|
Quote:
As for winning the hearts and minds of Israelis, I think there are any number of Palestinians and Lebanese actively trying to do that, out of enlightened self-interest if nothing else. But that wasn't the question you posited, Dan: You wanted to know if there could ever be peace and happiness with any of the "destroy Israel" factions, which is a question that posits both sides being around long enough to actually make peace. If either side "destroys" the other--and I put that word in scare quotes because it ranges from the removal of a political party and redrawing of borders to salted-earth genocide--then the question of making peace becomes rather moot. |
Daniel,
A very well reasoned post (and not just because - in large part - you agree with me.) Where we stand now, I could see the U.S. getting Assad under some semblance of "control," through a lot of carrot and not much stick. Iran is another story; until such time as the world moves forward from a petroleum-based economy -- or accepts shortages -- Iran will be in a position to wreak whatever havoc it chooses, with the West's thirst for oil paying for it. The current drive toward UN sanctions can only be successful at the cost of $4-$5 a gallon gas, and the equivalent impact on heating and industrial feuls. The only question is whether we, Europe, and the Far East will pay that, in exchange for foreign policy goals designed to secure access to oil in the first case (i.e., a stable middle east.) It is fairly predictable, at any rate, that China will be happy to be the sole recipient of Iran's oil wealth, even if sanctions do come into play. "Flipping" Syria -- presumably through an aid influx coupled with contingency demands, and of course threats a-go-go -- would at least establish a choke point for transit of arms to Lebanon. The money, however, continues to flow, arms embargo or no arms embargo. Therefore, if we do not want Hezbollah's free rein in Lebanon to continue, we have to simultaneously out-rebuild the Iranians, and somehow prevail on the Lebanese to take the de-governmentalization of Hezbollah seriously. Every clinic, school, and laundromat run by Hezbollah is a challenge to Lebanese sovereignty; and every one closed, rather than nationalized and if possible improved, is an invitation to wax nostalgic about those good ol Hezbollah days. The project of arms interdiction would also take some doing, presumeably on the part of Lebanon's newly potent armed forces, and the thus-far nonexistent international presence. Assuming these become robust enough to control the country's borders, there may be a beginning to an end outlined here. But it involves many, many ifs -- the biggest one, in my book, being the "flipping" of Assad, whose personal idea of Israel, is about on a par with that of his opposite number in Iran. I do not think the world is serious yet about Lebanon, and from what I've seen, it looks likely we're just at "halftime." But maybe not. Thanks for food for thought, Dan |
Regarding the "accepted norm," it's good to keep in mind that the largest business in the world is the arms business.
(Second is drugs, third, oil.) A man who made his money in arms contributed the Nobel Prize for Peace. Ironies abound. Here's a piece a Jewish friend sent along. ******* The Global Islamic population is approximately 1,200,000,000, or 20% of the world population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: Literature: 1988 - Najib Mahfooz. World Peace: 1978 - Mohamed Anwar El-Sadat 1994 - Yasser Arafat (can you believe this one?) Physics: 1990 - Elias James Corey 1999 - Ahmed Zewail Medicine: 1960 - Peter Brian Medawar 1998 - Ferid Mourad The Global Jewish population is approximately 14,000,000 or about 002% of the world population. They have received the following Nobel Prizes: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Literature: >>>>>>> 1910 - Paul Heyse >>>>>>> 1927 - Henri Bergson >>>>>>> 1958 - Boris Pasternak >>>>>>> 1966 - Shmuel Yosef Agnon >>>>>>> 1966 - Nelly Sachs >>>>>>> 1976 - Saul Bellow >>>>>>> 1978 - Isaac Bashevis Singer >>>>>>> 1981 - Elias Canetti >>>>>>> 1987 - Joseph Brodsky >>>>>>> 1991 - Nadine Gordimer >>>>>>> >>>>>>> World Peace: >>>>>>> 1911 - Alfred Fried >>>>>>> 1911 - Tobias Michael Carel Asser >>>>>>> 1968 - Rene Cassin >>>>>>> 1973 - Henry Kissinger >>>>>>> 1978 - Menachem Begin >>>>>>> 1986 - Elie Wiesel >>>>>>> 1994 - Shimon Peres >>>>>>> 1994 - Yitzhak Rabin >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Physics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1905 - Adolph Von Baeyer >>>>>>> 1906 - Henri Moissan >>>>>>> 1910 - Otto Wallach >>>>>>> 1915 - Richard Willstaetter >>>>>>> 1918 - Fritz Haber >>>>>>> 1943 - George Charles de Hevesy >>>>>>> 