the USA, Israel, and national interest

xpost

Put it this way: Silence can hijacked to much worse ends--and has.

And, I would add, yes, to some unquantifiable degree, you are more morally culpable for those ends if the hijackers are your elected representatives and you have the freedom to protest in some way (and nobody's saying it has to be this or that particular form of protest, much less this or that specific one).

One solution is to go to such a protest with a pro-Israel sign saying end the blockade, or whatever.

This is actually a classic example of moving the goalposts of an argument, all the more impressive since the assertion that started it was less than an hour ago:

Was I wrong to be at that Iraq War protest? No, I wasn't. If I had been silent, I would have been counted among those endorsing the war.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:19 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

it's completely untrue that non-attendance means endorsement; or rather, can anyone live up to that standard? unless you've protested all wars, i don't see how.

― DANCE MUSIC STUCK AT RECOMBINANT PLATEAU (special guest stars mark bronson), Monday, January 12, 2009 1:26 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

I'm speaking from the U.S., the largest backer of Israel since 1967, the functioning democracy where the F-16s are made.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:51 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

That doesn't make the statement any more true.

― ^likes black girls (HI DERE), Monday, January 12, 2009 1:51 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Well, I would argue that it does. If you live in a democracy with a certain amount of freedom, you are more responsible for what your leaders do in your name than if you don't.

― Pete Scholtes, Monday, January 12, 2009 1:55 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

Dan, given "true" as viewed from the neutral perspective of logic and denotative language, you are correct.

Politics puts this into a different framework. The US government position establishes the political default. If you do nothing at all, you are pretty well guaranteed to get more of the same. In political terms, silence has the practical effect of assent.

― Aimless, Monday, January 12, 2009 2:05 PM Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

OK. I read it. I don't notice anything happening other than successive attempts to communicate an idea, refining it as it was iterated. If this is just an exercise in seeing who gets to claim being the winner, then knock yourself out, Dan.

Do you fail to understand my point entirely, or do you think you understand it quite well and take the position it has not the tiniest shred of validity? Or what is your point?

Silence can BE hijacked

Argh, the goalposts have not been moved, you are all just arguing different things.

- Pete says: "Was I wrong to be at the protest? No, because if I'd been silent, that would be an endorsement"

- Dan is successfully poking one hole in this logic, which is that "being at the protest" and "silence" are not mutually exclusive, since there are other things you could do to be non-silent beyond going to a protest -- so "not being silent" alone doesn't justify the protest and you still have to ask yourself whether the protest is a good idea

- If Aimless and Pete consider this hair-splitting, they are not saying so directly, but maybe implying it, by saying "all those other things constitute non-silence, so the point remains, you have to do something (and in this case it was protest)"

- Per all the above, Nabisco is suggesting that this might not really be a big or hugely important point of disagreement

nabisco OTM

He maketh the lamb to lie down with the lion and peace to dwell upon the land.

Peace offering:

http://www.thankyoujonstewart.com/

In a very, very small protest move, I joined a facebook group opposing the offensive, knowing, at least, that Jewish and Israeli friends of mine -- some probably on the fence and some probably 100% for the offensive -- would see my status update. As it happened, the person who had joined right before me had Adolph Hitler as his profile picture. Did turn my stomach a little, but sometimes you have to oppose the greater wrong.

oh isnt this lovely:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7824009.stm

Petrol bombs hit French synagogue

Two petrol bombs have been thrown at a synagogue north of Paris, police have said, days after another French synagogue was attacked.
Police in the Seine-Saint-Denis region said no injuries were caused, but a restaurant next door to the synagogue was damaged.
Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie said the attack was "intolerable".
The incident came amid tensions in France over the violence between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, now in its 17th day.
Ms Alliot-Marie vowed to find and punish those who carried out the attack in Saint-Denis on Sunday.
French officials have been keen to stress to Jewish and Muslim community leaders that the unrest in Gaza should not lead to violence in France.
Protests against Israel's military action in Gaza attracted more than 100,000 people in France during the weekend.
In last week's attack, a burning car was rammed into a synagogue in the south-western French city of Toulouse.
The car, packed with a petrol bomb, was set alight and then pushed into the synagogue door by a second car.
No-one was hurt in that attack.

isn't hitler like the greatest wrong of all?

No I mean bombing is a greater wrong than a facebook picture lionizing a dead dictator. But stories like the one Vichitravirya_XI are exactly the kind of thing that make a lot of people, Jews in particular, hesitant to demonstrate.

anyway i lol @ the notion that "not protesting = you are on the wrong side". i don't protest much because they all end up splintering into a lot of douchebaggery i don't want to be associated with and while israel should back off i would never go to a protest that is gonna paint palestine as 100% in the right at best and has participants calling for the death of israel at worst. i think people feel the need to take a side in this matter when that might be the worst way to go and i would prefer to not do so, even if i feel a tug towards one side over the other.

i think people feel the need to take a side in this matter when that might be the worst way to go and i would prefer to not do so, even if i feel a tug towards one side over the other.

the USA, Israel, and national interest

in a contest as equal as this, who's to say which side is really right?????

i think it would help if we all voted for each side on a scale of 10

10 - GOOD

1 - BAD

TS: Israel vs Palestine

^^^blame the mods who locked this poll

surely one must be just a little better than the other

Omar that's seems somewhat self-contradictory -- you're saying the reason you wouldn't join in a protest is basically because the people involved may not be on the right "side" (i.e., have the right set of opinions)!

