Moral Equivalency and Israel/Palestine

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, the intifada "kicked off" in 2000, not 2007.

Second, the phrase "Sharon visited the rock and kicked off the intifada" itself shows how ridiculous a pretext it was. Sharon wasn't even PM at the time. Since when is one visit to one place justification for a war?

Foreign occupation and repression is an excellent justification for war.

Originally posted by scherzo
Here's an approximate comparison of the dead in the last year. "Israeli" means Israeli death, and "Palestinian" means Palestinian death.

Israeli Israeli Israeli Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Pale ...[text shortened]... stinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian Palestinian

give up

Originally posted by sh76
First of all, the intifada "kicked off" in 2000, not 2007.

Second, the phrase "Sharon visited the rock and kicked off the intifada" itself shows how ridiculous a pretext it was. Sharon wasn't even PM at the time. Since when is one visit to one place justification for a war?

I didnt google it, instead giving an opinion based on a conversation I had with a Danish guy who had lived in the middle east, at a Christmas party.

And yes if the details in wiki are correct, he was opposition leader at the time and yes he went to the compound during visiting hours, and he did not actually go inside..........the point is, is the message it seemed to be making. This Mosque is inside an area 'we' control and there's nothing you can do to stop 'us' doing whatever 'we' want to do. A hawk doing a very bad dove impression that sent all the wrong messages.

[edit]..... I remember the event as a news item and also remember thinking at the time, that's not going to go down well, that's just a little bit too much of, in your face matey, for anyone to take that lying down......[/edit]

And as to his visit being a ridiculous pretext for war, when isn't engagement based on some of the flimsiest of excuses generally?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
I've seen both Zionists and pro-Palestinian people claim that there is no moral equivalency in the conflict between the two; each side of course has it's own conclusion as to which side is the one with the moral superiority.

I am on the side of moral equivalency. Both sides have issues, both sides have a grain of truth to their position.

What do you think?

Of course. 1,400 Palestinian lives is worth exactly 13 Israeli lives.

Originally posted by scherzo
Of course. 1,400 Palestinian lives is worth exactly 13 Israeli lives.

Losing lots of people does not make one morally right.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Losing lots of people does not make one morally right.

What does then?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Losing lots of people does not make one morally right.

No. But it makes it a lot harder to speak of "moral equivalency," especially due to the motives behind both sides.

Originally posted by whodey
What does then?

Depends what moral framework we're using. Natural Rights is the international norm for this I think, and in the Natural Rights framework NOT violating others' Rights and stopping others from doing so is what makes one morally right.

Originally posted by scherzo
No. But it makes it a lot harder to speak of "moral equivalency," especially due to the motives behind both sides.

Why?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Why?

OK. So, a guy (we'll call him Mr. Mossad) walks into a bar somewhere. He orders a drink. After drinking it, he arbitrarily pulls a gun and massacres the bar. About two people are left standing, where before there was a crowd of 20. The rest are dead corpses or have managed to escape.

By sheer coincidence, both of the remaining survivors are also armed. We'll call one "Fateh" and one "Rejectionists." Mr. Rejectionists tries to shoot Mr. Mossad, but Mr. Fateh intervenes and the shot goes wide, merely injuring Mr. Mossad.

Can you call this an equal scenario?

Originally posted by scherzo
OK. So, a guy (we'll call him Mr. Mossad) walks into a bar somewhere. He orders a drink. After drinking it, he arbitrarily pulls a gun and massacres the bar. About two people are left standing, where before there was a crowd of 20. The rest are dead corpses or have managed to escape.

By sheer coincidence, both of the remaining survivors are also armed. We nd the shot goes wide, merely injuring Mr. Mossad.

Can you call this an equal scenario?

Mr. Mossad is a murderer and should be apprehended and tried as such. The number of people he shot and the injury he received by those defending themselves are irrelevant.

If Mr. Rejectionists fires first, he is guilty of attempted murder. When Mr. Mossad fires back and kills 20 people who Mr Rejectionists was using for cover, Mr Rejectionists is absolutely in the wrong, and Mr. Mossad might or might not be depending on the circumstances. If he was being repeatedly fired on and could not escape, he might be justified in killing 20 when he gets shot in the arm.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Mr. Mossad is a murderer and should be apprehended and tried as such. The number of people he shot and the injury he received by those defending themselves are irrelevant.

If Mr. Rejectionists fires first, he is guilty of attempted murder. When Mr. Mossad fires back and kills 20 people who Mr Rejectionists was using for cover, Mr Rejectionists is ...[text shortened]... fired on and could not escape, he might be justified in killing 20 when he gets shot in the arm.

I said "arbitrarily" because that's how Israel behaves. There was no provocation.

Originally posted by scherzo
I said "arbitrarily" because that's how Israel behaves. There was no provocation.

The purpose of his thread is to discuss the truth or faleshood of and the significance of that very fact. I'm glad you've clarified you're in the "Israel is the one who is in the wrong" camp. Care to defend your position?

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
The purpose of his thread is to discuss the truth or faleshood of and the significance of that very fact. I'm glad you've clarified you're in the "Israel is the one who is in the wrong" camp. Care to defend your position?

Well, when has Israel acted in defense? When didn't it attack first?

Originally posted by kmax87
I didnt google it, instead giving an opinion based on a conversation I had with a Danish guy who had lived in the middle east, at a Christmas party.

And yes if the details in wiki are correct, he was opposition leader at the time and yes he went to the compound during visiting hours, and he did not actually go inside..........the point is, is the message ...[text shortened]... xt for war, when isn't engagement based on some of the flimsiest of excuses generally?

parade of the Orangemen!