1961 - Melvin Calvin >>>>>>> 1962 - Max Ferdinand Perutz >>>>>>> 1972 - William Howard Stein >>>>>>> 1977 - Ilya Prigogine >>>>>>> 1979 - Herbert Charle s Brown >>>>>>> 1980 - Paul Berg >>>>>>> 1980 - Walter Gilbert >>>>>>> 1981 - Roald Hoffmann >>>>>>> 1982 - Aaron Klug >>>>>>> 1985 - Albert A. Hauptman >>>>>>> 1985 - Jerome Karle >>>>>>> 1986 - Dudley R. Herschbach >>>>>>> 1988 - Robert Huber >>>>>>> 1989 - Sidney Altman >>>>>>> 1992 - Rudolph Marcus >>>>>>> 2000 - Alan J. Heeger >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Economics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1970 - Paul Anthony Samuelson >>>>>>> 1971 - Simon Kuznets >>>>>>> 1972 - Kenneth Joseph Arrow >>>>>>> 1975 - Leonid Kantorovich >>>>>>> 1976 - Milton Friedman >>>>>>> 1978 - Herbert A. Simon >>>>>>> 1980 - Lawrence Robert Klein >>>>>>> 1985 - Franco Modigliani >>>>>>> 1987 - Robert M. Solow >>>>>>> 1990 - Harry Markowitz >>>>>>> 1990 - Merton Miller >>>>>>> 1992 - Gary Becker >>>>>>> 1993 - Robert Fogel >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Medicine: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1908 - Elie Metchnikoff >>>>>>> 1908 - Paul Erlich >>>>>>> 1914 - Robert Barany >>>>>>> 1922 - Otto Meyerhof >>>>>>> 1930 - Karl Landsteiner >>>>>>> 1931 - Otto Warburg >>>>>>> 1936 - Otto Loewi >>>>>>> 1944 - Joseph Erlanger >>>>>>> 1944 - Herbert Spencer Gasser >>>>>>> 1945 - Ernst Boris Chain >>>>>>> 1946 - Hermann Joseph Muller >>>>>>> 1950 - Tadeus Reichstein >>>>>>> 1952 - Selman Abraham Waksman >>>>>>> 1953 - Hans Krebs >>>>>>> 1953 - Fritz Albert Lipmann >>>>>>> 1958 - Joshua Lederberg >>>>>>> 1959 - Arthur Kornberg >>>>>>> 1964 - Konrad Bloch >>>>>>> 1965 - Francois Jacob >>>>>>> 1965 - Andre Lwoff >>>>>>> 1967 - George Wald >>>>>>> 1968 - Marshall W. Nirenberg >>>>>>> 1969 - Salvador Luria >>>>>>> 1970 - Julius Axelrod 1 >>>>>>> 1970 - Sir Bernard Katz >>>>>>> 1972 - Gerald Maurice Edelman >>>>>>> 1975 - Howard Martin Temin >>>>>>> 1976 - Baruch S. Blumberg >>>>>>> 1977 - Roselyn Sussman Yalow >>>>>>> 1978 - Daniel Nathans >>>>>>> 1980 - Baruj Benacerraf >>>>>>> 1984 - Cesar Milstein >>>>>>> 1985 - Michael Stuart Brown >>>>>>> 1985 - Joseph L. Goldstein >>>>>>> 1986 - Stanley Cohen [& Rita Levi-Montalcini] >>>>>>> 1988 - Gertrude Elion >>>>>>> 1989 - Harold Varmus 1 >>>>>>> 1991 - Erwin Neher >>>>>>> 1991 - Bert Sakmann >>>>>>> 1993 - Richard J. Roberts >>>>>>> 1993 - Phillip Sharp >>>>>>> 1994 - Alfred Gilman >>>>>>> 1995 - Edward B. Lewis >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Solid Physics: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 1907 - Albert Abraham Michelson >>>>>>> 1908 - Gabriel Lippmann >>>>>>> 1921 - Albert Einstein >>>>>>> 1922 - Niels Bohr >>>>>>> 1925 - James Franck >>>>>>> 1925 - Gustav Hertz >>>>>>> 1943 - Gustav Stern >>>>>>> 1944 - Isidor Issac Rabi >>>>>>> 1952 - Felix Bloch >>>>>>> 1954 - Max Born >>>>>>> 1958 - Igor Tamm >>>>>>> 1959 - Emilio Segre >>>>>>> 1960 - Donald A. Glaser >>>>>>> 1961 - Robert Hofstadter >>>>>>> 1962 - Lev Davidovich Landau >>>>>>> 1965 - Richard Phillips Feynman >>>>>>> 1965 - Julian Schwinger >>>>>>> 1969 - Murray Gell-Mann >>>>>>> 1971 - Dennis Gabor >>>>>>> 1973 - Brian David Josephson >>>>>>> 1975 - Benjamin Mottleson >>>>>>> 1976 - Burton Richter >>>>>>> 1978 - Arno Allan Penzias >>>>>>> 1978 - Peter L Kapitza >>>>>>> 1979 - Stephen Weinberg >>>>>>> 1979 - Sheldon Glashow >>>>>>> 1988 - Leon Lederman >>>>>>> 1988 - Melvin Schwartz >>>>>>> 1988 - Jack Steinberger >>>>>>> 1990 - Jerome Friedman >>>>>>> 1995 - Martin Perl The Israelis are not demonstrating with their dead in the streets, yelling and chanting and asking for revenge. The Israelis are not brainwashing their children in military training camps, teaching them how to blow themselves up and cause maximum deaths. They don't highjack planes, nor kill athletes at the Olympics, they don't traffic in slaves, nor have their leaders called for Jihad and death to the "Infidels." Israel doesn't have the economic strength of the Petroleum Cartel, nor the presumption to force the world's media to see "their side" of the question. Perhaps if the world's Muslims could invest more in education and less in blaming others for all their problems, we could all live in a better world. ****** That was forwarded to me by Ted Casher, who teaches music to kids. Bob |
Um, Bob, correlation isn't causality, and stereotyping entire populations is embarrassingly past its sell-by date. Anti-Muslim sentiments aren't any prettier than Anti-Jewish ones.
|
Cultural accident of birth has a great deal to do with educational opportunities and recognition. Many of the Jewish Nobel prize-winners were residents in Europe, America or Australia--the fortunate countries.
