The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict will issue a report today accusing Israel of “actions amounting to war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity” during its military incursion into Gaza from December 27 to January 18. The mission headed by respected South African judge Richard Goldstone is a major development in the controversy and could put the United States in a very difficult position.
The 400-page report was written without the cooperation of Israel, which insisted that the body should have considered “the thousands of Hamas missiles attacks on civilians in southern Israel that made the Gaza Operation necessary.” There is no question that those acts are crimes themselves and are relevant to any reviewing of the cause or justification for the invasion. However, this investigation focused on how the invasion was carried out — a separate issue.
Goldstone, who is Jewish, has previously indicated that the group found clear evidence of violations of international law in the invasion.
The UN found that Israel failed to minimize casualties, used white phosphorous in civilian areas, intentionally fired upon hospitals using high-explosive artillery shells, and did not effectively warn civilians of attacks. It also accused some Israeli soldiers of using civilians as human shields and attacking food supplies for civilians.
The mission does call on the Palestinians to investigate war crimes by their side and to release soldier Gilad Shalit.
In the most worrisome part for Israel, the mission calls for an investigation by the International Criminal Court for possible war crimes prosecutions. Goldstone previously denounced Hamas for war crimes.
If Israel defies such an investigation, it would be in the same position as Serbia and other rogue nations. This could further isolate the country at a time when it has allowed the controversial “natural growth” of settlements in occupied areas.
With the hardline government of Binyamin Netanyahu, there will be a considerable effort to oppose any war crimes prosecution and he will likely look to the United States to help block that effort. The government has already denounced the findings as “propaganda,” here. After dismissing the Obama Administration’s demands for a halt to the settlement construction, it will be an awkward moment for Netanyahu to demand the U.S. use its power to stop an investigation. However, there will be many in Congress who will likely assist in that effort.
Of course, Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder are already limiting any domestic investigation into war crimes committed by our government in its torture program.
For the story, click here.
So what do we have a treaties for cliff notes for war and peace on this thread?
Bob,
Every response of yours gets further and further off the topic I’m interested in… which is you showing me how Mike’s discussing the history of both the term Palestinian and the people to who it refers was: dismissive, unthinking, and inconsistent with the rest of what he had to say. Since you don’t appear to be willing to engage that topic any deeper then insisting it’s true, I’m done.
I brought up your behavior, that was because I was sick of seeing you say (explicitly or implicately) that Mike was incapable of having a rational discussion on this issue, then showing his reaction to your over the top antagonism as proof. You’re a talented enough writer to play a very subtle rhetorical “I’m not touching you” game, and I’m a talented enough reader to pick up on it. You may not see any difference between your behavior here, and your behavior elsewhere, but very rarely have I seen you so aggressively confrontational and insistent on your own moral high-ground. You’re right Mike’s responses weren’t in keeping with his usual character, but then again his usual character isn’t getting goaded on by a wit as sharp as yours.
Mike,
If you get a chance, I wish you’d email me. I have an out of camera question I’d like to ask that is only tangentially related to this thread.
buddha_is_laughing@email.com
Thanks.
“The resistance which is opposed to any hindrance of an effect is in reality a furtherance of this effect and is in accordance with its accomplishment. Now, everything that is wrong is a hindrance of freedom, according to universal laws; and compulsion or constraint of any kind is a hindrance or resistance made to freedom. CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (’Science of Right,’ Immanuel Kant)
I’m keen to guess how you can show me Israel’s ‘implied title or warrant’ to ‘bring compulsion to bear’ on the citizens of Gaza (or Lebanon) for the acts of Hamas.– Bob, Esq. to waynebro along time ago.
Bob are you in any mood to break out a GIANT crayon,
(I might require 8×10’s with circles and arrows too.)
Gyges: “There was bad behavior by both parties, you’ll be much more credible if you stop trying to palm all of this off as Mike being “too emotional.””
I said he’s been overreacting; I never said he’s been ‘too emotional.’ How about ‘out of character’ or ‘a-rational’ or ‘not the usual Mike?’
