Israel shoots down Syrian fighter jet
benjs
Posts: 9,150
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/24/world/middleeast/israel-syria.html
I'm worried about this. Because this happened one day before Israel and Hamas were set to begin negotiations, my inner skeptic says that it could be used as a pretext somehow to bow out of the negotiations, opting instead to focus energies on "more significant looming existential threats to Israel" (or something like that). I hope I'm wrong.
In any case, can anyone with more familiarity with air force warfare shed some insight into whether a minute and twenty seconds was a reasonable amount of time prior to response?
I'm worried about this. Because this happened one day before Israel and Hamas were set to begin negotiations, my inner skeptic says that it could be used as a pretext somehow to bow out of the negotiations, opting instead to focus energies on "more significant looming existential threats to Israel" (or something like that). I hope I'm wrong.
In any case, can anyone with more familiarity with air force warfare shed some insight into whether a minute and twenty seconds was a reasonable amount of time prior to response?
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
0
Comments
“We cannot tolerate any penetration of the Israeli airspace, so we had to shut him down even though we understand that his intention was not to attack us,” General Shmueli told reporters in a conference call, saying the aircraft had flown half a mile into Israeli airspace.
1/2 mile into so called Israeli air space? That Golan area belongs to syria. So they shoot him down knowing he wasn't a threat to Israel. Interesting. It's so fucken comical. Few years back Israel asked Poland if it was ok for them to send 2 fighter jets to do a fly over Poland in memory of the holocaust. Poland said NO and Israel ignored and sent 2 planes over Poland. No one shot them down. Ive said it before and I'll say it again. Israel is untouchable. They do WHATEVER they want WHENEVER they want. Any other country, NO, but them, untouchable. Why is that? Ask yourself that. Why are they ALWAYS allowed to do WHATEVER they want. Why?
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
On the other hand, we're humans, not robots. It's almost impossible to believe everything the media tells us but if I it becomes well established for a fact that this plain was shot down for no good reason my instinct will be anger toward the dirty bastards who committed that heinous crime.
I should've been more clear with what I wrote. I'm not against feeling: I feel incredibly deeply, as I know many here do, but I'll give you an example of what I mean. The other day I was speaking with my mom and she out of the blue mentioned that Dave Matthews was moving to Israel. I mentioned that made sense, and she asked why. I told her it's because he's from South Africa, and when she asked what that changed, I made my casual jab that he's simply moving from one Apartheid state to another. I was immediately embarrassed by how I let my anger and frustration get the best of me, to make a statement which I believe is extreme (there are similarities, but there are also critical differences between Apartheid and the atrocities Israel puts Palestinians through), and as a result, I degraded the power of my own voice.
We are allowed to feel, and to feel deeply, but how we broadcast those feelings is of utmost importance, especially when we are trying to bring about tangible change, which depends on getting through to a group that has shown its persistence in unequivocally condemning one party's actions while defending their own. When more details come out, I suspect I will be right there with you feeling angry, but I will also be playing devil's advocate, trying to make sense of what took place, and will try my best to rationalize from every available perspective what transpired. I'll do my best to share those perspectives, but I think it's important to be empathetic to every perspective: most Israelis are not murderous by nature; their allegiances are based on logic based on premises based on societal indoctrinations, so while it's disappointing that they don't speak up in throngs opposing their governments' actions, it is at least understandable. As a part of Jewry in the diaspora, it is my obligation to empathize with their sense of being wronged, and not to challenge their logic, but rather their premises and societal indoctrination if they appear to be fallacious.
It's also just a more effective tactic to get through to a person in my opinion: people don't like being told that they are wrong, but in my experience they're much more likely to reconsider their allegiances if you explain to them that they aren't responsible for incorrect or over/understated perceptions of injustices, rather the society they live in could be instead. We as humans have sought every way of pushing accountability away from ourselves: we do it through nationalism (for example if you voted for Obama and now hate Obama's policies), through religion (extremists from numerous religions doing horrifically inhumane acts in the name of a deity), through society (peer pressure as an excuse for rape), through the media (I thought they were the bad guys so I supported a government policy); might as well make the best of that human flaw if it can be exploited for good half as well as it's regularly exploited for bad.
Sorry about the poorly written short essay
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I mostly agree with what you say about accountability being pushed away from ourselves but I can also see an argument for how our options for having our voices heard- mainly in terms of elections since the choices are really very narrow. Remember how Obama was going to bring on change? Not happening. Voting with our dollars is really about our only option. That and having change start with ourselves. I'm not a fan of slogans but "be the change" does make sense.
Oh- and your writing is fine. Your points are clear and strong.
Regarding your first paragraph, I certainly agree about the necessity of diplomacy when we are ambassadors to other countries. As far as having our voices heard, I agree that we are sure to be heard more if we speak "louder", but if the end goal of speaking up on sensitive topics is to present information used to facilitate changing minds, is it better to be "louder" and seen as possessing "radical" and "over-the-top" opinions, or to be more subdued and empathetic, and seen as a rational and pragmatic person? I don't think there's a right answer to this, and I think different approaches work for different people and different causes. I suppose there is room for both, and it's not necessarily a bad thing to witness a spectrum of tonalities as well as perspectives.