I find this way of measuring human worth to be about as useful as the IQ test when applied to cultures outside the test's culture of origin. To generalise about any religious group is pretty unpleasant (although I often think a plague on all their houses.) I dissociate myself absolutely from fundamentalist Christian zealots who support war (mass-murder) and who blow up buildings in the name of their personal beliefs. I can't hold Daniel Barenboim responsible for an Israeli citizen who shoots up mosques and generally despises the displaced people whose ancestral land they inhabit. Nobody is without guilt in this idiotic frenzy and nobody should cast a stone. I am ferociously against anybody who oppresses women, who blows up citizens, who bombs cities and villages and who thinks they have a license to punish. And if anybody thinks this applies solely to Muslims they haven't been paying attention. Patriarchy is not a myth. Islam is more in its grip than other religions, that I grant but may God save me from the whole blooming lot of them. I am as scared as any of you. Janet |
I haven't been keeping up with this humungous thread, but something from the Jewish music teacher's statement quoted by Bob caught my attention. The music teacher was drawing a distinction between Israelis who do not engage in terrorist tactics and Muslims who do.
I don't know if it's been brought up yet, but the Jews in Palestine did engage in terrorist tactics against the British way back before Israel was established. The bombing of the King David Hotel was the most famous instance. I don't know enough about the history to opinionate re.: how effective the terrorism proved to be, & how much support it had from the whole Jewish population. In any case, a state of Israel was indeed established, so it can't have been utterly catastrophic. Whenever I see categorical moral condemnations of Islamic terrorism from the Israeli point of view I always wonder how the condemning party would regard historical Jewish terrorism. Isn't terrorism a recourse for a militarily & politically disadvantaged party? Were not the Jews in Palestine disadvantaged, in relation to the British, way back then, in the same way that the Palestinian Muslims are in relation to the Israelis now? Can the Israelis remember when the shoe was on the other foot? Can they imaginatively sympathize with the situation of their enemy? A little bit goes a long way. |
Quote:
The similarity is, as you point out, that Jews also committed terrorist acts. The difference is that, after the war of independence, Haganah disbanded Irgun, Lehi, and even Palmakh (the non-terrorist elite troops within Haganah.) In one incident, IDF forces sank a ship of armaments destined for Irgun and Lehi forces, clearly risking civil war. By contrast, Lebanon has never done the parallel in regard to Hezbollah (although we do like to think that they'd like to.) The Palestinian Authority refused to disarm and disband any of the terrorist organizations, inside or outside of the PLO umbrella. In fact, Fatah, the "moderate" secular nationalist alternative to Hamas, has its own suicide bombing wing, the Al Aqsa brigades. I don't believe this information by itself gainsays your point about the brief period in which organized Jewish terrorists operated, but the hoped-for sympathy for terrorism would be confined to those who remember the 1948 war, and among those, a small number who were pretty much villified by their opposite numbers in Haganah/Palmakh. He who remembers history is condemned to recite it http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/ubbhtml/wink.gif, Dan |
RJ,
I'm not sure what your post accomplishes besides highlighting your friend's racism. Dan, The Lebanese have barely been independent a year, and the Palestinians are still hoping. By the way, both the Irgun and the Stern Gang were integrated into the IDF. I suppose if Hamas is rolled into the PLO/PA, and Hezbollah into the Lebanese Armed Forces, you will be happy. - Daniel [This message has been edited by Daniel Haar (edited August 22, 2006).] |
Dan,
You draw the parallel between Lebanon & pre-Israel Haganah. This seems, at best, weird. Lebanon is a fragment of Ottoman Syria cut off by some European mapmaker, an impossibility struggling towards national identity. What Lebanon has to deal with is drastically different than what Haganah had to deal with. Furthermore... "but the hoped-for sympathy for terrorism would be confined to those who remember the 1948 war, and among those, a small number who were pretty much villified by their opposite numbers in Haganah/Palmakh." This, I don't believe. Anybody in a significant position who doesn't remember it has got to be wilfully forgetting it. And remembering it is not the same thing has having been oneself a terrorist, villified or not. It's just remembering. Anyway, the quotation you cleverly twist is, of course, the relevant one: those who forget history are condemned to repeat it. But this raises the really big question: how does one profitably remember history? How do you remember things in a way that makes a difference in what you do? This, perhaps, is one basis for the definition of "wisdom." There seems to be a dearth of wisdom, a plethora of self-justifications, in political discourse, generally, nowadays. A lack of stature. Everybody seems zeroed in on their little interests, with no sense of context. All it takes is one person in a position of authority to rise above that level & speak "wisdom", & anything can happen. But let's not hold our breaths. |
Originally posted by Seree Zohar:
