Interesting question, Scott.

Let's take the stance that they don't have a right to be a country. What would you have them do? How would you resolve this, and how would you manage the removal/resettlement of the citizens of post-Israel?

Also, to take the logic a bit further (and this is just a thought-experiment, not trying to be difficult) - could the same logic be applied to the United States.

In answer to your question - I might go to war to regain my country, but I wouldn't resort to the killing of innocent civilians in terrorist acts.

In addition, a number of Palestinians and Arabs live in Israel now. I don't know the percentages.

I don't know that they don't have the right to be a country. I just don't know that their right should supercede Palestinian's rights. Personally I'd say (if I could waive my magic wand) that they should at least move back to their 1967 boundaries for a start.

As far as the US is concerned I was actually thinking about our ancestors' treatment of the natives here as I was writing that. "We" came in, used "weapons of mass destruction" (for the time), germ warfare, and a number of shady deals to get "our" way. And look at what state the various tribes are in now. Now don't mistake the above truths as hatred of America, our forefathers, or too much sympathy for natives. There are no "good" people and I'm not falling prey to the noble savage stereotype. All of that to say, at least in our case we're actively trying to make some ammends to natives and aren't kicking them out to Canada. But the question of "What right does any country have to invade and take over another?" stands. It happens all the tiem sure, but does that make it right? Or is it right because their form of government agrees with out own?

Regarding terrorism, I'm sure you wouldn't, but governments, especially governments in exile, aren't immune from using those tactics. Again it doesn't excuse those acts, but it's there. I'd have to do some checking but I wouldn't be surprised to find that our own history in the Civil and Revolutionary wars have examples of such acts.

Every war has examples of those acts. Even in the "Good War" of WWII, we firebombed the citizens of Dresden, nuked Hiroshima, etc. (There were reasons behind those, some of them very sound military reasons, but still). On a smaller scale, some American units had a "kill surrendering Germans" policy, especially in the later stages of the war. And because the Japanese were so unbelievably cruel to U.S. prisoners in the Pacific, our soldiers often returned the same.

The question is not whether we did such or such in the past. It's what are reasonable standards now? I know many consider our war in Iraq to be a bad thing, but looked at dispassionately, a very sound argument can be made that we do everything humanly possible to avoid civilian collateral damage.

My opinion: An organization that resorts to terror against civilians, no matter how "justified" their reasoning, is to be rejected outright. Hamas doesn't get one scrap of land, one concession, one bone or benefit, until they demonstrably repudiate terrorism.

Field an army, declare formal war, wear uniforms, meet the enemy on the battlefield, fine. Deliberately blowing up supermarkets and buses . . . no.

Regarding your suggestion of moving back to the 1967 borders (would that put Jerusalem in Palestinian hands? I can't remember) - it probably has merit. But keep in mind that that is not what Hamas is after. Their charter states that they will accept nothing less than the destruction of the Jewish state. So they wouldn't accept your idea either. They might take it, but only to improve their staging of further attacks against the hated Jewish populace. The goal is no more jews. We've already been there once, in one of the saddest chapter of the bloody 20th century. The West said "never again", and I believe we should hold to that.

Finally, I do think it matters that Israel is a Democracy. I understand that my view is slanted, since I live in a Democracy, but I really shy away from moral equivalence - dictatorships and terrorist governments are, demonstrably, objectively, morally, qualitatively worse for their citizens, more unstable, less accepting of freedoms (such as the right to engage in what we're doing here), more oppressive, more theocratic, less concerned with the well-being of their citizens (who can't vote, so who cares?), etc.

So if you are asking me to choose between the ancient Palestinian lands ruled by an Israeli constitutional democracy or Hamas, I'll take Israel. The status-quo may seem bad. The alternatives are much worse (in my opinion).

Finally, the palestinians themselves are often just the poor pawns in a bigger game - removed from their home, they are also rejected by the arab countries around them, even as those same countries use them as a club to pound Israel with.

This is what happens when religion is taken too far. Exiled Jews were welcome to form their own country in other parts of the world (South America was especially accommodating, if I remember my history correctly), but the opted for Palestinian land instead. Why? Because they falsely believed it's land promised to them by God himself.

