Because we stand for freedom of religion, speech and information. We stand against discrimination on the basis of sex, race and ethnicity. We stand for the right of people to participate in their own government. All these things threaten the methods and ends of despots and tolitarian rulers everywhere, secular or religious. So what faults we have are blared through their media. Where that is insufficient, lies are made up and told again and again until people believe them. They actually have little choice, since their governments make sure they are told little else - certainly nothing about the good things we have done and the freedoms we have and defend. And finally, in order to preserve their position and to distract their subjects, they are not told that all their problems are due to the great evils being done to them by their rulers. No, they are told that all of their ills are due to the Great Scapegoat.

Of course they hate us. All they are told about us are hateful things. Read your copy of 1984 for the details of how and why.

[Stuff thought better of and deleted by Amp.]

As for the rest, I don’t agree with you, but I think you’re right that continuing the discussion of it is pointless.

Daran, you appear to be using the word “appear” to make hateful, accusatory statements while avoiding taking responsibility for your hateful, accusatory statements.

Good think I used the word “appear” there — now you’d be entirely mistaken to take offense, right?

I’m not offended, Amp, just mildly frustrated that your mistaken inference about my motive is preventing you from apprehending my actual point, which is that how issues are framed - in particular who and what are excluded from framings - are affected by, and in turn affect, how we perceive those issues. While it is true that the human cost of the conflict to the Palestinians greatly outweighs the human cost to the Israelis, it is not true that the cost to the latter is fairly characterised by the statement “a handful of Israeli citizens have died” unless the value you put on soldiers killed is zero.

Now you’ve said that you do in fact value them, and you’ve acknowledged that your language was inadequate. What’s left to discuss?

In this conflict, the distinctions between armed combatant and civilian, citizen and soldier are hazy indeed–on the one side, its the classic problem of guerrilla warfare, in the other compulsory military service and armed settlement make threaten the distinction.

“In this conflict” implies that this is a characteristic of this particular war, rather than of war generally. But even in those wars in which two regularly constituted armies fight against each other - the exception, rather than the rule - the nonmilitarised population doesn’t stand passively by.

Compulsory military service doesn’t really threaten the distinction been combatant and noncombatant. A conscripted soldier is still a soldier after all. It does, however undermine the moral valuation which views the killing of a soldier as less significant than the killing of a civilian.

Good think I used the word “appear” there — now you’d be entirely mistaken to take offense, right?

All loss of life is tragic; Palestinians suffer disproportionately from this tragedy.

Do Americans deserve sympathy, then?

Individuals caught up in something they aren’t significantly responsible for? yes.

But as a country they need to have a good look at themselves and realize why there’s such deep hatred of them in certain corners of the world. I’m not American but if the actions of my government resulted in an easily foreseen reaction that harmed my country, I’d lay the blame on the people who voted them in.

I’m confused as to what lives you think Amp doesnt factor in.

I haven’t checked the figures, but I’m pretty sure that there have been more than a handful of Israelis (civilians soldiers) killed. So when Amp, having identified fewer than ten civilian casualties says “It’s tragic that a handful of Israeli citizens have died”, that suggests that he attaches so little significance to soldier’s deaths that they don’t factor into his conceptualisation of “Israeli citizens [who] died”.

Ampersand:

I see a moral distinction between killing an armed participant in current mutual combat or warfare and the killing of unarmed civilians (including off-duty fighters);

The unstated assumption here is that it is possible to draw meaninful distinctions between armed participants and unarmed civilians. But what about these women? They appear to be unarmed, but they are not just participating in the conflict, but actually mounting a successful military operation.

By the way, two of the five women killed by the IDF were male, which indicates that the Israeli explanation of their decision to shoot is more credible than the newsreport suggests.

it is for that reason that I focused my comment on civilians. However, my basic point — the vast number of Palestinian casualties compared to Israeli casualties — would be the same if we looked instead at all casualties.

I’m not disputing this.

I don’t think that soldier’s lives are valueless, of course; those deaths are tragic too, as you’re right to point out. I agree that the language of my comment didn’t make that clear, although I don’t think that justifies your accusation that I believe soldiers’ lives to be valueless.

I chose my words carefully, which is why I said “don’t appear to be” - a reference to the appearance your words gave. As for your actual internal mental state… Didn’t we agree that intent was irrelevant?

This matches pretty closely my working definition for the distinction between “insurgent” and “terrorist”.

I don’t think that soldier’s lives are valueless, of course; those deaths are tragic too, as you’re right to point out. I agree that the language of my comment didn’t make that clear, although I don’t think that justifies your accusation that I believe soldiers’ lives to be valueless.

I’m confused as to what lives you think Amp doesnt factor in.

Out of curiosity, why do you think there have been so few Israeli civilian casualties from Gaza rocket attacks? (Fewer than ten in the last two years, iirc. In contrast, hundreds of Palestinians including dozens of children have been killed in Gaza by Israelis. It’s tragic that a handful of Israeli citizens have died; but it’s likewise tragic that hundreds of Palestinian civilians and dozens of children have died. The lives on each side are equally valuable; a policy that ends hundreds of Palestinian lives to save ten Israeli lives is not justifiable, nor the reverse.)

That would be “the lives on each side” of the Palestinian/Israeli divide. The lives on one side of the “civilian/combatant” side don’t appear to be of any value at all, given their complete omission from your analysis.

(FWIW, I don’t think you want more dead Israelis–the “beginning to think that was the case” part was meant to modify “no israel” part. But it was badly written, and that’s not apparent.)

1) There are almost no Israeli civilians living in rocket range of Gaza.

2) The Gaza Palestinians have never had the weapons needed to kill Israeli citizens in large numbers.

3) The Gaza Palestinians are targeting soldiers.

The main factor is #2; the Qassam rockets are inaccurate and don’t have heavy payloads, so the damage they do is limited (though there’s been a huge number of near-misses). However, while the area around Gaza is lightly inhabited, it’s not a no-man’s land; there are still Israeli communities in those areas. Also, a no-man’s land is impractical given that the Palestinian organizations are attempting to get longer-range rockets; are we supposed to evacuate cities as their available range grows?

Incidently, this is why a lot of Israelis are leery of a withdrawal in the West Bank nder current conditions; Qassam rockets from the WB can do a lot more damage, as they’d have Israel most populous regions as targets (and the Tel Aviv and Jerusalem metropolitan areas are lage enough that you can hit the city even with extremely inaccurate rockets.

But you’re right. Just as you were wrong to write the above writing, you’re right to criticize my writing something similarly wrong.

I withdraw the “in favor of the bloodbath” language, and apologize for using it.

I can see a fourth. The rockets have little to no targeting capability; they are launched in a general direction. Also, I’m guessing that they don’t have huge payloads. So they are shot into Israeli territory in the hope and (probably literally) prayer that they hit something. The odds are that they’ll miss hitting someone. But, even if they don’t, it’s definitely a weapon of terror.

And I think the people in favor of continuing the anti-Palestinian bloodbath, like yourself,

Amp,

It’s your blog, but… what the fuck? I’d like to respectfully request that you stop using this attack.