"RJ re: 'I think our current administration is just too incompetent to handle the complexity.' while many may feel that to be true, I am not at all sure any administration could do a great deal better; the below http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008768 is only 13 short paragraphs in length but describes, with clarity, a mindset that is tough (understatement) to crack and entirely foregin to ours, making it all the more incomprehensible and difficult to work with." Thanks, Seree, I read it. The apocalyptic view is not exclusively the province of radical Iranians. It's held by many radical, right wing fundamentalists in our country. They make up a significant portion of the Republic Party base, and I'd not be surprised if Mr. Bush anticipates the second coming. (I have a friend who's called him the Antichrist since he decided to make war in the Middle East.) I think there's a parallel between apocalyptic expectations and the expectations of the neocons when they discuss the benefits of "creative destruction" in the Middle East, you know, "the birth pangs of the New Middle East." Here's the part of the article you cite that most disturbs me: "In the long term, it would seem that the best, perhaps the only hope is to appeal to those Muslims, Iranians, Arabs and others who do not share these apocalyptic perceptions and aspirations, and feel as much threatened, indeed even more threatened, than we are." Our administration WAS making that appeal, especially to the nations of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, trying to get them (with some success) to assist in the discrediting and disarming of Hezbollah. Unfortunately, after the devastation that the Israeli response wrought, they backed off and showed sympathy for Lebanon and less suspicion and fear of Hezbollah. As Kurt Vonnegut would say, "So it goes." Bob [This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited August 22, 2006).] |
Originally posted by Ethan Anderson:
"Um, Bob, correlation isn't causality, and stereotyping entire populations is embarrassingly past its sell-by date. Anti-Muslim sentiments aren't any prettier than Anti-Jewish ones." I agree, Ethan. I wrote a note to my Jewish friend with your sentiments, telling him that using 100% of the world's Muslims, was a gross generalization. I figure the radical, Islamic jihadis make up closer to the .002 % he cites for the Jewish % of the world's population. I also suggested that he read about what Mohamed taught children and adults. And I asked him to forward my note across his list. Bob |
Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"The difference is that, after the war of independence, " "The war of independence" does no more to obviate the Jewish terrorists than does George Bush's "Operation Iraqi Freedom" obviate the mess he's wrought. They're both made of language to make their speakers feel good. Your DIFFERENCE is a rationalization, a technique. Seeing precision bombing as something other than a Western form of terrorism is also a rationalization. See it for what it is, Dan. Imagine yourself as a Lebanese or Israeli villager having to put up with incoming daily. Would you not be terrorized? Each technique, the bombing and the rationalization, is alive and well on both sides of The Great War for Civilisation. Bob |
Quote:
1. See yourself as a citizen of (for example) Haifa. They feel terrorised too, but by real terrorists, for whom Terror is an actual weapon. Israelis don't want to kill Lebanese civilians; their targets are Hezbollah gun/rocket emplacements etc. Civilians are, unfortunately for them, collateral damage; besides, they've been warned, by leaflet-drops and other methods. Real Terrorists (Hezbollah etc.) actually want to kill civilians. That must make SOME difference, mustn't it, even if it's no comfort to the man or woman whose children have just been obliterated? 2. Mid 20th history can be dragged in again. Didn't the German citizens feel terrorised by Allied bombing? Was that a reason to quit and let Hitler win? So. More circles within circles. |
RJ makes the interesting case that "precision bombing" is "Western Terrorism." This I suppose is distinct from strategic bombing, as in the saturation bombings the Americans and British -- but not the Israelis -- have taken part in?
Please clarify. Do you intend to make the case that precision bombing is: 1) more morally reprehensible than saturation bombing, or 2) equally reprehensible, despite the comparatively tiny number of civilian lives it takes? I am just curious why you went out of your way to identify one the more restrained flavor of aerial military bombardment as terrorism -- do you agree with Janet that anyone with an air force is, essentially, a terrorist? If so, how is the term "terrorist" distinct from "armed forces"? From what you say, RJ, you believe reason and precision to be the opposite of the required response to war, to wit, a passionate display of sympathy without regard to distinctions, historical or otherwise, among the combatants and their tactics. In your last post you not only plead for such a reaction, you seem to say it is the only moral response to suffering. I disagree. I do have a human sympathetic response to suffering, but it does not freeze or shut down my faculties of reason. I maintain both are necessary to ever progress from the current state, murky as the prospect of forward progress looks to me at present. I also differ with you regarding the terminology "War of Independence." It is standard terminology for that war. On July 4 I celebrate "Independence Day," not "Irregular Flouters of the Rules of War" day, "Genocide Against the Native Americans" day, or any other such hogwash. What the hell would you call the Israeli War of Independence? AE, I'm short on time here, but I do want to come back to your historical point later. I think my point is that "remembering" and "remembering sympathetically" are two different things, and you don't "remember sympathetically" unless you are a fan of the actions remembered. Dan |
Originally posted by Mark Granier:
"Didn't the German citizens feel terrorised by Allied bombing? Was that a reason to quit and let Hitler win?" I think, Mark, that the main question is whether Israel's strategy was overkill. Some of us think it was, other's find it the accepted norm. Regarding Germany, Hitler had lost when we continued bombing and burned Dresden. That was overkill. I don't hesitate to say that the incredible incendiary bombing of Japanese cities was also overkill, not to mention TWO nuclear attacks to make a point. I want to call out to the air force commanders and shout, "Hey, let's call it a day." Bob |
Many British people are deeply ashamed of the bombing of Dresden and the huge loss of life in other carpet bombings.
