I don't know. If there was a terrorist group in Mexico, that the Mexican government couldn't or wouldn't contain, planting bombs and firing rockets on Texas, I imagine we'd do what we could to blow the shit out of them in Mexico and collateral damage would be what it was. Didn't the US war in Iraq cause the deaths of over 100,000 civilians, and the war in Afghanistan also kill many thousands of civilians, because they were supposedly hiding Bin Laden/Al Quada, who'd attacked the US?
I don't think this is good; but it's clear that that's why Hamas uses schools, hospitals, and private residences as ammo storage locations, to gain world outrage when Israel strikes those locations. If you hide behind human shields, someone's going to shoot those shields; and that's the point of using them. It's triangulating the argument.
We're still killing people in Afghanistan with the drones. I saw some people protesting about it in Ithaca over the weekend. It's sad to say but I don't think many people know or care because it doesn't affect us here.
But do you remember the rhetoric after 9/11? That there's be Hell to pay, that we should "bomb them back into the Stone Age," turn Afghanistan into a parking lot in the desert, etc. It's hypocritical of us to pretend we wouldn't react in the same way (as either side really). It's such a mess.
OF COURSE people in Ithaca are following that. Of course they are.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't expect anything less. That's why it's a great city to live in. You don't even NEED to read a newspaper, you just get information from everyone around you. And then join their protest.
We're still killing people in Afghanistan with the drones. I saw some people protesting about it in Ithaca over the weekend. It's sad to say but I don't think many people know or care because it doesn't affect us here.
But do you remember the rhetoric after 9/11? That there's be Hell to pay, that we should "bomb them back into the Stone Age," turn Afghanistan into a parking lot in the desert, etc. It's hypocritical of us to pretend we wouldn't react in the same way (as either side really). It's such a mess.
OF COURSE people in Ithaca are following that. Of course they are.
Seriously, though, I wouldn't expect anything less. That's why it's a great city to live in. You don't even NEED to read a newspaper, you just get information from everyone around you. And then join their protest.
I LOVED Ithaca. It's such a cute little town and surrounded by a naturally gorgeous environment. I think my H felt a little out of his element though. The Grassroots Festival was going on last weekend so we were kind of surrounded by neo-hippies. It was funny.
Post by Velar Fricative on Jul 24, 2014 16:11:13 GMT -5
If Fatah didn't accomplish bringing the decent quality of life for Palestinians that they hoped for, why would they continue supporting Fatah? Do we not see this everywhere else - vote out the incumbent who sucks, or vote for a different party next time? The Palestinians are no different, except that all of their options suck.
Post by karinothing on Jul 24, 2014 16:16:36 GMT -5
One thing I find amazing. I mean I guess not amazing but sad/tragic/interesting is that the this fighting and killing between the two sides. The death tolls have been drastically different. I was reading about the timeline on wiki and read this
Between 1949 and 1953, there were 99 complaints made by Israel about the infiltration of armed groups or individuals and 30 complaints of armed Jordanian units crossing into Israeli territory.[9] Several hundred Israeli civilians were killed by infiltrators, and some were raped and mutilated.[10][11] Israel launched numerous reprisal raids in response. Between 1949 and 1956, 286 Israeli civilians were killed. During the same period, excluding the Suez War, 258 Israeli soldiers were killed. Between 2,700 and 5,000 Arab infiltrators were killed. It is unclear whether these Arabs were really infiltrators or were simply unauthorized crossers, as many Palestinians were crossing into Israel for economic reasons.[12]
I mean that is maybe 5K people that were maybe just crossing the border to work? I am not saying that the loss Israeli life during that time wasn't also tragic, but it just mind boggling to me the difference. And I don't know, reading that made me wonder how these two sides were every going to come to an agreement. It just seems like with a history that involves this kind of killing for this long that it would be impossible to end.
I think part of the problem is, like in any country including our own, Israel has some politicians who want a peaceful process of some sort and some politicians who are like this guy, and the world doesn't know what to think about it all.
