Israel

[ScottSA]

The other, civilian casualties are tragic, unavoidable collateral damage.

Would anyone like to take a wild guess as to which logical fallacy that statement represents?

No, I'd rather you tell me. I don't think it's a logical fallacy at all, and I'd like to see you defend your statement.

[jbg]

The other, civilian casualties are tragic, unavoidable collateral damage.

Would anyone like to take a wild guess as to which logical fallacy that statement represents?

No, I'd rather you tell me. I don't think it's a logical fallacy at all, and I'd like to see you defend your statement.

You'd like to see him defend the indefensible?

[BC_chick]

And your feelings on religious extremists who assassinate leaders who are about make strides toward peace because they believe that a certain piece of real-estate has been given to Jews by Lord Almighty himself....?

My feeling is that like Netanyahu, Rabin would not have gone ahead with further real estate surrenders without real peace. I don't think his death made a whit of difference.

You fail yet again to answer the question. What are your feelings about the assassination of a leader, who, whether or not you believe would have gone through with the promises he had made, was killed by a religious extremist who believed his actions are justified because God gave that land to the Jews?

[jbg]

And your feelings on religious extremists who assassinate leaders who are about make strides toward peace because they believe that a certain piece of real-estate has been given to Jews by Lord Almighty himself....?

My feeling is that like Netanyahu, Rabin would not have gone ahead with further real estate surrenders without real peace. I don't think his death made a whit of difference.

You fail yet again to answer the question. What are your feelings about the assassination of a leader, who, whether or not you believe would have gone through with the promises he had made, was killed by a religious extremist who believed his actions are justified because God gave that land to the Jews?

What am I going to say, that a murder of a revered PM is a good thing? Of course not. The point that I am making is that people of the ilk that murdered him were and always have been marginal in Jewish life. That's akin to telling someone that Paul Bernardo manages gender-equality issues in Canada, that Rabin's assassin represented anyone.

[BC_chick]

What am I going to say, that a murder of a revered PM is a good thing? Of course not. The point that I am making is that people of the ilk that murdered him were and always have been marginal in Jewish life. That's akin to telling someone that Paul Bernardo manages gender-equality issues in Canada, that Rabin's assassin represented anyone.

Disproportionate or not, the failings of reaching a peace accord has therefore not rested solely on Muslim extremism. The closest anyone has come in the last 40 years of achieving peace, progress was halted as a result of Jewish extremism. Unless of course, you are disagreeing that using the Biblical notion of a God-given land to kill is not extremism.

[Remiel]

You'd like to see him defend the indefensible?

Your sentence was a generalization. You took the whole account of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli military and declare them all to have been unavoidable. Yet, to anyone with half a grain of sense, this would stand out as being impossible. Dollar to a dime, some of the civilian casualties caused by the military could of been prevented had soldiers done their jobs better. Thus, your statement is, in fact, incorrect.

[jbg]

You'd like to see him defend the indefensible?

Your sentence was a generalization. You took the whole account of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli military and declare them all to have been unavoidable. Yet, to anyone with half a grain of sense, this would stand out as being impossible. Dollar to a dime, some of the civilian casualties caused by the military could of been prevented had soldiers done their jobs better. Thus, your statement is, in fact, incorrect.

Did Osama try to avoid civilian casualties?

[BC_chick]

Did Osama try to avoid civilian casualties?

Speaking of avoiding.

[ScottSA]

You'd like to see him defend the indefensible?

Your sentence was a generalization. You took the whole account of civilian deaths caused by the Israeli military and declare them all to have been unavoidable. Yet, to anyone with half a grain of sense, this would stand out as being impossible. Dollar to a dime, some of the civilian casualties caused by the military could of been prevented had soldiers done their jobs better. Thus, your statement is, in fact, incorrect.

They are all avoidable of course. All Israel has to do is pack up and move into the sea, thereby avoiding any and all Palestinian casualties. But the point is that Israel does not set out to kill civilians, whereas Hamas proudly does. It is a fundamental distinction that goes to the very root of the Geneva Convention and international law. Given that Israel has chosen to fight instead of willingly embark upon yet another holocaust, and given that its enemy chooses to fight from amidst a civilian population, the civilian casualties Israel inflicts are unavoidable. It's not a question of soldiers "doing their jobs better," as you so blithely put it, it's a case of physics: explosions are not refined enough to kill only select individuals. Nor is it reasonable to say, given the nature of modern battle between an enemy embedded in a civilian population and a fielded force, that any civilian casualties are avoidable.

