Thank you board!

[SeattleUte]

I didnt look, but is it Noam Chomsky?.....

The more the merrier on CUF. Invite your contact, by all means.

Noam Chomsky smack. Impressive.

[TripletDaddy]

Noam Chomsky smack. Impressive.

There are loads of Persians in South County. Several good friends that are Persian.

Whenever a pro Palestinian starts talking about Jews for Islam, they always bust out Chomsky.

[Jeff Lebowski]

This is a decent commentary on the current conflict:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...aza/index.html

Regardless of who's to blame for the origins of the conflict, shame on both Hamas and Israel for their recent violations of international law that have led to a humanitarian inferno in Gaza and southern Israel.

Simply put, an Israeli life is equal to a Palestinian life (and vice versa). Politics be damned; basic human decency dictates that both sides of this conflict must be condemned for their respective human rights violations.

Don't miss the discussion on proportionality.

[MindfulCoug]

But do you have the right to be gay?

I have the right to not be asked about my private life or sexual orientation,nor to confess before someone else,no matter how big his/her religious ranking is.

[Goatnapper'96]

This is a decent commentary on the current conflict:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/...aza/index.html



Don't miss the discussion on proportionality.

Can someone explain to me how Israel's right to stop rocket attacks works out with respect to proportionality? Clearly, I am skeptical of the entire proportionality concept. The extent to which Israel must dole out punishment is in some part dictated by Hamas' ability to endure the punishment being doled out.

I can understand the concept Finderson makes about chances for peace and perhaps one can state a criticism of Israel's method that it is too agressive and thus counterproductive, but criticizing the effectiveness of their method and then calling them war criminals are two different arguments.

Finally, I don't want to get all theoretical as quite honestly there are those more equipped for that line of thinking than myself, but how does proportionality work when two fighting forces have different "rules." Now, I am not Pro-Israel as the sons of bitches knew about the plans to bomb the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut but never told us 30 years ago. Their goal and interest was to embolden US hate/mistrust of Arab countries. In defense of Israel the Arab countries do a good job on their own but I doubt I will ever forgive Israel for that little witholding of information, clearly we are just their pawn and most likely they are ours as DDD indicates. However, Israel is fighting with a professional army that will take some precautions and efforts to mitigate civilian casualties. I doubt they take the same precautions that the US military takes (and even with our very careful precautions I believe mindful could let us know how frequently we fail and there is civilian collateral death- war is an ugly business), but I believe that the intent of Hamas is to attack civilian targets. I understand why Hamas fights how they do and I don't want to argue about the merits of guerrilla/terrorist warfare I am just illuminating the ridiculousness of this concept in the current struggle. When one side is fighting a terrorist type guerrilla war, my mind struggles to fathom what exactly proportionality is to it. It just strikes me as some word people use with some death toll count on both sides. Israel, IMO, has a right to protect itself from attack and I think they are justified to exact the pain neccesary to motivate their attackers to stop. Proportionality doesn't work real well in that equation. But I agree that it sounds real sexy.

[Goatnapper'96]

I have the right to not be asked about my private life or sexual orientation,nor to confess before someone else,no matter how big his/her religious ranking is.

Don't worry Sister, I am just a Pro-Lesbian Elder's Quorum President!

I honestly find your contributions here amazing. Don't take my sophmoric swipes too serious, I just try to be the Mormon Beavis to UOhio's Butthead.

[RobinFinderson]

Can someone explain to me how Israel's right to stop rocket attacks works out with respect to proportionality? Clearly, I am skeptical of the entire proportionality concept. The extent to which Israel must dole out punishment is in some part dictated by Hamas' ability to endure the punishment being doled out.

I can understand the concept Finderson makes about chances for peace and perhaps one can state a criticism of Israel's method that it is too agressive and thus counterproductive, but criticizing the effectiveness of their method and then calling them war criminals are two different arguments.

Finally, I don't want to get all theoretical as quite honestly there are those more equipped for that line of thinking than myself, but how does proportionality work when two fighting forces have different "rules." Now, I am not Pro-Israel as the sons of bitches knew about the plans to bomb the Marine Corps barracks in Beirut but never told us 30 years ago. Their goal and interest was to embolden US hate/mistrust of Arab countries. In defense of Israel the Arab countries do a good job on their own but I doubt I will ever forgive Israel for that little witholding of information, clearly we are just their pawn and most likely they are ours as DDD indicates. However, Israel is fighting with a professional army that will take some precautions and efforts to mitigate civilian casualties. I doubt they take the same precautions that the US military takes (and even with our very careful precautions I believe mindful could let us know how frequently we fail and there is civilian collateral death- war is an ugly business), but I believe that the intent of Hamas is to attack civilian targets. I understand why Hamas fights how they do and I don't want to argue about the merits of guerrilla/terrorist warfare I am just illuminating the ridiculousness of this concept in the current struggle. When one side is fighting a terrorist type guerrilla war, my mind struggles to fathom what exactly proportionality is to it. It just strikes me as some word people use with some death toll count on both sides. Israel, IMO, has a right to protect itself from attack and I think they are justified to exact the pain neccesary to motivate their attackers to stop. Proportionality doesn't work real well in that equation. But I agree that it sounds real sexy.