If I’ve acted badly here, then EVERY SINGLE POST I’ve ever made here was an act of bad behavior. I have not changed my debating style in any way whatsoever. The ‘all of this’ to which you refer isn’t coming from me. And should the ‘all of this’ phenomena be exacerbated by my refusal to be insulted, wrongly accused of employing informal fallacies which my opponent must employ to sustain the false accusation, remain silent while rants against a system of thought they completely fail to comprehend or simply have words shoved in my mouth — well I guess I’m just a bad guy.
Remember me telling you how Mike keeps throwing premises into my argument and imputing his ideas of what I’m arguing onto me?
Let’s keep it simple; here’s another example of the “this is about Israel’s right to be a state, isn’t it” tactic of his.
In attempting to keep him focused on the issue; i.e. that unlike what he thought, that I was focused far more on the issue of morality & law rather than Israel per se, I offered this:
Bob: “Mike, I agree with your observation about the a-moral actions of nations in the past, but that’s not what I’m talking about when I refer to disregarding history as a basis for moral law. I’m talking about the principles of human morals. Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts. It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people?”
Here’s what Mike wrote:
Mike S.: “Guess what Bob, you are hoisting yourself on your pre-suppositions of what I as a Jew should believe.”
See that? What the fuck do I know about ‘what a Jew should believe?’ Now look at it again in light of the amount of times he’s attempted to ‘cut to the chase’ and insert his premise that ‘this is all about Israel’s right to be a state’ into my argument.
Here, he ripped apart my simile and tossed in a red-herring; i.e. derailing the argument into his musings
Mike S.: “I think the Nuremberg trials were an exercise in hypocrisy, especially with the Russians there, when Stalin killed as many people as Hitler, for just as ridiculous reasons. I don’t like the deaths of innocent people whether or not they’re Jewish. Plus my HS English Teacher was a marine in the South Pacific and used to talk of how much fun it was to napalm Japanese soldiers in their caves, even after a white flag was proffered.”
What does the foregoing have to do with what I was trying to illustrate with the Nuremberg simile?
To wit: “Nations are run by people and it is people who push nations to commit immoral acts. The fact that nations tend to politicize crime does not excuse the immoral acts.”
Nothing. Why? I’m guessing he overreacted.
Bob,
You never struck me as the type to play Martyr, you’re not good at it. I suggest you leave it to our resident Saint. There was bad behavior by both parties, you’ll be much more credible if you stop trying to palm all of this off as Mike being “too emotional.”
Since I really don’t expect you to go through and comb over Mike’s posts I’ll concede that Mike uses certain themes frequently (I don’t remember him making the one we’re talking about, but since I know memory is faulty I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt on it), but that’s only part of your claim. Show me where they don’t Jive.
There’s a difference between having stock phrases and using them without thought. I’ve played with great improvisers, and they ALWAYS mean what they say, no matter how many times they’ve said it before.
The beauty I find in Gestalt is that it deals with the “NOW”. This is a potent “phenomenological” modality of humanistic existentialism. Fritz Perls has captured the “essence” of this dynamic. Gestalt isn’t interested in what we “THINK”, rather what we “FEEL”. The beauty is it cuts through the defense mechanisms of “intellectualization” and liberates you to share what you “FEEL”. Its’ called being in the NOW…..
Gyges,
To save time, allow me to clarify/edit this post:
http://jonathanturley.org/2009/09/29/u-n-report-israel-committed-war-crimes-in-gaza/#comment-84217
When people argue about a certain topic more often than others, they tend to collect stock arguments, anecdotes etc. via repetition; much like a guitar player collects stock phrases while practicing solos.
That’s what I meant by saying his rhetoric is polluted with stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t jive with what his true feelings are.
I broached the topic of this problem from another angle when I commented that I was tossing out mice and he was firing missiles at them and I wanted to know why.
To be blunt, he’s been overreacting from the get go and at points it’s gotten so bad that he even inserted premises that I SPECIFICALLY REJECTED EARLIER into my arguments. How many times do I have to say I’m not arguing about Israel’s right to exist as a state? Why does he keep tossing that premise into my court?