I know I am jumping in at the end here, but I read rvan0905's statement differently. I don't think she meant to accuse anyone of actually personally attacking her. I think she realized that she made a knee-jerk statement out of an emotional place and took it back. Instead of just deleting it, she owned up to it and said "sorry, got a bit emotional there, I take that back." This is, in reality, exactly the reaction this board is looking for. The ability of people close to the situation to look beyond there own emotional gut reaction to have a more logical, reasoned discussion.
Honestly, the biggest problem is that there is no one willing to be an honest broker in the conflict. So long as the United States backs Israel unconditionally, this will continue. If Israel had to fend for itself, this would be over in a heartbeat. But they have the enormous power advantage and frankly, no incentive to end this. Israeli casualties are always a small fraction of what the Palestinian casualties are, and for a long time recently, there were hardly any Israeli casualties at all. It's quite easy for them to simply ignore what's happening in the Palestinian territories as long as there aren't any attacks. A peace agreement is not a major issue of concern to the Israeli public, and there's no real pressure on them to make any compromises.
It's obviously a complicated issue. But IMO, that plays a huge role.
IDK, but I honestly find the world's reaction to this pretty fucking rich, considering it was the other nations of the world that helped create this situation.
I don't know how anyone looks at that proposed boundary map from 1947 and doesn't see "RED ALERT: THIS WILL BE A FUCKING DISASTER." I guess it's possible I have the benefit of hindsight, but I kind of doubt it. And that's just the weird, fucked up boundaries where you'd have to cross one territory to get to the other part of your country. Genius, really.
Well, 2 things. First, the concept of a Jewish state was definitely not uncontroversial until WWII. Early Zionists were settling in Palestine as far back as the late nineteenth century, not only because of their belief in the right of the Jewish people to live in Palestine, but also to, SURPRISE, escape persecution in their home countries (like Russia). So via critical mass, they hoped to gain Palestine, especially by buying up a lot of land in the form of collective farms, so they actually owned the LAND (but before WWII some cities, definitely Haifa IIRC, were also majority Jewish). But WWII definitely solidified the fact the the Jewish people needed their own nation, so that was the best time to press Britain on the issue (because they were dragging their asses about it beforehand).
Second thing, and this is 100% controversial and flameful... Jews (especially Ashkanazi Jews) are considered to be White and Palestinians are considered to be Not White, and I don't think it's that surprising that in the mid-20th century, most of the developed world (read: the US and Europe) "sided" with a nation made up of people who looked more white than not and were more identifiable and familiar (especially with many of them being former European citizens). *shrug*
I think that as the race thing has mattered less (still matters, but...) and humanitarianism has become a Thing in the past 30 years or so, more people, especially on the liberal, war-hating side, have realized that there is plenty of blame on both sides, but that one has to face the facts that Palestinians have gotten a raw deal from this situation, too. I mean, it never helped that the rest of the Middle East felt like they could and should attack Israel unprovoked in its infancy just because they were Israel (...and because there were plenty of Palestinian refugees fleeing to neighboring countries like Egypt), but that doesn't mean that they have always done things unprovoked.
And that's also not to say Zionists didn't engage in some straight-out terrorist tactics prior to the creation of Israel. The King David Hotel bombing anyone? Menachem Begin participated in that! So at times, it's pretty fucking rich that Israel claims that the Palestinians play dirty.
Sorry that was so long. I'm not against Israel's existence or anything at all. In fact, I feel like the issue is MORE complicated now that it's ever been because you have Jews AND Palestinians who have not lived there for generations, both feeling equally like it is their home and their right.
Mexico is not an analogous example. The history is not the same.
But even if it were, and we bombed schools and kids and killed innocent people, I would be disgusted with us. Disgusted.
Just as I was with Iraq.
Just as the world was with us over Iraq.
Your point?
War is not conducted in a moral zone. In every war, innocent people, unarmed people, children, old ladies, die undeserved deaths. it's not a body count and it's not a OMG YOU KILLED BABIES. All wars kill babies. And men, and women, and good people, and bad. It's a means to an end. I'm not disgusted that ISRAEL KILLED BABIES. Hamas did too. I'm sick at heart that war continues, on both sides, and I blame Hamas for starting it and refusing to stop. I don't think Israel is wrong for what they're doing; they are entitled to defend themselves against this group and I expect they'll continue.
