Solve the Israel/Palestine problem

Thu, 01/01/2009 - 9:54am — vastleft

If you were boss of the world, what would you do to bring peace and justice to the Holy Lands?

vastleft's blog
Login or register to post comments

Comments

Talk. Talk. Talk. Then do some good things for the people.

By coyotecreek on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 10:08am

(In other words, act and produce at least a few good results from all that talk.) Then talk talk talk. Act, produce. Educate. Act, produce. Act, produce. Talk. Talk. Educate. Act, Produce.

And part of producing would be keeping a threat and steely gaze on all of the bad dudes who are causing all of the problems in the first place. Produce. Educate. Produce. Produce. Talk. Talk. Talk. Educate.

And repeat.

And I would have my best person directly and constantly in charge of making sure things happened.

—

Shainzona

what I'd do...

By Paul_Lukasiak on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 10:16am

Return Israel to its original borders. Bill a giant wall around Israel (and make it deep to prevent tunnelling) including high tech surveillance equipment that can pin-point the origins of any "rockets" coming from palestinian territory and respond immediately in kind to that exact location.

And Jerusalem becomes a completely walled city -- a religious Disneyland where access is strictly controlled.

A few suggestions

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 10:18am

I am not an expert on I/P, which is one reason for my deeply disturbing desire to see well-rounded coverage of the issues in either the mainstream media or the left blogosphere.

But here are a few things that make sense to me, if political feasibility is removed as a gating factor:

Return to the 1967 borders
Make Jerusalem (and possibly other "holy" sites) an international protectorate
Pass a UN resolution equating religion with fantasy

If time-travel were an option, one could unfound Israel, but I'd suggest confining this to idealized geo-political fixes rather than science fiction.

count me as being firmly in

By hipparchia on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 12:58pm

count me as being firmly in the unfound israel column.

i'm not by any means an expert on the situation, but i can recommend reading michael bar-zohar's biography of david ben-gurion [nb, i read the 1979 version].

If, hypothetically, everyone approached it with good will

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 1:21pm

How might that be accomplished short of time-travel?

Improving the

By pie on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:25am

Palestinian economy and quality of life would be a step in the right direction.

Big start would be ending blockade, eessentially Medieaval* war

By jawbone on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:56am

tactic of siege and starvation. Of course, the Israeli government officials get on the MCM airwaves and say with straight faces that there has been no limitation on essentials entering Gaza. Ha! Just food, energy, medicine, How can they lie so baldly? Oh, yeah, they follow the lead of the US....

And not stealing land belonging to others, which is part of going back to the initial Israel borders.

Freedom of movement for Palestinians witihin their own lands would be good, also.

Having US leadership on these issues would be helpful. I notice that Obama has said nothing about the attacks on Gaza, but was out front on saying he could not support any appointee made by Blogo. And Obama's surrogates were out saying over and over that Israel has a right to defend itself. Palenstininans apparently do not have this right.

But that's bcz they're labeled "terrorists," the new way to justify assassinations, mudrers, and, even, genocide. It's the only acceptable justification left, and it's used more and more frequently. The Chinese use it to justify actions against their Muslim minority Uighurs. The Russians use it to justify actions against Chesnians. It's the new "they just savaages."

Based in what I'm writing, I don't really know what we can do--our leaders and those in power do not seem to want to do anything constructive.

As always, I stand ready to be proven wrong and to laud any constructive actions by Obama and his administration. Hillary was at one point roundly attacked for saying the Palestinians deserved their own state and for a kiss on the cheeks of Suha Arafat (second paragraph), wife of the then leader fo the Palestinians.

*Medieval--Well, make that ages old tactic.

Definitely bears repeating

By zeezee on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 3:41pm

But that's bcz they're labeled "terrorists," the new way to justify assassinations, murders, and even genocide. It's the only acceptable justification left, and it's used more and more frequently. The Chinese use it to justify actions against their Muslim minority Urghurs. The Russians use it to justify actions against Chechnians. It's the new "they just savages."

I cleaned up a few typos, but you're "spot on" in thought.

I will say...

