posted
Well, in fairness, the specifics of Bush's treaty were so toothless that it wasn't really that big of a deal. No enforcement, no verification, three months notice before it could be unilaterally dissolved. It was set to expire on 2012 before Obama negotiated the new START treaty, so really, Putin could have signed it, done nothing until November of 2012, and then pulled out, having done nothing at all and still wouldn't have violated a letter of the treaty.
Also, Obama's treaty, much like Bush's really just puts a lot of those warheads in storage somewhere, which makes the key difference the delivery mechanisms. Bush's treaty had no measure to reduce the delivery mechanisms for the weapons. Obama's includes limitations on strategic bombers, ocean based submarines, and ICBMs.
So yes, Bush should get credit for decreasing our nuclear stockpile, though, let's also keep in mind that towards the end of his presidency, he was instrumental in introducing the idea of, and pushing for, more R&D money for a new generation of nuclear weapons, so, some of that credit seems a little premature. But if we're worried about the actual effects of nuclear war? Obama's treaty as a more direct impact on the ability to wage nuclear war. Having 6,000 warheads is all fine and dandy until it comes to get them from your launch pad to the enemy, and when you only have half that many launch vehicles, it sort of makes having that many a little useless. Of course, even a quarter of that number is more than enough, but we're talking about progress here, multi-decade generational progress. Obama succeeded. Bush made a good effort, but didn't do as much.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mal: You forgot to mention how much Obama loves that other guy. You know, the one he really turns to for advice. Who could it be... The Devil!Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've also stated that the line between "civilian" and "combatant" is not as clearcut as some would claim (which your argument actually supports, Dan Frank). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You have stated it, but not actually supported it. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When Palestinian terrorists kill Israeli civilians, though, it is not in pursuit of military objectives. Bombing a bus does absolutely nothing to make things better for the Palestinians-quite the contrary. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bush also totally missed the opportunity to put together a true follow-up treaty to START. As a result, the proposed treaty we have now is much weaker than it could've been if we'd been making progress all this time.
quote:What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
Something that wasn't entirely begging the question would be a start. As for what would count as support, I obviously don't know-if I did, I would probably believe as you do.
quote:Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
That's not the only distinction. And what do you mean 'perhaps'? In what way, then, does suicide bombing a bus full of civilians make things better for Palestinians? And your notion that 'if they thought it would, that's the same thing' might be compelling if it were the first time. Or even the tenth time. It's not. There is a long, established pattern of what we generally consider terrorism enacted against Israel, and it has not improved the lot of Palestinians. When and where has it done so? Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for. Given that, they don't get to take the cop-out, "We thought it would make things better," and you don't get to do so for them-unless you can point to a time when it did.
As for not knowing enough to say, that certainly hasn't stopped you from speaking in support of them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:What would count as "support" to you? I wrote a post explaining my reasoning about civilian vs. combatant as clearly as I could.
Something that wasn't entirely begging the question would be a start. As for what would count as support, I obviously don't know-if I did, I would probably believe as you do.
quote:Perhaps. But the distinction here is whether they thought it would make things better for them, not whether it actually ended up doing so. If they did, it doesn't matter if they weren't actually successful-- they did it in pursuit of a goal, they just weren't successful. And I don't think either of us have actually spoken with enough Palestinian suicide bombers to make a categorical statement on what they thought or think, we can only speculate.
That's not the only distinction. And what do you mean 'perhaps'? In what way, then, does suicide bombing a bus full of civilians make things better for Palestinians? And your notion that 'if they thought it would, that's the same thing' might be compelling if it were the first time. Or even the tenth time. It's not. There is a long, established pattern of what we generally consider terrorism enacted against Israel, and it has not improved the lot of Palestinians. When and where has it done so? Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for. Given that, they don't get to take the cop-out, "We thought it would make things better," and you don't get to do so for them-unless you can point to a time when it did.
As for not knowing enough to say, that certainly hasn't stopped you from speaking in support of them.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for.
Sinflower read this line of Rakeesh's again. Seriously. This is key.
Because, to the Palestinian militants, they see this as a benefit. Even if it has no chance of actually defeating Israel, they see murdering Jewish civilians as an end in itself.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's an essay I read recently on this subject, which is reasonably short and says it better than I could (although I censored it a bit)
quote:So someone flew a plane into a building the other day. Before he flew a plane into a building, he was nobody, another quiet ranter: today, most of us have already heard what he had to say about the IRS, and more will as time goes by.
