supposed to be doing, namely not targeting civilians and/or actually attempting to stop people who do?

Talk about moving the goalposts. Maybe Israel should start sending rockets into Gaza–then they can claim the moral high ground when the stop, hmm?

So, this is basically saying “neither side should attack civilians, but neither has any practical remedies if the other side does.”

Not really. That neither side has practical military remedies is not just a suggested course of action, but an obvious fact. Absent genocide, the problem isn’t going to be solved via a military solution. But practical non-military remedies are available.

For example, either side could capture the moral high ground by unilaterally imposing a fair settlement to the conflict. For the Palestinians, this would involve a cessation of attacks on Israeli civilians, and aggressively prosecuting individuals or groups that continue to do so. For the Israelis, this would involve a cessation of attacks on civilians, a retreat to pre-1967 borders, and allowing access or providing compensation to Palestinians who own land inside of Israel.

The international community has been unable to unite on a solution to the problem in part because there has been no clear, unambiguously moral party in the conflict. Once such a party exists, international pressure on the other party will increase significantly.

The sentiment behind the initial one-sided capturing of the moral high ground needs to be something like, “We’re not taking these actions in order to get something from you. It’s not a trade. We’re doing this because it’s a fair solution and we’re a fair people.”

Ampersand Writes:
December 6th, 2007 at 12:40 pm

Sailorman, no one in Palestine has the practical ability to stop Palestinian terrorists from shooting missiles at Israelis.

Seconding the above response… then why on earth should Israel negotiate with them at all? If they’re going to bomb or not bomb irrespective of whether “the palestinians” want them to, then Israel’s unilateral actions make a heck of alot more sense.

Suggesting that they could just choose to stop attacking Israelis, and then Israel wouldn’t bomb their infrastructure is giving any madman with a bomb veto power over whether or not Gaza can have needed infrastructure that — beyond any doubt — saves lives.

You and I both know darn well that the Palestinian government is nowhere near the point at which only “madmen with bombs,” who are eluding honest and serious attempts to stop them, are the ones getting through. If that WERE true, then the veto power would be ridiculous–but that’s sure as heck not what’s happening now.

A UN official quoted in Haaretz said that in the last year, two Israeli civilians have been killed by missiles from Gaza. That’s tragic — but the hundreds of Palestinian civilians killed in that same time period are a tragedy, too. I do think that Israel has a right to self-defense, but it has to be proportionate; it’s not the case that it’s reasonable to sacrifice hundreds or thousands of Palestinian lives, including dozens of children, in order to protect the handful of Israelis living within five miles of Gaza.

Yes, at some point is becomes unbalanced. I don’t know how to accurately weight it. Is it only lives? Does that mean that you’d be fine with Israel randomly shooting missiles into Gaza, meaning that everyone there had to either live in fear of

It’s also interesting that when Israelis kill Palestinian civilians in Gaza, you say that’s legitimate self-defense

Sometimes it’s legitimate self defense. Sometimes it’s not.

and they shouldn’t have voted for a group that includes violent militants (even though there was no alternative group to vote for that does not include violent militants).

Poppycock. Hamas and fatah are not equivalent, and you know damn well that is true.

But you apparently don’t feel that it’s legitimate for Palestinians to kill Israeli civilians in Israel; that is never legitimate self-defense, in your view.

You are substituting the words “kill” for “target.” That HAS to be intentional, and that’s what makes your comment ridiculous.

If the Palestinians were to attack an Israeli military base, and happened to get a civilian collaterally, that would be “legitimate.” OTOH, if the Palestinians act in a manner that deliberately targets civilians, that is not.

And what is up with this level of argument-twisting and “what you’re saying is…?” It’s not your usual style.

The Palestinians have been invaded, occupied, and killed in numbers far outnumbering Israeli deaths. What you’re saying to them is that no matter how many Palestinian children are killed, it is never acceptable for even one Israeli citizen to be killed in response, and if one Israeli citizen is killed that justifies collective punishment of all Palestinians. Can you understand why your belief that Israelis are allowed to collectively punish innocent Palestinians, but Palestinians have no parallel right to attack Israelis, wouldn’t be very persuasive to most Palestinians? (At least, most of the ones I’ve met.)

Actually, I CAN understand that.

Can you understand that the concept that Palestinians are deliberately mixing civilian and military life in a way which makes it almost impossible to avoid collective punishment, makes the Palestinian argument a heck of a lot less persuasive?

If your response is “don’t use collective punishment; use ___ equally effective method instead” then that is a real strike against the Israelis. If the argument is “don’t respond to military action in a manner that endangers civilians; respond in _____ equally effective method instead,” likewise.

But if ALL you say is “don’t use collective punishment” or “don’t endanger civilians” then surely you’re smart enough to see the inevitable response: The Palestinians can easily enact procedures where Israel can only respond through “banned” tactics, and thus Israel’s response is limited. Do you think that is reasonable? Fair? Appropriate?

As an example:

(I don’t think either side has a right to kill civilians in order to knock off non-civilians, either.)

This is a reasonable belief. But again, this decision gets exploited.

Let’s say that tomorrow, Israeli soldiers to start shooting at Gaza from civilian-heavy areas.

In such an instance, exactly what would you expect the Palestinians to do? Hold fire and duck? Hope nobody gets hit? Move out of Gaza, and tack it up as an unrecoverable loss?

It seems to me that you are asking Israel do do the equivalent.