Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
They make a solitude and call it peace (often misquoted as they make a desolation and call it peace).
The only way to true peace is through the destruction of the Other and the continued effort to prevent the arise of the Other.
Now, that sounds totally nasty and genocidal, but that is not the necessity of it. It is the way that simple-minded, zero-sum type of people see. Your observation about the winner helping to rebuild the loser is a part of the thing.
The Other is a narrative and sociological/cultural construct that is based upon perceived differences. The tendency to see and prioritize difference versus similarity.
To create a stronger and larger and more powerful society, difference needs to be marginalized in favor of similarity (we are all human, we are all Americans, etc). Ideally preserving and respecting difference while not making it fodder for destructive narratives and actions.
E Pluribus Unam
or the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (yes I am a Star Trek fan)
Building strength thru empasizing difference is weaker than building strength by embracing difference.
Inclusivity is, in the end more powerful than exclusivity. Exclusivity is easier, it's lazy. It appeals to the demons of our nature rather than the angels of our nature... and it tends to end badly.
The Romans succeeded for as long as they did because, in the end, anyone could be Roman.
Israel and the Palestinians have had multiple chances to find prosperous ways to live together, but each time one side seemed open to it, the other shut it down. After a while, the leadership of each side came to depend on that so they could talk peace and know it isn't going to happen. IF, the similarities were emphasized instead of the differences, a Palestinian state could have been a Mediterranean resort , with a Singapore like economy and a mutually beneficial trading relationship with Israel. If everyone spent their money building an economy instead of weapons the entire Middle East may be democratic by now. But, since they have different ways of worshiping, their leaders don't allow that to happen. Power is more important the lives of the citizens.
I think the only actual way forward WRT this issue would be some form of federal state that encompasses both Israelis and Palestinians, that provides solid (and relatively unbiased) protection to both.
The extremists on either side would never let that happen though.
Perhaps. It sure helped that there was a big bad enemy to worry about. With no Soviet Union, the rebuilding doesn't happen, and even if it had, would there be anywhere near the same level of good will between the US/UK and Germany and Japan?
And most changes in human behavior are slow. because humans (en mass) tend towards "conservative" behavior.
it is an evolutionary thing.
Expecting something to happen NOW, is unrealistic. It is very rare.
The Civil Rights movement (for example) didn't start in the 1960s, it started before the Civil War... and the reality is that it still isn't even remotely over.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
You turn to sell me that I should ignore one evil because another one might be worse. At least the slaves got to live, but the Palestinian women and children don't. Angry people do a lot of extreme things like chant, “Death to America.” You don't have to be offended at their behavior unless you really really want to.
Gaza had its last election in 2007, and the “leaders” have refused to have one ever since. At this point Hamas are the dictators, not the elected leaders of Gaza. The women and children of Gaza are not responsible for the people who lord it over them without an election.
Ohh, the abolitionists were blasted for “tearing the nation apart.” Lincoln himself was in favor of gradual emancipation before the war. He thought that slavery would last till 1900. His only demand was that slavery not be extended to any new state.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
Those protestors should be doing everything they can to elect Harris because I’m pretty sure Trump would let Israel carpet bomb the entire region.
Single-issue radicals are not practical: They will say that if Harris/Walz loses, it will have taught the Democratic party a lesson. And that the disaster that follows will pave the way (in some nihilistic fantasy chain of events that would make even Karl Marx blush) to a new glorious day of Palestinian self-determination. One other thing: Just like Trumpians, they go after the 'heretics' of their own party with much more vitriol than they go after the other side.
Then they’re just as delusional as Trump…:)
In my book they are more like PETA...not able to stop themselves from engaging in activity that winds up trashing the cause they believe in.
Agreed, they are allowing their emotion to get the better of themselves, and they want their pound of flesh, regardless of the fact that Biden didn’t start the war.
I’ve tried to reach some of them; telling them that Trump would make it demonstrably worse, giving Netanyahu Carte Blanche to completely level Gaza and force millions into refugee camps in neighboring Arab states.
Of course, it always falls on deaf ears. They’re fine with throwing out the baby with the bathwater…:)
That the word "genocide" is again coming up convinces me that they are not serious people. How hard is it to check a dictionary?
