tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post6681844337557484267..comments2024-03-22T06:22:08.010+00:00Comments on Stephen Law: Israel, Palestine and TerrorStephen Lawhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02167317543994731177noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66138397303353372732020-07-07T13:16:47.775+00:002020-07-07T13:16:47.775+00:00Issa Nakhleh: Vile liar Holocaust denier, Hitler&#...Issa Nakhleh: Vile liar Holocaust denier, Hitler's canard - recycler, pushing Neo-Nazi inventions on WW2, and long time agitator in S. America<br /><br />https://eyes-opener.blogspot.com/2020/06/issa-nakhle-holocaust-denier-and.html?m=1#Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-50875788716429080032013-01-05T12:53:16.228+00:002013-01-05T12:53:16.228+00:00I'd like to mention the ongoing nonviolent res...I'd like to mention the ongoing nonviolent resistance of the village of At Tuwani. You can find more information here http://www.operazionecolomba.it/ and on wikipedia. <br />Thanks for the post, very good and mind-provoking.il Gaizkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07219510620850658468noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-26216598122470871802012-11-24T09:41:14.047+00:002012-11-24T09:41:14.047+00:00(1) The term"existential threat" is vagu...(1) The term"existential threat" is vague. Please clarify.<br />(2) Implied in the argument is that terrorism has to do something with "occupation" (instead of ultra-nationalist ideals and motivation for instance), without justification, accepted as a cultural truism.<br />(3) "Occupation" is a vague term. Please clarify.<br />(4) The term "terrorism" is somewhat vague (you clearly mean the killing of non-combatants), and sounds in this context like a euphemism for "deliberately targeting civilians".<br />*According to how to clarify these terms, the arguments resting on them will succeed or fail.GaBabnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-66030698160050363512012-11-23T13:26:36.598+00:002012-11-23T13:26:36.598+00:00@Anonymous: We also can't say that terrorism w...@Anonymous: We also can't say that terrorism was an essential prerequisite for the peace process in Northern Ireland, that it hastened this process or, even if it did, that it was therefore morally justified.<br /><br />Nobody is suggesting that many Palestinians won't feel aggrieved at their situation - and probably justifiably so. Nor is anyone doubting that this, combined with their military inferiority, will mean that at least some Palestinians and others will therefore believe that acts of terrorism against Israeli citizens are justified, and perhaps actually carry out such acts. The real question here though is whether they actually are morally justified. Perhaps they are, but your comment (including its nicely fallacious appeal to authority), doesn't make a very strong case for that. In order to make a sound judgement on that question we are required to ascertain the relevant facts of the matter, and to reason logically from these facts. There is no other reliable way.<br /><br />The core of your argument seems to boil down to the fact that we, who are not subjected to such conditions are not able to, or not entitled to, adjudicate on such matters. Only those who are experiencing it are legitimately able to make such a moral judgement. However, a moment's thought should show you how fallacious that argument is.<br /><br />For a start, those in the middle of the dispute will often have contradictory beliefs about what is just or not, and therefore we cannot just get to the truth of the moral matter by unquestioningly taking their say so. But, further, imagine that somebody was subjected to an unpleasant mugging and, as a result of this, was so incensed and aggrieved that they called for the execution of the mugger. Would we argue that, as we had not been subjected to this experience, but the victim had, that their judgement on this matter was therefore more reliable, and that we ought therefore to execute the mugger solely on their say so? I doubt it. Whilst there is some element of those not having been subjected to the experience perhaps underestimating its severity for the victim, the clouding of reason by strong emotions of righteous anger and so forth are far more likely to lead to unjust and harmful decisions if acted upon unreflectively. That is why our legal system doesn't allow victims of crimes to make such moral judgements themselves (although it takes their feeling into account), but instead relies upon laws that have been agreed upon after much debate (and which are rightly open to further revision or repeal).<br /><br />And the argument that terrorism is the only realistic means available to the Palestinians, and therefore it is morally justified is a complete non-sequitur unless we can demonstrate firstly that this is indeed so, and secondly that, if it is, they are therefore morally justified in indiscriminately killing innocents (not those attacking or subjugating them directly). At the very least, the harm incurred by so doing would have to be outweighed by the benefits - which you have failed to demonstrate. Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-82098493744372672182012-11-23T13:25:39.319+00:002012-11-23T13:25:39.319+00:00Nick, It strikes me that if your reconstruction of...Nick, It strikes me that if your reconstruction of Honderich (which I too have not yet read) is accurate, you are right and (P2) is patently false. The Palestinians can certainly get a viable state out of the Israelis with the right diplomatic pressure. However, I do not think that the Palestinians are striving for <i> merely </i> a viable state. They are striving for a viable state with additional desirable qualities, like the right for diaspora Palestinians to return to Israel as citizens and a state that includes Jerusalem, etc. So Honderich and Kapitan, et al have to actually justify Palestinian terror in service of the goal of achieving this expanded state, which seems to me to be a much harder challenge. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-43555703325845627052012-11-23T11:48:41.357+00:002012-11-23T11:48:41.357+00:00Thought-provoking post, and so is that last commen...Thought-provoking post, and so is that last comment.<br /><br />Whenever you have a conflict between two combatants where one has an obvious technological, economic or brute force advantage against the other (think Vietnam) then the weaker side will always engage in tactics that are considered unethical by the stronger side.<br /><br />Regards, Paul.Paul P. Mealinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14573615711151742992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-71052218507048036932012-11-23T11:06:41.160+00:002012-11-23T11:06:41.160+00:00Terrorism was a definite factor in Northern Irelan...Terrorism was a definite factor in Northern Ireland. While the same result <i>might</i> have been achievable through exclusively non-violent means, we can't say that for sure. It is very easy for us to sit about worrying over exactly how justified X or Y is in Palestine while we are safe and comfortable. You subject people to the conditions that the Palestinians endure; you are moronic if you think they won't attack you any way they can. <br /><br />If Israel had been a nation founded on stolen land by any group other than the Jews, there would be no moral quibbling at all. It is a unique situation and while there is no question that the Jewish people suffered horrendously in Europe, it still doesn't justify the taking of Palestinian homes from their rightful owners and turning what land they have left into a prison.