And that's one of the problems I have with terrorism: For certain values, of working, it works.
Without the plane crash, nobody would give a crap about this guy; another mostly-rich guy with a $220,000 house and a plane in some trouble. One wrecked building and two dead people later, he's all over the news. He wanted people to hear what he had to say, and sadly, I can't think a better way for him to be heard; if he'd just offed himself and left it in a suicide note? Local news, maybe. If he'd gone on a publicity campaign to tout his unfairness? Local paper, page three.
If he'd posted it in his own private LJ? Oh, come on, kid, you know better.
For a pretty unremarkable man who wants to have his words read by the entire country, the best way is to become remarkable. And the easiest way to do that, one requiring no particular talent or likeability, is to kill people in a spectacular fashion. And that's a shame.
I wish I had a clean answer to this one, but I honestly think that's the way it is. I'm pretty sure the American public wouldn't give two craps about the Middle East without the terrorists harbored there. (The American government would care deeply, given the oil resources there, but it'd be one of those headlines buried somewhere in the Wall Street Journal: SAUDI ARABIA'S INSTABILITY CONTINUES TO TROUBLE BANKERS.) I'm really no fan of what Palestinian terrorists do to Israel, but on the other hand the Palestinians aren't treated wonderfully by Israel, and I'm reasonably sure that if they didn't have suicide bombers and randomly-launched missiles, we wouldn't hear a thing about the conflict over in America. At least not on the network news.
Don't get me wrong: I don't think terrorism actually causes positive changes. I don't think that there will be wide-spread changes in IRS law thanks to asshole plane-flier. I don't think that America's going to wake up one more morning and go, "Whoa, the Taliban hates us! Let's give up Hollywood and convert!" I don't think that Israel is ever going to give Palestine ground when opening up the border opens them up to a risk of being blown up.
Purposely targeting civilians at any time is a reprehensible tactic. These guys are, I must be clear, total scumbags, and it doesn't get them what they really wanted. But when the other alternative is "sit back and be invisible," I don't know that we're providing better options. I don't know that there are other options we could reasonably create.
I hate their choices, I hate the way they poison the world. But when a bunch of people who feel oppressed (legitimately or not) look around and go, "Hey, these guys who aren't blowing stuff up are ignored, and the guys with the bombs are catching three solid minutes on CNN," I can see where the idea gets planted.
posted
Even if I granted those were the choices in the beginning - do nothing or kill people spectacularly - and there is a case to be made for that argument, I agree, that's clearly not the choice any longer.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Again, unless you count killing individual Israelis as a benefit to Palestinians, it does not make things better for the people they claim to be fighting for.
Sinflower read this line of Rakeesh's again. Seriously. This is key.
Because, to the Palestinian militants, they see this as a benefit. Even if it has no chance of actually defeating Israel, they see murdering Jewish civilians as an end in itself.
That's ridiculous. Its exactly the kind of demonizing and dehumanizing of the Palestinians I was referring to.
First, lets get some perspective on the magnitude of the problem. In the past 10 years there have been 1072 Israelis killed by Palestinians. That sounds like a lot until you recognize that about twice that many Israelis were murdered in the same time frame and that even if you add together the terror attacks and the murders, the murder rate in Israel is only half what it is in the US.
Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict. The objective of Palestinian terror attacks is to regain their homes and self determination by drawing world attention to their plight and creating pressure on Israel to negotiate. The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: First, lets get some perspective on the magnitude of the problem. In the past 10 years there have been 1072 Israelis killed by Palestinians. That sounds like a lot until you recognize that about twice that many Israelis were murdered in the same time frame and that even if you add together the terror attacks and the murders, the murder rate in Israel is only half what it is in the US.
See, this 'magnitude of the problem' type of reasoning...well, the truth is it's not only not very persuasive, but it can also be used to minimize just about anything except maybe death from car accidents or old age. 'Ordinary' civil murder is a concept we as human beings (in the abstract, at least) are comfortable with, have accepted. It's part of our daily lives. Someone strapping on come explosives and sitting on the bus next to you, on the other hand, has a way of gripping the mind.
Which is incidentally, of course, one of the selling points of terrorism. One spectacular death from terrorism will immediately be more widely known than the twenty murders that happened in the same city that month, except perhaps to coroners and homicide detectives.