Definitions need to change based on new patterns of bad behavior. There wasn't such a thing as genocide until the word was retrospectively created in the light of World War II. It's pretty hard to kill 30,000 civilians, most of them by virtually indiscriminate bombing, and it not be genocide. The definition will catch up with the evil.
You are relying on statements made by Hamas, who are far better at propaganda than warfare. They still haven't discriminated civilian casualties from military, which is a tell. And no one employing expensive weapons does so indiscriminately: the question is whether their deliberate choices do or do not violate the law of war. If the IDF were bent on genocide, they all would be dead already.
I hear, and generally agree, with you and Seth. That said, I do think there needs to be a term for not taking proper care about civilians / collateral damage. 'Genocide' is too strong, and in my mind cheapens the term when we consider things like what the Nazis, Turks, and Hutus did.
That said, it can certainly be that Israel isn't taking proper care in its efforts. And sure, nations don't throw around million dollar missiles indiscriminately, but they can certainly use them with more or less care as to what else they take out and or how likely the target is to be 'legit'. And, I would presume, their calculus might be different depending on if the munitions are being given to them or if they are paying for them more directly.
There is. You said it. It’s “collateral damage.” The Geneva Convention says you have to fire at military targets and even if civilians are killed it’s not a war crime.
That said, Netanyahu is slime mold.
The term for not taking proper (reasonable) care to protect civilians is "war crime." Combatants are not obliged to sit on their hands and not pursue military objectives, however. International law is that harm to civilians must be minimized and be proprotional to military necessity. The situation at Al-Shifa Hospital is a good example. The IDF urged everyone to evacuate for about a month. Medical staff claimed patients could not be evacuated--which is BS; and the IDF finally advanced on the hospital, moving remaining patients and staff around the complex for their safety. The battle to secure the hospital went on for two weeks, the IDF vs. *non-existent* Hamas terrorists. There were civilian casualties, but few in light of the scale of fighting. And, of course, Gaza (Hamas) health authorities inflated the number of causulaties wildly.
Well said…:)
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, because they claimed to be aiming for Ukrainian troops hidden underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
I wouldn’t, because I know what genocide is.
And they’ve killed more than that.
"an investigation by AP from the end of 2022 gives a number of up to 75,000 killed civilians in Mariupol area alone"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_invasion_of_Ukraine#Casualties
That's the first and only time I've heard that and I follow the news from Ukraine very closely.
Other estimates appear lower, but seem to be sticking with confirmed numbers. Confirming numbers out of a place like Mariupol would presumably be pretty hard.
Also, don't forget about the thousands of children that were kidnapped by the Russians and are currently being raised in Russia. But thanks for making our point. It is funny how much atrocity will be overlooked by the left--Uyghurs, Bangladesh, Yemen, Sudan, etc.--when the Jews cannot be blamed.
For everyone claiming reliance on Hamas figures is believing propaganda, there is someone claiming reliance on IDF figures is believing propaganda.
Everyone lies in war.
So then why does anyone rely on statements made by IDF? Simply because the US broadly supports Israel?
No one should believe them without qualification, but it's in their interest to play by the rules of war. Itis far less so in Hamas' case.
That is absurd. How many civilians did the US kill in its various wars?
And you know perfectly well the bombing wasn't indiscriminate.
If Israel had wanted to commit actual genocide, it would have killed at least a million Gazans by now.
People like you ignorantly throw around the word "genocide" the way the middle schoolers of my youth threw around the word "faggot."
If the Russians had killed 30,000 Ukrainians in bombing campaigns and leveled Kiev, Claiming to be aiming at Ukrainian troops in underground tunnels, everyone would be calling it genocide.
And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII.
BTW, the US used one 2000 lb bomb in their urban campaign in Fallujah in Iraq. How many 2000 pound bombs have the Israeli troops precision targeted the civilians of Gaza with? Because Jill Biden didn't like that, now the IDF has to use 500 pound bombs. If a 500 pound bomb dropped on your neighborhood, would you feel it was precisely targeted?
