(no subject)
Mar. 12th, 2006 03:43 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dikayasobakaРаскрываем тему дальше.
Роберт Фиск написал интересную статью про политкорректность в исполнении влиятельных еврейских групп на Западе. В принципе, вариант примерно тот же, что и в любом ином исполнении - но масштабы довольно внушительные.
Вот она, с моими комментариями:
The erosion of free speech (англ.)
Роберт Фиск написал интересную статью про политкорректность в исполнении влиятельных еврейских групп на Западе. В принципе, вариант примерно тот же, что и в любом ином исполнении - но масштабы довольно внушительные.
Вот она, с моими комментариями:
The erosion of free speech (англ.)
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 08:21 am (UTC)If you have any doubt about that, try to find an article by Fisk where Israel comes out good and it's enemies bad.
Now the statement you are quoting: "Yes, it's terrible that they were killed, but don't forget that they lived on the occupied territories." is no doubt somewhat disgusting but no more so than the sentiment expressed in war all over the world. Like, "It's too bad all those Iraqis had to die but we are fighting terrorism over there" (could be heard all over the US of A these days).
"No more"? I detect a little difference in circumstances here. When you cause someone's death unintentionally and/or indirectly people tend to treat you least harshly then in case of intentional murder. People in Iraq are dying mostly from insurgents' bombs. In order to understand the difference try to imagine how much more disgusting the above sentence would be if those car bombs were intentionally set by the Americans to murder the Iraqi civilians.
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 08:32 am (UTC)Not everything.
> He is not interested in uncovering the truth, he is not even trying to appear balanced
I wouldn't necessarily say that. I don't think he deliberately excludes any facts from his reporting - though his interpretations and commentary are often very odious.
> In order to understand the difference try to imagine how much more disgusting the above sentence would be if those car bombs were intentionally set by the Americans to murder the Iraqi civilians.
Well, the Americans used two nuclear devices to murder tens of thousands of the Japanese civilians. Not much remorse on the societal scale to this day (even though by now it is pretty much established that Japan by that time was a spent force, the bombs were mostly intended to impress Stalin and major cities were selected to maximize the body count).
Don't get me wrong, I find all kinds of terrorism equally disgusting, but if you look around you are gonna' see a lot of support for whomever this population or that views as the "good guys", no matter how much terror those good guys engage in. Look no further than Baruch Goldstein, for instance.
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 09:09 am (UTC)Yep, sometimes it just doesn't have to do with Israel :)
Well, the Americans used two nuclear devices to murder tens of thousands of the Japanese civilians. Not much remorse on the societal scale to this day (even though by now it is pretty much established that Japan by that time was a spent force
Historian Victor Davis Hanson points to the increased Japanese resistance, futile as it was in retrospect, as the war came to its inevitable conclusion. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Support_for_use_of_atomic_bombs)
How many people do you think would die if there was a land invasion? You cannot judge such decisions in a vacuum, forgetting about what was the alternative in that war.
Anyway, it's kind of odd to bring up Hiroshima to exonerate Fisk's hatred of Israel.
Don't get me wrong, I find all kinds of terrorism equally disgusting, but if you look around you are gonna' see a lot of support for whomever this population or that views as the "good guys", no matter how much terror those good guys engage in. Look no further than Baruch Goldstein, for instance.
And how much support do you think he has in the Israeli society? What percentage?
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 09:19 am (UTC)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.
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?
I could criticize Mr Hanson too, but that's not even necessary here. Even assuming he is right your argument does not hold water.
> Anyway, it's kind of odd to bring up Hiroshima to exonerate Fisk's hatred of Israel.
I am not trying to condemn or exonerate anybody here. Though, frankly, I think what Fisk hates is Israel's policies; I have no reason to believe him to be anti-Semitic.
> And how much support do you think he has in the Israeli society? What percentage?
My guess would be that at least 10% of Israelis think very favorably of him. This is just a guess.
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 09:51 am (UTC)Nevertheless the United States seriously prepared for launching such an invasion, and Japan seriously prepared for repelling it, even issuing schoolgirls with awls and telling them to attack American soldiers in the belly.
Read Downfall by Richard Frank.
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 09:56 am (UTC)Plus, since when is your enemy's determination to fight an excuse to attack enemy's civilians?
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).
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 10:37 am (UTC)1) I write to relay what I consider to be accurate to the best of my knowledge. I do not write to create an appearance of any sort.
2) On the issues. Regarding Japan, you should have read what I said before more carefully:
After the nuclear strike, they surrendered unconditionally.
In general, would it be correct to say that you are not agaisnt terrorism in cases where it is expected to shorten the conflict and diminish the overall loss of life?
3) Israel and terror there. I could easily see how Hamas would be thinking that by running an extra-agressive capaign of terror they get Israelis to budge and as a result fewer of their people (and Israelis too) woudl die than ina prolonged conflict. To that end they migth undertake to plan a more spectacular attack, something that would kill hundreds as opposed to dozens of people.
