Woty Freeman

2003-06-21T21:52:00.000-04:00

I have moved my weblog here. Please update your bookmarks.

2003-06-01T18:57:00.000-04:00

Many people think of the Palestinians as both oppressed citizens of Israel and citizens of a country that is under unjustified foreign occupation by Israel. For example this article claims that the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians by not allowing them free entry into Israel:

Most attention has been paid to the 'closures' - the decision by the Israeli authorities to prevent the normal flow of Palestinian people and goods in and out of the West Bank and Gaza – and their direct impact. Before the closures, over 110,000 Palestinian workers, more than 20 per cent of the Palestinian workforce, were working in Israel.

And also makes the claim that the Israelis are oppressing the Palestinians by moving into their country:

The economy has been adversely affected by the vigorous (and as widely agreed internationally, the illegal) policy of creating new and expanding settlements for Israelis within the land areas of the West Bank and Gaza. The settlements take land away from the Palestinians, many have been built on land that Palestinians have previously used for agriculture. In the West Bank, these settlements occupy a total area in excess of 40 square miles. In Gaza, the 5,000 settlers occupy 30 per cent of the total land area. The Israeli population of the settlements in Palestinian areas is currently increasing at some four times the natural increase in the overall Israeli population.

If there is a Palestine, then its citizens have no inherent right to enter and work in Israel. One component of sovereignty is the right to control entry. A nation does not have to allow free entry to all citizens of neighboring countries, even if the neighboring countries have lousy economies. Particularly, nations have every right to make policy to keep out foreigners that intend to make war on or murder their citizens.

If there is a Palestine, then it has the right to control entry, and it can make policy against Jewish immigration. If that is the case, then the Israeli government has no right to fund immigration there, and no right to force the government there to accept Jews as residents. But control of immigration goes both ways. It can't be the case that Palestine has the right to control Jewish entry, but Israel has no right to control Palestinian entry.

If there is no Palestine and the Palestinians are Israelis, then they have the right to travel freely in Israel. That is a component of citizenship in a free state. However, having the government protect one from living near members of a disliked ethnic or religious group is not a generally accepted component of citizenship. If the territories are part of Israel, then Israelis have the right to live there. Also, Israel is the Jewish state. Part of its mission is to be the homeland for Jews. It is necessary and right for Israel to help Jews move there.

In reality, the disputed territories do not comprise a sovereign Arab state called Palestine, and they never have. It's likely that at least some of them will in the future, but they do not now. They are not now part of any state. They come the closest to being part of Israel, but they are not part of Israel at the moment. As they are not part of Israel, many people who live there are not Israelis.

Israel has vital security problems in the area that prevent withdrawal until they are solved. The area is used as a base of operations to attack Israel. Israel has the right and obligation to act to prevent this. Israel also has national interests in the region. There are important historic and religious sites there. Future creation of a sovereign state in this area will need to involve negotiating access to these sites. In the meantime, Israelis live in these areas. It is not politically or morally possible for the Israeli government to prevent this. It is also not possible for Israel to avoid involvement – refusing to protect citizens from attack while they are doing something legal is also not morally or politically possible. If there is a new sovereign state formed in that area, the Israelis who are living there now may have to move somewhere else as part of the negotiations. That does not mean that their current residence violates the rights of non-Israelis who live in the region. It also does not mean the Palestinians have the right to freely enter and work in Israel.

2003-06-01T17:24:00.000-04:00

Charles posted this comment in a thread on LGF:

But about Bush meeting with Abu Mazen -- this really rubs me the wrong way, especially immediately after touring a death camp of which Mazen tried to deny the existence. The roadmap is doomed to failure, in my opinion, and unless there is a deeper game being played I am very disappointed that Bush is putting so much emphasis on it. No such deals should ever have been considered before substantive steps were taken on the Palestinian side to stop the terrorism and brainwashing of their children into a life of hate and violence. By proceeding with this plan, that demands no accountability for the Palestinian Arabs, we're sending exactly the wrong message to them and to the Arab world -- that terrorism pays off.

I've replied on LGF:

But about Bush meeting with Abu Mazen -- this really rubs me the wrong way, especially immediately after touring a death camp of which Mazen tried to deny the existence.
It occours to me that the two might be related. This could be part of Bush's intention to send a clear message to Abu Mazen and others that neither holocaust denial nor anti-semitism is seen as remotely reasonable or acceptable to the United States.

