Rant time

[sabotabby]

Okay, ridemycamel has requested the following:

Unrelated, but I want you to rant about any aspect of the Palestinian conflict and your involvement as a Jew demon in human form. Bitch about Palestinians, Israelis, other Jews, whites, etc. You can direct it anyway you want, and of course, bonus points if you use racial slurs.

'Cause I haven't ranted about that, ever. Oy. Actually, I suppose I haven't ranted on it for awhile, since it has a tendency to not change very much, despite what the media seems to think. But we just had Israeli Apartheid Week here in Hogtown, so the timing's good. The aspect I'm going to rant on specifically is the Palestinian-Israeli debate on campus, since that's where I was all last week.



The following rules are now in effect:

Before bringing up suicide bombing in an argument, you are now obligated to explain why it's automatically worse than any other sort of bombing. Make the explanation good.

When someone's giving a lecture and you want to take issue with what he or she says, wait for the Q&A session. Why don't people understand that?

"Accredited media" means "accredited media," not "some schmuck with a video camera." If someone doesn't want to be videotaped, it's polite to not videotape them. Also, no one actually believes that you're making an independent documentary.

"Questions" mean exactly that, not "long-winded statements describing in detail how your party is going to solve the conflict." STFU.

The latest atrocity is not "the worst [blank] ever." Newsflash: It probably isn't, and it's all a matter of perspective anyway. I don't care if Desmond Tutu says that Israeli apartheid is worse than South African apartheid; it's bad political rhetoric to rank your suffering in comparison with someone else's. Your situation is dire enough without exaggeration.

Zionists are no longer allowed to tell pro-Palestinian and/or anti-Zionist Jews: "You should be ashamed of yourself." Wow, no one's ever told me that before. I'm now totally ashamed of myself. I think what convinced me this time was how you shouted it in my ear. Asshat.

White people must now pass an IQ test before being issued keffiyehs.

The only person who's allowed to call me a kike is brownfist. No, I don't care if you called yourself a kike first.

The phrase "a secure Israel and a democratic Palestine" is now banned from political discourse unless you're being deliberately ironic.

Palestinians are not responsible for anything the President of Iran says.

Stop coming up with conspiracy theories. Don't you have enough to worry about without making shit up?

No, I don't hate myself. I probably hate you, though.

If you've prefaced your statement with "I think we can all agree..." I probably don't agree with what you're about to say.

Supporters of a secular, democratic, one-state solution do not believe that Israelis should be sent back to Europe. Therefore, telling me to go back to Europe since Canada is on First Nations' land is not a very effective argument.

This is official notice that Jonathan Jaffit is kicked out of the Tribe. But he should never be banned from campus events because he makes them far more entertaining than they otherwise would be.

Anyone have anything else to add? I have a feeling I'm leaving stuff out.

Comments

[jordansc.livejournal.com]

"Before bringing up suicide bombing in an argument, you are now obligated to explain why it's automatically worse than any other sort of bombing. Make the explanation good."

I would say that suicide bombing is worse than conventional military bombing because military bombing should have an intended military target (even if it misses) whereas suicide bombing is often random or designed only to produce maximum carnage among civilians.

More importantly, military bombing is often the result of a democratic decision to go to war whereas suicide bombing can be taken up by any crank for no reason. Because military bombing is undertaken by a state and the bomber will presumably be around to answer for it, there is a potential moderating effect. The suicide bomber will never have to face consequences because he or she is dead.

Furthermore, the bombing state is more likely to negotiate because it is unified and has its own goals, risks, and restrictions. One could argue that the suicide bomber acts in conjunction with a terrorist organization, organized and with its own concerns, but these organizations are different from states in that they do not answer to laws, treaties, or the will of a larger constituent, and their members aren't bound to do their organization's bidding in the same way a subject is legally bound to obey his or her state. For example, if a minority in a state wants to continue a war, it can't break away and continue the struggle without a civil war, but 40 percent of a terrorist organization can easily splinter.

So conventional military bombing is somewhat better than and fundamentally different from suicide bombing.

[sabotabby]

I would say that suicide bombing is worse than conventional military bombing because military bombing should have an intended military target (even if it misses) whereas suicide bombing is often random or designed only to produce maximum carnage among civilians.

