Trump is fundamentally untrustworthy in a way different from "typical" politicians such as HRC, this is screamed loud and clear by his behavior and easy embrace of demonizing the "other".
But the point of the article is that the Apache incident very well may _not_ be a war crime in the _legal_ sense. That legally, such an act could be justified. Not to criticize you, but your response misses the point of the article - that our own sense of justice is often different from what is _legally_ considered so. And that it is lawyers and trained experts who determine what is legal, and that this can be problematic since those in power can simply hire said experts to create the laws they want.
Is part of Iran's rationale for a nuclear weapon to prevent a U.S. action similar to the invasion of Iraq? That would upset the idea of a nuclear-free zone, since then Iran would be vulnerable to the U.S.
Interesting! Thanks for the knowledge. However, while you are technically correct I think the circumstances (Israel/Palestinian conflict, authoritarian/fascist behavior,the internet) make it natural to suppose a reference to the Third Reich. I don't want to fight over the point, just being pedantic (another internet value) I suppose.
What? A 'bloody nose?' Nice use of euphemism there...
I think many of Israel's policies are horrible but what you're advocating sounds like preemptive war. BTW, way to keep it classy with the 'nation of savages' line.
I've been critical of the Israeli government for a long time before I started reading Informed Comment, and since my introduction to the blog my understanding of Israel and the Middle East has only deepened.
That said, having visited the country and having family there, I'm deeply offended by your comment. Not so much because of the gross inaccuracy of drawing an equivalence between Israel and Syria (or implying that some other country, like maybe somewhere in Europe or perhaps the U.S. is a 'real' bastion of Western culture and democracy), but because of the underlying assumption inherent in your language. "Just another Middle Eastern country?" Which country? Qatar? Dubai? Turkey? I'm not saying it was your intention to do so, but the language you used strikes me as essentialist and bigoted.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the cultural status of Israel. One term I've heard people in Israel use is 'European' (undoubtedly in part to reinforce a perceived difference between them and their neighbors), and I do think it captures a certain cosmopolitan element of Israel - plus it has juicy colonialist undertones. Anyways, please be more careful about making unsupported blanket statements about entire countries and groups of people.
I think the two-party system is part of why we our indifferent to our own casualties in Afghanistan, but for a different reason. Speaking for myself, I simply don't see any viable opportunities to change the situation. I do not have the belief, or faith, that the citizenry could alter the political system in order to end the war. Luke also touched on this point.
Explicitly or implicitly, I believe many people feel the same way. Perhaps this is apathy - or a blend of apathy and realism. I wouldn't want to argue that the majority of Americans believe this, but I do think as a country many of us know, on some level, that when it comes to the most significant choices our government makes, we are effectively disenfranchised.
Without taking away from other interpretations of this video, I see an act where soldiers are asserting their humanity (dancing to mindless, sexual music) against the oppression which comes from being an oppressor. I'm explicitly not claiming an equivalency between the oppression of Palestinians and the damage done to Israeli society and its young people by their own occupation. I believe that military service of any sort involves its own kind of dehumanization, and to see a video which essentially transforms a military patrol into a music video is in my eyes an assertion of a self other than the soldier. Also the casual attitude expressed in the video towards the performance of military duties, towards the Palestinians, towards the whole situation, perhaps speaks to a desensitization from being enmeshed in the occupying machine of Israeli government and the military.
Trump is fundamentally untrustworthy in a way different from "typical" politicians such as HRC, this is screamed loud and clear by his behavior and easy embrace of demonizing the "other".
nah let's make the world great and america will come along for the ride 😉
But the point of the article is that the Apache incident very well may _not_ be a war crime in the _legal_ sense. That legally, such an act could be justified. Not to criticize you, but your response misses the point of the article - that our own sense of justice is often different from what is _legally_ considered so. And that it is lawyers and trained experts who determine what is legal, and that this can be problematic since those in power can simply hire said experts to create the laws they want.
Is part of Iran's rationale for a nuclear weapon to prevent a U.S. action similar to the invasion of Iraq? That would upset the idea of a nuclear-free zone, since then Iran would be vulnerable to the U.S.
Interesting! Thanks for the knowledge. However, while you are technically correct I think the circumstances (Israel/Palestinian conflict, authoritarian/fascist behavior,the internet) make it natural to suppose a reference to the Third Reich. I don't want to fight over the point, just being pedantic (another internet value) I suppose.
Hizbullah is more complex, I think, than your characterization of it here.
Your book sounds interesting. You should have disclosed that you're the author :/
@Juan
It's a touchy subject all around, that's for sure.
Ditto this. As I remember, you hold a highly enlightened view on Nazi comparisons - none allowed. This seems to be a backhanded one.
Otherwise, I thought your piece was as valuable as ever.
What? A 'bloody nose?' Nice use of euphemism there...
I think many of Israel's policies are horrible but what you're advocating sounds like preemptive war. BTW, way to keep it classy with the 'nation of savages' line.
Ahh, wait....are you a (net)troll?
Hey Billy,
I've been critical of the Israeli government for a long time before I started reading Informed Comment, and since my introduction to the blog my understanding of Israel and the Middle East has only deepened.
That said, having visited the country and having family there, I'm deeply offended by your comment. Not so much because of the gross inaccuracy of drawing an equivalence between Israel and Syria (or implying that some other country, like maybe somewhere in Europe or perhaps the U.S. is a 'real' bastion of Western culture and democracy), but because of the underlying assumption inherent in your language. "Just another Middle Eastern country?" Which country? Qatar? Dubai? Turkey? I'm not saying it was your intention to do so, but the language you used strikes me as essentialist and bigoted.
I'm not arguing one way or the other about the cultural status of Israel. One term I've heard people in Israel use is 'European' (undoubtedly in part to reinforce a perceived difference between them and their neighbors), and I do think it captures a certain cosmopolitan element of Israel - plus it has juicy colonialist undertones. Anyways, please be more careful about making unsupported blanket statements about entire countries and groups of people.
Best,
Adam
oops - "why we _are_ indifferent," not "our indifferent."
Juan,
I think the two-party system is part of why we our indifferent to our own casualties in Afghanistan, but for a different reason. Speaking for myself, I simply don't see any viable opportunities to change the situation. I do not have the belief, or faith, that the citizenry could alter the political system in order to end the war. Luke also touched on this point.
Explicitly or implicitly, I believe many people feel the same way. Perhaps this is apathy - or a blend of apathy and realism. I wouldn't want to argue that the majority of Americans believe this, but I do think as a country many of us know, on some level, that when it comes to the most significant choices our government makes, we are effectively disenfranchised.
Without taking away from other interpretations of this video, I see an act where soldiers are asserting their humanity (dancing to mindless, sexual music) against the oppression which comes from being an oppressor. I'm explicitly not claiming an equivalency between the oppression of Palestinians and the damage done to Israeli society and its young people by their own occupation. I believe that military service of any sort involves its own kind of dehumanization, and to see a video which essentially transforms a military patrol into a music video is in my eyes an assertion of a self other than the soldier. Also the casual attitude expressed in the video towards the performance of military duties, towards the Palestinians, towards the whole situation, perhaps speaks to a desensitization from being enmeshed in the occupying machine of Israeli government and the military.