Has to be asked: Does anyone here believe Israel...

It's true that it's easier for the US to simply exercise its veto than to make the various legal and organizational changes that would be required to continue support for Israel in the face of a binding UNSC resolution. But so what? It still doesn't follow that what the UN does or does not decide is going to change anything, absent some corresponding change in the US position.

The point is simply that exercising the veto, or not exercising the veto, does not, by itself, amount to much of anything. What would be required is for the US to not want to use the veto in the first place, which is a much bigger matter.

And also many obvious differences.

Well, it of course depends on which exact features of the situation one considers most salient. But you could probably find other (former) British colonies that are closer matches, for one thing.

Unfortunately, this may be one of those cases where "closer," or even "closest," is still not close enough.

There are very few posters here that I would consider unusually (or even usually) well informed, "for Americans" or otherwise. And even if there were more, I do not consider posters here in any way representative of their respective nations/ethnicities/religions/etc (even - or perhaps especially - the ones that actively claim to be such).

For this reason I steadfastly reject any attempt to impute characteristics of larger groups from the behavior of posters here. Only a fool would jump down that rabbit-hole, as the end result of such a process would inevitably be the conclusion that everyone in the world is a complete idiot. (not that that's necessarily a false statement, but it's not really an interesting thing to pursue).

And, yes, it is my impression that most adult Americans know enough about the conflict that their position on it would not change substantially if exposed to more detailed information. Not that everyone (or even most people) are open to reevaluation of their positions on the issue, or to conflicting facts that would suggest such a reevaluation. But I do not think that any amount of exposure to "missing" facts, even if accepted openly, would make much substantiative difference in the resulting positions.

But then perhaps I consider said positions to be based on different factors than you do.

Which is only relevant if you think that anyone is deciding which side to support by tallying up the number of dead children (or civilian casualties, or whatever). And maybe college freshmen that have just awakened politically (and knaves on SciForums) actually do think that way. But that's not enough people to drive a national policy.

Let's also notice that there's an even more ridiculous level of popular misconception about Israel on the Arab side of the conflict, despite their proximity and viewership of the supposedly-enlightening Al Jazeera.

So again I suggest that these distortions are the effect of taking sides in a contentious conflict, rather than the cause. Note that the spread of these misconceptions (on both sides) appears to post-date the hardening of positions, for example.

If only that were true, the world would be a much simpler place. Meanwhile, otherwise sane, decent American adults are working round the clock to force the state to teach children the Bible creation story in science class.

It so happens that harboring perceptions that contradict fact and circumstance presents no problem at all to most people, provided said facts and circumstances do not come to bear on their daily lives. And very little in the way of conspiracy is required for this; the immutable historical forces of laziness and bigotry do all the heavy lifting.

In your terms, yeah, that's pretty much what it is. People don't want to be reminded that the side they're supporting has warts after all. But the point is that even if you convinced them that the other side really does have fewer warts, they still wouldn't want to switch. The reason is that they picked a side based not on the prevalence of warts, but on more powerful, fundamental factors like religious/ethnic/national/civilizational identity.

Which seems to square with the very strong correlation between someone's religion, ethnicity, nationality and civilizationality (sorry, couldn't resist) and their stance on the conflict.

It's like the families of convicted criminals. They may or may not want to accept that their relative is guilty of the crime, but if/how they come to grips with that usually has little effect on whether they continue to love and support the convicted relative. At the end of the day, blood is blood, and if supporting your blood means lying to yourself about some aspects of their behavior or personality, then that is exactly what most people will do.

Certain people seem to have the idea that, because someone undergoes cognitive dissonance on some topic (and so avoid certain facts and ideas), it is then possible to change their position by confronting them with said facts and so forcing a reevaluation. And while that may be possible on less deep-rooted issues (someone's preference for a particular flavor of ice cream, say), it will not work on positions that stem from deep-seated issues of identity. Then it will only reinforce the position in question, and the associated mechanisms for coping with cognitive dissonance (and probably make the subject despise you, to boot). And never mind that the motivation for trying to change someone's mind on this issue in the first place is typically itself part of the interlocutor's mechanism for coping with his own cognitive dissonance.

Surely you've watched enough Israeli-Palestinian Conflict threads on the web to see this dialectic in action?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

So the description of the US protecting Israel by veto in the UN is reasonably accurate.

