Rachel Corrie
Comments
-
Those pictures are terrible Byrnzie, and they prove once again the tragedy of war. But they don't prove a massacre. You quoted one line out of the article I linked to. Did you read the whole thing?you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0
-
we can rationalize behaviour all day long ... that's what people do with self-interests ... everyone does it every day ...
let's get rid of rocket attacks, suicide bombers, air strikes, raids, every action that causes a reaction ... simply put - israel's current occupation and treatment of palestinians on a daily basis is a crime against humanity ... this is beyond dispute ... we don't need graphic images to prove that ... we don't need articles by so called scholars ... we just need to open our eyes and acknowledge what is happening every day there ...0 -
yosi wrote:
A massacre is defined as indiscriminately killing a large number of humans (or, as a matter of fact, animals as well). I think that the indiscriminate killing of hundreds and hundreds of palestinians in Israel's last attack constitutes a massacre.
The problem lies with the fact that until you (and others) understand this (or 'see it that way'), how do you expect violence to end? What would you call all these people killed? Collateral damage? A little 'blip'? Reasonable defense? You probably do.... If 'one' is not willing/ready to address their failings, how can these be resolved?
I am curious to know though... what does this say about me? That I know the meaning of the word massacre?0 -
redrock wrote:yosi wrote:redrock wrote:
A massacre is defined as indiscriminately killing a large number of humans (or, as a matter of fact, animals as well). I think that the indiscriminate killing of hundreds and hundreds of palestinians in Israel's last attack constitutes a massacre.
The problem lies with the fact that until you (and others) understand this (or 'see it that way'), how do you expect violence to end? What would you call all these people killed? Collateral damage? A little 'blip'? Reasonable defense? You probably do....
I am curious to know though... what does this say about me? That I know the meaning of the word massacre?
To answer in reverse order, people should be able to respectfully disagree, even about contentious issues, and especially if their discussion is abstract, as ours is since neither of us is currently directly involved in this conflict. My disagreement with your position should not be a problem for you just as your disagreement with my position isn't a problem for me. That isn't to say that I won't try to get you to come around to my way of thinking, but I wouldn't say that if I couldn't that would be problematic.
I do not see this event as a massacre because I believe the term implies an intention that Israel did not have.
From Moshe Halbertal, a respected left-wing Israeli legal scholar and philosopher, on the Goldstone Report:
Then there is the report’s conclusion concerning Israel’s larger aims in the Gaza war. It claims that Israel’s objective in Gaza was a direct and intentional attack on civilian infrastructure and lives: “In reviewing the above incidents the mission found in every case that the Israeli armed forces had carried out direct intentional strikes against civilians.” In another statement, intentional destruction of property and attacks against civilians are lumped together: “Statements by political and military leaders prior to and during the military operations in Gaza leave little doubt that disproportionate destruction and violence against civilians were part of a deliberate policy.” Now, there is a huge moral difference between the accusation that Israel did not do enough to minimize collateral civilian death and the claim that Israel targeted civilians intentionally. It might well be that Israel should have done more than it did to minimize collateral deaths--it is a harsh enough claim, and it deserves a thorough examination. But the claim that Israel intentionally targeted civilians as a policy of war is false and slanderous.
There are different accounts of the numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza, and of the ratio between civilian and militant deaths. B’Tselem, the reliable Israeli human rights organization, carefully examined names and lists of people who were killed and came up with the following ratio: Out of the 1,387 people killed in Gaza, for every militant that was killed, three civilians were killed. This ratio--1:3--holds if you include the police force among the civilians; but if you consider the police force as combatants, the ratio comes out to 2:3. There are 1.5 million people in Gaza and around 10,000 Hamas militants, so the ratio of militants to civilians is 1:150. If Israel targeted civilians intentionally, how on earth did it reduce such a ratio to 1:3 or 2:3?