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 3:52pm

that the qualms I'm reading in some places about the abuses of the word "terrorism" flirt with whitewashing the fact that murdering random people to market your cause — however dire and legitimate — isn't a necessary or admirable undertaking.

Gandhi and MLK are, in my book, rather more heroic than Arafat.

You're missing the point, I think.

By zeezee on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 4:41pm

What we are talking about is the wholesale slaughter of "their" civilians (you know, the ones who just happen to have the same ethnic, racial, or religious background as the person who committed violence but have not committed violence themselves) justified as acceptable because "they are all terrorists" while the killing of "our" civilians is a war crime committed by "terrorists". Either both sides have terrorists or neither side does. As I read it, that is Nir Rosen's point.

So, that would make both sides terrorists, then, right?

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 4:51pm

Make sense to me.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

"they are forced to resort to whatever methods of resistance...

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 5:41pm

they can" (in the context of the Palestinians' circumstances) sounds like an endorsement of terrorism as we generally understand it -- targeting random civilians for the purposes of intimidation and/or publicity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm thoroughly disgusted at the way "the terrorists" has become a wildcard catch-all to play instant judge-jury-executioner against Muslims. We're bombing Iraq because they're "the terrorists," we can't give basic human rights to the Gitmo prisoners because we've dubbed them "terrorists" (in fact we've made that the law of the land, under the alternate name "enemy combatants"), we can nuke Iran because they're "the terrorists," and some have no sympathy to Gaza civilian casualties because they're "the terrorists."

Also, the existence of non-state terrorism isn't a blank check for oppression by the state, nor is it proof that oppression isn't a or the root cause of the terrorism. And if non-state terrorism is the West's frame of reference for terrorism, it doesn't mean that state-based oppression can't rightly be called terrorism.

So, no, I don't think I'm missing the point.

the US (and Israel) were founded by terrorists --

By amberglow on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 5:51pm

most places were -- when they win, they're called something else.

fighting against oppression, and/or for freedom and self-determination, is not "terrorism" in itself -- and it's really even more meaningless when you use it to describe official govt actions and to describe all sides. Israel terrorizes its citizens and towns near Gaza and near Lebanon, too.

We are terrorists too, and always have been -- "shock and awe", and our actions abroad -- and at home -- are terrorism. The Patriot Act and spying on us is also terrorism and not aimed at anything except for controlling us, scaring us, and eliminating our rights and freedom. ...

What happens is that that label is used to justify only the actions against the powerless -- and never the actions of the powerful and "official".

"Shock and awe" is by definition terrorism

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 5:55pm

It is, or should be, a source of profound shame to this country.

But I want no part of rationalizing acts of terrorism committed the "powerless," either. YMMV.

it is rationalizing it tho --

By amberglow on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 6:04pm

when you apply it to both sides in any given conflict, or oppressive situation -- especially when i side is a government with massive power that is being officially sanctioned to do things.

because of what that word means and how it's always used -- it has the effect of saying "a pox on both houses" and of not helping solve problems or fix things.

plus, without equitable punishment to match the label being applied to both, it's even more meaningless. It renders the actions of both sides as somehow alike or similar -- it also blames and labels both sides, which lessens the real harm done -- and lessens a need for resolution --- especially because official "terrorism" is never ever punished like the other kind.

That's why I urge looking at the whole of the story

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 6:38pm

It's easy to fall for either of two fallacies: one side (pick 'em) is the only one with blood on its hands or they're both equally to blame.

It's only when one looks at the situation broadly and in depth that one can make reasoned assessments, especially when there are so many partisans who seem deaf to the sins of the side to whom they're sympathetic.

I can think of several examples where terror by the powerless...

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 7:41pm

was not obviously a net positive, even given historical perspective. One is the Russian revolution; the other is the Chinese.* To me, the whole lesson of history is that nobody, nobody at all, is fit to be trusted with power over humans.** Nobody at all, no matter how oppressed or how putatively virtuous as a result of suffering and oppression. That is why checks and balances and countervailing forces are important -- because, although nobody is fit to be trusted with power, yet some must be, for society to function. Yes, it's a tension.

NOTE * And because (I would argue) every modern Western state has, as part of its founding myth, a suppressed genocide, is no reason to create the conditions that keep it happening.

