The Politics Thread

[BWFC_Insane]

without the religious labels that are so easy to use - the justification for it being "ours" would be just as strong... it would be a "we were here first" argument or a "the land is ours by international law" argument...

religious justifications complicate the issue - but the bottom line is land and people will always find a justification as to why they should express their nationhood by means of the land they occupy... see the Falklands - no religious explanation needed - but equally intractable and immovable conviction about land and national identity.

I think part of the reason wht religion "seems" to be so crucial here is that it is seen as co-terminous with nationality on both sides. in many peoples' eyes Israeli=Jewish / Palestinian=Muslim - and so when the issue is actually nationalism, it is very easily confused for religionism...

anyway - as you said, I don't think we are that far apart...

Religion though helps to accentuate the divide surely? But I'd agree only in the sense of labels.

But were everyone Jewish, just that some were Jews who'd lived there for 500 years and some were Jews who'd lived elsewhere then moved there 60 or so years ago would there be trouble? Possibly but I'm not convinced as much.

[thebish]

Religion though helps to accentuate the divide surely? But I'd agree only in the sense of labels.

yes - as I have said several times now - it is a complicating factor.

[Bruce Rioja]

I see that Baroness Warsi's resigned over Government policy on Gaza.

[Prufrock]

Without religion the initial Israeli claim on that land seems v weak to me. Sure there were still Jews living in the area in small numbers, but the return post-WWII of those whose families had lived for hundreds of years in Europe and with it the 'right to return' was a political tool whose only convincing argument is the religious one. That these people are linked through their faith. Without that, the claim would be only slightly more convincing than me claiming the part of the African savannah my ancestors first left.

Of course, now, several generations later that claim is much stronger. There are Israelis sympathetic to the Palestinian cause who nevertheless would say, like white South Africans, 'yes, but this is my home. I was born here and grew up here, where am I supposed to go'. I think that illustrates what I'm trying to say which is that this had an initial religious cause, which has now been superceded by what you might term a nationalistic one (though personally I don't think that quite captures the Palestinian mentality, anyway).

On a wider point about religion and its negative effects. The counter argument is often, 'look, conflicts happen elsewhere without religion so this proves religion doesn't cause conflicts'. I don't accept that. The Falklands is an example that you don't need religion to cause conflict. Not that it never really does, or it isn't really the cause. I think often looking for 'one' cause is to over-simplify, and that applies here too, but I do actually think that religion is sine qua non when taking Israel/Palestine as a whole.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The UN doesn't have a great record on honouring UN resolutions!

Anyway, UN resolutions in the Middle East broadly means American foreign policy browbeaten into everyone who's within missile range. Israel will have a free hand to continue what its doing, albeit with the odd meaningless media soundbite thrown in from the American team bench, because it suits America to have a "strong" (bullying, belligerent) puppet on the doorstep of all that oil.

and - funnily enough - I believe there are huge gas reserves in gaza that I am sure Israel aren't in the least bit interested in getting their hands on...

Gaza is six kilometers wide. Any gas reserves there are easily accessible without having infrastructure stationed directly above it.

[Lord Kangana]

Would that it were that simple. And it was on our watch, from the end of the First World War, til just after the end of the Second, that the seeds were largely sown for these problems, with first the Balfour declaration and then the Mandate of Palestine. In the same way that The Troubles were a largely manufactured "Religious Conflict" in NI, our hands have more blood on them in this instance than many would like to openly admit.

[Prufrock]

Oh this undoubtedly has a spot on the World Tour of shit we waded into and f*cked up royally too!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

Religion though helps to accentuate the divide surely? But I'd agree only in the sense of labels.

yes - as I have said several times now - it is a complicating factor.

Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel are all artificially contrived states insofar as Europeans drew the boundaries of lands carved out of the Ottoman Empire. Strangely enough, before the Arab spring most of the conflicts within those lands was purely about religion. It was about Islam against Islam (Sunni versus Shia), Isalam against Christianity (in Lebanon), Islam against Druze (in Lebanon) and Islam against Islam (Sunni against Alawite in Syria).
The only goddam conflict that is land based is the one where four Islamic states (Turkey, Iran, Syria, and Iraq) disregarded the territorial ambitions of an ethnic people (the Kurds).
Israel versus the Arabs is all about religion - it's about which fecking book is holier than any other fecking book, it's all about whose god - Allah or Jehovah - is obeyed, and who it is who enforces his commands. Land is a complicating issue, one that would instantly disappear if all the jews were replaced by muslims.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

It's an interesting one. Do you draw a distinction between civilian deaths and those of military personnel? The latest numbers I found are here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-28586190" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) which show about 27 Palestinian deaths for every Israeli death. However, of the 67 Israeli deaths, only three were civilians (one of whom was actually a Thai national, but it seems fair to count the number as three given we're talking about the conscionability of killing civilians). Now I have no idea how many of the 1800 Palestinian dead are what you might call military Hamas members, but I haven't heard too many reports of Israel saying 'Yeah, we got that guy we were specifically after', so I think we're looking at about 500 Palestinian civilians dead for every 1 Israeli civilian.