Just think we could have beaten the Italian Fascisti by bombing Venice. The moral I take from WW2 is that bombing is an unacceptable evil. Janet |
Janet,
I feel a certain resonance with that point of view, specifically regarding the carpet bombing of German and Japanese population centers. Now then, what made it bad? To me, what made it bad was its target (primarily civilian population,) and the fact that, as practiced in WWII, bombing was mass slaughter, with "accuracy" ranges measured by miles rather than feet or yards. Is this the same for you, or is the lesson that explosions are bad, as measured against other aspects of warfare (for example, bullets or arrows?) Or explosives that drop from the air are bad, but those that are planted on buses are good? My thought is it's all bad, but it's particularly bad when weapons are aimed at the unarmed. Our experience with so-called Total War in World War II is especially useful in evaluating the claim that one or another combatant is engaged in the same exercise. My point of view is that intentionally causing the death of another human being is an unacceptable evil, whether you stab, slash, shoot, explode, poison, or defenestrate. Two is twice as bad, and a thousand are a thousand times as bad. And one is unacceptably bad. However, when said other human being is trying to do the same to me, it is no longer bad to counter deadly force with deadly force; the argument can and has been made, that killing an aggressor in self-defense removes a source of evil from the world, whereas the "self-defender" has not shown himself more or less likely to actually act with an aggressive intent to kill. So we come around to a basic premise that killing in self-defense is not an unacceptable evil, because it stops an act of intended murder. From this premise, in the subjective judgement of warring parties, comes the premise that killing in defense of the nation, within war, is unacceptable, but that one must try one's best to kill the parties attempting to kill you, rather than the general population. Hence, the notion of a noncombatant, and the general repugnance we share toward indiscriminate carpet bombing. I do maintain, however, that it is better (for example) to drop very few munitions from the air, killing a few noncombatants and many more combatants, who are your main target, than, for instance, lining up the population of a city and machine-gunning them to death, despite the fact that there is no aerial bombardment involved. Every use of explosives lobbed through the air is not Dresden. In a perfect world, there would be none. In our imperfect world, we must distinguish between just and unjust war, both in terms of why we go to war, and how we conduct ourselves in war. Your distaste for aerial bombardment, though buttressed by Hiroshima and Dresden, takes a very specific kind of aerial bombardment, and applies it to the delivery mode (air) and the mode of destruction (explosives,) rather than to the aspect that makes it truly repugnant, its indiscriminateness (if that's a word.) I disagree. I think it's killing the bad guys and not the bystanders that matters when you're evaluating the morality of how a war is fought. Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 23, 2006).] |
Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"RJ makes the interesting case that "precision bombing" is "Western Terrorism." This I suppose is distinct from strategic bombing, as in the saturation bombings the Americans and British -- but not the Israelis -- have taken part in?" No. "Precision" bombs are called so to make us feel better about the results. They make not only citizens, but also pilots feel less guilty. They still cause horrendous, and indiscriminant damage. We've discussed "carpet bombing" earlier. When good people see the damage that CB, or "strategic," bombing does, they're repelled. Not good for the military, the war planners or the politicians. So, they come up with a new strategy with new technology accompanied by a feel-good name: "Precision." Bombs that strike like darts, zip down the chimneys of enemy headquarters, kill terrorists only, and obliterate only terrorist infrastructure. Well, even though Israel may buy them on good faith from the U.S. , they ain't all they're cracked up to be. Like any military technology, they fail. One of the problems of the aftermath of war is all of the failed bombs lying around, besides the mines left in the ground. "Please clarify." Sure. I'll go for "2) equally reprehensible, despite the comparatively tiny number of civilian lives it takes?" "Tiny" to you, Dan. Not "tiny" to Iraqis, Afghans, Lebanese, or Israeli citizens. "I am just curious why you went out of your way to identify one the more restrained flavor of aerial military bombardment as terrorism -- do you agree with Janet that anyone with an air force is, essentially, a terrorist?" If they use it, yes. When they do, history shows us that "restraint" isn't part of the plan. Nothing "restrained" about the bombings of Britain, Germany, Japan, Vietnam, Iraq, Lebanon, or Israel. "If so, how is the term "terrorist" distinct from "armed forces"?" Planes can bomb from 30,000 feet. They can whistle in over rooftops at night. Lately, they do either with scarce opposition. They can shock and awe. "Armed forces" includes infantry who must engage the enemy. Engaging the enemy on the ground is costly. Also, most human beings don't like to kill each other. In the first and second world wars, only about 20% of soldiers would fire their weapons at opposing soldiers. So we had to develop the strategy of "fields of fire" in order to take the guilt of killing somebody out of it. Now, we've got serious about training our troops to be professional killers. Among other things, it's caused a much higher rate of desertion. And some horrific My Lai -type episodes in Iraq. When the enemy lacks the power to counterattack, bombing is SO easy. "From what you say, RJ, you believe