Now we have a real issue. The fight over the land is partially geopolitical, but mostly religious in nature. Both sides consider the land 'holy' and that God is explicitly on their side. This leaves no room for compromise. A compromise on who claims the land is equivalent to compromising one's religion. "God promised us this land buuuuut He's been known to be wrong before.". No, I don't see it happening.

The real solution is the secularization of both sides. Thanks to Israeli democracy, this has largely happened on one side. I think the solution is to enfranchise Hamas and bring them into the political process, much the way the IRA was handled in Northern Ireland. That alone won't do it. Israel (with US support, no doubt) must build a lasting and stable infrastructure in the places where Palestinians live with an emphasis on secular education.

Isolating them hasn't been working for the 50+ years it's been tried. Time for some new approaches.

For another view, read this:

An excerpt:

That Carter would defy the wishes of both Congress and the president in meeting with a group the U.S. has defined as “foreign terrorist organization” since 1995 demonstrates, at best, a tremendous lack of judgment and, at worst, something far more sinister. He says he went as a representative of the Carter Center, his charitable foundation, and not as a former president or representative of the U.S. government. The proposition is absurd on its face, since Carter’s ex-president status is not something he can take off and put on as he chooses. He further justifies the foray as an effort to promote peace in the region, portraying himself as a conduit of peace between Israel and Hamas, harkening back to his 1978 role in forging a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. But Carter forgets the cardinal rule of negotiations — willing parties on both sides must come to the bargaining table. Israel has proven its bona fides in this regard; unfortunately, Hamas has done just the opposite.

Hamas is committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and has no qualms about murdering innocent women and children to achieve this end. The day before Carter met with Meshaal, Hamas foreign minister Mahmoud al-Zahar cited Hamas’s goal of “redressing the material crimes of 1948,” the year Israel declared statehood, in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. After Hamas won the 2006 Palestinian parliamentary elections, the U.S., United Nations, European Union, and Russia jointly called on Hamas to renounce terror, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and affirm the previous agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. Hamas has categorically rejected all three conditions and continues to plot terrorist attacks and enable other groups to launch rockets at Israeli civilians. Carter trumpeted the success of his mission on Monday by claiming that Hamas had agreed to a two-state solution, only to have Hamas reaffirm later that same day that they did not recognize Israel’s right to exist and that the side-by-side co-existence of a Palestinian state with a Jewish state would be “transitional.” How can Israel negotiate with such an organization?

Sorry - everything after the "An excerpt:" line is from the article. For some reason I screwed up the blockquotes and only put them around the first paragraph.

Bill,

Great post on 4-23 at 2:22. I couldn't have said it better myself.

Okay so here I go. And again I'm spitballling here and trying real hard to avoid coming off as a pinko liberal, but I've got to play devil's advocate because that's in my nature.

Okay so field an army you say, well Hamas only recently became a viable political entity. Prior to 2007 they wouldn't have been able to field an army and could only fight as terrorist insurgents right? Wear uniforms and meet in the field of battle. Is that required? Who makes the rules in question? If I'm in the extreme minority as certain Palestinians are, then that's not an option realistically. Again trying to look at it from their point of view they have this group who is their sworn enemy coming in, taking over, and removing their territory. And democratic though Israel may be, and I agree that be a democracy is better than what's going on with Hamas, thier hands are not clean. Hamas says no more Jews and that's not right. It's horrible. But isnt' Israel against any sort of Palestinian state? Is that the same? It sounds like it. Again correct em if I'm wrong.

Regardless of what Hamas is "after" or for that matter what Israel is "after" if we're going to be involved shouldn't we be saying that Palestine shoud have the right to a state? I would think that Hamas is a violent minority, does that mean Palestinians don't have rights to have their own homeland? I'm not asking you to give Hamas a pat on the back. I'm just tryuing to figure out who deserves what and why. Israel doesn't
"deserve" to take whatever they want by dint of military might, do they?

We're taking sides and I'd argue that one of the primary motivations on America's part is out of some weird dispensational belief. Am I wrong? I think that we wanted to help them in the 40s a) because we felt guilty for not getting involved in WWII earlier and 2) because as a primarily Christian nation we identified with Israel more. Again am I wrong and if not do our motives justify our aid then and now? And since we're involved why not force Israel to let Palestinans have some land to call their own? We set a dangerous precedent by helping Israel, did we not?