So 1072 deaths in a decade doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot, because 'a lot' is completely relative, and one death - in terms of public awareness - is not equal to another death.
quote:Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict.
What it shows is that, still, you're not reading very carefully. Dan_Frank said, "...to the Palestinian militants..." not Palestinians in general. Perhaps he also meant to the Palestinians as a whole, but I don't see how you have any way of knowing that.
As for the objective of Palestinian militants, they can claim it's to regain their homes and self-determination by etc. etc. all they like. But they're either lying when they say that, or they're just deeply stupid, or they're insane. Or some combination of all three. Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is - together, especially the further we get from the Holocaust.
quote:The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
I don't think they would have the first without terrorism (though they could definitely have attained it in other ways-or has the Dalai Lama been preaching the blowing up of school busses and I missed it?), but how much do they really have the second? Israel is negotiating with them, yes. And with every single terrorist attack against Israeli civilians, the Israeli government gets to take a harder line.
How long do you think the Israelis would be enjoying American support in particular if Palestinians were protesting by staging non-violent protests as opposed to direct violence?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:How long do you think the Israelis would be enjoying American support in particular if Palestinians were protesting by staging non-violent protests as opposed to direct violence?
Equally as long as they have. As much as we may preach morality and human rights across the globe, at the heart of it the American government is as strategic and as pragmatic as any.
quote:Second, the idea that for Palestinians, murdering Israelis is an end in itself shows you have absolutely no understanding of the conflict. The objective of Palestinian terror attacks is to regain their homes and self determination by drawing world attention to their plight and creating pressure on Israel to negotiate. The Palestinians have the worlds attention and Israel has been negotiating with them. Do you think either or those would have ever happened if their had been no Intifada, no PLO and no suicide bombers?
Exactly. Of course we can debate what Israel and the United States would have done if the Palestinians had just stood peacefully by and asked for justice, but frankly we don't know, and I for one am not as idealistic as to think that Israel or the US would give anything to the Palestinians if they'd proven to be no threat at all. And if I, an American, doubt that the Israelis and the Americans would be fair to Palestine? Naturally the Palestinians would doubt it more. They haven't been shown justice. They haven't even been given the right to return. Likely some of them saw suicide attacks as the only way to get the world's attention. People don't commit suicide for fun, and they don't do it because they're just so damn bloodthirsty and want to kill civilians. They do it because they're desperate and they think sacrificing their own lives is the only thing they can do to help their people.
The core of Rakeesh's argument has been that for the Palestinian militants, killing Israeli civilians is an end in itself. And that's just not reasonable or believable at all.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:So 1072 deaths in a decade doesn't just sound like a lot, it is a lot, because 'a lot' is completely relative, and one death - in terms of public awareness - is not equal to another death.
Exactly. They've killed far less Israelis than Israelis have killed Palestinians--conservative estimates for Palestinian deaths caused by Israelis in the last decade is in the 6000s, with some reporting far more. And then take into account that Israel has a far larger population, so percentage wise they've killed even more Palestinians. There's just less awareness of it.
quote:Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is - together, especially the further we get from the Holocaust.
Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
In addition, the glue--at least for American support-- is a combination of the desire to have a strategic ally in the Middle East, and the religious support for Israel's biblical right to the "holy land." With perhaps some aid from the Israel lobby. Oh, and the general phobia towards anything Muslim post September 11 helps too.
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: ... Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
To be specific, even in the US in 2008, only 21% favoured Israel versus 71% who didn't want to take either side and 3% for the Palestinians. Your larger point does stand though. In the world as a whole, support for the Palestinians is at 20% versus the Israelis at 7%. world public opinion link
That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service pollPosts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Exactly. They've killed far less Israelis than Israelis have killed Palestinians--conservative estimates for Palestinian deaths caused by Israelis in the last decade is in the 6000s, with some reporting far more. And then take into account that Israel has a far larger population, so percentage wise they've killed even more Palestinians. There's just less awareness of it.
Actually, very few people I've ever talked to about this weren't aware that Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. But, again, one death is not necessarily equal to another, at least in terms of the support it gains or costs.
quote: In addition, the glue--at least for American support-- is a combination of the desire to have a strategic ally in the Middle East, and the religious support for Israel's biblical right to the "holy land." With perhaps some aid from the Israel lobby. Oh, and the general phobia towards anything Muslim post September 11 helps too.
