U.S. Support of Israel, Morality and Laocoon

The "Afganistan supported by U.S." thread is up to 6 pages, and I thought it might be time for a new thread.

If I understand Laocoon, his arguments fall into two classes. First, there are his statements of fact, which can be confirmed or refuted by whatever empirical evidence we can find. Second, there are his statements of opinion, which he claims (and I do not contest) are based on a system of morality.

The introductory economics version of this division is: Positive statements are statements of fact. Normative statements are statements of opinion.

Lao's positive statements are:

[1] The WTC and Pentagon attacks were motivated by those who hate American support ($4-$6 Billion annually) of Israel. (Some evidence for that was given.)

[2] Israel, as it is currently constituted, has been a product of American military and financial support.

[3] Without continued American support, Israel could not continue to exist in its present form. (This may be subject to debate, but there seems to be some agreement among posters.)

[4] The Israeli policy of bulldozing Palestinian homes and construction of dwellings (settlements) for Israelis is one of the main causes of Palestinian, and by extension, Arabic, hatred of the Israeli government. (This has not been contested.)


Then we get to the "normative" stuff. Lao's points here are two.

First, the Americans have some moral obligation to help undo the mess in the Middle East, since they helped cause it. (There is no general agreement on what form this help should take, nor has Lao proposed much. This may be because the discussion keeps getting sidetracked.)

Second, the Americans have no moral obligation to continue providing military and financial support at levels consistent with those in the recent past.

Opponents have argued that withdrawing this support leaves Israel at the mercy of murderous enemies.

Laocoon counters that there is a major moral difference between allowing something to happen and causing it to happen.
To withdraw support abruptly would be wrong, since the U.S. has played a part in creating the mess. However, saying that the U.S. has the moral obligation to assist somehow is not the same as saying that it must maintain its past policies unchanged.

How's that for a summary?

[Laocoön]

I'd add just two things, doodad:

Positive: Our relationship with Israel is a net liability to the U.S.

Normative: Much of Israel's behavior (and ours in supporting them) has been morally inexcusable.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-09-28 13:29, doodad wrote:
Lao's positive statements are:

[1] The WTC and Pentagon attacks were motivated by those who hate American support ($4-$6 Billion annually) of Israel.

This is backwards logic. Former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Arabs don't hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because it's part of the West. They hate the West because it's quite opposite to Arab culture -- free, modern, individualist, and secular. Israel has been easily accessible to attackers for years, but now the terrorists are targeting the heart of the beast.

Taking away American support of Israel would be a wonderful accomplishment for the Arab extremists, but it wouldn't make them stop hating Americans.

[Huki]

On 2001-09-28 13:57, Laocoön wrote:
I'd add just two things, doodad:

Positive: Our relationship with Israel is a net liability to the U.S.

Typical Laocoon. His opinions are fact.

"Former Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has said that Arabs don't hate the West because of Israel, they hate Israel because it's part of the West"

Well OF COURSE he's going to say that!!!! He's trying to get us to help him in his war.

He'd tell us our parents hated us if it would promote his cause. They do NOTHING, NOTHING for this country other than pay off politicians and suck us dry.

Don't insult our intelligence.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: anon4 on 2001-09-28 14:30 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-09-28 14:25, anon4 wrote:
Well OF COURSE he's going to say that!!!! He's trying to get us to help him in his war.

Maybe he's saying it because it's true AND it gets us to help him. My point is that people who say this is all because we support Israel are vastly oversimplifying. Read on:

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...175979,00.html (I can't get this link to display, you'll have to copy it in)

A quote: "...to get to the virulence of antipathy exhibited by the kamikaze 19 and their abettors and apologists, another element is required. That element is the idea that the U.S. is not just the enemy of the Arabs or even of Muslims generally but also the enemy of God. It is an idea encouraged by the Ayatullah Khomeini, who proclaimed the U.S. "the Great Satan," spread by Islamic extremists throughout the Arab world and now given potent expression by, it would seem, the biggest player among all such militants today, Osama bin Laden."

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Aaron Brachowitz on 2001-09-28 14:45 ]</font>

[Damn, Dirty Ape]

AB:"Taking away American support of Israel would be a wonderful accomplishment for the Arab extremists, but it wouldn't make them stop hating Americans."

Although I won't pretend to know more about the middle-east than what I can get from the media, I believe that Aaron's comment is very true.

I would even take it a step further and add that "it wouldn't even make them stop wanting to detroy America".

I'm not saying that I support American support of Israel (I haven't made up my mind on that one), but pulling out would not have a big impact on American hatred.

From what I can understand, it is the growing presence of Western beliefs upon their culture that most Muslim residents oppose. Another bone of contention seems to be American presence and continued occupation in the area (aside from Isreal), due solely to U.S. oil interest.

There also seems to be an inconsistency in American foreign policy regarding the region (some would say hypocrisy). We state that we are support the establishment of democracies in the area, but we don't really. We support kings and dictators, since we would rather not have to renegotiate positions with a new head-of-state after every election.

That's my take on it, anyway. I may be under- or mis-informed (that happens sometimes!).

Note to Huki:

In my original post, I stated

"If I understand Laocoon, his arguments fall into two classes. First, there are his statements of fact, which can be confirmed or refuted by whatever empirical evidence we can find. Second, there are his statements of opinion, which he claims (and I do not contest) are based on a system of morality.

The introductory economics version of this division is: Positive statements are statements of fact. Normative statements are statements of opinion. "

Laocoon added two bits to that posting, one of which he (correctly) classified as a postitive statement--defined as one which can be confirmed or refuted by empirical evidence.

If we can find a generally accepted cost/benefit criterion (not as easy as it may seem, but not impossible either), we can evaluate the statement that U.S.--Israel relations have resulted in a net loss for the U.S.

It may be true, it may be false.

We can, in principle, determine which, without recourse to opinion (once the criteria are specified, of course).

In classifying this statement as "positive", Laocoon has demonstrated an understanding of the categories I used. Argue with the statement if you wish (with evidence, if you have it), but don't ridicule the poster.

[Huki]

Note to doodad:

I understood your two classes. The net value of our relationship with Israel is not something that can or will be proven by emperical evidence. It is a Normative statement.

As to ridiculing Laocoon, I doubt this is possible. (However, a statement that falls into your Positive category is: "Laocoon typically asserts his opinion as fact.")

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-09-28 14:46, d*mn, Dirty Ape wrote:
There also seems to be an inconsistency in American foreign policy regarding the region (some would say hypocrisy). We state that we are support the establishment of democracies in the area, but we don't really. We support kings and dictators, since we would rather not have to renegotiate positions with a new head-of-state after every election.

I agree with the sentiment, but with the following observations:

1) You can't create democracy out of nothing. There is no democratic political movement in the region, nor any hope for one. Given the choice between stable but corrupt monarchies or nightmarish Islamic revolutionary states, we've chosen the former.

2) To say to the people of these countries that your governments must be democracies in order for us to consider them legitimate would make us almost as rigid and intolerant as the religious extremists we're fighting against.