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]

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.