I am not really that interested in the rights or wrongs of it. A plague on both their houses. But I must say I am rather unimpressed with Norwegian press coverage of the attacks. Generally one criticises the press for giving both sides equal weight, even if the one is a raving madman. It is rather unusual to see them not giving any space at all to one side. So responsible a newspaper as Aftenposten, which I linked, spends five paragraphs on the destruction caused in Gaza before casually mentioning that the attacks are retaliation for rockets fired by Hamas last week, at civilian targets. An event which they gave one small article, with no casualty counts or reactions.
Not taking sides when one side is plainly in the right is bad enough. But to take sides when the issue is not clear is plain disgusting.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
The whole thing is sad, bizarre and stupid.
Hamas called off the peace treaty, but I think it is Israel's responsibility to be more surgical in their strikes. Just because Hamas fired rockets into Israel doesn't give Israel the right to kill Palestine civilians.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
They've been shooting rockets at civilian targets on a daily basis for a very long time, KoM. You'd think they'd deserve credit for months and years of restraint, instead of "a plague" for finally doing something to stop them.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Two sides, neither of which are helping their situation any with their actions, in the middle east.
Reprint story ad infinitum.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Just because Hamas fired rockets into Israel doesn't give Israel the right to kill Palestine civilians.
I think you'll find that, in international law and by the Geneva Conventions, it does. As far as I know, no treaty denies nations the right to retaliate in kind against acts of war; and that includes killing an enemy's civilians as retaliation for his killing your own. The reason being that the treaties are all built around enlightened self-interest. They recognise that there are two ways to fight a war: Either both sides respect civilians, or neither. As a matter of plain human psychology, you are not going to get wars where one side refrains from certain targets and the other doesn't.
Now, if you want to assert that the 'right' you refer to comes from some sort of moral framework, then I can only suggest that you get out there and enforce your morals.
quote:[Hamas have] been shooting rockets at civilian targets on a daily basis for a very long time, KoM. You'd think [the Israelis would] deserve credit for months and years of restraint, instead of "a plague" for finally doing something to stop them.
I'm not plaguing them for shooting rockets into Gaza, I'm plaguing them for having taken control of the area by force in the first place. Conquerors must expect to be resisted. And as for your claim of God-given rights, don't even go there, ok?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
KoM: you're quite wrong about retaliation against civilians. Check out the 4th Geneva Convention. Protected persons can only be punished for acts they have personally committed. (edit: and attacks against civilian populations are banned in a variety of treaties).
However, Israel is not attacking civilians, they are attacking military targets surrounded by civilians. There are other arguments that might be made about the attacks, but I see nothing in them that violates the Geneva Conventions (or other international law).
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: As a matter of plain human psychology, you are not going to get wars where one side refrains from certain targets and the other doesn't.
Well, you may, though it may be worth questioning how much of that is a matter of morality or psychology, and how much is a matter of technological capability.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote: Protected persons can only be punished for acts they have personally committed.
That's true, but GCIV is fairly narrow in who is considered protected:
quote:Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
My emphasis. Israel is not occupying Gaza, hence its residents are not in the hands of Israel. Further I direct you to article 2:
quote:Although one of the Powers in conflict may not be a party to the present Convention, the Powers who are parties thereto shall remain bound by it in their mutual relations. They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof.
My emphasis. Note the 'accepts and applies'.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Danlo the Wild: The whole thing is sad, bizarre and stupid.
Hamas called off the peace treaty, but I think it is Israel's responsibility to be more surgical in their strikes. Just because Hamas fired rockets into Israel doesn't give Israel the right to kill Palestine civilians.
No one is targeting civilians. But we have absolutely no responsibility to be "more surgical". They've been pounding us with rockets incessantly ever since we pulled out of Gaza. Loonies were claiming that the Arab violence was because we were in Gaza. So the moment we pulled out, they destroyed all the synagogues, danced on the rubble, and started making a point of using the ruins of the Jewish towns as launching positions for rockets into the rest of Israel.
What Israel did wrong wasn't to respond finally. It was not pounding the hell out of them when the first rocket was launched.
And KoM, even aside from our God given rights to that land, which exist whatever you may think, the fact is that many of the Jewish towns in Gaza were purchased prior to 1948, and were conquered by the Arabs. And that in 1967, we took that land, not because of our God given rights to it, but because we were being attacked by genocidal Arabs who had stated publically their intent to throw us into the sea. You launch a war and lose land, tough luck.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Two sides, neither of which are helping their situation any with their actions, in the middle east.
Reprint story ad infinitum.
It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Many of the Jewish towns in Gaza were purchased prior to 1948, and were conquered by the Arabs. And that in 1967, we took that land because we were being attacked by genocidal Arabs who had stated publically their intent to throw us into the sea. You launch a war and lose land, tough luck.
Private ownership of land is enforced by the sovereign authority in the area, which at the time was Britain. It is not the same as being the sovereign.
I have no sympathy for the Arabs either; both your houses. But if you win a war and the population you just annexed dislikes you so much they launch rockets at you, tough luck.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Private ownership of land is enforced by the sovereign authority in the area, which at the time was Britain. It is not the same as being the sovereign.
What does that have to do with anything? The Arabs weren't sovereign there either. It's not like there was some country called Palestine that we invaded and destroyed.
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I have no sympathy for the Arabs either; both your houses. But if you win a war and the population you just annexed dislikes you so much they launch rockets at you, tough luck.
Your attempts at equivalency are nothing but moral cowardice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Right... because shooting rockets into towns and killing people is just like talking during a movie. Are you insane?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Your attempts at equivalency are nothing but moral cowardice.
Yes, yes, I know I can't be a good human being without agreeing with you on every jot and tittle. This is well established, there's no need to elaborate further. But with that said, would you like to explain the difference between "You lost the war, no land for you, tough luck" and "You won the war, no peace for you, tough luck"?
quote:What does that have to do with anything? The Arabs weren't sovereign there either.
Right. So the prewar land-ownership arrangements are quite irrelevant, and you were wrong to bring them up.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Two sides, neither of which are helping their situation any with their actions, in the middle east.
Reprint story ad infinitum.
It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting.
I'm sorry, in which country do you reside?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe Lisa retains Israeli citizenship (dual citizenship). Regardless, I also identify with Israel as "we", and I have never had Israeli citizenship. Yet, anyway.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
I don't know the baroque details of this particular debate, nor do I care personally. It just strikes me, for at least the 50th time, that your particular brand of crazy has been on sale in that region for so long, that the market has been absolutely flooded with it, and you know something? It never had any value and still doesn't.
Just look at your post above and tell me how you wrap your mind around a logic pretzel like that one, and still come away with the notion that Israel never took anything (but *anything*) that didn't belong to it. You can argue, and you have, and you will, until your blue in the face, a mountain of crap about who did what when and to whom and for how much, and you're never going to be able to show that Israel hasn't hurt people, or done so intentionally.
They have, everyone there has. And thus, a plague on all their houses. The Americans, the British, The Nazis, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the ancient Mesopotamians, the Hapsburgs, the Egyptians, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, The Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish Empire, the British Empire, Donald Trumps Real Estate Empire, OSC's exciting new novel Empire, the French, Fox News, and Hatrack.
We've all done a number on each other.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Ah, you're quite right. It isn't the protected persons section of Geneva 4, it is article three. Note that the article in question there does not require there be a mutually reciprocating state.
Also, even the parts that require a mutually reciprocating state are coming to be viewed under international law (insofar as there is such a creature) as required regardless of mutual reciprocation, if I understand correctly.
Of course, this is all academic, as Israel is pursuing military targets of participants in the armed actions against them and infrastructure.
(this post was much shorter prior to an edit)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
If you can show any deeds of sale with 'Israel' as the purchasing agent, you might have a point. Moreover, I notice you do not claim that all the land in dispute was owned by Jews in 1948, but that "many of the Jewish towns" were. Would you argue that a hypothetical Palestinian state had a right to those parts that were owned by Arabs, if only it had been able to enforce it?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
I don't know the baroque details of this particular debate, nor do I care personally. It just strikes me, for at least the 50th time, that your particular brand of crazy has been on sale in that region for so long, that the market has been absolutely flooded with it, and you know something? It never had any value and still doesn't.
Just look at your post above and tell me how you wrap your mind around a logic pretzel like that one, and still come away with the notion that Israel never took anything (but *anything*) that didn't belong to it. You can argue, and you have, and you will, until your blue in the face, a mountain of crap about who did what when and to whom and for how much, and you're never going to be able to show that Israel hasn't hurt people, or done so intentionally.
They have, everyone there has. And thus, a plague on all their houses. The Americans, the British, The Nazis, the Israelis, the Palestinians, the ancient Mesopotamians, the Hapsburgs, the Egyptians, Ancient Rome, Ancient Greece, The Holy Roman Empire, The Spanish Empire, the British Empire, Donald Trumps Real Estate Empire, OSC's exciting new novel Empire, the French, Fox News, and Hatrack.
We've all done a number on each other.
I don't quite understand this point. What's the lesson we are to learn from history - that we're all jerks?
How is Israel supposed to get out of this mess? Pit Lisa's particular brand of crazy against Hamas's and whats the resolution?
What I think is ridiculous is what everyone means by surgical strikes? What makes you think that the IDF has not conducted all of its strikes as surgically as possible? Should it not retaliate at all?
It seems to me that they are trying to weaken Hamas to the point of regime change so that Israel can actually deal with a ruling power that more accurately represents the Gazan people, and that is more willing to compromise - but honestly, I have no idea what I'm talking about in that respect, it's simply something i'd hope is true.
But still, it seems like it is PC to say that oh, they're BOTH being childish. But that's not so fair. Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians or the Israelis, and what would YOU do?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Personally, I'd leave Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
If you can show any deeds of sale with 'Israel' as the purchasing agent, you might have a point. Moreover, I notice you do not claim that all the land in dispute was owned by Jews in 1948, but that "many of the Jewish towns" were. Would you argue that a hypothetical Palestinian state had a right to those parts that were owned by Arabs, if only it had been able to enforce it?
No.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: But still, it seems like it is PC to say that oh, they're BOTH being childish. But that's not so fair. Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians or the Israelis, and what would YOU do?
Hopefully, for the sake of my family, and my sanity, leave.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:God given rights to that land
Open world, insert war.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Close world. Shaking and explosions may occur.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote: But still, it seems like it is PC to say that oh, they're BOTH being childish. But that's not so fair. Put yourself in the shoes of the Palestinians or the Israelis, and what would YOU do?
Hopefully, for the sake of my family, and my sanity, leave.
But this is silly. It takes into account neither the Israeli perspective nor the Palestinian.
From the perspective of the PAs, after the Muslim world received a walloping in WWI, the Western world felt oh so high and mighty to parcel up the entire middle east, create countries (like Iraq) that NEVER existed before, and ultimately rob them of their land and give it to a bunch of Jews on the basis of their perpetual persecution in Europe and scripture. So they're supposed to just take that? Would you, had you grown up Muslim, not fight for your land? You speak through the luxury of complacency, a luxury that not every race or religion can afford.
From the perspective of Israelis, and Jews, I would say that it sure isn't fun being a Jew. The aforementioned perpetual persecution makes a Jew feel comfortable nowhere. Not even in the U.S. as our grandparents like to constantly remind us: It happened to us there, it could happen to you anywhere. I mean, can you even imagine growing up that way? I remember, after Obama won the election, that Whoopie Goldberg on the view said that she always felt comfortable in the U.S., but tonight, she felt like she could finally put her bags down, that she was home. Her co-host spoke about how each night she used to tell her son that he could grow up to be anything, but they both knew, in the back of their minds, that because they were black, he couldnt quite be ANYTHING. Certainly not the President of the U.S. But now, she was able to tell her son he could really be ANYTHING.
I was incredibly moved as I related wholeheartedly. As a Jews, I feel we experience the same sense of never being able to fully put our bags down. When something like the Madoff scandal occurs, Jews all over the world, even in America, are shaking in the boots, afraid of the retribution the world may subject us to.
So yeah, when I said put yourself in their shoes, i didn't mean go to Israel so that you can run home again. I meant, roll up your sleeves, understand the issues, stop being so morally elitist, and try and untangle the horrible mess that is the Middle East with the same hesitation, trepidation, and with a full awareness of the moral ambiguities.
Also, it may be just a wee bit insensitive to call Lisa crazy.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Would you, had you grown up Muslim, not fight for your land? You speak through the luxury of complacency, a luxury that not every race or religion can afford.
It's called perspective. Somewhere out there, someone has perspective on what's going on in my life. I have perspective on this. That means that, no, I don't get the details. I get the overall picture, and spare myself the details, and that's how I know what I hope I would do. What's your solution? Fight forever? Great idea?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I don't propose to have a solution nor judge those involved.
Like I said, it's PC to say "a plague on both their houses" "they're BOTH wrong." When instead we should say: "I can't even begin to understand EITHER side."
Even the solution of "fight forever" is more practical than "move away" - because honestly, the chances of "fight forever" happening are waaaay higher.
The problems in Israel are not local. It's West meets the Arab world, and the problem is all over the Middle East. Do you really think that if all the Jews in Israel up and moved that there would be no problem? What should the Indians do, move as well? And what do you do with countries that believe that the entire world should be ruled by Islam?
What you call "perspective" i call ignorance. When two children are fighting bitterly over the remote control a parent can offer "perspective." The parent has been there before - and realizes how utterly unimportant such an event is in life.
But for you to ignore the sensitive nature of the the history and upbringing of two peoples and offer it as perspective is a little silly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Olmert says that the current action may last for some time. Reports are that over 700 people in Gaza have been killed so far. I would think in fairness that they should be reporting the actual gains made by the IDF in these attacks. Just reporting body counts makes it look like the IDF is rolling through towns shooting at whatever moves, but if they are in fact (and I believe they are) targeting specific command and control centers, then I'd like to know if they're being hit. If they are, Israel could really make an attempt to turn this around as far as PR goes.
The reporting by itself certainly isn't doing them any favors.
Palestine/Israel is the result (sort of ironically) of our attemps to make war more civilized. When Darius or Xerxes conquered a foreign land, any male taller than his sword was killed, and they took the women to intermarry with and the children to create the next generation of warriors. It used to be a lot easier to occupy enemy territory and assimilate them into your national, or even loose cultural identity.
But then we started formalizing rules of war, making it all very civilized thank you very much. That started to fall apart around the time Americans in the Revolutionary War decided that they weren't really as up to a conventional war in the sense that the British thought of it. And really, why would anyone want to? Britain was the most powerful country on the earth and had a set of rules everyone was expected to follow that gave them every advantage. So we broke some of them, and by the time the Civil War came around, we were back to burning and pillaging.
After the horrors of WWII, from carpet bombing, fire bombing, the leveling of cities, and genocide, we recoiled a bit (though that didn't stop Korea or Vietnam from happening). And so come today, Israel can't just boot them all out, or kill everyone taller than a sword, not just because their own morals might tell them not to (surely for the latter, though not necessarily the former), the rest of the world would cry foul, and without the rest of the world, Israel would be a candle in the wind. And so for the sake of morality, or whatever, we force them to leave with each other, and fight each other this way. It's odd that modern rules and sensibilities force such a situation upon them, but when one considers the alternatives, it's hard to argue against it if one part of one side continues to provoke the other and makes peace impossible.
So should Israel just pound them absolutely flat? If they should, then they probably shouldn't stop right now until they're satisfied they've done it. Spreading out the attacks just prolongs the effects, like multiple small stones dropped in a pond instead of one big one. But that won't matter. Such an attack is still going to provoke a response and it will keep going. Both sides surely know that. But Israel can't just do NOTHING, so they act as circumstance would dictate. Sometimes I think Israel SHOULD just expel everyone. Move them all out, give them a bunch of money so they don't starve and have a chance to educate themselves and build something new away from constant provocations. And yet, though that may create long term peace, it's still awful to consider.
Until the Palestinian people realize that Hamas does NOT care about their long term interests, or until Israel decides to throw away 20th century rules, things will continue this way forever.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: The problems in Israel are not local. It's West meets the Arab world
It's not that simple either. Some of it IS local. And very long-standing.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Until the Palestinian people realize that Hamas does NOT care about their long term interests, or until Israel decides to throw away 20th century rules, things will continue this way forever.
I suspect a complete removal of the Palestinian presence would invite an outside reprisal, and possibly escalate, rather than relieve, tensions.
I also suspect that certain powers among the Palestinians have created what, for them, amounts to a gruesome win-win situation: they attack the "oppresser" (however feebly and randomly), they win. The "oppresser" counter-attacks (however carefully), civilians die, more Palestinians rally behind their "struggle"; they win.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: No. Deeds of sale are quite relevant when people are claiming that Israel took the land from its owners. Israel did no such thing. Israel's only mistake was allowing the Arab residents to stay after we took Gaza.
If you can show any deeds of sale with 'Israel' as the purchasing agent, you might have a point. Moreover, I notice you do not claim that all the land in dispute was owned by Jews in 1948, but that "many of the Jewish towns" were. Would you argue that a hypothetical Palestinian state had a right to those parts that were owned by Arabs, if only it had been able to enforce it?
No.
Well, then. I suggest you do not bring up arguments which you admit you would not agree with, were they applied by the other side.
Having settled that, would you now like to explain the difference in the two "tough lucks" I suggested?
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
We
When you say we, I read it as "We humans Vs. those humans"
When you think of us all as Earthlings, doesn't really feel like anyone owns any part of Earth.
I do believe the English displaced the Native Americans in America.
Land ownership is a mess.
Saying people have no right to be more surgical or more just in war because they are justified sounds like osama bin laden speak.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Until the Palestinian people realize that Hamas does NOT care about their long term interests, or until Israel decides to throw away 20th century rules, things will continue this way forever.
I suspect a complete removal of the Palestinian presence would invite an outside reprisal, and possibly escalate, rather than relieve, tensions.
I also suspect that certain powers among the Palestinians have created what, for them, amounts to a gruesome win-win situation: they attack the "oppresser" (however feebly and randomly), they win. The "oppresser" counter-attacks (however carefully), civilians die, more Palestinians rally behind their "struggle"; they win.
If this were true, it would be impossible to win wars. And yet wars have occasionally been won, even wars that had strong popular support and mobilised resources much more broadly than the Palestinians are doing. The French were eventually convinced that they had lost the Napoleonic Wars, and gave up the struggle and accepted the peace terms. The Russians accepted that they had lost the Great War, and voted for peace with their feet in the millions. They threw out the Czar, and then they threw out his democratically elected successor because he tried to continue the war. The Germans did not accept that they had lost the Great War, and elected a leader who promised revenge. Their country was then comprehensively flattened, and they accepted dictated terms - not merely the acceptance of someone to whose throat you hold a knife, as at Versailles, but genuinely renouncing their former goals as not worth the price. All of these were wars with huge popular support and enormous voluntary mobilisations.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
It seems that you're speaking of victory through attrition of morale. I won't say that it might not be possible to quash the morale of aggressive Palestinian forces, but I don't think the present methods are likely to succeed in that in the long term any more than they have in the past. And I can't help but note that in the examples you give, the French, the Russians, and even the Germans had somewhere to withdraw to.
I'm not at all certain that lip-service (or worse) to the idea of Zionist oppression necessarily translates to a willingness to accept a large influx of Palestinian refugees.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Given that the Jordanian are less willing to let Palestinians cross their border than are the Israelis (on the other side), your lack of certainty is probably insufficient.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Hopefully, for the sake of my family, and my sanity, leave.