Apparently my last post is awaiting moderation. I’ll check back later.
Bob,
You haven’t been showing me a thing, you’ve been telling me. You want to call what Mike’s saying a stock argument, fine. Give me examples where he’s used it before. You’re claiming his arguments don’t line up. Then it should be easy for you to point out two arguments that are in conflict. Give me an example, in Mike’s own words where he says something that you feel doesn’t reconcile with that short history he gave. Then you will have shown me that “how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation.”
By the way, this stopped being about the original topic when Mike agreed with you in his first response to you (You know BEFORE he went on to give a more nuanced description of the situation. The one you claim shows he doesn’t care about the people whose history he’s obviously researched). After that it became about you wanting to point out how bad Israel was, and Mike wanting to explain that the situation is more complicated then you credit it with being. Oh, and there’s been that whole “My philosopher can beat up your rabbi” undercurrent going on.
You both have been arguing at each other for awhile now, so neither of you really gets to cast stones in that regard.
“you recommending a good book on Gestalt; particularly one describing what it owes to Kant.”
Bob,
A typical “question” on your part in that it tries to reinforce your prejudice re: Kant, even as it hides itself as merely a simple question. Gestalt Therapy, as created by Fritz Perls owes nothing to Kant and I was trained for five years by one of Fritz’s closest disciples. If anything it owes much to Zen Buddhism.
My question with you is why you just can’t let this argument go?
We’ve both written reams and people are free to make their own judgments on the topic and our respective positions. I suspect though that people have long since lost interest in it. Yet here you are trying to win over Gyges and FFLEO to your viewpoint and in the process further castigating what you see as my inability to separate my emotions for Israel, thus clouding my moral judgment.
It must be nice to be someone who has found something to believe in that removes all uncertainty as to ones moral own rectitude. It actually is phenomenologically quite prevalent today. I unfortunately see too many nuances to try to make my beliefs into syllogistic certainties and hold with Emerson’s position on consistency, at least as viewed by other making judgments on me, or my moral compass. I must note, however, that you refused to answer the one question I’ve put to you, as opposed my answering the many questions you’ve put to me in this exchange and I wonder why that is so.
Bob stated to Gyges:
“Want proof? How about this. I stated over and over that the argument would flow much better if he would stop arguing as if the fate of Israel lay in the balance; (sic)’that I was never arguing about the right of Israel to exist as a state’.”
Given the overall context of your part of the discussion which featured you trying to limit the discussion to your own “Robert’s Rules of Order” I think a reasonable inference of that sentence is that Israel’s right to exist is outside the context
of your discussion definition’s, not per se your belief that it has a right to exist as a Jewish State.
“Mike S.: “Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?”
Finally Bob, and I do mean finally despite your seeming need for not only closure but for acknowledgment of your victory, I am withdrawing because you have not been honest (moral?) in this discussion and I’m aware that you lack the awareness of your own foibles and the ability to admit to them. That frankly bores me.
One final example to represent your tactics throughout the interchange:
Bob said:
“It could be argued that Germany acted immorally, but what was the object of the Nuremberg trials; to hold Germany morally and legally culpable for its actions, or certain people? {i.e. there should be war crimes trials for Israeli’s, or Mike is a hypocrite-Mike) ”
Mike S.: “Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response.”
Bob said:
“Mike, I offered the Nuremberg simile as a part metaphor and premise to a larger argument. Did you follow the metaphor or the argument? No.”
Attempted debate trap admitted, albeit with a gloss of innocence for deniability.
Bob, argue/lobby on in your quest for emotional closure and your need to convince intelligent people you won. I hope it makes you feel better. As for me I’ll let what I’ve written and what you’ve written be the materials for others to judge, if they wish. I reiterate what I wrote responding to Buddha and you and will let that stand as my coda.
“Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.”
