Understanding the Evacuation of Gaza Strip: An In-Depth Discussion

[Smurf]

You should look upon things in a more historical perspective
The 20th century will maybe be remembered as that strange epoch when slavery was considered "bad" and when power was not thought to come out of the barrel of a gun. Just a short pause in the natural course of things.

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Edit: also, also... all our wealth, current "legal" situation and so on is simply the result of historical "powerful guns". So it is easy to say that others shouldn't act that way, while you're still profiting from those acts by your ancestors.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

 

[arildno]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

 

[Smurf]

Also Vanesch, slavery first started being abolished in the 18th century.

 

[Smurf]

hmm..there weren't any Englishmen or Frenchmen in what became Canada??

Well if we're going to trace it back beyond borders you mine as well state that we all originate from prehistoric hunter gatherer tribes in which case none of us have not gained from the belligerent acts of our ancestors, so we're all guilty. Therfor, by logical extension we're all equally credible, just because our ancestors did better than yours doesn't make yours any more credible. Blah blah blah.

Can't see vanesch's point, though.

Yes, that's because there obviously isn't any point to it or anything that has come of it, as I have hopefully just demonstrated.

 

[vanesch]

Well, now that we've established that the future is going to be exactly like the past and the current is just a temporary retrieval from it, we should all just give up trying to be nice and slaughter each other in the search for glory and power.

Because the current is not "slaughter each other in the search for glory and power" ? I think the argument "be nice now" is often just used to negociate status quo. By the one who has advantages in keeping status quo.

What is this? Some sort of guilt argument? You might be able to make this argument for someone from France or Britain or especially the US, but I think you'll be hard pressed to show Canada's 'big guns' bringing it any wealth at all, let alone showing myself being a direct beneficiary of it.

But that is all pointless anyways as this is an ad hominem argument.

I don't see how this is "ad hominem" ?? I only wanted to argue that "legal possessions" are, in many cases, just a historical artifact. There's nothing wrong with that, but there is no deep moral justification for "ownership", especially for "ownership of land". You just happen to own it and the other one doesn't, and we've set up an entire system (legal system) which uses force just to keep it that way because it seems tidy. By what fundamental ethical standards do some people possesses fortunes and others die of hunger ? Did they start out in the same conditions and one had "merit" and the other one "blew it" ? No, we've just instored a kind of game, in which certain people, for historical reasons, "possess" stuff, and others don't and when someone doesn't agree with that, he gets to deal with a lot of violence. However, if he WINS the violent conflict, then he now has gained the new possessions he was fighting over. Some play according to those rules, and increase their havings, creating more possessions for their kin. Again, there's nothing WRONG with that, but it hasn't gotten any fundamental moral basis.
So there is no "fundamental right" for people calling themselves Jews to claim a part of the ME, except that they WON it through conflict, in the same way the colonists in northern America WON the land from the native people over there, or made agreements with them or whatever, and won it from their parent nations (like the Brits).

The only right Israel (like any nation) has to exist, is that it exists, and is strong enough (both military, and with alliances) to defy any other pretenders who don't have any right either to claim the land. The day they loose that strength, and, say, the palestians win, oust the Jews, and make an own state, well that Palestinian nation will then have the right to exist and we won't be talking anymore about Israel. The only difference between the current situation and the historical situation is that now, the power game is not only locally played with guns, but also with alliances negociated in the corridors of international organisations.

 

[vanesch]

We all originate from prehistoric hunter gatherer tribes in which case none of us have not gained from the belligerent acts of our ancestors, so we're all guilty.

That's the point. Except that you shoudn't call it "guilty". There's no "guilt" to it. But no moral right either. It just happened that way. Maybe the fundamental difference in our points of view is simply that I think that our current epoch is in no way significant different from what has happened throughout history, while you may think that we're in for something new ?

 

[DM]

By what fundamental ethical standards do some people possesses fortunes and others die of hunger ? Did they start out in the same conditions and one had "merit" and the other one "blew it" ? No, we've just instored a kind of game, in which certain people, for historical reasons, "possess" stuff, and others don't and when someone doesn't agree with that, he gets to deal with a lot of violence.

So, this "game" of violence is justified as merely history?

Some play according to those rules, and increase their havings, creating more possessions for their kin. Again, there's nothing WRONG with that

Rules vs Morality

 

[vanesch]

So, this "game" of violence is justified as merely history?

