Asymmetrical Information

Amoral? Or immoral?

No offense taken.

I block ads in any event, so I didn't see it.

"And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions, I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse."

You had me until there; that sentence is the absolute antithesis of the rest of your post.

Thank you, Jane, for recognizing that the Palestinan people do not have an oppressive army like the Zionists. While the Zionist entity deliberately targets Palestinian children for murder with their American-made weapons, the Palestinians really do have no recourse other than to make the ultimate sacrifice of giving one's life to defend their people and their religion.

In fact, the very act of martyrdom is evidence of their virtuous cause.

Simply put, the Palestinians crave peace and the Zionists crave murder.

And, to their credit, the Palestinians also detest America. While the filthy Zionist capitalists pull the strings in Congress, the Palestinians and their democratically-elected leaders in Hamas recognize America for what it is: The Great Satan.

Although you have not explicitly endorsed the Palestinian cause, your moral equivalence between the two sides (with a leaning towards Palestinians!) is a good first step.

It's good to see you on our side, Jane.

Don't you just love these threads?

Looks what comes crawling out of the woodwork.

"I have three Ph.D's!"

---Professor Peter Kurgman

It just means that you are three times as screwed up as the rest of us. Piled, higher, and deeper. Yup, the smell is overpowering.

Don't feed the troll.

David Thomson--

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure kurgman is a B-minus satirist. You bit.

I don't know whather that speaks more poorly of you, or the left.

I like the funny bits the best.

"And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions..."

- Sounds like she is not going to tacitly endorse them in the second half of the sentence then, doesn't it?

"I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse."

Oh, well.

Why is it so hard to say "killing civilians is not acceptable under any circumstances" and leave it at that. Why this knee-jerk deference to whoever is under in any fight? The Palestinians have been trying to push the Jews into the sea since 1948 and failing every time. So if you cannot beat the regular army you can target the civilians, is that it? If you have painted yourself into a corner with one wrong move after another, how exactly does this give you the right to blow people up?

I read in Wikipedia that Dr. Goldstein was beaten to death by his victims. Serves him right, and may all who resort to the same tactics meet the same end - Palestinians most emphatically included.

When the Irgun and the Stern gang began terrorist operations, Israel didn't exist, let alone an effective Israeli army. Palestine was ruled by the British, who were pretty ineffective at protecting the Jews from Arab violence, and did not seem to be trying very hard. From the Jewish viewpoint, Arabs had sold them worthless land at inflated prices, then when the Jews found ways of getting crops from it, the Arabs tried to murder them and take it back - aided by British prejudice.

So if you are going to grant "the excuse that they have no other military recourse", you should grant it to these Jewish terrorists, too. Not that I see that as ever an excuse for attacks aimed at purely civilian targets, by anyone.

"Why is it so hard to say 'killing civilians is not acceptable under any circumstances' and leave it at that. "

Because that's simple-minded idealism. The fact is, it's impossible to fight soldiers, or terrorists, without any civilian casualties. Wars, especially the Israeli-Palestinian ones, do not often take place on empty battlefields.

on the day that Coretta Scott King died the post is doubly appropriate. one can only imagine how much better the situation in the middle east would be today if both sides had leaders with the courage and righteousness of Dr. King to follow a path of non-violence.

"If X, then (Y rather than Z, contra to the Z that was implied)... but not X" is perfectly valid, if too easily misread as "I say not X, but I really mean X, and Y!" - or used as cover for the latter.

Jane: Don't refund the money. Donate it to Magen David Adom, a worthy cause, and as close to the opposite as possible.

"I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse"

Those who remember SNL in the 1970s and early 80s will recall Ackroyd's ready rejoinder to Jane Curtain:

"Jane, you _______ ____!"

If the Palestinians had a "military recourse" they would long ago have finished what Hitler started. They only lack the means to carry out what is clearly in their hearts: Final Solution.

My respect for you just fell a few more notches. Or kilometers. Or something.

Jane,

I wouldn't worry too much about the content of your ads. Don't get me wrong, it's nice that you removed one that is objectionable.

However, I think most readers are similar to me (OK, blogads people close your ears): We automatically tune out the ads at the top or sides of webpages. I couldn't tell you the name of the company or product of a single one of your advertisers, and I come to the site every day. I mean, honestly, when was the last time you noticed, much less clicked on, an advertisement on a blog?

My point is that the content of sites linked to by your ads is so beneath the radar of most readers, that I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. :)

"The indiscriminate murder of civilians cannot be justified by anything; it is the wrongest thing there is."

This smells like Iraq.