Because we are not only talking "easier", but perhaps "possible". The changes necessary would be fairly significant, and openly controversial.

I find the Palestinian and military weaponry situation salient, these days, and I can't think of a closer match than South Africa off hand.

Your crowd varies considerably from mine, and also from that sampled by polls of Americans generally. Where are they getting their information from? Not the major media news stations - - - .

It is also relevant if you are estimating whether an increase in knowledge would affect the political stances. Clearly, the current political stances are based on "knowledge" very limited and including serious misperceptions of factual reality.

Let's give it a try. Why not?

Many families change their idea of "support" in light of unfortunate realities. The question of abetting Israel in its prosecution of actrocity is not the same as the question of "support".

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you like. This was all motivated by a phrasing that S.A.M. used, which seemed to me to imply a misconception about the power relationships involved. But she's no longer participating here, and I'm not exactly married to this point, so I don't see much use in discussing it.

I was actually going to suggest Canada or the United States, during their early periods, but it's not clear that relationships of military weaponry can be meaningfully compared between then and now.

But if military balance is all you're interested in, there are countless much better matches than SA. The Morocco/Western Sahara conflict, for example?

But I had the distinct impression that the whole Apartheid thing was also considered salient here...

Not clear on what relation this has to what I was saying. I thought that I was pretty clear that the types of information you're talking about do not, in my estimation, come to bear on the fundmental decisions of which side to pick. All of the pertinent information is widely known and uncontroversial (and not obtained via news media): Israel is a Western country that faces external challenges to its existence and legitimacy. That is the end of the story, as far as the great majority of people are concerned. How good or bad they may behave affects only how hard people will have to work to keep the cognitive dissonance down, short of some completely ridiculous actions (which Israel is far too canny to ever pursue).

Again, I just finished saying that I do not think the knowledge you are referring to has any bearing on fundamental political stances. By all means, you can attempt to convince me otherwise, but as it is I have no response to this.

How is that "clear?" If anything, it's clear to me that the knowledge you are talking about is NOT the basis for the political stances, which concisely explains its apparent variance from reality.

The ample, even overwhelming, evidence that not only does such an approach not work, it actively worsens the situation, for one thing. Have you ever witnessed a "success" in such a project? Because I sure haven't. Unless "success" is construed to mean "getting both sides pumped up and angry."

Indeed, and it's the latter question that I was addressing (this was all, again, launched in response to S.A.M.'s conflation of the two types of support). So perhaps we've been talking about very different things this whole time. The question of exactly what US policy should be is much more nuanced (and susceptible to influence) than the basic issue of "support" for one side or another. As we easily see, even people who strongly agree on the "support" count often have wildly different ideas about what the United States (or whoever else) should do about it.

For my part, I think the best course is for people to stop taking sides at all (and so obviate the discourse-crushing need to avoid cognitive dissonance). This would allow, among other things, the debate on US policy to become both better-grounded and more rational. Not that I'm optimistic about this coming to pass, but if you want to know what I'd consider a worthwhile program, there you are.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

One would think the current blockades and military invasions, on top of the fencing in of the areas and so forth, would count as suitably ridiculous actions.

One reason they don't is that Americans are not, in fact, informed about them. They are, instead, misinformed. You seem to be claiming that accurate information would make no difference - but we see the people most immediately concerned putting a lot of effort into inaccuracies and misinformation - that trouble and expense is wasted, then?

I'm a little puzzled about where you think Americans get their views in the first place. Information has little to do with them when it is sparse and inaccurate, therefore it would have little to do with them were it full and accurate ? Are people's views then independent of what they themselves perceive as factual reality, in general?

The conversion of the argument from "what's wrong with our enemies the Palestinians and how can we beat down their terrorism" to "what's wrong with our friend Israel and how can we curb its bad behavior" will require a radical change in the information delivered to the average American.

 

This is, of course, utterly false.

This is actually true; the notion of the Jewish state was at complete odds with a system that viewed other religions as lesser humans. It's not suprising in its way that it was resisted. Heinous, maybe. Shameful. But not surprising.

 

It did in 1948.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

But I'm curious...where are all the arms of the surrounding Arab nations coming from? They have a certain make that seems almost inescapable in its consistency. I wonder what their source could be.

