Infanteer, good post, thanks for taking the time. I think we are much closer on this than we think.
"...how do we convince the world that they will accept peace (if they are indeed willing)? I still think the answer is detente; disengagement and the wall."
I don't think we need to, I think they need to OR we make them willing.
"Second point - your guess is as good as mine."
Exactly, and ultimately that is the point, as I see it, to electing people to speak for us to other countries. Other countries may not like what we have to say and vice versa, but at least when we level their cities we can do so knowing that they are reaping what they sow.
"Third point on morality. Nowhere does it say that you can't judge and comment on the action of others; what I am getting at is that, because humans are complex and odd things, your judgement is going to be worth the paper it is printed on to the guy who disagrees with it (to quote Brit) with regards to getting something done."
Indeed...but so what? I have judged the action, not the person, not even the method and reasoning behind the decision to take the action. Those are not of any immediate concern to me, what is a concern to me is the action itself and letting the individual, or society, understand that that action is unacceptable.
"You don't need to convince me that blowing up a bus is not a good way to show you want peace, we need to convince the Palestinians."
I think we need to convince the Pals, Arabs, Muslims, and the world at large that blowing up a bus is not a good way to do anything.
"This is not from the fact that I have an inability to articulate my own moral code (which I've done numerous times around these forums) it's only that me adding "******* Palestinian murderers" or "Osama is going to pay" or "McDonalds is the Devil!" to the thread doesn't do much in really getting to the crux of the matter."
Yes you have, I apologize if you inferred that from my statements. You are correct that using rhetoric like the examples you've used isn't helpful, but neither is taking a neutral tone with respect to the actions. It is possible to judge an action without judging a person or a culture. IE. "Murdering those civilians was a disgusting act", vs. "those Pals are a disgusting people for murdering those civilians". Judging the act itself without judging the person who committed it is useful in letting that person, as well as any observers, know where you stand with respect to the act. As a society we have not done a very good job of the former out of fear of doing the latter.
"Your notion of the rapist is a bit different - committing the crime of rape within our society (Canada) brings in absolutes. Within our system rape has been deemed taboo, and we have the full weight of the justice system to back it up. Black and white, right and wrong exist.
But when you go above this level to societies interacting, where does the moral authority to pronounce right from wrong come from?"
The act of rape is not wrong because the system says it is wrong, it is wrong because we as individuals have decided that it is wrong and have gone so far as to create a system to codify it. Labeling an act right or wrong is not done out of some desire to judge individual people as moral or immoral but as a way to prevent those acts from happening as much as is possible. Similarly the moral authority to pronounce right and wrong at a societal level comes not from a desire to feel superior to other societies but from the desire to prevent the act from being perpetrated on (and in) our society.
Frankly if the people of Lower Blueballistan decide amongst themselves that murder as we define it is a legitimate means to resolve grievances, well, that is their concern. My concern is that it will be used by their society on another and when or if comes to pass that they do just that, it behooves us to let them know we don't find it acceptable.
"If 4 million Palestinians have a problem, and they are backed by a the sentiments of a billion Muslims, and many in the West champion their cause then who is to say that their opinions have any less moral authority than ours?"
Reason should decide morality, not consensus.
"Can you, as a conscious, free, thinking human being agree with me that those other guys are probably also conscious, free, thinking human beings who probably feel the same about their moral authority?"
Maybe, I don't know how they feel with respect their moral authority, they are they and I am I. No man can claim to know the mind of another much less the minds of another society at large. I'm quite certain though that there is a variety of opinions about it, but I do hope to god that it is a minority that have no moral problem with deliberately killing civilians. I suspect we will never know, just as we will never really know how many Germans or Japanese had no moral problem with what their armed representatives were doing. The point is not whether or not they feel they have the moral authority to deliberately target civilians but whether they SHOULD feel moral authority to deliberately kill women and children. From what I can understand that is the point to the GWOT; convince the world at large that deliberately targeting civilians is verboten before the world at large decides that it isn't. If the world decides that deliberately targeting civilians is kosher, as we did in WWII, they will lose.
"I always like to use the "Lowest Common Denominator" thought experiment - if there was just you and the other guy, who would be right?"
In that instance who was right would be decided the same way it has been decided since the dawn of time. The saying "might makes right" exists for a reason, why we have the "might" and they don't is for another discussion. For the record though I happen to believe it is BECAUSE of our respective moral codes that we have the might.
"Ultimately, I think "right" will be realized by taking one of two paths - we either have agreement and peace, or we scorch their will to resist to the ground to utterly convince them that our viewpoint is the one to take."
Yup, see WWII.
"Fourth point - you are absolutely right about later actions. My causality argument was a bit simplified to get my point across and ignored what I think is the second part of the idea, action and reaction. Once you have a cause and effect, you get an action and a reaction. Continuous action and reaction tends to muddle up a clear picture, as action and reaction become cause in their own right."
I don't disagree with that.
"However, I still think you have to separate what you feel is genuine cause from what you see to be illegitimate action, because saying "You have no right to any political recourse now because of terrorist attacks!" would be pretty unproductive in de-escalation..."
That is not what I'm saying at all, I'm saying that political recourse is the only choice they have, indeed it is the only option they ever had. They may one day be Arabs ruling the entire world from Jerusalem, I could really care less provided Terrorism has been abandoned as a means of internal and external control.
"(Indeed, if we used that tact, the Jews of Palestine would have never gotten the British and the UN online with a Jewish state - as Paracowboy mentioned, their past is less than rosy)"
Correct, and perhaps we SHOULD have taken that tact then, unfortunately we allowed the circumstances and objectives to cloud our judgment of right and wrong. Pity, perhaps we could have avoided the whole mess?
"Hold out the carrot to those who wish to negotiate, and use the stick against those who continue to attack your innocent civilians, and be willing to make the concessions. It should legitimize your actions in the eyes of others and delegitimize that of the other guy - the essence of 4th Generation War fought on the moral plane (Hammes' chapters on the Intifadas are excellent).
"
I don't disagree except that is to clarify. You said "...and be willing to make concessions" but I think you should have included "to those willing to negotiate, not those attacking civilians". In this instance can we separate the two? It doesn't seem like it to me.
"As for giving back the land, do you mean Israel as a whole or just Gaza/West Bank? I think it is necessary to give them the land (all of it) in the West Bank/Gaza as was layed out by Oslo and to let them have their own state as it will be the only way to convince them (and the anti-Israeli crowd at large) that it is not Israel that is keeping the Palestinians down. Despite the fact that all those who were intimate in the process generally feel that Yasser Arafat was the key roadblock to success - a view I believe in - fingers always point to Israel as the problem, and so the violence continues. I say that if Palestine puts thugs, gangsters, and terrorists in charge, then they'll reap what they sow. Detente, disengagement, and the wall will do the best to ensure that this time, all the Palestinians (and their supporters) can do is point the fingers at themselves (of course, judging from the world right now, fingers will somehow go to the United States....)."
I mean the whole kit and kaboodle, I think that it is inevitable that at some point majority will rule in the region. Might be 1000 years from now, might be 50. Either way hopefully by then the majority will have learned of the futility and folly in targeting civilians.
Thanks,
Andrew