It is ethically indifferent, it is not justified, it just is. The Romans won, period. That's why they had to say what was "right" and "legal" and what was not. The Roman law was the "right" law simply and only because they won on the battlefield, not because it was ethically justified or not. And of course life was better if you belonged to the descendants of the winners than the losers.
If I compare myself with a kid born somewhere in Ethiopia, or with a prince of Saoudi Arabia, there is no ethical justification why I'm much wealthier than that poor kid, and why that prince is much wealthier than I am. It just is. It is not a matter of merit or wrong choices. It is not ethically wrong either, it is indifferent, ethically. I have no ethical reasons to claim the fortune of that prince for myself, and the kid who is dying of hunger has no ethical right to claim my wellbeing either. At least, the rules are such.
In the same way, if the people making up a NEW nation (and clearly, in one way or another, they had to deal with the nation to which, by the rules, the land of that nation belonged to before) manage to make their rules hold within that nation, and have it accepted by others, well then that is then their nation. This has always been so, and will remain so.

So I find it total bull to justify, morally, the setting up of Israel because of some would-be historical fact 2000 years ago. But it is just as wrong to say that because such a justification does not hold, Israel shouldn't exist. There was no a priori justification for Israel to exist, but now that they managed to make it, as long as they can keep it, it has the same rights as any other nation. Because, at the end of the day, "rights" come out of the barrel of the biggest gun.

EDIT: (to continue my ranting :-) I think that what is sometimes considered as "ethical", "right", "lawful" and so on on a "modern, international" scale, is a kind of snapshot of the current situation as "boundary conditions" that is the "right" way for things to be. The current nations then are graved in stone, and "from now on we start to deal nicely with each other, only mutual agreements and business, no guns anymore". Although that is of course a solution that will avoid wars and bloodshed, it is also rather unfair to carve the current situation (which is a historical accident) forever in stone. Only a total redistribution of land and wealth over all people would generate true morally justified "initial conditions".

 

[Smurf]

No one is questioning Israel's de facto right to exist simply because they don't have a reason to.

Just because they managed to kill thousands of people and set up a government over them doesn't excuse them of the fact that they killed thousands of people to set up a government over them.

 

[vanesch]

Just because they managed to kill thousands of people and set up a government over them doesn't excuse them of the fact that they killed thousands of people to set up a government over them.

My point was: this can be said of about any nation ; the only difference is that this killing for most other nations is much further back in time.

 

[The Smoking Man]

My point was: this can be said of about any nation ; the only difference is that this killing for most other nations is much further back in time.

And predates, the League of Nations, Kellogg-Briand and the UN which were all supposed to outlaw this type of killing.

 

[vanesch]

And predates, the League of Nations, Kellogg-Briand and the UN which were all supposed to outlaw this type of killing.

Yes, that's what I meant: at a certain point, those who had "their act together" went on favoring status quo and "be nice to each other". They carved in stone the current historical configuration of the world, forbidding others from now on to do what they had done to get there.
Now, I can of course see the advantages of this "freezing of history": it should indeed reduce dramatically the number of death and so on, but there is a fundamental unfairness to it, that this "no killing" was decided by those who had partitioned the world, exactly by doing a lot of historical killing. Those who didn't happen to have their act together (their "nation"), like the Jews and the worshippers of Big Baloo, and many others, can be understandably frustrated. They now are not only facing up against the guns they would have had to win against in order for them to build the nation they would have liked, but with these international agreements, they are now up to the guns of the entire world if they cannot convince them that what they want is "right".

 

[The Smoking Man]

Those who didn't happen to have their act together (their "nation"), like the Jews and the worshippers of Big Baloo, and many others, can be understandably frustrated. They now are not only facing up against the guns they would have had to win against in order for them to build the nation they would have liked, but with these international agreements, they are now up to the guns of the entire world if they cannot convince them that what they want is "right".

Could it be that this line of reasoning is what motivates groups to acts of 'Terrorism' and why we now call them that instead of 'Freedom Fighters'?

 

[vanesch]

Could it be that this line of reasoning is what motivates groups to acts of 'Terrorism' and why we now call them that instead of 'Freedom Fighters'?

You see my point. That doesn't give them any "moral rights" but I was only objecting to any moral rights one could ever base oneself on (like do the Jews) to say that they "ought" to be assigned this or that piece of land, based upon a historical situation.
The current situation is a result of a lot of acts of violence in the past so there's no moral justification for it. And the situations in the past were just the same, so one cannot use situations of the past as moral justifications of what "ought to be". If there is ONE justification then it is that the winner takes it all ; at least that's how all historical situations could be explained, including the current "frozen" one ; based upon that justification, then it is simply sufficient to win to be "right". But that's hardly ethically justifiable.