As far as Carter is concerned, let him meet with whom he will. I don't have a high opinion of the President or Congress either so I grok that. And as far as "how could Israel negotiate with them" goes, I think as the more powerful country, they can afford to. If they come to the table and Hamas doesn't then Israel looks good. If they come to the table and Hamas does, but refuses to cooperate then again Israel looks good. If they don't come to the table then to me Israel looks like it's using an excuse, "See they're not willing to negotiate, why shoud I?".

Any of that make sense?

The question of Hamas cannot be dealt with because they are terrorists is a pejorative point. Like Sid said, this is due in large part to religion.

Israel has terrorized Lebanon (and Palestine). Throughout history, the US has terrorized others, the British have terrorized others (including the US twice) and the list continues. We even terrorized ourselves during the Civil War (Sherman to Atlanta, the South in NY and Canada).

Hamas sees themselves in a war and they employ extreme lengths to attempt to win that war. Ignoring them and refusing to deal with them will not make them go away. Declaring war on them only confirms what they already believe and changes nothing. Ending a war requires more than saying the the other team is bad and dehumanizing them. The WWE does that on a weekly basis. Unlike rasslin, though, this conflict is not fake and real people die.

The key to Hamas is to make them the bad guys in Palestine. That is accomplished by making Abbas' party the good guys. One way to do this is to get Israel to accept one major demand from Abbas. The best one I can think of would be holding to the 1967 borders.

Of course, I'm an armchair quarterback in all of this. The only Palestinian I have personally met is a Christian minister in Israel in a church of Israelis and Palestinians. His brother was killed by Israeli police for crossing back into Palestine. This minister has not only forgiven the Israeli police, but continues to work for peace.

Still, it seems to me that the same rhetoric of the past 40 years will accomplish two things: diddly and squat.

As has already been stated here, religion is to blame here. If it was just a geopolitical issue and they were fighting over the land or resources, it is likely that peace would have been achieved a long time ago. The problem is that each groups' perfect god has laid claim to one piece of land. Not two pieces of land next door, but one plot. Sure, Israel has liberalized somewhat, but they are still a Jewish state that uses religion as its mandate. Unless each side relinquishes its fairytale, there will be no peace until one side is completely eradicated.

Now, if you can figure out how to get them to see the light, I'm all ears.

Okay Toby, your use of the world fairytale aside, are you implying that if somehow both nations were to give up their religious beliefs (whether their God and the promises that they believed are real or imagined) that they would spontaneously become somehow more reasonable? You and Sid do realize that countries have been squabbling over geography for reasons other than religion for loner than most modern civilizations have existed.

Being an atheist/agnostic does not make you inherently more reasonable when it comes to such things. For example, North Korea and South Korea aren't fighting over land that God or their ancestors promised them. To the best of my knowledge neither government is particularly religious.

Most Jews (afaik) would probably express a desire for Israel to continue not because God promised it to them, but because it is their homeland. The Palestinians probably view it similarly. I'm not denying that in the case of the Middle East that religion isn't an issue but don't overstate your case when it comes to religion.

You make the statment that "If it was just a geopolitical issue and they were fighting over the land or resources, it is likely that peace would have been achieved a long time ago." and you do so without backing it up.

Also let's not refer to people religious beliefs here as fairytales. Say what you like in your own house, but show respectful disagreement in mine.

Hello Scott,

You and Sid do realize that countries have been squabbling over geography for reasons other than religion for loner than most modern civilizations have existed.

I'm under no illusion that a religion-free world would be a peaceful world. Furthermore, I think that most wars and conflicts start because of economic and political reasons.

I do think, however, that religion perpetuates war for the reasons mentioned in my previous comment. Those in power use the religion of their people to motivate them in support of their economic and political goals. It far too easy to do. Once the conflict becomes religious in nature, too much is at stake for a simple solution. Each sides' religions must be reinterpreted and that reinterpretation has to achieve popular acceptance. Once this occurs, compromising with the other side is no longer a 'sin', but just your run-of-the-mill economic-political negotiation. To piss off interested parties is one thing; to believe that you will piss off God is quite another.

FYI: I'm not sure how much the people of the North Korea actually buy it, but the government treats the deceased Kim Il-sung as their current supreme leader and quasi-deity. Their constitution even designated him posthumously as the "eternal President of the Republic". In atheists circles, such cults-of-personality are considered religions. I'm not sure how (legitimately?) religious people view them.