"And, you are correc. By the definition I am proposing all sides committed genocide during WWII." That cheapens the word. There is a large difference between indiscriminate bombing and the targeted killing of members of an ethnic/racial/religious group with the intent to annihilate the group. So for example, the slaughter of Tutsis by the Hutu in Rwanda was an actual genocide. The targeted killing of Jews in WWII was a genocide. The blitzkrieg of France by Hitler was NOT a genocide. The Russians war crimes in Ukraine do not necessarily constitute a genocide. Genocide is not about waging a war (even a war of conquest) where a disproportionate number of civilians are killed. It's not even about war crimes. It can still be bad and yet not fall under the term "genocide". It's like when the Bush II administration was calling everything 'terrorism'. Or when anti-abortion organizations call abortion a 'holocaust'. It's important to keep definitions rigorous rather than misuse a term just to add impact.
So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse. I'd be happy to give this behavior a new name as long as it is recognized and punished as a war crime.
"So, you are trying to excuse one evil by saying another one is worse". I did not say or imply anything of the sort. And if you read what I wrote carefully, you know that I think things can be bad without being genocide. War crimes are ALREADY prosecuted without being classified as genocide. Slobodan Milosevitch is one example. In fact, the international criminal court already makes the distinction https://www.government.nl/topics/international-peace-and-security/international-legal-order/the-international-criminal-court-icc
The US dropped over 5,000 2,000 lb bombs in just the early stages f the Iraq war. They dropped one 20,000 lb bomb that was called a bunker buster. It's horrible, but your enthusiasm got away from the facts to heighten the rhetoric on this one. And it's not important, it's only semantics, but if you term every instance of mass killings in extended wars genocide, then the term has no definition other than mass casualties. Genocide is usually used to imply the intent of completely stamping out a given nationality or race or culture using violence, indiscriminately, not even bothering to warn the population of an impending bombing campaign first, as little good that that does.
I forgot to add the detail that this was in the US urban campaign in Fallujah.
That’s ridiculous. It’s war.
Genocide is trying to systematically wipe out an ethnic or religious group. Like the Holocaust. There still are fewer Jews in the world than before the Holocaust. That’s genocide.
There are more Arabs every year.
So the allies committed genocide when they firebombed the Germans and Japanese? It was harsh, perhaps misguided, but to call it genocide robs the term of all meaning.
I'd be happy to call it mass murder, as long as it's recognized and punished as a war crime.
The radical left and radical right share a trait of blurring definitions in order to get people riled up. In fact, I'd suggest (though I cannot prove) that the tendency to be imprecise in definitions is a telltale sign that the movement doing this is demagogic and, in the end, antidemocratic. Trump set about to redefine 'fake news' for example. All of the sudden mainstream media were the enemy of the people.
I believe Colleen, I believe these folks are so bummed out by the callousness of Israel toward human life that they have become monomaniacal. Meaning there's only one thing they can think about. Everything else falls by the wayside. I'm two thirds of the way there myself, but I have to balance the evil of Israel against the evil of Trump. BTW, the PETA people are also monomaniacal.
Americans are just as callous toward (non-American) human life as Israel... and this is not just an American or Israeli thing. Humans can be astoundingly callous towards anyone seen as Other.
It isn't a bug, but a feature.
One of the hallmarks of higher civilization/culture is that we struggle against that natural tendency at times. But when push comes to shove, the Other gets shoved, with as much regret (usually) as a cat has for shoving something off the edge of the table to watch it fall.
We literally burned down Japan and Germany during WW2. The "conventional" firebombing raids killed more people than the atomic bombs. We killed a lot of French people in the lead up to the Normandy invasions and destroyed a lot of French property. We killed, directly or indirectly a LOT of people in Afghanistan and Iraq.
I do not point this out to say that we are evil because of that. However, it does show that we are human... and we often kinda, sorta feel bad about it afterwards (even if that doesn't actually change things or no real restitution is made).
There are a lot of things to be bummed out about in life. Unfortunately it is usually difficult to do anything about those things.
