 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Two unreconciable world views here. The first espouse the primacy of the Nation-state, and assumes it is the proper arbiter of rules and human rights. It is the de facto arbiter and enforcer of laws, those by their very nature are part of the structure of a Nation-state. However, and here is where these arguments are getting muddied - legality does not equal morality.
Everything that happened to this individual is legal. However, arguing whether it is right is an entirely different issue. Many of these posters espouse the viewpoint that was the law, he broke it, and thus he should be incarcerated. The other worldview is that laws are the pervue of the Nation-state (Duh) but that in no way reflects on their morality, and that it is a citizen's option, in fact moral (or ethical) duty to defy those laws when they are wrong. The problem is that many want to be able to defy those laws without paying the consequences.
I see this young man as being willing to pay the consequencess (he knows he has an easy way out - put on the damn uniform and serve) but he would really prefer the government admit that his view has validity and release him. Many conscientious objectors throughout history have accepted this, whether their incarceration is over military service, discriminatory practices, et al.
Of course they protest their incarceration. They have to, because they believe they are defying laws that are wrong. Note, however, that while he would prefer not to serve his time in prison, he is not putting on the uniform. His chance of dying in it is negligible, much less for example then American servicemen in Iraq. The Palestinian/Isreali conflict, until the advent of suicide bombers, was truly asymetric.
I wish Israel had a more accessible system of conscientous objectors, and would let them serve as medics, or social workers, etc. I think the occupation of the West Bank has been a very bad thing for Israel, and enforcing the apartheid/Jim Crow ethno-religious de facto segregation, etc. has created a more divisive society. After all, it was not a Palestinian, but an ultra-orthodox Jew who assassinated Prime Minister Rabin, remember?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Whaleboy
|
 |
Please make all cheques payable to Whaleboy
Jan 2003
time: 05:36
|
|
quote:
You can write Chirac and tell him that.
|
Does the US have compulsory military service? The UK?
quote:
Also if you reread my post you will find I also caled for the ultra-orthodoxed to be drafted as well. Nothing arbitrary about it.
|
To my understanding this is an argument about compulsory military service, not ultra-orthodox Jews. Nor will “tossing the liberals a carrot” earn any points.
quote:
That's a good one. So you follow the rules only if you agree with the policy behind it?
|
Say what now? In arguing that you are equating conscription with tax-paying, and even prohibitive laws such as murder etc. I, on the other hand, maintain that your right to not be forced to serve in the army, with the inherent loss of freedom, danger and possibility of killing, is a completely different matter. Is this not obvious to you?
quote:
That is some great thinking. So whenever social democrats come to power, I will begin disobeying any laws they make, and I will evade the higher taxes - because after all - I feel it would be unpatriotic of me to follow laws which I think will hurt my country!
|
Likewise, a strawman  .
quote:
Categorical act - If everyone were not to serve in the army if they liked, there would be no functional army - and Israel would be left defenseless.
I see no way in which the ends justifies the means with regarding to this issue.
|
Hardly, since you are supposed to be defending conscription not the existence of a standing army per se. With that (believe it or not) I have no objection, my argument is against conscription, so a non-pacifist moral imperative as you suggest would involve the entire country being militarised. The fact that nations like the US and UK have a standing army, and highly professional and able ones at that with highly-trained career soldiers, disproves your supposition that without conscription there would be no army.
quote:
I'm saying his refusal to share the duty, while other people are defending him is immoral and unkind to his fellow countrymen.
|
But you are yet to first establish this duty in context and explain why it must apply to him, more so when others are engaged in it.
quote:
I don't disaprove his wishes to be pacifist. But he must be aware that if he chooses his own wishes above the law - the law wins. That and I personally think pacifists are stupid, based on my belief that people are born unkind to one another and the "natural existance" is when people attempt to bully and exploit each other.
|
Applied to your argument, you do realise that adding that means that your belief is that “Israelis are born unkind to Palestinians and the natural existence is when Israelis bully and exploit Palestinians” (sic)? Obviously I don’t think you’re saying that, I’m just demonstrating how your red herring will distort your argument. Advice is: don’t.
quote:
I have no idea what lead you to this, and I fail to understand the logic of your previous sentances at all.
|
It was an extension of my piece about Israeli militarism discouraging me to migrate, and that many Jews see Zionism or Israeli militarism as an appeal to nationalism through religion, perhaps he is one of those people. Whether or not he is stupid is both irrelevant and a lame question to ask. If, on the other hand, you want a conversation about the annoyingly non-stupid topic of human nature, start a thread and we’ll have a go  .
quote:
Army conscription is for 2-3 years. Paying taxes is for life. With the high taxes in Israel, you pay around 50% of your income to the state. Both are needed evils - since Israel is a small country, but needs to provide all the "rights" people want, like good health care and security.
