Thank you for both of your responses- I've learned something from both of them. On the first point regarding human rights being denied. I think you've pointed out the obvious shortcomings in the current Israeli laws, and I hear you loud and clear and agree with the analysis that the situation is difficult and I hope that this case or ano…
Thank you for both of your responses- I've learned something from both of them. On the first point regarding human rights being denied. I think you've pointed out the obvious shortcomings in the current Israeli laws, and I hear you loud and clear and agree with the analysis that the situation is difficult and I hope that this case or another like it leads to more legal reform. But let's be clear that those criticisms are only possible in a liberal democracy that values free expression and exchange of ideas. Reform and change are much easier to contemplate and achieve in a liberal democracy like Israel. While I think your Dred Scott analogy is pretty good, let's hope that rather than triggering more bloodshed, as followed that case, that cooler heads prevail and reform is achieved through the tools of democracy.
As for the numbers, thank you for sharing the resource for the numbers in the broader conflict. It does not address the fact that the NYT allowed the use of Gazan health ministry numbers in the piece, "As I write this, more than 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gazan health ministry." without a fact check or editors note. How many of those killed are combatants vs. civilians? The Times article is dated Nov. 3rd. Here's a piece from PBS on the numbers from Nov. 7th explaining the numbers, and the missing context "The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”" Neither do they distinguish whether those killed are combatants or civilians (a difficult distinction to make when the combatants embed themselves in the population and use civilians as human shields). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-gazas-ministry-of-health-and-how-does-it-calculate-the-wars-death-toll
My biggest problem with the article remains the idea of calling for a cease-fire without preconditions for the safe return of the civilian hostages Hamas kidnapped.
Thanks Paul. I agree that democracy is key to any path to improvement going forward. It is no panacea, and it's only as good as the voters participating in it, but the old saw about it being the worst form of govt. except all the others is a crucial distinction. We share many important values and points of view.
Dead and wounded numbers in this situation would be questionable even if Hamas were not influencing them, but I don't think any revision would change the basic moral and legal context for our judgements.
Thank you for both of your responses- I've learned something from both of them. On the first point regarding human rights being denied. I think you've pointed out the obvious shortcomings in the current Israeli laws, and I hear you loud and clear and agree with the analysis that the situation is difficult and I hope that this case or another like it leads to more legal reform. But let's be clear that those criticisms are only possible in a liberal democracy that values free expression and exchange of ideas. Reform and change are much easier to contemplate and achieve in a liberal democracy like Israel. While I think your Dred Scott analogy is pretty good, let's hope that rather than triggering more bloodshed, as followed that case, that cooler heads prevail and reform is achieved through the tools of democracy.
As for the numbers, thank you for sharing the resource for the numbers in the broader conflict. It does not address the fact that the NYT allowed the use of Gazan health ministry numbers in the piece, "As I write this, more than 9,000 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza, according to the Gazan health ministry." without a fact check or editors note. How many of those killed are combatants vs. civilians? The Times article is dated Nov. 3rd. Here's a piece from PBS on the numbers from Nov. 7th explaining the numbers, and the missing context "The Health Ministry doesn’t report how Palestinians were killed, whether from Israeli airstrikes and artillery barrages or other means, like errant Palestinian rocket fire. It describes all casualties as victims of “Israeli aggression.”" Neither do they distinguish whether those killed are combatants or civilians (a difficult distinction to make when the combatants embed themselves in the population and use civilians as human shields). https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/what-is-gazas-ministry-of-health-and-how-does-it-calculate-the-wars-death-toll
My biggest problem with the article remains the idea of calling for a cease-fire without preconditions for the safe return of the civilian hostages Hamas kidnapped.
Thanks Paul. I agree that democracy is key to any path to improvement going forward. It is no panacea, and it's only as good as the voters participating in it, but the old saw about it being the worst form of govt. except all the others is a crucial distinction. We share many important values and points of view.
Dead and wounded numbers in this situation would be questionable even if Hamas were not influencing them, but I don't think any revision would change the basic moral and legal context for our judgements.
A recent conversation between Ezra Klein and Yossi Klein Halevi provides impressive insight into the thinking of peace-seeking Israelis who are struggling with these moral dilemmas. The news is not good, but important to know. In case you haven't seen it, here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/10/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-yossi-klein-halevi.html?searchResultPosition=2