The Numbers Game
Megan McCardle tries to defend herself against charges that she's singling out Israel for criticism.
...as far as I know, since I've come to The Atlantic, the Israeli body count in this conflict has consisted of one Arab construction worker who died of wounds sustained in a rocket attack, and kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, who seems to still be alive. If the vile, rapacious and brutal Hamas regime, or any of the other vile, rapacious and brutal Palestinian terror groups, kills more Israeli citizens, I will be happy to note my outrage and revulsion at vile, rapacious groups of people who believe that murdering civilians is an appropriate means of pressing their grievances (no matter how legitimate they may or may not be). Well, not happy, you understand, but I'll do it anyway--and have, many times before [...]
However, for the last three years, the deaths have overwhelmingly been on the other side. If and when that changes, I will be among the many voices raised in horrified condemnation.
This won't do, and I'm surprised to see Megan make such a bad--and essentially immoral (or amoral)--argument.
In any given WWII engagement, I generally don't know, unless I look it up, how many Nazis died and how many Allies died. But if I find out more Nazis died, my first reaction is "good." The morality of either side isn't measured by the numbers. Intent counts.
If Israel flagrantly attempts to murder civilians then its actions should be opposed, but if it takes basic measures that any country would to defend itself, then it did nothing wrong, even if the world predictably trips over itself in a rush toward condemnation.
But using Megan's calculus, it would seem the pro-Palestinian side gets a pass because, for whatever reasons, it hasn't succeeded in killing as many Jews as it would like. Instead, the success of the Israelis in defending themselves when they're surrounded by millions actively wishing for their demise is to be condemned.
posted by LAGuy @ 12:29 AM
5 Comments:
Perhaps if Israel would just be a little more lax in its security and allow their enemies to kill more of them they could regain the sympathy of the world.
That's a good point. Look at how much we were loved by the whole world on Sept. 12. And Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld squandered all that goodwill.
Megan should probably stick to economics.
While we regularly hear the nonsense about Bush and Cheney squandering all that good will, I fail to see how it applies here. If anything, the analogy to Israel is, like the U.S., there's almost nothing they can do to please people, so they might as well do what's right.
Here is Charles Krauthammer's brand new column.
His conclusion is deliberately provocative, and it violates the LAGuy Flowchart Rule. And I think he oversimplifies and omits some key points, including the fact that Israeli policies have vacillated due to the fact that Israel is a popular democracy. But his core argument deserves consideration.
Looking at that flow chart again, I think it's just one element, "No". The question doesn't count, does it? So, would it be a box or a circle?
Post a Comment
<< Home