I don't believe the land invasion would have been necessary. The Japanese were ready to accept all terms of surrender save for the American demand that they denounce the divine nature of their emperor.
So why didn't they surrender before the bombing like they did after them? What were they waiting for? Why didn't they surrender after losing 120,000 to conventional weapons? Why on Earth didn't they surrender after the first atomic bomb? Pardon me, but it's your argument that doesn't hold water.
And yes, you can not judge any decision in a vacuum. And I am not. Would you consider the possibility that maybe some in the ranks of Hamas of PFLP believe that their barbaric terror attacks are justified because in the end they would save more lives?
You may consider any possibility if you have imagination wild enough, even that there are little green people are living inside your body, or alternatively that all of us are living in a huge box, observed by huge green people. But if you want to stay within the limits of reason, you'll realize that there is no place for such parallel. US Navy estimated that the land invasion may result in up to 10 million of Japanese civilian casualties (I can't find the link right now) and huge military casualties on both sides. Even if they overestimated that tenfold, the bombings still saved lives by immediately ending the war. Now in your understandably hypothetical parallel, how exactly may the terrorists be thinking that their attacks are saving lives? Even if you imagine that they expected Israel's (literal) surrender, they have long been proven wrong.
Though, frankly, I think what Fisk hates is Israel's policies; I have no reason to believe him to be anti-Semitic.
He hates not "Israeli policies", but that monstrous picture of Israel that is drawn in his circles and that he himself takes great pains to perpetuate. He is definitely not motivated by a desire to find out what's going or to present a balanced picture to his readers. He is engaging is a pretty obvious political crusade.
My guess would be that at least 10% of Israelis think very favorably of him. This is just a guess.
Yep, keep reading Fisk, you'll be guessing about 90%.
Or you can take it from me, as a person who lived their in the time of the event and for a while afterwards: this action was condemned by all political parties represented in the Knesset; there wasn't a single newspaper or single journalist I am aware of, that expressed support for what he did; there was a huge (tens of thousands) demonstration of Israelies to condemn the attack. If there were 10% supporting him, they sure didn't make themselves heard (except a few dozens of fringe fanatics around his grave). In fact, in the far right they rather believe that this was a deliberate provocation by the Rabin government in order to discredit them. Contrast it with the Palestinian where the majority supports suicide bombers; where they dance when they hear about buses blown up; where they teach their children that it's a duty to follow in terrorists' footstep and this idea is expressed in the media and the school curricula, and will realize that even equivalence that you are trying to draw is pretty far from the truth. You can just imagine how close to it Fisk is, in whose opinion there is one side that is mostly if not always guilty.
Now, it's funny that you denounce political correctness here while writing something like this (http://dikayasobaka.livejournal.com/460603.html?thread=4118331#t4118331), where you are trying to accuse both sides so as to create an appearance of a balanced approach, but your critique of Israel is apparently not based on any knowledge of the situation as a brief inquiry has shown (you couldn't describe the rights Arabs citizens don't have).
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 10:17 am (UTC)So why didn't they surrender before the bombing like they did after them? What were they waiting for? Why didn't they surrender after losing 120,000 to conventional weapons? Why on Earth didn't they surrender after the first atomic bomb? Pardon me, but it's your argument that doesn't hold water.
And yes, you can not judge any decision in a vacuum. And I am not. Would you consider the possibility that maybe some in the ranks of Hamas of PFLP believe that their barbaric terror attacks are justified because in the end they would save more lives?
You may consider any possibility if you have imagination wild enough, even that there are little green people are living inside your body, or alternatively that all of us are living in a huge box, observed by huge green people. But if you want to stay within the limits of reason, you'll realize that there is no place for such parallel.
US Navy estimated that the land invasion may result in up to 10 million of Japanese civilian casualties (I can't find the link right now) and huge military casualties on both sides. Even if they overestimated that tenfold, the bombings still saved lives by immediately ending the war. Now in your understandably hypothetical parallel, how exactly may the terrorists be thinking that their attacks are saving lives?
Even if you imagine that they expected Israel's (literal) surrender, they have long been proven wrong.
Though, frankly, I think what Fisk hates is Israel's policies; I have no reason to believe him to be anti-Semitic.
He hates not "Israeli policies", but that monstrous picture of Israel that is drawn in his circles and that he himself takes great pains to perpetuate. He is definitely not motivated by a desire to find out what's going or to present a balanced picture to his readers. He is engaging is a pretty obvious political crusade.
My guess would be that at least 10% of Israelis think very favorably of him. This is just a guess.
Yep, keep reading Fisk, you'll be guessing about 90%.
Or you can take it from me, as a person who lived their in the time of the event and for a while afterwards: this action was condemned by all political parties represented in the Knesset; there wasn't a single newspaper or single journalist I am aware of, that expressed support for what he did; there was a huge (tens of thousands) demonstration of Israelies to condemn the attack. If there were 10% supporting him, they sure didn't make themselves heard (except a few dozens of fringe fanatics around his grave). In fact, in the far right they rather believe that this was a deliberate provocation by the Rabin government in order to discredit them.
Contrast it with the Palestinian where the majority supports suicide bombers; where they dance when they hear about buses blown up; where they teach their children that it's a duty to follow in terrorists' footstep and this idea is expressed in the media and the school curricula, and will realize that even equivalence that you are trying to draw is pretty far from the truth. You can just imagine how close to it Fisk is, in whose opinion there is one side that is mostly if not always guilty.
Now, it's funny that you denounce political correctness here while writing something like this (http://dikayasobaka.livejournal.com/460603.html?thread=4118331#t4118331), where you are trying to accuse both sides so as to create an appearance of a balanced approach, but your critique of Israel is apparently not based on any knowledge of the situation as a brief inquiry has shown (you couldn't describe the rights Arabs citizens don't have).