The first one is a wash. On any list of reasons for the 'Muslim world's' antagonism towards the United States, its support for Israel has got to be somewhere at the top. If not the top. We could certainly gain much more than we would lose, in pragmatic terms, if we turned on Israel.
The religious support for Israel doesn't play much of a widespread political role for American support of Israel, again at least not so far as I have seen.
As for a 'general phobia of anything Muslim' since 9-11, that hardly counts in support of your idea, because American support for Israel goes much further back than 9-11, after all. And an American fear of Muslims is hardly irrational.
How powerful would the Israeli lobby be if it couldn't point to suicide bombers and say, "See?! They're evil! Look!" How much religious support would Israel enjoy if its most famous enemies weren't so infamous? And how frightened would the United States be of 'anything Muslim' if some of the most sensational Muslims of the modern day weren't known for blowing things and people up? (No pun intended, they've hijacked the reputation of the Muslim world to an extent)
Every single thing you've said, sinflower, so far as it is true is true, in large part or entirely, because of the response suicide bombings against civilians generates.
quote:That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service poll
Sometimes the world is flat-out wrong. I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That said, we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel since Israel is neck-and-neck in terms of world reputation with North Korea, so I wouldn't really count that as a win for the Palestinians. BBC world service poll --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes the world is flat-out wrong. I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
quote:Actually, very few people I've ever talked to about this weren't aware that Israel has killed more Palestinians than Palestinians have killed Israelis. But, again, one death is not necessarily equal to another, at least in terms of the support it gains or costs.
Nor in moral value, I suppose? The Israelis are still the victims here?
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh: Sometimes, sometimes not. In this case, I think democracy is right on dot.
I would also note that technically, the question asked is about Israel, not Jews. In any case, the original assertion was about world support and this is an indicator of world support.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
OK, sinflower, that's enough for me. I could believe major misunderstandings stemmed from us starting from radically different places in this discussion for awhile, but at this point I just don't buy it anymore.
-----
quote:Rakeesh: Sometimes, sometimes not. In this case, I think democracy is right on dot.
Fair enough.
quote:I would also note that technically, the question asked is about Israel, not Jews. In any case, the original assertion was about world support and this is an indicator of world support.
For many, many, many people, there is no difference. I think there's ample historical justification for being wary of world opinion when it comes to looking at things done that concern Jews, is all I'm saying.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: So you really can't think of any reason for the world to have a bad view of Israel besides anti-Semitism?
I rather assumed that was a cheap shot. Even if you omit the countries that have a history of antisemitism (North American, European, or Arabic), Israel still wouldn't really move up much in the rankings.
The European countries if anything are even more negative about North Korea than Israel and off-set the Islamic countries which are the reverse. So omitting both is a bit of a wash.
Japan for example would give Israel a 2% approval rating versus North Korea at 1% and thats *with* North Korea regularly launching rockets toward or over Japan, so Israel is definitely sucking it up.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think there's even some history of world opinion about Jews being quite badly wrong too, but I might be mistaken.
If you weren't talking about the anti-Semitism that caused the Holocaust as well as other Jewish persecutions, then what were you talking about?
If I misunderstood your meaning there--if, and I doubt that I did--it wasn't because I was deliberately misinterpreting your words. In response to the data showing that the world doesn't actually support Israel as you claimed, you said that the world had been wrong before about the Israelis. This heavily implies that they are wrong now, and for a similar reason. The reason before was anti-Semitism. So you wonder why it seems that you are alleging anti-Semitism in the present day? Instead of throwing a hissy fit over being "deliberately misunderstood," look at the way you're wording your ideas. Or the ideas themselves, one or the other.
And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be?
quote:Originally posted by sinflower: And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. but shouldn't it be?
Again, I don't speak for Rakeesh specifically, so don't take this as him answering. However, my answer would be... no.
To make this really clear, I'll use an extreme example: If a foreign nation executes a murderer, that won't do much to gain our support or enmity. If they execute an American tourist for, say, something that is a minor crime (or not even a crime) in the US, they will likely earn some amount of enmity from us.
Do you think that's reasonable?
I can be even more extreme. If another nation assassinates our President, they'll earn a lot more enmity than if they execute a citizen of theirs who is a convicted serial killer.
Does that seem reasonable?