reason and precision to be the opposite of the required response to war," What's reasonable or precise about all the bombing going on in Iraq? Did Israel win a reasonable and precise victory over Hezbollah? Have Iran and Syria seen the light? "to wit, a passionate display of sympathy without regard to distinctions, historical or otherwise, among the combatants and their tactics. In your last post you not only plead for such a reaction, you seem to say it is the only moral response to suffering." I plead for reason. I find the history of retribution a gleaming example of failure. I've shown no sympathy for the combatants. I've called them lunatics and morons for repeating failures. "I disagree. I do have a human sympathetic response to suffering, but it does not freeze or shut down my faculties of reason. I maintain both are necessary to ever progress from the current state, murky as the prospect of forward progress looks to me at present." Well, it certainly looks murky. You're talking carrot and stick...speak softly, but carry a big stick...the usual malarky of "diplomacy," the Western model, Stalin's model. But the big stick didn't work in Korea. It didn't work in Vietnam. And it's not working in the Middle East. So, I think we need something new to get past the murk. (Incidentally, I include Israel in "Western" thinking and behavior. Without Western support, Israel would have had a tough go of it. Most Zionists emigrated from Western countries ((excluding the more recent flow from Russia)),yes?) "I also differ with you regarding the terminology "War of Independence." It is standard terminology for that war." I don't argue that it's non-standard. I'm trying to point out that it's the usual jingoistic, feel good language designed to mask unpleasant aspects of its purpose. "What the hell would you call the Israeli War of Independence?" Well, let's see. I usually call the Vietnam War, the American War in Vietnam, which it was. Will the Zionist War for Control of Palestine work? Maybe, more simply, The Zionist War in Palestine. The Re-Establishment of the Promised Land? The Securing of the Promised Land? How about this, Israel's First War Against Displaced Arabs? Israel's First War Against Pissed Off Arabs? You know, in that it's STILL at war, there having been such a string of battles, maybe it would be good to acknowledge what Mr. Bush calls "root cause." I'm working on this. How about Israel's First Battle Against the Arabs, Who Feel that They Also Have a Claim on the Holy Lands? Too long? Running out of time, Dan. Probably need a PR agency to work on this one. Bob |
Bob,
I'll stick with "War of Independence," as it's the most accurate and value-neutral of the terms listed. I don't call it the "War of Arab Invasion," although it would be a good deal more accurate historically than "The Zionist War for...." anything, since "The Zionists" were the invadees rather than the invaders, and your formulations indicate the Yishuv chose to go to war against Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, and Transjordan. I understand your points, and, as with Janet's, I disagree. That is not surprising. My point is that there's a horror to modern war, which reached its zenith (for now) in the second world war. Currently, the damage to civilians and their infrastructure, in the conflict under discussion, does not approach that level, even when scaled for the size of the countries involved. Both because of character of World War II, and because of the technological differences from that time until the present, "precision" munitions are undeniably "feel-good" weapons by comparison. You indicate horror at that notion, or perhaps more accurately, you express a good deal of anger at the notion that people believe war to be 100% sanitary, when in fact it is only several hundred percent more "sanitary" than were preceding wars (as in, several times more accurate.) You may tell me there is no difference between a bombing that kills a quarter million and one that kills fifty. You may think of a good reason, or three good reasons, or even five to say this. I can give you 249,950 reasons why you are wrong. I think it is the recently referenced Stalin who said, "a single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is a statistic." Each civilian death is a horror -- that is why Hezbollah went to such trouble to gild the lily, and display more civilian deaths than actually occured. They are aware they can manipulate Westerners. So, I will leave you with the purer ideals, and I will keep for myself the ability to comment on the world as we know it. I will celebrate with you on the day my views become obsolete, when the world's air forces are grounded, when neither explosives nor bullets nor swords are used against "enemy," when in fact there is no "enemy," the lion lies down with the lamb, and we pass our days gathered around campfires singing Kumbaya. Okay that last part was snide. I do really hope for that kind of future, and that kind of world. The difficulty is I live in the present, in this world. For the present, it's the malarky of diplomacy or the horror of war. I still want to get back to AE, but thanks for commenting again. Dan [This message has been edited by Dan Halberstein (edited August 23, 2006).] |
AE, Lebanon and the various factions warring therein definitely are very different from the nascent state of Israel in the late 40s. The presence of several armed gangs as well as an actual disciplined army is similar. The necessity for the responsible state organ - the army - to disarm the gangs, is similar. The army's ability to do so is dissimilar. The Palestinian situation partakes of the same variables. You may claim that these nationalities are not really nationalities one day to allay their responsibilities as states or proto-states; just do not renege the next day when responsible states need to take military action because they refuse to act in accordance with their state responsibility.