You make good points (as usual).

I meant no disrespect. I post in a lot of atheist/agnostic/humanist forums and we use the word, "fairytale" a lot to describe religion, as to us, they are both equally true. But, since we're not debating the merits (or demerits) of religion, I'll be more careful with my word choice. My bad. I'm sorry.

I have no illusions that if, somehow, the Israelis and Palestinians were to forgo their religions, all would spontaneously be peaceful. I never said that. But, it would open the door to rational compromise that cannot exist right now. It wouldn't solve problems. But it would eliminate the most immovable stumbling blocks.

I'll second what Sid said about North Korea, with one small quibble: I don't know that we can consider it a religion, but rather, a dogma. Same problems, just semantics.

I won't be so presumptuous to say that all atheists are rational. But, in my experience, most atheists have arrived at their viewpoints by thinking critically and rationally.

Apology accepted.

I'd argue that the idea that compromise can't exist between people with different faiths is not valid. It can. I think that what makes it difficult is the fact that the Palestinians have a much longer more recent history in that area and with the Jews it's got less to do with their notion of God and the promised land and more to do with the desire to have a country to call their own. They see it as their ancestral home. So it's more to do with belonging than with God.

That notion for most people is far more powerful than any idea of God. It's why most people are part of a religion. They want to belong to something bigger than themselves. I think that's why when you ask most Americans if they're Christians or not they'll say yeah even though they rarely read the Bible and drink and eat every word that falls from their pastor's lips.

Even atheists want to belong to something so they form their little group and cliques too. Not all of you mind, just like not all Christians are like that, but belonging to a group, having an identity is crucial to most folks psychology. I think that's why a lot of people fall into dangerous cults and swallow things that no "rational" human being should. That belonging is your stumbling block. Without religion it would just become geopolitical.

In my experience a number of atheists arrived at their beliefs out of anger towards religion, justified or not. Also a number of Atheists have mistaken ideas about religion in general, religious people, and Christianity specifically. Most of them haven't studied the Bible. Read it maybe, sure, but don't own one and don't truly think about it. Why should they? Well for the more "evangelical" atheists, if you're going to decry something you should at least understand it and what it truly teaches.

See if every post could just produce this much good discussion I'd be a happy blogger.

Oh and quite a few Christians I know have arrived at their viewpoints (religious and otherwise) by thinking critically and rationally. You may consider the notion of a god irrational. I don't.

I agree with you that compromise can exist between different faiths. But, we're not talking about moderate faith here. There most certainly are geopolitical reasons for the conflict there, but both sides believe to have divine right to the land (specifically, Jerusalem). In both religions, God's will cannot be questioned, so that provides that immovable roadblock. Even a liberalization of the religiosity would open the door to compromises on the geopolitical issues. So, while I may have overstated religion as the sole cause, it remains the biggest hurdle to any kind of lasting peace.

Being a part of a group is an important part of the human experience. But the problem that I, and most other atheists, have is that being a part of a group does not necessitate a belief in the supernatural. And while that belief, in and of itself, might be harmless, it's all the baggage that comes with it that troubles us. Why, for instance, is it necessary to demonize homosexuals because of what your Holy Book says (though I hasten to add that in the Bible, homosexuality is an abomination on the same level as eating shrimp)? Why must we reject such promising medical advances like stem cell research because of the belief that the soul enters the zygote at the moment of conception? Many atheists don't see a distinction between cults and mainstream religion; mainstream religion just happens to have more followers.*

I have read the Bible all the way through three times. Once as a true believer, once when I was questioning the faith and once since I've stopped believing. I do own a Bible and a Concordance and while I have not formally studied it, I *think* I have studied it more in depth than most Christians. (I can't back that up, but I get that distinct impression.) I became an atheist (though if I'm being honest, I'm more of a hardcore agnostic, since I cannot prove there is no god; I just find it highly unlikely that there is one) not out
spite for religion, but after watching all of the evidence mount against it. It finally became impossible to ignore.

I have many friends who are Christians (including on this blog, I hope!) and we have engaged in some great religious and philosophical debates. We get on just fine. But, I've also been told by close family members that I'm going to hell... Always a pleasant experience!