Saying "One life should be equal to another" sounds very noble and wonderful when you don't actually follow it to its logical conclusion.
If either of my examples seems reasonable, then you agree that one life does not, and should not, always "equal" another, whether in terms of garnering US support or really for any other metric.
So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Haha, nice way of putting it. We're just haggling over the details... such as all the facts about the conflict at hand...
Although to be fair that's how this whole conversation has gone. I did much of the same thing with my argument that there isn't a strict line between civilians and combatants, didn't I? And then we all just haggled over the... details.
So in the spirit of haggling, I'd like to mention that those upwards of 6,000 Palestinians, or by less conservative estimates far more than double that number, were not convicted killers or murderers or even members of any militant group. A small number of them were, no doubt. But not the majority. So assume 1,000 of Palestinians killed were all murderers. And assume the very conservative 6,000-ish estimate is the right one.
You still need to justify why 5 Palestinian lives are worth less than 1 Israeli one.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:I rather assumed that was a cheap shot. Even if you omit the countries that have a history of antisemitism (North American, European, or Arabic), Israel still wouldn't really move up much in the rankings.
That assumes I care in the first place. I understand you're speaking strictly to the question of world opinion, though. It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
-----
Sinflower, you're just proving my point. World support for Israel was being discussed. I pointed out that I'm more than a bit wary of taking what 'the world' thinks of things concerning Jews, because anti-Jewish sentiment has such a negative and virulent force throughout the world for a long time-at least, as Mucus notes, in nations that have ever dealt with Jews. If you look at the list he offered, the only nations and regions that aren't mentioned are ones who have never had a sizable Jewish population in the first place.
Which was the only point I was making. You then replied, "So you're saying there's no reason for the world to be opposed to Israel except anti-Semitism?" That's a deliberate misunderstanding, so far as I see it, because it's a pattern of my discussion with you. Saying, "I mistrust world opinion on Jews," does not equate to, "The only reason the world doesn't like Israel is because they're antisemitic." It just doesn't.
quote:Instead of throwing a hissy fit over being "deliberately misunderstood," look at the way you're wording your ideas.
I suppose you could characterize it at 'throwing a hissy fit' when you look at what I say, find the implication that best supports your argument, and then claim that's what I said, sure.
quote:And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be?
Would you also like a pony?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:That assumes I care in the first place. I understand you're speaking strictly to the question of world opinion, though. It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
Because you brought it up.
quote:Which was the only point I was making. You then replied, "So you're saying there's no reason for the world to be opposed to Israel except anti-Semitism?" That's a deliberate misunderstanding, so far as I see it, because it's a pattern of my discussion with you. Saying, "I mistrust world opinion on Jews," does not equate to, "The only reason the world doesn't like Israel is because they're antisemitic." It just doesn't.
So you mistrust world opinion on Jews because of anti-Jewish sentiment, i.e. anti-Semitism. Which means you think that that likely plays a part in the world view of Israel, a significant part or you wouldn't have brought the issue up.
"Can't you think of any other reasons besides the one you stated (anti-Semitism) for the dislike of Israel" is a perfectly reasonable response to that statement, vaguely as it was stated. Yes, I didn't ponder it deeply. I didn't consider whether you were stating that anti-Semitism was the only main reason for the dislike of Israel, or merely a significant one. How deliberately awful of me.
quote:And I really would like to hear your response to the issue of the moral value of Israeli vs. Palestinian lives. One life is not worth another in terms of gaining U.S. support or enmity, yes. But shouldn't it be? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Would you also like a pony?
Alright, I take it back. I wouldn't like to hear your response at all, not if it's going to have that level of constructiveness.
Posts: 241 | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: ... It's just not something that's ever been very persuasive to me, in and of itself. (Not saying you think it is-I'm just wondering why we're even talking about it).
Well, we were talking about world support for Israel. However, thats a measurable thing, as opposed to say, which side is more moral which is not measurable.
Specifically
quote: Israel doesn't have world support, it has support from the Western world. There's a difference.
and
quote:Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is
are statements that can be verified by seeing whether there is support for Israel and how it ranks with other nations.
In specific, Israel has world support to about the same amount that North Korea has world support (which is to say, not much) and support from the Western world for Israel is not significantly off-average from the rest of the world (since Europe balances the US).
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So now we agree on the issue in principle, and we're just haggling over the details.