Your specific argument; that jbg's post is a fallacy; is not supported by your observation that it is a generalization. The two are not synonymous. One can claim that clouds are white. It is a generalization and doesn't hold true in some cases, yet it is not a fallacy. It is not a logically inconsistent or unsound observation. It is a generalization, but not a fallacy.

[Higgly]

There will never be peace until the Palestinians learn to love their children more than they hate Israel Golda M.

"Gold Meir has a vocabulary of 500 words, but she only uses 300 of them." Abba Eban.

There was a segment on C-SPAN the other day showing Dennis Ross, Clinton's chief Middle East negotiator, giving a lecture on the occasion of the anniversary of the 1967 war. He was talking about windows of opportunity and how they come so seldom and are only open for a short space of time. He said that the death of Arafat, which coincided with Sharon announcing his policy of 'disengagement' was one such opportunity but that the Bush administartion was focussed elsewhere - i.e. Iraq. I think he's right about the windows of opportunity, although I don't agree that Clinton (or Ross) had a clue as to how to achieve peace.

It is no accident that Oslo was negotiated with the leaders of the US, Israel, and the Palestinians, acting at arm's length. These 3, left to their own devices, may never be able to produce a peaceful resolution.

[jbg]

Did Osama try to avoid civilian casualties?

Speaking of avoiding.

This is getting ridiculous. You don't even read what I have to say before accusing me of not answering your rhetorical questions.

[jbg]

I think he's right about the windows of opportunity, although I don't agree that Clinton (or Ross) had a clue as to how to achieve peace.

Israel will always have the opportunity to surrender. It won't, though.

It is no accident that Oslo was negotiated with the leaders of the US, Israel, and the Palestinians, acting at arm's length. These 3, left to their own devices, may never be able to produce a peaceful resolution.

And your point is?

[BC_chick]

This is getting ridiculous. You don't even read what I have to say before accusing me of not answering your rhetorical questions.

I read what you wrote, it was about the assassination not being a good thing - but I was not asking you whether or not it's good or bad, I was asking you your feelings about Jewish extremism and its role in the peace process.

I will ask you directly:

Do you agree that killing a leader because you believe God gave you a piece of land is religious extremism? If so, are you willing to acknowledge that the closest the world has come in establishing peace in the Middle East (in spite of speculation as what may or may not have happened if Rabin were alive), the process was halted as a result of Jewish extremism?

[Higgly]

Israel will always have the opportunity to surrender. It won't, though?

You could make the same statement about the Palestinians. And then where are you? Stuck in neutral as always.

And your point is?

Well right now, my point is that you are being disingenuous.

[jbg]

Do you agree that killing a leader because you believe God gave you a piece of land is religious extremism?

No quetion about it, yes.

If so, are you willing to acknowledge that the closest the world has come in establishing peace in the Middle East (in spite of speculation as what may or may not have happened if Rabin were alive), the process was halted as a result of Jewish extremism?

No. I believe that religious extremism had zero to do with the unravelling of the Oslo Accords. I believe that the Oslo Accords were entered into by Israel, as a democracy, in good faith. From what I remember from that period, Arafat announced and endorsed the accords mostly in English, and not in Arabic. I also remember him doing nothing to disarm his guerillas, and Hamas. He stated, in rare honest moments, that he was unable to.

From the October 25, 1993 New York Times (link):

By JOEL GREENBERG,

Published: October 25, 1993

Israel is to begin a gradual release of 760 Palestinian prisoners on Monday under an agreement reached with the Palestine Liberation Organization, Cabinet ministers said today.

But Islamic militants killed two Israeli soldiers in the occupied Gaza Strip today, fueling charges by rightist politicians that freeing Palestinians would abet anti-Israeli violence.

*****

The two Army reservists were killed as they were hitchhiking home in the Qatif Bloc, an enclave of Jewish settlements in the southern part of the Gaza Strip. Arab assailants riding in a stolen Israeli car picked up the soldiers, shot them after a struggle and dumped their bodies on a dirt road near Khan Yunis before abandoning the car, the Army said.

The Qassam Brigades, an armed group affiliated with Hamas, claimed responsibility for the attack. A leaflet distributed by the group condemned the Israeli-Palestinian accord as the "peace of the dead."

****

By contrast, Rabin's assassin, Yigal Amir (link) is serving a life sentence plus fourteen (14) years.

