Skip to main content

War is health, and other Orwellian metaphorical observations

If it wasn't enough that Israel is organizing an army of bloggers to counter its critics in the new media, here's the best evidence yet that the IDF has pretty much gotten world coverage wired exactly the way it wants it.

Here's a smattering of the professional courtesies given Israel by American network military experts:

“I think you were too restrained and could have gone deeper into Gaza,” retired Lt-Gen Thomas McInerney, a military analyst for Fox News noted, saying the Israeli public’s universal approval for the onslaught could have muted global opinion, and that it would have made it “more difficult for Europeans, the Left or the Arab media to counter that.” McInerney also chided Israel’s leadership, saying they are “too sensitive about world opinion.”

In 22 days, the Israeli military killed over 1,300 people, the vast majority of them civilians. Human rights groups have noted that they deliberately fired white phosphorus into densely populated residential neighborhoods, torching buildings and killing civilians. According to retired Lt-Col. Rick Francona, an analyst for NBC, people in the United States saw these killings merely “as a healthy demonstration of Israel’s capabilities.”


So let's do the numbers in a way that might attract the attention of the new IDF blogosphere offensive: had Al Qaeda killed only 1,300 people instead of 3,000 on September 11, General McInerney would have considered the attack "restrained," and Colonel Francona would have characterized it "as a healthy demonstration of Al Qaeda's capabilities"?

No--for all the knee-jerk reactionaries who will think I am somehow equating Israel in Gaza with Al Qaeda and the World Trade Center/Pentagon--that's not what I'm doing. What I am saying is that political violence, whether conducted by States or sub-national groups, should be assessed on its results and not the supposed intentions of the perpetrators.

The civilian dead in Gaza are inherently no less victims, and--person for person--our own dead on September 11 are no more intrinsically valuable as human beings than those Palestinians.

One of the most morally troubling aspects of American exceptionalism has always been its use as a loophole around the Christian and secular humanist shared belief that all human beings are intrinsically valuable. Instead, reflecting those old tribalisms that President Obama wishes to stamp out, we are quite comfortable rationalizing or even ignoring piles of dead around the world.

This is not an argument for interventionism; it is an argument for conscience.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here:  chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society  [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.”   The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point:  Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo:  Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1.       Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...