Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel's military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.I'm guessing no -- while I don't mean to be condescending*, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of the people on the street would identify Slaughterhouse-Five as the name of an emo band. Back to Sowell:
Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler's forces?
Talk show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?While one might argue that Sowell is calling in an airstrike on his own position if he posits that Geraldo Rivera has anything to do with any intelligentsia, Sowell makes the point that matters. Every battle Israel faces is existential. Currying favor with people who hate you is a mug's game.
Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy's civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.
*Okay, I do mean to be condescending.
9 comments:
Herr D., Are you suggesting that Israel should turn the West Bank into Dresden circa 1944? Or that the fact that they haven't (yet) is due to the meddling of those clueless Western liberals? Because I think the 20-1 imbalance in casualties has little to do with the Western people's opposition to Israel's asymmetrical relations with the Palestinians. Occupation, apartheid and the unique establishment of a religious state bothers the intelligentsia if you've been paying attention to the divestment movement running rampant through our universities, not Israel's overwhelming firepower advantage. But, I gotta say, Sowell must be slipping into senility because somehow he starts his article in Gaza and then stumbles into minimum wage and falls face first into Switzerland's unemployment rate. Hugh Hewitt needs to hire an editor, or pay attention to what is posted on his really dumb website.
Occupation, apartheid and the unique establishment of a religious state bothers the intelligentsia if you've been paying attention to the divestment movement running rampant through our universities, not Israel's overwhelming firepower advantage.
Apartheid? And while we're at it, "the unique establishment of a religious state" doesn't seem to bother the intelligentsia much if it's ISIS doing the establishing.
Israel could turn Gaza (not the West Bank, which is kinda sloppy for a guy whose ripping on Sowell) into Dresden circa 1945 (not 1944, since we're being fastidious), it it so chose. It won't, though. Seriously, you were more convincing when you were ragging on raisin farmers -- you might want to consider a better wholesaler for the ad homina.
After that exchange, it's clear that Herr D is the bomber and Anon is Dresden.
better wholesaler for the ad homina.
ad homines /obnoxious latin pedantry
Apartheid, yes, apartheid. 1944-45, Gaza not West Bank (for now), oops, my bad. I haven't heard of anyone in the west arguing for an Islamic state in Syria, Iraq and Turkey: if you have, please name names. And yes, Sowell's article proceeds exactly as I describe it, and therefor is utterly incoherent allowing me to impugn the lucidity of the author. And yes, the wholesaler of this blog prefers a reactionary echo chamber to honest criticism and debate, so I will remove this blog from my bookmarks and disengage from this circularly gratifying discussion.
honest criticism and debate
If only. But instead you offer: "apartheid" and "senility" and "really dumb website."
my guess: Anon is a child of Rich. same manner of attack, less capable of logic and detail.
i am quite far from being an israeli apologist, but anybody who lends any quarter, even a miniscule amount, to Hamas is either fooolish of mind or evil at heart.
There is so much willful idiocy in Anon's commentary, I dare not try and tackle it all.
But to the point of an "Apartheid" state. There are over 1.6 million Arab Israelis, with voting rights and freedom of religious expression. Another 278,000 Arabs live in Israeli territories as permanent residents. They were offered citizenship but refused because doing so recognized Israel and their claims to the disputed territories. And what horrific punishment did the Israel do these people? They too have voting rights in municipal elections and freedom to worship as they please.
Remind me of how many of those basic freedoms were present in South Africa pre-Mandala (an actually Apartheid state)? Or really the better question - do you think any of the Jews of Israel would be granted any of these freedoms, let alone be allowed to live, if Hamas were in charge?
Are the Israelis without fault? Of course not. But all this talk of negotiations is meaningless when one side wants to exterminate the other. That so many people turn a blind eye to this says much about the continued hatred of Jews worldwide.
Apartheid, yes, apartheid.
First Ringer has answered this canard quite admirably.
1944-45, Gaza not West Bank (for now), oops, my bad.
Ordinarily I'd let that sort of thing slide, but if you're going to rag on someone else's lucidity, it would behoove you to be lucid yourself. It goes to credibility of argument.
I haven't heard of anyone in the west arguing for an Islamic state in Syria, Iraq and Turkey: if you have, please name names.
Question, seriously: you do know what "ISIS" or "ISIL" stands for, right? Your choices are "Islamic State in Iraq and Syria." Or, alternatively, "Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant." And by that, they don't mean Oscar Levant.
And yes, Sowell's article proceeds exactly as I describe it, and therefor is utterly incoherent allowing me to impugn the lucidity of the author.
As we discussed earlier, you can impugn Sowell's lucidity to your heart's content, but you aren't exactly bringing a lot of lucidity to this discussion.
And yes, the wholesaler of this blog prefers a reactionary echo chamber to honest criticism and debate, so I will remove this blog from my bookmarks and disengage from this circularly gratifying discussion.
I'd love some honest criticism and debate. You've yet to provide it. If you knew anything about this blog, which has been around for nearly nine years, you'd know I've always welcomed debate. Most of the lefty commenters over time seem to take their ball and go home, as you have. Since you've removed your bookmarks, I'm certain you'll never see the response, though. Until you do.
****
ad homines /obnoxious latin pedantry
res ipsa loquitur. ;)
Post a Comment