... Would you, had you grown up Muslim, not fight for your land? You speak through the luxury of complacency, a luxury that not every race or religion can afford.
No, absolutely not. If there is little chance of victory and especially with a large probability of generations of unending conflict, I'd leave.
My family has left as part of the Cantonese diaspora to Hong Kong before the land reforms and leaving Hong Kong before the 1997 handover. Its worked out pretty well, so I'm not speaking from complacency, I'm speaking from pragmatism and experience.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: It seems that you're speaking of victory through attrition of morale. I won't say that it might not be possible to quash the morale of aggressive Palestinian forces, but I don't think the present methods are likely to succeed in that in the long term any more than they have in the past. And I can't help but note that in the examples you give, the French, the Russians, and even the Germans had somewhere to withdraw to.
The Israelis have already indicated their willingness to let the Palestinians have the Gaza strip. The only thing they need to retreat from is this idea of firing rockets at the Jews or destroying the Israeli state. This does not seem like a major adjustment on the scale of giving up dominion over half of Europe.
The point about present methods is better, although on the other hand, we don't know what percentage of the Palestinians really support Hamas and want Israel gone in their inmost hearts, and what percentage just want the war to end. But it does seem to me that the Israelis have a sufficient surplus of power that it's only a question of time before Hamas annoys them enough to generate a really crushing counter-blow. At any rate, I'm not saying that the current demonstration of firepower and schrecklichkeit is going to make Hamas or the Palestinian population give up, although enough such demonstrations might eventually do so; I'm just saying that it is not impossible.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
Maybe both sides should locate extra real estate elsewhere and re-establish a new land. Take a page from the Mormons.
Find a place where people will leave you alone and prosper.
Fighting over corners and sand is stupid.
I hear real estate is cheap now and both sides have dough.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
OR Israel can keep their tiny little peice of desert and the palistinians can go live somewhere else in the vastness that is the Muslim world.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: OR Israel can keep their tiny little peice of desert and the palistinians can go live somewhere else in the vastness that is the Muslim world.
Except that Palestinian Arabs are considered less than dirt in all of the other Arab nations, and therefore don't really have anywhere to go. One of my mother's employees was a Palestinian Arab, who was married to an Iranian living and working in the US. When he was recalled to Iran and they had to go back, she told my mother it would be much harder to be treated like dirt because she was Palestinian, than it was to go back under the veil after not wearing it for 10 years. The other Arab nations don't have any desire to take in Palestinian refugees, it's part of why they are fighting so hard for their strip of land. And no, I am not saying that the tactics that Hamas uses are right or should be applauded in any way, before someone accuses me of that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Once again, since it didn't seem to register: Israel is willing to let the Palestinians keep the Gaza strip, indeed it has already evacuated the place. The Palestinians have no need to go anywhere.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: Ya, but we've established that the Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace beside the Israelis. Thus the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civlians.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Ya, but we've established that the Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace beside the Israelis. Thus the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civlians.
Yeah. The Palestinians don't chant: "Drive them into the Sea" for nothing...
They want ALL of Israel back.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Ya, but we've established that the Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace beside the Israelis. Thus the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civlians.
Right. And this is the concession they would have to make, to which a sufficient application of force would eventually drive them. My argument is that there exists some level of defeat which does make people renounce such goals as these.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
KoM: And "Tit for Tat" hasn't worked as a strategy for a long.. well... ever...
Israel needs an overwhelming, disproportionate response to put an end to all of this. Otherwise it'll drag out till doomsday.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Perhaps we need to introduce a third major group returning to the area after, say, 3,000 years of diaspora? They could arise from a single queen, and be 10,000 strong within a month. With their advanced technology and their communication abilities, they could be the perfect counterbalance between the humans and the other humans. Now all we need is some spaceships, an artificial sentience, and lots of patience.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Perhaps we need to introduce a third major group returning to the area after, say, 3,000 years of diaspora? They could arise from a single queen, and be 10,000 strong within a month. With their advanced technology and their communication abilities, they could be the perfect counterbalance between the humans and the other humans. Now all we need is some spaceships, an artificial sentience, and lots of patience.
That's the first practical thing you've said all day. ;-)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: And "Tit for Tat" hasn't worked as a strategy for a long.. well... ever...
Israel needs an overwhelming, disproportionate response to put an end to all of this. Otherwise it'll drag out till doomsday.
I don't think "tit for tat" is an accurate description. The rocket attacks have killed what, a few dozen? The retaliation is up to ~250 dead so far, and they're just getting started. That said, I'm not claiming that the particular level of force that Israel has been using will eventually make the Arabs give up, just that there exists some level of force - even short of genocide - which will do so.
I wonder how aware the Palestinians are of the loss ratio? The ones getting hit know they've been hit, but they may not have access to much information about how hard Hamas is hitting back. And even the ones getting hit are a pretty small minority of the whole Gaza population. Perhaps Israel should make sure that everyone in Gaza knows the casualty figures for both sides?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's interesting because the 250 dead are mostly Hamas infrastructure, terrorists, etc. A small percentage are civilian.
On the Israeli side, civilians are sought out. Hamas times their rocket attacks to coincide with the times that children are coming to and from school.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I betcha the papers here won't mention that the majority of the people killed in this operation aren't civilians.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Until the Palestinian people realize that Hamas does NOT care about their long term interests, or until Israel decides to throw away 20th century rules, things will continue this way forever.
I suspect a complete removal of the Palestinian presence would invite an outside reprisal, and possibly escalate, rather than relieve, tensions.
I also suspect that certain powers among the Palestinians have created what, for them, amounts to a gruesome win-win situation: they attack the "oppresser" (however feebly and randomly), they win. The "oppresser" counter-attacks (however carefully), civilians die, more Palestinians rally behind their "struggle"; they win.
I agree with your first suspicion, but if it came to a land war, I think A. Israel could hold their own, and B. If it came down to it, they'd just start nuking Muslim capitals, or maybe Mecca, until they backed down. At least that way they fight a war they can win, rather than a war set up for either failure or unending death maintenance. I think they are still more powerful than any other single Middle Eastern nation, and I don't think the MidEast would unify under a single banner to attack them with enough power to kill them as a nation. It might not end the tension, but it would transform it into an equivilant form of tension that is more easily won, namely, a conventional war vs. a guerilla war.
As for your second suspicion, I think that's a very succinct description of exactly how the situation stands. Nations have done it for centuries, but it would seem that Hamas has really perfected it. That's exactly why I said that the Palestinian people as a whole need to realize for themselves that their leaders don't have their best interests at heart. If they did, they'd be negotiating seriously. But they don't, so they keep provoking the IDF into responding. There needs to be a fundamental grass roots change before relief can come from that side.
I guess the conflict is still young. Many of the great conflicts of the world have lasted a lot longer than 50 years, so maybe it'll take another 50 for them to realize. But Hamas has everything going for them it would seem. They know exactly how Israel will respond, they have an angry, fairly uneducated and poor population of masses that they easily manipulate, which is wrapped in a cocoon of religion, the ultimate shield against reason. It's not a very compelling situation.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: OR Israel can keep their tiny little peice of desert and the palistinians can go live somewhere else in the vastness that is the Muslim world.
That argument has never made any sense to me. Why would the Muslim world be any more willing to do something like that than say the Christian world has been over its 2,000 years of existance? Look at the wars fought between Muslim nations over the last 1,500 years. The ten year war between Iran and Iraq isn't that far gone. And there was Iraq's invasion of Kuwait. Why, whenever Palestine is being discussed, is there all of a sudden some glaring blind spot in relation to the idea of nationalism and borders that seems to exist nowhere else in international issues?
Just because they are Muslim doesn't mean they don't have nationalistic and cultural differences just like every Christian nation has. There is no one Muslim nation, and hasn't been for hundreds of years, if ever in reality. Just like there has never really been one Christian nation, even during the Crusades.
So the whole "why can't they just go somewhere else in the Muslim world?" argument strikes me as pretty naive. To them it's not their problem, though they may feel bad. Many of them are far, FAR more happy to use Palestinian suffering as a wedge issue with their OWN populations in order to incite hatred against the West and keep themselves in power rather than lose the issue by actually helping to solve it.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
While I agree with you, i think people often make that point from the perspective of Jews who have NO other homeland and who have spent 2,000 years wandering.
Posted by Tinros (Member # 8328) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I betcha the papers here won't mention that the majority of the people killed in this operation aren't civilians.
The only pictures in our local paper were of Palestinian soldiers carrying wounded civilian children into the emergency room at the nearest hospital. I was sickened by how one-sided the coverage seemed- there was hardly any mention the attacks were NOT on civilian populations, and even less about the attacks being in retaliation for missile strikes.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
maybe the religions can propose a HUGE war match!
Palestine Vs. Israel
Pakistan Vs. India
America Vs. Russia, Mexico and the Native Indians.
fight to the death
Each winner gets 50 billion cash prize and the land.
(churches get 25% for managing the deal)
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
They did that already, danlo.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: While I agree with you, i think people often make that point from the perspective of Jews who have NO other homeland and who have spent 2,000 years wandering.
The situation is sad, unfortunate, and that perspective is perfectly understandable. It's rooted in the idea of some sort of global fairness. That it's only fair that the other major world religions have strongholds of their own, so they should get one too, and if that comes at the price of one small population amongst a vast one with large amounts of territory, viewed only in terms of religion and not geopolitics, then that's only fair, especially given the many sufferings of the past.
I think by and large though, that sort of reasoning is best used to convince one's own self, rather than the mass of others, because most of those masses DO see the geopolitical lines, and are of another religion that might make them sympathetic, but still on another wavelength.
As an aside, I actually agree that it is very, very unfair. But when has fairness ever mattered?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Two sides, neither of which are helping their situation any with their actions, in the middle east.
Reprint story ad infinitum.
It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting.
Heh, hey lisa.
That's a pretty massive reading comprehension failure on your part.
I will give you a million dollars if you show me the part of my post where I call either side terrible.
Or, if you're interested, you could try not re-inventing my words for me in order to sneer at my posts, as you are wont to do on several subjects that propel you into snideness and emotionalism.
Your choice!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: While I agree with you, i think people often make that point from the perspective of Jews who have NO other homeland and who have spent 2,000 years wandering.
a) Many individuals did have and do have other homelands in the world. Just because Israel is the only jewish state doesn't matter to everyone. b) No one individual has wondered for 2,000 years, so it's a little hard to be sympathetic about 2,000 years of history when every jew alive today has lived mostly in the time when Israel has been a nation. c) For as long as people like you believe that the Israelis have *more* of a claim on that land than any arab people because of their history, their blood, or divine right, then there will always be war. To look at your neighbors and say, "you have other places to go, I don't," when you know that in fact, you have as many options as they do, or as few, will always cause tension. I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago. Love and cookies?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was on television, and issued a statement to Hamas:
quote:The Israelis have been warning you that this was coming if you continue your cross border rocket attacks. Egypt has been imploring you to stop firing rockets into Israel, but you ignored our words. We have been urging you to renew the cease-fire with Israel, but you refused. You have brought this upon yourselves. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza.
Honest to God, when even the Arabs are putting the blame squarely where it belongs, what kind of moral bankruptcy does it take to draw any kind of equivalency between the two sides here?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: While I agree with you, i think people often make that point from the perspective of Jews who have NO other homeland and who have spent 2,000 years wandering.
a) Many individuals did have and do have other homelands in the world. Just because Israel is the only jewish state doesn't matter to everyone. b) No one individual has wondered for 2,000 years, so it's a little hard to be sympathetic about 2,000 years of history when every jew alive today has lived mostly in the time when Israel has been a nation. c) For as long as people like you believe that the Israelis have *more* of a claim on that land than any arab people because of their history, their blood, or divine right, then there will always be war. To look at your neighbors and say, "you have other places to go, I don't," when you know that in fact, you have as many options as they do, or as few, will always cause tension. I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago. Love and cookies?
If you've read any of my previous posts, while Jewish, I obviously tend toward the Israeli side. However, I've never once said that this was a cut-and-dry clear moral good.
As I said before, I understand how angry the Palestinian people are, and how not simple it is for Jews to waltz into Israel and create a country. I'm not sure that if the Israeli state was founded upon a scriptural claim that I would support it as I do now, despite being a religious man. That is simply because at this era of the world, i don't believe in things like Jihad or wresting land away from heathens - if any sort of new world order is to begin, it will begin through understanding, learning, or some ultimate act of God.
However Israel was not founded solely on divine right. It was founded in the wake of the holocaust. And Jews did not simple invade Israel and fight off the Palestinians, they were given the land by the British occupiers. Is it moral for the British to give away other people's land? No, I don't think so. But do I think that the Jews, in the wake of the holocaust, made the wrong decision by embracing a new homeland? No, I don't think so.
And can you really judge? I mean, this is why Iran makes it a policy to deny the holocaust. It is the one assumption that accounts for the moral existence of a Jewish state in Israel.
And thats my point. The "Zionists", a century ago, were practically a fraternity. They had no shot at success, and no strong backing. It was the Holocaust that changed things for the Jews. And are you asking me if my grandparents - all 4 - sat and thought about whether it was okay to have a homeland after their first wives, husbands, children, parents, and siblings were all murdered by Europeans, whether they thought they were going to have milk and cookies?! No. That's the point of exploring the depth of both sides. Both sides are deeply emotional, and their emotions are pretty legitimate. Yes, even the Palestinians have legitimate emotional foundation. And that's why things are a mess.
and in response to b) - no one individual has wandered for 2000 years? You clearly did not grow up Jewish. While some cultures do not stress their history and merely look at things from the perspective of their small lives, other cultures stress history as a source of identity. Both Palestinians and Jews do this. It's really not so hard - even though I, myself, have not been wandering - my grandparents have. Hearing holocaust stories is one thing, but hearing them from your own family is scary. I remember I walked into my grandfathers house in Israel and I saw this old faded picture of a boy I didn't recognize - i found out that he had a son from a previous marriage who was killed in the holocaust. My grandfather had a whole nother family! It's a very strange feeling to know that your own existence is the product of someone wiping out the family of your grandparents.
But that's why it may not be such a good idea to yell at Lisa. Some people are more emotional than others, some people are more angry, and MOST people are insensitive.
I feel very connected to African Americans because they often feel this way: that no one really "gets" it. Growing up, the descendants of slavels, i mean, it will totally affect you.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago.
You mean, when the Arab countries were beginning the process of throwing out and/or killing their Jews, the Russians and Poles were actively pogroming theirs to death, and Germany seemed to be one of the safer places to be a Jew?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: I betcha the papers here won't mention that the majority of the people killed in this operation aren't civilians.
Just fyi, every account I've read so far (on CNN and local news) has said "mostly militants" after listing the number killed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago.
You mean, when the Arab countries were beginning the process of throwing out and/or killing their Jews, the Russians and Poles were actively pogroming theirs to death, and Germany seemed to be one of the safer places to be a Jew?
Yeah, then. Personally I would have picked Canada or the United States.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
Because the US was so open to Jewish immigration in the 1910s?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago.
You mean, when the Arab countries were beginning the process of throwing out and/or killing their Jews, the Russians and Poles were actively pogroming theirs to death, and Germany seemed to be one of the safer places to be a Jew?
Yeah, then. Personally I would have picked Canada or the United States.
OMG, how many times are we going to have to make this point? You never LIVED in 1908! If you were a Russian Jew, ousted in Progroms, you really think you would have 100 years of foresight to say - bah, forget Germany, a Jewish cultural center, a place where people probably will speak my language and is on the same continent, I think I should move to the U.S. - I have a hankering that there's gonna be this really great sci-fi author in 70 years, and with technology at that time, i may be able to build up a social network around his material! CYA RUSSIA!
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I feel very connected to African Americans because they often feel this way: that no one really "gets" it. Growing up, the descendants of slavels, i mean, it will totally affect you.
Everyone on Earth, probably without exception, is a descendant of a slave. But what you said in your post about "not getting it," I don't think is fair. Do I actually get it? No. My family has lived in America since the earliest colonial days, and as a white American, I am robbed of any ethnicity or history my family may have had. No one cares about that, including you, but I am expected to be infinitely understanding of other people's needs to differentiate themselves from my "part" of society. I don't particularly blame anyone for this. It's mostly the fault of circumstance, and of white Americans themselves that we have abandoned our histories and our individual inherited cultures to buy into an American dream that makes us the source of great enmity in the world.
Still, I often feel that when someone tells me I don't "get it," I should have a right to talk about the ancestors I had who were some of the first reformers in protestant churches in Provence, and who were persecuted by Catholics, and emmigrated between France and Italy, back to France, to Brittany, and finally crossed over into protestant-friendly Elizabethan England, where an ancestor of mine was knighted by Queen Elizabeth, and how his great grandson became one of the first people from England to come to live in Massachusetts, before there was even a colony to welcome him. Over successive waves of migration, and after being displaced in every major American war my family ended up in the Dakotas, and finally in California in the 1940s. That's about 500 years of wandering, where no more than a single generation of my family has lived in the same place as its parent generation.
So, I wonder if I am allowed to be "totally affected" by all of that. If you think on it, my ancestors did something far, far worse than what Israel has done, helping to take away the lands of millions of people in America. They were also seeking religious and personal freedoms that Europe could not provide. But they had themselves been persecuted for centuries by the Catholics. So is that the endgame for Israel? Victory and dominance would also take away a sense of all that struggle and wandering, just like it did in America, in such a short time.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I think that you are being reasonable. If you incorporate your history as part of a sense of your identity, then yes, It is my duty to be sensitive to that.
Law is based on live and let live, as long as no one else is harmed.
But my morality is based on a relationship with all of mankind. If I want to relate to you, and you perceive your identity as a result of those experiences, then of course I will be sensitive to that. I am sensitive to the triumph of your past, to the courage of your ancestors whom I owe the biggest debt of gratitude to for their sacrifices to enable me to live in one of the greatest countries ever to exist.
I respect it tremendously. And yes, the crimes of colonial America are great - though it took mankind a while to mature morally to understand what a crime it was. Israel vs. PA is different - at least for Israel. I think Israel understands that it is immoral to simply kill all Arabs and conquer the territory for itself - I think, and hope, that this tension is the expression of perhaps one of the greatest moral dilemmas ever to face a country, and the great restraint that Israel must juggle with the protection and peace of its citizens.
On the point that "everyone is a descendant of slaves" - First of all, not so true.
Second of all - to the extent to which you incorporate that as a part of your identity, taht is to the extent to which one must be sensitive. To African Americans, that even was relatively recent, and they still bear the burdens of that time, so yea, to them, one needs to be sensitive.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'd love to know what the zionists thought was going to happen when this all started a century ago.
You mean, when the Arab countries were beginning the process of throwing out and/or killing their Jews, the Russians and Poles were actively pogroming theirs to death, and Germany seemed to be one of the safer places to be a Jew?
Yeah, then. Personally I would have picked Canada or the United States.