Haha, nice way of putting it. We're just haggling over the details... such as all the facts about the conflict at hand...
Although to be fair that's how this whole conversation has gone. I did much of the same thing with my argument that there isn't a strict line between civilians and combatants, didn't I? And then we all just haggled over the... details.
So in the spirit of haggling, I'd like to mention that those upwards of 6,000 Palestinians, or by less conservative estimates far more than double that number, were not convicted killers or murderers or even members of any militant group. A small number of them were, no doubt. But not the majority. So assume 1,000 of Palestinians killed were all murderers. And assume the very conservative 6,000-ish estimate is the right one.
You still need to justify why 5 Palestinian lives are worth less than 1 Israeli one.
posted
Ah! I see the problem now, Mucus. When I said, "...Palestinian suicide bombings are the glue that knits Israeli world support - fragile as it is..." I didn't mean that there was a majority of world support, or even a strong minority. I just meant that the thing which keeps governments (mostly the United States) supporting or at least not more strongly condemning Israeli actions is Palestinian suicide bombings. I thought I made that clear by saying it was fragile, but that wasn't very precise.
I'll note that Mucus communicated that without suggesting I said the entire world opposed Israel because it hates Jews.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am interested, though, with whether you agree or disagree. Do you still think the United States would be supporting Israel to the extent it does, and criticizing Israel to the extent it does, if it weren't for things like suicide bombings and rocket attacks?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know. I guess it depends a lot on the terms of the scenario, namely at what specific point when they (the Palestinians) became more pacifistic and to what degree.
If the Palestinians were all Gandhi-like and the Israelis were still going with the Gaza War with white phosphorus, then yes it would be more difficult for the US to maintain its military support. However, the Israelis aren't stupid and would similarly switch to less violent means. With Israel still bordered by states like Iran and Lebanon, I don't know how much of a reduction in military aid there would be. Additionally, I think it is too unrealistic for the Palestinians to go the full Gandhi, so you're really looking at a more modest reduction
Nevertheless, on that aforementioned ranking, you would expect Israel to climb out of the ranks of rogue nations and into the lower middle alongside the China* and US.
* which in fact does have a more modest Muslim terrorism problem. That sort of points toward the results of a moderate terrorism reduction for the Palestinians, they're still Muslim and with the War on Terror, that limits international sympathy. But at least they wouldn't both be condemned with the "a pox on both your houses" attitude that dominates internationally among uninvolved nations.
If you stretch the scenario backward with the Palestinians back in time, maybe someone more familiar with Israeli immigration would be able to answer the question as to whether the Palestinians could have stayed in Israel if they were more pacifistic and worked toward equality within one state. It may be the case that a more black-and-white issue of apartheid might be harder for the US to overlook than a greyer terrorism issue. But I have no idea if that was ever an option.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
IP: Logged |
quote: If the Palestinians were all Gandhi-like and the Israelis were still going with the Gaza War with white phosphorus, then yes it would be more difficult for the US to maintain its military support. However, the Israelis aren't stupid and would similarly switch to less violent means. With Israel still bordered by states like Iran and Lebanon, I don't know how much of a reduction in military aid there would be. Additionally, I think it is too unrealistic for the Palestinians to go the full Gandhi, so you're really looking at a more modest reduction
First of all, if the Israelis switched to less violent means, wouldn't that immediately make things better for the Palestinians? Given that more Palestinians are killed by Israelis than Israelis by Palestinians.
Second, military aid is not the only measure of US support of Israel. When, for example, President Obama 'shuns and humiliates' Israeli leaders, that certainly has an impact on what the Israeli government will direct the IDF to do in the future. Our support does not consist only of giving them guns, tanks, and jets and then saying, "Do what you like with them." What we would permit done in order to ensure continuing military aid, too, would change. And that also would quickly make things better for the Palestinians.
As you pointed out, American public opinion on Israel basically amounts to 7:2:1 in terms of non-involvement, support Israel, and support Palestinians. Change one person in seven's mind about whom to support, and support is equally divided. Change two in seven and it's a blowout. Will the Israeli lobby continue to be powerful? Well, of course. I'm not talking about an abrupt change in fortune for the Palestinian people. Things don't work that way, even in guerrilla war campaigns, much less non-violent protest campaigns.
But how long have Palestinians (please note I did not say all) been trying the suicide bombing of civilians approach? And how long has it been a complete and total failure in terms of making things better for Palestinians?