500 does it for me.

Yes, sorry - I am talking specifically about the death of non-combatant civilians.

500 to 1 does it for me too.

How about 50 to 1?

Or, to put it another way, is a state obliged to tolerate a handful of civilian deaths if the only way to eliminate them completely is to kill more on the other side than would be saved on theirs.

It may well be that we think the answer is 'yes'.

[Lord Kangana]

I don't think an ethnically and religiously differing group artificially planted in your midst can so simply be described as "its all about religion". I'm guessing some of the legitimate grievances the Palestinians have revolve around 1) You took my house 2) You killed my kids. Which unless their house was a Temple, or their kid Jesus, suggests to me, just like with NI, it'd be dead easy to pick the get-out-of-jail-free-card of religion, but it'd also be very wrong.

[Lord Kangana]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

I don't believe the killing of even 100 Palestinians is stopping anything though.

History has taught us that the only way for societies to move on from conflict is for the "victor" (perhaps the stronger, but I think you understand my point) to show magnanimity to the vanquished. Hence we see at the end of WW2 a policy of rebuilding Germany and the Germans, despite their horrific actions (in stark contrast to their treatment at Versailles), Truth and Reconciliation in SA, The Good Friday Agreement in NI. Violence will simply beget violence, as at any one time at least one party will feel the need for vengeance or retaliation against some perceived (real or imagined) slight.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't think an ethnically and religiously differing group artificially planted in your midst can so simply be described as "its all about religion". I'm guessing some of the legitimate grievances the Palestinians have revolve around 1) You took my house 2) You killed my kids. Which unless their house was a Temple, or their kid Jesus, suggests to me, just like with NI, it'd be dead easy to pick the get-out-of-jail-free-card of religion, but it'd also be very wrong.

They weren't artificially planted in anyone's midst. The Jews were in the Middle East all along, just like the Kurds and the Alawites and the Christians and the Druze. The only difference between the Jews and the others is that they got a state. looks like the Kurds are about to liberate their own state - pretty much from an armed perspective not dissimilar to Israel's. The Alawites survived by having a power centre and controlling Syria, but that's gone now and will probably face the same outcome that the Christians and Druze face - extermination. And if the Jews didn't have the state of israel that would be their fate in the Middle East as well.

[Lord Kangana]

The overwhelming majority were not there years ago at all.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

This is a good introduction to the proportionality debate: http://strategicstudiesinstitute.army.m ... walzer.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

I don't believe the killing of even 100 Palestinians is stopping anything though.

History has taught us that the only way for societies to move on from conflict is for the "victor" (perhaps the stronger, but I think you understand my point) to show magnanimity to the vanquished. Hence we see at the end of WW2 a policy of rebuilding Germany and the Germans, despite their horrific actions (in stark contrast to their treatment at Versailles), Truth and Reconciliation in SA, The Good Friday Agreement in NI. Violence will simply beget violence, as at any one time at least one party will feel the need for vengeance or retaliation against some perceived (real or imagined) slight.

Actually I agree and I think Israel's best chance of peace is to improve Gaza's economy so much that extremism and Hamas become unattractive options.

But let's debate the principle instead for a second - if one could state could prevent the deaths of 10 of its citizens only by action that killed another state's citizens, how large would the number of the other state's citizens have to be before the action became disproportionate?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

The overwhelming majority were not there years ago at all.

And neither were the overwhelming majority of 'Palestinians'. Christians on the other hand, native Christians such as Nestorians and other Middle Eastern sects like Armenian Orthodox and Copts were there in their millions, mostly now just distant memories of communities utterlt destroyed since 1918. the Christian community, on conservative estimates has suffered a ninety percent drop - almost all of it through persecution by the Muslim majority.
if the Jewish state hadn't imported its diaspora then they too would probably have faced annihilation, and the large part of that diaspora well before the 1967 war, comprised the remnants of the holocaust returning to a 'homeland' after one of the most brutally effective genocidal campaign ever carried out - do you think they and their descendants are going to sit idly by whilst an entire religion threatens to wipe them off the face of the earth, and threatens that not because of the land they occupy, but because of the religion they espouse whilst on that land. If for one moment you think that when Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan was carved out that if all the muslim Nogais and Kazakhs kicked off the Russian steppe were given a state in Palestine (which was mooted at the time), that nearly one hundred years later Iran would be calling for their annihilation, then you have a fundamentally different perception of history and mankind's religious bigotry to me.

