[Kevin Andrew Murphy]

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:
Kevin -
perhaps it is time to stop judging by your (personal &/or californian &/or american) standards; perhaps it's time to allow for cross cultural differences, proficiency in language notwithstanding; perhaps it is time for a little less nitpicking on the small issues, (her facial movements and intonation), time for a little more tolerance (of which americans are so proud), and a bit more overall viewing of the really big issues?

Seree--

Unfortunately, that way lies the path of extreme cultural relativism. If you judge a society only by its own values, disregarding all others, you must only conclude that everything's spiffy, even if that includes what you would define as murder, rape, torture and a whole gift assortment of various forms of repression.

I reserve the right to cluck my tongue and sniff disapprovingly at any country, including my own, which does not match my personal/Californian/American-as-I-and-my-friends-define it values.

Besides which, those values are "really big issues." Life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. I can't claim originality in holding those as American, Californian or even personal values, but there they are.

Three dozen children dead? That goes right there under "Life." If someone comes out and offers formal words of sorrow and regret but the words do not match the facial expression, my conclusion is that that person is either an empty suit or a sociopath and possibly both.

Originally posted by Seree Zohar:
I could, without looking too hard, find footage of leaders of state (Ahmedinjan, for starters) grinning with glee over the loss of human life (or does such loss, in Israel, have lesser value? even when it is quite a number of otherwise peaceful Arab villages in Israel, that were badly hit over Saturday?)

Please, by all means, link to them. I think Ahmedinjan is a religious nutjob, but the upsetting thing is the past couple weeks, all I've seen in the way of pull quotes from him are requests for economic boycotts and assorted other arrows from the diplomat's quiver.

As for value of human life, I use the fairly common calculus of valuing civilians over soldiers and children over adults. Apart from that, the only way lives in my book have lesser value is if less of them are being lost.

[This message has been edited by Kevin Andrew Murphy (edited August 06, 2006).]

[Dan Halberstein]

Originally posted by Kevin Andrew Murphy:
Please, by all means, link to them. I think Ahmedinjan is a religious nutjob, but the upsetting thing is the past couple weeks, all I've seen in the way of pull quotes from him are requests for economic boycotts and assorted other arrows from the diplomat's quiver.

It took me all of 5 minutes to find something I would not call an "arrow from the diplomat's quiver:"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060803/...ea/iran_israel

Ahmadinejad: Destroy Israel, end crisis

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Thursday the solution to the Middle East crisis is to destroy Israel. In a speech during an emergency meeting of Muslim leaders, Ahmadinejad also called for an immediate halt to fighting in Lebanon between Israel and the Iranian-backed militant group Hezbollah.

"Although the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime, at this stage an immediate cease-fire must be implemented," he said.

He goes on and on, as always. I don't have the time to find you other examples within your chosen time frame, (again -- and senselessly -- Ahmadinejad must have acted evilly within the last two weeks for consideration!) but I don't doubt these examples can be had.

It is refreshing, however, that the argument for hating Israel has moved on. We have now abandoned the argument from just war theory, the argument from fraudulent history, the argument from illegitimate ("non-semitic") peoplehood, and the argument from opponents' use of pronouns.

We have arrived now at the argument from sound bite aesthetics. An Israeli spokesperson -- who, because she is Israeli and female, is a "spokeswench" -- did not, to your unbiased eye, emote appropriately upon expressing national condolences.

But there’s hope. At the end of your last post, we came back around to this:

As for value of human life, I use the fairly common calculus of valuing civilians over soldiers and children over adults. Apart from that, the only way lives in my book have lesser value is if less of them are being lost.

This is the nut of the issue I think. Israel is at war with the terrorists next door, trying to root them out of their strongholds, despite the fact that they use the local population as human shields – and despite the fact that they do so knowing Kevin Andrew Murphy will not consider this fact.

This is a complaint against war in general, Kevin, not against Israel. We’ve established already, over and over, that Israel has the right to go to war. And now that Israel is at war, a few considerations have to come into play when judging her combat tactics:

1) Is Israel trying to hit non-combatants?
a. Israel’s actions show the contrary.
b. Hezbollah glories in civilian casualties, based on a martyrdom theory
c. Various other media reports point to Hezbollah complicity (speaking of crocodile tears.) For example, the Qana raid was seven hours before the collapse of the house.

2) Hezbollah has shown several traits that combine to call into question this specific complaint against Israel (that is, that Israel is a “bad actor” in bello):
a. Hezbollah’s own tactics maximize, rather than minimize, carnage among common Lebanese.
b. Hezbollah has shown itself, on a number of occasions, to be an extremely media-savvy organization.
c. Inconsistencies – such as the Qana timing, the “sickbed interviews” in what local Lebanese call an “empty” hospital, etc. – suggest that there is a good deal of “staging” and “magnification” going on. This goes directly to the argument that a life is “only worth more if more lives are lost.” One clip showed what seemed to be the same man mourning what seemed to be the same dead child, in two distinct “Israeli attacks,” for instance.

