So, after voicing criticism of this essay for being "so damn long," you proceed to go through and post the essay in it's entirity, along with several repetitions of the URLs you use from Israel apologist websites in attempted refutation. Do I hear the pot calling the kettle something? This is precisely why I made the comparison to DarkStar: what you're indulging in here is the "Argument from Exhaustion" where you hope that people will get fed up half-way through reading your post and fail to address some point in it. It won't endear you to anyone who's gone through one of DarkStar's long-winded diatribes before.
That was precisely my point, Darth Wong's essay was in fact argument from exhaustion. I attempted to point out the ad nauseam nature of his essay.
If you dislike that analogy, perhaps you'd prefer Apartheid South Africa. 3.3 million Palestinians are crowded into the West Bank and the Gaza strip in a manner highly reminiscient of the Bantus without even the poor joke of "self-rule." As far as the "overwhelming majority," another 1 million of Israel's population of 6.6 million are arabs. Add those to the 3.3 million in territory that Israel likes to claim as its own without claiming the original inhabitants, and arabs are nearly 2/3rds of Israel's population.
Nice way of ignoring my argument. I said, the name of the country, does not predispose how that country treats its ethnic minorities. Regardless if you think Israel abuses its minorities or not (or to what degree), or what territory you think should constitute Israel or not. I'll state what Darth Wong said again: "Before we begin, let me remind you of the definition of Israel. Israel is a Jewish state, which means that it was founded on the premise of racial and religious separatism and apartheid."
Now, there are many examples where a country identifies itself with an ethnic group, or religion. I'll take one, Greece. The Greek flag, has a cross on it, representing the Greek Orthodox Christianity. Greece, is a name identifying the Greek ethnicity, an ethnic and religious identification. Yet there are approximately 2 million Albanians and other non-Greeks, which are not victims of abuse by the Greek government. Therefore, contrary to what Darth Wong said, what a country calls itself, or what is on its flag, does not presume it is a nation founded on the premise of racial and religious separatism. He made the remark (a non-sequiter) to color his argument. That's no longer finding an objective truth, but promulgating idealogy.
Also keep in mind that Jews lived in this region for centuries, from the Roman Empire through the Ottoman Empire and beyond. Lets not pretend there was never any Jews in the region or that 100 percent of all Jews had fled the region during all this time.
We're talking about the state of Israel here: a state which ceased to have any independant existance since at least the Roman occupation of 63 b.c. I suppose by this logic we should be prepared to hand over most of Europe to re-form the Holy Roman Empire. Not only did the UN decide to resurrect a dead state, but they proposed to give the jewish minority in Palestine over half of the land!
A state does not have to exist for the Jewish people to have existed in this region for millenia. What are you talking about?
These are unfair characteristics riddled with name-calling and unsubstantiated claims. Not to mention, the UN is an institution that does not respect individual liberty and freedom, it is an organization comprised of dictators and other totalitarian regimes. Hardly the source of sound
morality and ethics. With nations like China on the UN permanent security council, lets stop acting like the UN is an effective pundit for peace. China is hardly in a position to criticize anyone on human rights. Please read these articles:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt090301.shtml
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt042902.shtml
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt041502.shtml
Please read the Fourth Geneva convention. Not only does it expressly forbid colonizing foreign lands seized in battle (ie. the settlements in the West Bank,) but it also forbids the wholesale punishment of a conquered population for the actions of a few (by cutting off their power or water, for example.) Israel stands in clear violation of it.
That is a strawman argument. Israel's actions were in self-defense, not colonial conquest, nor should the fact it is Geneva convention rules make it right. As far as the wholesale punishment of Palestinian Arabs, I refer you to Matus's recent post, showing that Palestinian Arabs under Israel have enjoyed far greater growth of wealth and individual rights, than when they were under Arab governments of Jordan, Syria, PLO, et al.
http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic. ... 111#221111
Rather than directly address that here you indulge in a little UN and China bashing of your own (strawman anyone?)
Not at all. The UN has a poor track record of upholding peace by trying to be inclusive to aggressive totalitarian regimes. I was merely pointing out the initial strawman argument of Darth Wong, just because there are UN resolutions calling for Israel to act in a certain way, does not make it right. That is a strawman.
You don't like China's civil rights record? Let's see, what do they do... oh yes, they're occupying land (Tibet for one) gained in an invasion, and they put down demonstrations against the government using their military, sometimes in spectaculary bloody fashion. Hmmm... sounds like another nation I know. Too bad for China they don't have Israel's skill at PR.
