5 ms·

As bad as the Israeli occupation is, it's not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of per-human suffering.

by tormeh 11y ago

leaveyou 11y ago
How did you measure the suffering ? If you just guesstimate the magnitude of the suffering I try a guesstimation too: In my opinion 4.5 years of intense suffering are in the same order of magnitude with 45 years of not so intense suffering. Unless some suffering is way more important than other suffering. I don't know.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- Retric 11y ago
  Depends on scale, 3x or 100x both fail the 4.5 to 45 test. PS: The reality is it's mostly propaganda right now, if things where as bad as generally portrayed you would see a lot of immigration. (ex: syrian refugees)
  - sanderjd 11y ago
    What evidence are you basing your reality on? Have you been there? Is there some on-the-ground reporting you trust that presents that view? Or are you only extrapolating from the relative lack of refugees? If so, there are lots of potential confounding variables, the most obvious being the relative tightness of borders in different areas.
- omonra 11y ago
  You might also count the % or # of non-combatant population that was intentionally killed. I also think that if palestinians were really suffering, they would agree to the terms offered to them. Repeatedly. The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad. Here is one fact - they are one of the most obese people on the planet: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164.
  - oldmanjay 11y ago
    oh, I didn't realize they tend to fat. I guess they've earned whatever terms Israel wants them to accept.
    - omonra 11y ago
      No, they lost a war. That's the reason someone accepts terms they don't like. Them being fat just shows that there's clearly enough food to get fat off of.
  - jrochkind1 11y ago
    > The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad. I think history shows it doesn't work like that. You can't oppress people into "wanting to live in peace", quite the reverse.
    - omonra 11y ago
      Not really. That's called losing a war. In most cases, when a war is lost, one side agrees to the terms they would probably deem unfavorable before the war had started. That's why we say they 'lost' the war.
      - jrochkind1 11y ago
        I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the more powerful actor always 'wins'. For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense to even try to frame it that way. How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened. And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of Iraqis, the more resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis. Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable' before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything, the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.
throwaway1967 11y ago
Why don't you compare them both side by side with factual documentation and citations, so that we can have a real debate about which one, the Jewish holocaust or the Palestinian Holocaust, is truly the worst? Let this be my offer to anyone that wants to debate this as I know, after having read extensively and bookmarked citations and highlighted notes, that I can easily defend the idea that the Palestinian Holocaust as committed by Israelis was much worse than the treatment that potentially-communist Jews got in Nazi Germany. I'd also like to remind people that not only was there a Transfer Agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews (who care not one iota for the life of Jews) called Haavara Agreement, but several times before and after that, Germany offered to release the Jews (or rather, divert their traffic towards another direction) if the anyone (be the US, or the Zionists, or whoever) reimbursed Germany for the costs associated with the removal. The Zionists, not caring about Jews, repeatedly refused such offers, to such an extreme as to put in writing that their reason for declining such offers was that "only those ethnic groups who will have suffered terribly throughout this war will have an opportunity to participate in the border claims that inevitably follow the armistice and peace treaties of every end of war". In other words, this select group of people who took upon them to speak for all Jews (and hence started the association between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish sentiment, something that any Hasidim Jew will tell you is nonsense) is greatly and directly responsible for not taking up on offers to save the people they are supposed to care about. I say all of this with full knowledge I will be misinterpreted by many gentiles that are quick to assign hatred to dry analysis. However, I see and hope that Jews will start to wake up to this mafia that smears the name of Jews worldwide by claiming to speak for them. Jews, like everyone else and possibly more so, are subject to group pressure, which is why very few speak against Zionism, why the Hasidim are in such small number as compared to pro-Israel Jews, and why the media is careful not to show the Hasidim Jews protesting in NYC against Zionism and Israel every single time CNN is shooting outside. Camera staff and video editors work extra hard during those coverages to crop the Hasidim Jews protesting just enough so that part of their banners still show (as if to say, there were people outside holding anti-Israel signs) but not enough that we can see that really, a bunch of Jews are against this mafia, but they don't speak out because they don't see more of their brethren doing the same, thanks to the media.

As bad as the Israeli occupation is, it's not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of per-human suffering.

by tormeh 11y ago

As bad as the Israeli occupation is, it's not even in the same order of magnitude in terms of per-human suffering.

How did you measure the suffering ? If you just guesstimate the magnitude of the suffering I try a guesstimation too: In my opinion 4.5 years of intense suffering are in the same order of magnitude with 45 years of not so intense suffering. Unless some suffering is way more important than other suffering. I don't know.