NOTE ** That would obviously include at least the monotheistic Gods, assuming them, for the sake of the argument, to exist. Given the results.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

but labelling them both when there's no result

By amberglow on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 8:37pm

or punishment to the powerful side's "terrorism" ever -- and there's massive deadly officially-sanctioned results when the powerful calls the powerless "terrorists" -- is a sick joke.

it's not looking at the whole of the story either -- it's actually ignoring much of the story -- and most especially ignoring the force of an entire govt being used against those they're already oppressing -- and have been doing so for decades.

The "official" context...

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 7:46pm

... brings the question of war crimes to the fore. I would certainly like to see many, many officials suddenly afraid to travel, for fear of being arrested. Not just Bush and Cheney.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

How is the collateral damage....

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 8:59pm

... from a one-ton bomb not "alike or similar" to the collateral damage from a rocket? Especially if you are part of the damage?

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

You're not allowed to ask a question like that!

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 9:21pm

If you do, you're a Zionist stooge. Why do you hate Palestine?

The message I've been hearing over and over is that:

1. Anyone with a brain and a heart knows that Israel's policies are inhumane and criminal
2. If people get information about Israel's puny grievances, the case for #1 will magically disappear

So, by even alluding to Palestinian rockets, you are a party to war crimes and oppression!

Except, to be fair...

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 9:26pm

... I don't think Amberglow is saying that.

I'd still like an answer to my question, though.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

How many times have I staked out my position...

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 9:47pm

... which is that that left is squandering credibility by being strictly partisan and keeping its narrative uncontaminated by Israel's grievances and then being told, "how dare you, that's a recipe for false equivalencies!?"

I'll go find one now...

OK, here and here.

And here and here.

I could show you volumes of those kinds of interactions in the previous I/P thread, where I dared to link a post by <snark>rabid Zionist Chris Floyd </snark> and got my head chopped off for it.

No

By empty on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 10:30pm

No VL. What got your "head chopped off" was bringing in an irrelevancy. Just like it is irrelevant to bring in a person's choice of clothing when discussing the culpability of a rapist, it is irrelevant to bring in the actions of the nutso fundamentalists when discussing the slaughter of a captive population. Nothing the person wore or did not wear would justify the rape and nothing Hamas did or did not do can justify the bombing of Gaza. If you want to discuss the immorality of terrorizing a population then by all means lets include all methods of terror including the suicide bombing of a pizzeria and the dropping of one ton bombs on apartment buildings. You should not feel that you have to, in some way, justify terror when inflicted by the weak. Suicide bombings of restaurants are not justified. However, when discussing the morality of occupation they are irrelevant.

To continue with your petitio elenchi...

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:05pm

Are you claiming that VL said that "the Palestinians were asking for it"? Because I certainly didn't hear him do that.

In any case, I'm entirely unclear on why rape is an analogy here. At the least, it seems odd to frame geopolitical questions in personal terms -- just as odd as when Bush would frame the Iraqis as children, for example. Nations and/or states aren't persons, surely? Even fictive ones?

Tell me, what is relevant when discussing the morality of occupation? And is any form of resistance to occupation valid? Why or why not?

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

No

By empty on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:17pm

No, what I am saying is that what VL wanted people to include in the discussion was irrelevant to the discussion. Do let me know if that's not clear.

Since I question why you claim it's irrelevant...

By lambert on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:21pm

... and you do not answer, I don't see that what you're saying is clear, no. See comment above. So far as I can tell, the grounds for irrelevance is the rape analogy, which I deny. Further, I want to know what is relevant when discussing the morality of occupation, again in the comment above. Your thoughts?

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

I think we are speaking at

By empty on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:47pm

I think we are speaking at cross purposes. Let me try and clarify. What I was responding to was VL's assertion that the reason s/he got his/her "head chopped off" was because the left does not want to discuss Hamas' predations. As one of the people who participated in what VL characterizes as head chopping I disagree. The reason for my and I assume other peoples objection to VL's framing was that Hamas' corruption/brutality/stupidity is irrelevant to the immorality of the bombing of Gaza.
Independent of my exchange with VL you are
1. objecting to the rape analogy.
2. asking for parameters of what is relevant in discussing the morality of occupation.

