dikayasobaka | (no subject)

Раскрываем 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.)

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

dikayasobaka.livejournal.com

Look, I don't have all day to answer all your questions. The fact that I did not answer something does nto necessarily mean I don't have an answer; more likely than not that means I have not gotten around to answering the question. If you want to continue based on your assumptions about me you can continue all you want but don't expect me to comment. So, here goes, point by point:

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:

The Japanese were ready to accept all terms of surrender save for the American demand that they denounce the divine nature of their emperor.

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.

From:

gera.livejournal.com

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?

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

meast_ru, there are hundreds of people there who live in Israel and are actively following politics.
(Also, keep in mind, that the Russian speakers among Israelis are in general significantly farther to the right than the general population.)

(continued)

From:

gera.livejournal.com

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...