Military bombing typically results in civilian casualties; far more people have been killed by state-sanctioned bombing than by terrorist groups. Military targets are typically not located on remote islands where no civilians are allowed. Civilian casualties, given this, are not an accident -- they are a calculated part of the equation, regardless of how bad the government claims to feel about it. (At least terrorist groups are honest about not caring who they kill.)

If there's someone in a crowd that I feel like killing, and I fire my gun randomly at him, I am still morally and legally responsible for everyone else I hit, even accidentally.

Because military bombing is undertaken by a state and the bomber will presumably be around to answer for it, there is a potential moderating effect. The suicide bomber will never have to face consequences because he or she is dead.

That makes sense. But one could also argue that the suicide bomber is more moral because he is willing to die for his beliefs, whereas the state's decision-makers are not.

One could argue that the suicide bomber acts in conjunction with a terrorist organization, organized and with its own concerns, but these organizations are different from states in that they do not answer to laws, treaties, or the will of a larger constituent, and their members aren't bound to do their organization's bidding in the same way a subject is legally bound to obey his or her state.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of what Israel and the United States have agreed is the Palestinian state. As a state government, is their violence now legitimate?

[sabotabby]

That makes sense. But one could also argue that the suicide bomber is more moral because he is willing to die for his beliefs, whereas the state's decision-makers are not.

By which I mean that theoretically there is a moderating effect; the average person is not going to take his own life unless he's got what he thinks is a really good reason. Whereas someone who just gets to write an order or press a button (see icon) has little to lose and potentially far less restraint.

[jaymoh.livejournal.com]

I would also add, that no matter the ideology of the suicide bomber, death is most definitely a consequence! At least the State of California says so...

[jordansc.livejournal.com]

Military bombing typically results in civilian casualties; far more people have been killed by state-sanctioned bombing than by terrorist groups. Military targets are typically not located on remote islands where no civilians are allowed. Civilian casualties, given this, are not an accident -- they are a calculated part of the equation, regardless of how bad the government claims to feel about it. (At least terrorist groups are honest about not caring who they kill.)

If there's someone in a crowd that I feel like killing, and I fire my gun randomly at him, I am still morally and legally responsible for everyone else I hit, even accidentally.

Military bombing has resulted in more civilian casualties than terrorist bombing because of the capabilities of the state. If any given terrorist organization had the power to produce and launch the same number of bombs as a state, they would.

Civilian casualties are inevitable in a military bombing, but the difference in motive is still important. The military can bomb a target as a means of defense; the suicide bomber, by definition, isn't concerned with his or her own safety and, given the suicide bomber's targets, isn't concerned with protecting his or her own people. If America blows up what they think is a terrorist camp it is different from a terrorist blowing up what they know is a daycare. Intentionally targeting a harmless a civilian target is worlds different from accidentally killing a worker at an enemy military facility. The terrorist's motive is never to stop a potential threat but instead to coerce a group of people through bloodshed.

That makes sense. But one could also argue that the suicide bomber is more moral because he is willing to die for his beliefs, whereas the state's decision-makers are not.

The suicide bomber forecloses any possibility of further dialogue, any relationship other than violence. The state's decision makers, while lacking the same zeal and personal responsibility, bomb for a future political goal that could include peace.

Hamas is the democratically elected government of what Israel and the United States have agreed is the Palestinian state. As a state government, is their violence now legitimate?

Yes, their violence is more legitimate. By electing Hamas, the Palestinians have agreed that they want this violence on their behalf. Any given bombing might be immoral but at least the bombings won't be acts of random violence. A group that can collectively agree to violence can also agree to non violence.

I'm not saying that I like war, or that any particular war is justified, but that military bombing[1] is the lesser of two evils. I think war can be necessary but the suicide bombing of a group of civilians is never justified.

[1] Nuclear warfare and carpet bombing being the obvious exceptions.

[sabotabby]

I don't see the distinction as absolute (or even apparent). Iraq is the most recent and glaring example of a terror campaign with non-defensive political goals, started by a nominally democratic (we can quibble about definitions of democracy, but let's not) state without the consent of most of its people. On the opposite end, one might argue that the actions of a terrorist group, while violent or repugnant, might be committed for the defense of their people against some oppressor. (Just because the suicide bomber herself dies doesn't negate dialogue with surviving members of the group any more than the death of an individual soldier negates dialogue with a state.)

On a more abstract level, it strikes me as the difference between two murderers. One has a knife, and stabs his victim in a heated, passionate moment. The other has pause to consider it, and hires an assassin to shoot the victim. All other things equal, both acts are reprehensible, but the law might assign manslaughter to the first, and first-degree murder to the second.