I'm not sure people feel the need to take sides so much as we all mutually press one another into believing that specific stances constitute a side, partly because those stances are endlessly under attack by the other side. Something like taking a firm moral stance against a particular offensive isn't really taking a "side," but lord knows every conversation you have about it is going to convince you that it is one.

what i was attempting to say was i don't protest because protests over specific issues such as this offensive can turn into protests against things i have no problem with. i don't want israel doing this but i don't want to end up getting my pic snapped next to some dude praising hamas or holding up a "my country has a problem" sign esp. considering my "situation", as it were.

kinda like how the anti-war protest i went to had some 9/11 truthers and "kill bush" folks.

I feel a little more strongly about it than being next to some 9/11 Truth dude, tbh.

a protest is not a good way to get over nuance, and imo it's a fantasy that you can protest 'a particular offensive' and somehow for the day close down all other questions.

none of the speakers and few of the placards i saw kept to the notion of protesting, specifically and to the exclusion of all else this particular offensive; inevitably they touched on other perhaps more debate-worthy topics, to put it mildly.

at any rate im not sure who the audience for the protest is, what it hopes to achieve. going on the london one, tel aviv, whitehall -- and anyone else who cares to look and isn't, like the pinefox, being evasive -- will have found it a pretty repellant and unpersuasive spectacle.

Protests tend to have the stigma of being radical...before anyone shows up, before anyone speaks. The radicals are the ones who are more likely to come, the radicals are also the ones who get shown on TV. Do they really have a positive effect at the end of the day? Maybe? Did Iraq War protests actually have any sort of positive effect towards stopping/ending the war? These things are hard to measure but it wouldn't be too hard to argue that they often do the opposite.

A lot of this is cultural as the American and Israeli populations are reactionary towards *any* criticism. (Nixon and the 60s/70s protests comes to mind.) That obv. doesn't mean that we shouldn't be doing it, but if you're more interested in making your .0000000001% difference rather than making a show, I'd imagine that a personal letter to your congressperson, donations to pragmatic PACs etc. etc. would be the way to go. Boring real politics, way less fun.

never stand right next to a 9/11 truth dude in a crowded space fyi

That's why I suggested bringing your own sign. In 1991 I brought a "UN in, U.S. out" sign to an Iraq war protest. Bring a nuanced sign, you start conversations.

I think there's a lot of evidence that protests have an effect, but that's not what this thread's about.

I think the main effect of protests is to contaminate the voicing of the majority's genuine concerns with addled, fucked-up wingnut nonsense that normally never merits a double-take when you see some fool shouting it on a streetcorner by himself.

the American and Israeli populations are reactionary towards *any* criticism. (Nixon and the 60s/70s protests comes to mind.)

this is hilarious nonsense and I endorse it fully.

The Palestinian population, on the other hand, is always glad to take *any* criticism. Meanwhile, the British population is neutral on *most* criticism, but irritable towards *non-constructive* criticism. African populations are often unreceptive, while the mainland Chinese population takes criticism like *this*.

the other, more immediate effect of protests is to fuck up everybody else's commute, making folks really appreciate your point of view, btw

so true

Israeli populations are reactionary towards *any* criticism.

wtf? Arguably the most self-critical population in the world.

Reading a lot of those kinds of comments has been really good for me, tho. It makes me realize that when I'm discussing shit I don't know anything about (arguably most things), I probably sound like an idiot.

keyword 'self'

anti-gaza war protest in Israel and anti-gaza war protest in Germany...not gonna be taken the same way by the Israeli population

oh no shit?

I'm so proud that I can teach you some things tombot

I'm glad you felt the need to break that down to a Jewish guy.

a Jewish guy who thinks Israelis are the most self-critical people in the world...

well, definitely compared to white americans

nobody deserves to be compared to white americans, not even israelis

so... are we ready to lock the thread now

Israel names itself most self-critical nation in the world.

Put that on a sign and go stop some traffic with it.

T/S: nerdy dude cheerfully waving rifle astride a camel or fat dude in shades and a CROWN doing surfs up type gesture in the desert.

(I'd post these but I'm afraid the person would somehow be able to trace me)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/13/world/middleeast/13israel.html

Q: What's the difference between a Palestinian and a pizza?
A: Choice of toppings.

....I have a few quibbles with Stewart's approach, but who cares. The fact that he and his writers put this out there is more than enough. No doubt the growing shift against Israeli violence gave Stewart the opening necessary to produce this piece. Yet the audience sounds hesitant, which is understandable, as American comics almost never skewer Israel. Years of Arab jokes and stereotypes have warped many people's perceptions, so it could take time for them to get comfortable with bits like the above. Judging from Israel's openly stated intentions and utter contempt for world opinion, comfort levels may rise faster than normal. How that will stop the killing, I've no idea. But painful laughter is better than complete silence. Blood is smearing the greasepaint.

http://dennisperrin.blogspot.com/2009/01/malach-ha-mavis-goes-bananas.html

Condy Rice: Olmert's lapdog

wow

XXP, maybe the audience was hesitant because they didn't get the joke? I'm not ashamed to admit I have no idea what it means.