The commission never asks that question, or an even more obvious one. In operating under such conditions--Gaza is an extremely densely populated area--is such a ratio a sign of reckless shooting and targeting? One way to think about this is to compare it with what other civilized armies achieve in the same sort of warfare. I do not have the exact numbers of the ratio of civilian to militant deaths in NATO’s war in Afghanistan, but I doubt that it has achieved such a ratio. Is it ten civilians to one combatant, or maybe 20 civilians to one combatant? From various accounts in the press, it certainly seems worse. The number of collateral deaths that are reported concerning the campaign to kill Baitullah Mehsud, one of the main Pakistani militant operatives, is also alarming: In 16 missile strikes in the various failed attempts at killing him, and in the one that eventually killed him (at his father-in-law’s house, in the company of his family), between 207 and 321 people were killed. If such were the numbers in Israel in a case of targeted killing, its press and even its public opinion would have been in an uproar.
Besides the 500 civilians who were killed in the bombing of Serbia, how many militants were killed? The inaccurate high-altitude bombings in Serbia, carried out in a manner so as to protect NATO pilots, caused mainly civilian deaths. What would have been the ratio of deaths if NATO forces were fighting not in faraway Afghanistan, but while protecting European citizens from ongoing shelling next to its borders? And there are still more chilling comparisons. If accurate numbers were available from the wars by Russia in Chechnya, the ratio would have been far more devastating to the civilian population. Needless to say, the behavior of the Russian army in Chechnya should hardly serve as a standard for moral scrupulousness--but I cannot avoid adducing this example after reading that Russia voted in the United Nations for the adoption of the U.N. report on Gaza. (The other human rights luminaries who voted for the Goldstone Report include China and Pakistan.) So what would be a justified proportionality? The Goldstone Report never says. But we may safely conclude that, if the legal and moral standard is current European and American behavior in war, then Israel has done pretty well.
What I would call the deaths in Gaza is tragic. In certain individual instances I would use the term criminal. I would not describe the event as a whole as a massacre.you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
yosi wrote:
Read my post. A problem, an issue, a cause, failings, shortcomings, etc. To be addressed so it can be resolved. Again... if one (in general) does not see there is an issue, it can not be resolved.0 -
During 1948 nakba, Israel destroyed 10s of 1000s of Palestinian books:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340 ... 52,00.html0 -
redrock wrote:
And if one sees something that isn't there then he is apt to pursue the wrong solutions.you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
yosi wrote:redrock wrote:
Read my post. A problem, an issue, a cause, failings, shortcomings, etc. To be addressed so it can be resolved. Again... if one (in general) does not see there is an issue, it can not be resolved.
And if one sees something that isn't there then he is apt to pursue the wrong solutions.
Yeah.... I guess it wasn't hundreds of palestinian bodies that were strewn around all over the place... The photos, videos, etc. - not real - all of this is just figment of our imagination. No massacre took place. No indiscriminate killing.
Definition of massacre....
mas⋅sa⋅cre
/ˈmæsəkər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mas-uh-ker] Show IPA noun, verb, -cred, -cring.
–noun
1. [b]the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare [/b]or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
–verb (used with object)
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.
What Israel did to the Palestinians seem to fit the bill......
Collateral damage... :roll:0 -
redrock wrote:yosi wrote:redrock wrote:
Read my post. A problem, an issue, a cause, failings, shortcomings, etc. To be addressed so it can be resolved. Again... if one (in general) does not see there is an issue, it can not be resolved.
And if one sees something that isn't there then he is apt to pursue the wrong solutions.
Yeah.... I guess it wasn't hundreds of palestinian bodies that were strewn around all over the place... The photos, videos, etc. - not real - all of this is just figment of our imagination. No massacre took place. No indiscriminate killing.
Definition of massacre....
mas⋅sa⋅cre
/ˈmæsəkər/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mas-uh-ker] Show IPA noun, verb, -cred, -cring.
