Muslims are taking over the world

[bloodyminded]

I didn't say 'most critics', I said that most of those who are 'hypercritical' of Israel.... buddy!

"Hypercritical" sounds a bit...inexact, and certainly appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

Can you be more precise?

After all, you posted this in response to my remark, which had nothing to do with "hypercritical" people at all.

And what's with the "buddy" stuff?

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Scotty]

"Hypercritical" sounds a bit...inexact, and certainly appears to be in the eye of the beholder.

Can you be more precise?

After all, you posted this in response to my remark, which had nothing to do with "hypercritical" people at all.

I was responding to the statement, not so much to you. I don't think of you as hypercritical in the same way someone like Bud or Naomi are, for example. But I find the volume and level of criticism of Israel to make no logical sense if its on the basis of actual human rights violations.

And what's with the "buddy" stuff?

That WWWT guy just strikes me as funny, somehow, and I'd just come from reading his comments.

[bloodyminded]

I was responding to the statement, not so much to you. I don't think of you as hypercritical in the same way someone like Bud or Naomi are, for example. But I find the volume and level of criticism of Israel to make no logical sense if its on the basis of actual human rights violations.

Well, I can sympathize with this; not totally, but to a degree. However, there are self-labelled "supporters of Israel" who are utterly totalitarian, and will brook zero criticism at all. Not your fault, however.

That WWWT guy just strikes me as funny, somehow, and I'd just come from reading his comments.

Oh yeah, I thought it seemed familiar!

[Bob]

Bloodyminded, you've made many comments acknowledging the disproportionate volume of criticism that Israel receives. Of course there can be no doubt about this. More disturbing, however, is that the criticism is largely unjustified. Especially with respect to how Israel uses force to defend itself. More than anyone else, and often beyond what I think is reasonable, Israel engages in activities to reduce civilian casualties - often at great expense, including placing soldier at increased risk.

I will give a simplistic example. Using ground troops to go into an apartment (which is incredibly dangerous when it is known that that the terrorists are within, and perhaps have installed traps) rather than simply destroying the entire building, in order to reduce the likelihood of harming civilians. Now, we can have a legitimate argument about whether or not Israel can justify placing its soldiers in a higher-risk situation in order to protect civilians. What we cannot do, however, is accuse Israel of not taking sufficient precautions to reduce civilian harm.

There is no systematic pattern from Israel towards harming civilians. There are aberrations. For example, soldiers mistreating detained Palestinians, stealing their possessions, or disregarding the rules of engagement, etc. The accusations we always hear is that Israel actions, in their entirety, are unjustified. For example, Israel is criticized for firing into civilian areas - well that's where the terrorists are and that's from where they operate. There is simply no other option Israel has to defend itself.

Anyways, it's not just disproportionate criticism we see levied against Israel, it's UNJUSTIFIED and DISHONEST criticism. At best, it's ignorant criticism.

[bloodyminded]

Bloodyminded, you've made many comments acknowledging the disproportionate volume of criticism that Israel receives. Of course there can be no doubt about this. More disturbing, however, is that the criticism is largely unjustified. Especially with respect to how Israel uses force to defend itself. More than anyone else, and often beyond what I think is reasonable, Israel engages in activities to reduce civilian casualties - often at great expense, including placing soldier at increased risk.

I will give a simplistic example. Using ground troops to go into an apartment (which is incredibly dangerous when it is known that that the terrorists are within, and perhaps have installed traps) rather than simply destroying the entire building, in order to reduce the likelihood of harming civilians. Now, we can have a legitimate argument about whether or not Israel can justify placing its soldiers in a higher-risk situation in order to protect civilians. What we cannot do, however, is accuse Israel of not taking sufficient precautions to reduce civilian harm.

There is no systematic pattern from Israel towards harming civilians. There are aberrations. For example, soldiers mistreating detained Palestinians, stealing their possessions, or disregarding the rules of engagement, etc. The accusations we always hear is that Israel actions, in their entirety, are unjustified. For example, Israel is criticized for firing into civilian areas - well that's where the terrorists are and that's from where they operate. There is simply no other option Israel has to defend itself.

Anyways, it's not just disproportionate criticism we see levied against Israel, it's UNJUSTIFIED and DISHONEST criticism. At best, it's ignorant criticism.

Well, we're in partial agreement, which is pretty good for us.

I don't quite agree that the criticism is dishonest and unjustified...though, of course there is no doubt that some of the criticism is dishonest and unjustified. That fact extrapolates generally, and you could state it confidently without knowing a single actual fact about the ongoing conflict. There is unjustified criticism of the Palestinians, for that matter. Hell, I posted a very lovely poem by a Palestinian about sorrow and forgiveness, and was immediately informed that it was "propaganda" designed to make Israel look heartless by comparison." (You wouldn't think so if you read the poem, Bob, in case you're wondering about context.)

Well, I don't sense any agreement coming for the two of us on this, or not substantively. We do agree that Isrtael receives a disproportionate amount of criticism, and that often the critics' energies might be better spent elsewhere. Effective activism can do a lot of good in the right situation. However, I don't presume to determine what exactly should be anyone's area of interest, so my opinion there is not worth much.

Edited April 17, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Tilter]

But that's been our argument all along, against the simpleminded claims of vast, single-entity Muslim evil.

Well, Bob, just for an insane radical proposition, maybe a lot of people have a good point about Israel's lousy behaviour. Maybe their "bias" is largely against poor behaviour.

Would you not consider your own "bias" against the Palestinians to be reasonable?

You know, Bob, as astonishing as it might seem, there are plenty of people who disagree with you while holding to principle; everyone who disagrees with you is not either sinsister or moronic by definition.

And many more agree with him.

[bloodyminded]

And many more agree with him.

????

Yep. some people agree with Bob, some disagree with him. Same as with myself, and with you.

Are there any other obvious and uncontested facts, that nobody at all is debating, of which you'd like to inform me?

Edited April 22, 2011 by bloodyminded