Besides 'proportionality' being the fuzzy term we have been tossing around, it is also a fuzzy technical term used by the Israeli military every time they plan an attack. I heard an interesting NPR piece about it the other day where the interviewee defined proportionality thus: An attack is proportional if the military outcome outweighs the civilian cost. Still fuzzy as hell, since it weighs apples to oranges, but that is apparently how the issue is teed up for discussion in the war rooms.

[Goatnapper'96]

Besides 'proportionality' being the fuzzy term we have been tossing around, it is also a fuzzy technical term used by the Israeli military every time they plan an attack. I heard an interesting NPR piece about it the other day where the interviewee defined proportionality thus: An attack is proportional if the military outcome outweighs the civilian cost. Still fuzzy as hell, since it weighs apples to oranges, but that is apparently how the issue is teed up for discussion in the war rooms.

That is basically saying that we will do militarily what it takes to accomplish our political goals. If the military objective is crucial enough we will ignore the collateral civilian cost in order to accomplish it. I think this is similar to what both great military theorists Goatnapper'96 and Clausewitz have been saying all along.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Besides 'proportionality' being the fuzzy term we have been tossing around, it is also a fuzzy technical term used by the Israeli military every time they plan an attack. I heard an interesting NPR piece about it the other day where the interviewee defined proportionality thus: An attack is proportional if the military outcome outweighs the civilian cost. Still fuzzy as hell, since it weighs apples to oranges, but that is apparently how the issue is teed up for discussion in the war rooms.

Every sane person believes in the concept of proportionality whether they want to admit it or not. I can guarantee you that there is a level of response that would make Goatnapper object.

[RobinFinderson]

Every sane person believes in the concept of proportionality whether they want to admit it or not. I can guarantee you that there is a level of response that would make Goatnapper object.

The NPR piece was pretty interesting in breaking down the logistics of planning an attack. The interviewee said there are basically three technical factors taken into account in deciding every planned attack:

Proportionality: Will the military outcome outweigh the civilian cost?
Intelligence: How certain are we in our assessment of proportionality?
Technology: Do we have the capacity to conduct the attack and limit its scope to ensure that the outcome remains proportional?

[Goatnapper'96]

Every sane person believes in the concept of proportionality whether they want to admit it or not. I can guarantee you that there is a level of response that would make Goatnapper object.

Now we have what my issue is. In this you say there is a level of response that I would object, with that I agree. I don't think Israel has the right to totally eradicate all Palestinians from the face of the earth in order to accomplish the goal of no more rocket attacks. However, the issue here is that Israel needs to place enough pressure upon Hamas that they stop. However, when one uses the word "proportionality" and then throws in death toll counts it creates an illusion that Israel can only respond in kind to Hamas. The litmus test to whether or not Israel's pressure has been appropriate is whether or not Hamas stops firing rockets. If Hamas is still firing rockets then I am not sure what death toll counts mean...other than an indicator that Israel is clearly killing the wrong people.

[RobinFinderson]

NYT reporting on Gaza.

• More than 700 dead, Gaza authorities reporting at least 200 children dead.
• Israel is preventing the delivery of medical aid and food to the Gaza strip.
• Why don't the civilians simply evacuate the area? Right, because Israel won't let them leave. The Vatican publicly compares Gaza to a concentration camp.
• Red Cross reports finding emaciated children next to the body of their dead mother.
• UN Supply driver shot dead by Israeli attack against his convoy (nice intel Israel!)

[TripletDaddy]

NYT reporting on Gaza.

• More than 700 dead, Gaza authorities reporting at least 200 children dead.
• Israel is preventing the delivery of medical aid and food to the Gaza strip.
• Why don't the civilians simply evacuate the area? Right, because Israel won't let them leave. The Vatican publicly compares Gaza to a concentration camp.
• Red Cross reports finding emaciated children next to the body of their dead mother.
• UN Supply driver shot dead by Israeli attack against his convoy (nice intel Israel!)

I wonder why the Western powers have not quickly and decidedly condemned Israel for its recent behavior towards the Palestinians?........

[RobinFinderson]

I wonder why the Western powers have not quickly and decidedly condemned Israel for its recent behavior towards the Palestinians?........

Because Israel exercises disproportionate influence in Western nations? You're asking a rhetorical question, but I don't see the obvious answer. Can you spell it out?

[TripletDaddy]

Because Israel exercises disproportionate influence in Western nations? You're asking a rhetorical question, but I don't see the obvious answer. Can you spell it out?

I already answered.

Pretty simple: The West doesn't feel bad for Palestine. Terrorism has made most of the world secretly desire that the Middle East be gone.

Yes, I know I have no way of proving this and that it is a bold statement, but I honestly think that it is true.

Terrorism has been the single biggest hindrance of the past 50 or so years in the advancement of the Middle East.