Israel today is the product of decisions and choices, more than of, say, Western arms (not present until well after the state's establishment.) One such choice was to dissolve all militias, and to adhere to state control, with the IDF being the sole armed force of the nation. This is very comparable to the choice before Lebanon today. You ask: Quote:
At the turn of the previous century, in by no means unique circumstances, over two million Jews left Czarist Russia in response to steadily escalating pogroms and anti-Jewish laws, primarily for America. In 1918-1920, 85,000 Jews were killed in Ukraine. In 1933 Hitler came to power, culminating in the Holocaust. In 1948 Israel proclaimed herself a state, and was greeted by immediate invasion on the part of five Arab nations, whose spokesmen raved about "wiping out" the Jews, a "war of extermination," and "Pushing the Jews into the sea." That's about a fifty-year period, AE. The preceding paragraph's point has nothing to do with guilt or sympathy. It has to do with history. If it's Wisdom to remember history and know what to do about it, I do not think I would call boundless trust "Wisdom" in the case of Israel. We are not talking about a barbarian nation, as it's so fashionable to prattle on about -- ignoring the fact that Israel is the most democratic, most open, and most aware of human rights of any polity within hundreds of miles. We are not talking about an endlessly aggressive nation -- Israel's desires are for her own security, not occupation. She attempts regularly to give land back to her neighbors, and is met with repeated provocations. We are talking about a nation that can do one thing to satisfy the demands of her antagonists, and that is to die. What would history tell you, were you an Israeli? Quote:
Dan |
Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"I can give you 249,950 reasons why you are wrong." Yes, you're approaching that, Dan. Has it occured to you that you protest too much? That you've engaged in verbal overkill? Check your motivations. Surely no guilt, right? "I will celebrate with you on the day my views become obsolete, when the world's air forces are grounded, when neither explosives nor bullets nor swords are used against "enemy," when in fact there is no "enemy," the lion lies down with the lamb, and we pass our days gathered around campfires singing Kumbaya. Okay that last part was snide." Yes, snide, but not surprising. The "Kumbaya" joke is stale. I'm reminded of Jules in "Pulp Fiction" when he tells Tim Roth's character, "I don't mean to diminish your ego, but this isn't the first time I've had a pistol pointed at my face." Call me Kumbaya. Tell me that this war is relatively sanitary. But, as you do, please account for this: "Since the guns fell silent on Aug. 14, unexploded cluster bombs dropped by Israeli warplanes or duds fired by artillery have killed 12 people and wounded 39, according to Chris Clarke, head of the U.N. Mine Action Coordination Center attached to the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon. Of those, two of the dead and 11 of the wounded were children. Todd Hart, another U.N. de-mining specialist, told journalists Thursday that U.N. and Lebanese government mine-disposal teams have discovered and destroyed a dozen normal bombs, plus 1,800 smaller bomblets sprayed out from cluster bombs. Clarke said that "as of today, we have confirmed 289 cluster-bomb locations. This figure, which was 140 on Tuesday, is rising daily. And many of them are indeed inside residential areas." These bombs aren't "illegal," but the U.S. sells them to Israel with the stipulation that they not be used in civilian neighborhoods. I think what bothers me most about your arguements is the abstraction, the positing of the enemy, the demonizing, all of which is designed to make the overkill seem OKAY by today's standards. It is precisely the abstracting of the enemy that makes it not only so easy to kill by bombing, but to justify by numbers, such as, "This ain't as bad as WWII." Of COURSE it isn't if we're talking numbers, an abstraction. But when we're talking people, Lebonese or Israeli, it is better to think of them as such. Bob |
And Iran goes on building "the bomb" while whining about wanting to negotiate with the west. "Talking" about a subject is not doing something about it.
The threat to the muslim world is that long list of Jewish Nobel Prize winners. Dick |
And just imagine how much less suspect America's present position on Iran would be (especially among Muslims) if Bush hadn't lied so catastrophically about his reasons for going to war with Iraq. It's tragic and horribly dangerous. Till Bush is out and America has a brand new foreign policy, the reasons given for any stated position (on Iran, Israel, N Korea etc.) are very hard to take seriously.
|
As I understand it, RJ, I should now allow you to spew whatever you like unopposed, because to oppose your views is "verbal overkill."
I am not sure whether there is new fact or rubric to be considered in your last post. It does not seem it. If there is, please specify. One note: to "sing Kumbaya" is the stale joke. I cannot very well "call [you] Kumbaya." When lashing out as in your last post, retaining the sense of the offending comment may help you preserve the semblance of levelheadedness. Thanks, Dan |
Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"I am not sure whether there is new fact or rubric to be considered in your last post. It does not seem it. If there is, please specify." Okay. When a couple kids play catch with a lethal ball from a cluster bomb, let's call it a red-letter day. Bob |
Originally posted by Dan Halberstein:
"I cannot very well "call [you] Kumbaya." Sure you can, Dan. It only takes a little imagination. Bob |
quote from Janet Kenny regarding the preponderance of Jews receiving the Nobel Prize.
"Cultural accident of birth has a great deal to do with educational opportunities and recognition. Many of the Jewish Nobel prize-winners were residents in Europe, America or Australia--the fortunate countries. I find this way of measuring human worth to be about as useful as the IQ test when applied to cultures outside the test's culture of origin." Janet the "nuture" side of the nature v nurture argument has been pretty well answered with the Minnesota Identical twins study. For those not familiar with it--it is a very long longitudinal study of identical twins raised apart in foster homes with no knowledge of one another. When found and their IQ's measured they were within 3-5 points of one another. The Jews breed for brains i.e. the Rabbi (the smartest man in the village) is supposed to marry the richest's man's daughter. It was the secular Jews who were the first to step forward to help the blacks in their civil rights struggle--now they are the black's enemy--WHY? Everyone is dancing around the fundemental question -- WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO WHEN IRAN GETS THE BOMB. Israel would be gone in one blast. |
"The Jews breed for brains i.e. the Rabbi (the smartest man in the village) is supposed to marry the richest's man's daughter.
