"Israel is guilty of genocide agsint the Palestinians and Arabs" (The Accusation, 140).
"To be sure, Palestinian civilians have died in the seventy-three-year-long war, but their numbers have been infinitesimal in comparison with the number of Palestinians and Arabs killed by Jordan, Syria, Iraq, and Iran during the same period [...] Moreoever, the Palestinian deaths have resulted primareily from terrorists hiding among their own civilians, as in Lebanon, whereas the Israeli deaths have resulted from innocent civilians being specifically targeted. When Palestinians have been accidently killed in a legitimate effort to prevent terrorism, Israel has expressed genuine regret. The murder of innocent Israelis, on the other hand, has generated celebration among Palestinians" (The Proof, 143).
One question by Thursday night
I'll keep it short,
ReplyDeleteIf the author is trying to prove the point of his 'accusation', his 'proof' should support the 'accusation' and not refute it. Why did the author so this?
I somewhat agree with Ben Zwilenburgstein. On the one hand the "proof" does not at all prove the accusation, but i disagree that the "proof" refutes the accusation as Ben Zwilinsteinman argues. It simply gives further detail to the accusation. I think its safe to assume that this is just an excerpt from the "proof". btw this has nothing to do with my question.
ReplyDeleteHere is my question: What side of the Israel/Palestinian debate is the author taking. For the most part he/she seems to be pro-Israel,stating that innocent Israeli deaths are celebrated. But the very wording she/he uses in his/her accusation seems to say otherwise. I would not use the word "genocide" when talking about Israel hunting down terrorists.Even after watching Waltz with Bashir for the second time and Munich for the first time. For the most part Israel is justified for killing terrorists, its hardly considered "genocide"
I find absolutely no way of reading "The Proof" of anything other than a refutation of "The Accusation"--so I just assumed the two were from opposite sides of the debate (don't worry, this is before reading Ben's comment-there's just no other way, to my mind, of understanding this...). So this "Proof" or what I'll call the rebuttal to this bold claim that Israel is guilty of a genocide essentially is capable of logically destroying the foundations of the initial claim. It brings in some potentially strong arguments (if they can be substantiated enough) about numbers, about intent, and about reaction to civilian casualties. Thus, the arguments in the rebuttal themselves are laid out chronologically and logically themselves in a very scientific manner. But for me, ironically, the very cogency of these argument are what undercut my ability to feel comfortable about the situation in Israel. They've been manufactured, mechanically expressed, and depersonalized to such a high degree that I can't help but actively search for the holes in the argument-looking for whatever truths they may be concealing. That very controversial, organic, and definitely easily refutable initial claim has a power which continues to emanate even after its logical foundations have been uprooted (assuming that's the case or even possible). So my question is a global one for me personally. How do I take a stance against being attacked (again, like in past comment, still not sure why I feel the need to be defensive or feel bothered at all) without feeling like I'm undercutting my own stance through the act of being defensive? Is some form of a balance between defending and being defensive at all possible? If so, does it (and how, if it does) apply here? If not, then what are we to do-stand around and allow ourselves to be attacked-or view defending what we believe in as a necessary sacrifice for a more important goal? Are there other ways of looking at this? Again, I recognize this is a personal issue I'm having of the impact argumentation in general and specific forms of argumentation in particular have on one's personal ethos-but for me, I believe it has global resonance (beyond this specific issue).
ReplyDeleteare these two excerpts directly related?
ReplyDeletewhile the second part could be part of a refutation of the first, one can still argue that aside from the 73 year long war, fights between arab states and fellow arabs, and mistakes that led to civillian casualties, there may well be room for one to make the argument that israel commited genocide against palestinians.
I don't hold that position but couldnt one say that?
Tani
He uses very general terms when addressing what people feel. As in "the Palestinians celebrated". It's almost certain not all celebrated. So is his generalization on purpose or just a technical accident?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking in regards of the first excerpt –
ReplyDeleteI would be lying if I said the State of Israel, and its citizens were innocent of every Palestinian death; granted the majority of the fatalities were almost certainly justified. However, just like there are considered irrationals in the Muslim and Arab groups who would go to the extent of murder, so too there is undeniably a presence of irrationalism in the Jewish population. The author using the term “genocide” is completely ridiculous – NAZI concentration camps were an example of genocide – declaring Israel is guilty of genocide is a complete fabrication of anti - Israel propaganda. Historically, one cannot find any instance where Israel has attempted to wipe out the entire Palestinian people. I believe what we currently have at hand, by both Israel and Palestine, is homicide, not genocide. Even if some believe genocide existed, in reference with Beirut, and despite the overwhelming evidence of the contrary, the United Nations has never characterized Israel’s actions as genocide.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Jonny Levi~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The author is listing the amount of terrorist that died in the past years but why does he not list the amount of Jews that were targeted? They were even innocent people? We didnt do anything wrong to them?
ReplyDeleteThe way the writer is arguing is poor. The use of the word genocide turns this argument into a straw man. And his rebuttal is meant entirely to blow away the accusation. Is there a more realistic accusation that the author could use to make his rebuttal something signifigent?
ReplyDeleteInstead of a question, I'm going to try and be the devils advocate and try and see if I can figure out what this person meant to do when basically, going against his own accusation with the proof he used. It could be that maybe he was using this as a quote from an Israeli newspaper and later in his article he proves it wrong, or maybe he's trying to state what he believes is the Israelis point of view, and then he poses a rebuttal. Its very hard to tell how exactly he was trying to fit these two things together, to me it seems that the only explanation is that we cant understand his argument or his points with clarity unless we were able to read the whole article. basically, this is to out of context to be able to tell where he was going with this.
ReplyDelete- eliana ely