Now you and Bob may think this is wrong, or disagree with any part of it you choose and that is you right. Your doing so would not be deemed by me to be anti-Jewish, because I believe neither of you are bigots. I know, however, that if that was your belief I wouldn’t argue it by claiming you have an irrational attachment to calling out Israel for war crimes. I respect each of you too much for that. Apparently, that respect is not mutual.
Bob, Esq.
I might first need to reread up-thread,
‘War and Peace’ Palestinians v. Israelis
Former Federal LEO,
Care to moderate?
For example, what’s your take on this:
Mike S.: “Carter called his book “Peace Without Apartheid,” but said in his clip that there was no apartheid taking place in Israel proper.”
You saw the clip, you’ve read the arguments here; what’s your take on raising this distinction? Relevant?
Mike S.: “Carter’s solutions and beliefs are congruent with mine and I’ve stated it time and again. You unfortunately are so wrapped up with your own beliefs and definitions that you can’t see that. What it really is is that you must win your arguments totally so that you can feel better about yourself. That you are intellectually dishonest in the process is of no moment to you because you are cushioned in your morality by Kant.”
Is that true FFLEO? You tell me.
Gyges:
“Please explain how you can accuse someone of dismissing a people that he went into great detail about their suffering and history.”
Gyges,
I’ve been trying to show you how Mike resorts to stock arguments and anecdotes that don’t (for lack of a better term) jive with his overall take on the situation. His rhetoric is polluted with arguments and anecdotes more befitting an Israeli zealot seeking to deminimize and draw attention away from the group of people suffering from their tyrannical policies. Why look at Palestinians as people suffering when you can create the illusion that they don’t even exist; properly speaking.
I know that’s not Mike’s philosophy, which is why I ask him about it. But does Mike pause for a minute and take stock of what he’s saying? No. Instead, Mike digs deeper and attributes arguments to me that I’ve never brought up.
Want proof? How about this. I stated over and over that the argument would flow much better if he would stop arguing as if the fate of Israel lay in the balance; that I was never arguing about the right of Israel to exist as a state. What does he do?
Mike S.: “Bob, why don’t we end this by cutting to the chase so that everyone understands the real basis of the argument which I believe is unspoken. Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist as an independent Jewish State and that a two State solution and return to the 1967 borders is the best way to do it?”
You tell me Gyges.
Mike,
I threw out a few mice and you kept firing missiles. I just wanted to know why.
My gut told me to expect a response to the Mexico/Canada comparison and you recommending a good book on Gestalt; particularly one describing what it owes to Kant. Apparently my gut was wrong.
Nobody really wins here Mike; it’s the journey that’s the thing.
Bob Esq and Mike Spindell,
Your back-and-forth was not an exercise in futility. This is another good archive of information regarding Israel. Thanks again for omitting any overt ad hominem attacks.
Forgive my one last point on this thread. I think we need to get Bob and Billy into it on something, they would be even matched and perfect for talking over each others heads.
Bob,
We’ve played enough and it is apparent that you get your thrills from the game, but it is boring me and there are so many other threads to deal with. Declare yourself the “winner” to feed your need to satiate your insecurity. I think you need that much more than me. You deliberately called me out and wanted to argue, I obliged, but you really are only interested in conquest. Arguing with you is an exercise in perseveration and I have better things to do. I’ve made my points, people can accept or not accept them as they please.
“Actually Mike, it’s a system of thinking best suited for analyzing ‘moral’ issues.”
No, by your own admission it is a system best used for:
“Actually, keeping emotions at bay is a key to retaining the capacity to think rationally about moral issues.”
I spent my last 37 years getting in touch with my emotions and learning from the wisdom of my emotions. That is all of Gestalt Therapy my son, now go out and practice, or not if you will. Separation from ones emotions is akin to cutting oneself off from half of what you know. I suppose that is comforting for you and makes life so much easier, especially with Kant to rationalize the incompleteness lodged in your gut.
Great win Bob, you’re the man!
Mike S.: “Sounds like an axe grinding to me. Also is a moral judgment that is based on your determination of moral equivalencies.”