 

The latest snorts of cynicism

The Israeli army has been accused of using Palestinians as human shields during its most recent Gaza adventure.

According to several Palestinian farmers from the neighbourhood of al-Atatra, about 10 kilometres north of the centre of Gaza City, Israeli ground troops arrived in the area on January 7.

Samir Abu Dayer, 59, a farmer, said the soldiers occupied several hectares of farmland behind his house.

A sandpit roughly the size of an Olympic pool, enclosed by two-metre walls made by bulldozers, dominates one field.

According to Mr Dayer, and several other residents whose houses bordered the field, Israeli troops quickly evacuated the surrounding houses.

"They entered my house with a tank," Mr Dayer said. "I was told to come outside with my family."

Told to strip to his underwear, Mr Dayer said his hands were tied behind his back, then he was moved into the sandpit.

Mohammed Madhoun, 22, a media and public relations student at the al-Aqsa University, whose home sits across a laneway from Mr Dayer's home, said he and his parents were ordered to do the same.

"I was told to take off my clothes by one soldier, told to put them on again by another, and then take them off again. My hands were tied and I was taken into this area," Mr Madhoun said, pointing to the sandpit.

Ali Ajramy, 39, a tailor, thrust his hands forward to show the sores on his wrists caused by the plastic cables used to tie his hands. "I was taken into this prison," Mr Ajramy said. "And I was told to be quiet and kneel down."

All three said there were about 85 men moved into the sandpit area and gathered at the western end.

They said the IDF troops then took position on the perimeter of the sandpit area, from where they engaged with Palestinian resistance fighters.

(Koutsoukis)​

The question, of course, is whether the accusations will be taken seriously. Critics of the international approach to the Palestinian issue often accuse that Israel is given a free pass for alleged human rights abuses. While the IDF refuses to comment on operational matters, a spokesman did assert that nobody was used as a human shield.

And that very well could be true. One might simply take prisoners, hide behind them for two days while engaging the enemy, remove them to Beersheba, and then release them again, all for their own safety. And it's not like Israel has ever objected to laws against using human shields.
_____________________

Notes:

Koutsoukis, Jason. "Was this sandpit used as prison for human shields?" The Age. January 28, 2009. http://www.theage.com.au/world/was-this-sandpit-used-as-prison-for-human-shields-20090127-7r1o.html

"IDF to appeal human shield ban". BBC News. October 12, 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4333982.stm

 

What purpose would a human shield have against Hamas? They don't give a crap, they fire from schools!

 

it's almost ironic in a way that half the IDF casualties were from friendly fire. They need more protection from each other than anyone else .

 

Tiassa, if it's so it amounts to one event which is being investigated. Meanwhile, it's just another day for Hamas.

 

One would like to think so, but history seems to suggest otherwise. Vastly greater levels of violence and destruction are routinely tolerated, and even seen as unremarkable.

And that's amongst Americans, who are relatively squeamish about these things. There are plenty of places in the world where genocide against the "other" is an occasion for public celebration.

Again, I don't consider people misinformed at all when in comes to the facts that actually enter into their calculus (which are related to identity, not behavior). The facts that they marshall to defend the supposed righteousness of thier position may well be full of holes, but filling those holes will only result in better-crafted propaganda, not more rational positions.

And I'm surprised you'd find this claim remarkable. Surely you have experienced first hand the effect of upgrading the information of a partisan on this issue, and so witnessed their limitless capacity for sticking to their side. Many of them openly take pride in the imperviousness of their position to any counter-argument, and actively seek out opposing sources of information just for the fun of rejecting them.

Israeli-Palestinian partisans are right up there with Libertarians in this regard...

Not wasted, no, but it only makes a marginal difference. Although "those most immediately concerned" are even more spellbound by their own self-righteousness than anyone, so we'd expect them to exhibit hysteria over even trivial matters.

I thought I was very explicit in my previous post: it's a matter of identity (Western/Democratic/whatever. vs. Oriental Other), not behavior. And it's not just Americans who decide their stances based on identity: it's pretty much everyone. This whole implied ideal of a rational philosopher that starts with a blank slate, gathers relevant facts, and dispassionately weighs them to reach a rational moral conclusion has no meaningful relationship with mass discourse on geopolitics, and so tactics based on appeals to this ideals are typically useless, if not actively counter-productive.