On 1. I find rape to be an appropriate analogy to occupation. It is the enforcing of the will of those with physical power on those without. YMMV

On 2. personally I think condemnation is the most appropriate to discussing the morality of occupation. Again YMMV.

"No"

By lambert on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:05am

1. Rape is not an appropriate analogy; confusing nation/states and people is a category error. Saying that states and people are in the same category because they both (mis)use power is like saying lighthing and light bulbs are in the same category because they both consume electrical power.

2. Well, surely condemnation is not always appropriate; see the occupations of Germany and Japan. Now, of course Israel's occupation isn't the same as those -- but the interesting question is why, is it not?

Nobody is well-served in this mess by a lack of critical thinking, and that includes the left, Israel, and the Palestinians.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

ignoratio elenchi?

By empty on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:24am

lightning and light bulbs are not in the same category because they both consume electrical power. However when discussing surface flashover it is very appropriate to use the analogy of light bulbs and lightning. We disagree on the appropriateness of the analogy. I don't think that is going to change.

On occupation including the occupations of Germany and Japan you may very well have a point. And I don't think I have either the knowledge or the intellectual capacity to discuss the morality of those occupations. In the current situation I don't think you do.

I think we are even less well served by dragging in irrelevancies into this particular discussion. Bombing a captive population is wrong.

You see, Lambert

By vastleft on Thu, 01/01/2009 - 11:57pm

Israel's actions are disproportionate.

But you're not allowed to discuss what they're not proportionate to.

One more time

By empty on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:09am

Israel's bombing of Gaza is wrong. Nothing that Hamas could do would justify the bombing of a captive population. There is no question of proportionality.

I tend to agree, actually

By lambert on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:17am

But then I ask the collateral damage question again.

If Israel bombing a captive population is wrong, then Hamas randomly rocketing a civilian population is wrong -- if we want to talk in absolutes, and not about proportions.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Yes

By empty on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:26am

Yes Hamas randomly rocketing a civilian population is wrong. And irrelevant to the Israeli bombing of a captive population.

So, why the panic

By vastleft on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:52am

Over the thought that the aggressive actions of the two sides would be brought into the same conversation?

If for no other reason, such a comparison is relevant because Israel and its American defenders argue that the actions are proportionate to some or other supposedly provocative actions by the Palestinians.

For the zillionth time, if the respective actions and grievances are lightyears away from proportionate, an honest comparison should show that in a heartbeat.

Pretending that thousands of rockets fired at civilian targets are as inadmissible as a sexy skirt doesn't do a lot to build your case.

Sure, it's par for the course here in the echo chamber. But is that going to play in Peoria?

Also for the zillionth time, my goal is to find or cultivate an honest brokerage of I/P info and analysis on the left, not to be an apologist for one side or the other.

It's fully possible -- even probable -- that if I found a source I thought was even-handed and honest, I'd pronounce the current Gaza action, for one, utterly contemptible. Rightwing crackdowns and thousand-pound bombs aren't really my thing.

But unapologetically biased analysis isn't my thing, either. It's possible that I'm not alone in that. Outside of lefty intellectual circles, that is.

Last time.

By empty on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 1:02am

VL we seem to be going round and round the same circle. There is no question of proportionality - light year or not. The bombing of Gaza is wrong. No one in your head cutting off exchange argued that what Hamas did was right. What Hamas did or did not do is irrelevant. The bombing is wrong. Not simply contemptible. Wrong. You are not being an apologist for Hamas if you say that the bombing of Gaza is wrong. You are not being an apologist for Israel if you say that someone blowing themselves up in a restaurant is wrong. This is not a sports event where there is a your side and my side. Slaughter is taking place. Which is wrong.

I'll leave the last word to you.

The problem is...

By vastleft on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 1:34am

... the behavior of I/P partisans is very much like that of sports fans.

That is the very problem I'm confronting, the clear tendency for the respective "sides" to filter out stories that are unflattering to their favored party in the conflict.