3) Israel does everything possible to limit casualties among Israeli civilians, as well as among Lebanese civilians. This influences the Argument from Body Count. You cannot build a building in Israel – nor could you, for many years – without one or more designated bomb shelter(s). Why? Because of the belligerence of her neighbors. Through the logic of victimhood, Israel must therefore be in the wrong. In a limited and unintended way, this argument, from an Israeli perspective, comes down to "die as a victim, or live as a “ghoul,”" since more Lebanese are dying than Israelis.

The human toll of this war on Lebanon’s people is not trivial to Israelis or supporters of Israel (I cannot say the same of Hezbollah). The fact is, though, this toll did not arise in a vacuum, and is almost certainly being magnified for media consumption, much in the manner of the non-existent Jenin “massacre” a few years ago.

Does it seem strange to you that Lebanon has come out against the US/French-suggested cease-fire?

The argument, of course, is that the cease-fire “favors Israel.”

It strikes me that the cease-fire would preserve the lives of these innocents, regardless of your perception of “advantage” and “disadvantage.” It would also provide another opportunity to remove the non-combatants from the area, if not to create permanent [sic] peace. Lebanon has announced publicly she has no sovereignty over her territory – now she puts her sovereignty over the wellbeing of her people???

I did not see an Israeli complaint against the cease-fire, although that doesn’t mean one won’t come. But since Lebanon expresses no interest in her sovereignty, but only in the loss of her civilians, how can Lebanon have an issue with a cessation of hostilities?

But then, removing non-combatants does favor Israel, doesn’t it? After all, you cannot have an outcry against the killing of civilians, if they all get away.

Ahmadinejad, Hezbollah’s funding-source, even favored a peace-fire – at least, five days ago. Now that one is available, I wonder if he finds its form insufficiently pro-Hezbollah.

Dan

[Mark Granier]

We’ve established already, over and over, that Israel has the right to go to war.

Who 'established' this? As I said, Israel certainly had the right to respond, but it is HOW Israel responded initially that, as you agreed earlier, is the nub of the problem. And here, I am afraid, there will probably be no meeting of the twain. You have decided, I think, that Israel had absolutely no other realistic option other than to attack Gaza, even though it must have been obvious that such an action would escalate a very dangerous situation, and that civilian deaths would inevitably be the consequence. Other people on this thread and elsewhere (many Israelis among them I imagine) probably find this initial action, and the heavy-handed escalation thereafter, hard to stomach. This doesn't mean they hate Israel and/or Jews, or that they wish to see the 'Zionist' homeland wiped off the map. After all, plenty of Jewish people have taken issue with Israel's recent actions (remember that petition?). It doesn't even mean that they find the foul-mouthed rantings of other parties in this conflict even worse (sometimes FAR worse) than anything uttered by Israeli spokespeople. But it isn't words, in the end, that matter. It's actions. I know, you'll be thinking at this point of underlining, again, the actions of Hezbollah, their 'human shields' etc. I don't really think anyone here disputes the ugliness of these tactics. Do you doubt that there are plenty of Lebabese people who don't approve either (or didn't anyway, till they became shellshocked into fatalism)? I don't.

It seems clear to me that you and Seree really love Israel, and are passionate defenders of 'her' honour. I respect that, really. And I can't compete, not feeling the least bit passionate about my own country's honour (our government is pitiable, largely a choice between Big Business conservatism and Big Business Conservatism. Take your pick).

But that doesn't change my perspective; the fact that, from my comfy, safe little cave, it still looks as Israel might have over-reacted. That's just how it seems to me, from the various reports, articles etc. I may well be wrong. Plenty of us here were proved right in our suspicions about Bush and the reasons given for going to war with Iraq. No surprise. Because that really was a no-brainer. The Lebanese debacle is far more complex, I'll grant you. But it still seems to me that Israel jumped the gun. That's not impossible, is it? Has Israel NEVER done anything like this before, never muscled in where Angles fear to tread and damn the civilian casualties? You'd know the answer to that one, far better than I would, even if I googled till the cows come home.

One more thing. I see you have used that word 'terrorist' yet again Dan. I am surprised that someone as intelligent and well informed should use such a hopelessly emotive abstract noun, especially in a discussion like this one, concerned with separating the linguistic wheat from the chaff. It really is an ugly, cancerous term, and the equivalent of a blank letter in Scrabble. Its 'meaning' is completely dependent on who's using it.


[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 07, 2006).]

[Rose Kelleher]

The only opinion I feel qualified to offer here is this: I find Dan's use of "she" charmingly poetic.

Well, that and I don't think it's fair, Mark, to assume Dan holds the opinion he does just because he's Jewish. His arguments seem pretty rational and well-researched to me, and to reduce everything he's said in this thread to a mere tribal grunt does him a disservice.

I'm as far from an expert on this situation as you'll find, but in the discussions I've seen about it online, I can't help but notice a certain eagerness to condemn Israel while glossing over the atrocities committed by Hezbollah. There's a lack of nuance - instead of saying, "Israel should have taken more care to minimize the number of civilian casualties," it's like, "Israel is bad, Israel has always been bad, everything Israel does is bad. Bad Israel!" In his column in the Washington Post, Richard Cohen said, "The world is having a Mel Gibson moment," and my Spidey-sense is tingling in agreement.

