tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post541611441515906123..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: The Other OptionDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-30376716320480923762009-12-03T21:41:34.976-08:002009-12-03T21:41:34.976-08:00The calculus is not the effectiveness in preventin...The calculus is not the effectiveness in preventing the genocide, but the likelihood that there will be consequences for inflicting it. There are autonomous regions within Serbia for the ethnic minorities, and the people responsible for the genocide are in prison for life, awaiting sentencing or died during trial. NATO didn't prevent the ethnic cleansing, but the goal of the cleansing (getting rid of those minorities that wanted autonomy) was defeated.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-70786870024956033702009-12-03T15:00:49.302-08:002009-12-03T15:00:49.302-08:00I just remembered why I mentioned it; the NATO int...I just remembered why I mentioned it; the NATO intervention being ineffective is evidence the international community doesn't care *that* much or they'd try harder.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-11584737175142357472009-12-03T13:32:41.133-08:002009-12-03T13:32:41.133-08:00We weren't comparing NATO intervention in Yugo...We weren't comparing NATO intervention in Yugoslavia to actions by the Sri Lankan government. The comparison is to the hypothetical world intervention against Israel that David can imagine. The efficacy was a tangent to me saying Israel has more protection than Yugoslavia.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-21140508545310893372009-12-03T07:58:55.891-08:002009-12-03T07:58:55.891-08:00Which puts the Yugoslavia intervention in the same...Which puts the Yugoslavia intervention in the same category as Sri Lanka's counter-terrorism strategy: it's debatable in its effectiveness, but it did still happen.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-37915205719788851772009-12-03T06:04:07.903-08:002009-12-03T06:04:07.903-08:00I'll just use my study break to de-lurk to say...I'll just use my study break to de-lurk to say the efficacy of the Yugoslavia intervention has been called into question. And I suspect Israel is a more attractive ally in the eyes of many global powers.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-59617452797230476812009-12-02T21:25:46.071-08:002009-12-02T21:25:46.071-08:00"I think that given the basic adherence of th..."I think that given the basic adherence of the international community to realpolitik"<br /><br />Except the international community has in the past intervened when it decided that the claim that the genocide-esque measures were necessary was false. See, e.g., NATO response to extended ethnic cleansing in the former Yugoslavia, which if you ask the Serbs was merely part of the civil war and entirely justified in order to preserve the integrity of the nation. It's possible to wake up the international community to genocide; it's just that the alarm bell seems connected to a certain degree of whiteness.<br /><br />"David wants to remind us Israel is held to a double standard, he shouldn't juxtapose that with an example where the standard appears basically uniform."<br /><br />Huh? He points to other situations that indicate Israel is held to a different standard as making it possible for him to imagine that Israel could be treated differently once again if it acted as Sri Lanka has. Then he says that's probably outweighed by the general disinclination to interfere in the majority group's method of settling a violent conflict. Why is saying "This factor could come into play, but it's probably outweighed by this larger factor" stylistically bad? I thought this was normally called nuanced analysis.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-69389453088292745872009-12-02T15:37:40.027-08:002009-12-02T15:37:40.027-08:00re imagination: Yes, we can imagine a lot of thing...re imagination: Yes, we can imagine a lot of things. A lot of people imagine Obama will put all of Middle America in forced labor camps. But there reaches a point where these things are too implausible to warrant mention in a serious discussion. I think that given the basic adherence of the international community to realpolitik, any serious intervention under this hypothetical would be out of the question, especially for non-Arab states. At most I could envision some sort of attempted embargo that wouldn't mean much unless the U.S. signed on. And on the miniscule chance that happened some other big country (China, India, or maybe Russia) would bow out in accordance with its own geopolitical interests and become Israel's new best friend.<br /><br />"He said maybe the rules for Jews are different here, because they have been different in some other instances. And he just explained at length why he thought they probably wouldn't be different here."<br /><br />It's still pretty conflicted as an argument. He did (basically) say the world at large doesn't really give a damn about genocide, but that's not a lengthy explanation, and it hurt my eyes to see it as an aside in a longer sentence on double standards. Part of that's stylistic, but since he just got done saying genocide gets met with depraved indifference I think he needs to really hammer home the idea of *huge* double standards (especially in terms of concrete state action as opposed to General Assembly resolutions or what have you) if he wants to overcome that presumption. And he doesn't do that; he concludes it would be incorrect. So the whole exercise basically translates to me as "I'm not sayin', I'm just sayin'." And as a rhetorical matter, to the extent David wants to remind us Israel is held to a double standard, he shouldn't juxtapose that with an example where the standard appears basically uniform.