Saying that the situation today is what it is, and we take that as a starting point to "build a new world without violence" is extremely unfair, because this situation as it is today determines who has access to ressources and who has not, who is rich and who is poor and so on. This is only a "good" solution for those who are to decide, which are those who ARE rich and HAVE the biggest guns ; but this is simply how things have always been! It has no moral justification at all. And the day that those who are rich now, do not have the biggest guns anymore, then the whole thing will change, according to the new masters with the big guns. Nothing new, except for a smart act of cartel formation between the current powers that be to keep a bit longer the status quo.
"Terrorism" is simply another way of going to the battlefield to try to change the distribution of the cards of the world, exactly as things always have been. It is called "terrorism" now, simply because of the cartel of powerful nations who thought they could change the way history was progressing ; they only changed the vocabulary.

 

[The Smoking Man]

You see my point. That doesn't give them any "moral rights" but I was only objecting to any moral rights one could ever base oneself on (like do the Jews) to say that they "ought" to be assigned this or that piece of land, based upon a historical situation.
The current situation is a result of a lot of acts of violence in the past so there's no moral justification for it. And the situations in the past were just the same, so one cannot use situations of the past as moral justifications of what "ought to be". If there is ONE justification then it is that the winner takes it all ; at least that's how all historical situations could be explained, including the current "frozen" one ; based upon that justification, then it is simply sufficient to win to be "right". But that's hardly ethically justifiable.

Saying that the situation today is what it is, and we take that as a starting point to "build a new world without violence" is extremely unfair, because this situation as it is today determines who has access to ressources and who has not, who is rich and who is poor and so on. This is only a "good" solution for those who are to decide, which are those who ARE rich and HAVE the biggest guns ; but this is simply how things have always been! It has no moral justification at all. And the day that those who are rich now, do not have the biggest guns anymore, then the whole thing will change, according to the new masters with the big guns. Nothing new, except for a smart act of cartel formation between the current powers that be to keep a bit longer the status quo.
"Terrorism" is simply another way of going to the battlefield to try to change the distribution of the cards of the world, exactly as things always have been. It is called "terrorism" now, simply because of the cartel of powerful nations who thought they could change the way history was progressing ; they only changed the vocabulary.

Excellent assessment.

 

[DM]

they had to deal with the nation to which, by the rules, the land of that nation belonged to before) manage to make their rules hold within that nation, and have it accepted by others, well then that is then their nation. This has always been so, and will remain so.

Part of this history is therefore labeled as a complete failure. Rules are broken, the system does not work. How does one reform it? With violence? I think not. America has demonstrated to us all that violence does not rescue broken rules.

 

[vanesch]

Part of this history is therefore labeled as a complete failure. Rules are broken, the system does not work.

The system works all right, the way it always worked, and rules are not broken. The rule, which is not broken, is: "those with the biggest guns make the other rules". This rule is not broken, and will never be broken.
Only, it is not an "ethically right or wrong" rule. It is just a law of nature.

How does one reform it? With violence? I think not.

I think it is impossible to reform it. Things have always been that way, and will always be so. The only hope would be a _world organization_ who has the biggest guns itself, and would redistribute all ressources along an ethically justifiable principle, such as personal merit and equal chances. Totally impossible to instore. All OTHER world organisations are simply tools of those with the biggest guns. It BECOMES their guns.

 

[DM]

The system works all right, the way it always worked, and rules are not broken. The rule, which is not broken, is: "those with the biggest guns make the other rules". This rule is not broken, and will never be broken.
Only, it is not an "ethically right or wrong" rule. It is just a law of nature.

I agree with your point however the flaw in all this is actually braking rules when adjusting them in the first place. The elite prevail.

I think it is impossible to reform it. Things have always been that way, and will always be so. The only hope would be a _world organization_ who has the biggest guns itself

Power does indeed dictate policies.

 

[selfAdjoint]

I agree with your point however the flaw in all this is actually braking rules when adjusting them in the first place. The elite prevail.



Power does indeed dictate policies.

Yes. The only progress is when the elite disagree among themselves, Ghandi's work and the US civil rights movement took place in that kind of situation.

 

[alexandra]

"Evacuating the Gaza Strip" - what is the hidden agenda? Any ideas? I have plenty:-)

 

[Smurf]

Don't be selfish then. share!

 

[alexandra]

Don't be selfish then. share!

Ah, Smurf - I'm sooo unable to develop a coherent argument at the moment. All I could do was make assertions right now (don't be so unfair; you know I'm drunk ). Eh, Smurf, couldn't you find the info for me? You know what I mean (I know you do...). Else all would have to wait until I'm 'together' enough (which may be tomorrow, or may not be until who knows when) to make the argument. Come on, Smurf, help me out here (no 'drunk' emoticon, so I chose the closest!).

 

[Smurf]

How 'bout we split it then. You make the assertion, then I'll do my best to defend it!

 

[alexandra]

How 'bout we split it then. You make the assertion, then I'll do my best to defend it!