–noun
1. [b]the unnecessary, indiscriminate killing of a large number of human beings or animals, as in barbarous warfare [/b]or persecution or for revenge or plunder.
2. a general slaughter, as of persons or animals: the massacre of millions during the war.
3. Informal. a crushing defeat, esp. in sports.
–verb (used with object)
4. to kill unnecessarily and indiscriminately, esp. a large number of persons.
5. Informal. to defeat decisively, esp. in sports.
What Israel did to the Palestinians seem to fit the bill......
Collateral damage... :roll:
You claim that Israel committed a massacre because, to quote the definition you cited above, they killed in a manner that was "indiscriminate." If that is the case then please answer the question posed in the paragraph below.
"There are different accounts of the numbers of civilian deaths in Gaza, and of the ratio between civilian and militant deaths. B’Tselem, the reliable Israeli human rights organization, carefully examined names and lists of people who were killed and came up with the following ratio: Out of the 1,387 people killed in Gaza, for every militant that was killed, three civilians were killed. This ratio--1:3--holds if you include the police force among the civilians; but if you consider the police force as combatants, the ratio comes out to 2:3. There are 1.5 million people in Gaza and around 10,000 Hamas militants, so the ratio of militants to civilians is 1:150. If Israel targeted civilians intentionally, how on earth did it reduce such a ratio to 1:3 or 2:3?
Mathematics (I assume you don't have a problem with math, in this case statistics) would seem to suggest that the IDF was at the very least making an attempt, and it would seem a somewhat succesful one, to discriminate between who they were killing. This doesn't negate the tragedy of these deaths in the least, but it does mean that accusations of massacre, based on a claim of either intentional or indiscriminate targeting of civilians (the two amount to the same thing) are baseless.you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
whichever way you spin it, 313 children to me, is a massacre.0
-
TriumphantAngel wrote:whichever way you spin it, 313 children to me is a massacre.
Look, I recognize the tragedy, and it seems like you're using the term massacre to convey the depth of your emotional reaction to these deaths, but sheer numbers alone do not make a massacre (a guess we could talk about the earthquake having massacred the people of Haiti, but then we're getting into pure metaphor). The term carries with it an implied condemnation of a perpetrator based on the moral implications of his/their intentions in carrying out the killing. Absent those intentions the term massacre is not a good descriptive device.you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
what would you call the "boston massacre" or the "st. valentine's day massacre" where much less than 313 people were murdered?yosi wrote:TriumphantAngel wrote:whichever way you spin it, 313 children to me is a massacre.
Look, I recognize the tragedy, and it seems like you're using the term massacre to convey the depth of your emotional reaction to these deaths, but sheer numbers alone do not make a massacre (a guess we could talk about the earthquake having massacred the people of Haiti, but then we're getting into pure metaphor). The term carries with it an implied condemnation of a perpetrator based on the moral implications of his/their intentions in carrying out the killing. Absent those intentions the term massacre is not a good descriptive device."You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."0 -
gimmesometruth27 wrote:
what would you call the "boston massacre" or the "st. valentine's day massacre" where much less than 313 people were murdered?yosi wrote:TriumphantAngel wrote:whichever way you spin it, 313 children to me is a massacre.
Look, I recognize the tragedy, and it seems like you're using the term massacre to convey the depth of your emotional reaction to these deaths, but sheer numbers alone do not make a massacre (a guess we could talk about the earthquake having massacred the people of Haiti, but then we're getting into pure metaphor). The term carries with it an implied condemnation of a perpetrator based on the moral implications of his/their intentions in carrying out the killing. Absent those intentions the term massacre is not a good descriptive device.
Boston massacre as in British on the Boston commons leading to the revolutionary war? St. Valentine's (It sounds familiar but I don't remember what this is)???you couldn't swing if you were hangin' from a palm tree in a hurricane0 -
it is an emotional reaction to the terrible number of childred killed. to me it was a massacare. a lot of them were tiny innocent children. some just little babies. they had no chance. no way to defend themselves against what was happening.yosi wrote:TriumphantAngel wrote:whichever way you spin it, 313 children to me is a massacre.