My great-grandparents (and their parents) agreed with you. They all came to the US at about that time. (As opposed to the cousins who emigrated to Israel slightly later.) But that simply was not an option for most. The US had quotas -- what were those who were not allowed to come here supposed to do? Because they WERE the majority.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Out of curiosity, when did the quotas start in US immigration? I know Chinese exclusion laws were in effect in the mid to late 19th century, but when did anti-Jewish or anti-eastern European quotas or exclusions begin, and what form did they take? Did they lessen following the Holocaust? That's not a piece of history I am clear on. My Godmother's family came to the US in the 1940's from Austria, but she's not inclined to discuss it, and I have no idea *how* they got there.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: Out of curiosity, when did the quotas start in US immigration? I know Chinese exclusion laws were in effect in the mid to late 19th century, but when did anti-Jewish or anti-eastern European quotas or exclusions begin, and what form did they take? Did they lessen following the Holocaust?
Quotas were by country, and they were in existence by the late 1880s, if not earlier.
Yep. It took my great-grandparents until 1949 to get permission to immigrate to the US. (Most of the rest of my relatives ended up in Israel, but my great-grandmother was dead set against that, so they waited. And waited. And waited.)
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
My Grandmother was turned away in the late 40s as well and made her way to South America. She eventually found her way to Israel herself.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
The ones who were turned away and didn't eventually make it out mostly have no descendants to speak for them.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Bear in mind that "No Dogs or Jews" signs were still around as late as the 60s in places like Florida. They weren't even considered tacky in the US prior to WWII. No one wanted a flood of Jews into this country. Ick.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
When my family first moved into our house on Long Island about 20 years ago, someone painted a swatstika on our garage.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bear in mind that "No Dogs or Jews" signs were still around as late as the 60s in places like Florida. They weren't even considered tacky in the US prior to WWII. No one wanted a flood of Jews into this country. Ick.
I read "Outliers" last week just to see what all the fuss was about. It's not a great book but it has some interesting stuff in it, and one of the things it talked about was how exclusion from major financial law firms in the first half of the 20th century put Jews in a perfect position to become dominant in the field when the nature of business changed later on. Because they had never been incorporated into the dinosaur firms in New York, the best Jewish lawyers were adaptable to changing business when the others were not.
What I couldn't figure out was whether Gladwell (the author) was saying that this kind of pattern was a necessary part of our societal pattern, or if it simply demonstrated how inefficiently our society utilizes its best people. On the one hand it is only wars and famines and all manner of suffering that distinguish survivors from those who perish, but on the other hand, those people are always around whether there are things to suffer through or not.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was on television, and issued a statement to Hamas:
quote:The Israelis have been warning you that this was coming if you continue your cross border rocket attacks. Egypt has been imploring you to stop firing rockets into Israel, but you ignored our words. We have been urging you to renew the cease-fire with Israel, but you refused. You have brought this upon yourselves. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza.
Honest to God, when even the Arabs are putting the blame squarely where it belongs, what kind of moral bankruptcy does it take to draw any kind of equivalency between the two sides here?
Holding Israel responsible for the consequences of its actions is not the same as drawing moral equivalency between the two sides. Israel knew about the potential for civilian casualties but decided to launch the attacks anyways. They judged that the potential gains of the attacks outweighed the potential for innocent deaths (I generally agree). Israel can't tolerate having rockets launched into its cities forever. However, it doesn't make sense to place the blame for civilian deaths solely on the Palestinians because Israel was the one who killed them (so Israel has to account for them). I don't have much of an opinion about the current situation because I haven't read any information about the Palestinian deaths that would give me an educated opinion on whether or not they were excessive though I think what's causing people to protest Israel in this situation is that the number of Palestinian deaths has been much larger than the number of Israeli deaths since the media started paying attention.
Also, the reason you don't see much criticism of the Palestinians here is that nobody bothers to defend them.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: You clearly did not grow up Jewish. While some cultures do not stress their history and merely look at things from the perspective of their small lives, other cultures stress history as a source of identity.
For my part, this is very not applicable. The historical context of our lives as Chinese people has very often been a closely examined part of life.
As for the rest of the discussion, I'm not entirely sure how, but it seems that the discussion has segued into a discussion as to whether the Jews should have founded and moved into Israel. For my part, I only answered the original hypothetical (what would I personally do if I was Israeli or Muslim and in that area (i.e. leave)) and I answered it from a hypothetical person in the current day.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Foreign Minister of Egypt, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, was on television, and issued a statement to Hamas:
quote:The Israelis have been warning you that this was coming if you continue your cross border rocket attacks. Egypt has been imploring you to stop firing rockets into Israel, but you ignored our words. We have been urging you to renew the cease-fire with Israel, but you refused. You have brought this upon yourselves. You are responsible for what is happening to the people of Gaza.
Honest to God, when even the Arabs are putting the blame squarely where it belongs, what kind of moral bankruptcy does it take to draw any kind of equivalency between the two sides here?
I can see you are misundestanding my position, and perhaps I haven't explained it very clearly. I think of the conflict at three levels:
1. Underlying cause: Both parties want a certain parcel of land. This is where the moral equivalence lies, and where my unsympathetic "tough luck" comment comes from. I don't think either party has any particular claim to the land.
2. Tactical. Hamas fires rockets at civilians to make the Israelis give up, Israel fires rockets at Hamas installations to make Hamas give up. Israel is ahead, morally speaking, on this one.
3. Practical: Which tactic is likely to work? As far as I can tell, neither one.
Posted by The Dark Knight (Member # 11592) on :
Does anybody have any idea what additional stages would mean?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
As much as I'd like to think they would be marching every Arab in Gaza across the border into Egypt, closing the border hermetically, and rebuilding all of the Jewish towns in the renamed Katif Strip, plus hundreds more, I suspect it's more likely to be a ground invasion to clean out Hamas for good.
Olmert should be in jail. The man resigned his position months ago, and he's playing wargames a month before new elections. It's disgusting.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
If mexico lobbed rockets into Houston Mexico would have been annexed by now.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, if you think about it, the US already annexed over half of Mexico's territory in the 19th century.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: If mexico lobbed rockets into Houston Mexico would have been annexed by now.
Not if the annexation of Mexico were likely to lead to a world-wide boycott of American goods, or war with China, or some such reaction.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Barak is willing to consider a ceasefire while Olmert wants to continue. While I, nor any good journalist, have all the details, that doesn't make me very happy...
I'm more inclined to side with Barak - ceasefire and see if the rocket attacks cease. If they do not, resume fighting.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bear in mind that "No Dogs or Jews" signs were still around as late as the 60s in places like Florida. They weren't even considered tacky in the US prior to WWII. No one wanted a flood of Jews into this country. Ick.
Well, yes. If you open the door to te Jews, why, the Arabs would be right behind them. Can't have that, can we now? Ick.
Posted by turok (Member # 11900) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm more inclined to side with Barak - ceasefire and see if the rocket attacks cease. If they do not, resume fighting.
Don't you think that giving them another "ceasefire" is dangerous, given what we know they do with them?
The only conceivable end, though it may be long in coming, is to traumatize the Palestinian people to the extent that, would a terrorist want to launch a missile, he could only do it in the dead of night out of fear that his civilian neighbors would kill him.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by turok:
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'm more inclined to side with Barak - ceasefire and see if the rocket attacks cease. If they do not, resume fighting.
Don't you think that giving them another "ceasefire" is dangerous, given what we know they do with them?
The only conceivable end, though it may be long in coming, is to traumatize the Palestinian people to the extent that, would a terrorist want to launch a missile, he could only do it in the dead of night out of fear that his civilian neighbors would kill him.
Maybe. But maybe they become so traumatized that his civilian neighbors become militants.
Posted by turok (Member # 11900) on :
That was the difference between germany post The War to End all Wars and post World War Two. I am personally very unclear as to where the distinction should be drawn but there is a fine line between defeating an opponent and making him dread war and humiliating him, leaving him anxious to bare arms and regain face. i agree that it is a tough issue to navigate but a ceasefire now would be no different than the last ceasefire was: a gathering of arms.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
The history of anti-catholicism in this country is just as bad as anti-semitism. It was illegal for a long time for Catholics in many states to vote, hold office, or even go to school. For every swastika on a garage door, there was a burning cross in someone else's front yard.
White Christians don't live in some sort of bubble of safety while everyone else in America has been persecuted. Protestants who chafed under Catholic rule in Europe came here to escape, and do some good ole' persecuting of their own. And even a lot of them got run roughshod over, especially if they were Irish (who in many places in the 19th century were considered one step BELOW blacks), or eastern European.
I haven't really read into the quota system at length, but from what I have read, it was pretty despicable. It was designed to let in large numbers of who we at the time considered either racially superior, or easier to keep under our boot heels to do our dirty work for us. Jews probably got the short end of the stick because so many of them lived in Eastern Europe, and in the early 20th century, the quotas for countries in the east was something like 100 people per country. I think all of Africa had a quota of 100 people. But western and northern European countries had quotas in the thousands. It's a miracle as many Jews made it here during that time as did.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Bear in mind that "No Dogs or Jews" signs were still around as late as the 60s in places like Florida. They weren't even considered tacky in the US prior to WWII. No one wanted a flood of Jews into this country. Ick.
Well, yes. If you open the door to te Jews, why, the Arabs would be right behind them. Can't have that, can we now? Ick.
I wish that every Arab now living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza (and Jordan, for that matter) would come and live in the US.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This was actually quite fun.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Heh. I generally avoid news coverage of Israel, but that was, rather.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I see so much flag burning - You know, they actually have to BUY the flags to burn them.
I feel like they have a whole lot more American/Israeli flags than Americans/Israelis do.
Posted by Saephon (Member # 9623) on :
I agree with Lyrhawn. Also, the problem seems to me that the two sides aren't really fighting a war. This kind of conflict wouldn't have lasted so long a thousand years ago, because one side would actually try to win, and win. Today we have two neighbors who are engaging in just enough conflict to maintain their land and make it clear that they're not pushovers.
If I didn't care about innocent lives, I'd hope for both sides to go all out until one of them is destroyed. Of course, the reality is that nations are more than just their governments or an extreme militant faction. Still, the point stands. If people really want an END to this...you're gonna have to, I hate to say it, pull an Ender and show Bonzo you're not screwing around.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I agree with Lyrhawn. Also, the problem seems to me that the two sides aren't really fighting a war. This kind of conflict wouldn't have lasted so long a thousand years ago, because one side would actually try to win, and win. Today we have two neighbors who are engaging in just enough conflict to maintain their land and make it clear that they're not pushovers.
I think you are overestimating the decisiveness of past wars. To take your specific example of 1000 years, that puts us roughly at the Crusades. Both sides were fighting to win, but the Crusader kingdoms lasted 200 years or so; you couldn't call the eventual victory quick in any meaningful sense. If Israel is still around in 150 years, you could come back and argue that the Arabs are being kind of slow. Similarly, southern Iberia was conquered by the Moslems in the early 800s, and not completely Reconquista'd until 600 years later. In any particular generation you'd take a look at the war and swear it would continue forever. The Byzantines broke two waves of Moslem attacks, retreating all the while, and stood for 500 years before they finally went down. Then the Ottomans poured into Europe and took 200 years to reach their peak at the siege of Vienna, and fought a bitter retreating action for the next 250 years, 1687 to 1920. Even in modern wars, supposedly so intense and quickly over, you could make a good case that the wars of 1866, 1870, 1914, 1939, and 1945 were all acts in one long conflict of German unification, not ended until 1989, if even that is the end. (And if you count the rise of Prussia as a Great Power, you could draw the lines back even to 1750, or - God help us - the Teutonic Order crusading in Lithuania.)
Then, if you look at the conflicts of hunter-gatherers, you will find that they are the exact opposite of decisive. Battles are prearranged, and consist of firing not-very-deadly missiles at long range; deaths are uncommon and usually end the battle right away. (Apart from the deaths, the almost ritualistic exchange of rockets is a pretty close analogy to this, now I think about it.) Eventually the weaker tribe does tend to move away from the stronger one, but not because of defeat in any given battle.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Another point is that ending wars does not necessarily save lives, even over the long run. Clearly you could end the war by shooting all the non-Arab Israelis, or even just the fighting-age males, total death toll ~1 million. That would be quick. The death toll from the current methods is, say, 10000 a year. At this rate it would take 100 years to match the Numbers 31 solution. Do we really think this conflict will go on that long?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Yep. European colonization attempts have gone on for over a thousand years already. Why would one expect the latest version to stop in a mere hundred?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I see so much flag burning - You know, they actually have to BUY the flags to burn them.
I feel like they have a whole lot more American/Israeli flags than Americans/Israelis do.
Eh, they probably make them in China. Commerce is good. There was an interesting note in the news when one factory was caught making Tibetan flags even Posted by String (Member # 6435) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Ya, but we've established that the Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace beside the Israelis. Thus the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civlians.
Right. And this is the concession they would have to make, to which a sufficient application of force would eventually drive them. My argument is that there exists some level of defeat which does make people renounce such goals as these.
Israel has the means to ensure such a defeat, but for whatever reason they always leave the job unfinished. It strikes me as odd that it always happens that way, with Israel snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess the question really is why doesn't Israel finish the job?
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by String:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest: KoM: Ya, but we've established that the Palestinians are unwilling to live in peace beside the Israelis. Thus the constant rocket attacks against Israeli civlians.
Right. And this is the concession they would have to make, to which a sufficient application of force would eventually drive them. My argument is that there exists some level of defeat which does make people renounce such goals as these.
Israel has the means to ensure such a defeat, but for whatever reason they always leave the job unfinished. It strikes me as odd that it always happens that way, with Israel snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess the question really is why doesn't Israel finish the job?
I bet that if you think for about 5 minutes you can come up with at least one reason why Israel does not just mop up all the Palestinians and exile the rest.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Fear of world opinion and reaction. Fear of retaliation from other neighbors (such as do-they-have-nukes-yet? Iran).
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I sent the video to my brother.
quote: Yeah!!! Those /not repeating/ deliberately put their terrorists near schools and daycares! Israel has no choice but to fire on children! That's the right moral calculation to make... right...?
Israel claims that its attacks are surgical. The reality is that they've intentionally bombed schools, mosques, TV stations, in some horrible act of collective punishment, and under the ridiculous pretext of "security". This is the absolute worst /not repeating/ thing Israel could do for its own security. Anyone with a brain knows that this is just going to exacerbate tensions in the Arab-Israeli conflict.
How should I respond? Ask for proof?
It is interesting how this effects my family, my brother and I find ourselves on opposite sides of the cofnlict here, my brother supports the Palistinians (thinking the Israeli gov't close to being aparthied, never said it but I suspect he believes it) I however defend Israel, makes for interesting discussions.
Just so you know, he doesn't get into arguments about China under the idea that I'ld have the advantage being far more familiar then he is. ("No no no no, I'm not getting into this, I have no means of refuting anything you say").
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::shrug:: Is he saying that if someone is shooting rockets at you from the middle of a population center, you should sit and wait to get hit?
I don't quite understand. Are their hands morally tied?
Yes. Israel has bombed schools, mosques, and TV stations all intentionally - I know that mosques were meeting places for terrorists, and additionally, they stored rockets.
The TV stations are a means of destroying Hamas's infrastructure - it's like bombing Al Qaeda's tv station - anyone have a problem with that?
Now I don't have any specific information to talk about schools, but again, if someone is firing a rocket at you, what are you supposed to do? Going all Gandhi isn't going to help with a population that wants to wipe you from the map.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, it would, if you went fully Gandhi. Because what Gandhi would tell you is that it is better for you to be killed, than to kill yourself; and he meant it, too. So, in going fully Gandhi, you would also have to believe this. Gandhi's solution would be that the Jews lay down their arms and permit themselves to be slaughtered, or better still, commit mass suicide. (I am not extrapolating; this was his exact prescription for the Jews in Germany in the thirties.) And fair's fair, there's no denying that this would end the current conflict.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by String: Israel has the means to ensure such a defeat, but for whatever reason they always leave the job unfinished. It strikes me as odd that it always happens that way, with Israel snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I guess the question really is why doesn't Israel finish the job?
I don't think it's only fear of world opinion/reaction. Fundamentally, the rulers of Israel are convinced that Israel will fall. They have no Jewish ideology whatsoever, and the secular Zionist dream from before 1948 just doesn't speak to this generation any more.
They're afraid that when we're all back in exile having to beg for scraps from the rest of the world, that they'll turn to us and say, "Why should we be nice to you?" They want to be able to say, "But... but... we were nice to the filthy terrorists! We were merciful! Please be merciful to us."
The Talmudic Sages said that one who is merciful to the cruel will inevitably wind up being cruel to the merciful/innocent. When you look at the difference between the absurd risks Israel takes to protect Arab lives vs the brutality they used against the Jews of Gaza, you can see what the Sages were talking about.
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
Getting back to the sentiment of a pox on both your houses grounded on the position that both sides have valid claims to the land:
This current war is with Hamas, which has as it's principal objective the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in its place. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel, on the other hand, has withdrawn from Gaza and has officially expressed support for a "2-state solution." In other words, Israel is willing to live side-by-side with Palestinians; whereas, Hamas is unwilling to live side-by-side with with a Jewish state.
Under these circumstances, there is no basis for moral equivalency.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Yep. European colonization attempts have gone on for over a thousand years already. Why would one expect the latest version to stop in a mere hundred? "
because its not a european colonization attempt? Its something different?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I just thought I'd share this with you:
This is an email I received from an Israeli woman conveying her frustrations to her friends and family. As a Jew, i hear talk like this all the time, at the dinner table, in college, in synagogue, etc. I thought it might be interesting for people who are outside that circle to get a look inside:
Just a note: I don't agree with everything in the email, I'm only sharing it so you can see something you wouldn't normally have access to:
"Enough.
I am tired of turning on the news and seeing them talk about Israel's disproportionate attacks. Where were they when Kasam after Kasam landed on Sderot? Where were they when we pulled out of Gaza to give the palestinians their chance to have change? Where were they when the Israeli army went door to door seeking out terrorists and risking THEIR lives to save the lives of innocent civilians? Where were they when Israel stood by since 2001 and let Kasams kill innocent Israelis and DID NOTHING!? Where have they been?!
How dare anyone make this anything other than it really is: Israel defending her people, her nation, and her homeland. It is not a revelation that Israel has not lost a war since her existence. Its a necessity! When we lose a war we will lose our homeland. There is nowhere for us to surrender to! We are surrounded by countries that hate Israel and the Jewish people and would like nothing better than to push us into the sea. If we give them that chance, we will drown. So now, Jewish world, as you sit back and watch your brothers fight for you and your family die for you, I beg you to fight back! Challenge this close minded, one sided, media bias that we see every day.
Enough is enough! I dare one of those reporters to come to Sderot, or Ashkelon, or Be'ar Sheva and survive one night. I dare them to walk through the streets, hear the sirens, fall to their knees, and hold their breaths for 15 seconds as a Kasam wails overhead. I dare them to hear the voice "Code Red, Code Red" and wonder, is this the end? Is this going to be the rocket that lands on me? Am I going to be the next statistic on CNN? (How many times do we hear, "only one killed in Sderot" and breathe a sigh of relief. "Only one". Close your eyes and imagine your wife, your husband, daughter, son, brother, sister, boyfriend, girlfriend, father, or mother were that "only one". Its OK. It was just one. Stop whining...)
Enough.