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
Retric 11y ago
Depends on scale, 3x or 100x both fail the 4.5 to 45 test. PS: The reality is it's mostly propaganda right now, if things where as bad as generally portrayed you would see a lot of immigration. (ex: syrian refugees)
- sanderjd 11y ago
  What evidence are you basing your reality on? Have you been there? Is there some on-the-ground reporting you trust that presents that view? Or are you only extrapolating from the relative lack of refugees? If so, there are lots of potential confounding variables, the most obvious being the relative tightness of borders in different areas.
omonra 11y ago
You might also count the % or # of non-combatant population that was intentionally killed. I also think that if palestinians were really suffering, they would agree to the terms offered to them. Repeatedly. The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad. Here is one fact - they are one of the most obese people on the planet: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164 http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=238_1406451164.
- oldmanjay 11y ago
  oh, I didn't realize they tend to fat. I guess they've earned whatever terms Israel wants them to accept.
  - omonra 11y ago
    No, they lost a war. That's the reason someone accepts terms they don't like. Them being fat just shows that there's clearly enough food to get fat off of.
- jrochkind1 11y ago
  > The fact that they keep refusing to live in peace shows that things aren't all that bad. I think history shows it doesn't work like that. You can't oppress people into "wanting to live in peace", quite the reverse.
  - omonra 11y ago
    Not really. That's called losing a war. In most cases, when a war is lost, one side agrees to the terms they would probably deem unfavorable before the war had started. That's why we say they 'lost' the war.
    - jrochkind1 11y ago
      I think there are few if any post-WWII wars that works like your idealized model of war. Most of them have been very assymetric from the start, such that one state's population hardly has it's 'conditions' touched at all while another's way of life is completely destroyed -- but that doesn't mean the more powerful actor always 'wins'. For instance, did the US 'lose' the Vietnam war, because the Vietnamese somehow made conditions in the U.S so horrible that the U.S. had to "agree to terms they would deem unfavorable before the war"? It just doesn't make sense to even try to frame it that way. How about the U.S. in Iraq or Afghanistan, did one side 'win' because they made life so miserable for the other side that they were willing to accept conditions they would have seen as 'unfavorable' at the beginning? The question doesn't even make sense, it's got nothing to do with what happened. And indeed, it could be argued that the worse U.S. forces made the lives of Iraqis, the more resistance to U.S. forces there was, it got the U.S. no closer to 'victory' to immiserate Iraqis. Let alone wars against 'internal enemies', which if you insist on framing the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a war, it clearly is. Did hostilities between the UK government and the IRA cease because one side made the other so miserable they had to agree to terms they would have considered 'unfavorable' before? Again, it doesn't even make sense to frame it that way. If anything, the reverse, the Irish were no longer nearly as discriminated against or as subject to military occupation as they had been earlier in the conflict, and this in fact was pertinent in cessation of hostilities.

throwaway1967 11y ago

Why don't you compare them both side by side with factual documentation and citations, so that we can have a real debate about which one, the Jewish holocaust or the Palestinian Holocaust, is truly the worst? Let this be my offer to anyone that wants to debate this as I know, after having read extensively and bookmarked citations and highlighted notes, that I can easily defend the idea that the Palestinian Holocaust as committed by Israelis was much worse than the treatment that potentially-communist Jews got in Nazi Germany. I'd also like to remind people that not only was there a Transfer Agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist Jews (who care not one iota for the life of Jews) called Haavara Agreement, but several times before and after that, Germany offered to release the Jews (or rather, divert their traffic towards another direction) if the anyone (be the US, or the Zionists, or whoever) reimbursed Germany for the costs associated with the removal. The Zionists, not caring about Jews, repeatedly refused such offers, to such an extreme as to put in writing that their reason for declining such offers was that "only those ethnic groups who will have suffered terribly throughout this war will have an opportunity to participate in the border claims that inevitably follow the armistice and peace treaties of every end of war". In other words, this select group of people who took upon them to speak for all Jews (and hence started the association between anti-Zionism and anti-Jewish sentiment, something that any Hasidim Jew will tell you is nonsense) is greatly and directly responsible for not taking up on offers to save the people they are supposed to care about. I say all of this with full knowledge I will be misinterpreted by many gentiles that are quick to assign hatred to dry analysis. However, I see and hope that Jews will start to wake up to this mafia that smears the name of Jews worldwide by claiming to speak for them. Jews, like everyone else and possibly more so, are subject to group pressure, which is why very few speak against Zionism, why the Hasidim are in such small number as compared to pro-Israel Jews, and why the media is careful not to show the Hasidim Jews protesting in NYC against Zionism and Israel every single time CNN is shooting outside. Camera staff and video editors work extra hard during those coverages to crop the Hasidim Jews protesting just enough so that part of their banners still show (as if to say, there were people outside holding anti-Israel signs) but not enough that we can see that really, a bunch of Jews are against this mafia, but they don't speak out because they don't see more of their brethren doing the same, thanks to the media.