What do you call that? That is most certainly a strawman argument. Tibet did not lauch attacks against China, it does not launch daily death squads into China, Tibet was not part of a different country oppressed by it, it does not have people in its country that like rule under China than it does under Tibet. And finally, China is a totalitarian regime, Israel is not. Israel is one of the few countries in the middle east that allows Arabs to vote, and the only one in the middle east to allow women to vote.
This line of argument is also a tacit acknowledgement that the charges regarding Israel's conduct have merit. Do you truly have that little confidence in your position?
Not at all. Only that whatever abuses Israel has taken, does not make it a bloodthirsty facist state since biblical times, nor does it take away its right to exist.
Well first of all democracy is not a guarantee for liberty. Democracy means majority rule, and liberty requires that the majority not be able to take away the liberties of the minority through a vote. A constitutional republic, that enumerates the constricted powers of government and the
rights of individuals, is what usually is required for a protection of liberty. But thats for another discussion.
So you're saying you wasted some pixels right here to make a totally irrelevant point? Sounds like a red herring to me.
Uh no, that's not a red herring. It would be a red herring if I said it was relevant to the topic I was discussing, and abandoning the original arguments. Which I clearly said it was not when I said "...that's for another discussion" and when I said "I have some issues with the essay"
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacie ... rring.html
For many years in Greece the same policy was in practice. All Greek citizens had to carry a card identifying them as Greek Orthodox, Catholic, Jew, Muslim, but recently this was repealed. (Actually just last year) Point
being, countries that have a greater respect for liberty than say, the entre Arab world, are capable of correcting their mistakes and make efforts to better their liberties. Israeli-Arabs living under Israel enjoy more liberties, better economic opportunities, and more political freedoms than their
Arab cousins in surround Arab territories. Do you think their lives would be better under a totalitarian terrorist thug like Arafat?
Again we return to "everyone else is doing it, so why can't Israel?!" This seems to be a common theme in your "rebuttal."
Do you find it difficult to read? I didn't say that, I said "Point
being, countries that have a greater respect for liberty than say, the entre Arab world, are capable of correcting their mistakes and make efforts to better their liberties."
Other countries do it too, so that makes it okay? Surely you have a better justification than that.
Strawman. I never said it was okay that countries do it too.
Now, let's look at these "better economic conditions." Unemployment is 50% in the West Bank and an appalling 70% in the Gaza Strip. 67% of the Palestinians in the occupied territories live under the poverty line of $2 a day. Compare that to a $20,000 GDP per capita and 9% unemployment within Israel. Oh yeah, let's not forget total government control of the water supply in the West Bank. Drilling a new well or repairing an old one requires a variety of permits which are notoriously difficult to acquire. Arabs in the occupied territories sure have it good. Want to argue that $2 a day is better than the GDP per capita of "the entire arab world" and advance some proof for the point, or would you prefer to stick with our little friend the Unsupported Claim?
Ok, let's talk numbers:
Life expectancy for palestinian people is higher than it has ever been before, the number of Palestinians working in Israel rose from zero in 1967 to 66,000 in 1975 and 109,000 by 1986, accounting for 35 percent of the employed population of the West Bank and 45 percent in Gaza. Close to 2,000 industrial plants, employing almost half of the work force, were established in the territories under Israeli rule. During the 1970's, the West Bank and Gaza constituted the fourth fastest-growing economy in the world-ahead of such "wonders" as Singapore, Hong Kong, and Korea, and substantially ahead of Israel itself. Per-capita GNP expanding tenfold between 1968 and 1991 from $165 to $1,715 (compared with Jordan's $1,050, Egypt's $600, Turkey's $1,630, and Tunisia's $1,440). By 1999, Palestinian per-capita income was nearly double Syria's, more than four times Yemen's, and 10 percent higher than Jordan's (one of the betteroff Arab states). Mortality rates in the West Bank and Gaza fell by more than two-thirds between 1970 and 1990, while life expectancy rose from 48 years in 1967 to 72 in 2000. Israeli medical programs reduced the infant-mortality rate of 60 per 1,000 live births in 1968 to 15 per 1,000 in 2000 (in Iraq the rate is 64, in Egypt 40, in Jordan 23, in Syria 22). And under a systematic program of inoculation, childhood diseases like polio, whooping cough, tetanus, and measles were eradicated. By 1986, 92.8 percent of the population in the West Bank and Gaza had electricity around the clock, as compared to 20.5 percent in 1967; 85 percent had running water in dwellings, as compared to 16 percent in 1967; 83.5 percent had electric or gas ranges for cooking, as compared to 4 percent in 1967; and so on for refrigerators, televisions, and cars. Compare this progress to all neighboring Arab states which are corrupt despotic theocracies.