[Hoboh]

I'm fascinated hoboh. Israel basically has a defence shield that negates 99.9% of the Hamas rockets. On the other hand, Israel has the kind of capability that only leaves the fillings from your teeth.

Now, bearing that in mind, do you believe it a commensurate response to use the nuclear option against the arrows? Or would it perhaps be in the best interests of world peace (I know, I'm that naive) for Israel to take the moral high ground and perhaps not kill lots of people (basically children) for the sake of it?

The boundaries of what is a commensurate response are an interesting question.

For instance, if, hypothetically, the stronger of two parties had to kill 100 of the other side to avoid the death of 1 of its own, is it morally obliged to 'choose' the death of its 1 rather than the other's 100? And, if so, what is the numerical tipping point where this changes?

I don't believe the killing of even 100 Palestinians is stopping anything though.

History has taught us that the only way for societies to move on from conflict is for the "victor" (perhaps the stronger, but I think you understand my point) to show magnanimity to the vanquished. Hence we see at the end of WW2 a policy of rebuilding Germany and the Germans, despite their horrific actions (in stark contrast to their treatment at Versailles), Truth and Reconciliation in SA, The Good Friday Agreement in NI. Violence will simply beget violence, as at any one time at least one party will feel the need for vengeance or retaliation against some perceived (real or imagined) slight.

Actually I agree and I think Israel's best chance of peace is to improve Gaza's economy so much that extremism and Hamas become unattractive options.

But let's debate the principle instead for a second - if one could state could prevent the deaths of 10 of its citizens only by action that killed another state's citizens, how large would the number of the other state's citizens have to be before the action became disproportionate?

Hell mummy! even I could not think in those terms.
What I will say however that if groups like Hamas got hold of a nuclear device they would use it, even if tens of thousands of their own people perished, and I fear that day is not many years away.

[BWFC_Insane]

if the Jewish state hadn't imported its diaspora then they too would probably have faced annihilation, and the large part of that diaspora well before the 1967 war, comprised the remnants of the holocaust returning to a 'homeland' after one of the most brutally effective genocidal campaign ever carried out - do you think they and their descendants are going to sit idly by whilst an entire religion threatens to wipe them off the face of the earth, and threatens that not because of the land they occupy, but because of the religion they espouse whilst on that land. I

But they are now the powerful ones. The ones who can decide whether others live or die. And at the minute they are killing children. This notion that they are fighting for their very existence by killing children and innocent people is the exact same principle Hitler and Himmler used to justify their actions. Fighting for the preservation of the German race.

Quite frightening really.

[Prufrock]

But let's debate the principle instead for a second - if one could state could prevent the deaths of 10 of its citizens only by action that killed another state's citizens, how large would the number of the other state's citizens have to be before the action became disproportionate?

I don't think it works like that. It reminds me of the 'would you torture a terrorist if you knew he knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was going blow up London?' question. I can't imagine a scenario where it could arise. It's more of a Kantian poser than an illustrative example. My own 'reckon' would be 10, but I don't think it has any practical application.

The actual answer of course is 'as few as possible', but that isn't really an answer. Israel has a responsibility not to deliberately target civilians, and to ensure any action which may harm them is proportionate. Hamas has the same responsibility of course, though one's responsibility is not dependent on the other keeping up their end. What counts as 'proportionate' is wholly fact-specific, so the the same act to take out the Hamas head honcho wouldn't have the same level of proportionality as the same act to get a regular foot-soldier. In any case though, it seems pretty clear to me that both have failed.

I wonder what would have happened had Israel just waited it out. The Iron Dome means that was at least in theory a genuine option for them.

[BWFC_Insane]

But let's debate the principle instead for a second - if one could state could prevent the deaths of 10 of its citizens only by action that killed another state's citizens, how large would the number of the other state's citizens have to be before the action became disproportionate?

I don't think it works like that. It reminds me of the 'would you torture a terrorist if you knew he knew the location of a nuclear bomb that was going blow up London?' question. I can't imagine a scenario where it could arise. It's more of a Kantian poser than an illustrative example. My own 'reckon' would be 10, but I don't think it has any practical application.

The actual answer of course is 'as few as possible', but that isn't really an answer. Israel has a responsibility not to deliberately target civilians, and to ensure any action which may harm them is proportionate. Hamas has the same responsibility of course, though one's responsibility is not dependent on the other keeping up their end. What counts as 'proportionate' is wholly fact-specific, so the the same act to take out the Hamas head honcho wouldn't have the same level of proportionality as the same act to get a regular foot-soldier. In any case though, it seems pretty clear to me that both have failed.

Human life is equal. You can't IMO argue that ten deaths is worth the life of 1 or 6 or 250 or whatever.