Intent to Kill

>> It hadn't occurred to me before then that the security of Israel, or any other country, rests on truckloads of corpses. <<

Fascinating line!

>> "The barbarities of war are seldom committed by abnormal men.
The tragedy of war is that these horrors are committed by normal men in abnormal situations."<<

The subsequent horror -- the reason we MUST find a better conflict resolution method than war -- is that it breaks people. It doesn't just kill them. They come home with compound fractures of morality and personality, some of which never heal. Those problems then affect their families, and that ripples through the whole society. Look at what happens with American veterans: rampant problems of domestic abuse, substance abuse, self-harm and suicide, unemployment, homelessness, violent responses to trivial but misperceived stimuli, etc. Those are all ... hidden war injuries, in a way. The wreckage of normal lives that were invisible casualties on the battlefield.

So then, if a country is constantly at war, constantly under survival threat (real or perceived), then that kind of stress gets spread far and wide. That makes it difficult or impossible to make good decisions and rational actions. It creates a vicious cycle that is very, very hard to stop. But we have got to find a way of stopping it, not just for Israel, but for everyone.

>>Anyway, yes, I am rather offended by your remarks,
but ripping in to you isn't going to help anyone,
nor am I in any position to say that the Israeli actions were justified.<<

As long as it doesn't devolve into ranting, personal attacks, or pure vulgarity ... reasoned dispute is okay. Everybody doesn't have to use the same standards. Sometimes it's useful to compare them. Comparing perspectives is frequently useful too. Despite the rough spots, the overall discussion on the topic is turning up some interesting stuff -- including some things I hadn't known before, or had known but not combined in a particular way. Sometimes when people mull things over enough times, a solution emerges.

>>All the more reason to refrain from extreme or absolute pronouncements.<<

More extreme than my stance: "America should cut off all aid to Israel." or "Israel hasn't done anything wrong; America should keep supporting the country permanently."

I've heard variations on both of those.

Abosolute: "Israel is a barbaric mistake that never should've existed and will never amount to any good."

I've heard versions of that too, mostly with a lot of 4-letter words added.

A position in the middle of a spectrum isn't always the right place, but it is right more often than a far end. The disadvantage of being in the middle is that no matter where you are in it, people from both sides will attack your stance.

>> Calling Israel uncivilized
and proposing withdrawal of US support for Israel
is really close to a ranting personal attack.
I understand that you didn't intend it so,
but--obviously--not everyone did. <<

A personal attack is one made without reference to valid reasons for one's stance or evidence against the opponent's stance. More subtly, it is usually made in a manner that denies the validity of another opinion.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/personal-attack.html

I linked to a discussion of a current event in which Israeli action caused the preventable deaths of several human beings outside of Israeli territory. It detailed some rational points that strongly indicate the level of force was excessive and inappropriate. This is not an action I consider to be civilized. It is not an anomaly; Israel has done various other things I consider to be uncivilized. A combination of actions within a category causes that category to fit, until the pattern changes substantially. So, by my standards, Israel is an uncivilized nation. It is not the only nation I consider to be uncivilized. It's not uncivilized because it's Israel or because the population is mostly Jewish, but rather because of the collective choices and actions that people there are making and have been making for some years. And it's not that Israel never does anything right, but rather that it generates a steady stream of bad news. "Uncivilized" is a judgment, and it's not a nice one. However, it's descriptive in a performative way that has the potential to link back to actions or other evidence, in a way that, say, ethnic or religious namecalling would not be performative.

Then too, a rant is not susceptible to change. It tends to oversimplify. I'd like for Israel to mature into a terrific country; I just don't think it's there now. And the thread descending from the initial post has gotten every more complex as it moves along.

Proposing that America stop enabling Israel to procure weaponry is also different than proposing the removal of all support. America has a very bad habit of coddling allies and allowing them to get away with all manner of humans rights, environmental, and other violations without withdrawing support -- and then will turn around and carp at somebody else for doing the exact same thing or even less. Well, when you contribute support to someone else's actions, you share the moral consequences with them, whether positive or negative. Since I believe that Israel has used excessive force in the past, and is likely to do so again, I prefer that the country I'm living in refrain from enabling that. I sincerely doubt America will change its policy with Israel unless that policy becomes detrimental to something America wants; the appearance of morality is sometimes a concern, but the practical application of morality, not so much. This is one among many reasons why I don't consider America very civilized either.

I have very strong opinions about some things. Sometimes I express them in very direct terms. But they are almost always expressed in some conjunction with examples or other evidence of the reasoning behind those opinions. People may not find the evidence sufficient or convincing; that's up to them. It's there, though. They may not like my tone; that's their privilege. But it doesn't really meet the technical description of either rant or personal attack. Things like rude and harsh are a great deal more flexible, and may be freely applied as people see fit.

>> But I did say "really close" <<

Okay, that's fair.

I try to be careful with such distinctions because so much of Webtext is rant and personal attacks, without bothering to give any reasoning or link to examples; and another big chunk is just practice using all the foul words the writer can think of. When I read, I read a lot of stuff that is controversial, and sometimes people get sharpish; but I won't echo rants unless it's for "this shows why ranting is a bad idea" or similar purposes. I also study how arguments work, what makes a rant, what makes a flame ... what are some alternatives. I'm not actually all that good with nonviolent communication; it's a conscious effort for me, and I don't always have the energy to take it very far. But I'm usually capable of keeping at least a layer or two of rational filter over what can be a boiling-hot reaction to some of the tomfool things that people do. If I don't have the energy for that, I tend to do something other than online posting. And those distinctions are important to me, because I'm also trying to teach people not to just rant or make snap judgments, but to look at the evidence. I'd been reading about the Israel incident for days, and didn't post about it until I spotted a discussion that had the kind of detail that let me discern important points.

*choke*

The mind boggles!

Yet ironically ... it's often a lot easier to deal with someone else's problems than to deal with your own. Might could work.

*LAAAAAAAUUUUUUUGH*

Point. Two points.