This smells like Iraq.

Why? Please provide examples.

"Jane"

I am a big fan. However, I think you way over-corrected with the sentence "And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions, I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse." Whereas Goldstein was roundly condemned and disavowed by the Israeli establishment, Palistinian targeting of Israeli civilians has been the official policy of Fatah and Hamas, the governing parties of the Palestinians. The overwhelming majority of Israelis want desperately to live in peace. The majority of Palestinians, judging from the recent elections, desperately want to commit genocide against Israelis. Please disavow that sad sentence.

GES, I don't think Jane need disavow that last sentence. Look at what it says: "if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions". So she left off the "which I most emphatically am NOT", but given the rest of the post that can be read as given. She doesn't endorse terrorism, period. Not by Jews, not by Palestinians, not by anyone.

Jason, it is still mealy-mouthed verbiage that condones terrorism while trying to appear not to, worthy of something that might come from the pen of Noam Chomsky. I agree with Bergonot; the statement contradicted her claimed rejection of terrorism and never should have been written. What purpose does such a statement make? if something is wrong, no matter the circumstances, what does it mean to suggest that someone has a better excuse for doing it? If terrorism is wrong, that's the end of it. No one has a better excuse for doing it than anyone else, because THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR TERRORISM.

Yeah, I'll comment on that phrase too:

"And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions, I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse."

The only reason why the palestinians don't have a military recourse is because Israel has won every war thrown their way. The palestinians did, at one time, have a military recourse. They lost and the Israelis won. Too bad the palestinians didn't move on. Plenty of other refugees have.

As far as why people target civilians, this harkens back to the early days of humanity when there weren't real distinctions between soldiers and civilians. Genocide is a terribly effective way to maintain control of land that you've conquered. It is an efficient way to obtain peace (just kill all of "them" and the arguments over). Like the aberration of prosperity in the developed world, the rules of war are another aberration. The norm used to be to kill the civilians (or enslave them). The question isn't why people do target them, the question is why a group of people think they shouldn't.

Bruce,

There are ads on this site? Who knew????

Megan,

Please email.

Thanks,
James

Matt: That some people would use such verbiage to sneakily condone terrorism does not mean that Jane must necessarily be doing so.

The plain language does not do so; only a hostile interpretation can make that happen. In many cases, I admit you'd be right in using such an interpretation, but I don't think this is one of them, given that I've never caught even a whiff of such a stance in my several years of reading this site (nearly) every weekday.

The indiscriminate murder of civilians cannot be justified by anything; it is the wrongest thing there is. And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions, I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse.

Jane has an incredible talent for posting linguistic Rorschach Tests, and here we have yet another. The first sentence in that statement leaves no doubt what her final position is, and what she will hold to. The second is an "alternate me" exploration of what her position would be in the pragmatic worst-case, and several people here have clearly read their own prejudices into it.

Personally, I think it was poor judgement to include it (and it would seem to show some historical ignorance of the situation in question, as other posters have revealed), but one could hardly be directly faulted for including it in a hasty disavowal statement. I daresay many of us have produced far stupider when confronted with similar circumstances.

And if I were prepared to even tacitly endorse such actions, I would first grant them to the Palestinians, who at least have the excuse that they have no other military recourse.

I see the referenced sentence has earned Ms. Galt some criticism. I would point out that every US citizen endorses the state violence Israel practices against Palestinians, most of whom are not terrorists or violent actors in the conflict, because of military aid. So, even if Ms. Galt and I and other Americans do not support Israel's totalitarian violence against Palestinians, as citizens of the US we are responsible for what our government does, and what our government does is enable Israel to engage in actions that slaughter civilians. Much to my horror.

TPX:

Israel has a right to defend itself. They have fought, and won, several wars on that matter. The Palestinians should have been relocated. It is far more immoral to keep them in the refugee camps than anything Israel has done to them.
Israel will not grant the right to return, and I don't blame them. If the palestinians 'arab brothers' had any concern for them, they would allow them to resettle within their borders. After all, it was their initial invasion of Israel that resulted in their refugee status.

The Palestinians may not have the military recourse of using missiles or tanks but they have the choice of targets.

A lack of sophisticated weaponry is no excuse for blowing innocent civilians at random with the goal of taking out as many as possible. Which is not the same as causing civilian deaths during military operations in heavily populated area. One does not justify the other.

One may be obliged to use clandestine tactics and low tech weaponry. But one *chooses* to direct those tactics and weapons against helpless civilians, as opposed to targets who can fight for themselves.

Comments are Closed.