Speaking generally now and not to you specifically, Mucus, I continue to be baffled at resistance or argument against the idea that nonviolent protest would make things better for the Palestinians. Why not try it? Organized, nation-state violence has failed. Individual suicide bombing violence has failed. International terrorism against the West has failed. Perhaps the sane next step for Palestinian 'militants' would be something not involving targeting civilians for death?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actually, I do not believe I commented on whether things would be better for the Palestinians. In fact, I'm not sure if I have ever commented on that. I have been commenting on the specific issue of international support and/or perception.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking back, I see that's true. I guess I thought the conversation had grown to include that, my mistake.
(Looking even further back, I probably ought not to have put the Mucus heading there up top, since I wasn't speaking just to you.)
Anyway, I still support for both parties is subject in large part to the way they are perceived over time (obviously). I also think things like military aid are subject to support-so I don't see how a change in perception wouldn't result in a change in military aid.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I didn't say no change, I said modest reduction.
I guess I would model it something like this (warning, totally made-up numbers): If I were to explain military aid to Israel from the US, I would roughly divide it into 40%: Aid against Iran, Lebanon, Syria, etc. (also allow for plausible deniability in attacks against Iran) 20%: Aid in sympathy against Palestinian terrorism 30%: Aid for domestic purposes (say 10% Israeli lobby, 5% economic since 75% of US aid must be spent on US arms)
So a full Gandhi approach might shave the military aid by 25% at most, which is good but modest. But also, as I said it is unlikely that all Palestinians would buy into this, so a 80% reduction in terrorism might get you more of a 21% reduction.
It is true that Obama's tongue lashing as an example of change in non-military support might also affect Israel, but I would say that remains to be determined. If the leadership follows a more Lisa approach, they might do something the opposite out of spite Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Would that it were so.
I think Blayne is confusing AIPAC with the Zionist shadow conspiracy that controls all the world's financial institutions, media, and governments behind the scenes.
It's a reasonable misunderstanding, I think. Their names are pretty similar.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: I find it ironic when a group that uses the Old Testement as a historical and moral backing for wanting a particular piece of land then complains about the morality of the military actions of their enemies.
This is actually a very good point. For my part I find it odd (from the perspective of logical consistency) for orthodox Jews, who I presume must be literalists about the events of Numbers and Deuteronomy, to have a big problem with the targeting of civilians and children. There were no Amorite children left alive by the time the Israelites were done with them.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why is it either ironic or odd? It's only ironic or odd if you believe that the people you're describing, those using the OT as historical and moral backing, don't actually believe that God commanded the people in the OT to do what they did.
If they believe that was so then, and that they are commanded to behave in a certain way now, and that their enemies are not given such permission by God...where is the irony or hypocrisy?
You could argue that there is wrongness or something to be found there, but that's a different thing. The zing here doesn't zing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Well the Israeli lobby is the best organized and largest lobby regardless...
Would that it were so.
I think Blayne is confusing AIPAC with the Zionist shadow conspiracy that controls all the world's financial institutions, media, and governments behind the scenes.
It's a reasonable misunderstanding, I think. Their names are pretty similar.
posted
It seems very odd if one assumes, as believers generally do, that when God demands an action it means that sort of action isn't atrociously wrong. When God commands Adam to go forth and multiply, we infer that multiplying is generally a good thing. In fact, if it were evil then God would have just done something wrong by commanding it. Seems impossible.
It's not like he ordered these deaths as a test of faith, like when Abraham was ordered to kill Isaac. He actually wanted the Amorite civilians dead. So I fail to see how a believing Jew who reads this passage literally could universally condemn attacks on civilians without granting that God sometimes does the wrong thing.
A more nuanced perspective would be to say that civilian deaths are sometimes a necessary evil, and that's why God was willing to command them. But then one can't consistently say something like
quote:Meanwhile, the Arabs laud murderers of civilians. Not "enemies", sinflower. Civilians. And not as collateral damage, either. They deliberately target civilians. And you making excuses for that makes you a moral viper. Scum.
posted
To put it another way, and phrase things in parallel with Lisa: the Jews laud murderers of civilians, and not as collateral damage. It's just that the murderers they laud (such as Joshua) are supposed to have lived a very long time ago.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't speak to a Jewish interpretation of those texts, Destineer, but I can very easily imagine one overriding thing you seem to be forgetting. Someone using those texts as moral and historical support would likely think God commanded those killings.