*I realize I've lumped Christians into one big group here and I realize that this doesn't apply to all. I guess I'm referring to the religious right here, which, frankly, scares the piss out of me. Scott: I KNOW you're not a member of the religious right, so don't take that paragraph as being directed at you, but more at how religion has been interpreted by so many Americans.

Hello Scott and Toby,

I'd argue that the idea that compromise can't exist between people with different faiths is not valid.

Agreed. I'm saying that it would require reinterpretations of the religions on both sides. As you know, popular acceptance of new interpretations is possible, but not easy. That's largely been done on the Israeli side. Incidentally, Israel is actually one of the most atheistic/agnostic countries on the planet at 37% of the populace (as of 1995) according to Adherents.com. It's a different story for Palestinians which are 95% Islamic as of 2000.

They see it as their ancestral home. So it's more to do with belonging than with God.

I don't think the two are completely separate. They believe it's their ancestral home because of their religious beliefs. Consider the 1988 Charter that created Hamas:

The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up.

Emphasis mine. Here is the definition of Waqf from reference.com:

A waqf (plural , awqāf; vakıf) is an inalienable religious endowment in Islam

The bottom line is that religion is a huge hindrance to peace in this instance. Religious differences did not cause the conflict, but perpetuates it. Actually, I take that back. In this particular case, religion was a major factor in creating the conflict. We forget why Jews chose this land (over others were they were welcome) as the focus of last century's Zionist movement. It's their 'Promised' (by God) Land.

I have lots of thoughts regarding the other parts of both of your comments, but my comment is already too long. Perhaps I'll create a 2nd post later.

I'd be curious to know how many Jews in Israel are Orthodox enough in their faith to believe in God and His promises regarding the land. Regarding the Palestinians I'm certain the one's in Hamas are reasonablt devout, so you do indeed have a point there. Regardless of how big a role religion actually plays though, I think we're all in agreement that this situation isn't changing any time soon and that both sides have played a role in the tensions.

Regarding homosexuality I would be remiss if I didn't point out that eating shrimp and being a homosexual aren't on the same level. Yes they are both listed in the Levitical laws so there you have a point, but it is made clear in the NT that Christians are free from dietary restrictions, but the same is not true when it comes to homosexuality. Now have some evangelicals made too much of that? Sure. As a country we have little to stand on when it comes to keeping two people regardless of gender from marrying, biblically or otherwise. The stem cell issue and other issues related to life are more complicated. The Bible is not real clear on when life begins. I have seen arguments made both ways. Personally I think that adult stem cell research is more promising and I think that it should be legal to use cells from fetuses that are going to be destroyed anyway.

I'd be interested in seeing what evidence you have for the non-existence of God. I don't have anything that you'd accept as evidence in his favor.

I certainly count you among my friends (isn't it interesting that we can have friends we may never meet?) and I'm glad that in our case we don't let our beliefs stand in the way. What your family has said to you regarding your soul's ultimate destination is I'm guessing hard for you to hear. I'm hoping it's hard for them to say. I certainly believe that Hell is real and I believe that if you reject God and Christ that that's where you will go. That's hard for me to even type, but for me to say otherwise would be a lie. I pray often for you and Sid and I hope you both know that I do it out of a love for you both and not in any sort of demeaning way.

I do have some things in common with my brothers on the religious right. I think that they mean well and have excellent intentions. That doesn't make them right (heh) and in some cases they are dead wrong. I think that many of them have much in common with the Pharisees in Jesus' time and I work towards avoiding those sorts of errors. I try to think of how Jesus would act were he in my shoes. I know that I'll fail, but I can't imagine Jesus shouting you down and so I don't. He would however remind you (and me) that all men are sinners in need of grace. That constantly humbles me and keeps my head where it needs to be.

I think you have something there Sid. Religious beliefs are the spark that started all of this. It's also fuel to the fire, but there are other components that keep it burning.

Hello Scott,

I pray often for you and Sid and I hope you both know that I do it out of a love for you both and not in any sort of demeaning way.

I try to take such things in the spirit with which they are given. But it may not even be necessary. It depends on your belief regarding the Doctrine of Eternal Security (once saved, always saved).

I think we're all in agreement that this situation isn't changing any time soon and that both sides have played a role in the tensions.

Definitely.

I'll second the agreement that the whole situation will not be solved soon, or if it all. I fear that the ending will only come when one side is completely eradicated.

Glad we can all agree on somethin'. ;-)