I am intensely saddened when I see the pictures of the innocent Palestinian children who are caught up in the cross fire. I am intensely infuriated when their deaths are blamed on Israel. Israel did not ask for this war. Israel did not want this war. Israel did not choose this war. Israel was attacked. Since her very existence she has been attacked. Be it on her buses, her streets, her homes, and her cities. Let us be very clear. Israel is not randomly attacking Gaza. Israel is responding to the HUNDREDS of rocket attacks that have landed on her soil that have SPECIFICALLY targeted civilians and civilian homes. Israel is responding by bombing SPECIFIC Hamas locations and killing 400 people 90% of whom are Hamas operatives. Disproportionate? Hamas kills men, women, and children. Israel kills terrorists. Disproportionate?
ENOUGH!!
This war, in my opinion, is too late. Israel should have stood up years ago when the first rocket fell. How ridiculous is it to imagine that after Sept 11th America would have done nothing in response. How dare America start a war! Its disproportionate. All that happened was three measly planes hit three measly buildings! What right do they have to go fight an entire country?! What justification do they have? The Arabs think they can fight us? They think they are up to our level of standards? Well kol yisrael arevim zeh lazeh. We Jews are all connected. Take a lesson Arabs. Wake up. You want justice? You want peace? You want equality? Then deserve it! You alone are responsible for the actions of your people and your nation. There is a virus growing in your own people and it is spreading to your children and grandchildren. Stop it!
Enough!
How dare anyone blame this war on Israel. It is time the world practiced what they preached. It is time they live up to their own standards. The next time someone comes to attack THEIR children, I want a completely proportional response. I want them to stop and calculate. Remember, it isnt about saving the lives of your family. Its about making sure that the world approves and will not condone your actions. Be careful because apparently in their eyes, all people are not created equal... They can attack us because they are "terrorists" and that's what terrorists do. We cannot fight back because they are cowering behind the backs' of 3 year old children.
Enough.
I will not stand silently by watching my family be attacked night and day. I will not sit and wait for the bombs to fall. I will rise and defend my husband, children, and nation by whatever means, doing whatever it takes. Wouldn't you?
Disspaportionate? How dare they.
Enough.
gila"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by David G: Getting back to the sentiment of a pox on both your houses grounded on the position that both sides have valid claims to the land:
This current war is with Hamas, which has as it's principal objective the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in its place. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel, on the other hand, has withdrawn from Gaza and has officially expressed support for a "2-state solution." In other words, Israel is willing to live side-by-side with Palestinians; whereas, Hamas is unwilling to live side-by-side with with a Jewish state.
Under these circumstances, there is no basis for moral equivalency.
Of course Israel is willing to do that, it already has the land in dispute. When a particular bit of land is being fought over, it is not morally superior for the party in possession to say "but we're willing to let you have that bit over there". Especially when the bit over there is utterly worthless.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Erm. can you say its morally superior when the other side didn't do the same thing when they had multiple opportunities?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
::shrug:: It's not like they were being pressured by the international community as Israel is...
Look, im just saying...
Posted by David G (Member # 8872) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by David G: Getting back to the sentiment of a pox on both your houses grounded on the position that both sides have valid claims to the land:
This current war is with Hamas, which has as it's principal objective the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in its place. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel's right to exist.
Israel, on the other hand, has withdrawn from Gaza and has officially expressed support for a "2-state solution." In other words, Israel is willing to live side-by-side with Palestinians; whereas, Hamas is unwilling to live side-by-side with with a Jewish state.
Under these circumstances, there is no basis for moral equivalency.
Of course Israel is willing to do that, it already has the land in dispute. When a particular bit of land is being fought over, it is not morally superior for the party in possession to say "but we're willing to let you have that bit over there". Especially when the bit over there is utterly worthless.
Let's go back in history a bit and revisit some of the basics of the situation:
1. November 29, 1947: The United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The borders recommended by the United Nations are largely consistent with the existing populations of Jews and Arabs as they existed at the time. This was as fair a division of the land as could be conceived at the time.
2. Jews accept the United Nations resolution. The Arabs rejected it. (The Jews are willing to share the land with the Arabs. The Arabs are unwilling to share the land with the Jews.)
3. When upon the termination of the British mandate over Palestine the Jews announce the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 (within the boundaries assigned by the UN resolution), its Arab neighbors (unwilling to co-exist with a Jewish state within the a portion of what was British controlled Palestine) attack. The Arabs try to destroy the fledgling State of Israel. The war started by the Arabs renders them, at this stage, the morally inferior party in the conflict.
4. Israel prevails and survives. In that struggle for its survival, Israel captures territory that is reasonably necessary for an adequate defense against hostile neighbors bent on Israel's destruction. If the Arabs had been willing to co-exist with the Jews, and if the Arabs hadn't tried to destroy the fledgling State of Israel, then Israel would have had no need to grab additional territory. But the Arabs started a war under circumstances in which Israel was the morally superior party and lost.
5. Israel then became morally justified in retaining the additional territory it won and which became necessary for its defense against hostile neighbors. If you start a war that you are not morally justified in starting and then lose, the other side is morally justified in retaining the territory it takes in that war if doing so is reasonably necessary for its defense against the same hostile neighbors.
6. And yet Israel remains willing to co-exist with an Arab Palestine. But Hamas is not.
Questions for you KoM: First, do you agree that the above synopsis fairly represents the relevant course of events? Second, if not, why not? Third, if so, then why isn't Israel morally superior in its conflict with Hamas under the foregoing circumstances?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
David G. I have no vested interest in this conflict either way, but just from a first look, point 1 and 2 seem questionable. If the United Nations decided that the United States had to give Texas back to Mexico, and Mexico agreed while the US did not, I don't think that automatically makes Mexico morally superior in any future conflicts.
One could ask what authority the UN has in divvying up land? Why is the UN's decision a basis for morality when it is not mutually agreed upon by the parties involved.
Personally, and I know nobody gives a damn what I think, they should all leave the area, make it a neutral "Holy Land" where people all all faiths can visit, and find somewhere else to live. If I lived in a war zone, I'd move - my life and the lives of my family are more important than some dirt.
What's especially disturbing to me is that it's two People fighting over holy land, both of which claiming to be religions of peace and love. Disgraceful and foolish. Both sides are greedy and stubborn and care more about being right and hating one another than they do about giving their children and communities a good life.
It's just dirt, for all that you claim to believe in higher powers, stop killing each other over dust.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Personally, I agree with MightyCow about the UN.
I was raised to believe more like you David, but in a broader context and after studying Arab history, I think that the way the British and French parceled up the Middle East after their victory in WWI was not exactly moral.
On the other hand, I do NOT agree with MightCow's perspective on religion, specifically as it pertains to Jews.
One thing people do not know about the Israeli state is that it is 25% religious. The other 75% is heavily secular. They do not claim to be a religion of peace and love, but a nation of survivors. It is the survivor mentality that fuels Israel, and it is the survivor mentality that would have these people die for the "dirt" they cling to. Because they aren't fighting for the "Holy Land", they are fighting for their homeland.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Both sides are greedy and stubborn and care more about being right and hating one another than they do about giving their children and communities a good life.
Your post as a whole reads like something I might like to agree with, and that maybe a year ago I might have automatically agreed with. But that's an easy pronouncement to make when you're removed from that specific situation. While I might agree in principle, in an academic discussion with no specifics, what do you do when A. One side might believe that being where they are is inextricably linked to giving their children and communities a good life, regardless of the price they might have to pay in order to achieve that? B. When one side largely finds themselves manipulated and indoctrinated by a selfish group that is more interested in staying in power than in actually helping the people they're in charge of?
I agree with you about the UN thing, but "dirt and dust" is an argument that will never win in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, because to them it ISN'T just dirt and dust. If it was, we wouldn't be here to begin with. And they might say that, by changing their beliefs so radically as to think of their territory as just dirt and dust, they've paid a price higher than the one currently being exacted by the conflict. It all comes down to what you believe in and what you're willing to fight for. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, but we fight wars both over it, and because of its ideals. The dirt and the dust, like the ink and parchment if that and so many other documents, represent something. You and I might not think that something is worth fighting over, but I can't think of a single war that was ended by someone persuading one of the participants that the entire foundation for their conflict wasn't worthwhile, not without a much, much, much more massive price being paid than what has been paid thus far.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:1. November 29, 1947: The United Nations recommended the partition of Palestine into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The borders recommended by the United Nations are largely consistent with the existing populations of Jews and Arabs as they existed at the time. This was as fair a division of the land as could be conceived at the time.
And why did the land have to be divided at all? The basis of the conflict is still that both Jews and Arabs want a particular piece of land, to which neither one has any particular claim. That the Arabs overestimated their own power, or the Jews hd more of a claim on international sympathy, is not relevant to this.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Word on the street says a ground invasion is imminent.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
That's what my parents say - they've been watching Israeli news via satellite non-stop...
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
If only the world didn't feel such animosity towards Israel, an intensity which doesn't make sense. Daily across Africa massacres seem to be occurring, with massive poverty and starvation, yet no one cares.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Good. Although I worry about the long term consequences of this, the alternative is to do nothing.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
It does appear Israel has made concessions several times.
It does appear that Hamas makes no concessions.
If Israel's new strategy is to fight until all of Hamas is dead. How many more to go?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: I think that it's pretty clear that Israel's response is proportionate and reasonable .
If only the world didn't feel such animosity towards Israel, an intensity which doesn't make sense. Daily across Africa massacres seem to be occurring, with massive poverty and starvation, yet no one cares.
The difference is that massacres in Africa are not being carried out with American weaponry and approval.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
How do you know they aren't being carried out with American weaponry? The Arabs in Gaza are using a lot of American made weapons as well. In fact, they're even using weapons that Israel gave to them, because everyone said that if we don't arm them, they won't be able to keep order, and they'd collapse into a terrorist anarchy.
This isn't a massacre, Somalian. This is war. Israel has been almost inhumanly patient, but there's only so long that you can sit silently while an enemy across a border fires missiles at you on a daily basis.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
pretty much every african nation has american weaponry and uses them, only resorting to russian weapons sold by small indepedendant arms dealers when theres an ineffectual arms embargo in place.
Posted by BannaOj (Member # 3206) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Both sides are greedy and stubborn and care more about being right and hating one another than they do about giving their children and communities a good life.
Your post as a whole reads like something I might like to agree with, and that maybe a year ago I might have automatically agreed with. But that's an easy pronouncement to make when you're removed from that specific situation. While I might agree in principle, in an academic discussion with no specifics, what do you do when A. One side might believe that being where they are is inextricably linked to giving their children and communities a good life, regardless of the price they might have to pay in order to achieve that? B. When one side largely finds themselves manipulated and indoctrinated by a selfish group that is more interested in staying in power than in actually helping the people they're in charge of?
I agree with you about the UN thing, but "dirt and dust" is an argument that will never win in the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, because to them it ISN'T just dirt and dust. If it was, we wouldn't be here to begin with. And they might say that, by changing their beliefs so radically as to think of their territory as just dirt and dust, they've paid a price higher than the one currently being exacted by the conflict. It all comes down to what you believe in and what you're willing to fight for. The Constitution is just a piece of paper, but we fight wars both over it, and because of its ideals. The dirt and the dust, like the ink and parchment if that and so many other documents, represent something. You and I might not think that something is worth fighting over, but I can't think of a single war that was ended by someone persuading one of the participants that the entire foundation for their conflict wasn't worthwhile, not without a much, much, much more massive price being paid than what has been paid thus far.
Worth repeating.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Honestly, I think the reason Israel receives so much press is that the American press loves an underdog, and both sides have factions in this country who consider themselves the underdogs.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: This isn't a massacre, Somalian. This is war. Israel has been almost inhumanly patient, but there's only so long that you can sit silently while an enemy across a border fires missiles at you on a daily basis.
In the end, whether this is a massacre or war will be shown by relative death tolls since the end of the cease fire. Anyone know the figures?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
So Operation Desert Storm was a massacre?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Honestly, I think the reason Israel receives so much press is that the American press loves an underdog, and both sides have factions in this country who consider themselves the underdogs.
Agreed, plus the religious angle, the press would be much less interested if it were merely Buddhists clashing with Sikhs or some such.
The scale of the press does seem awfully disproportionate to the scale of events. After all, Israel has been attacking an area half the size of Toronto for more than a week now and the death toll (while obviously significant for the people involved) is still relatively modest.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: So Operation Desert Storm was a massacre?
My characterization is probably overly simplistic.
However, I think the appropriate scenario is viewing Operation Desert Storm as commencing when Iraq invaded Kuwait, and so include Kuwaiti casualties as well (I don't know the figures, so this might still be inadequate).
Had Iraq not violently annexed Kuwait, and had the allied conflict with Iraq still occurred then I think history would have taken a dimmer view (obviously).
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Then when counting casualties for the current Gazan operation, please be sure to include all the casualties from the rockets that have been launched from the region for the past 10 years.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: Had Iraq not violently annexed Kuwait, and had the allied conflict with Iraq still occurred then I think history would have taken a dimmer view (obviously).
And had we reacted differently to that - or sent the right message to Iraq beforehand and possibly prevented it, Iran might still be too busy dealing with Saddam Hussein to be bolstering Hamas.
Not really a response to the question, just musing on US foreign policy.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Given that had Hamas not, following the cessation of the ceasefire, launched the rockets this episode would not be occurring, I think that this is the natural line to draw. I, of course, acknowledge that Israel's response should be understood in the context of the recent past; however, to say that such-and-such events contributed to some conflict is not the same as there being part of the conflict.
As far as including the last ten years: I suspect that there have been more Palestinian deaths than Israeli deaths over the last ten years.
As I previously acknowledged, there is more to massacre than merely numbers. When I think of massacres I think of gunmen firing on unarmed crowds indiscriminately, and the like. Do you agree? Taking this a step further, if the gunmen were tanks, and the crowd had pistols, and the killing was indiscriminate, would this be a massacre?
To me, Israel can plead innocent by rejecting the 'indiscriminate' clause. However, this is precarious- a missile goes awry and hits a kindergarten, and suddenly the numbers become: 5 Israelis dead including one soldier vs. 500 Palestinians including 100 children.
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
quote: originally posted by natural_mystic In the end, whether this is a massacre or war will be shown by relative death tolls since the end of the cease fire. Anyone know the figures?
2 questions:
1 What about the civillian deaths during the "cease-fire" caused by daily rocket attacks into Israel? 2 If you arbitrarily do decide to call this a massacre, who will you blame? A country trying to defend itself from terror attacks or those terrorists who use human sheilds so people like you will buy the pr?
Posted by adenam (Member # 11902) on :
is anyone else having a problem where this thread is showing up really wide on thei screen? how can i fix it?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: My characterization is probably overly simplistic.
I think we'll just stick with this.
Next you'll try to claim that since Israeli police and the IDF are very good at stopping potential suicide bombers, the average Israeli citizen should not consider them a threat, and the Israeli government should not take any further countermeasures.
Talk about blaming the victim. Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by adenam:
1 What about the civillian deaths during the "cease-fire" caused by daily rocket attacks into Israel? 2 If you arbitrarily do decide to call this a massacre, who will you blame? A country trying to defend itself from terror attacks or those terrorists who use human sheilds so people like you will buy the pr?
1. It is my understanding that the rocket attacks occurred when the cease-fire ran out. This is, however, beside the point. I categorically think that Israel was entitled to respond. The question is, to what degree? When last I checked 4 Israelis had died due to the rockets, and a further soldier had died versus at least several hundred Palestinians, some of whom were probably guilty of nothing worse than being born Palestinian and possibly voting in Hamas. Was this commensurate?
2. There would be tons of blame to apportion. Certainly the terrorists who hide behind civilians would take their share. Israel, however, would not be given a moral blank check either.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Let us suppose for a moment that Israel made the following statement:
"Hamas, listen up. Every time a rocket lands in our territory, we will retaliate in exact proportion to the damage caused. If a rocket kills a twelve-year-old male, we will find a boy of twelve in Gaza and kill him. Lands on a hospital with two pregnant women killed, we blow up one hospital and find two pregnant women. No damage caused, we just make a crater in the sand to remind you that you got lucky. And so on. Do you want to play this game?"
This, clearly, is "proportional response". In fact it is not just proportional, the constant of proportionality is one. Would you like to seriously argue that this is the way Israel should respond to rocket attacks?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic: My characterization is probably overly simplistic.
I think we'll just stick with this.
Next you'll try to claim that since Israeli police and the IDF are very good at stopping potential suicide bombers, the average Israeli citizen should not consider them a threat, and the Israeli government should not take any further countermeasures.
Talk about blaming the victim.
I get the impression I'm being misread.
I've been to Israel, I really like Israel, and I fully recognize that it is between a rock and a hard place. I suspect that if Israel were to establish a Palestinian state and carve up Jerusalem, they would still have to worry about suicide bombers. However, I also feel great pity for the Palestinians. Hence my posts.
How many people (religious concerns aside) would have preferred to be born in Palestine over Israel?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Let us suppose for a moment that Israel made the following statement:
"Hamas, listen up. Every time a rocket lands in our territory, we will retaliate in exact proportion to the damage caused. If a rocket kills a twelve-year-old male, we will find a boy of twelve in Gaza and kill him. Lands on a hospital with two pregnant women killed, we blow up one hospital and find two pregnant women. No damage caused, we just make a crater in the sand to remind you that you got lucky. And so on. Do you want to play this game?"
This, clearly, is "proportional response". In fact it is not just proportional, the constant of proportionality is one. Would you like to seriously argue that this is the way Israel should respond to rocket attacks?
I have not said that the constant need be 1, and I am not sure that advertising this beforehand would be advantageous. But I will ask you: how many civilian Palestinians are Israel entitled to kill after the Palestinians inflicted ~5 casualties?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
However many it takes to make the Palestinians stop.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: However many it takes to make the Palestinians stop.
I think that there is only one way to guarantee that the Palestinians stop - and if you find that acceptable, then I think we differ substantially in our axioms of morality.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: However many it takes to make the Palestinians stop.
I think that there is only one way to guarantee that the Palestinians stop - and if you find that acceptable, then I think we differ substantially in our axioms of morality.
Not necessarily.
You could, theoretically, remove everyone from the area forceably, nuke the area until it becomes uninhabitable for multiple generations, and then offer both sides multiple options for new places to live.
Not exactly moral, or feasible, but it would get the fighting to stop, and would be less immoral than completely killing one side or the other.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
I stand corrected.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I've already had this discussion in this thread, but to recap: The Germans, in 1945, stopped with something like 7% casualties. (More if you just count males of fighting age, of course.) That is, they did not merely stop the current round of fighting as they had done in 1918, but really renounced the goal of becoming Europe's dominant power. The Russians, likewise, stopped in 1917 after taking something like 5 or 6 percent casualties - not merely suing for peace and saying "We'll get you later when we've built up our strength again", but literally millions of Russians throwing down their guns and saying "Sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home". The French came very, very close to the same thing, and the Italian army never delivered another effective attack after the 10th battle of the Izonso. (Or 11th, or 13th, whichever. They were fighting for that river forever.) It is possible to make people give up, if you whack them hard enough, and 'hard enough' is not equal to genocide.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
But, to clarify, if it really were true that the Palestinians were a monolithic bloc of hatred who actually would have to be killed to the last infant to make them cease launching rockets, then yes, I think Israel would be justified in doing so.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: However many it takes to make the Palestinians stop.
I think that there is only one way to guarantee that the Palestinians stop - and if you find that acceptable, then I think we differ substantially in our axioms of morality.
Not necessarily.