When has there been a lasting peace? Maybe when the Roman army took charge of most of Europe. But at that time there were conflicts in Asia. Now, the difference is we study history and we are supposed to have learned something such as wars only lead to more wars. The only way to create a lasting peace is when the victor in the war helps rebuild the loser, as the US did after WW II. That’s what Israel is refusing to promise to do.
Solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
They make a solitude and call it peace (often misquoted as they make a desolation and call it peace).
The only way to true peace is through the destruction of the Other and the continued effort to prevent the arise of the Other.
Now, that sounds totally nasty and genocidal, but that is not the necessity of it. It is the way that simple-minded, zero-sum type of people see. Your observation about the winner helping to rebuild the loser is a part of the thing.
The Other is a narrative and sociological/cultural construct that is based upon perceived differences. The tendency to see and prioritize difference versus similarity.
To create a stronger and larger and more powerful society, difference needs to be marginalized in favor of similarity (we are all human, we are all Americans, etc). Ideally preserving and respecting difference while not making it fodder for destructive narratives and actions.
E Pluribus Unam
or the Vulcan philosophy of IDIC (yes I am a Star Trek fan)
Building strength thru empasizing difference is weaker than building strength by embracing difference.
Inclusivity is, in the end more powerful than exclusivity. Exclusivity is easier, it's lazy. It appeals to the demons of our nature rather than the angels of our nature... and it tends to end badly.
The Romans succeeded for as long as they did because, in the end, anyone could be Roman.
Israel and the Palestinians have had multiple chances to find prosperous ways to live together, but each time one side seemed open to it, the other shut it down. After a while, the leadership of each side came to depend on that so they could talk peace and know it isn't going to happen. IF, the similarities were emphasized instead of the differences, a Palestinian state could have been a Mediterranean resort , with a Singapore like economy and a mutually beneficial trading relationship with Israel. If everyone spent their money building an economy instead of weapons the entire Middle East may be democratic by now. But, since they have different ways of worshiping, their leaders don't allow that to happen. Power is more important the lives of the citizens.
Indeed.
I think the only actual way forward WRT this issue would be some form of federal state that encompasses both Israelis and Palestinians, that provides solid (and relatively unbiased) protection to both.
The extremists on either side would never let that happen though.
Perhaps. It sure helped that there was a big bad enemy to worry about. With no Soviet Union, the rebuilding doesn't happen, and even if it had, would there be anywhere near the same level of good will between the US/UK and Germany and Japan?
Consciousness is the start. the realization that smoking causes lung cancer started a slow revolution.
And most changes in human behavior are slow. because humans (en mass) tend towards "conservative" behavior.
it is an evolutionary thing.
Expecting something to happen NOW, is unrealistic. It is very rare.
The Civil Rights movement (for example) didn't start in the 1960s, it started before the Civil War... and the reality is that it still isn't even remotely over.
Monomaniacal is right. Unfortunately it literally blinds you from assessing the fruits of your labor.
Nothing like pissing people off to their causes whether it is PETA or protests that shutdown hi ways and freeways. :)
Good analogy. I support several animal rights' organizations, none of which is PETA, which often seems to do more harm than good.
Cold comfort, though, if they derail the campaign.
For the first time in many years, I believe there are savvy people in the Democratic leadership. I'm pretty confident that the Harris/Walz campaign and the Chicago mayor's office who have been doing some intelligent planning about this.
Agree. As KH said, if you want Trump to win, then just say that as you disrupt the convention.
It seems there's real danger only in Michigan as far as I can tell.
They don’t have that power. They’re a tiny group and many aren’t voters anyway.
They are always delusional. Hard to see it any other way.
Most ideologues tend to be.
Yes, they are.
Technically I'm a single-issue voter. This year at least. No other issues will matter if the party that endorses the "big lie" returns to power, now minus all the "guardrails" (Kelly, Mattis, Bolton, even Pence & Barr). The GOP is now a literal cult, that demands that their "leader" not be held accountable for the insurrection, election interference, and stealing classified documents. Imagine what all those "protectors" - who are prepared to steal this election too, and don't even pretend otherwise - would do if given another chance.