The roadmap is doomed to failure, in my opinion, and unless there is a deeper game being played I am very disappointed that Bush is putting so much emphasis on it.
I think that it is right to assume that Bush is playing a deeper game here. That's what Bush does. Bush went to the UN before -- it wasn't because he thought the UN was a moral authority. It also wasn't because he intended to let the UN make decisions. It was because he wanted to win dimplomatically as well as militarilly, and he succeeded brilliantly at that.

Part of resolving any conflict involves diplomacy, but not in the way the idiotarians think. They think that dimplomacy is a combination of appeasment and magically creating agreements convince everyone to dance in perfect harmony no matter who they are. In reality, it is the proccess of using threats and manipulation to get people to either help you or refrain from interfering.

I think what Bush is actually doing is a combination of trying it in case it works, and creating diplomatic circumstances that will allow force to be used more effectively if it doesn't. Even though there was very little chance of getting a second UN resolution, going to the UN for one made things easier.

The Road Map has an unprecedented chance of actually working, because Bush is much less likely than any President in history to demand unilateral concessions from Israel and look the other way when the Palestinians do nothing to prevent terrorism and incitement. He's not real big on people who try to pull the wool over his eyes.

No such deals should ever have been considered before substantive steps were taken on the Palestinian side to stop the terrorism and brainwashing of their children into a life of hate and violence.
The point of the Road Map is to create circumstances where forcing them to stop is possible. The force can either come from the Palestinian Authority with the Road Map, or it can be imposed from outside with the justification that they are not acting in good faith to meet the terms.

I don't think Bush is suffering from the all too common delusion that the Palestinians would love to stop, if only they had a state. He knows that force is going to have to come from somewhere in order to make this stop. He thinks it's possible that it could come from the Palestinian Authority if Arafat is no longer in charge.

There isn't any chance of a Palestinian state being declared before they knock this off, no matter what the UN etc think. Bush is not likely to agree that the Palestinians have met the conditions unless they actually have. Bush's interpertation is the one that matters -- all the UN does is make resolutions that no one enforces, unless the US is involved. This doesn't mean there can't be *any* Palestinian incitement and violence, but the Palestinians that would govern have to be sincerely trying to stop them and be mostly effective at it.

By proceeding with this plan, that demands no accountability for the Palestinian Arabs, we're sending exactly the wrong message to them and to the Arab world -- that terrorism pays off.
I think Bush is calling their bluff, and I don't think he intends to look the other way if, as is likely, it turns out that they were in fact bluffing. If it works, great. If it doesn't work, Bush won't expect it to work anymore, and neither will the politicians that are electable after him. Palestinian statehood is not the goal of Palestinian terrorism, and a civilized state that suppresses terror is no reward to those who perpetuate terrorism.

2003-05-25T08:34:00.000-04:00

Once upon a time, there was an idiotarian. Then a clue-by-four fell on her head, but she just started yelling 'The sky is falling! The government capitalists are destroying it for oil and Israel!' Then, not knowing what else to do, she printed up lots of protest signs and put them up all over town. No one was interested in the signs, and she despaired of ever getting anyone to see the real threat. Then she got shot by the terrorist she had failed to notice. The End

2003-05-20T20:57:00.000-04:00

The difference between idiotarians and evil people is the sort of world they desire:

In one vision, radical Islamic governments have taken over the world, and all the Americans, Christians, Jews, etc have been killed or converted. Islam is glorious, and there are no infidels that make something else look better. There are no more Western influences like MTV and feminism.

In another vision, everyone is happily going about their business, no one is poor, no one is suffering, and no one is fighting. Everyone is free to worship as they choose. Women get to choose their careers, and they are paid the same as men. Children get to play happily, and all of them receive a free, high-quality education.

There are many versions of these visions, but virtually all of them can be easily classed as either evil or idiotarian. The difference is desires is rather large. Idiotarian world views have at their center a desire for something good: a world where everyone has a good life, a world where everyone is free, a world without poverty, or something similar, and a refusal to consider anything that seems to run contrary to the world they want. Evil world views have at their center a desire for something bad: Islamic fundamentalist rule, murder of all Jews, a society without individual choices or something similar.

