If a bomb falls in the middle of a major city, but there are no Americans there to hear it, does it make a sound?
Today, the 5th anniversary of Ariel Sharon's blatent use of violence to rise to the Prime Minister post in Israel, marks the 5th day in a row that the Israeli army has rained bombs down on Gaza while simultaneously making mass arrests in the West Bank. The Israeli government has also openly restarted its illegal policy of targeted killing. But don't look on any of the American news media sites for this story, because no Israelis have been killed, meaning that it's not worthy of a headline.
In other news, Israel has cancelled a planned peace summit with the Palestinians. So, it looks like Israel is happy to continue delaying the implementation of the Road Map to peace.
And in still other news, Israel has again been accused of being the only nation in the Middle East to have nuclear weapons which remain unchecked by international observers. Israel's response to the declaration that their secret weapons of mass destruction threaten peace and stability in the Middle East? "You're just being cynical."
Look, I love Israel. I want what's best for Israel, so she can remain a beautiful, thriving, vibrant, peaceful home for the Jewish people. That's not going to happen as long as the Israeli government insists on subjugating and bombing Palestinians, hiding nuclear weapons, all while refusing to negotiate a just and lasting peace. Maybe if the Americans paid a little more attention to the problem, we'd have a chance to fix this whole thing. The road to peace and a stronger Israel starts with a simple idea: end the occupation.
I normally don't like getting too involved in your Middle East discussion, because I never know where to start in criticizing your posts, but on this one I have to ask, other than the fact that the former appears on your blog and the latter doesn't, what's the difference between a shell landing in Gaza and one in Sderot?
-Dave
100% Pure Awesome
Dave, thanks for your always important and particularly awesome comments. I know you already know everything I"m about to write here, but since you asked, here you go.
The difference between a shell landing in Gaza and one landing in Sderot is that the shells landing in Gaza are nearly always sophisticated, powerful, American-style (if not American-made) missles and bombs dropped from fighter jets and attack helicopters. Recently, the Israeli army has fired artillery batteries at Gaza City for the first time since the 1967 war.
In other words, the Isareli army has all the might in the world behind it (including, as noted in the post, nuclear weapons). They have immense power, and as a result are able to cause remarkable destruction and loss of life in Gaza. The death toll tells the story -- dozens if not hundreds of Palestinians have been killed by these attacks in the past six months.
When rockets land in Sderot, they're usually of the "Qassam" variety. These rockets are homemade, usually consisting of little more than a steel tube filled with explosives and a model rocket engine. Their effectiveness is minimal (thankfully). Rarely do Qassam rockets cause any significant damage to the town of Sderot, and I am happy to report that only on extremely rare occasions are people hurt by them.
So, we have here a big imbalance of power. Of course, it's terrible and tragic whenever Sderot or any town in the world faces attacks as barbaric as the rocket attacks from Gaza. These attacks need to stop immediately, because they hurt innocent people and help no one.
But the Israeli army's bombardment of Gaza is simply much more deadly than the attacks on Sderot because the weapons and delivery mechanisms used are far, far more powerful.
I don't like to rank-order tragedies. Rockets landing on Sderot and the kibbutzim near Gaza and rockets landing in Gaza city are both tragic, terrible things that need to stop. With this post, I'm highlighting the 5 days worth of terrible bombings punctuated by the 5th anniversary of the start of the intifada.
Lastly, I'll end this comment by saying that the root cause of both the attacks on Gaza and on Sderot is the occupation. The sooner the occupation ends, the better -- for Israelis as well as Palestinains. So let's get to work.
You say you don't like to rank order tragedies, but you did, and you said that they are ranked by the power of the person launching the attack. It's an OK thing to rank tragedies, but at least admit you're doing it and acknowledge what you are using to do the ranking. I'm not really comfortable, though, with where your method logically goes: that only the weak can legitimately use force. Then again, I'm not a sociologist.
Once again, the fact that I only pointed out one thing in your post that I find troubling or error prone doesn't mean it wasn't riddled with problems. I just wish you had readers who were less lazy than me and more astute than your normal posters to point them out.
