I, on the other hand, am happy to debate the Israel-Palestine conflict
I'll speak in rash and general terms, since I can't claim to be an expert at anything. Except possibly sticking my foot in my mouth.
Firstly, if someone could bring to my attention the last time that killing someone in the "war on terror" resulted in there being less terror? Israel has been killing Palestinian terrorists for decades now, so clearly they must be close to getting them all. One of these days. The U.S. has being taking on the terrorists in Iraq for 3 years now, and more of them seem to spring up every time.
Somehow we thought that killing Abu Musab al-Zarqawi would deal "a severe blow to al-Qaida," yet at the same time were confident that it would lead to more violence. Usually if someone hurts your friend, you hate them more, not less And are more inclined to seek revenge, not less. Why do we insist that killing people is the way to stop people from being killed? Clearly it isn't working too well.
1 Comments:
While I agree that there is a clear distinction between the US's military engagement in Iraq and the Israel-Palestine conflict, I don't think you can say that one has absolutely nothing in common with the other. Now, I have to insert a disclaimer here that I'm no expert on Israeli-Arab relations, and if I say things that are factually wrong, please correct me.
There was a time when Israel didn't exist. And that time wasn't that long ago--in my grand-parents' lifetimes, certainly. So when you talk about Israel defending its borders, I think it's useful to reflect on where those borders came from: how were they defined? by whom? for what purpose? who was there before? what's happened to those people, and where are they now? I venture to say that many of the people who insist on blowing themselves and others up feel that their actions are justified by history, and by the present actions of the Israeli govenrment and military--the same way that Israel (and you) can justify the actions of the military by citing history and the present situation (in which Palestinian terrorists are continually blowing themselves and others up). Daring us to ask a terrorist whether he or she feels regret for killing innocent Israelis is a ridiculous question. For one thing, I imagine that some Palestinians think of all Israelis as occupiers, in which case none would be considered "innocent." I could also just as easily dare you to ask an Israeli soldier whether he/she has any regret for the innocent Palestininans (aka, not terrorists) that his/her people have killed in pursuit of terrorists. I expect their answers would sound about the same: that the killing is justified in the name of a greater cause in which he/she believes, and that though it sucks when innocent people die, it's a price that must be paid for [fill in your noble goal of choice here]. I'm sure there are also a lot of people on both sides who don't support what their sides are doing, and who want the conflict to end justly.
It's impossible to talk about whether one side or another is more justified in this seemingly-never-ending conflict without getting to the root of the problem: some people (and I assume you're one of them) think that Israel has a right to exist exactly where it is; and some others (and I assume Dave is one of them) think that is not the case. And as long as that divide exists, we can keep arguing over details til we're all blue in the face and suffering from carpal-tunnel syndrome, and we won't get anywhere. Most people--including the three of us, I think--will agree that innocent people shouldn't die, and that people have a right to defend themselves from attack. So if we're going to talk about it, let's talk about where we really don't see eye-to-eye, instead of squabbling over details.
Post a Comment
<< Home