I don't think that the US dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was wrong, either. Even though 100,000 civilians, unarmed, not armed forces, were killed. Terrible, sure. Wrong? Not to my mind.
This is, frankly, a very 20th century/modern view of warfare. How many civilian casualties do you think occurred in the War of 1812, for example? WWI was the first war where "casualty of war" as it related to civilians (in terms of military action, not disease or starvation of course) was defined and accepted. Collateral damage. It was a startling notion at the time, but with the advent of machine guns and airplanes, there wasn't much way around it. And I find it kind of horrifying that 100 years later, it's now totally seen as a part of war. Drones?! You would think that the fact that collateral damage can so easily occur with modern weapons would make people less hesitant to use them unless absolutely necessary.
IDK, but I honestly find the world's reaction to this pretty fucking rich, considering it was the other nations of the world that helped create this situation.
I don't know how anyone looks at that proposed boundary map from 1947 and doesn't see "RED ALERT: THIS WILL BE A FUCKING DISASTER." I guess it's possible I have the benefit of hindsight, but I kind of doubt it. And that's just the weird, fucked up boundaries where you'd have to cross one territory to get to the other part of your country. Genius, really.
Well, 2 things. First, the concept of a Jewish state was definitely not uncontroversial until WWII. Early Zionists were settling in Palestine as far back as the late nineteenth century, not only because of their belief in the right of the Jewish people to live in Palestine, but also to, SURPRISE, escape persecution in their home countries (like Russia). So via critical mass, they hoped to gain Palestine, especially by buying up a lot of land in the form of collective farms, so they actually owned the LAND (but before WWII some cities, definitely Haifa IIRC, were also majority Jewish). But WWII definitely solidified the fact the the Jewish people needed their own nation, so that was the best time to press Britain on the issue (because they were dragging their asses about it beforehand).
It's interesting you bring this up. I was reading Letty Cottin Pogrebin's memoir Deborah, Golda and Me recently. She is an American women's rights activist (she was a co-founder of Ms.) who was heavily involved in the Israeli peace talks with Palestine in the 80s and 90s. She's openly Zionist (she argues that Israel *must* exist because the Right of Return gives Jews a sense of security and personal safety that never existed for them before) but also a peacenik. Anyway, she goes into the history of the conflict with Palestine in the book and then gets into this thing that I've been trying to look up but haven't found more information on. But basically she argues that Jews bought up 70% of the land from Arabs prior to the declaration of sovereignty in 1948. So only about 30% of the land in question should be considered controversial or that it was "taken" from anyone? Have you come across this before? Anyway, it's more of a footnote if true I guess but I still thought it was interesting. I've never heard that before.
I liked the Gawker "think piece" from yesterday that argued that Germany should have been the one to turn over land to the Jews after WWII. Not the Palestinians.
I've typed and erased that thought on more than one occasion because I was afraid someone would school me on why Russia had to get half of that country.
Cuz Russia is cuckoo for coco puffs (sorry NewOrleans. Dem be the facts).
ETA: and if I'm Jewish in 1940's Europe, staying around those parts also sounds like a bad idea
Well, 2 things. First, the concept of a Jewish state was definitely not uncontroversial until WWII. Early Zionists were settling in Palestine as far back as the late nineteenth century, not only because of their belief in the right of the Jewish people to live in Palestine, but also to, SURPRISE, escape persecution in their home countries (like Russia). So via critical mass, they hoped to gain Palestine, especially by buying up a lot of land in the form of collective farms, so they actually owned the LAND (but before WWII some cities, definitely Haifa IIRC, were also majority Jewish). But WWII definitely solidified the fact the the Jewish people needed their own nation, so that was the best time to press Britain on the issue (because they were dragging their asses about it beforehand).
