Jeroen: Then what is enough? I get this feeling that people like you believe that we should fully and unconditionally support Israel and its actions, and fully and unconditionally condemn the Palestinians. Anything less than that seems to be unacceptable.
Me: Oddly enough, no. Your behavior, though - of fully and unquestioningly condemning Israel while making all efforts to justify anything done by Palestinians - up to defending terrorists who have, in fact, sought to murder children against the "cheap shot" of calling them people who seek to murder children, is what I am criticizing here. Like Dan, I think Israel's settlement policy is unacceptable. Other than that, I think they've done everything they can, made every gesture any reasonable person (and, indeed, even most unreasonable people who are not driven by pure hatred of Israel itself) could ask of them. Their offers were rejected and repaid by violence and terror of the vilest possible nature. But you condemn the free democracy that accords its people religious freedom and basic civil rights but barely even make a token effort to attack the suicide bombers. What am I supposed to think of that, really? Me: > Should Israel be at its 1967 borders? Its 1948 borders? Jeroen: Definitely its 1948 borders. I am pretty sure that the people who in 1948 decided on where the Israeli borders should be gave it a lot of thought. I do not think they just threw a few darts at the map of the Middle East to decide where the borders should be. Me: Actually, Jeroen, Israel's 1948 borders were established by conquest. The pre-war of independence borders were indefensible. When every Arab state attacked with the explicit and declared purpose of eradicating the state of Israel - they were smashed by Jewish forces and the size of Israel was doubled. So the borders of Israel - like those of pretty much every other state in the world - were decided by force of arms. Me: > Israel has been attacked three times by its neighbors, who have > publicly and repeatedly stated their desire to destroy it. Jeroen: Refresh my memory. When was the last time the government leaders of Israel's neighbours stated that they want to destroy Israel? Probably quite a while ago, since Israel is (according to Ilana) at peace with at least two of its neighbours. Me: Well, Yasir Arafat has made numerous speeches in Arabic proclaiming that he seeks the eventual destruction of the Jewish state. Every newspaper in the Arab world is published under government censorship and expresses only the views of the government - but Egyptian newspapers, for example (one of those states that Israel is "at peace" with) regularly call for the destruction of Israel. State-funded Egyptian TV is running a multi-part series on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion claiming that they reveal the true history of Israel. Some of us, of course, know that the Protocols were forgeries created by the Russian secret service in the 1880s. So what do you think those things mean? Me: > Do you believe that it has a right to defensible borders? Jeroen: I believe it should stick to the borders it was given when the State of Israel was founded. Like every other country, Israel does not have the right to invade other countries simply because it does not like its own borders. Assume for a moment that back in 1948 we had done the right thing and not only mark an area on the map and call it "Israel", but simultaneously had marked another area and call it "Palestine". Would the US have accepted it if the Palestinian government would promptly have invaded other countries because it was not happy with the borders it was given? This is a yes/no question. Other example. The Dutch/German border is more or less a straight line running north/south. However, some way down from the top it looks as if Germany has taken a bite out of The Netherlands, which resulted in a more or less rectangular piece of Germany that is surrounded on three sides by The Netherlands. Would you find it acceptable if the Dutch would occupy that area because it would make the Dutch border better defensible? Again, a yes/no question. Me: I'm so glad you said that, Jeroen. After the defeat of Germany in 1945 the victorious allies redrew the map of Europe. One of the things they did was take Alsace-Lorraine (previously disputed French-German territory) and make it exclusively French. They took a large part of Germany's Eastern border and ceded it to Poland. I believe that the Netherlands picked up some territory in this process, although I'm not sure about that. Why were these things morally justified? Because Germany had attacked its neighbors repeatedly, so its neighbors had to have borders that they could defend against Germany. So the answer to your question is that no, it's not okay to conquer someone else to give yourself defensible borders. But that's not what happened in the Middle East, nor is it what happened in Europe. If, however, a country repeatedly attacks its neighbors (like Germany or the Arab countries surrounding Israel) then, when they are defeated, the victorious defenders have the right to adjust the borders to a more defensible position. That's what happened to Germany in Europe. And it's what happened to the countries surrounding Israel. I don't hear you complaining about the injustice of the German border adjustments. Why not? They were much, much larger than the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and many more people live there. So the answer to your question is no, it's not okay to invade someone else to stabilize your border. But your question has no relevance to the discussion because - as no one can deny - that is not what happened. It is Israel that was defending itself, just as Poland was in 1939 and France in 1940, and thus Israel has the right, when it was victorious, to stabilize its borders at the expense of those who attacked it, just as Poland and France did. Jeroen: Since we are accusing those fundamentalists of being terrorists, I do not have to provide evidence of their numbers. If someone believes that those fundamentalists make up a large part of the population, it is up to him/her to prove it. I do not have to prove that a large number of people are NOT terrorists. Me: Dan M. has proven it before I could, and he can do a better job anyways. Me: > You accept that some Palestinians do want to destroy Israel. Do you > then accept that Israel has the right to stop them from attacking it? > Do you accept that Israel has the right to hunt down people who have > launched these attacks in the past? Jeroen: That would depend on the steps they take. If a terrorist flees to an other country, and Israel would cooperate with that country to find the terrorist, I would not have a problem with it. I do not find it acceptable though to invade and occupy other countries to stop and arrest terrorists. There was quite a lot of terrorism in Germany (1970's mostly, by the left-winged Rote Armee Fraktion). Several RAF members fled to Eastern Europe. Do you think it would be acceptable if Germany had invaded and occupied Eastern European countries in order to find the terrorists? If so, why? If not, why not? Me: It would have been unwise, but not immoral. German democracy was attacked by terrorists who were sponsored by the Communist states on its border. Of _course_ it had the right to defend itself against them. If those Communists states refused to help, then it had the right to attack them. Sponsoring terrorists is an act of war. India is threatening to attack Pakistan right now for sponsoring terrorists within India. I hope that it does not - at this moment in time, that would be unwise. But it clearly has the _right_ to do that. The United States just destroyed the government of Afghanistan for harboring the terrorists who attacked us. We - under international law and any reasonable sense of international morality - had a right to do that. You appear to feel that if terrorists attack a country then take refuge in another that refuses to extradite them, then the attacked country should do nothing. I, however, do not find the murder of innocent civilians acceptable. _Furthermore_, with admirable restr aint, Israel has not, infact, invaded other countries to stop terrorists (except for Lebanon, which it has left). The West Bank and the Gaza Strip are not part of another country. The most you can say is that Israel has launched attacks in disputed territory to which it also has a claim and over which it has de facto authority. Me: > If I understand it correctly, you're saying that you believe that > Israel's behavior in the Middle East is so bad that when a country > randomly launches missiles at Israeli cities - that's okay with you? Jeroen: That is not what I said. I did not say that is was okay for Iraq to launch missiles at Israel -- I said we should not have defended Israel. Israel's military might is such that it can defend itself. Me: And so, to you, that excuses you of the moral duty to aid someone else unjustly attacked? Jeroen: What I said was that we should not send our soldiers to Afghanistan to fight your war. I have no problem with our Intelligence Agencies working together to find the terrorists and bring them to justice. Jeroen Me: So, what happened in Afghanistan was just our war? The invocation of Article V, that doesn't mean anything to you? You have, on many occasions, criticized the US for not moving faster in Bosnia. That was clearly not our war. Why then do you blame us for failing to send soldiers fast enough to fight in what was very clearly someone else's war? Gautam