<br /><br />Try to imagine for a second that Iran invades Ireland and treats the Irish people exactly how the Israelis treat the Palestinians.<br />The Irish fight back by whatever means they have available and are labelled terrorists. Iraq refuses to allow any international sanctions against Iran and supports it in the international “war on terror”. Those despicable Irish should either attack the military (equivalent to lining themselves up against the wall for ease of execution) or use peaceful means to fight back. Terrorism is never acceptable... just like displacing people and treating them like criminals on their own land is never acceptable morally.<br /><br /> Imagine that Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. are the first world countries, primarily interested in the oil that places like the UK and US have in abundance. Imagine that every so often a coalition of these countries bomb the crap out of the US and send in armies under the pretence of ridding the country of oppressive dictators (whom they have propped up for years). They kill tens of thousands of Americans and every night Al Jazeera has commentators wondering about how worthwhile the war is because a few more coalition troops have been killed by American "terrorists". <br />Imagine then that some young men, enraged and without any means of fighting a conventional war, strike back with terrorist attacks in Iraq or Iran. These attacks are marketed in Iran and Iraq as being solely the work of extremist Christians. Progressive Iranians pat themselves on the back for recognising that not all Irish, UK and American people are terrorists, some of them are even decent people. Some of these Iranians even scoff at the propaganda that tries to make claims like "They hate us for our freedom."<br /><br />I am very grateful I am not an Arab. I can't imagine the rage I would have to deal with. Especially if faced with condemnations of the only realistic form of retaliation available by people with no understanding of the day to day. <br /><br /><i>My dear Tavy, your pious English habit of regarding the world as a moral gymnasium built expressly to strengthen your character in, occasionally leads you to think about your own confounded principles when you should be thinking about other people’s necessities.</i> <br />- George Bernard Shaw, Man and the SupermanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-47942667554298833772012-11-22T20:12:25.332+00:002012-11-22T20:12:25.332+00:00I haven't read Honderich's piece, so I mig...I haven't read Honderich's piece, so I might be doing him a disservice here if he makes other arguments. However, as quoted, his argument for the legitimacy of at least some Palestinian terrorism is far from having been shown to be sound. It seems to boil down to the following:<br /><br />P1) If the Palestinians' only means to a viable state has been and may still be terrorism, then such terrorism is probably morally justified<br />P2) The Palestinians' only means to a viable state has been and may still be terrorism<br />C) Therefore, such terrorism is probably morally justified<br /><br />Now, proposition P2 is not self-evidently true, and is certainly open to dispute. One can make a good case that terrorist action of this sort is likely to be ineffective and probably counter-productive in the pursuit of the goal of a viable state, and far less likely to succeed in this regard than a combination of various sorts of non-violent action, negotiation, and diplomacy (as you discuss). The latter might have little chance of success either, but it might still have more chance of success than terrorism. <br /><br />However, proposition P1 is also very problematical. It too is not self-evidently true, and has not been proven to be so (unless Honderich does this elsewhere). Moreover, it rests upon an implicit generalisation of the following sort:<br /><br />If we believe that the use of indiscriminate violence against innocent people is the only way to achieve some desired end, then we are probably morally justified in using such violence.<br /><br />However, not only is this generalisation not shown to be true, but I think that it is most probably false. For example, as a counterexample, imagine that I desire a million pounds from my local bank, and know that the only way that I will get this money is to rob the bank, using indiscriminate violence against innocent bank employees and customers. Would I then be morally justified in doing this? Hardly.<br /><br />Of course, it can be argued that the Palestinians’ case for having a viable state is a morally justified one (and, in fact, I would probably agree with that, and believe that a two state solution is probably the only feasible solution). However, imagine that the million pounds that I want from the bank is actually my money that the bank is illegitimately withholding from me. Would I then be morally justified in using indiscriminate violence against innocents in order to get my money back? I doubt it. <br /><br />It might just be possible to construct a persuasive argument whereby one would be morally justified in using indiscriminate violence against innocents (with all of the moral harm that entails) in order to achieve some end when it is undeniable (to objective and dispassionate observers) that (natural) justice entails that one is entitled to that end, and where not achieving that end would be a matter of life and death (or, at minimum, where not having that end would make life utterly unbearable for any rational human in those circumstances). However, even if such an argument could be constructed in general, it is far from evident that the necessary conditions are met in the particular case of Palestine i.e. that it is undeniable (to objective and dispassionate observers) that (natural) justice entails that Palestinians are entitled to a viable state; and, more especially, that having one is a matter of life or death for them (or makes life utterly unbearable for any rational human in those circumstances).Nicknoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1905686568472747305.post-55807067139925082332012-11-22T17:53:00.744+00:002012-11-22T17:53:00.744+00:00In economic terms, the UK lost WWII. The effective...In economic terms, the UK lost WWII. The effectiveness of Gandhi's nonviolence was based upon the weakness imposed on the "British" Empire by that massive violence.<br /><br />What reason is there for attributing responsibility for desegregation etc. to Martin Luther King's nonviolent movement? <br />Competition with Communism and its criticisms of US racism was a major factor in the reforms, for instance, but the Cold War is the opposite of non-violence.S Johnsonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11610068751705809284noreply@blogger.com