Of course you fail to mention this was done AFTER Israelis have been under constant terrorist attacks by Palestinians. You seem to conveniently leave out the heinous acts carried out by Palestinian homicide bombers on Israelis school children in malls, yet you are so ready to condemn everything Israel does without taking a more objective approach as to why they act the way they do. Not to mention, it is far different than Hitlers armband marking schemes for several reasons: 1) Hitler was a totalitarian dictator, Israel, as you admit yourself "It is true that
Israel is nominally a democracy" so again, a dubious analogy 2) Jews were not systematically killing German school children, nor did they initiate a war against Germany. The Jews had not initiated any violence against other German citizens but were simply victims to Hitler's plan for a
pure race.
How did I know this guy was going to use the term "Homicide Bomber" sooner or later?
So what do you call them? Freedom fighter? I'd like to know.
You seem to forget the expulsion of 750,000 Palestinians their homes in 1948, or the seizure of property in the West Bank after Israel declared that any property which the occupants could not produce title to belonged to the state of Israel.
You seem to forget all Arabs living under Israel's initial borders were given full civil liberties. You also forget to mention over a million Jews were persecuted and jewish communities destroyed all throughout the muslim countries in 1948.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 120302.asp
Now I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, but let's not kid ourselves and morally equivalize everything Israel has done to what Arab dictators and theocracies have done, which is what you and Darth Wong has done. Assuming what your saying is true or not, and this most certainly does not mean you can generalize on the "True Nature of Israel".
That is misleading. All Arabs who fell under Israel's initial boundaries were granted citizenship. The Palestinians you refer to are those in the West Bank and Gaza strip, territories that were seized after Israel was attacked by surrounding Arab states and the source of non-stop constant terrorist attack.
This is out-and-out bullshit. Tell that to the 750,000 arabs (out of about 900,000 living in the area before Israel declared independence) who were expelled from the country.
Tell it to the approximately 25% of those remaining within Israel whose land was seized, causing them to end up as internal refugees. Nice to see you resort to outright lying on this one.
How am I lying? Arabs under the intial boundaries of Israel were granted full citizenship. It's not a lie. You're the one twisting my remarks to mean something else. Why do you ignore the fact Arabs living under Israel prefer that government over the PLO?
Quote:
Quote:
Those rights include exclusive rights to most land (more than 90% of Israel's land is earmarked Jewish-only), preferential hiring for both public and private employment, special education loans, home mortgages, and preferential admission to universities.
You must give empirical evidence to support this claim.
Don't forget that 25% of the Gaza strip and 46% of the West Bank are currently controlled by the settlements. That's 25% of a 26 mile stretch of land in the hands of only 7,000 Israeli settlers compared to the 1,100,000 Palestinians: .6% of the people control 25% of the land! The West Bank is the same story: 46% of the land controlled by 376,000 settlers with the scraps left for the 2,200,000 arabs. That's 46% of the land in the hands of 17.1% of the people there.
P.S.: demanding evidence when you've failed to advance much yourself is an amusing bit of hypocrisy.
Territory taken after they were attacked several times, and in the Six Day War in self-defense. Perhaps you feel territory taken when advancing into enemy territory after your enemy attacks you is not sufficient reason for self defense. But the governments who attacked Israel, whom the Palestinians were living under, were totalitarian despotic regimes, and no totalitarian regime has the right to exist. And whatever wrongs that have happened in Jewish settlements in the West Bank does not morally equivalize Israel with her neighbors, when on the contrary, Palestinians (no not all, but definitely a percentage) under Yasser Arafat would rather live under Israel. Yasser Arafat also suppresses his people from free speech and efforts to establish individual rights.
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that other special rights are granted for those who serve in the military (shades of Starship Troopers' fictional fascist state!), and that ethnic Palestinians are prohibited from serving?
The first part of your statement is completely laughable, all citizens of Israel, male and female are required to serve in the military. Take that fact and read your sentence again. And as for Palestinians prohibited from serving, who are you referring too? Israeli-Arab citizens or those who live in the terrorist infested Gaza strip and West Bank? If Palestinians were forced to serve in their military like Israelis citizens are, you'd accuse Israel for forcefully conscripting Palestinians, yet on the other hand, they don't, so you accuse them of racism. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. And I'm sure it would behoove Israel to not take Palestinians and put them in their military, since the Israelis are fighting a war against Palestinians that the Palestinians initiated.