|
Ummm wtf? I haven’t seen the numbers but if you have basically *the* most productive members of the workforce taken out of the economy (income tax, corporation tax or whatever equivalent etc, it all snowballs) and placed into the military, where they have to be paid by taxpayers money for that time, plus equipment, training, insurance etc… the economic impact is enormous! A differential that’s magnified by the high taxes I might add. Paying tax I can accept as a necessary evil because I still have my liberty, my right to free expression and association, and my right not to be ordered what to do against my will. The military is a completely different situation. Fine if people want to join of their own free will, many do and get a lot out of it so good for them, but to force people? It’s analogous to throwing people in jail for 2/3 years of their life; in essence it’s the same with the addition of light arms. No-one could possibly defend that in terms of “patriotic duty”, especially if the alternative perfectly workable and far cheaper  .
quote:
The government has decided that conscription is necessary for Israel, and until that decision is democratically changed in the Knesset, it is the law - whether one likes it or not.
Furthermore- it is obviously needed, as being a small vulneralbe country, sorrounded by enemies with much larger armies - Israel would not be able to function properly with only a professional army, in a major scale war.
|
“It’s the law”. You can no more defend your argument by that than I can attack it by the same means, which was your earlier strawman. I can’t attack something because it’s legal, nor can you defend it. Try arguing by the virtues of the argument; it makes one look like less of a *****.
Israel is one of, if not the, strongest economies of the Middle East and Eastern Mediterranean, is fed by America to the tune of billions $US per annum, it has an airforce on a par technologically with the US and UK, and has historically shown itself to be able to use that technology to the best tactical advantage… numbers of troops by conscription have been irrelevant to it since 1967. This is not to mention that in the unlikely circumstance of a major infantry war (airforce and tanks demand fewer numbers), if Israel cannot defend itself ( ), then the US certainly will come to its aid, possibly the UK. I wouldn’t count on NATO and the UN however.
quote:
Yes, I agree, 18-21 year olds have huge taxing potencial... if you tax playboy magazine and playstation.
|
As I recall the age at which you must serve your time with the army is between 18 and 45? May be wrong on that latter point, but it’s certainly not 21 .
quote:
Since when does the state come to you and prove you that you have to follow the law? Either you do, or you sit in prison.
|
By virtue of your own citizenship, but then your argument to the law fails as I have shown above.
quote:
Great idea - lets compare everyone in prison to Mandella.
Next time the police arrests some vandalists who do not believe in private property or a killer who sincerely doesn't respect human life, I'll go marching to the court room and say "Mr Judge, we can't judge those people by their beliefs! It'll be like judging Mandella!".
|
I generally find that if I deliberately misrepresent the arguments of others, and behave like a 12 year old, that I negate the right to be taken seriously. Try again .
quote:
This is generally a great recipe for national security - don't piss off your enemies. Having it worked so well in the 1930s, Israel is built on another concept: Be stronger than all your enemies together, and have them know that.
I'd rather piss off the arabs (or any other nationality) and keep having Israel as a strong viable and democratic country. Ok?
|
And yet your buses, nightclubs, cafes and conscripted soldiers are *still* being killed by terrorists. Stick isn’t working. Try the carrot. Being strong and aggressive is all well and good when legions of soldiers and heavy armour are knocking politely at your gate, but when it comes to a threat from deep within a society that you have been brutally oppressing for half a century, you’ll find the sociologist and the economist far more useful than an F16 and a tank.
quote:
Or because you're unwilling to risk your life for a goal you care about? Or is there nothing you care about that much?
|
My own inclinations and thoughts are irrelevant, though I will indulge you. No, I would not risk the lives of myself, my friends, or anyone I have power over, for a goal I care about. Goals, concepts and ideologies are just ideas and pieces of paper and I would not risk anyone’s life for it. To kill to save the life of others? A brutal “needs of the many” situation exists there… but see above, while that view may be applicable to Britain in 1940, a tactical solution to a non-tactical problem just isn’t going to work.
quote:
It is always well organized and funded.
|
Granted, and I can certainly understand how you might combat it in part with the secret services… something Israel is particularly good at I might add . Something tells me that the best approach lies halfway between our views… such is the way these things work.
quote:
Or, possibly your definition of peace is a single palestinian state, and no Israel - in which case I wouldn't call it stupid but rather anti-semitic - as you'd be denying the right for an existance of a Jewish state in Israel. Mind you, I don't deny the right for existance of a Palestinian state - and neither has any Israeli prime minister in a generation.
|
Firstly, I think the idea of Israel is a bad one. I wouldn’t support disbanding it now because that would cause more problems than it would solve, but if I was back in 1948 I would oppose it. How is that anti-Jewish? I am Jewish by birth myself. It is merely anti-Zionist, and Jewish |= Zionist. I actually consider Israel to be detrimental to the interests of Judaism in the long term, since my fear is of Jewish Nazism hence my thread the other week. There obviously has to be precursors to the existence of a Palestinian state, peace being primary among them for social and logistic reasons, and it should fall to the side best able to pre-empt peace to do so. That side in this case is Israel.