Touche. I and a number of Republicans and ex-Republicans are single issue voters in that respect. I'm not able to formulate an appropriate response yet :)
Agree. No issue matters except defeating Trump. When that is done, they can be productively active about the US policy toward Israel. Peter Beinart has a good piece in the NYT on this. He says KH should simply pledge now that she will follow the law, specifically the Leahy Law [1997] that prohibits the US from "assisting any unit of a foreign security force that commits ‘gross violations’ of human rights". It has never been applied to Israel, even though Israel has been charged with human rights violations, certainly by the vigilantes in the West Bank.
A party's radicals typically loathe their own party's moderates more than they do another party. MAGA members hate Never Trump Republicans with the fire of a thousand suns.
Never Trumpers might be moderate in tone, but we're certainly not more moderate on policy. MAGA people are quite often to the left of Never Trumpers, advocating more and bigger government. Bill Kristol is hardly a moderate. Neither is George Will or George Conway. The people who are most dedicated to conservative political principles tend to be the ones most anti-MAGA.
I remember coming out of college and going to Republican meetings. While I was a Republican due to the conservative beliefs I had developed in college, I was shocked to find so many Republicans had no strong convictions. Rather, to them, it was "Republicans Good, Democrats Bad." It is those Republicans, people not driven by political ideology, who are the most fervent supporters of Trump and MAGA.
The activists equate “being seen” with “ridding the world of evil.” Which is ridiculous. There was some truth to it back in the day when our information sources were 3 network news channels and the local newspaper, and you had to create a scene to make the cut for those 4 sources. Now? They just look ridiculous and erode support for the very cause they say they support. It’s selfish behavior, honestly.
Another example of mistaking attention for action I suppose.
You can't win any cause without first drawing attention to it. The abolitionist got started decades before the Civil War.
Sure, that makes sense. I meant more of our modern impulse to assume social media is real life. I think those protestors are more interested in a performance than engaging in the messy reality of politics. If they were cognizant of that reality, I think they’d realize how much they help Trump and other aspiring demagogues on the right.
Before the Civil War, abolitionists were often accused of helping slave owners because of their extremist views. Single issue activists eventually can move the world. People, like me, who compromised seldom do
"Single issue activists eventually can move the world."
Of course, that can apply to both good and bad movements.
Of course.
Doesn’t it trivialize American slavery to compare it with a foreign country’s excessive response to a terrorist attack? It is perverse for immigrants to chant “death to America” over American military aid.
You turn to sell me that I should ignore one evil because another one might be worse. At least the slaves got to live, but the Palestinian women and children don't. Angry people do a lot of extreme things like chant, “Death to America.” You don't have to be offended at their behavior unless you really really want to.
This fact is missing from your view of the Palestinian women and children who have lost their lives: Their leaders are terrorists.
You can't decouple the innocent non-combatants from the guilty combantants who launched the massacre of innocent Israelis on Oct 7th.
Gaza had its last election in 2007, and the “leaders” have refused to have one ever since. At this point Hamas are the dictators, not the elected leaders of Gaza. The women and children of Gaza are not responsible for the people who lord it over them without an election.
Were they? Not sure this analogy works.
Ohh, the abolitionists were blasted for “tearing the nation apart.” Lincoln himself was in favor of gradual emancipation before the war. He thought that slavery would last till 1900. His only demand was that slavery not be extended to any new state.
I’m not sure these protestors are quite the same as abolitionists.
Abolitionists were originally faith-based. They had more than one core belief or issue.
Agree.
Best explanation of this is here: https://www.gurwinder.blog/p/the-outrageous-rise-of-neotoddlerism
“Neotoddlerism” is the perfect description of these protest movements.
Just seeing the word, I'd have initially attributed it Donald Trump.
