For some reason - perhaps it's just the years stacking up on me - when I look at world news lately as presented online and on television I have a hard time understanding the motives behind a good chunk of the killing and dieing going on, and more troubling to me is the cheering from the sidelines.
In Syria, a revolution started when police tortured and killed children just because they'd spray-painted some words on a wall. When a father went to the police to ask about his son, the police chief told him to "forget he had this son, go home and make another and if you're not man enough to do it bring me your wife and I'll do it for you - you shouldn't have raised him to be unpatriotic".
OK, game on - If I were that father I'd have armed myself and started killing police, and if it had happened to a neighbor I'd have armed myself and helped him kill police.
Gaza seems a bit murkier. Certainly a lot of injustice in the area, but the best standard of living an arab can have outside of a royal family is through citizenship in the state of Israel. Those Israelis in Sdrot getting rockets rained down on them moved to Sdrot just to be activist settlers and fight the palestinians. The same can be said for a good chunk of the palestinians shooting the rockets - Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, but it was virtually empty a few decades ago. People moved there to fight.
What were the injustices that made these rebels in the Ukraine decide to take that 500 million euro anti-aircraft system from Russia and use it?
I hear a lot of creeps online and on talk radio in the US that use rhetoric that's thinly veiled calls to arms - much talk about tyranny, when the "people will stand up", that the "tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants", etc.... but I have a hard time seeing socialized medicine as tyranny..
So my question is, what's worth killing or being killed for? I don't even know if the American Revolution was justified.
It's easy not to know either way once the Revolution was fought & over. Might have been about as easy--maybe easier--had it not happened.
So also with the founding of Israel, once it's there, it might even benefit Palestinians, if it's comfortable living that they really want. But the whole point about whether it was worth it is already settled.
Populism & revolution are as old as America--the original creeps were Tom Jefferson & Sam Adams. If you think they are more admirable than, say, Rush Limbaugh--although, he's not much of a hawk, I don't think--I'd like to know about it.
I was referring more to talk radio callers than the hosts. Callers typically just regurgitate the same "I'm a patriot, liberals are stupid, only I understand the constitution, Barack Obama is an undercover muslim socialist that wants to destroy america" blather to each other, seeded with "I was in the service", and "I reckon there ort be a shootin' revolution"
Jefferson and Adams were doers - It's the talkers I despise
Oh, I didn't get that. Sure, it's a big country, lots of weird people. The sort of people, nevertheless, doers need. Paranoia is not an accident, but a requirement of American politics, Jefferson taught: That's the meaning of the blood required by the tree of liberty: Without people fearing their rights are imperiled & taking drastic action, liberty dies. Why Jefferson also said that people should be jealous of their rights...
This should be good.
"Gaza seems a bit murkier. Certainly a lot of injustice in the area, but the best standard of living an arab can have outside of a royal family is through citizenship in the state of Israel."
"Gaza is one of the most densely populated places in the world, but it was virtually empty a few decades ago. People moved there to fight."
You used to be able to enter Gaza and leave it. Then the Israelis put a wall around it, closed to border into Israel, put the navy near the shores of the Mediterranean, and told Egypt to close the other border. People didn't move to Gaza to fight; people are stuck there.
The question is whether the massive increase in population in Gaza in the last generation is from high birthrates alone. You could look it up if you really cared...
It's not that I don't care. It's that I already know enough about the area and the situation to know that Arabs wouldn't want to flock to Gaza for the sake of fighting Israel and that, in most cases, they can't flock to Gaza for any reason at all.
The birth rate might be in decline but it's still very high. It's the 13th highest birthrate in the world. A place with a birthrate that's twice the US' is bound to get pretty dense, especially when it's only 140 square miles and people aren't allowed to leave.
So the population in Gaza doubled from 1970 to 1990 almost & more than doubled again 1990 to 2010. It increased more than fourfold in the 40 years. Massive drops in infant mortality were not accompanied by similarly great drops in total fertility rate (down from a high of 8 to about 4.5, which is still a great drop); 40% of the population is under 15. All this suggests a land mostly peopled by natural growth.
One cannot simply move to Gaza. In fact, people cannot simply pop into Gaza for a visit. It's on lock down. Even Palestinians from Israel and the West Bank have to jump through countless administrative and legal hoops just to get a temporary permission to enter Gaza temporarily; permissions that are granted very rarely. People don't migrate to Gaza, period. The CIA World Factbook estimates the net migration rate in Gaza to be zero.
The only exception would be displaced Palestinian refugees from the West Bank and Israel.