quote:
compulsary military service is not. |
I look at it as a prison analogy that I’ve given above.
quote:
Still its strikes me as a bit strange to complain so vociferously against conscientious objectors when they're a drop in the bucket compared to the ultra-orthodox.
|
I suspect it’s more just the principle of Israeli militarism and justification thereof. Certainly it’s a small country in danger of attack throughout its history but it’s also a democracy, and too often in history we see free societies compromising its own freedom in order to defend it… we see history repeating itself throughout the West today.
quote:
"Getting a job" does not equate with the commitment of those who are not concientious objectors and who comply with the law and serve their country in the military. If there is no comparable alternative and he refuses to wear a uniform then he should serve his time (plus small penalty) in jail.
|
But that rests upon the compulsory commitment… you are saying that it applies irrespective of being a conscientious objector, I am saying that it is felled by the same critique of conscription in the first place. In the UK and US I can think of no such analogous commitment beyond paying taxes and following prohibitive (instead of prescriptive) laws, indeed it seems ludicrous to me to throw people in jail for being a conscientious objector as not a punishment of something I consider unpunishable, but… for something that seems eerily absent in your argument. What are they being thrown in jail for? I am concerned you would default back to the “it’s legal so THERE” argument which is no defence.
quote:
But what bites me is that he wants to ignore the law and to contribute less to my society. I don't want such people in my society. I don't have a major beef with people who avoid army and sit in prison. They serve what is there's and go home.
But he's a cry baby that is trying to portray himself as a prisoner of Zion (pun), when infact he is 1) breaking the law 2) is attempting to find a way to do less for his society and 3) attempts to get sympathy for it.
|
Technically he’s contributing more to your society by being less of a drain on your tax shekles. The rest of your diatribe is covered in my argument.
quote:
Just like this lady here, making a fine contribution to her society.
|
 Touché!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Azazel, not knowing all the intricasies of Isreali politics/labels, I did a google search.
web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Culture/4805.htm
quote:
Trimbobler and Amir (sic : the assassin), who are both Orthodox Jews, insist they were married secretly over the phone by a rabbi last year. |
Since I remember him also being labeled as right-wing, forgive the error of labeling him ultra-Orthodox, vs Ultranationist Orthodox. From outside Israel the distinction seems minor, as he is Orthodox and claims Yaweh's giving Jews dominion ove the land? I will retract ultra-Orthodox for Orthodox fanatic. Interestingly, that label could be argued to include even more Israeli's (note - I did not say all, or even a majority. I said more).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Az
|
 |
MACEDONIA - It's the name of the sovereign country to the north of Greece
Apr 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
quote:
And you know for a fact how much he does for his society? We already had your mean-spirited assumption that he just sits on his ass playing video games all day. |
Nothing mean-spirited. Siro was simply expressing his envy of him.
quote:
Since I remember him also being labeled as right-wing, forgive the error of labeling him ultra-Orthodox, vs Ultranationist Orthodox. From outside Israel the distinction seems minor, as he is Orthodox and claims Yaweh's giving Jews dominion ove the land? I will retract ultra-Orthodox for Orthodox fanatic. Interestingly, that label could be argued to include even more Israeli's (note - I did not say all, or even a majority. I said more). |
Nah, it doesn't work like this: analyzing theology is the biggest mistake you can make with this.
The utra-orthodox are basically a somewhat altered transplant of the deeply religious parts of european jewry from the 18th century, equiped with several high-tech components, and parts of modern life. Certain parts of them are deeply anti-zionist, and some are cynical or express contempt for the general society in Israel.
The religious right are completely different. Their map of spiritual authority is much less organized. They are the driving force behind the majority of the settlement thrust, they are deeply nationalistic, and they do serve in the army. In fact, some might say that too many of them serve in the army. . Lately, esp. in the fringe, a chasm is beginning to open between them, and the mainstream Israeli society, on the grounds of the disengagement and uprooting plan (which even I am personally not thrilled about, to put it very mildly ) .
They do enjoy certain connections to the ultraorthodox, but they enjoy certain connections to the secular settlers of the "workers' settlement" movement (  ), so that hardly says anything.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Eli
|
|
Israel
Jul 2000
time: 07:36
|
|
Canada is boring.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
That's why I changed it to Orthodox fanatic - he is a self-described Orthodox, and definitely a fanatic. I make the mistake of assuming that a right-wing Orthodox fanatic was ultra-Orthodox, most of our extreme Christian fundamentalists (i.e. impose Christian laws, criminalize/hospitalize gays, etc.) here in the US are both fanatic, fundamentalist (occupying a similiart extreme literal interpretation of religious texts) and right wing, and I made the error of a false analogy. Since I do know the finer points of the terminology, to borrow from the younger folks - me bad.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
02-03-2005 22:59
). 
|