In my previous post, in which I linked to a very stern condemnation of Israel's bombing of Gaza, I never made any attempt to defend the bombing, and I have no inclination to do so. Yet I was hammered on as if I had, because I simply requested a progressive discourse that isn't shy about telling the whole story of the I/P conflict.

I'm beginning to learn the rhythms of groupthink (I'll be posting about that in some detail over the next few days), and it plainly exists in both the right and the left on this topic.

Groupthink doesn't necessarily mean that you're wrong, it means that you're unable either to tell whether you're wrong or to do much about it if you are.

Finally, what on earth does this mean:

The bombing is wrong. Not simply contemptible. Wrong

"Contemptible" is an especially severe case of wrong, isn't it? Could your temporary confusion on that point be a manifestation of a need to make parties who don't conform to your peer group's norms appear less moral than you are?

In fact, most of the backlash I've gotten on this subject seems to fit that description. I've blasphemed by even allowing the possibility of juxtaposing Israel's and Palestine's actions, and I must be beaten down en-masse until I confess the heinous sin of heresy.

Having a sane and credible liberal blogosphere is incredibly important to me. Seeing it break down during the primaries this past year was painful. Whenever I/P discussions get hot, a variant form of that pain reappears. Again, more on this later....

Vast, you always compare --

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 8:14am

you never simply discuss something -- and that's what's both not always appropriate and in fact many times wholly distracting and irrelevant--- and it's especially appalling and galling when you do it as people are being bombed and killed and have been oppressed, stateless, and rightless for ages.

what also causes us to react is that you say you're an honest broker, but you always yourself use the team sports/ Vs. approach -- and you criticize those who don't always bring up both sides. You impose this A vs. B thing and a balance-sheet approach on others -- and it's not for you to tell anyone how to discuss something.

it's not Kennedy v. Clinton. That's not the situation we have. It doesn't exist in reality.

it's not Israel v. Palestine. That's not the situation we have either. It's what the powerful ones are doing to the powerless ones and what they've been doing all along and what it means.

There is no entity or state or country called Palestine in any real way, and Palestinians have no rights and belong to no country--while Israel has a massive military and army, and is heavily supported by us.

none of these things are served best or helped in any way by comparing and weighing the pluses and minuses -- or the actions of both sides. And they're not abstract things that can or should be weighed or looked at objectively when people are harmed or killed by them.

in I/P, you have a state horribly oppressing a powerless group.

(& on Kennedy, Clinton is not in the picture at all--if she is, then all previous holders should be).

I'm not appointing myself as the honest broker, Amberglow

By vastleft on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 10:32am

I'm simply not expert enough on I/P to presume to be that person.

But I'm a pretty astute observer of the ways that rational thought goes off the rails.

Extremely similar dynamics occur in the way that the left blogosphere writes about I/P to what it did about Obama, the reflexive inability to look at certain issues, the fear that the precious consensus could become even a little complicated if it did.

That's completely separate from the actual rights or wrongs of, for the timely example, the Gaza bombings. But it suggests that we don't have a system that can be trusted to be fair and correct.

I'm not arguing that, for example, the Gaza bombings aren't a horrendous war crime. I'm arguing that I don't trust the source that can be guaranteed to be as biased as the MSM and rightwing are.

but don't you see that

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:11am

you're criticizing others for not conforming to a set way of discussing things?

that at the same time you accuse others of groupthink, you're faulting people for not following the "think" you feel they should have? and that they're not looking at the whole thing?

and that instead of you providing the things you think are missing (which is what you should do, if you feel so strongly that you fault others), you simply trash and label those of us who care very very deeply about this -- more deeply than you realize, or else you wouldn't respond the way you do, i don't think -- as simply parroting some "groupthink".

it's wrong -- and it hurts us, and it doesn't help those who are being bombed or under siege or oppressed in any way -- and those are the people who count most here. It changes the conversation instead, to become about those of us discussing and wanting this stopped.

Ah

By lambert on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:15am

Interesting argument. That's a response to this:

The reason for my and I assume other peoples objection to VL's framing was that Hamas' corruption/brutality/stupidity is irrelevant to the immorality of the bombing of Gaza.