It's interesting you bring this up. I was reading Letty Cottin Pogrebin's memoir Deborah, Golda and Me recently. She is an American women's rights activist (she was a co-founder of Ms.) who was heavily involved in the Israeli peace talks with Palestine in the 80s and 90s. She's openly Zionist (she argues that Israel *must* exist because the Right of Return gives Jews a sense of security and personal safety that never existed for them before) but also a peacenik. Anyway, she goes into the history of the conflict with Palestine in the book and then gets into this thing that I've been trying to look up but haven't found more information on. But basically she argues that Jews bought up 70% of the land from Arabs prior to the declaration of sovereignty in 1948. So only about 30% of the land in question should be considered controversial or that it was "taken" from anyone? Have you come across this before? Anyway, it's more of a footnote if true I guess but I still thought it was interesting. I've never heard that before.
Hmm, I haven't read her work, but I see her point, to a degree. But that's not the whole story.
One issue the Palestinians have isn't that the Israelis took their land unfairly, it's that they instituted their government over the Palestinians unfairly. Because Israel (like much of the Middle East, whaddaya know...) is kind of a theocracy. A democracy, yes, but one that is dominated by Jewish law and customs. Which brings up two issues for Muslims living in the country, and why Palestinians in Gaza, etc consider themselves refugees: first, no matter what lip service Israel gives, the native Palestinians have NOT always been welcomed with open arms and treated like equal citizens by the Israeli government. Second, in Islam itself, it is often a subject of debate over whether or not a Muslim can live in a non-Muslim society and still consider himself to be a true Muslim in accordance with the Quran. Which is why you have some very conservative and some very traditional governments in predominantly Muslim countries (Iran being conservative, Saudi Arabia and Jordan being traditional, IIRC - the difference being that Iran sees all modern things through the lens of the Quran, while the other two nations basically take the stance that if something isn't mentioned in the Quran, it doesn't matter, so they are more literalist than reactionary). So that's another reason why Palestinians want their own government and don't want to compromise by living under a Jewish government.
ETA: But as an aside, Golda Meir was one of the early Zionists - I think she moved to Palestine around 1912 or 1915.
I was with you for the most part until I got to the bolded. And I, uh, just wow. I honestly don't know what to say.
I was with you on this till I took a historical ethics class and learned about the cost of a land invasion of Japan, which was the alternative at the time (not peace, this was not an alternative, the Japanese would not negotiate a surrender. A land invasion). Japan was clear in refusing to surrender and in continuing hostilities and had the capacity to do so. The war against Japan in the Pacific had, up to the summer of 1945, cost 41,000 US soldiers' lives; the war in total had cost 405,000 US lives and another 210,000 wounded, up through summer of 1945. Given the savage resistance put up by Japanese soldiers in the small island battles on the South Pacific and the military build up in Japan in 1945, the expectation at the time was that a land invasion of Japan itself would cost 229,000 US casualties, with 35% of those being deaths, and would take some years, and at a cost of billions upon billions, with an estimated casualty rate of 1 million Japanese civilians killed and wounded; and the concern over what the Soviet Union would do in such a fight, now that the war in Europe was over. With no guarantee of success.
If I'm the president, am I going to throw 229,000 of our men into battle over another unknown amount of time,, see over a third of them die and the rest return wounded, spend god knows how much money on it, risk war with the Soviet Union? with 405,000 US soldiers already dead, and another 210,000 wounded? not even thinking of the estimated Japanese deaths, I can easily see how the decision was made, and I don't fault anyone for making it. Not saying I could have made it, but damn.
Oh I get the arguments for and why the U.S. government decided it was the only thing they could do. I still think it's wrong, especially in regards to dropping the second bomb. But perhaps we're just arguing semantics. Just because you (general you) feel forced to make the more palatable choice (for you), doesn't make it any less wrong.
I liked the Gawker "think piece" from yesterday that argued that Germany should have been the one to turn over land to the Jews after WWII. Not the Palestinians.
I've typed and erased that thought on more than one occasion because I was afraid someone would school me on why Russia had to get half of that country.
A shitton of land should have been given back to the Jews after WWII, including land in Poland, what was still Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, and other nations that willfully and purposefully colluded with the Nazis to steal from their Jewish neighbors.
That being said, why in the hell would most Jews immediately post WWII want to live among or even surrounded by the very nations who so easily contributed to their demise?