"It was the secular Jews who were the first to step forward to help the blacks in their civil rights struggle--now they are the black's enemy--WHY?" Are you taking your cues on biological science from Jimmy the Greek here, Dick? Jesus. Quincy |
Omygod,
I dissociate myself utterly from Dick's extrapolations and out of context distortions of my words. Aaaaaaarghhhh Janet |
Janet,
No one thinks you're a racist. Dick, on the other hand, is a self-described racist. Having made my protest and agreed with Janet's objection, I'll bow back out. Quincy |
Why don't you look up the study and refute the science? God help you if you were forced to face facts.
|
Sorry, I double posted. See below.
[This message has been edited by Robert J. Clawson (edited August 30, 2006).] |
Some news from the front via the BBC
UN denounces Israel cluster bombs The UN's humanitarian chief has accused Israel of "completely immoral" use of cluster bombs in Lebanon. UN clearance experts had so far found 100,000 unexploded cluster bomblets at 359 separate sites, Jan Egeland said. Israel has repeated its previous insistence that munitions it uses in conflict comply with international law. ... Every day, people are maimed, wounded and killed by these weapons - it shouldn't have happened Jan Egeland UN humanitarian chief UN efforts to rid Lebanon of cluster bombs have been under way since the conflict ended. Earlier estimates from UN experts had suggested a total of about 100 cluster bomb sites. Mr Egeland described the fresh statistics as "shocking new information". "What's shocking and completely immoral is: 90% of the cluster bomb strikes occurred in the last 72 hours of the conflict, when we knew there would be a resolution," he said. Mr Egeland added: "Cluster bombs have affected large areas - lots of homes, lots of farmland. They will be with us for many months, possibly years. "Every day, people are maimed, wounded and killed by these weapons. It shouldn't have happened." Mr Egeland said his information had come from the UN Mine Action Co-ordination Centre, which had undertaken assessments of nearly 85% of the bombed areas in Lebanon. Earlier this week the US state department launched an inquiry into whether Israel misused US-made cluster bombs in Lebanon during the conflict. A senior White House official told the BBC that the investigation would focus on whether US-made weapons were used against non-military targets. Story from BBC NEWS: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...st/5299938.stm Published: 2006/08/30 18:56:50 GMT © BBC MMVI |
The jews have been persecuted for 2000 years. During the Inquistion the Sephardics in Spain were forced to convert to Catholics or face death. Hitler killed millions. There's a billion point one Muslims who can't build a car or an airplane--
How about a little perspective instead of this constant moral equivalency? |
Quote:
As I've noted before, it would really help you get across your message if you learned how to use the English language in a superior manner. Or at least correctly. |
Michael
You had no problem understanding what I meant. This wailing and gnashing of teeth over Israel using cluster bombs without reference to the thousands of Katusha rockets filled with ball bearing bullets that will kill everything within 200 yards that rained on Israel with the fervent hope of the shooters that each will land in a school yard filled with children; making the few unexploded ordinances from a cluster bomb equal to those thousands of Katusha rockets is what I mean by moral equivalence And I apologize for my poor english--because that is obviously far more important than Iran getting the bomb and destroying tiny little Israel. Other than that, I still love you Michael. |
Quote:
The trouble with using poor English, bad grammar, and improperly subordinated phrases and clauses, is amply illustrated by your first sentence/paragraph. I had to reread it a couple of times to figure out what in the hell you meant. As for Iran getting the bomb, I think you're forgetting that "tiny little Israel" has the bomb too. Mightn't they point theirs at Iran to return the favor? Of course at least with this question we're talking state government versus state government. Comparing cluster bombs with Katusha rockets, first off, if people were wanting to target school yards, I'd think they'd be doing a better job of it. But as has been shown in Iraq, cluster bombs, like land mines, are really well designed for taking out children who by their nature run around off the beaten path and pick up curious objects, such as unexploded bombs. You're also comparing the actions of a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) with a state government (Israel). It's one of the marks of a civilized society is that you don't get a pass for barbaric behavior just because your society's enemies have resorted to barbarism. In short, the fact that they have killed children (or would really like to) does not excuse you killing children. |
Kevin --a perfect example of what I am talking about. The only reason the Katusha rockets couldn't be aimed was because it was beyond the technological ability of the terrorists. Why do you always put your thumb on the scale on the side of the people who hate Israel?
|
Originally posted by Dick Morgan:
"This wailing and gnashing of teeth over Israel using cluster bombs without reference to the thousands of Katusha rockets...." Whoa, whoa, hold on, Dick. I was neither wailing nor gnashing. I was reacting to the many claims in this thread that Israel was fighting a precise war with surgical strikes that caused a relatively small number of civilian casualities. Claims were made that Israel had no intent to kill or maim civilians, that such was unfortunate, collateral damage. Given the refutational nature of my post regarding Israel's use of cluster bombs, I shouldn't be required to "refer" to Hizbollah's tactics. You've wandered into tit-for-tat-ism. I make no claims nor apologies for the moral character of Hizbollah. If you've followed the general thrust of my argument, I've indicated that EACH group, Hizbollah and the IDF, acted like "lunatics," and "morons." Bob |
If I walk into a bar and blind side some guy who turns out to have a black belt and cleans my clock and all the guys I came with--who's fault is it?
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:29 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.