This is another bald-faced lie. The ONLY non-jewish group permitted to serve in the IDF are the Druse.
You are lying. Arabs under Israel's borders are permitted to serve.
Shame on you for even trying to pull that one. The special priviledges for military service include larger mortgages, preferential public employment and eligibility for public housing, and lower course fees.
Ever heard of Veteran's benefits in America? Or ROTC? Or free housing for those serving in the American military? Shame on you for distorting reality.
And while we're on the subject, Israel is a signitory to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Despite the fact that it bans punishment of conscientious objectors, Israel still routinely imprisons people who refuse to serve and in at least one case has jailed a man (Victor Sabranski) 5 times for it in further violation of the ban on punishing conscientious objectors more than once. Throwing in the "no matter what they do you'll say it's wrong" part makes it an Ad Hominem attack as well, implying that personal bias is the root of Mike's entire argument while failing to refute the point that "Israeli-Arabs" who may wish to join the IDF are barred from service.
I don't know what to say other than you're wrong. First of all, the Druze are a muslim population. Second, Israeli-Arabs are permitted to volunteer:
http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDF
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that the economic disparity between Jews and Arabs in Israel makes the black/white economic disparity in America seem downright insignificant by comparison?
If that were true, and again you provide no data or reference to substantiate this, that is no argument for Israel not having the right to defend herself.
See above. Since the title of Mike's essay was "The True Nature of Israel" it's entirely relevant. Stop trying to move the goal posts here.
It's misleading. As my numbers above point out, Arabs under Israel in the West Bank and Gaza Strip have had more economic growth, even in some time periods surpassing Israeli GDP growth, than under Yasser Arafat.
Quote:
Quote:
Did you know that Arabs in the occupied territories pay taxes to Israel, yet receive no representation in Israel's government?
Provide empirical evidence to this claim. The burden of proof is on you since you made it. People can't just take your word on it.
It's spelled out right in the 1992 Law of Political Parties, which prevents candidates from participating in the elections if their platform suggests the "denial of the existence of the State of Israel as the state of the Jewish people." In other words, any political party whose aim is equality for arabs and jews cannot participate in elections. Taxation without representation. Try and find just ONE damn Palestinian legislator in the Knesset.
First of all, you left out the rest of the law, it states:
A party will not be registered if any of its purposes or deeds, implicitly or explicitly, contains
1. negation of the existence of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state;
2. incitement to racism.
3. reasonable ground to deduce that the party will serve as a cover for illegal actions.
Now the first clause is definitely troublesome. And I agree, is counterproductive to liberty. I would find it acceptable if the first clause left out "Jewish". However, the Supreme Court of Israel has brought up the problems of this law and this does not say "Arabs cannot participate in the democratic process and be candidates for elections", nor does this imply that identification as a Jewish state means a denial of individual rights to Arabs. Yes I agree, the law is bad, but I don't agree with you it means taxation without representation.
And you said: "Try and find just ONE damn Palestinian legislator in the Knesset"
How about Azmi Bishara. There, I found ONE, and there are many more.
Quote:
Quote:
"...And what about voting rights? Pro-Israel types insist that Arabs can vote in Israel, but that's only because Israel is good at pretending to be a democracy. In reality, the distinction between
;occupied territory&#and the rest of Israel is defined by race; Israeli settlements in the ;occupied territories&; have full voting rights in Israel, while Arabs in those same occupied territories do not.
Israel does not grant full liberties to terrorist infested Palestinian territories. Can you blame them? What would they do? Vote to exterminate the Jews? And again, a democracy is not the ultimate goal to liberty, lets dispel that myth right away:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/meanin ... vote.shtml
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/pr110702.shtml
Nice loaded language in the first sentance. This would be more accurately stated as "Israel prevents the Palestinians in these areas from voting because the most likely act of a conquered people would be to vote for their freedom from Israeli domination." The following 3 sentances are Begging the Question. How's this for an answer: maybe they'd vote to have equal rights under the law (which the Basic Law: Human Diginities and Freedom does *not* specify... in fact it affirms "the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state." - emphasis mine.) Maybe they'd also vote for creation of a Palestinian nation. Israel wants neither.
