An editor of has declared that any pity for the Palestinians in Gaza is “unethical and immoral.” The editorial by Adi Dvir appeared in Israel’s largest newspaper, Yedioth Ahronoth, on January 4, 2009 as the international community has complained about civilians deaths in the campaign and the United States blocked a United Nations resolution calling for an end of all hostilities.
Adi Divr writes:
To pity the people of Gaza is to patronize them, in essence implying that they do not control their fate, the state of their government, or their own actions. It is to assume one of two things: Either that Gazans are too stupid to oust the cancerous Hamas presence in their midst, or that they are unable to do so.
A bit harsh I’d say. It is hard to view the current bombing campaign as a sign of respect.
I am sympathetic to Israel’s loss of patience over the incessant rocket attacks from Hamas areas. No country is expected to remain silent as such attacks occur. These rockets kill indiscriminately, including the recent tragedy where Palestinian rockets killed Palestinian children in Gaza. However, it is hard to see how this campaign is going to help end those hostilities. There is growing concern over excessive force, such as the killing of Iman al-Ham and the destruction of an entire apartment building to kill a Hamas leader. There are reports that Israel is using sound bombs and even calling homes to warn civilians before such attacks to reduce civilian fatalities, click here.
What is clear is that columns like those by Adi Dvir show how detached people have become to the suffering of people on the other side of the conflict. The columnist goes on to say “[j]ust as a crying baby who only elicits pity will continue to cry, the citizens of Gaza will continue to cry out to the world instead of taking matters into their own hands.” The total absence of any sense of humanity is all too familiar in this part of the world.
For those sane Israelis who support this operation, the condemnation of Adi Dvir should be shift and loud.
For the column, click here.
Gyges 1, January 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“What I did was to defend the motives of someone who doesn’t generally defend herself. By calling her actions “amicable” I didn’t mean, or even imply, that yours weren’t. I won’t apologize to you for this because you choose to be slighted even when no insult was present.”
No. What you did was stick your nose in where it didn’t belong.
You have a history with me, and thus you knew your interjection would not be well received. You knew that.
You know you knew that.
Unless of course you want to declare you are now stupid, something we both know you’re not.
As for the apologies, keep em. Trust me I’m much more insulted by your fake, insincere self aggrandizing apologies which are merely for the sake of appearance than I ever was by your subtle yet bellicose barbs. And that only because you think I’m doltish enough to buy them.
If you want to bury the hatchet so to speak, then consider it buried. Just talk to me with a modicum of respect and I shall do likewise.
Gyges 1, January 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“It would have been against the wishes of our host, and I believe that your two biggest fault is a thin skin combined with a tendency to get too worked up over disagreements with others. I don’t think that makes you a morally, intellectually or in any way inferior or make you any less deserving of having your voice heard. I just get annoyed with your demeanor sometimes.”
Which is why the “apology” Jill was fawning over wasn’t worth the pixels it populated.
Because it was insincere. It was merely to appease our “host”.
Just like now as you try to paint me into being angry, or thin skinned.
Just because someone is capable of recognizing your carefully worded insults, doesn’t mean they’re thin skinned. Nor does responding to them. You have insulted me many times, in many threads, subtly usually, so as not to draw attention or ire from our host, but you’ve done it nonetheless. You do it in a manner befitting a big brother talking to his younger, dumber sibling. I recognize it. I acknowledge it. And I respond to it. That doesn’t make me thin skinned.
Now if you’re saying you’d like to start over, then fine. I’m all for starting fresh. We can put all the water under the bridge you like. But that means talking to me with respect, not condescension.
Talk to me with respect and I’ll return it in kind.
Gyges 1, January 5, 2009 at 2:34 pm
“Wayne,
If I had meant to be insulting I would have said something like “Can’t you read? Jill was being nice and trying to avoid the sort of long rants you subject us to in the name of ‘debate.’ I wish you would just shut up and let the rest of us have a conversation.” I didn’t say that.”
Sure you did.
You just said it.
“No, I don’t think I will. I asked you a simple question. A question you are posting voluminous amounts of bullshit to try to circumvent.”
So you’re less concerned with the reasoning for my answer than my answer itself. I see.
“Forget all the polysyllabic words. Forget the categorical imperative and anthropomorphic approach and just answer the question.”
Actually I answered it the first time via posing a question illustrating just how implausible your argument was. I answered it a second time by reminding you that the law doesn’t give a crap how you ‘feel’ about who ‘deserves’ what. And then I answered it a third time in crayon.