Ah, another person who questions Mr. Love's path of logic.
So many people in the world in need of correction, so little time.
Laslos - Just because I think Erik is bad at logic, doesn't mean I agree with the stuff that you say, let alone the way you say it. Let's make that clear.
I do not remember addressing you, Dave.
You didn't address me, you indirectly referenced me as "another person who questions Mr. Love's path of logic," implying that you and I had way more in common than we do.
Dave, I really don't think I'm rank-ordering tragedy here. I'm reporting on stories that don't get much attention in the US. Attacks on Israelis get more attention than attacks on Palestinians. Furthermore, attacks on Palestinians are more frequent than attacks on Israelis -- particularly when you limit scope only to deadly attacks. Therefore, I will report more frequently on attacks on Palestinians.
Also, I never said that only the weak can legitmately use violence. I don't think the Qassam rocket attacks are justified or legitimate. No attack that indiscriminately targets civilians can be considered legitmate.
And I know it goes without saying, but you are way, way more awesome than Laslos, Dave.
sorry i've been away so long kids...good lord laslos you're such a douchebag! i don't give a rat's ass that you're not addressing me, go f yourself in the a.
Erik, you're changing your story. This post wasn't a part of the bias project - like you said, there were no casualties. The Israeli incursion got significantly more coverage than the Palestinian rocket attacks.
My question was why one attack, the reaction, got coverage in your blog and the other, the cause, did not, and you did not say "because one is not being covered in the media," you said "because one is coming from someone who is powerful." Read your previous post - you never mention the media once, but you talk an awful lot about power.
On top of that, by establishing that power is the difference, you at least tangentially excuse the Qassam attacks, if not by saying they are legitimate, by saying they are not worth covering on the blog. You are very much ranking what tragedies appear on your blog - you have to - otherwise you'd have to post everything. My question was about how you did the ranking.
This is the first time I've heard you use the argument "attacks on Palestinians are more frequent than attacks on Israelis, so they will get reported more" in your blog, despite it being a criticism of your bias poject, not a defense of it. I will say that I don't think that the "death count" is a very useful variable here, but I'll leave the statistics lesson to someone else.
Opening up a new front, you say "No attack that indiscriminately targets civilians can be considered legitmate." I seriously question whether the Israeli attack on Gaza is indiscriminate, but I have a hard time finding reason to believe that the Qassam attacks are not - unless you count an attack that descriminates in favor of attacking civilians as discriminate.
Finally, Laslos, can you give us some background about yourself and how you found Erik's Important Blog?
you're all such a douchebags
Actually, Dave, your question was "other than the fact that the former appears on your blog and the latter doesn't, what's the difference between a shell landing in Gaza and one in Sderot?"
In other words, you asked for my opinion about the difference between shells landing in Gaza and shells landing in Sderot. I did my best, and that involved our discussion of power. You submitted that one attack appeared in my blog and the other didn't. The reason for that is the lack of coverage in the US about attacks on Palesetinian areas in general.
I agree that I must choose (or rank) which stories appear on my blog, but appearing on my blog does not indicate that one tragedy is more or less than another. All violent deaths are tragic, and I don't engage in the practice of ranking them.
I'm not sure that the fact that attacks in which Israelis kill Palestinians are more frequent than those in which Palestinians kill Israelis and the resulting disproportionate media response is a critique of the bias project, but we'll have to wait and see how the project turns out before we get into this discussion.
I think that any time artillery is fired at an urban area, the attack is indiscriminate. Thus, the Israeli attacks on Gaza last week were indiscriminate. The Qassam attacks are most definitely indiscriminate and (as I stated before) unacceptable, deplorable, and not justifiable.
Finally, I don't care one bit about Laslos' personal story because it has no bearing on our discussion here. I prefer to talk about the issues and not about the personalities of the people engaged in the discussion, unlike Laslos. And I fully agree with the previous post from my friend anonymous. I am definitely a douche.