Because idiotarians refuse to consider anything that seems contrary to their vision of a good world, they are at least complicit in evil, and often actively helpful to evil causes. For example, accepting a war as just seems to run contrary to the vision of a peaceful world. They refuse to see that sometimes there is a choice between fighting and letting the bad guys win. If the idiotarians determine the course of action, then the evil people win, and have more power to use in the cause of evil. Idiotarians play a valuable role for evil people, but they are not themselves evil.

2003-05-16T03:36:00.000-04:00

Not everyone who seems to be an idiotarian actually is one. Some people who seem to espouse idiotarian views are just speaking the best ideas they know about. Some of them believe that the West is doing something very bad that must be stopped, so they march with signs because they don't know what else to do. Those people change their minds when they realize the implications of these views.

True idiotarians build their whole worldveiws around opposing the West and refusing to face the implications of what they are standing for. They're heard that taking no action is also making a choice, and that innocent people die as a result of good people doing nothing, but they are only willing to admit the negative consequences of Western actions as valid considerations. Nothing you say can reach them, because they base their entire worldveiw around refusing to see the consequences of their position. Give them absolutely compelling proof that innocent people are tortured in Iraq, and they'll respond with something like "So that means we should kill more Iraqis? Haven't they suffered enough?"

Idiotarians always oppose the actions of good governments that interfere with bad governments. This is not because idiotarians have a desire for torture and murder to continue, or for justice and freedom to be destroyed. They don't. They passionately want the world to be a good place. Taking the wrong position in every specific conflict is the result of holding that there is no larger threat to goodness than the US government, and that the dangerous US government must be prevented from ruining anything further than it already has. It is not the result of desire for evil dictators to stay in power.

To them, you can either stand against the Western governments and for freedom, or for the Western governments and against freedom. The idea that it's possible to be in favor of both is basically inconceivable. Idiotarians value justice and freedom and peace, and advocate policies that allow all of those things to be destroyed rather than face the truth about the world. There is a large difference between idiotarians and evil people. The problem with idiotarians is that they wilfully fail to see the negative consequences the policies they advocate would have to the cause of freedom. The problem with evil people is that they don't value peace, justice and freedom. They are completely willing to subjugate these things to a cause they consider higher, and as far as they know, it is not a sacrifice, but the highest action possible.

2003-05-16T03:09:00.000-04:00

Rachel Corrie's stupidity, not the intentions of the bulldozer operater, caused her death. She died by taking a stupid action in an immoral cause. That's not noble, admirable, or deserving of sympathy. It's also not a reason to call the moral status of the IDF into question. She did something immoral in a particularly inept way, and at the cost of her life. The blood is on her hands. She, not the IDF, is comtemptible. It's terrible for someone to die, even a bad person. It's fine to feel sorry that someone died, even if that person was not very good -- but it's wrong to hold it against the people who are doing right in the world.

People who consider Rachel Corrie to be a noble misguided fool rather than a bad person fail to respect her as a human being. She made choices. They were immoral as well as stupid. They got her killed, and they are still doing harm to the people on the right side of this conflict. It's terrible that she did this stupid thing that cost her life -- it's worse that the people who are fighting against evil will be blamed for her action. It's terrible that she died; it's worse that she was bad.

Moral stature is not measured by strength of belief. Doing something stupid in support of a bad cause is not noble, even if it springs from a deeply held belief. The path of going to 'Palestine' to support the wrong side is worse than the path of staying home, arguing in favor of the good side, and staying out of the way of the good army. Hurting the good side is worse than doing nothing. Arguing in favor of the good side is better than doing nothing.

2003-05-16T03:00:00.000-04:00

If the left-wing idiotarians could add something to the bill of rights, this would be it:

Section One:
Neither congress, nor any public or private party, shall take any action interfering with the right
of the people to dissent.

Section Two:
The right of dissent includes the right to speak in any time, in any manner, and on
every property that is open to the public.

Section Three:
All forms of media, public and private, shall report on dissenters in an extensive and
respectful way. Dissenters have the right to be taken seriously.

Section Four:
Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate socialization, the provisions of this article.

2003-05-04T22:29:00.000-04:00

Den Beste's blog entry on Israel misses part of the issue:

The quest for peace between the Israelis and Palestinians has been a frustrating one. Plan after plan has been floated; deals have been made and broken. The single biggest reason why is that through it all the Palestinians have never given up the ambition of wiping Israel off the map and retaking control of the territory they possessed in 1947, which is to say all of it.