This kind of stuff is great in an academic environment, where everyone is committed to rational inquiry and dispassion at the outset. But it's a serious liability in the real world, where the assumptions of intellectual honesty and remove are invalid.

Again, information on Israel's identity is NOT sparse or inaccurate. It's information on Israel's behavior that is not (primarily) relevant. That only has a second-order effect on the discourse, by making it easier or harder for one side or the other to produce satisfactory propaganda. But the decision to produce propaganda is made on the basis of identity, not on how easy it's going to be to sell said propaganda.

When you are dealing with people who are more committed to their side of the conflict than they are to rationality or moral philosophy, it is no longer possible to reach productive outcomes by rational arguments about morality. You just end up stirring the pot, when you need to be putting out the fire underneath it.

No, not at all. You're just looking at the wrong facts.

It would require a lot more than that, but that's not the outcome I'm after. We should stop dividing the two sides into "our friends" and "our enemies" and also stop interposing ourselves as responsible for how they treat one another. This just feeds the (extremely destructive) illusion that the way for the parties to resolve the conflict is to convince the United States to favor them, and so destroy the other side. If we want the parties to the conflict to behave in a responsible way, we need to endow them with real responsibility, and not patronize them.

Far better for outsiders to stop identifying with one side or the other, and so shrink the conflict back to its real, material dimensions: a few million semites killing one another over a spec of desert and some age-old religious bigotries. Absent a potential mechanism for ultimate victory, the parties to the conflict would be forced to focus instead on substantiative issues, like how to craft a stable, workable status quo. Which in turn might create enough space to allow an eventual reconciliation (and so meaningful resolution).

Or they might just continue to tear away at eachother. But at least there would be some measure of containment and proportion involved, and the rest of us could finally forget about this intractable mess, or at least work together to keep it to a minimum.

Also note that this program requires more than just convincing Americans to stop taking sides. We need everyone to take a step back and get some perspective. This is a small enough conflict that if outsiders stopped intervening on one side or the other, and instead worked together to push both sides to cool it, real progress could be made. But as long as the outside world is divided and so working against itself, the result will be continued conflict, and one that empowers small, fanatical partisans to sabotage any hope of progress.

 

The fact is, there is such a volume of grotesque criminal behaviour by the IDF, it would be stunning and unbelievable if no human rights abuses proceedings are nstituted.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

(http://uruknet.info/?p=m51229&hd=&size=1&l=e)

(http://uruknet.info/?p=m51207&hd=&size=1&l=e)

(http://uruknet.info/?p=m51204&hd=&size=1&l=e)

(http://uruknet.info/?p=m51212&hd=&size=1&l=e)

Barbaric murderers. There has to be restitution for this evil.

 

You sound pretty naive. I would be highly surprised if any action was taken. The last time an IDF officer shot a school girl 13 times in the chest, he was compensated NIS 80,000 for it.

 

I remain hopeful that a certain measure of justice will prevail. This may take longer than anticipated.

 

OK, if you like this vocabulary better: From where do Americans get their Israel in their identification, if not from media presentations including perceived facts?

Now the "we" is the academic, diplomatic, and political world you were excluding from relevance earlier.

We are not talking about partisans. We are talking about the general American public. I just don't see them as so committed to an identification with Israel that no exposure to accurate information could sway their opinions on what should be done.

I'm more of a realist. Also, I'm more concerned with the general US public - get the politicians by the voters, and their hearts and minds will follow.

That seems to be the opinion of the various Israeli propaganda feeds, anyway. They seem to think factual information very important, and put a lot of effort into controlling its presentation. Americans' identification with Israel, they seem to think, does not just happen, nor is it invulnerable to information and event.

 

Strawdog, did you have any non-Arab sources for the above?

 

As you know, the Western media was barred from Gaza. There are numerous UN, ICRC reports of atrocities that made there way into the Western media.

(http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3663233,00.html)

(http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/01/09/2462040.htm)

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...casualties-relive-Israels-three-week-war.html)

(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...in-the-dock-over-assault-on-gaza-1515320.html)

 

I thank you. As you know, some members have speculated that Jewish media be disallowed in these discussions. Yet, the above are not actually citations of the previous articles' content.

