When we can't tell who is first

The Objectivist solution to conflict resolution is to figure out which party first aggressed upon the other(s), to stop that aggression, and to restore the victim's rights. But what if we can't figure out who started it?

(I'm thinking of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict here, which goes back decades if not centuries with oodles of facts and interpreations. But I do *not* want to deal with that example until later, especially since I understand that people here have already resolved in their heads who they think the initial aggressor was in that situation.

Jordan

Post 1

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 11:35am

The premise that we can't tell who started it is unacceptable. Who declared war on whom in 1948? You are doing nothing more than attempting to smuggle in the Israeli's "potential" guilt when the jihadi's guilt and evil ideology is evident. This is just as disgusting as a junior high school principle who suspends a bully and his victim because "there was violence going on." You aren't looking for the truth, you are looking for reasons to evade the truth.

Post 2

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 2:01pm

Jordan, I believe your premise is flawed. When judging a conflict one does not necessarily go all the way into prehistory searching for every perceived insult an undefined group of people ever suffered. The French cannot attack Germany today for the insults they recieved during WW2. The USA cannot carpet bomb Japan for the same reason. Agreements were reached in those conflicts and relations proceed FROM THAT POINT FORWARD. A truce was agreed to by BOTH parties, thats Hamas and Israel, on June 19th of last year. I say Hamas because the palestinian people have NOT chosen a single governing body to represent them, Hamas controls a specific portion of land and the people within it. Despite nearly immediate breaking of the truce by Hamas, in the form of denying arms smuggling (ie rearming) was covered and actual rocket and mortar fire at Israelis, the truce initial held.
On June 29th Israel swapped a convicted terrorist and several other palestinian prisoners for the dead bodies of captured Israeli soldiers.
On November 4th, Israel initiated an operation into Gaza to destroy a tunnel under construction from Gaza into Israel. 6 Hamas members were killed in the operation. In response, Hamas indiscriminately fired 35 122mm grad rockets into civilian areas of Israel. The chinese supplied grad rocket has a area of lethal effect of about 100 meters. The rocket is designed with fragmentation (i.e. antipersonnel use) in mind. The IDF responded with an incursion into gaza.
Hamas rocket launches continued, with Hamas announcing that the cease fire it had already broken would not be renewed. Hamas unilaterally declared the duration of the agreement to be 6 months, essentially declaring it immediately void. The rocket fire continues. Israel appealed to the UN and Egypt , the broker of the original truce, asking for an end to the rocket fire. On Dec 24th Hamas fired 60+ rockets and mortars indiscriminately into Israel. On Dec 26th Israel began the current operation.
My sources were mideastweb.org, defenseweb, wiki, google, CNN, and foxnews. About 20 minutes of time to find pertinent details. What further info would you need to determine who broke the current agreement first, if that is the sole criteria you use for judgement in this matter? Is any amount of information sufficient? What is your intent?

Post 3

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 10:06pm

Let me repeat: I do *not* want to deal with that example until later. I was just being honest in saying that was what prompted this thread. I didn't want it to look like I was pushing some clandestine, sinister, ulterior motive. Much as I love being shit on for my honesty, I'd rather you give me the benefit of the doubt.

I'm actually just trying to nail down a principle here, namely, one that addresses the question of what we should do in response to any conflict where we cannot figure out who started it. I haven't seen such a secondary principle discussed in Objectivist circles, and I'd like to explore it.

So please, keep the Israel-Palestinian banter out of here.

Jordan

Post 4

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 10:34pm

Jordan,

You said, "The Objectivist solution to conflict resolution is to figure out which party first aggressed upon the other(s), to stop that aggression, and to restore the victim's rights. But what if we can't figure out who started it?

Objectivism doesn't have a position on "conflict resolution." It has an ethical and legal position on individual rights. But what you are talking about is more in the area of law. Law attempts to determine the facts for the purpose of examining jurisdiction, and making civil or criminal judgments based upon the appropriate law. Where the trier of facts can't meet the established burden of proof, the law prohibits the government from acting as if it did have the facts. Hence the innocent till proven guilty. That is easy to see in domestic criminal cases, but also can guide an examination of other contexts.

For an intelligent discussion you need to give more of a context for the facts in question? Who is the "we" you mention? Me, just an observer? Me, the American government seeing hostilities in another country that doesn't directly and immediately effect America's self-defense? Me, as country bound to Israel by treaty? Me, if I were Israel? Me, the police seeing two private citizens on my beat that are wailing on each other?

Post 5

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 11:14am

Hi Steve,

Thank you for that post. This issue came up for me time and time again when I served as a mediator for small claims cases. It continues to come up in my other law-related endeavors. Your post reminded how the secondary principle could be different for different parties.

So nailing down some context here. . .What should a neutral tasked with resolving a conflict do when he or she can't figure out who started it? What are the secondary principles that he or she should apply?

It would probably help to look at some "archetypical" cases, but I'm not sure which to choose. What keeps coming to mind is when a parent is stuck trying to sort out resolution for when some of their offspring get into a tiff and when the parent can't get a clear idea of who initiated force. I'm not sure this is a good enough case to discuss. Other suggestions are welcome.

Jordan

Post 6

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 11:52am

Jordan, parenting is a really different context. Who is in charge shouldn't be an issue (authority to decide), the parent sets the purpose (see below), and jurisdiction isn't an issue.

Parental responsibility and purposes involves triage:
First - for safety:
- Mom takes the bat out of Tommy's hands,
Then education comes next:
- She tells Tommy, "Little sisters aren't for hitting."
Then she addresses the purpose of personal development:
- "I expect you two to find a way to settle this dispute in a way that is fair and doesn't involve any fighting."

:-)

Context is king - who is the authority, what is the jurisdiction, what is the purpose, are we talking international, criminal, civil?

Post 7

Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 3:04pm