But the actual conflict is not a territorial dispute. The motivation of the Palestinians in this conflict is not different from the motivation on 9/11, when they danced in the streets. They were not then celebrating an opportunity for territorial expansion. Rather, they celebrated because they think it is gloriously right for the good guys to suffer and die.

Their primary motivation in the conflict with Israel is to cause the Jews to suffer and die. Conquering the whole land of Israel would help them in their objective. So would fooling Bush into forcing the Israelis to accept a Palestinian state without forcing the Palestinians to give up their inhuman intentions. But the Palestinians will never exchange territory for fundamental cultural intentions. The inhuman intentions must be destroyed first, and territory is not effective as either a carrot or a stick. Ultimately, the Palestinians must have a state, but first, they must want one for itself, and not as a means toward inhuman aims. Until they desire that, no state will serve the cause of peace.

It is not clear at this point whether Bush understands this aspect of the situation. Some things are clear from his speech. There can be no serious doubt that he recognizes that Israel is a state that deserves peace and security. It would also seem odd to assert that Bush fails to recognize that peace will not come by way of appeasement. But, he might think that this is basically a territorial issue, and that the Palestinians can be persuaded to live peacefully with Israel if only they can be forced to realize that they cannot ever have a state unless they drop their intention to harm Israelis. He might not realize that the Palestinians want most of all to hurt the good people in front of them, and that to the extent most of them want a state, it is to serve this cause.

As it stands now, it is not difficult for the Palestinians to harm the Jews. Because they want to harm the Jews more than they want to be free and secure, the present situation is much more satisfactory to them than the prospect of a peaceful Palestinian state. Something much deeper than proving to them that they cannot expand their territory needs to take place to solve the problem.

If Bush fails to understand this, the status quo will continue, and the world will have another failed attempt at peace to learn from. Perhaps what is learned from it will make the next attempt successful. If Bush does understand this vital point, then this attempt might succeed, the Palestinians might become good, and Israel might become much more secure. All of these things will make the world a much better place. Let's hope Bush understands what's at stake.

2003-04-18T23:53:00.000-04:00

Comments weren't working before. They should work now.

2003-04-18T23:52:00.000-04:00

In these times, there are a few slogans that could stand to be used a bit more often, and with greater clarity. Some of the more obvious picks are: "No justice, No peace", "No one is free while others are oppressed", and "If you want peace, work for justice". Another one that is applicable now is "I love my country but fear my government", if it is used to describe Iraqis under Saddam rather than Americans.

Some of the protesters attempt to confuse the issue by saying things such as "dissent is patriotic". The truth is that dissent as a class is neutral, and must be judged on its merits. The content of dissent is defining, not the fact that it is a minority position. It is possible for it to be patriotic, or to be unpatriotic. "Britain should take over America again" is certainly dissent, but it does not fall within a reasonable conception of patriotism. Patriotism is love of one's country, and respect for the government to the extent that it is good for the country. In America, the government is good, and respecting it is a component of patriotism.

Some of the same people who say "dissent is patriotic", and "I love my country but fear my government" seem to think that an American-led war against another government must amount to a war against the people that government governs. In reality, is only necessarily true when the government in question is representative of the people. When the government has largely different aims than the people it governs, it can be opposed without opposing the will of the people. Protesters in America understand this when they speak of opposing the US government. This understanding would be well applied to what has been done in Iraq.

2003-04-14T05:51:00.000-04:00

Peter Eichenberger wrote this appallingly stupid article published in this local paper. By far the worst quote in the article is this:

Q: What is the number of deaths of Iraqi children that was "worth it" to Madeleine Albright?
A: 500,000 due to the United States' systematic destruction of Iraq's water systems. Heck, even the Nazis didn't stoop that low.

What could possibly possess someone to say that? Is it that he thinks the Nazis murdered fewer than 500,000 children? Or that the lives of Jewish children are worth less than Iraqi children? Or that murdering children by taking them out into the woods and shooting them is morally superior to bombing a water supply in an attempt to win a war against an evil dictator? Or was he not thinking of the actual Nazis, but rather of a cartoonish sort of evil men that can be used as an example without any implications?