You could, theoretically, remove everyone from the area forceably, nuke the area until it becomes uninhabitable for multiple generations, and then offer both sides multiple options for new places to live.
Not exactly moral, or feasible, but it would get the fighting to stop.
(emphasis mine)
I doubt it. It might serve to unite the Palestinians and the Israelis, though, if only against a common enemy.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: But, to clarify, if it really were true that the Palestinians were a monolithic bloc of hatred who actually would have to be killed to the last infant to make them cease launching rockets, then yes, I think Israel would be justified in doing so.
This is my last post tonight; a few comments/questions: 1)I don't find your examples compelling. Do you have examples where a grass roots freedom force or terrorist group was beaten down?
2)Given a) that it is in the interest for others in the region to maintain resentment against Israel, b) that the PLO, even when willing, was unable to prevent suicide attacks (so why believe Hamas could better?) what would Israel have to ensure further rockets won't be launched? If you were in command, when would you say stop?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I do not believe the PLO was ever willing, except as a very temporary (a week or two) measure. Which I believe they managed, more than once.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:1)I don't find your examples compelling. Do you have examples where a grass roots freedom force or terrorist group was beaten down?
Yes: The Werewolves in Germany never amounted to anything. Do you have any examples where such a group accomplished anything without a large supportive population?
quote:2)Given a) that it is in the interest for others in the region to maintain resentment against Israel, b) that the PLO, even when willing, was unable to prevent suicide attacks (so why believe Hamas could better?) what would Israel have to ensure further rockets won't be launched?
There haven't been any suicide attacks for quite some time, to my knowledge. It's all in the rockets these days. Never mind whether Hamas can prevent them, is Hamas capable of organising them? If not, why would another group be capable?
quote:If you were in command, when would you say stop?
When the Palestinians rose in revolt against their Hamas rulers, and installed a regime willing to negotiate.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I've already had this discussion in this thread, but to recap: The Germans, in 1945, stopped with something like 7% casualties. (More if you just count males of fighting age, of course.) That is, they did not merely stop the current round of fighting as they had done in 1918, but really renounced the goal of becoming Europe's dominant power. The Russians, likewise, stopped in 1917 after taking something like 5 or 6 percent casualties - not merely suing for peace and saying "We'll get you later when we've built up our strength again", but literally millions of Russians throwing down their guns and saying "Sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home". The French came very, very close to the same thing, and the Italian army never delivered another effective attack after the 10th battle of the Izonso. (Or 11th, or 13th, whichever. They were fighting for that river forever.) It is possible to make people give up, if you whack them hard enough, and 'hard enough' is not equal to genocide.
I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but for the American Civil War, it took something like 40% casualties to get the south to stop fighting, and even then they didn't really give up, they just shifted tactics from outright military action to guerilla attacks that lasted, in one form or another, almost another 100 years. Sherman at the outset of the war said that it wouldn't be over until 250,000 Confederate men died. It was a remarkably accurate estimate.
I do think that there is a point at which a people will stop fighting. I think it's a moveable bar with every culture and with different conflicts that requires a certain number of dead people before everyone is willing to call it quits and go home. I think that number will be very, very high for this particular conflict, especially given that a very, very small number of people can provoke such a large response from Israel. The number of people that need to sign on and stay signed on to a peace agreement is very, very high. Especially in a culture that has been indoctrinated to glorify death in a way that few modern conflicts have ( perhaps of the Japanese in WWII are an example), it will take a large number of such deaths to tip the scale from "sacrificing for the worthy cause" to "a cost too high." So long as they think they are sacrificing for a worthy cause, at least a small portion won't give up, and a small portion is all it takes to provoke Israel.
The answer for Israel, by historical standards I think, seems to be "go big or go home." Killing a couple thousand Palestinians is just going to piss the survivors off, turn world opinion against them, probably kill a good number of their own troops through attrition in an urban conflict, and at the end of the day they'll have to go home without their objectives complete, which is even more problematic because during this particular attack, they really don't have any achievable objectives to speak of.
If you want an example, look at what happened when they tried to smash Hezbollah in Lebanon. In many ways it was disastrous for the IDF, because of the long term political effects in Lebanon, because of their inability to actually complete their objectives, and because of the casualties.
And so I come back to Sherman and "go big or go home." If they want to break Palestinian will to fight through casualties in the way you suggest KoM, it'll require a big death toll. If they aren't going to do that, they might as well not even bother, as it'll just poke the bear without any tangible gain except some sort of morale boost, perhaps (which isn't actually tangible).
To offer an offbeat analogy: I think this invasion is Aragorn assaulting the Black Gates. What they really need is someone to throw the ring in Mt. Doom.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: There haven't been any suicide attacks for quite some time, to my knowledge.
There haven't been any successful suicide attacks recently.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"...be sure to include all the casualties from the rockets that have been launched from the region for the past 10 years."
According to Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs list of victims since 27Sep2000, 15*Israelis have died in rocket attacks. Looking at the list, I'd guesstimate an upper limit of 107 Israelis wounded: Palestinian rockets seem to produce a lower ratio of wounded per killed than the ~7to1 average.
The video Children of Hamas is a must watch, too. I think the link to it on the above page is broken.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but for the American Civil War, it took something like 40% casualties to get the south to stop fighting, and even then they didn't really give up, they just shifted tactics from outright military action to guerilla attacks that lasted, in one form or another, almost another 100 years.
40% in the actual fighting armies, possibly. Nowhere near that in men of fighting age; something like 8-10% of the total population, which is the number I was giving for the Germans and Russians. Let's try to compare apples to apples, here.
And what guerrilla action are you referring to? There was never any guerrilla movement in the South whose goal was secession or even the restoration of slavery. Keeping the blacks down, yes; but that was never an issue in the civil war. The question was whether they should be slaves, not whether they had equal rights; neither side believed anything of the sort.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:1)I don't find your examples compelling. Do you have examples where a grass roots freedom force or terrorist group was beaten down?
Yes: The Werewolves in Germany never amounted to anything. Do you have any examples where such a group accomplished anything without a large supportive population?
I'm taking this as a 'no'.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
To reply to the tone of the original post, I found bitterly amusing a mention in a bbc report of a Norweigian doctor who claimed he'd seen hundreds of casualties but only two fighters, with all the implicit criticism of the statement.
Now, aside from the fact that Hamas makes a habit of striking from and hiding in civilian neighborhoods, incurring these civilian casualties, my question for this doctor was, "How the hell would you know?"
Do the fighters have HAMAS tattooed on their foreheads? Do they show up in the hospital with their AKs chained to them, or still holding their rocket launchers? Or does this doctor know by sight all of the Hamas 'militants' in his area?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but for the American Civil War, it took something like 40% casualties to get the south to stop fighting, and even then they didn't really give up, they just shifted tactics from outright military action to guerilla attacks that lasted, in one form or another, almost another 100 years.
40% in the actual fighting armies, possibly. Nowhere near that in men of fighting age; something like 8-10% of the total population, which is the number I was giving for the Germans and Russians. Let's try to compare apples to apples, here.
And what guerrilla action are you referring to? There was never any guerrilla movement in the South whose goal was secession or even the restoration of slavery. Keeping the blacks down, yes; but that was never an issue in the civil war. The question was whether they should be slaves, not whether they had equal rights; neither side believed anything of the sort.
Indeed, total Confederate casualties are only roughly 25-29% of their total standing forces. Is my count only 3% casualties of their population in total.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:1)I don't find your examples compelling. Do you have examples where a grass roots freedom force or terrorist group was beaten down?
Yes: The Werewolves in Germany never amounted to anything. Do you have any examples where such a group accomplished anything without a large supportive population?
I'm taking this as a 'no'.
I can see you are a very effective debater; when anyone gives a data point that disagrees with your thesis, you simply ignore it. Clever! I wish I'd thought of it!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I should point out that totalitarian states were such as the Soviet Union somewhat effective in squashing any resistance movement. As for a specfiic example I believe Franco's spain squashed the Communist resistance in Spain which had after the civil war continued for a while. I think iraq effectively crushed the Kurds after 91' and Iran after the Soviet Union pulled out crushed all of the Pro Soviet aligned factions and resistence in northern Iran.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:1)I don't find your examples compelling. Do you have examples where a grass roots freedom force or terrorist group was beaten down?
Yes: The Werewolves in Germany never amounted to anything. Do you have any examples where such a group accomplished anything without a large supportive population?
I'm taking this as a 'no'.
I can see you are a very effective debater; when anyone gives a data point that disagrees with your thesis, you simply ignore it. Clever! I wish I'd thought of it!
My bad - I had forgotten this was the name of the post WWII Nazi guerrillas, and thought you were being facetious. I (obviously) don't know much about them, so will read up a bit before commenting on the aptness of this analogy.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: However many it takes to make the Palestinians stop.
I don't know, I'm not sure anyone can ever be entitled to kill that many people, but that's not why I'm here.
I think the real problem with this situation lies not in the Middle East, but with the rest of the world. After WWII, the world felt guilty for allowing 6 million Jews to die horrible deaths in Nazi death camps, so we gave the Jews a home and the ability to defend themselves. It was our penance for allowing such an atrocity, and yet, our solution created more problems. Soon, we began to realize the plight we had visited upon the Palestinians, and thus, our guilt shifted from the Jews to the Palestinians, whom some began to view as the victims of a terrible mistake. Now, of course, we have the US blocking any attempt by the UN to condemn Israel, a world willing to allow the Palestinians to bomb Israel daily, a group of people who voted for a known terrorist organization as their leaders, and a world that enables both sides.
How do we expect to solve the crisis in the Middle East when we can't even get our own act together? See, Israel and Palestine are caught in the middle of this giant tug-of-war, and neither will be able to solve their problems until we solve our own issues. I like the idea of this being Aragorn attacking the black gates, the problem for me is that world can't decide who is Frodo, Samwise, or Gollum, and until we do, Aragorn will continually attack the black gate.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Yes: The Werewolves in Germany never amounted to anything. Do you have any examples where such a group accomplished anything without a large supportive population?
After a quick scan I have a few questions: 1)Did the werewolves actually formally surrender? 2)Is it more likely that the movement died out because of the harsh measures imposed on communities that contained activists, or because a massive reconstruction effort was underway, or both?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I was under impression that the Werwolf soldiers were more propaganda than reality.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I was under impression that the Werwolf soldiers were more propaganda than reality.
Yes. That is precisely my point. The most skilled rhetorician of the twentieth century, directing the most intrusive state apparatus ever, using an ideology which produced a large number of actual, no-insult-intended fanatics, and fighting for a genuine national goal, with plenty of time to see the incoming conventional defeat and prepare for it, was still not able to form a credible guerrilla/terrorist threat when the majority of the population were convinced that the goal (German domination of Europe) was just plain unachievable. This guerrilla movement was so thoroughly defeated by purely conventional means that it never even got started!
That's what happens when you really convince people that their war aims are unattainable. Not "They got the better of us this time". Not "We were stabbed in the back". Not "Their rifles are better, we'll have to accept this temporary setback while we make some of our own." In place of all these, "We gave it our best shot using all the force available, no wavering, no lack of sacrifice, and there just isn't that much strength in us."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Also, to multiply examples from Germany, how about the Rote Armee Fraktion? No support in the population, a few atrocities, then nothing. The Weathermen: No support in the population, a few atrocities, nothing. The various right-wing terrorists that have set off bombs or shot up schools, in both the US and Europe: No support, one atrocity, then nothing. Any number of guerrilla armies in South America: No support, several years of living in the forest and supporting themselves by banditry, then nothing.
You could probably find more examples, but there's a selection bias at work, because it's rare for unsuccessful groups to become famous. You only hear about the ones that had support, and therefore got to the point of defeating their enemies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I dunno, look at Ireland. After 800 years, overwhelming military force still hasn't quashed the Republican movement. The only thing that has shown any progress toward peace is acknowledging the guerrillas and allowing them a political path to achieve their goals. Harsh measures have only served to inflame resistance.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
The trouble with the comparison, to me, is precisely that while the Werewolves were little more than a concept on paper created for propaganda, Hamas is an established network with exterior funding. It's a pretty serious disanalogy in your argument.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I dunno, look at Ireland. After 800 years, overwhelming military force still hasn't quashed the Republican movement. The only thing that has shown any progress toward peace is acknowledging the guerrillas and allowing them a political path to achieve their goals. Harsh measures have only served to inflame resistance.
There is no continuity between Irish resistance to English rule in 1300, 1600, 1920, and 1970. They are quite separate organisations every time. And I would also argue that harsh measures were not in fact used in 1920 and 1970, at the level I'm talking about here. Recall that Germany was fairly literally flattened, no stone left on stone. Six years of complete mobilisation, millions killed. And all this on top of their very similar experience in the Great War, which failed to convince. To call what was done in Ireland 'harsh measures' is a bit of an exaggeration in this context.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I don't have the numbers off the top of my head, but for the American Civil War, it took something like 40% casualties to get the south to stop fighting, and even then they didn't really give up, they just shifted tactics from outright military action to guerilla attacks that lasted, in one form or another, almost another 100 years.
40% in the actual fighting armies, possibly. Nowhere near that in men of fighting age; something like 8-10% of the total population, which is the number I was giving for the Germans and Russians. Let's try to compare apples to apples, here.
And what guerrilla action are you referring to? There was never any guerrilla movement in the South whose goal was secession or even the restoration of slavery. Keeping the blacks down, yes; but that was never an issue in the civil war. The question was whether they should be slaves, not whether they had equal rights; neither side believed anything of the sort.
I'm not sure how those numbers jive considering something like 90% of the male fighting age population of the south actually served at some point. I'll have to do some checking.
No, there wasn't post-war guerilla action devoted to secession or the reintroduction of slavery, but that's just my point. After they accepted that slavery wouldn't be a reality, they just modified their goals slightly. The South spent the 30's through the 50's using a constant stream of violent action and political action to achieve their aims, and that resulted in a war that they lost. After the war, Johnson allowed them to pretty much return to the status quo. They voted back in the same people to power in their government, they created draconian Black Codes that restricted the movement of blacks and their rights, and created ridiculously strict contracts that technically allowed blacks to choose where they worked, they were slaves in some sense in every way except name. When Congressional military reconstruction took over, things were radically altered. Contract laws were changed, amendments were passed, black senators were elected in Mississippi, and Republicans took over every elected office in the South. The result was a massive terror campaign that drove blacks away from the polls, killed elected officials, and saw the downfall of reconstruction.
My point thus, is that after the war ended, they were fine with it, until actual change came, at which point they started doing the exact same things they did before the war started, just in a different way, and for slightly different aims. And for the next 100 years, they systematically repressed the same group of people, and engaged in terror campaigns in some small way, until they were finally stopped in the 1960's.
And there were plenty of people in the north who were willing to fight for equality of rights for blacks, not the least of which was Lincoln. The population as a whole wasn't on board, and that's why it fell apart in the 70's, but Republicans in Congress made sure it got done as a condition of readmission into the Union. They just didn't stay vigilant.
The connection to Palestine/Israel, is that even if you kill enough people to get them to surrender, you're not necessarily home. It just means the dynamic of the war changes.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Ever read "The Man with the Iron Heart"(title?) by Harry Turtledove? It supposes that if Heydrich had lived an actual resistence would have taken place and successfully with cleverly drawn parallels force the US to pull out.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The population of the CSA was 9.1 million people, having roughly only 1.2 million in uniform at the height of the war, of which only roughly including wounded, 310,000 were casualties.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Those numbers, which are off slightly I think, fail to represent a lot of things. I'll post something more substantive when I have numbers in front of me.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Speaking of numbers, I thought these were fascinating. And a little appalling. Those who think Israel should be helping out the people with whom they are at war should like this. Personally, I don't.
Posted by Danlo the Wild (Member # 5378) on :
In the Ft. Worth Star telegram, someone wrote that because the children grow up to be Hamas, there is no such thing as Palestine Civilians. Everyone in Palestine is a terrorist.
Great world we live in.
Maybe Madoff was a Hamas spy. Sounds good, eh?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
This is some excellent commentary on what's happening right now, as is this. I know Jeff Goldberg, and I rarely agree with him about the middle east, but he's spot on this time.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The connection to Palestine/Israel, is that even if you kill enough people to get them to surrender, you're not necessarily home. It just means the dynamic of the war changes.
In the first place, I disagree with your reading of the postwar history. Second-class citizenship is nowhere near equivalent to slavery. But more to the point, this does not contradict what I said. I stated that there exists a point at which people give up. I did not state that this is the same as the point at which they surrender militarily, as exemplified by the Germans in 1918. And what's more, you'll note that when change did come, in the sixties, only an extremely tiny minority tried to resist it by real force, and they were rapidly rooted out; that's because the experiment of armed insurrection had been tried, and failed in a massive, convincing sort of way.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Those analogies don't quite work. In the Warsaw analogy, it isn't the Jews that are in the ghetto. The situations aren't the same. The only with the little guy throwing rocks, the article seems to portray the big guy with the gun as just minding his own business and the little guy attacking for no reason. Whether the Palestinians reason is a good one is another question, but they didn't just pick some random big guy to annoy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Second-class citizenship is nowhere near equivalent to slavery.
Well I won't make that judgment for all second class citizenship statuses in history, or all forms of slavery, but in post civil war America, directly after the war, it was pretty damned close. Then things got better for a decade, and when reconstruction failed, it went sharply back the other way. If you want to take this to a different thread, I could probably ratttle off a four or five page essay off the top of my head on the subject, but this isn't really the place for it.
quote:And what's more, you'll note that when change did come, in the sixties, only an extremely tiny minority tried to resist it by real force, and they were rapidly rooted out; that's because the experiment of armed insurrection had been tried, and failed in a massive, convincing sort of way.
I'm not convinced that that is the main reason why. It was a numbers game. The people who were angry enough to actually take up arms were drastically few in number, and resorted to petty local terrorism of varying kinds, and were hunted down by law enforcement. The national wasn't as sectional for a lot of reasons, and a black diaspora of sorts had taken place over the preceding 60-80 years. They didn't resort to arms because America was a fundamentally different place a hundred years after the civil war, not because they all picked up a history book and said "huh, well THAT won't work."
The solution in our case was generational. The south I don't think EVER surrendered as a people, not their ideas. Militarily they gave in, but they never really gave up on their cause, and they took it to the grave. Things only changed when that generation died off and the next one came into being in the post war world. To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville, 'America reinvents itself every generation.'
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I really didn't enjoy the parallel to Warsaw.
I don't appreciate everyone who tries to champion the holocaust for their cause. This is nothing like the holocaust, not to the Israelis and not to the Palestinians. It cheapens things to use the holocaust as a political tool.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The people who were angry enough to actually take up arms were drastically few in number, and resorted to petty local terrorism of varying kinds, and were hunted down by law enforcement.
There are two ways of interpreting this fact. Let me restate it first: The number of people who were angry enough to resort to violence, and optimistic about violence working, was very small. This is a Venn diagram. You believe that the first set was small; I believe that the second set was small.
But you are also, I think, exaggerating what it means to give up a goal. The population of the South, around 1870, might have collectively thought that it would be nice to have slavery back, or be independent of Washington, or whatever. But they were not willing to fight for that - not even a small minority, enough to form a guerrilla group. They were really convinced that such action would be futile. The desire for it eventually went away by generational osmosis, as you outline, but the conviction that "this can't be done" is the important thing.