How do I put this; your hypothetical is bullshit. The law punishes actors and not geography; no matter how much you feel a certain geography ‘deserve’s it’
Wayne,
If I had meant to be insulting I would have said something like “Can’t you read? Jill was being nice and trying to avoid the sort of long rants you subject us to in the name of ‘debate.’ I wish you would just shut up and let the rest of us have a conversation.” I didn’t say that. It would have been against the wishes of our host, and I believe that your two biggest fault is a thin skin combined with a tendency to get too worked up over disagreements with others. I don’t think that makes you a morally, intellectually or in any way inferior or make you any less deserving of having your voice heard. I just get annoyed with your demeanor sometimes. I realize that I have my own annoying faults, but I don’t feel bad for having a personality that annoys you. I also don’t expect you to feel bad for having one that annoys me. The last few days (which I’ve already apologized for, I wonder if you’ll extend me the same respect?) notwithstanding, I generally ignore you when you get to ranting. I don’t always suppress my bad habits, but I try.
What I did was to defend the motives of someone who doesn’t generally defend herself. By calling her actions “amicable” I didn’t mean, or even imply, that yours weren’t. I won’t apologize to you for this because you choose to be slighted even when no insult was present.
Bob, Esq. 1, January 5, 2009 at 2:22 pm
“No; for the simple reason that Mexico was not the actor.”
There. That wasn’t so hard was it?
Thanks for answering.
With regards to your answer, all I can say is I am glad you’re not the Secretary of Defense.
We disagree. In philosophy and in morality. I believe if the Mexican government can’t control the people operating within its borders, then its surrendered a degree of its sovereignty, with regards to our right to move into their territory for the express purpose of eliminating a national threat.
You think otherwise.
We disagree.
Yes?
Or no?
Bob, Esq. 1, January 5, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Allow me to further illustrate. Law & Morals are founded within one very simple concept: “Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.” That’s the categorical imperative
No, I don’t think I will. I asked you a simple question. A question you are posting voluminous amounts of bullshit to try to circumvent.
Forget all the polysyllabic words. Forget the categorical imperative and anthropomorphic approach and just answer the question.
Its a simple question.
If Al Quaida was hold up in Mexico, and had established mobile Missile Platforms and was launching missiles into the US and killing Americans and destroying infrastructure, would we be justified in invading Mexican territory to eliminate the enemy?
“If Al Quaida was hold up in Mexico, and had established mobile Missile Platforms and was launching missiles into the US and killing Americans and destroying infrastructure, would we be justified in invading Mexican territory to eliminate the enemy?”
No; for the simple reason that Mexico was not the actor.
Likewise, if Al Qaeda recruited a bunch of trigger happy Texans just itching to bomb the hell out cities on the border of Mexico for allowing illegal immigrants to cross, Mexico would not be legally or morally justified to wage war against the United States.
“How about you try answering the question? Instead of all this hype?
How about talking to me, instead of at me?”
Allow me to further illustrate. Law & Morals are founded within one very simple concept: “Adopt only that maxim that you would will to become a universal law.” That’s the categorical imperative.
The categorical imperative doesn’t give a rat’s ass about how you or I feel. It’s got nothing to do with you or me and everything to do with an analysis of ‘what would become of the world if this were always the case.’
Instead of thinking of the categorical imperative as hype, try a more anthropomorphic approach.
Whenever you get lost in thoughts of who “deserves” what; imagine the categorical imperative as Clint Eastwood’s character at the end of “Unforgiven.”
Little Bill: “I don’t deserve this; to die like this. I was building a house.”
William Munny: “Deserve’s got nothin’ to do with it.”
See?
Not an easy question to answer, is it?
Bob, Esq. 1, January 5, 2009 at 1:56 pm
“Apparently, since the people of Lebanon or Gaza are unable to contain or control them and allow them to operate freely in their regions.
If Al Quaida was in Mexico launching missiles at the US, would you likewise be against the US moving into Mexico to take them out?”
Care to clarify your metaphysics of morals here; much less your theory of sovereign nations?”
How about you try answering the question? Instead of all this hype?
How about talking to me, instead of at me?
If Al Quaida was hold up in Mexico, and had established mobile Missile Platforms and was launching missiles into the US and killing Americans and destroying infrastructure, would we be justified in invading Mexican territory to eliminate the enemy?
Les 1, January 5, 2009 at 1:53 pm
“I think everyone agrees on that. It’s the methods they use that are debatable.”
No doubt. And there are some serious questions here as to what Israel is doing that is not being discussed. Like the use of cluster bombs.
