On Lying and Moral Codes
Topic: RHETORIC
As a Libertarian, I find it difficult to argue in favor of Governmental seizure of private land. I make this argument contrary to many Libertarian beliefs, based on a stronger compulsion to protect life. I would be happy to outline a Jeffersonian construct for this position upon request.
The Reverend Tim Simpson at PublicTheologian.com and I are engaged in an argument. Almost has a Biblical ring to it: Counter Inquisition v. Public Theologian. At issue is his post from August 5. Read the full post and our ongoing dialogue.
The original post outlines the plan of the Presbyterian Church USA, to divest from companies that do business with Israel and Palestinian terrorist Front Organizations. Fair enough. It is their money, they can do with it what they please.
The underlying propaganda is what I am targeting. Let's examine the critical point that comes directly from Reverend Tim Simpson:
"These investments are largely the pension fund for Presbyterian ministers, and as someone whose retirement will ultinmatley come from those assets, I can assure you that I and my colleagues do not want to profit from the persecution of Palestinians.[sic.]"
I had two simple questions:
1. Does Israel have the right to exist?
2. Do the Palestinians, through violence, undercut any moral standing to claim persecution?
To his credit, he did affirm that Israel's existence is legitimate, freeing us to cut to the next issue. Unfortunately, he sidestepped the second question, noting that he did have scruples against Palestinians blowing themselves up in public places. That answer, in its seemingly absolute tone, completely misses the point and firmly establishes a core difference between us that explains this debate.
I believe that Palestinian suicide bombers are wrong for what they do and rational people join me in that belief. But that was not the question. The question related to the use of violence and left out specific reference to types of violence to demonstrate the truth underpinning it.
My assertion is simple: From 1948 to present, many Palestinian individuals and the people through their appointed representatives have systematically used violence as a mainstay of their resistance to THE VERY CONCEPT OF THE EXISTENCE OF ISRAEL. A nation employing military strength and occupying tracts of land that provide safe perimeters to protect its very existence cannot, by definition, be engaged in persecution. Israel is engaged in self preservation.
I could cite many examples of such protective occupations, but none would be analogous, since to cite US occupation of Germany post WW II would be intellectually dishonest. The US was there to prevent the reemergence of the Nazi regime and to prevent further Soviet expansion. Israel, on the other hand, is fighting for its life.
There is one analogous refutation of an assertion made in the Public Theologian response to my comments. PT States - "The taking is still going on. Just this year the Israeli government annexed hundreds of acres of Palestinian territory that had contained orchards outside of Jerusalem. There were no terrorists in those orchards, just fruit. You are welcome to try and justify this kind of thing ubder whatever moral code you live by, but in the Christan faith we call it theft.[sic.]"
We will return to World War II for an analogy. American tanks plowed through miles of hedgrow in their advance to Berlin. Necessary? Not every hedgrow was cover for a Nazi unit. To say that there were no terrorists in the orchards is to be guilty of the VERY LEVEL of intellectual dishonesty of which I am accused in this statement: "Blaming the Syrians and Iranians for that theft simply adds lying to the list of misdeeds.[sic.]"
THERE IS NO NEED FOR A TERRORIST TO BE BEHIND THE TREE TO MAKE THE TREE ANY MORE OR LESS TACTICALLY IMPORTANT. And securing a safe perimeter is critical to national defense. Parsing meters for the sake of a rhetorical point won't keep a nation alive, but a safe and effective zone of defense around it will.
Arguing to the contrary is not only reckless, it completely disregards history. Not once has Israel set out to eliminate Syria, Jordan or Egypt from the face of the Earth. Can Syria, Jordan or Egypt make the same claim? On which side did the Palestinians choose to fight? I won't address the wholesale use of Palestinians to accomplish the gruntwork of Iran, because to do so in light of everything reported by even the most leftist of media outlets would be superfluous.
I publicly apologize for the jab at Christianity in my second comment. Every person is entitled to his or her opinion and interpretation of the Bible. My moral code requires me to make right in public those wrongs that I commit in public. I offer my sincere apology.
None of us is entitled to our own set of facts, though. And I believe that Public Theologian has disregarded many facts as they relate to this situation.
Posted by Bill Turner
at 6:56 PM EDT
Updated: August 6, 2005 11:30 PM EDT