Posted by Jhai (Member # 5633) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:And what's more, you'll note that when change did come, in the sixties, only an extremely tiny minority tried to resist it by real force, and they were rapidly rooted out; that's because the experiment of armed insurrection had been tried, and failed in a massive, convincing sort of way.
I'm not convinced that that is the main reason why. It was a numbers game. The people who were angry enough to actually take up arms were drastically few in number, and resorted to petty local terrorism of varying kinds, and were hunted down by law enforcement.
I think this is exactly KoM's point. There weren't enough people angry about it because, as a whole, they'd realized that getting angry and starting a fight with the federal government didn't turn out well.
If you've spoken with many Germans, or lived in Germany, you (general) would realize that the German people, as a whole, are still haunted by WW2 and the Holocaust. The current generation doesn't feel guilt, exactly, for the war, but they are quite aware of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The people who were angry enough to actually take up arms were drastically few in number, and resorted to petty local terrorism of varying kinds, and were hunted down by law enforcement.
There are two ways of interpreting this fact. Let me restate it first: The number of people who were angry enough to resort to violence, and optimistic about violence working, was very small. This is a Venn diagram. You believe that the first set was small; I believe that the second set was small.
But you are also, I think, exaggerating what it means to give up a goal. The population of the South, around 1870, might have collectively thought that it would be nice to have slavery back, or be independent of Washington, or whatever. But they were not willing to fight for that - not even a small minority, enough to form a guerrilla group. They were really convinced that such action would be futile. The desire for it eventually went away by generational osmosis, as you outline, but the conviction that "this can't be done" is the important thing.
I don't think that being optimistic about achieving goals by violence or thinking it can be done is as important a factor as you seem to think. Quite often, the struggle is its own goal - the hopelessness of a cause is not a deterrent. (Again, from a study of Irish history.)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Who do you have in mind as taking up arms without some sort of belief in eventual victory?
Edit: And also, doesn't that tend to reinforce my point, that people actually gave up their goal of slavery? If belief in victory is not important, then we must conclude that a different factor changed, presumably belief in the importance of race.
[ January 07, 2009, 07:23 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Check out The People's Cube. This one was particularly on point today.
This is some excellent commentary on what's happening right now, as is this. I know Jeff Goldberg, and I rarely agree with him about the middle east, but he's spot on this time.
Haven't been through all the stats yet but, "0 wounded Palestinians allowed by Hamas to cross from Gaza into Egypt for treatment." Is a bit inaccurate. Egypt isn't allowing any Palestinians to cross through the border, in fact they kill them if they try.
edit: changed the word "into" into "through" as it's pretty hard to get into a border.
[ January 07, 2009, 07:31 PM: Message edited by: BlackBlade ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:The people who were angry enough to actually take up arms were drastically few in number, and resorted to petty local terrorism of varying kinds, and were hunted down by law enforcement.
There are two ways of interpreting this fact. Let me restate it first: The number of people who were angry enough to resort to violence, and optimistic about violence working, was very small. This is a Venn diagram. You believe that the first set was small; I believe that the second set was small.
But you are also, I think, exaggerating what it means to give up a goal. The population of the South, around 1870, might have collectively thought that it would be nice to have slavery back, or be independent of Washington, or whatever. But they were not willing to fight for that - not even a small minority, enough to form a guerrilla group. They were really convinced that such action would be futile. The desire for it eventually went away by generational osmosis, as you outline, but the conviction that "this can't be done" is the important thing.
My point as it relates to Palestine and Israel, is that while the South DID give up on the idea of retaining slavery, they really only slightly shifted their goals. They didn't give up entirely. Giving up entirely would have meant allowing the North's attempted rewiring of the southern economy and southern cultural fabric to take hold and then continue. Instead they licked their wounds for a decade, and then systematically undid everything the Republicans tried to push on them during the period from 1865 to 1875 (roughly). Acknowledging that slavery wasn't possible anymore, they set about remaking their society into something as close to antebellum society as they possibly could, and they were pretty damned good at it.
In other words, at the end of the war they maybe agreed to give up 2% of what they believed in, in order for peace, but held on to the other 98%. Slavery was hardly the only point of contention in the war. Move that over to Palestine and Israel. Palestine might renounce some of what they've been doing, like Qassams and suicide bombings (though there hasn't been one in awhile from what I understand), and they might agree to live side by side with Israel...but while that might seem big, there are still a LOT of other things that need to be agreed upon, and a lot of old emnities that have to die with the people who hold them, before the aims of the current conflict are truly renounced.
Politically the parallels go even further I think. Both the South and the Palestinian people are kept in a virtual strangehold by their governments. Both Hamas and the Democrats in the south amped up the people on false threats and fears in order to get themselves voted into power, and kept alive the specter of Israeli/Yankee oppression as a means to keep the people in a constant state of heightened agitation, which makes them far more pliable.
Jhai -
I think the difference is, I don't think the number of people who were willing to take up arms was low because of futility. I think that even if in the 60's they felt they actually could have won what they wanted through force of arms, they wouldn't have. National unity in the 1960's wasn't even close to the lows of the 1860's.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: Check out The People's Cube. This one was particularly on point today.
This is some excellent commentary on what's happening right now, as is this. I know Jeff Goldberg, and I rarely agree with him about the middle east, but he's spot on this time.
Haven't been through all the stats yet but, "0 wounded Palestinians allowed by Hamas to cross from Gaza into Egypt for treatment." Is a bit inaccurate. Egypt isn't allowing any Palestinians to cross through the border, in fact they kill them if they try.
Many of the stats on that website just scream "cherry-picked."
I especially liked the category "Iran-backed Hamas Rocket, Mortar Attacks and Nuclear Developments". That certainly isn't ambiguous at all.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Maybe not too cherry-picked, the 28 total deaths from rockets fired from Gaza since 2001 might be an attempt to put the small scale of the conflict into perspective. (As a comparison, annually thats about the same rate of deaths as by lightning in Texas between 1990 to 2003)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Lightning isn't purposeful. Comparing the two is bizarre.
And Juxtapose, why would you expect ambiguity? There's nothing ambiguous about the malice of the Arabs in Gaza.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
It wasn't a criticism, I'm just saying that if I were trying to one-sidedly talk up the case for a war I'd probably have left that part out (or better yet, inflated it somehow) especially after noting that there were more than 10,000+ rocket attacks in the same period which IS a more impressive and dangerous looking number.
I only picked lighting because its a cause of death with a similar rate of death, most causes of death (accidents at work, falls, car accidents, suicides, etc.) that quickly came to my mind would have rates of death far higher and thus would be unsuitable as a point of comparison.
In fact looking back, lightning in Texas is an unsuitable candidate for comparison simply because the population of Texas is roughly four times that of Israel. Although *mathematically*, the rate of death should then be similar to that of lightning deaths of evangelical protestants in Texas since they comprise about a quarter of the population (Hmmm, I mean if the lightning only hit them).
[ January 08, 2009, 11:04 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's nothing ambiguous about the malice of the Arabs in Gaza.
More accurately: there's nothing ambiguous about the malice of some of the Arabs in Gaza.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
what do you mean "some" most is more likely.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: what do you mean "some" most is more likely.
By 'some' I mean 'a subset'.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: And Juxtapose, why would you expect ambiguity? There's nothing ambiguous about the malice of the Arabs in Gaza.
Sorry, my tongue was in my cheek and it probably didn't make it through the tubes.
The phrase seems to conflate Iran's nuclear development and backing of Hamas to suggest that Iran has or will arm Hamas with nuclear weapons. In fact there's so little reason to bring up Iran's nuclear ambitions in this particular discussion that I can only infer that the ambiguity is intended.
The organization in general has an axe to grind. Which is fine, I just wanted to mention it.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by natural_mystic:
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: There's nothing ambiguous about the malice of the Arabs in Gaza.
More accurately: there's nothing ambiguous about the malice of some of the Arabs in Gaza.
True. There've been some sane ones there. They've mostly been killed as collaboraters.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: I've already had this discussion in this thread, but to recap: The Germans, in 1945, stopped with something like 7% casualties. (More if you just count males of fighting age, of course.) That is, they did not merely stop the current round of fighting as they had done in 1918, but really renounced the goal of becoming Europe's dominant power. The Russians, likewise, stopped in 1917 after taking something like 5 or 6 percent casualties - not merely suing for peace and saying "We'll get you later when we've built up our strength again", but literally millions of Russians throwing down their guns and saying "Sod this for a game of soldiers, I'm going home". The French came very, very close to the same thing, and the Italian army never delivered another effective attack after the 10th battle of the Izonso. (Or 11th, or 13th, whichever. They were fighting for that river forever.) It is possible to make people give up, if you whack them hard enough, and 'hard enough' is not equal to genocide.
Revisiting the 'whack them hard enough (WTHE)' thesis, what do you make of the fact that the Soviet Union suffered worse losses that Nazi Germany in WWII, but did not give up? The point being that depopulation rates are only one aspect of whacking hard (though, presumably, when it gets high enough, its importance increases). I wonder if the other strategic goals necessary to WTHE without resorting to massive depopulation can be met. Given that much of the Hamas leadership is reportedly based in Syria I'm not optimistic.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Russia however won WWII, got their revenge and everything and had a significantly higher reserve of manpower the entire time, the moment Moscow was saved and Stalingrad won the war turned rapidly in their favour oh sure, Germans could have won desively at Kursk but that would what, delay the way for a small while?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Would have made a bigger difference if they'd won the Battle of the Bulge in the Western theater. They might have been able to shift enough troops over to protect Fortress Germany, but two fronts was one too many for them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I don't see how the Ardennes Offensive is supposed to help them with that.
Getting back to the Russians, as Blayne says, they won. Moreover, their country, while badly damaged, was not levelled with the Earth in the way that Germany was. War damage is not measured in casualties alone, bad as those were. Further, at that time the Russians really did believe in Communism, and it was not discredited with defeat in battle as happened to Nazism; if some utter miracle had saved the Germans after the Russian armies had crossed the Oder, Nazism would have recovered as well. And finally, the existence of some threshold of casualties which makes people give up does not imply that this threshold is the same everywhere.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
Getting back to the Russians, as Blayne says, they won. Moreover, their country, while badly damaged, was not levelled with the Earth in the way that Germany was.
This was my point. To reiterate: it's all very well making ex post facto remarks about the level of depopulation that occurs when a country has been whacked hard enough, but in the Soviet Union we have an example of a country that was whacked extremely hard (at least insofar as depopulation is a measure of this), but they continued fighting. The moral is: simple depopulation reaching the level experienced by the Soviets might not be sufficient to WTHE in the absence of other factors. Returning to the current conflict, I am not these other factors can be met. I have not heard that Israel is bombing Damascus, where apparently much of Hamas' leadership is. Decimating people in the hope that they turn against Hamas, I think, is a long shot - hoping that, say, someone who loses their child who has never even met an Israeli to an Israeli bomb will blame Hamas instead of the Israelis is not so likely. Destroying the rocket launchers is a worthy goal, but a very temporary measure in the greater scheme of things, as it would require incredibly well-manned borders to prevent their replenishment.
At the end of the day I worry that this conflict will have accomplished nothing more than the further destruction of the already rundown Gazan infrastructure, a significant loss of life in Gaza, some Israeli losses and a rise in al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah etc. recruitment in the Middle East.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Would have made a bigger difference if they'd won the Battle of the Bulge in the Western theater. They might have been able to shift enough troops over to protect Fortress Germany, but two fronts was one too many for them.
by 1944 the war was already over Lytharn, heck it was over even before D-Day. Operation Bagration broke the back of the Germany army within days of D-Day and Germany redeployed what? 9 understrengthed under equiped exhausted divisions to the western threatre when the Soviets had even before then outnumbered the germans heavily in every category? All Ardennes would have accomplished is allowing Russia to occupy more of Germany.
WWII was decided on the eastern front, 80% of German casualties were in the east, it was the Red Army that crushed the Germans (Lend Lease helped considerably). What would have 100,000 troops from France effectively done in the Eastern front when Russia had a million or two more then germany, thousands of tanks and guns more, tens of thousands of planes more then germany? I think in some cases the Russians had 150 Artillery peices per square mile to Germany's 3.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage taker guilty of murder even though the policeman fired the fatal shot.
The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every human shield that is killed by Israeli self-defence measures is the responsibility of Hamas, but you wouldn't know that from watching the media coverage.
The CNN strategy seems to work better, at least in some parts of the world, against Israel that it would against other nations. There is much more protest -- and fury -- directed against Israel when it inadvertently kills approximately 100 civilians in a just war of self-defence, than against Arab and Muslim nations and groups that deliberately kill far more civilians for no legitimate reason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Brayne Bladley -
Well we'll never know for sure, but without Hitler micromanaging them into defeat, and with enough men and material to keep the war machine going (like for example, not losing the oil fields in Romania to American forces advancing from Italy), they could have turned the eastern front into enough of a war of attrition to stall or halt Russian advances to at least hold onto Germany. It was American fighters and bombers that broke Germany's industrial core and secured air superiority over Germany itself. Without that, Germany might have been able to forestall the end of the war long enough to take advantage of late in the war technological advances. Seemingly small things can have tremendous ripple effects.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage taker guilty of murder even though the policeman fired the fatal shot.
The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every human shield that is killed by Israeli self-defence measures is the responsibility of Hamas, but you wouldn't know that from watching the media coverage.
The CNN strategy seems to work better, at least in some parts of the world, against Israel that it would against other nations. There is much more protest -- and fury -- directed against Israel when it inadvertently kills approximately 100 civilians in a just war of self-defence, than against Arab and Muslim nations and groups that deliberately kill far more civilians for no legitimate reason.
QFT. Thanks, Rivka.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not a huge Dershowitz fan, but sometimes he's right on the money.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
They forget the usual rules of morality and law. For example, when a murderer takes a hostage and fires from behind his human shield, and a policeman, in an effort to stop the shooting accidentally kills the hostage, the law of every country holds the hostage taker guilty of murder even though the policeman fired the fatal shot.
The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians. Every human shield that is killed by Israeli self-defence measures is the responsibility of Hamas, but you wouldn't know that from watching the media coverage.
This is overly simplistic for two reasons: 1) To most, it is immaterial who is responsible for the civilians' deaths, only that these deaths are occurring. Even if Hamas is 100% morally culpable, without Israel's action the deaths would not occur.
2) Numbers matter. In the policemen scenario, suppose instead of a hostage, the murderer held a remote control with the button compressed such that if decompressed (as would happen if the murderer were fatally shot) would trigger the remote control which in turn would set off an explosive that would kill 100 hostages in an unknown location. The policeman might not be morally culpable for their deaths, but maybe he shouldn't return fire and risk causing them.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
If you wave your hands and say
a) Hitler does no micromanagement b) Romania is somehow held c) They gain a large influx of men and machinery d) The Western Allies stop bombing the Ruhr
then sure, you might be able to cobble together some sort of German victory. But to get all this from the Ardennes offensive is not possible in the real world of actual men and machinery.
And apart from that, where do you get this bizarre idea that Romania was lost to American troops from Italy? This makes no sense whatsoever. The Allied forces in Italy never advanced any further north than Rome, and Romania is nowhere near Italy anyway; it's on the other side of the Balkans! Romania was occupied by Russian troops in the course of their advance.
Edit: I see my recollection was wrong, the Italian armies did get north of Rome eventually, reaching Venice in early 1945. But when the Russians were occupying Romania around September 1944 they were still no more than halfway from Rome to Venice, and stuck on the Gothic line. By the time of the Ardennes offensive Romania was completely occupied by the Red Army.
[ January 09, 2009, 03:23 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote: The same is true of the law of war. The use of human shields, in the way Hamas uses the civilian population of Gaza, is a war crime -- as is its firing of rockets at Israeli civilians ...
I'm going to deliberately not comment on the Israeli-Gaza war in this case or on the morality of the situation, but militarily this is a very old dynamic.
While the global media spin is new, this is a very old story about how you conduct guerilla warfare. Of course you hide amongst a supportive civilian population, of course you don't engage like a normal conventional army, and obviously you kill civilian collaborators.
This is pretty standard stuff whether you're fighting Imperial Japan, Nazis, or the colonial British and whether its considered a war crime, well that rather depends on who wins and gets to write the history.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
KoM -
I never said the US Army occupied Romania. I was talking about the Army Air Corps bombing the infrastructure, distrubution centers and oil supplies into uselessness. For example, the oil refineries and storage tanks at Ploesti.
And there's no way of knowing the effect that those supplies being cut off before the Red Army actually occupied the country had on Nazi forces.
You're really no fun at all.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:losing the oil fields in Romania to American forces advancing from Italy
This is not a good way to describe bombers operating out of Italian airfields. Also, 'uselessness' is a bit of an exaggeration. The oilfields were damaged, certainly, but they kept on producing. In any case, how does a better performance in the Ardennes Offensive - fought in December 1944 - have any effect on this bombing, which began in August 1943, and ended presumably in October-ish of 1944, when the Russians occupied Romania?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The German army was clearly defeated by Ardennes, Ardennes was simply its last dying breath. Bagration had a few months prior destroyed the ad hoc remains of army group center and during the ardennes (during) the Red army swarmed over the vistula and swept away the remains like a rags wiping away dust. The Germans had one tough last stand at the Sadlow Hieghts outside Berlin but the war was clearly lost.
It is rather inconcievable that after Stalingrad and Kursk where the Germans lost some of their finest corps of men and officers and their irreplaceable AFV's respectively could the Germans "won" the war, they were outnumbered 10 to 1 in the Ukraine, the Red army bested them in every single category, aircraft, tanks, guns, manpower reserves it was simply a matter of redirecting their attacks once the Germans committed their reserves. The germans had fought not one offencive battle in the eastern front after kursk making it inconcievable that some victory in France would have done anything more then bought them time as they clearly lacked the reosurces to regarrison France to keep the Allies from slowly building up their strength there and clearly lacked the resources even if they threw every single corps, division and army on the rhine to the east it would not have been enough they were falling back and getting encircled on every front the russians advanced on. The Germans only effective resistence was in fortified urban centers the countryside the Germans were easily brushed aside.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:This is not a good way to describe bombers operating out of Italian airfields.
Well I could have been more specific, but it's not incorrect. They, the oil refineries and storage tanks, were lost (destroyed), in Romania (in Romania) to American forces (the Army Air Corps operating out of captured air bases) from Italy (the air bases were in Italy).
I'm not responsible for your assumptions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Here is an excellent article written by Jimmy Carter on the history behind the current conflict. It is definitely worth reading.
ANTICIPATED RESPONSE BY AN AS-YET UNNAMED DEMOGRAPHIC
[quote]ugh jimmy carter augh ugh hiss boo[/url]
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Said unnamed demographic doesn't usually mess up their quote code.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:This is not a good way to describe bombers operating out of Italian airfields.
Well I could have been more specific, but it's not incorrect. They, the oil refineries and storage tanks, were lost (destroyed), in Romania (in Romania) to American forces (the Army Air Corps operating out of captured air bases) from Italy (the air bases were in Italy).
I'm not responsible for your assumptions.
*Snort* You know, at some point you should just admit you screwed up and get on with your life. What happened to that rather key word, 'advancing' (from Italy)?
In any case, none of this explains how the Ardennes offensive is going to save either Romania or Germany.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Here is an excellent article written by Jimmy Carter on the history behind the current conflict. It is definitely worth reading.