As far as limited abilities to have our voices heard, I agree that it feels overwhelmingly useless sometimes. I do love that "be the change" notion: it's why I read these days, and it's why I'm starting to get into sharing my opinions as well. But again, that goes back to tonality: if I want to affect Israeli policy, for example, I can write something that the left-wing agree with, but if the right-wing hold the power, how do I get through to them? For example, if I tried to post my opinion on the Jerusalem Post or a New York Times blog without an immense level of empathy to their audiences, editors simply would not allow my words to be posted, out of fear of retribution, alienation of their audience, or fear of losing their jobs. My last name is Silverstein, and despite the way it should be, this gives me some credibility amongst Jewish circles. My sensitivity to the perceived plight of the Jews and Israelis is the only thing that could prevent me from being labelled as a "self-loathing Jew", and having my credibility instantly stripped (like the way Norman Finkelstein is regularly referred to as "a nutjob" by Jews).
In any case, I'm going to keep that "be the change" in mind, it's what we should all aspire to do.
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I agree that in many cases (maybe most?) a good, clear, level-headed voice will be heard by someone with a moderately differing view. On the other hand, a radical and hard hitting voice can be effective, especially when the opposing view is radical and hard-hitting. In his book, Confessions of an Eco-Warrior, Dave Foreman, co-founder of the original Earth FIrst! movement describes the ebb and flow of movements targeting environmental and sociopolitical concerns from being characteristically moderate to radical and back and forth- how these movements began, how they turned radical before Carter was elected, how they became more subdued and more successful during Carter's presidency, how they again became more radical after Carter left office because moderation was no longer working, how they became and are today so often so absorbed by environmental and political careerism (this is why Paul Watson left Greenpeace to form Sea Shepherds) as to be easily over-run by corporate interests. Finding the right voice, the best stance, the most effective form of action and rhetoric is no easy task. The degree to which social and environmental issues become more extreme and desperate in the coming years may well strongly effect what approaches are taken. Whatever form they take, if they are purely reactionary and not well thought out they will likely fail. If they are ruled by angst and devoid of humor and a good degree of pleasure and joy in life, they will surely fail.
Another interesting point made by either Foreman, Edward Abbey or Derrick Jensen (and it vexes me that I cannot find this quote) is that radicalism can serve to make more moderate yet effective approaches to dealing with issues more palatable to the average person and aid in making progress in that manner.
As for the second point you've mentioned, that's actually a fascinating notion that I hadn't thought of. You're absolutely right that by extending the spectrum of tonalities, the moderate response are certainly made more approachable.. Guess there's room for all kinds of opinions, and if they help serve a cause, so be it!
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
I'm all for trying different approaches and seeing what works. I think it's helpful to be willing to say, "well, that didn't work so I'll try this." It's even more important to get as much information as possible and learn about those things that interest and concern us.
And most importantly is to take action on those things whether that be to make changes in the way we live, organize a rally, write letters or be more directly active. I'm not suggesting anyone do anything overtly radical. No, I would never suggest to someone young and "full of piss and vinegar" to go out and put themselves or others in harms way. We live in an age where that kind of activism is most likely not going to make any difference other than get the person incarcerated. I'm more in favor of knowing the issues, writing letters, voting with my dollars and limiting my consumption of goods as much as reasonably possible. That and doing some old fashioned things like being considerate and kind to others. But doing those things does not negate the need at times to strongly voice one's feelings and opinions. Done with thought and foresight, that can be very effective.
You agreed with me about tv news media...why are you watching nbc? Masochist? Haha
Yeah, we have nothing but boogeymen and danger everywhere. I've decided to have a concrete suit with movable arms and legs tailored and top it off with a bomb proof helmet. Every time I emerge from my underground nuclear bomb proof shelter I will don my concrete suit and heavy duty double platinum helmet just in case the boogeymen show up in my neighborhood!
To answer you last question- I have a stone-age analog TV run through a cheap digital converter and precariously hooked up to a rusty old TV antenna on the roof. So on those rare occasions I want to get the latest local news I can, on a good day, if the wind is just right, catch a major news network. Today I had the wrong time and instead of local news I got Brian "Look-out-for-the-Boogeyman" Williams on the tube. ;-)
Say, you all with those flat screen TVs- you can't call it a "boob-tube" any more because it's not a tube, it's flat. So what do they call it now? "Brain-drain-plane"?
Yes, independent on-line news rules!
In the end, for all the fear-mongering about terror in the motherland, the odds of being killed by a terrorist, even if attacks became a regular thing (hasn't been one in 13 years, remember...and the only plots foiled by our surveillance state have been ones created by the FBI and CIA), the odds of getting struck by lightning would be better. They certainly wouldn't be as high as, say...being an Iraqi civilian killed by US arms. Not that we should just accept terrorism as a consequence of our actions in the middle east (which they are)....but the threat is not a valid excuse for more war, when the result is perpetuating and expanding the problem. From the article I posted in the IS thread:
One inevitable consequence of American interference, even when it appears to be successful, is that fundamentalist jihadi movements multiply in size and new trouble spots emerge.