Careful Mike, you might start thinking of morals in abstract ‘philosophical’ terms. Perish the thought.
Mike S.: “The soldiers were detained, not alleged”
My bad; I said alleged because I wasn’t sure if it was two or three at the time of writing. Apologies. It was two.
Mike S. “and there is a long history of Israeli soldiers being tortured and beheaded. Besides that there were other constant attacks being made. Somehow though, to you and the rest of the world blowing up thirty people here, forty there and twenty another place has little weight and for Israel to reply they must not reply too much.”
So now we begin the Lebanon debate; good. Did the state of Lebanon carry out such atrocities? If people in Mexico were committing the same acts as described above against areas in the United States, would the United States have the right to bomb the entire infrastructure of Mexico? What about Canada; same scenario.
“How is that judged in Kantian terms, Bob.”
Abstractly Mike.
“What is the adequate response to thirty killed and a hundred wounded at a marketplace or restaurant.”
I assure you it isn’t the killing thousands of more civilians while bombing the infrastructure of a country not accused of the atrocities.
“How easy it is to sit in moral judgment, smug and self satisfied.”
Smug and self satisfied; grow up or get a thesaurus will you.
Mike S.: “An insult by any other name is still an insult. A blatant rationalization of an insult by any other term is still a blatant rationalization.”
No Mike, the ‘unconscious’ remark was no insult; the grow up or get a thesaurus remark was.
Mike S.: “Bob, I’m every bit as erudite as you are and I think Philosophy as provided by its’ “Great Minds” like Kant, is the production of people with an overblown sense of their own self importance and a minimal impact, except as justification, or in retrospect by people trying to excuse their actions.”
Actually Mike, it’s a system of thinking best suited for analyzing ‘moral’ issues. I’m sure if we were discussing a psychological issue, you’d refer to an expert or two who you respect. Further, a man’s got to know his limitations. Accordingly, you wouldn’t see me objecting to your expert, having not even read him, simply because I have certain ‘feelings’ about psychology and desire to attribute them to your expert.
Mike S.: “Your constant hawking yourself as a devotee of Kant strikes me as both superficial and silly. I think for you morality is an intellectual exercise that allows you to
keep your emotions at bay.”
Actually, keeping emotions at bay is a key to retaining the capacity to think rationally about moral issues.
Mike S.: “To me morality is visceral and as a follower of Gestalt Philosophy, I trust my gut and feel that
people tend to use overblown intellectual bullshit to escape their true feelings.”
You trust your gut? Like Steven Colbert? While my knowledge of Gestalt is fairly limited, I’m always interested in furthering my studies of philosophies that were influenced by Kant. Any favorite books on Gestalt you care to recommend?
Mike S.: “Bob, come off it you offered the Nuremberg Trial as a debate gambit, wrongly seeing in me that I would give what you think is the generic Jewish response.”
No Mike, go back and read it.
“Mike S: “I’m not a fan of Jimmy Carter’s, but for reasons other than Israel. What he pointed out is valid and it is why consistently on this site I have stated that the answer to this problem is for Israel to vacate the West Bank, remove all of the Israeli settlers there and provide a slim connecting corridor between that and Gaza. for Israel to continue with its’ occupation would create an apartheid situation and not only do I find that morally intolerable as a Jew, but politically not viable as a supporter of Israel remaining a Jewish State. I would think that is not quite the defense of Israel you expected from me, but if that is the case you haven’t really been reading my ongoing comments on the issue. Nevertheless, I anticipate I have to fully lay out my position here, or my beliefs will be misread, and/or open to further dissection.”
Bob,
Carter called his book “Peace Without Apartheid,” but said in his clip that there was no apartheid taking place in Israel proper. Carter’s solutions and beliefs are congruent with mine and I’ve stated it time and again. You unfortunately are so wrapped up with your own beliefs and definitions that you can’t see that. What it really is is that you must win your arguments totally so that you can feel better about yourself. That you are intellectually dishonest in the process is of no moment to you because you are cushioned in your morality by Kant.