Jimmy Carter has shown himself to be horribly biased about the Middle East, labeling Israel as an apartheid regime. I'd be shocked if he didn't condemn Israel.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
im fairly certain that the damage done to the romanian oil fields had only a relatively minor effect on the war, 1943 yes? Surely didn't stop Kursk from happening and even if it happened afterwards the Germans completely lacked the troops, the reserves or the vehicals to mount any operations aside from "tactical" corps sized counter attacks against Russian breaches and the redployment of said remaining reserves to meet them.
It also surely didnt effect Ardennes yes, they lacked fuel but it didnt stop them from concievably stockpiling enough to make the offencive, they just made the mistake of leaving them on the wrong side of the rhine. But by this time they're usage/demand of oil so outweighed supply even counting romania that it hardly mattered. and I am also fairly certain that BY the Ardennes as KoM pointed out Romania was already occupied by the Soviet Union.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Jimmy Carter has shown himself to be horribly biased about the Middle East, labeling Israel as an apartheid regime.
Not that I fully agree with him, mind you, but didn't Israel treat Palestinian Arabs as second-class citizens for decades? And now, as a result of political compromise, doesn't have to treat them like citizens at all?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Not at all. The Arabs living in Judea, Samaria and Gaza were never citizens at all. Israel didn't annex the territories precisely because they would have felt obligated to offer them all citizenship, as they did to the Arabs within the 1949 armistice lines.
They very stupidly decided to hold onto the territories and not annex them, in hopes that they'd be able to trade them for a peace agreement. But even when Ehud Barak offered Arafat virtually all of that land (plus some within the armistice lines to make up for some that we're never giving them), Arafat not only refused, but started a new war (the "second intifada") against Israel.
This is what happens when we offer them concessions. They take it as a sign of weakness and redouble their efforts to get everything.
If it were up to me, I'd annex Judea, Samaria and Gaza, and simply walk the Arabs currently living there to the nearest border, be it Jordan or Egypt, and wish them a bon voyage. I'd even be willing to stake them. As I've posted here before, we could give every single Arab family now living in the territories a quarter of a million dollars to make a start elsewhere, and it wouldn't cost us any more than the projected military budget for the next 10 years. It'd be more than worth it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote: and simply walk the Arabs currently living there to the nearest border
Were your plan to be enacted word for word, what do you think the chances are that this would actually happen as you describe it?
What you should have said was round them up, throw them in the back of trucks, and them dump them at the border. Historically the world responds pretty badly to one group rounding up another and putting them in camps. Hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians already live in camps, but this is a step further.
And yet, if you don't do something like that, demographically Jews will be a minority in Israel in a couple decades. Birth rates are working against you and in the Arabs' favor.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I have some relatives who are working on that angle.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote: and simply walk the Arabs currently living there to the nearest border
Were your plan to be enacted word for word, what do you think the chances are that this would actually happen as you describe it?
What you should have said was round them up, throw them in the back of trucks, and them dump them at the border. Historically the world responds pretty badly to one group rounding up another and putting them in camps. Hundreds of thousands or millions of Palestinians already live in camps, but this is a step further.
And yet, if you don't do something like that, demographically Jews will be a minority in Israel in a couple decades. Birth rates are working against you and in the Arabs' favor.
Even if we do, the birthrate of Arab citizens is the same kind of timebomb, which means that the outrage will be even worse. <shrug> So what do we do, pack up and move everyone to Poland? Or Uganda? Or Sitka? If "Palestinian" Arabs who have never lived in the Middle East (because the UN has defined a Palestinian refugee as anyone descended from anyone claiming Palestinian ancestry) have more of a right to the land than Israelis who are 4th and 5th generation there, then Jews who all descend from people who lived there must surely trump that.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I have some relatives who are working on that angle.
Heh.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Two must-read articles:
In Israel, a Consensus That Gaza War Is a Just One (Ethan Bronner, New York Times)(link)
Israel goes it alone (Jerusalem Post editorial)(link)
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I'm of two minds on the subject of "human shields".
On one hand, of course the person who hides behind the human shield is morally culpable, at least if he continues shooting (rather than simply using the hostage as a shield for his own life.)
And I also understand that a weak response to a "human shields" situation, much like paying a ransom to a kidnapper, risks exacerbating the situation by suggesting to others who might use such tactics that they work.
But on the other hand, metaphorically speaking, retaining the true moral high ground demands if the side opposing the shield-user has superior force, they use it not to respond with overwhelming power but to use any tactical or technological advantage available to assure that the minimum harm to civilians is incurred.
Again, metaphorically speaking, if the SWAT sniper isn't able to get off a clean shot, then you take heart that at least you tried (and prevented the original shooter from doing more damage.) But you don't arm your response team with rocket launchers and then say, "Oops."
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
We don't just say "oops". We'd definitely prefer not to kill civilians, and we regret their deaths. But we're going to protect ourselves even at the cost of their lives.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
From Lisa's first article:
quote:‘Imagine,’ I tell a French reporter, ‘that every two days a missile falls in the Champs-Élysées and only the glass windows of the shops break and five people suffer from shock,’ ” Mr. Yehoshua told a reporter from Yediot Aharonot, a Tel Aviv newspaper. “ ‘What would you say? Wouldn’t you be angry? Wouldn’t you send missiles at Belgium if it were responsible for missiles on your grand boulevard?’
I bet pretty much every country would react with force at this. Which is why I should be a bit puzzled by the European reaction to this, but unfortunately I've long given up on Europe acting in any reasonable way.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Your point being...?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
new vin diesel movie.
"Hes back in Gaza and Hes Pissed Off"
or
"Terrorists Beware for VinDesiel is Here"
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: From Lisa's first article:
quote:‘Imagine,’ I tell a French reporter, ‘that every two days a missile falls in the Champs-Élysées and only the glass windows of the shops break and five people suffer from shock,’ ” Mr. Yehoshua told a reporter from Yediot Aharonot, a Tel Aviv newspaper. “ ‘What would you say? Wouldn’t you be angry? Wouldn’t you send missiles at Belgium if it were responsible for missiles on your grand boulevard?’
I bet pretty much every country would react with force at this. Which is why I should be a bit puzzled by the European reaction to this, but unfortunately I've long given up on Europe acting in any reasonable way.
I think they have the right plan of action but the wrong reasons. It would seem that Europeans protesting really do think that Israel should just stand by and do nothing...but the truth of the matter is that Israel's actions here are really doing them a lot more long term harm than good. Europe should be making the argument of long term self interest rather than wagging a finger at them for morality reasons. Morally I think they have right on their side for the moment, mostly. But strategically, I think their plan of action is flawed.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Corwin: ... I bet pretty much every country would react with force at this. Which is why I should be a bit puzzled by the European reaction to this ...
Don't really need to bet on it, there's a long and sordid history of European countries over-reacting to much smaller provocations.
They're being hypocritical for sure, it remains to be determined if they're wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It isn't only Europe, either. Condi is staunchly pro-Hamas. And don't get me started on CNN.
Yesterday, CNN put up a poll: Israel vs Palestinians. But they rigged it and got caught. If you voted for Israel, about 8 times out of 10, you'd get a "server busy" screen. But if you tried voting for the Palestinians, it went right through. It was confirmed by multiple sources.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
Lisa, do you have a source for the biased poll?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Language advisory.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
The poll that it refers to as "CNN is running a poll (here)", does that look like a CNN poll to you?
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: We don't just say "oops". We'd definitely prefer not to kill civilians, and we regret their deaths. But we're going to protect ourselves even at the cost of their lives.
Again, speaking metaphorically.
I'm certainly not an expert on urban warfare (any experts out there, please feel free to raise your hands) but what I see is this.
The problem with dealing with rockets and mortars is that they're extremely mobile. If it takes too long to respond to one, the perpetrator may be long gone from the source of the attack.
Some of the responses to these attacks- air-strikes, especially from drones- have the benefit of bringing in a counter-attack very quickly, and are thus more likely to actually hit the attacker before he relocates. But the nature of these attacks also make it more likely that places like schools that lead to a high number of innocent civilian casualties will be hit.
I hope that the increased infantry presence in Gaza means that these attacks can be dealt with more efficiently without having to respond with excessive force in order to respond effectively. But it also strikes me that what Israel really needs is not so much to strike the individual attackers- which may lead to civilian deaths and increases the bad PR for Israel- but to strike the places where munitions are hidden, as those stores are likely far less mobile than the men who use them.
Again, I'm no expert, but this seems like it might be an advantage to a short cease-fire. It could be good for Israels image, allow time for humanitarian aid to get in (and possibly non-combatant refugees to get out) and if it's short enough that the tunnels can't be rebuilt, it might give intelligence a better chance to locate where such stores are located to make future strikes more surgical and effective.
[ January 13, 2009, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: Sterling ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: The poll that it refers to as "CNN is running a poll (here)", does that look like a CNN poll to you?
It doesn't look like a CNN poll to me. I was able to vote for Israel the first time with no problem. The second time, I got an error message before I voted for either. The third time, I tried to vote for Palestine and got the same error message.
I don't think it is a conspiracy; I just don't think it was put together very well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That isn't a CNN poll in the least, whatever its other qualities.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:CNN is running a poll (here). The question is "I support Israel" vs "I support 'Palestine.'" (Btw, there is no such thing, and Palestine is Israel [the name comes from the Roman Empire], but that for another day).
Every time I tried to vote it says, "Your vote cannot be verified. Come back in 2 hours". This has happened to me for two days running now. When the notoriously leftarded AOL ran the same poll, Israel won overwhelmingly.
I SAY CNN (WHO HAPPILY RUNS JIHAD PORN) IS SKEWING THE VOTE. What have my readers experienced? Every email I have received (roughly 30ish) have experienced the same thing and they are all voting Israel.
DAMN YOU CNN AND YOUR JIHAD PORN
wow what a batty site.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
The Israeli's bombed the UN Relief and Works Agency headquarters in Gaza today with white phosphorus.
The use of white phosphorus in civilian areas has been banned by the Geneva convention. Its use on a civilian establishment alone constitutes a war crime.
The UNRWA provide food and aid to over 1 million Palestinian refugees in Gaza. It is desperately needed at this instant.
The Israeli's have claimed that Hamas fired on them from within the UN site, a claim which has been denied by the UN spokesman.
The site was being used to house hundreds refugees fleeing the Israel assault.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
*sigh* Even if someone *did* fire on them from that location, I can't imagine there is any building in Gaza that determined members of Hamas couldn't fire from. Does that mean the Hamas gets to decide which structures stand and which do not merely by poking their AKs out the right windows?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well if they keep attacking UN buildings and all the relief agencies pull out, maybe everyone will just starve to death and then Israel can blame the UN for letting it happen.
As for white phosphorus, I await more confirmation before believing that Israel would really go that far. I know the Times said they confirmed it, and some relief agencies made unverified claims, but I still need to see more.
Shelling hospitals and relief agency warehouses bothers me. A stray shot hitting a building where the press is located seems either more like an accident, or a sign that they really shouldn't be in the middle of a war zone like that. Just because you're with the press doesn't give you a magic shield. One of the things Israel will have on its side when this conflict is over is that, despite the fact that the press is putting up some really negative things for Israel now, when they pull out and the devastation wreaked now really hits home and the suffering balloons...the press will be nowhere in sight. War zones they'll cover, random suffering like that? Dime a dozen.
If I stand corrected and they really do cover it, that would go a long way towards pushing me to believe there's a more serious anti-Israel news bias than I thought.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Israel admitted to using white phosphorus on military targets in the war in Lebanon but claimed that the use was within the rules. They have not denied using white phosphorus on the UN headquarters or in Gaza. They have claimed it was legal.
Here is the relevant section of the Geneva Convention.
quote: 1. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make the civilian population as such, individual civilians or civilian objects the object of attack by incendiary weapons. 2. It is prohibited in all circumstances to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by air-delivered incendiary weapons. 3. It is further prohibited to make any military objective located within a concentration of civilians the object of attack by means of incendiary weapons other than air-delivered incendiary weapons, except when such military objective is clearly separated from the concentration of civilians and all feasible precautions are taken with a view to limiting the incendiary effects to the military objective and to avoiding, and in any event to minimizing, incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects.
It should be noted that Israel is not a signatory to this portion of the convention.
[ January 15, 2009, 04:22 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
If I stand corrected and they really do cover it, that would go a long way towards pushing me to believe there's a more serious anti-Israel news bias than I thought.
So do you think that the press should not provide any coverage of Gaza post-conflict?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I'm not sure I get your point either Lyrhawn. I would presume that an unbiased media would be covering the human suffering in the aftermath of the war and not just the bombing.
If there is continued coverage of the humanitarian conditions in Gaza, that would go along way to persuading me that the Pro-Israeli news bias isn't as serious as I thought.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Hmmmm, I think he's saying simply that staying in the area post-war would be a change from the status quo for the Western press (his perception being that the press usually leaves after a war) and that this change might indicate a bias.
This is perhaps an overly cynical view given that the Western press seems to enjoy poking around Tibet, riots or no riots.
Or is it? Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
According to the International Red Cross and Crescent, which is anything but pro-Israel, it has seen no signs that Israel has used white phosphorus in ways that are contrary to law. (link).
On the other hand, Hamas has fired white phosphorus at civilians (link), and the silence of CNN and the Times is deafening.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rabbit -
Thanks for the clarification. I thought I saw in that article that they claimed they hadn't used it at all. I must have misread.
Natural Mystic -
No, I think they should cover it. But I would find it extremely odd that they rarely even pay lip service to other conflicts, like the many ongoing crises in Africa, or Southeast Asia or elsewhere in the world, and for that matter, that Gaza has been an open air camp for awhile now and that didn't receive coverage until the bombs started to fall, but if all of a sudden they really zoomed in on the aftermath in a way that's unlike the attention they've paid to other conflicts, then that to me might signal a bias.
An unbiased media would cover all news stories equally, not just the ones that make a particular country look bad. So yes, I DO think they should cover the post conflict results in Gaza, but I also think they should provide continuing coverage of a lot of other problems in the world, but they don't.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
Unexploded ordinance found in a remote desert location rarely gets the same level of press and burning UN aid buildings.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Who said it should?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
That report made by the Red Cross was made before the bombing of the UN headquarters. It indicates that Israel had only been using white phosphorus to illuminate targets at night or create a smoke screens for day attacks.
Dropping 4 phosphorus bombs on UN headquarters, if that is what happened, is quite different and quite clearly proscribed by the Geneva convention.
Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Who said it should?
Lisa.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Ah. Sorry, I didn't read her link.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
If done deliberately, then yes. Accidents do happen, though; remember the Chinese embassy in the Serbian conflict?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Heck, dropping any sort of bomb on a UN facility that is acting as and aid station and providing shelter for civilian refugees, clearly violates the intent of the convention.
If done deliberately, then yes. Accidents do happen, though; remember the Chinese embassy in the Serbian conflict?
Yes, but this wasn't one stray bomb. It was a barrage and the Israeli's have admitted it was not an accident.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
That is not very bright of them, then.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
At the time, I thought that the American intelligence agencies couldn't possibly be incompetent enough to hit an embassy, even if that was their official story.
Sadly, the last eight years of both being totally unable to find some guy in a cave and weapons of mass destruction in Iraq have convinced me that, yes, US intelligence can in fact be *that* incompetent.
Its nice to see in these cynical times that at least Israel's intelligence agencies are on the ball even if we disagree with their targets.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Seen on Facebook:
Dan Rather, Katie Couric, and an Israeli commando were captured by terrorists in Iraq. The leader of the terrorists told them that he would grant them each one last request before they were beheaded.
Dan Rather said, "Well, I'm a Texan, so I'd like one last bowlful of hot, spicy chili."
The leader nodded to an underling who left and returned with the chili.
Rather ate it all and said, "Now I can die content."
Katie Couric said, "I'm a reporter to the end. I want to take out my tape recorder and describe the scene here and what's about to happen. Maybe someday someone will hear it and know that I was on the job till the end."
The terror leader directed an aide to hand over the tape recorder and Couric dictated some comments. She then said, "Now I can die happy."
The leader turned and said, "And now, Mr. Israeli tough guy, what is your final wish?"
"Kick me in the a**," said the soldier.
"What?" asked the leader. "Will you mock us in your last hour?"
"No, I'm not kidding. I want you to kick me in the a**," insisted the Israeli.
So the leader shoved him into the open and kicked him in the a**.
The soldier went sprawling, but rolled to his knees, pulled a 9 mm pistol from under his flak jacket, and shot the leader dead. In the resulting confusion, he jumped to his knapsack, pulled out his carbine and sprayed the terrorists with gunfire.
In a flash, all terrorists were either dead or fleeing for their lives.
As the soldier was untying Rather and Couric, they asked him, "Why didn't you just shoot them in the beginning? Why did you ask them to kick you in the a** first?"
"What?" replied the Israeli, "and have you two a**holes report that I was the aggressor?"
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
No kidding.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Indeed; any negative press Israel has received is entirely down to media bias and has nothing whatsoever to do with the casualties, injuries and damage incurred in this offensive.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Oh, btw, the rabbit died. No, that doesn't mean someone is pregnant, it means that the Jew Eating Rabbit of Palestinian National TV has gone to be with his 72 virgin bunnies.
You may or may not remember the charming children's programming on Palestinian National TV. First there was Farfour the Mouse, who was an obvious Micky Mouse ripoff. But Farfour was beaten to death by horrid Zionazis.
Farfour was replaced by his cousin, Nahoul the Bee, who seemed to be as anti-cat as he was anti-Jew.
So Nahoul died when the Jews wouldn't let him have access to medical care, and he was replaced by Assud, the Jew Eating Rabbit. Actually, Assud had quite the appetite. He wanted not only to eat the Jews, but the Danes. Tragically, the rabbit died in Operation Cast Lead. <sniff> We don't know who will be next. I'm guessing a puppy, but who knows?
Oh, and this is cute, too. A kid on Palestinian National TV kills a groveling George W. Bush and turns the White House into a mosque.
Meanwhile, our kids (and the kids in Israel) are stuck with boring old Sesame Street, where no one gets murdered or incites children to murder.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Wow, the stuff those kids watch... no doubt the 280 or so kids who died all deserved it.
Edited to reflect updated data on casualties provided by Armoth.
[ January 22, 2009, 01:26 PM: Message edited by: natural_mystic ]
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
natural_mysic, you think Israel attacked Gaza because the kids were watching bad television? Homeland Security better get Barney off the air.
I have to say that I have heard many naive, simplistic views of the conflict. But you win!
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Minerva: I can't tell if you are being serious or not--
Anyway, I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should edit my post and put parentheses to that effect.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Mystic, I'm pretty sure that there were not 400 children killed.
But I will say that your sarcasm is unappreciated. Despite your point of view, you should at least recognize the precarious moral position that the Israelis are in. Things are not that black and white.
The demonstration of the fact that children in Gaza are taught to hate Israelis is a factor in understanding that negotiations will not likely lead to peace. Coupled with the fact that Israel, like the world, is unsure how to relate to a populace that democratically elected a terrorist government, many are of the opinion that this operation, while terrible, was inevitable.
You may disagree, but I believe that the situation is murky enough for bitter sarcasm to be unwarranted.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
The figure is based on the BBCs claim that there were 1300 fatalities of which nearly a third were children.