Don’t let people paint me into a position that I have not taken. This started when I “illuminated” a comment by JT in the article where he wrote about Israel calling ahead prior to bombing, and the “Sound Bombs”. The way he wrote it it appeared that he saw these things as somehow bad. I merely pointed out that they seemed like good things and were a sign Israel was at least trying to reduce civilian casualties. I was just clarifying that statement, which caused several of the regulars to conclude I was siding with Israel.
As a side note, I can see JT augmented his statement this morning to clarify that these two things, the “calling ahead” and the “sound bombs” were steps to prevent unnecessary deaths.
“Apparently, since the people of Lebanon or Gaza are unable to contain or control them and allow them to operate freely in their regions.
If Al Quaida was in Mexico launching missiles at the US, would you likewise be against the US moving into Mexico to take them out?”
Care to clarify your metaphysics of morals here; much less your theory of sovereign nations?
“Every action is right which in itself, or in the maxim on which it proceeds, is such that it can coexist along with the freedom of the will of each and all in action, according to a universal law.”
…
“The resistance which is opposed to any hindrance of an effect is in reality a furtherance of this effect and is in accordance with its accomplishment. Now, everything that is wrong is a hindrance of freedom, according to universal laws; and compulsion or constraint of any kind is a hindrance or resistance made to freedom. CONSEQUENTLY, if a certain exercise of freedom is itself a hindrance of the freedom that is according to universal laws, it is wrong; and the compulsion of constraint which is opposed to it is right, as being a hindering of a hindrance of freedom, and as being in accord with the freedom which exists in accordance with universal laws. Hence, according to the logical principle of contradiction, all right is accompanied with an implied title or warrant to bring compulsion to bear ON ANY ONE WHO MAY VIOLATE IT IN FACT.” (‘Science of Right,’ Immanuel Kant)
Seeing you’ve identified Hamas as the ‘actor’, I’m keen to guess how you can show me Israel’s ‘implied title or warrant’ to ‘bring compulsion to bear’ on the citizens of Gaza (or Lebanon) for the acts of Hamas.
Ok Jill, thanks. Sorry if I misinterpreted your statement.
Israel has a right to defend itself. That’s all I’m saying.
I think everyone agrees on that. It’s the methods they use that are debatable.
Wayne,
I was stating my position and why I feel the way I do. I am not trying to stop you from responding. It’s not my right to do that. I think it was confusing of me to say that and give a response. It was not my intent to silence you and I hope you have seen by now that I am not out to “get” you. I like to read many opinions and I’m happy when more people respond, not fewer. Mike Spinell wrote about his feelings on this issue. He gave information to look up and then told everyone to make up their own mind. I am trying to follow his example. That is what I have chosen to do.
Again, that is my choice and it is not my intent nor my right to impose it on you.
Don’t be drawn in Bob to the peripheral blather. My position is not siding with Israel. It’s also not siding with Hamas. But Hamas launched rockets into Israel killing innocent people and that is an act of war. If there was a group operating out of the US that was striking Russia, or China, launching ICBM’s from US soil and hitting the Kremlin or Beijing, they wouldn’t worry about whether or not Washington “sanctioned” it. They’d attack us and rightfully so, because we permitted this so called covert army to live and operate in our country, and to harm and injure others from our lands.
Israel has a right to defend itself. That’s all I’m saying.
Bob, Esq. 1, January 5, 2009 at 1:28 pm
“I’m sorry, but does Hamas represent Lebanon or Gaza?
Or does Hamas conveniently represent any country they happen to lob grenades from?”
Apparently, since the people of Lebanon or Gaza are unable to contain or control them and allow them to operate freely in their regions.
If Al Quaida was in Mexico launching missiles at the US, would you likewise be against the US moving into Mexico to take them out?
I’m glad Jill posted that though, because it goes to show the real issue here with the blog “regulars”.
None of you can handle debate, or opposing positions. Except maybe for Mespo. He at least debates, and doesn’t “whine”.
The rest of you are a bunch of whiners. Whenever someone has an opposing position, you gang up on them and try to paint them into being some sort of villain. It seems that you prefer an echo chamber as opposed to a venue for diverse opinions.
I said nothing wrong, and certainly nothing deserving to be effectively told to “shut up” which is effectively what Jill just told me by stating I couldn’t redress her responses to my statements. And which is also what you and your little “verbose” comment yesterday was all about. I’ll state my opinions Gyges, and read and respond to the comments, without any help from you.
Stick to what you know best. Acting like a pompous, self righteous ass and leave the rest to me.