[jordansc.livejournal.com]

I could be wrong, but I remember most Americans supported the Iraq war at first. Their support has waned, of course, but given the fact that we've reelected its architects I think we're culpable for it. It sucks, but...

More later, I'm going to be late to work.

[violachic.livejournal.com]

Depends on how you define "most". Most of Americans polled? Most of Americans who weren't so busy screaming their heads off about what a bad idea declaring war was they didn't have time to give George W. Two Thumbs Up?

No. I don't think "most" of Americans supported the Iraq war. I think "most" of the people the spin doctors deigned to talk to might have. But that's entirely different.

I'm only culpable for this war- or any other atrocities committed by those who think they're my government- inasmuch as I maybe haven't done enough to let them know how pissed off I am about it all. Which I am.

To me, your response about the difference between military violence versus "terrorist" violence shows me that you operate in a completely different paradigm than I do- the one that says that just because violence is state-sponsored that its okay, or somehow more okay than other violence. I can't wrap my head around that one at all.

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the late residents of Tokyo and Dresden.

I think you have failed to make the distinction between target and method. Is a suicide bomber against a military target any worse than one dropped from an aircraft? Is a 'military' strike aimed at civilians (or aimed without regard for civilian casualties) any better than a suicide bomber?

Hiroshima, City of a Thousand Bars

[jordansc.livejournal.com]

Tell that to the late residents of Tokyo and Dresden.

I address that in a subsequent comment: "Nuclear warfare and carpet bombing being the obvious exceptions."

I think you have failed to make the distinction between target and method. Is a suicide bomber against a military target any worse than one dropped from an aircraft? Is a 'military' strike aimed at civilians (or aimed without regard for civilian casualties) any better than a suicide bomber?

A suicide bomber against a military target is "better" than a suicide bomber against a civilian target but the suicide bomber still fails to engage in the sort of "collective bargaining" that makes state-to-state wars more effective, decisive, and representative.

A military strike purposefully aimed at civilian targets is morally equivalent to suicide bombing. While the military strike might reflect the will of the people, its perpetrators should be tried and convicted by someone. I would argue that a democratic state is less likely to commit these kinds of obvious atrocities, compared to a paramilitary organization, because of voter squeamishness, international opinion & law, and "hearts and minds campaigns." But when it happens, in an ideal world, there would be repercussions.

Re: Hiroshima, City of a Thousand Bars

[bike4fish.livejournal.com]

Hmm, I think you are ignoring how military campaigns are waged in general, and how the US military has operated for the past 50 years, in specific.

You don't have the advantage of having watched B-52s take off to bomb Vietnam, nor did you see how many bombs they were dropping. If you can find the footage, go look at it, though the impact isn't nearly what it was watching 30 B-52s, each with 51 750 lb bombs take off at 30 second intervals. Now, back in those days, a B-52 dropping a much heavier hydrogen bomb from altitude at best could be expected to hit within 300 meters of its target - 750 lb. conventional bombs used in carpet bombing would be considerably less accurate, not that carpet bombing was particularly concerned with accuracy. Carpet bombing (at least as practiced in Vietnam) really wasn't aimed at any particular military target - it's designed to deny the landscape to anyone else, civilian or not - and too bad if you were in the way. Similarly, the use of Agent Orange wasn't used to attack a military target - it was used to deny the civilian populations means of subsistance because they might have fed Viet Cong or NVA troops. Also in Vietnam, My Lai was not (as the US government would have people believe) an isolated incident - there were probably hundreds of My Lais. One of the reasons a good number of Vietnam vets had such bad psychological problems when they came back is because they knew that they had done things, under orders, that qualified as war crimes. Declaring an area a "free-fire zone" doesn't make the people in it any less civilians.

Fast-forwarding to the current conflict in Iraq, I would suggest that you read a number of non-US sources about what happened in Fallujah. Actions there have included using white phosphorus (definitely illegal under international law) against humans, as well as targeting civilians.

What suicide bombing has going for it is that it's not violence-at-a-distance - in some sense, the perpetrator is taking ultimate responsibility for the action - and the person also has to be both convinced that the target is justified and that it is worth the price. While we may not agree with those evaluations, it seems that a suicide bomber is taking on more responsibility for their actions than someone dropping a bomb from thousands of feet in the air.