 

Western media corroboration is not a requirement to authenticate news. Your point is hollow.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Again, the facts involved are not news events that come from the media. It has more to do with the ethnicity and religion of the two sides (or, more specifically, the Ashkenazi. Probably the identification wouldn't take place if Israel were populated mostly by Palestinian Jews), and the fact that Israel is a country built largely in the image of the United States (with a few notable differences, of couse). There's also the perception that the United States has a historical duty to protect the Jews from annihilation by larger, malign groups (which is reinforced by the fact that the lion's share of the world's Jews live in either the United States or Israel).

The mechanism of identification emphatically does NOT occur through any kind of rational character assessment based on current events. Within limits, of course. If the Israelis started building gas chambers and crematoria, that would presumably be enough to shake the basis of the identification, but even rather brutal fighting against an existential enemy doesn't rise to that level.

Not that said identification is all bad. People do generally want to believe that the "in-group" is admirable and good, and it causes cognitive dissonance when they are seen not to be. But short of something extremely distressing, that gets resolved either by tuning out the bad news (a particularly expedient solution for many parties involved) or by demands for better behavior (probably the healthier outcome). At no point is the basic identification up for reassessment, nor is it even particularly necessary that the demands for better behavior be lived up to. It is usually enough that they be aknowledged, or even simply made.

But maybe that's neither here nor there with respect to your perspective. I readily admit that what I'm addressing is S.A.M.-style programs that aim to "convert" enough people to the Palestinian side to result in a (presumably violent and unjust) outcome that favors the Arab side. If you just want Americans to pressure Israel to be more restained, the identification process can potentially be more help than it is harm. But I don't think that a lack of American pressure for restraint is the salient problem here, nor do I think that any realistic increase in such pressure would make any crucial difference.

And, yeah, by "realistic," I mean "short of putting Israel's strategic position relative to the Arab states in jeopardy," which I do not think Americans will ever support so long as they identify with Israel.

??? You lost me there.

Well, I believe that I've been talking about both, at various points. But it is my perception that the lion's share of the general public (American or otherwise) are lazy, and so decide issues of foreign policy largely on the basis of identity issues. And, then, craft their media and information diet to reinforce their identity. Surely you've witnessed this phenomenon, which is now so advanced that disparate identity groups often cannot agree on simple matters of fact.

And I agree, in the sense that there are certain situations you could imagine that would overpower the identification. Where I disagree is on the question of whether more accurate information on the actual events that have/are occurring would rise to that level. I think most adults understand pretty well what an occupation consists of, and know that Israel is no exception to that definition. That they don't like being reminded of unpleasant facts does not mean that they do not understand said facts, nor that reminding them would change their minds. More likely, it just makes them resent you for presuming that they must be acting out of ignorance.

Not that I'm against grassroots social activism, but I think that the role of US public opinion (and even US foreign policy) in determining the course of the conflict has become exaggerated, to the point of counterproductivity. While there are good reasons for Americans to focus on that aspect of the conflict (since it's the part we can control, and are responsible for), the relationship of these factors to the actual conflict needs to be kept in perspective at all times.

Not that I'm accusing you of losing perspective. This is directed more at the partisan types that make it their mission to "convert" Americans/Zionists/Muslims/whatever to "their side", and so sabotage any attempt at productive discourse on the topic. One of my main points is that those idiots, who are slaves to blind, reflexive identification, prevent *any* rational, useful public debate on the topic. They make any differences between your perceptions/goals and mine moot, along with any other programs that depend on dispassionate, rational consideration. There is no room to absorb accurate information or reconsider one's identification when one is being bombarded by attacks on one's identity, as pretty much any thread on SciForums amply demonstrates.

And these partisans are such that they will sabotage any public debate, anywhere, independent of anything Israel, Hamas or the United States does. Even if Israel and Hamas suddenly became genuinely committed to providing accurate, current information to the American public, the idiots would just drown it in a flood of mutual reinforcement.

That stuff is important to them even if it doesn't pose any threat to identification with Israel. No matter how secure your place in the American identity, there is still the question of how to maximize the support you receive from America while minimizing the constraints placed upon you. More scrutiny of Israel would presumably result in more restaint on their part, and so could be worthwhile, but it will not end the conflict, and so only have a marginal effect on the level of human misery created.

Also, don't overestimate the appetite of Americans for restraining Israel. Sure, everyone will say that this or that action is unacceptable, but when push comes to shove, it turns out that they care about other issues quite a lot more.