It's very unlikely (to put it mildly) that they feel the same can be said of suicide bombing killings going on today. God commanded one, not the other. Granting your premise that those past killings were wrong, is it actually very odd at all to think that God could command something bad be done to make things turn out better? And that, if so, those bad things while still bad are acceptable?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Granting your premise that those past killings were wrong, is it actually very odd at all to think that God could command something bad be done to make things turn out better? And that, if so, those bad things while still bad are acceptable?
Sorry, are we supposed to be disagreeing here? How is this different from my statement above?
quote:A more nuanced perspective would be to say that civilian deaths are sometimes a necessary evil, and that's why God was willing to command them.
And how can someone who believes this make a blanket condemnation of targeting civilians?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And how can someone who believes this make a blanket condemnation of targeting civilians?
I don't think they actually are doing so. The, "...when God commands us..." part is implicit but unspoken.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But what principle was God using when he decided to order the killing? Presumably, that it was worth it to kill civilians in service of the greater good. Well, some Palestinians think they're in just that sort of situation.
Also, I suspect the Palestinians think that God has commanded them to do what they're doing, since they probably see it as a way of meeting the obligation to take part in jihad.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure if we can connect on this, Destineer. I think (and again, can't speak for Jewish readings of these texts) that what justified those killings in the past wasn't, "God commanded them," in general, that it was acceptable because they believed God commanded them.
It was acceptable, they believe, because God did command them. You're approaching the matter as though the people who look to these events as moral and historical justification are doing so in some sort of abstract, when I think it's quite a bit more specific than that.
Killing is acceptable when God commands it, but only if God has actually commanded it. Obviously they don't think God has commanded the killing of Israelis, thus it's not acceptable, and thus having a problem with it is not odd or ironic.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the distinction, but I don't see how it solves the problem. God's decisions about what to command have to be justified by some moral principles. It's not like he could just say "Poof, killing is always right, go do it. So sayeth Me."
There must be some deeper principle of justification behind God's command that the Israelites murder indigenous tribes on their way to the promised land. So what I'd like to see, from the orthodox Jewish critic of the Palestinians, is an explanation of why that same principle couldn't justify Palestinian suicide bombing.
Such an explanation would have to be longer and more involved than "They killed civilians, period. They're evil." To pretend otherwise seems to me inconsistent with Jewish scripture.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
How much do you know about Jewish scripture, particularly as it is most commonly interpreted by Orthodox Jews? I'm only asking because I know very, very little, so it's difficult for me to understand what framework you're coming from. It really reads like you're doing quite a bit of projection.
quote: There must be some deeper principle of justification behind God's command that the Israelites murder indigenous tribes on their way to the promised land. So what I'd like to see, from the orthodox Jewish critic of the Palestinians, is an explanation of why that same principle couldn't justify Palestinian suicide bombing.
I would be surprised to learn there wasn't some deeper principle of justification involved. One very easy to imagine would would be, "To help Israel." This would apply thousands of years ago, but most definitely wouldn't apply today, to Palestinians killing Israeli civilians.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope I'm not stirring a pot that shouldn't be stirred by saying this, but in a modern international context, "God authorized it" is useless. As a justification it can only work in private. No one else [outside your religious community, at the limit] will believe you. No one will give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard if there is some question of mutual importance on the line, let alone vital importance. They will react to what you do as if God didn't authorize anything.
I'd sleep a little easier if I thought no one these days was under the impression that God has issued standing orders to kill. (Not a lot easier, since there is an overabundance of other reasons people are killing other people. ) But anyone who really holds such a belief is a moron if they think that carries any weight with anyone else. And anyone else would be foolish to cede anything on such a basis.
Critics of Palestinian suicide bombers (for example) don't need to explain why religious motivation isn't good enough or even a mitigating factor. It'd be insane to give that kind of weight to beliefs that are not shared. I do think it's worthwhile to examine the situation in terms of why people are doing things, since that's the only way to determine with any hope of accuracy whether they'll continue to do them, but that's an analysis of cause and effect, not whether actions are justified.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
) But anyone who really holds such a belief is a moron if they think that carries any weight with anyone else. And anyone else would be foolish to cede anything on such a basis. 