Alex Epstein wrote:
The right to vote derives from the recognition of man as an autonomous, rational being, who is responsible for his own life and who should therefore freely choose the people he authorizes to represent him in the government of his country. That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom. Rather, because a free society requires a certain type of government, it is a means of installing the officials who will safeguard the individual rights of each citizen.
Did you even read this essay before you pasted the link?! The author clearly disagrees with you on the morality of allowing Israel to disenfranchise 3.3 million Palestinians in the occupied territories. Way to shoot your own rebuttal in the foot.
You're twiting the language, Alex Epstein clearly states:
"That autonomy is contradicted if a majority of voters is allowed to do whatever it wishes to the individual citizen. The right to vote is not a sanction for a gang to deprive other individuals of their freedom."
And the Palestinians under the PLO have elected Yasser Arafat, a known terrorist who has gone on record saying he wishes to annihilate the Jews and drive them into the sea. Clearly, if the Palestinians, under the control of PLO, vote for the PLO, deny the rights of individuals. Way to shoot your own rebuttal in the foot.
Quote:
Quote:
Israel enjoys broad support among nations with a Judeo-Christian background, while its actions have been widely criticized among nations without a Judeo-Christian background. As an example of the audacious spin-doctoring that is common in Israel's supporter nations (including my own), Time Magazine ran a comparison piece between a typical Palestinian family and a typical Israeli family recently; the Palestinian family's home had been destroyed by Israeli shelling and they were living hand to mouth, while the Israeli family was feeling a lot of stress because of Palestinian terrorism; the magazine actually had the temerity to pretend that their situations were equally difficult!
How ridiculous, if a people support a terrorist thug like Yasser Arafat, who the Palestinians freely elected, than of course that means they don’t want peace, they don't want normal relations with Israel, and as a result of this outward support for terrorism against Israel, they suffer their own demise. Aren't these the same Palestinians that celebrated in the streets of the West Bank after al-Qaeda terrorists killed 3000 Americans on 9/11? Sorry, really can't feel bad for the Palestinian cause, they did it to themselves:
http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/columns/rt042202.shtml
And as my friend Moff Jerjerrod put it "This is particularly offensive. Time could've written a piece detailing an Israeli family that lost a loved one to Palestinian hatred. Secondly, he is suggesting somehow that nations with a Judeo-Christian background are inherently more biased than those that do not."
I can play this game too: "if the Israelis really wanted peace, they wouldn't have elected a Likud extremist like Sharon who had his troops stand back and watch while the Christian Phalange slaughtered refugees in Sabra and Shatila. The fact that they did proves they don't want peace and just want to exterminate the Palestinians. As a result they suffer more bomb attacks." How do you like it from the opposing point of view? We can toss those sorts of statements back and forth all day long and they signify nothing. To rebutt your friend's point: Mike is saying that Judeo-Christian nations have a built-in bias in favor of Israel. Keep on beating up that "Judeo-Christians are bigots" strawman, though.
Perhaps they have a bias, I don't know, but again, (you obviously ignored what I said in response to this) there was no proof that linked the IDF, or Ariel Sharon, to being directly responsible for the war crimes committed in Sabra and Shatila. And as I pointed out, the United States supported Stalin during World War 2. Hitler was killing Jews in Poland in his effort to annihilate the Jews, after the United States gave mounds of financial and military support to Stalin in an effort to defeat Germany, Stalin, after marching into Poland, picked up where Stalin left off, and continued the extermination of Jews in Poland. Does that mean the United States was morally responsible for the murders committed by Stalin while they stood by? I can see if you want to say it was a grave tactical error, or that it was a terrible mistake to side with someone like Stalin, or in Israel's case the Lebanese Christian militia, but you cannot say they were morally responsible.
Good question. Why don't you ask the Arabs that initiated attacks against Israel?
Good idea: I'd bet they'd tell you they were unhappy with the UN plan for the Jewish minority (many of whom were recent immigrants) to end up with over half of Palestine.
So because the UN partition was unjust, it therefore gave the right to illegitimate governments (illegitimate since they were theocracies and despotic regimes) to launch an effort to annihilate the Jews?
Anyway, that's as far as I'm going through this drivel.
Maybe if you read this drivel, you will see what I'm talking about when I say Darth Wong's essay was filled with half-truths, subjective judgements, moral equivalence, non-sequiters, failure to justify his ethical stance on civilians in combat or captured lands during advances against an enemy who initiated force, and the occasional lie.
That was the POINT of my drivel.