It is doubtful al-Qaeda had more than several hundred full time operatives at the time of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. It was reported this week that the IS includes an estimated 30,000 to 45,000 effectives in its “state” located in northwest Iraq and northeast Syria and expanding. In early June when IS conquered Mosul, the Pentagon estimated it had 3,000 to 5,000 troops all told. Of the present higher number, 15,000 hold foreign passports, including over 2,000 Europeans and 100 Americans. Those who survive may come home one day, providing a justification for the U.S. and others to expand their already extensive surveillance capabilities.
At present conservative religious monarchies, dictators and authoritarian regimes govern nearly all countries in the Middle East. All of them, despite contempt toward the U.S. for its liberal democracy and overbearing hypocrisy, ultimately are in liege to the global hegemon in Washington that protects them, and supplies the weapons and intelligence to keep these regimes in power. Extreme Arab government repression backed by the White House crushed the Arab left as an alternative decades ago.
Religious fundamentalism and jihadism are today’s alternative for many young Islamist men dissatisfied with their corrupt governments and infused with hatred toward the U.S. for its humiliating interventions, support for Israel, and overpowering violence. Many are now flocking to the black flag of IS in Syria and Iraq and to various other jihadist groups, including al-Qaeda offshoots in the Middle East, North Africa and now deeper into Africa and touching on Asia.
There of many millions of Muslims (Arabs, Kurds and Iranians) who will fight the Islamic State. They do not have to do so on behalf of the objectives of either the U.S., Saudi Arabia and their various hangers on who now control the region.
The Syrian army is a tough and experienced military force. Some 75,000 of its soldiers and militia members are reported to have been killed in the last three years — and yet it holds on. This is the force that should fight IS, not those under a U.S. command who are mainly being recruited to defeat the Syrian government.
Syria has an air force, as do Iraq and Iran. If the U.S. called off its dogs, ended its regime change mantra and worked with Syria, Iraq and Iran the days of IS would be numbered more quickly. In fact, those three countries, without the U.S., could do the job if they weren’t being undermined and sanctioned.
The 350,000 member Iraqi army is suffering disgrace because of its failure in Mosul. But this defeat has many causes. The Bush Administration foolishly disbanded the existing Iraqi army two months after the 2003 invasion, putting 400,000 soldiers out of work in a wrecked economy that was not hiring new workers. The officer corps was jobless with a black mark on work records (and a number of leading Sunni officers, who were loyal to the pre-war regime, have lately turned up on the side of IS to show their opposition to the government).
The US seems to always go with the "bomb them first and they'll change" stance. The other thing that gets me is that some of these news reports mention innocent people being killed in the bombing s like "oh well, shit happens". But how would we feel if that shit were happening to us? That whole "collateral damage, too bad so sad" attitude does not reflect well on who we are. Or maybe it does which is even worse.
You make it sound like the US has been a casual observer, when they've been one of the main catalysts for the whole thing. If you search the 'Syria' thread, you'll find comments I posted from US officials stating that they knew their arms would end up in the hands of the 'wrong' rebels from the start.
I guess the beacon of hope narrative can only be maintained with denial - pretending we're just getting involved now.
Which of the above sources that are involved will bring stability if it is completely removed?
Gotsta Git them Evildoers.
And the usual next response in the 'intervention' debate is to demonize the leader we want gone, consequences be damned. It doesn't take much to demonize Assad.
But here's the thing: generally, the same people who support regime change are the same people who will tell us that the surveillance state we live under now is no big deal if you're not doing anything wrong. Yet they don't apply that to the dictators they've been convinced to want gone. A lot of Syrians lived normal lives under Assad....a lot of people were thriving under Ghaddafi; Libya had some impressive (for Africa) metrics in relation to healthcare, education etc..and I'm sure it wasn't all hell and mustard gas for the average Iraqi citizen under Saddam. But the not-ideal option of 'keep your head down, work hard and you will be left to live your life in peace' option is no longer available to tens of millions of people because of our governments actions, and attempt to impose western values. Hence the growing number of people bitter enough to take the side of the strongest opposition to our oppression; currently the IS.
Sure there are lots that have lost loved ones to our freedom bombs and now hating the west, probably looked up to the west prior. All the young people in particular. Our wars have guaranteed several generations of hate towards the west.
With internet and social media the young would have slowly gravitated towards the west. Sex drugs and rock n roll would of prevailed.
Yeah as in the US. the old men would of resisted but their kids would of seen a better way. As in Iran. We stopped it. We make it easy to keep status quo.
As to Syria, do you blame Assad? Yeah he should of used less forceful means but.....
Think the US has been more critical of Israel, but we negated benefits with our meddling.
Course non of this matters as leaders place harmony on bottom of their priority list. All about control of oil/$$$$$$.
\o'q1