Of course, it is a roll of a dice - but that sort of logic may well be there.
4) Baruch Goldstein. Of the Jews I know there are quite a few (probably no less than a dozen) who think him a hero. They are both in Israel and elsewhere.
His autobiography was a hot item, too (I think something like a hundred thousand copies were sold in Israel, I could find the exact figure). That tells me he is far from unpopular.
5) Arabs in Israel. Excluded from many jobs due to lack of military service. The Land Fund precludes them at times from buying properties they seek. No right to carry weapons which makes them an easy target for criminals, whether racially motivated or otherwise.
And I am not even talking private-sector discrimination.
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 12:11 pm (UTC)There is only one thing that is more precious than a human life: two human lives (considering that both are innocent civilians). Of course, it still makes a decision very difficult, even as the proportion grows, but inevitably one must make a choice. For example, if a plane with civilian passengers is on a collision course with a skyscraper (and let's imagine for a second, that the passengers themselves could survive it), is it justified to shoot down the plane to save thousands innocent lives? Yes, apparently it is. And of course this is a very difficult decision but the alternative is much worse. Now I fail to see how this principle could be realistically applied to justify any terror attack.
Israel and terror there. I could easily see how Hamas would be thinking that by running an extra-agressive capaign of terror they get Israelis to budge and as a result fewer of their people (and Israelis too) would die than ina prolonged conflict.
Can you be more specific as far as "budge"? What kind of hypothetic action on Israel's part would mean end of conflict for Hamas?
To that end they migth undertake to plan a more spectacular attack, something that would kill hundreds as opposed to dozens of people.
Their most spectacular attack in 2002 killed 30 people at once at the Seder table in a hotel. This resulted in the biggest antiterrorist operation in Israel's history, which lasted a full month, included tanks and air forces. Doesn't seem like it worked for them. And terror did steadily decline since then, but that was mostly a matter of capabilities. So, on one hand doesn't seem like this logic is working, on the other hand they don't seem to abandon terror.
His autobiography was a hot item, too (I think something like a hundred thousand copies were sold in Israel, I could find the exact figure).
Please do find it! I am absolutely certain this is an incorrect figure, and nearly certain the real figure is hundreds (without thousands).
I gave you a pretty good indication of his "popularity" above. If you don't believe me, try
(Also, keep in mind, that the Russian speakers among Israelis are in general significantly farther to the right than the general population.)
(continued)
Re: FYI
Date: 2006-03-16 12:12 pm (UTC)Excluded from many jobs due to lack of military service.
There are very few jobs that require prior military service these days, mostly jobs that require security clearance, which Arabs wouldn't get anyway, nor would majority of Russian immigrants, judging from anecdotal evidence. That's a matter of security, not of "rights".
The Land Fund precludes them at times from buying properties they seek.
This has to do with the Fund being originally created as a private enterprise within the Zionist project and people who invested in it spelled out specific conditions in its charter.
In any case, the Arabs recently successfully fought this preclusion in Israel's Supreme Court of Justice.
No right to carry weapons which makes them an easy target for criminals, whether racially motivated or otherwise.
Please, please, where did you get this kind of bullshit? :) While the above two charges are pretty common, this is the first time I see this nonsense.
First of all, violent crime in Israel is pretty low and most of it has to with criminal groups settling accounts or with "family honor" killings (guess, in which part of the society).
Never do I remember anyone regarding his right to carry a weapon in Israel as a protection from criminals. In Israel people wander around in the middle of the night without fear.
Also, I don't remember hearing that Arabs don't have right to own a weapon. They probably do not have an automatic right that those who served in the army have, but it does not mean they do not have this right.
Finally, I only recall one racially motivated crime towards Israeli Arabs in recent decades - the shooting attack by a deserter soldier in Shfaram in August 2005, on the eve of the disengagement. "Racially motivated" is even a stretch here, since he clearly planned it as a provocation to set off riots and tie the hands of the police, making resources insufficient for carrying out disengagement. But I'll give it to you as a "racially motivated". Now, it was carried out in an Arab Druze town, the residents of which serve in the Israeli army, so there is no way they could be not allowed to carry weapons.
And while at that, I would like to address your "for instance" as in "for instance Baruch Goldstein". There were three such cases in the last twenty years that I recall. I just mentioned the second one above. And the third one was in 1990, when a guy, who stole his soldier brother's M-16, went out and shot Arab (non-citizen) workers at a bus stop. He later (unsuccessfully) claimed insanity and, in fact, he was earlier commissioned by the army due to psychiatric problems.
So, here you go, three cases in 16 years, all three met with wide condemnation and disgust.
Of course, every society has it fringe fanatics and freaks. Show me one that doesn't. But it's the reaction of the government, the political parties, the media and the mainstream population that counts.
So your attempts at creating some kind of moral equivalence are beyond stretching the truth. You stretch it so far, it breaks...