Look, I recognize the tragedy, and it seems like you're using the term massacre to convey the depth of your emotional reaction to these deaths, but sheer numbers alone do not make a massacre
i actually do believe you understand the tragedy, but some of the comments made in these threads lately have really disgusted me. it's one thing to support views with hard cold facts, but the day that i need to use a dictionary to tell me how i should feel and what words i should use, might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway.
considering that they are willing to use white phosphorous rounds, in one of the most densely populated places on earth, I’d say their intentions are very,very, clear.yosi wrote:(a guess we could talk about the earthquake having massacred the people of Haiti, but then we're getting into pure metaphor). The term carries with it an implied condemnation of a perpetrator based on the moral implications of his/their intentions in carrying out the killing. Absent those intentions the term massacre is not a good descriptive device.0 -
TriumphantAngel wrote:
i actually do believe you understand the tragedy, but some of the comments made in these threads lately have really disgusted me. it's one thing to support views with hard cold facts, but the day that i need to use a dictionary to tell me how i should feel and what words i should use, might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway.
I am going to level with you, Triumphant, because as you know, I like and admire you. Reading about how disgusted you feel about comments made by people like yosi and myself? Okay, I can handle that. I don't like the idea of making someone disgusted, which was why I apologized for my off-color jokes even though I was being verbally abused for them at one point. I also do not wish to censor you, and the last thing I want to do is tell you that you can't have feelings. Here's my concern, though: Saying things like "might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway" sort of implies that the people who do not completely share your views have themselves reached some sort of deep state of emotional bluntness or depravity ... And that's a tad ... personal. I don't think we are unholy monsters.0 -
yosi wrote:So your suggestion is that Israel ignore entirely all the security risks associated with simply pulling out of the West Bank, should go through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes, should ignore all of its security interests with regard to adjusting the '67 armistice line in final border agreements, all of this with absolutely no guarantee that they will get peace and security in return, and in fact if recent history should serve as precedent a virtual guarantee that they won't get peace and security?
I'm sorry but no state in the real world acts in this way, nor should they be expected to. I would like to see the occupation end, but not in a manner that endangers Israeli lives.
Ending the occupation has nothing to do with security. As I pointed out above, If Israel wanted security then it could have it tomorrow. It could simply withdraw to the 1948 or 1949 Armistice line and then fortify it. Are you suggesting that settlements are built in order to offset the risk of terrorist attacks? You're trying to turn reality on it's head again and are simply making excuses to continue business as usual.
And as for going through the extremely painful process of uprooting 250,000 people from their homes, those people should never have moved into those homes in the first place. They knew full well they were moving onto land stolen from the Palestinians, into settlements that are deemed illegal under international law. So fuck those people.
Michael Neumann
'It is sometimes alleged that complete withdrawal from the occupied territories is "impracticable" because the facts on the ground are too deeply entrenched: Israeli settlements are just too extensive and important to uproot. One can hardly take this seriously. If it was "practicable" for hundreds of thousands of stateless Palestinians to leave their homes, why is this impracticable for half as many Israeli citizens in far more comfortable and peaceful circumstances? Throughout modern history, from the waves of U.S immigration to the peaceful post-World War II population transfers, there have been far greater shifts than this movement of a few miles. In many cases, if the settlers prefer, they can simply return to their homes in the United States. "It's impraticable" seems here a stand-in for "Aw, gee, these towns are too nice to let the Arabs have them".