[Mark Granier]

Good God Rose, I DID NOT say that Dan holds these opinions JUST BECAUSE HE"S JEWISH!!! Go back and READ my post. I said that it was obvious to me that Dan and Seree are passionate defenders of Israel's honour (I would have said this if they were Irish, Lebanese or Palestinian dammit), that I respect this stance, and that I can't compete. This was NOT intended as snide or sarcastic or even critical; just an acknowledgment that there is probably no non-contentious common ground in this debate. As I JUST SAID, there are plently of Jewish people who disagree with Dan's take on the situation. Really, since you do not know me personally please TRY to take me at my word and refrain from recycling my remarks as brainless racist put-downs! Such an intrepation says far more about your mindset than mine.

[Mark Granier]

Rose your post spurred me to go back and reread my own. It seems to me to be, if anything, more self-deprecating than critical. But we'll leave it stand. Perhaps others will agree with your interpretation; I certainly hope Dan and Seree don't.

As for the rest of your post, how on earth do you manage to translate the following:

"But that doesn't change my perspective; the fact that, from my comfy, safe little cave, it still looks as Israel might have over-reacted. That's just how it seems to me, from the various reports, articles etc. I may well be wrong."

into your babyish, moronic:

"Israel is bad, Israel has always been bad, everything Israel does is bad. Bad Israel!"

And YOU talk about a lack of nuance!!!!!!

I suggest you take your quaint little 'Spidey sense' in for an immediate overhaul.

[Dick Morgan]

I am an atheist and I agree generally with Dan and Seree. And Kevin, your back of the hand to FoxNews for their just giving opinions --those opinions come from retired military men -- who have been there and done it--not just written about it.

[Mark Granier]

And Kevin, your back of the hand to FoxNews for their just giving opinions --those opinions come from retired military men -- who have been there and done it--not just written about it.

Oh well, that means they must know what they're talking about then. And of course Bush is a retired military man too (so we can forgive him his swaggering about in USAF gear); he obviously knows what he's talking about, unlike that wimp Kerry who was never out in the field.

[This message has been edited by Mark Granier (edited August 07, 2006).]

[Dan Halberstein]

Rose, I appreciate your read, and at the same time, Mark, I appreciate your points.

I hope I'm not being a broken record here, but -

Of the options open to Israel (I don't see Israel's chosen course as the only option available,) I do maintain that by the standards by which nations respond to acts of war, and by the dictates of just war theory, Israel was justified in taking the action she (or "it") took.

But your point is that I present this as established fact, whereas for you and others here, it is in doubt. There's a certain arrogance in declaring "victory" on a given point and just moving on. In my own defense, I have been looking for responses that could be objectively classed as refuting Israel's right to her actions, and I do not see them. BUT, that is my subjective evaluation.

Mark, I've found your interactions here to be mature and honest, and as you say of your last post to me, even self-deprecating. And I've also caught myself on occasion responding with a little bit of a snide tone not merited or invited by your posts, maybe leading to the "who's qualified to have an opinion" notion I see creeping in here. If I'm doing that in a scattershot way, turning the discussion into my own little free fire zone, that just makes me an ass. I have no intention of "silencing" any other voices. It's the really unsupported trashers of Israel, Jews, and/or Semites I cannot just walk away from, and Mark, you have never come across that way (um unless I said you did.)

KIDDING THERE.

So if nothing else, Mark and Rose, please don't whack at each other on account of my phrasing or argument. On a personal level you're both among my faves, so I'll step back from the provocative aspects of the post in question -- I am wrong, it is not objectively established!!! -- in exchange for nipping this clash in the bud.

I know I show passion for the subject matter, and that sometimes bleeds over into heavyhandedness. I know a smidgen of history, and if I turn that into a club, I apologize. I would be the last one to say that no Jew can be against a given action of Israel's, or that no non-Jew can have a significant insight into these events.

I certainly also think it would be wrong to use the "Anti-Semitism" charge like a club against those who disagree. I think on occasion during this debate, the charge has applied. Rose, I think you (and your quoted source) are right, that the world is having one of its "Mel Gibson" moments... But I haven't seen that attitude in Mark's posts, nor has he generally designated himself a Hezb'ologist. He's gone out of his way to acknowledge that there's more to casualty figures than meets the eye, while expressing sympathy with the victims... a sympathy my own posts may not reflect, or seem to reflect, at times.

Just about everyone here's been remarkably civil given the subject matter... you guys are both among the civil types (as I think I am, at least sometimes...) I hope this last exchange is a momentary flareup!

Dan

[Dan Halberstein]

For all and sundry, a friend sent these links to footage from the Israeli Air Force. For me they did bring home the notion of combat in populated areas (launching of missiles from populated areas, hiding launchers in houses, etc.)
http://www.standwithus.com/idf_videos.asp

I'll note ahead of time that, although I do not take these videos to be forgeries, I am certain that will be assumed by some here.

These clips do flesh out a bit the reality of fighting a group which uses the local civilian infrastructure and population as cover.

Dan