<br /><br />"I'm all for contrarianism (and I agree with chingona that I'd give Sri Lanka some time before assuming their solution actually worked), but have the grace to actually read carefully with an effort toward comprehension."<br /><br />Come on now. I made a good faith effort at reading, even if you disagree strongly with my conclusions.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-30800330630000735322009-12-02T13:43:47.555-08:002009-12-02T13:43:47.555-08:00The Scottish Trade Union Congress (see this post, ...The Scottish Trade Union Congress (see <a href="http://dsadevil.blogspot.com/2009/11/friendly.html" rel="nofollow">this post</a>, to which this one was a sub silentio sequel).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-31340283630958839732009-12-02T13:32:31.061-08:002009-12-02T13:32:31.061-08:00What is "STUC"?What is "STUC"?Rebeccahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17626228106192215280noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-18787744403219263732009-12-02T08:04:36.047-08:002009-12-02T08:04:36.047-08:00I think it is fair to hold judgment on whether Sri...I think it is fair to hold judgment on whether Sri Lanka's option worked, but I think it is quite clear that, regardless of whether it works or not, it won't suffer any repercussions for it aside from (temporary and surprisingly muted) verbal condemnations. And that's the point -- taking this option has surprisingly few tangible negative consequences (aside from, obviously, being grossly immoral).David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-2364359540935142922009-12-02T07:30:55.799-08:002009-12-02T07:30:55.799-08:00"You can easily imagine the international com..."You can easily imagine the international community acting a lot differently than how you think it will act in all likelihood?"<br /><br />Why is this stylistically problematic? I assume you are familiar with the difference between imagination (I can easily imagine getting laid off from my job, given the general circumstances of recession) versus what is most likely (I most likely will not be laid off from my job because my employer has made efforts to avoid layoffs). The realm of <i>possibility</i> is a great deal larger than the realm of <i>probability</i>.<br /><br />"since you just got done saying there's a glaring double standard at work you may want to explain why that's not operative in this case."<br /><br />He said <i>maybe</i> the rules for Jews are different here, because they have been different in some other instances. And he just explained at length why he thought they <i>probably wouldn't</i> be different here.<br /><br />I'm all for contrarianism (and I agree with chingona that I'd give Sri Lanka some time before assuming their solution actually worked), but have the grace to actually read carefully with an effort toward comprehension.PGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09381347581328622706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-45229018696882586992009-12-02T00:49:46.759-08:002009-12-02T00:49:46.759-08:00Your post was so long I basically read it in two s...Your post was so long I basically read it in two sittings. So...<br /><br />I like this quote, and it aptly sums up a lot of armed conflict, except in a lot of cases (i.e. most modern US wars) it's not utter debasement but a mere feeling that "national honor" will be somehow diminished that starts the war drums.<br /><br />"Maybe the rules for Jews are different. It's plausible. The normal standards don't apply to us, after all -- it is quite easy for me to imagine that a world which yawned through countless acts of barbarism, massacre, torture, mutilation, and murder would suddenly see its passions aroused when Jews are the perpetrators -- to the degree that they would be willing to intervene and stop it. But I'm doubtful. I think we'll see what we usually see: angry words, little action, and lots of forgetfulness."<br /><br />This last sentence is at war with the rest of the paragraph. At the very least consider revising for clarity. You can easily imagine the international community acting a lot differently than how you think it will act in all likelihood? Beyond that stylistic matter, since you just got done saying there's a glaring double standard at work you may want to explain why that's not operative in this case.joenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-46994373620356708002009-12-01T23:36:57.328-08:002009-12-01T23:36:57.328-08:00I'd give it a few more decades before I'd ...I'd give it a few more decades before I'd declare the Sri Lankan operation a success. Just saying.chingonanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-7564881405565815132009-12-01T20:10:12.236-08:002009-12-01T20:10:12.236-08:00The casual definition of genocide, from Merriam-We...The casual definition of genocide, from Merriam-Webster, is "the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group". <br /><br />The technical legal definition from the convention is "acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group," where "in part" requires that the part be a "substantial" part of the overall group, or alternatively, the part of the group that the allegedly genocidal entity had access to. So, for example, if Iran tried to kill all the Jews in Israel, that would be genocide even though there are plenty of Jews outside Israel.<br /><br />But I don't think this has much effect on what I wrote in the post.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-60060554075531141202009-12-01T19:57:42.083-08:002009-12-01T19:57:42.083-08:00David, I have nothing to say about your larger poi...David, I have nothing to say about your larger points but if you think genocide just means mass killing of a group you also don't know the definition. According to Raphael Lemkin it's a lot broader than that, and I'd give him some deference because he invented the word. This is more than semantics because it's also a legal term.joenoreply@blogger.com