The significance of the withdrawal alternative is not that it represents a just solution. Arguably, justice would require much more than that - not only the abolition of Jewish sovereignty in Israel, but a full right of return, with compensation, for the Palestinians, and the eviction of Jewish inhabitants occupying Palestinian property. But the existence of the withdrawal alternative effectively completes the case against Israel. It's willful and pointless rejection of that alternative places Israel decisively in the wrong. In the first place, Israel has a right of self defence, but it does not apply in the Occupied Territories. If the U.S invaded Jamaica and dotted it with settlements, neither the settlers nor the armed forces could invoke any right to defend themselves against the Jamaicans, any more than a robber who invaded your house. So it is with the Israeli's in the Occupied Territories. Their right of self-defense is their right to the least violent defensive alternative. Since withdrawal (perhaps followed by fortifying their own 1948 border) is by far their best and least violent defense, that is all they have a right to do.'Post edited by Byrnzie on0 -
honestly, i'm not sure how to react to this. i will say that while i don't agree with pretty much anything yosi says, i do think he is a respectful debator, he just has a different style to me. i also did see your post the other day where you apologized for your off-color jokes and i could tell that you were genuine there. i don't know you guys personally, but i'm pretty sure you are far from holy monsters.rebornFixer wrote:TriumphantAngel wrote:
i actually do believe you understand the tragedy, but some of the comments made in these threads lately have really disgusted me. it's one thing to support views with hard cold facts, but the day that i need to use a dictionary to tell me how i should feel and what words i should use, might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway.
I am going to level with you, Triumphant, because as you know, I like and admire you. Reading about how disgusted you feel about comments made by people like yosi and myself? Okay, I can handle that. I don't like the idea of making someone disgusted, which was why I apologized for my off-color jokes even though I was being verbally abused for them at one point. I also do not wish to censor you, and the last thing I want to do is tell you that you can't have feelings. Here's my concern, though: Saying things like "might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway" sort of implies that the people who do not completely share your views have themselves reached some sort of deep state of emotional bluntness or depravity ... And that's a tad ... personal. I don't think we are unholy monsters.
i guess the point i am making when i talk about 'might just be the day that my hearts hardened so much that i've finally died inside and i don't need the damn thing anyway", is how it would be for me. not necessarily anyone else.
i understand everyone expresses themselves differently.0 -
yosi wrote:What I would call the deaths in Gaza is tragic. In certain individual instances I would use the term criminal. I would not describe the event as a whole as a massacre.
When you deliberately shell a densely populated residential area by land, sea, and air, and drop white phosphorous on this same densely populated residential area, you are intentionally aiming to kill civilians. You can try and excuse the fact by way of slippery lawyers tactics all you like, but for any reasonable person it was a massacre, as the 1000 bodies of those killed testify.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4690.shtml
Book Review: The Case Against Israel
Raymond Deane, The Electronic Intifada, 9 May 2006
'As for "terrorism", which he defines as "random violence against non-combatants", he distinguishes it from "collateral damage" with the assertion that the latter "involves knowingly killing innocent civilians" while "Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians", concluding that "the moral difference is too academic even for an academic." Why, then, is "terrorism" considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while "collateral damage" tends to be taken in our moral stride?
"Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: 'To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don't need to plant bombs.' As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work."
The Palestinians, he repeats, are without options. Israel has all the options, principally that of unilateral withdrawal from the Occupied Territories, but refuses to use them. Hence he refuses "to pronounce judgment on Palestinian terrorism."0
Categories
- All Categories
- 149K Pearl Jam's Music and Activism
- 110.1K The Porch
- 278 Vitalogy
- 35.1K Given To Fly (live)
- 3.5K Words and Music...Communication
- 39.2K Flea Market
- 39.2K Lost Dogs
- 58.7K Not Pearl Jam's Music
- 10.6K Musicians and Gearheads
- 29.1K Other Music
- 17.8K Poetry, Prose, Music & Art
- 1.1K The Art Wall
- 56.8K Non-Pearl Jam Discussion
- 22.2K A Moving Train
- 31.7K All Encompassing Trip
- 2.9K Technical Stuff and Help