Yes?

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

Lost

By empty on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:31am

I am afraid I have lost track of the indentations. What response are you referring to?

lambert--

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:19am

is Amadou Diallo's life and work relevant to what happened to him? Should that have been part of Diallo vs. NYPD?

Rodney King vs. LAPD?

Attica vs. NY State?

Watts rioters vs. California?

Act Up and people w/AIDS vs. US Govt.?

a rape victim vs. the perpetrator?

...

is their history really relevant to what happened to them and to what they were fighting for or against? whether justice or opportunity or life-saving drugs or equality or brutality or ...

isn't it in fact the opposite? that in courtrooms all over the country, for just one example, the actions and history of the oppressed group is used ONLY to show why they shouldn't get rights or justice?

That it flips what should be the focus--away from those actually oppressing and doing harm to others --and onto those accusing others of harm?

Cross purposes indeed

By lambert on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:37am

amberglow:

I point out a category mistake. You give several other instances of the same mistake.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

but that's just it --

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:45am

it's irrelevant because it doesn't matter that the girl "was dressed provocatively"/"was asking for it" in the eyes of the oppressors -- or those who support and enable them (which is US when it comes to Israel).

this mistake is what Vast is calling for the blogosphere to make -- and she's criticizing all who don't make it.

that it's actually not a mistake, but an intentional strategy that is always used -- by those who are the oppressors and the powerful.

and we don't see how anyone is served or most especially--how the horror stops-- when there's a format that must be followed -- esp one that is always used already to excuse and justify oppression and evil.

i think it helps those oppressing others

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 11:55am

when you have to include a disclaimer like "well, they send rockets/use violence too/etc" -- it repeats and amplifies the messages the powerful always use to explain and justify their actions.

and since their messages are always far far more widely propagated -- and the only ones the media tells people too -- everyone's already heard them and knows them.

a good example --

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:26pm

... "Israel is so scrupulous about civilian life that, risking the element of surprise, it contacts enemy noncombatants in advance to warn them of approaching danger."

So I guess this is good news to the IRA, Basque Separatists, and various others who have blown shit up over the years (killing many) -- they now get a pass because they telegraphed their punches via warnings ahead of time. ...

only the powerful always get to use things like that to show they're not doing wrong, and are acting "responsibly", etc.

the powerless ones never get to, and it never counts in their favor or shows that they're "scrupulous about civilian life".

So the answer to lies...

By lambert on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 12:56pm

... is something other than the truth?

Generally, lies have to be maintained (for example, by think tanks paid for the purpose). Those who have the funding are always better equipped for propagation than those without it.

We can't fight on their ground and win!! That's why truthiness on our side is so insidious. Not only does it corrupt everything, it's a losing strategy.

—

"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi

it's not truthiness to focus on those most harmed & suffering --

By amberglow on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 1:27pm

in no way is it anything less than the truth and the facts. And it's also the part of "the whole story" that is not told by the big media and the powerful.

it actually is truthiness to require any kind of "balance" or compare/contrast when the more powerful are doing evil -- it benefits them always, and always helps to take the focus off their actions and/or explain them or justify them.

Obama dismissing the outrage about Warren is a case in point too -- it's not "a social issue". it's not something that people "can disagree on without being disagreeable", or something that has 2 equally valid sides or can be debated to a resolution or compromise, etc -- Warren is wrong and does harm.

I don't think anyone here is asking

By Aeryl on Fri, 01/02/2009 - 2:23pm

For balance or a compare and contrast.

I think all they are asking for is context. The whole reason people are asking for context, especially from people like you who are way more educated and informed about this topic, is to help educate people who are ignorant about this.

VL counts himself as one, as do I, which is why it's rather pointless and self defeating, to tell us to provide the context ourselves, b/c we don't know it.

Just as someone who gets their info solely from the MSM or right wing blogs, would believe that Israel is a "can't do wrong" actor in this mess, people who read solely left wing blogs would probably come away thinking that Palestine is the same.

Both sides have done bad things, and talking about that isn't diminishing the bad things that Israel has done in this situation, and it doesn't maximize the bad things that Palestine has done.

—

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond