Skip to main content

View Diary: BREAKING: UN Security Council unanimously calls for a ceasefire in Gaza (132 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I'm not familiar with the expression "scare (6+ / 0-)

    quotes." Native American Netroots (for example), a reasonably authoritative Daily Kos group, uses "Native American" as self-description. Since this thread is also in DK, it seems courtesy at minimum to use the terms they choose rather than terms scholarly anthropological associations use.  ...associations whose predominant numbers I would guess to be WASP males, perhaps.

    No one disputes that the situation is bad. No one disputes that to date, other than temporarily, every approach and method Israel has tried has failed.  I might dispute the notion that Israel is the sole cause or even major cause of that failure, as I might dispute the notion that Israel is the sole or even major cause of ongoing violence and suffering in the former Ottoman empire ... except that it's not clear to me whether many in this thread have been on the planet long enough to remember —as educated adults&mdash: the pertinent news reportage from an era when journalism was briefly so damn good it ended the Vietnam War before lapsing again into the mediocrity that preceded it. At this point, we have a globally poor signal-to-noise ratio, thanks in part to technology and in part to the dismantling of international on-site news bureaus for the sake of the profit margin.

    It's also not always clear who in the discussion has longterm firsthand experience living in the region with their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor irrevocably invested there and therefore with the largest stake in the brass tacks facts and least in amateur policy arguments.

    Finding repetition of statements already made rather than the least attempt to answer questions asked, is disappointing to encounter. It appears to be evasion and doesn't seem to move the discussion in any productive direction. Even if the questions are mistakenly thought to be rhetorical (they weren't), trying to puzzle things out instead of win arguments sometimes does actually bring new insights. It depends on what the discussants seriously aim to accomplish by their participation, doesn't it?

    •  mettle, your very long comment seems like (8+ / 0-)

      an Israeli spin. Certainly, 1967 was the year when the Israeli attacked most of their neighbors, and even the USS Liberty. Of course, anyone there could have seen the large growth in the infrastructure afterward, that was needed to serve the many new settlers in the newly occupied territories.

      However, since the settlers were later moved from Gaza to the West Bank, have you visited the area? It seems to me that since that time there has been much more destruction of infrastructure than any new wonderful creation. Have you been there in the last couple of years or weeks?

      I have visited many countries, I have participated in war and peace activities. We can all know about difficult issues throughout the world without being an actual visitor. That is what history books, and the internet is all about. We also live in a country where people have the freedom of speech, even though we might be excluded from the MSM.

      War is costly. Peace is priceless!

      by frostbite on Mon Jul 28, 2014 at 06:06:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Certainly hyper- pro- Israel can do no wrong crowd (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        SCFrog, frostbite

        liked it.

      •  your comment certainly has merit. (0+ / 0-)

        still, the fact that opinions and experience and background vary regarding any particular issue does not necessarily make any particular disliked position merely "spin".

        outlooks that insist that the only positions that exist are polarized ones, that no other positions or views are real and therefore every statement made can rightly be categorized as one extreme or the other, are outlooks that would label their own pole as valid and the other as "spin".

        a more substantial question is whether any good can be accomplished toward peace by round after round of debate in which polarity is the operating principle, and brevity is actually believed to be the soul of wit.

        what more or new might perhaps be accomplish instead by exploratory discussion, by expanded vision via receptivity to information not previously available, by increasing one's capacity to learn more widely thru reading material that does not necessarily agree with one's current opinion, and so forth?

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site