Read my previous posts in this thread. I am fully aware of the precariousness of the Israel's position, and I am sympathetic to it. And I think the major upshot of this conflict is a dramatic increase in Palestinian suffering with at best small increases in Israeli safety, hence my lack of enthusiasm for it.
As for the appropriateness of sarcasm, re-read Lisa's post, and tell me there is no sarcasm there.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'll give you Lisa's tone. And i appreciate your sympathy. My apologies in being quick, I was slightly offended.
Do you have a link to the BBC claim?
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: I'll give you Lisa's tone. And i appreciate your sympathy. My apologies in being quick, I was slightly offended.
I've looked at it again and it does attribute the figure to 'Palestinian Medical Services', so skepticism might well be warranted. The UN website, however, puts the figure at 412. My (very cursory) skimming of this article did not turn up their source.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Keep in mind that when they calculate the number of "children", they include armed fighters ages 15-18.
Those are not children; they are soldiers at best, and terrorists at worst.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Why on earth haven't I heard that before, rivka? It seems like a mildly important fact...
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because you haven't read the links that I and others have provided that mention it?
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
It's no surprise, really. But unfortunately, there are some people (hey there, Rabbit) who are so eager to buy into any anti-Israel propaganda that they keep forgetting that it almost always turns out to be the invention of sick minds.
Posted by MarkE (Member # 11927) on :
quote:...
Reprint story ad infinitum. [/qb]
It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarkE: Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength... [/QB]
Hi Mark. Welcome to Hatrack!
A little bit of posting etiquette: It is polite to read-through the thread that you are posting in so that you can make an informed comment.
If you HAD read through, you'd see that the argument of proportion had been addressed a number of times.
My favorite was the Dershowitz article in the Wall Street Journal that was linked in this thread.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarkE: ...
Reprint story ad infinitum.
quote:It's fascinating how you've had nothing whatsoever to say about them bombing us constantly. But the moment we do something about it, it's all, "Both sides are terrible!!! Wahhh!!!"
Disgusting.
Forgive my ignorance, but who, exactly, is "us"? If Israel, then I have to say that horrible word "Disproportionate"- and if not, that worse word "So?"
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
Mark:
(a) There were vocal Irish voices opposing what the IRA did. Whereas the Palestinians name schools and roads for suicide bombers and dance in the street when Jews are killed (not to mention dancing for joy after 9/11). There's no official Irish television that incites children to murder on a regular basis.
(b) The IRA had a number of goals, but none of them were to kick all the English out of England. If you've swallowed the hoke that the Palestinians just want Israel to leave Judea, Samaria and Gaza, you need to get out more.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by MarkE:
In the UK, we suffered many years of bombing by the IRA- but we were never so incredibly insane as to start demolishing whole cities, killing civilian hostages (as we saw them-miskenly as we now know!), and attacking the UN in the process in return. I claim no superiority in moral terms, make no mistake- yet we do seem to have handled the situation more pragmatically? 1970s and over now, yet in Israel 1940s and still at full strength...
You're right about one thing. You certainly weren't morally superior. You were completely in the wrong. The British never had any business being in any part of Ireland. From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The real problem started when the Normans invaded. The Angles and Saxons were oppressed in their own country! It's all the Normans fault. That never did get resolved - the Normans stayed in charge until the populations merged.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
England jumped the shark when the Homo sapien arrived. It was all downhill from there.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's true. Cro Magnans were innocently living noble, idealized lives before the evil Homo Sapiens showed up and ruined everything.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
The Cro Magnans were Homo sapiens. They were the ones who showed up and started ruining things for the fey.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then, of course, there was that time the leprechauns showed up and drove the rock nymphs out of Ireland.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Freakin' leprechauns.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Hostages? Really? I can understand "occupied". I can understand "oppressed". What I can't understand is "hostages". It just doesn't seem to be the correct word.
Furthermore, the whole Irish thing is a poor analogy. The Jews were there before the Arabs. It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things. Jews came back to our own land.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Hostages? Really? I can understand "occupied". I can understand "oppressed". What I can't understand is "hostages". It just doesn't seem to be the correct word.
Furthermore, the whole Irish thing is a poor analogy. The Jews were there before the Arabs. It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things. Jews came back to our own land.
Even I find that argument weak. Though I wish they would, I don't think it's practical to expect the world to look back 2000 years through history for the precedent of Jewish residence in Israel.
I much prefer the argument the Western powers felt it a necessity in the wake of the holocaust that the Jews be given "back" their homeland.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Lisa, that argument is weak. It isn't like the land was unoccupied before the Jews showed up, and it isn't like no one has been there in the intervening 1000+ years. If it was okay for the Jews to take it the first time, it is certainly legitimate for someone else to take after.
The formation of Isreal was the umpteenth land grab of that place. I think Isreal certainly does exist, but that's why "right" to exist is problematic. It doesn't have anymore right to exist to exist than any other existing political body. That it does exist is a fact, but not a right.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote: The Jews were there before the Arabs.
Certainly not in anyones living memory and even debatable from an historical perspective. The Bible reports Jews fighting Canaanites and Philistines to take the land. Who are you to say that the Palestinians aren't descended from the people who were there even before Abraham.
quote:It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things.
How is it not like this? From all the history I've read from both sides, it is exactly like this. Up until around 1900, the area was occupied predominantly by Arabs and then Jews moved in and started taking things.
quote:Jews came back to our own land.
Certainly not in any living persons memory. You can't expect that after 2000 years you can come back to a place and say to the people who have been living there for hundreds of years, this is ours and expect them agree peacefully.
I know you believe God gave it to you "forever", but you can't really expect reasonable people who do not follow your religious beliefs to accept that as sufficient reason to surrender their property to you.
They see that property as the just fruits of their labors (or their parents and grandparents labors). They see you as usurpers of their rights. They aren't just irrational savages.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Dobbie: From the time the British invaded, the Irish Catholics were all basically civilian hostages.
The IRA is a group of hostages who decided to fight back.
And I'm dead serious about this.
Hostages? Really? I can understand "occupied". I can understand "oppressed". What I can't understand is "hostages". It just doesn't seem to be the correct word.
Furthermore, the whole Irish thing is a poor analogy. The Jews were there before the Arabs. It's not like Jews came into Arab land and started taking things. Jews came back to our own land.
I didn't mean that literally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: The Jews were there before the Arabs.
Certainly not in anyones living memory and even debatable from an historical perspective.
False. There has been a continuous (albeit small) Jewish population in Israel for the past 200 years.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Surely you don't think a small group of people existing in a place means that the ownership rights of the rest of the population are illegitimate?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Did I say that?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Then I'm not sure how that is relevant.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was christening my newly purchased seasons of Babylon 5 last night by watching Season 3, and an exchange of dialogue in "Convictions" reminded me of this thread. As a disclaimer, I'm not saying the Palestinians are the Narn and that the Israelis are the Centauri, just that something about it rings familiar:
Londo : "There, you see? I'm going to live!" G'Kar: "So it would seem. Well, it is an imperfect universe." Londo: "Bastard." G'Kar: "Monster." Londo: "Fanatic!" G'Kar: "Murderer!" Londo: "You are insane!" G'Kar: "And that is why we'll win."
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote: The Jews were there before the Arabs.
Certainly not in anyones living memory and even debatable from an historical perspective.
False. There has been a continuous (albeit small) Jewish population in Israel for the past 200 years.
I don't think you parsed my sentence correctly. I did not say Arabs were there before any Jews were there. I know that there has been a small Jewish community in Jerusalem for at least 200 years. I said, that at least in the context of living memory, Jews were not there before the Arabs and that up until 1900, the area was "occupied predominantly" by Arabs. I am confident those statements are true.
I have not claimed that no Jews have a legitimate or rational claim to the land. I believe many Jews do. I also believe that many Palestinians have legitimate and rational claims to the land. I was objecting to Lisa's "We are right because we were here first" argument.
[ January 23, 2009, 02:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Lyrhawn: Or this
quote: Kosh: "They are alone. They are a dying people; we should let them pass," Sinclair: "Who? The Narn or the Centauri?" Kosh: "Yes."
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Phanto: I think that it's pretty clear that Israel's response is proportionate and reasonable .
If only the world didn't feel such animosity towards Israel, an intensity which doesn't make sense. Daily across Africa massacres seem to be occurring, with massive poverty and starvation, yet no one cares.
There's an exclusive interview with Alan Dershowitz on Shalom TV this week.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Wow. Thanks for the link, Lisa.
Posted by Minerva (Member # 2991) on :
That is an incredible letter.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Thanks for that - I have friends who were soldiers in Gaza and they feel exactly like that. It's nice to see it articulated so well.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Wonderful and powerful letter indeed.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
That was on the lighter side?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Although it's fairly obvious what's going to happen a few seconds in, you should still probably warn people, Lisa.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Minerva: That was on the lighter side?
<shrug> I don't know. It cheered me up a little.
Fair warning... someone gets "blowed up". But it's self-inflicted and during the course of trying to hurt others, so I'm going to say it's a good thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I guess I shouldn't be, but I'm a little surprised that even you would take that kind of delight.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
Yeah, that is fairly appalling. I've read what you argued before and have tried to engage you because I thought you were better than this.
Too bad I was wrong.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
Ki badavar asher zadu aleyhem...
Still pretty horrifying...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not that your (Lyrhawn and Humean) reactions surprise me all that much, but I find them puzzling. You're honestly telling me that you can look at this guy, in a religious fervor, shooting one mortar after another at civilians, and you don't think the world is a far better place with him blown to smithereens? Imagine how much better the world would be if they all blew themselves up.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm happy that I still have not lost my sensitivity to the loss of human life. I'm happy he is gone, and happy he is gone in the way he is - it's true justice. Watching it is another matter.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's the Darwin Awards. It's almost as good as the daylight savings time accident. The Palestinian Authority refuses to start and end Daylight Savings Time when the evil Zionist entity does, so they were an hour off. Some Palestinian Arab terrorists were getting ready to kill some Jews. They'd set a timer on a bomb, and were driving it into a Jewish neighborhood. But with the time being off and all, the bomb blew up an hour earlier than they'd expected. Terrorist puree.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I saw the link before anyone commented and was quite upset. Of course, and I will never admit this to my family, I actually feel bad for the guy who killed my aunt, so my mercy instinct is much stronger then my justice.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
No blood or gore in this one. Just Israel's president and Turkey's PM debating Gaza.
Peres... I don't like him. To say the least. But he was magnificent. Too bad the media will ignore everything he said.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's not that your (Lyrhawn and Humean) reactions surprise me all that much, but I find them puzzling. You're honestly telling me that you can look at this guy, in a religious fervor, shooting one mortar after another at civilians, and you don't think the world is a far better place with him blown to smithereens? Imagine how much better the world would be if they all blew themselves up.
Well, I don't know if he's shooting at civilians. Mortars are relatively short range, he isn't firing qassams or katyushas. My best guess would be that he's firing at IDF troops. Was there something in the link that specifically stated that he's firing at civilians?
Either way, I rarely find myself in a place that has me rejoicing at the horrific deaths of people. I think there are terrible people in the world that the world would be better off without, and I think that many of them deserve death, but that guy? Who knows? Maybe his family was killed in an IDF missile strike, or maybe yeah, he was recruited at a young age and is just shooting randomly into a crowd. There's no way of knowing, and now there never will be. Hating an individual I think is often more justified than hating an amorphous group of people.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: It's the Darwin Awards. It's almost as good as the daylight savings time accident. The Palestinian Authority refuses to start and end Daylight Savings Time when the evil Zionist entity does, so they were an hour off. Some Palestinian Arab terrorists were getting ready to kill some Jews. They'd set a timer on a bomb, and were driving it into a Jewish neighborhood. But with the time being off and all, the bomb blew up an hour earlier than they'd expected. Terrorist puree.
Awesome. Its like Jihadist Wilde Kyoty against Jewish roadrunner.
The gene pool is now a little bit purer.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I think there's a fairly huge gap between the thought "it is good that this person is no longer hurting other people" and the thought "I rejoice and find amusement in this person's death."
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote: You're honestly telling me that you can look at this guy, in a religious fervor, shooting one mortar after another at civilians, and you don't think the world is a far better place with him blown to smithereens? Imagine how much better the world would be if they all blew themselves up.
You know, I remember exactly where I was on 9/11, heck most every one I know does. I was at Texas Tech University and I woke up to 12 messages on my machine and Rudy G. telling the citizens of New York, on the radio, that they should walk out of Manhattan. However, the thing I remember most from that day wasn't anything that happened in New York or D.C, it was the video of people celebrating what had happened. I had seen people jumping from the towers, I knew that many firefighters and police were gone, I knew that the death toll could raise into the tens of thousands, but the thing that affected me more than anything else were the celebrations I saw that day, there were people in the world who celebrated the deaths of thousands of Americans.
I think it says something about both the human condition and the nature of hatred and violence we encounter, but I also think it provides stark contrast. Black hats and white hats like those worn in cowboys movies hardly, if ever, exist in the real world, the real world is much more complicated for the most part, but there are still certain things that can give us a hint. For instance, how we act when our enemy dies. Make no mistake, people like Hitler or Bin Laden or McVeigh deserved to be punished and face the world for the crimes they commit, but the difference between us and them is that they revel in death and are makers of violence and destruction. And we aren't.
You revel in death Lisa, and that makes it very difficult for me to tell the difference between you and the people you fight. Between you and the people in that video from 9/11. Whether that means that they have won, at least with you, is not for me to say, but I do know that no matter what you do, no matter how many of them you kill or laugh at when they die, there will be others who follow them. And they will do so because you laughed at them...
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: However, the thing I remember most from that day wasn't anything that happened in New York or D.C, it was the video of people celebrating what had happened.
You realize, of course, that there was quite a lot of that going on amongst the Palestinian Arabs. And you don't see the difference between them rejoicing over the deaths of civilians at work and me rejoicing over the death of a terrorist engaged in terrorism?
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: Black hats and white hats like those worn in cowboys movies hardly, if ever, exist in the real world, the real world is much more complicated for the most part,
That's the common view nowadays, and I think it accounts for a great deal of evil itself. There are greys, yes, but there are blacks and whites, and that guy pumping mortars across the border and shouting Allahu Akbar before each shot is evil. The world is a better place with him dead.
Life, as such, is not a value. There are lives that are a negative value. People for whom it is good to rejoice at their deaths. This guy was one such.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: You revel in death Lisa, and that makes it very difficult for me to tell the difference between you and the people you fight.
I don't revel in death. I revel in the death of the evil. There's a difference. I despise Anne Coulter, but I wouldn't rejoice at her death. I abominate Louis Farrakhan, but I probably wouldn't rejoice at his death, either. When a Nazi dies, I rejoice. When a Jew-hating terrorist dies, I rejoice. Revel, even. I feel bad for you, Humean. What's the opposite of colorblindness? Where you can see everything but black and white? You're blind to evil, and it makes you associate joy at the death of those who are evil with joy at death in general.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: but I do know that no matter what you do, no matter how many of them you kill or laugh at when they die, there will be others who follow them. And they will do so because you laughed at them...
No. Those who follow will do so, as this one did, out of evil and hatred. Not because they were laughed at. The fact that you can say such a thing just shows how little you understand about their motivations.
[ January 30, 2009, 04:13 PM: Message edited by: Lisa ]
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I don't revel in death. I revel in the death of the evil. There's a difference. "
No. There's not.
"No. Those who follow will do so, as this one did, out of evil and hatred. Not because they were laughed at. The fact that you can say such a thing just shows how little you understand about their motivations."
QFI
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Lisa, do you take drops out of your cup on Pesach?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "I don't revel in death. I revel in the death of the evil. There's a difference. "
No. There's not.
Yes, of course there is.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Lisa, do you take drops out of your cup on Pesach?
Okay, I won't bother telling you that the drops represent the spilled blood of the Egyptians. But I will point out to you that binfol oyivcha al tismach applies to oyivcha ha-yehudi. And I'll point out Megillah 16a, in case you think that's just my opinion. I'll also point out b'avod reshaim rina.
And on the Avodah list, there was a huge debate about this a couple of years ago.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
No, there isn't.
Yay! Contrary kitteh demonstrates eponymous trait!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If the choice is between siding with Micha and Zev, I know where I fall. (I believe I've read that exchange before, too.)
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
Fine. Just so long as you understand that I side with Josh and Rav Bar Hayim and, oh yeah, the Gemara.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
I'm on Lisa's side but for practical reasons. I think that I would make her points less harshly though...
I think that a victim is supposed to hate his enemy - Ecclesiastes says that there is indeed a time to hate. I think one can hate their own enemy because they seek to destroy you - you need every ounce of your energy to ensure your survival.
However, I can hear an argument that bystanders (if there is even such a thing in a moral struggle) should indeed hate death in all forms.
(It should be noted that I didn't see the gemara inside or follow the back-and-forth on Avodah. So if my arguments seem silly in that light, feel free to disregard them. I'm sick and too lazy...)
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I think that a victim is supposed to hate his enemy - Ecclesiastes says that there is indeed a time to hate.
It does, but it seems to me that most of the Christians on this board are going to find that a very unconvincing argument, superseded by what Jesus says. And yes, if read literally, Jesus does agree with Gandhi, the Israelis should lay down their arms and permit themselves to be killed. Few Christians are prepared to live up to that, of course; but that's what the man says.
Posted by Armoth (Member # 4752) on :
it's a good thing im talking to Lisa and Rivka then, isn't it?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
You mean they're not Christians? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa: and, oh yeah, the Gemara.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:I think that a victim is supposed to hate his enemy - Ecclesiastes says that there is indeed a time to hate.
It does, but it seems to me that most of the Christians on this board are going to find that a very unconvincing argument, superseded by what Jesus says. And yes, if read literally, Jesus does agree with Gandhi, the Israelis should lay down their arms and permit themselves to be killed. Few Christians are prepared to live up to that, of course; but that's what the man says.
He most certainly does not say that. Or to be more accurate, while God may require people to allow themselves to be slain he also may require people to fight. Jesus didn't have any qualms with violently clearing the temple, apparently it was the only way to accomplish that aim.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do not believe that you are capable of an objective reading of Jesus's words, BB. Since you believe that you believe them, you must necessarily twist their meaning so they do not conflict with your other, primate-instinct-level beliefs, such as the acceptability of self-defense. They are sufficiently counter-intuitive that an outside perspective is required to see what is actually said; hence crusades, inquisitions, and what have you. The people who state that these are not the actions of True Christians have got a point, they just don't take the next logical step.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:I do not believe that you are capable of an objective reading of Jesus's words, BB. Since you believe that you believe them, you must necessarily twist their meaning so they do not conflict with your other, primate-instinct-level beliefs, such as the acceptability of self-defense.
I'm not sure how that follows. You're simply ignoring an event that is just as likely to have happened as Jesus instructing people to be non-violent. While Jesus certainly said turn the other cheek, he also instructed his disciples to sell their second cloak and purchase a sword when it was appropriate to do so.
Furthermore many of Jesus' teachings run counter intuitive to some of our basic instincts such as self preservation, I can recognize that just as easily as you can. While outside perspectives on Jesus' teachings can certainly be useful, in depth understanding is no less valuable. I could just as easily argue that because you reject the core tenet of Jesus teachings, all other teachings branching off of that are beyond your comprehension.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
You mean they're not Christians? ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)