A great analysis. Neotoddlerism is a very apt term, capturing very well many protests we've been seeing lately. However I will not dismiss ALL protests as neotoddlerism. The big civil rights demonstrations and marches of the 60s were non-violent, non-destructive, impactful actions. And in our day, there should be no objection to any orderly march or demonstration, non-obstructive, with civil language, whether the issue is Gaza, climate change, police brutality, whatever. and whether one agrees or not with the positions being taken But we don't see much of that in the US these days. Nevertheless, I am a more than a bit troubled by the idea of some folks that all protesters today (and maybe in Eric Hoffer's day too) are motivated by boredom, or have empty lives they are seeking to provide with meaning through passionate hatred of some group, or are just getting together noisily and seeking attention, or have other primarily ignoble motivations. There are people with consciences who are genuinely distressed by what is happening in Gaza, there are people who understand the workings of the natural world who recognize we are indeed heading toward a type of ecological catastrophe. I confess to being one of the latter. I would participate in an action that was orderly, non-destructive and used only civil language IF I could see that it might actually have some impact. In February 2003 I went to NYC with husband and daughter to join the march to the UN against the war against Iraq that President Bush was about to launch. My daughter and I also participated in the 2014 climate march in NYC. In both cases I hoped that sheer numbers of participants might affect decisions and policy. That did not happen, and I have not participated in any marches since then. For people who, as I said, are genuinely distressed by government or societal behavior they see as very immoral or just very bad in a practical way for humanity, what effective actions are available to individuals? I ponder this but have no good answer.
And Jared would sell off beach-front Gaza to his oligarchic pals.
Yeah.
There does seem to be a meeting of the minds between the two extremes on certain issues—particularly the Israel-Palestine issue. Extreme Netanyahu allies and extreme Hamas supporters shake hands on the desire to have a general cataclysm in the region where one side or the other emerges victorious over the ruins.
At least one Palestinian-American I know is voting for Trump because he wants the Great Carpet Bombing you mention to happen—he imagines it will be less frustrating than seeing Dems support Israel. Really. :/
Netanyahu, as I recall, propped up Hamas in Gaza because he wanted them to serve as evidence that Palestinians couldn’t be trusted. Some Palestinians in the West Bank toasted with coffee when Netanyahu won the PM because it would show the world that Israelis couldn’t be trusted. They seem to deserve each other.
Extrapolate that lunacy to pro-Trump leftists in the U.S. It makes sense, in a bonkers way. :/
I do not believe that protests accomplish much these days, other than grab some attention for the protestors--and the way things tend to work thee days, that attention generally seems to be negative.
IOW, protesting, especially if it is near-violent or violent or generally disruptive, tends to be a net negative.
Regardless of how important you believe your cause to be, there are likely just as many people who either do not care or oppose you. Probably actually more. TBH, I do not think that there are really a lot of Americans (especially older Americans) that actually care about what happens to the Palestinians in other than the vague abstract.
And when you disript things (espeically their lives) over such a thing, they do NOT like it. It doesn't move them to change, it moves them to be against your cause.
As pointed out, proptests had more effect when they were more curated (because one of the big three had to decide to give it oxygen).
If you want results, buy some politicians. That's what works. That's how our system works. The problem is that politicians can be expensive and they do not always stay bought.
Ironic isn't it... In a weird way I almost think that these protests against Harris can be a positive to draw a clear line between her and these protestors. It will be difficult for R's to paint her as a Palestinian protestor sympathizer when they're calling her "Killer Kamala"
i want to stop the war for a different purpose, a fact that most here fail to grasp[&the effect israelis economy is tanking],is iran is bent on retaliation for the israeli assassination in its capital of a guest of its newly elected leader..they have said they will not retaliate if a ceasefire deal is agreed...we might have a week to settle that[if ever]if no deal, their attack goes ahead, and if any israelis are killed[highly likely] then israel are gonna retaliate even harder[they are not listening to biden now]....and iran is gonna do the same? would i prefer a ceasefire here or would i want a middle eastern war with american troops[even uk troops] involved ? No...and for america, its a winner for trump, for he could announce biden and the democrats are weak, want war, and that he didnt bring war for the american people because he is strong?[sighs] , yes rage against the protestors for having different principles[although i sorta admire them a little for standing up for something they beleive in] ,for having a different mindset that they think that protesting changes things, but ultimately if biden doesnt get a ceasefire here, then bibi and trump might be the only winners here ] :(
...and he and Bibi will build beachfront condos to sell to Russian oligarchs and the ultra wealthy.
Trumpster said,"get it over with".