Ok, Smurf (hmm, interesting collaboration!). Here's the deal: there must be something in it for both the US ruling class and the Israeli ruling class. I can't quite figure out what, though - some sort of 'peace-in-return-for-power' deal. I mean: 'we (Israelis) pull out of Gaza Strip' and in return we get 'stability' and US gets to have military bases, etc in the region. I don't know. There's something, though - the world is just not (at this stage) altruistic. The US and Israeli administration is not working for 'world peace'. There's something else afoot... See what you can do with that:-) (and I'll be eternally grateful).

 

[Smurf]

Well the israeli reason could be purely financial. It's been costing increasing amounts of money to hold on to the gaza strip. The US is a little more vague though, I guess I'll look up some dirt.

 

[alexandra]

Well the israeli reason could be purely financial. It's been costing increasing amounts of money to hold on to the gaza strip. The US is a little more vague though, I guess I'll look up some dirt.

Thanks, Smurf:-) I'll do same for you, if you're ever in a similar state to mine (I hope not!). Here's a link to help start your investigations, if you're interested: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/aug2005/gaz4-a18.shtml (and there are links to other articles on that page). Thanks again...

 

[kat]

Ok, Smurf (hmm, interesting collaboration!). Here's the deal: there must be something in it for both the US ruling class and the Israeli ruling class. I can't quite figure out what, though - some sort of 'peace-in-return-for-power' deal. I mean: 'we (Israelis) pull out of Gaza Strip' and in return we get 'stability' and US gets to have military bases, etc in the region. I don't know. There's something, though - the world is just not (at this stage) altruistic. The US and Israeli administration is not working for 'world peace'. There's something else afoot... See what you can do with that:-) (and I'll be eternally grateful).

How about this Alexandra my little communist loving friend, there are several reason why Sharon might see pulling out of Gaza a beneficial to Israel.
Oh, an aside...Israel and U.S. relations aren't sooo good, or have you not been paying attention to the growing animosity between this admin and Israel?
Anywhoo..
One reason might be that Sharon sees protecting a scattered settlements as a waste of resources.
Another might be that the general public felt it was a waste of resources to continue to try to protect sparse settlments.
Another might be that Sharon felt that..it might bring peace with the Palestinians...
naw...I dont' think so...that would require him to be...erm dillusional.
Another might be that it would allow the world to see what that it's impossible to make peace with the Palestinians...I mean look...we gave back gaza and they still don't even make a little bit of progress on their end of the roadmap!
Or...maybe, gaza will become such a hotbed of terrorism that it will threaten...other middle eastern countries as well..I mean look at internal issues of Jordan and egypt.
Fanatic muslims have threatened the rulers of these countries as well...
hmm...just a few thoughts after a glass or two of merlot.

 

[Yonoz]

Alexandra, are you trying to form an opinion from the facts or shape the facts to support your opinions?

 

[alexandra]

Alexandra, are you trying to form an opinion from the facts or shape the facts to support your opinions?

Hi Yonoz - I am just suspicious about such huge turnarounds in policy. I have to do more reading on this subject, though - I just don't understand why it's happening (and specifically why it is happening right now) and who ultimately stands to benefit the most from it (and how). You know me - I have to understand the underlying stuff and don't believe the bits and pieces of information (sometimes misinformation) that comes through official media channels.

 

[Yonoz]

Hi Yonoz - I am just suspicious about such huge turnarounds in policy. I have to do more reading on this subject, though - I just don't understand why it's happening (and specifically why it is happening right now) and who ultimately stands to benefit the most from it (and how). You know me - I have to understand the underlying stuff and don't believe the bits and pieces of information (sometimes misinformation) that comes through official media channels.

Lisa! asked that exact question. I have replied - if you have any further questions I would be happy to elaborate.
Obviously everyone has something to gain from this disengagement. However, it seems you're so suspicious of "official channels" - or anything official for that matter - that you automatically place your trust in whoever has the anti-official view. My advice is to treat all with equal suspicion, and try to look at the bare facts. Obviously, Sharon will try to reap as much rewards as he can - that's part of his job (his job, BTW, is to do what he thinks is best for Israel - no hidden agenda here). Obviously, the Palestinians will try to diminish the importance and difficulty of this move - in order to diminish the expectations for a Palestinian concession. If you automatically pick the anti-Israeli version, you're just another pawn - just like those "uncritical followers" you complain of.
On a personal note, I take insult in the way everyone, but particularly youself, is ignoring the role of the Israeli left in bringing about this move. There are a lot of unhappy Israelis who actually act on their ideas rather than resort to alcohol consumption, and they have a much bigger part in this than the US will ever have. I guess I cannot expect all you who spend so much time criticizing to actually understand those who achieve by hard work and leadership.