[jbg]

You could make the same statement about the Palestinians. And then where are you? Stuck in neutral as always.

Exactly. Israel has no suicide urge.

[BC_chick]

No. I believe that religious extremism had zero to do with the unravelling of the Oslo Accords. I believe that the Oslo Accords were entered into by Israel, as a democracy, in good faith. From what I remember from that period, Arafat announced and endorsed the accords mostly in English, and not in Arabic. I also remember him doing nothing to disarm his guerillas, and Hamas. He stated, in rare honest moments, that he was unable to.

You can argue that Arafat would have never reiterated his stance in Arabic, meanwhile I could argue that he would have since it was a peace process. Does it matter? No, we're both speculating. Contrarily, the assassination actually took place.

Yet you choose to put more emphasis on your own speculation of what may have happened than you do on factual events that did happen. You go on all the time about other people not seeing when Muslims do wrong. I think you are proving yourself quite capable of the same thing here.

[jbg]

Yet you choose to put more emphasis on your own speculation of what may have happened than you do on factual events that did happen. You go on all the time about other people not seeing when Muslims do wrong. I think you are proving yourself quite capable of the same thing here.

To the contrary, I have posted one of many news articles from that era that evidenced that Arafat did little to take advantage of Rabin's relative beneficence. Not a surprise since Arafat "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

[BC_chick]

To the contrary, I have posted one of many news articles from that era that evidenced that Arafat did little to take advantage of Rabin's relative beneficence. Not a surprise since Arafat "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

You posted an article from 1993. In what year did the Accords take place? In what year was Rabin assassinated?

[jbg]

To the contrary, I have posted one of many news articles from that era that evidenced that Arafat did little to take advantage of Rabin's relative beneficence. Not a surprise since Arafat "never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity".

You posted an article from 1993. In what year did the Accords take place? In what year was Rabin assassinated?

The article was after the Oslo Accords and prior to his assassination. I think the date on the Accords was September 6, 1993.

I was careful on that.

[BC_chick]

So let's get this straight. Arafat and Rabin are about to make peace, but extremists on both sides are against this and hinder the peace process from both angles. Rabin was killed by someone you acknowledge was a Jewish-extremist, meanwhile, Muslim-extremists who were also against the peace-process attack and kill two Army reservists in an act of defiance.

Yet, you claim that Muslim extremism is the primary hindrance in that process..... and you substantiate this by showing that the killer was jailed?

The man killed the elected prime minister, it doesn't exactly show any kind of goodwill toward peace from the Israeli side to jail him. Especially when you consider Netanyahu's rise to power and subsequent rejection of the peace process.

I don't follow your logic at all.

Just so you know, I am not blaming one side or the other - all I have tried to point out is that both sides have shown guilt at times.

[jbg]

Yet, you claim that Muslim extremism is the primary hindrance in that process..... and you substantiate this by showing that the killer was jailed?

The man killed the elected prime minister, it doesn't exactly show any kind of goodwill toward peace from the Israeli side to jail him. Especially when you consider Netanyahu's rise to power and subsequent rejection of the peace process.

I don't follow your logic at all.

My logic is that Netanyahu stood ready to honor the Oslo accords, and Arafat never made a serious effort to do so. Rabin might have been important to negotiating them but had little to do with their implementation.

Rabin was a war hero of the 1967 war. He was not about to give up land for words. Trust me on that one.

[BC_chick]

My logic is that Netanyahu stood ready to honor the Oslo accords, and Arafat never made a serious effort to do so.

Is that why he ran a hard campaign painting Peres as too soft (for wanting to grant a Palestinian state) and he did not implement the first steps of the Accord?

[jbg]

My logic is that Netanyahu stood ready to honor the Oslo accords, and Arafat never made a serious effort to do so.

Is that why he ran a hard campaign painting Peres as too soft (for wanting to grant a Palestinian state) and he did not implement the first steps of the Accord?

One of the features of democracies is that treaties and international commitments of prior governments are generally honored.

[BC_chick]

But they weren't. Peres was in favour of a Palestinian state and the return of the Golan Heights in exchange for peace. Netanyahu ran his campaign against both those issues. And he did not honour the return of Hebron which was the first step in the Accord, did he?

We can sit here and argue to your heart's content about why his actions were justified or not.... but it doesn't change the fact that Netanyahu had no intention of honouring the Accord as stipulated by Rabin (or Peres).