One thing I've learned: You cannot apply the same ethical standards to those without power as ...

[redgreenandblue]

... you do to those with power and privilege. There is simply no comparison.

The destruction of property of white Americans during the Rodney King riots was wrong, criminal even.
It still in no way compares to the structural racism that African Americans experienced, nor is
it in any way a justification for said racism.

Likewise, surely at some point in history during the genocide of Native Americans, there existed individual
Native Americans who would have killed every "paleface" on the continent if they could have.
The point is that they could not. Theirs was the response of the powerless, entirely irrelevant in the
grander scheme of things. What we remember today is that the white man wiped out the Natives. This
was the crime and "the white man's burden".

Similarly, it makes no difference whatsoever what kind of hatred individual Palestinians hold against Israelis
hold at this point in history, or whether they "would do worse to the Israelis" if they could. They cannot
and will not. Theirs is a position of decades of oppression. It is Israelis who are slaughtering Palestinians, not
the other way around. The wild fantasies of Hamas members have no bearing on reality, and they are
irrelevant in the greater historical context.

Israel has all the power and the Palestinians have none. Therefore Israel also has all of the responsibility.

[COLGATE4]

1. It is Israelis who are slaughtering Palestinians, not the other way around

The Israelis will be relieved to learn that. For some silly reason they believe that Palestinians are actively trying to kill them - something about daily missle attacks, tunnels, snipers, suicide bombers, etc. I'm glad it's been made clear that all those things are just "wild fantasies of Hamas".

[Fozzledick]

3. 50 Shades of Hamas?

[The Traveler]

5. Nice qualitative and emotional argument

Now ... shall we go over the casualty figures? Let's get into some numbers here. Don't want to?

One more important thing ... I recently read over the articles of war again. Yep ... they still make it clear that perpetrating a war crime in retaliation for a war crime is still in fact a war crime. I can't support war criminals, regardless of the motivations for their crimes. (BTW I regard the leadership of Hamas as being equally guilty. To the Hague with them all, I say. Do we still hang war criminals? Perhaps if Likudnik and Hamas leaders dance Deever together, other assholes will get the message. That is more an expression of my personal frustration with the matter than a policy suggestion.)

We have to accept that the Israeli government at this point is essentially identical in approach, albeit even more extreme, to the neo-cons that have plagued our nation and gifted us with the Iraq War and all its delicious consequences. Indeed, it is likely that the neo-conservative element of Israel had a lot of influence on that disastrous decision.

And it is impossible for me to support those bozos. Israel has a right to exist, but no nation has a right to conduct its affairs in this manner.

Trav

[eridani]

17. Look at the actual data.

Hamas kills soldiers, and IDF kills civilians.

[COLGATE4]

18. Yep. The noble Hamas only kills soldiers

except for all the civilians in buses, restaurants, schools, etc.) and the perfidious Jews only target civilians. Got it.

[onecaliberal]

2. Agree redgreenandblue

I'm sick of my tax dollars being used to exterminate people in the endeavor to rip off their land.

[Throd]

4. Bullshit. The weak can be just as reprehensible as the powerful.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

6. You started out full-throttle wrong and never recovered.

The destruction of property of white Americans during the Rodney King riots was wrong, criminal even.
It still in no way compares to the structural racism that African Americans experienced, nor is
it in any way a justification for said racism.

The people being victimized in the riots were denied life, liberty and property without due process, counsel, protections from cruel and unusual punishment or any of the other rights that are fundamental to all human beings. These rights are not contingent upon whether or not they belong to the wrong group in a given time or place.

"Well, they're white." doesn't excuse it. That merely perpetuates the racism.

"Yes, but look at the systemic racism." Granted but if you systemically excuse the abrogation of fundamental human rights based on race then you are not confronting racism you are becoming complicit in its propagation. There is not one moral wit of difference between such a position and what the cops did to Mr. King.

We would not, as a presumably civil society, tolerate similar treatment of people duly convicted in a court of law with all the rights and privileges our modern system of justice can provide for. Nor should we. To tolerate what happened to people who had no part in the Rodney King affair or any other form of manifest racism on the basis of the victim being an acceptable race is despicable in the extreme and is unworthy of a "Progressive" forum.

You're doing little more than attempting to justify murder and mayhem and doing poorly at it.

[redgreenandblue]

7. That, almost to the letter, was the conservative take on the King riots.

Personally, I find it hard to judge the actions of people without taking context into account. Which doesn't mean
that there won't be those who use context as an excuse.

No where did I state that the white people "had it coming".

[Nuclear Unicorn]

10. "No where did I state that the white people 'had it coming'."

Either the people who were victimized had it coming or they didn't. If not then no amount of but-however-and-nonetheless will excuse those who were perpetrating the crimes. If it was not deserved then the people burning, looting and attacking period, stop, end of sentence.

That, almost to the letter, was the conservative take on the King riots.

I wasn't even in kindergarten yet in 1992; so spare me the weaseling evasions. Nobody deserves bodily harm or to have their livelihood destroyed for something they never did merely on the basis of their skin color.

[cprise]

11. Why should anyone subscribe to that black and white interpretation?

Don't be any more ridiculous than your (quite ironic) avatar. People who suffer oppression sometimes react to senseless violence with more senseless violence. It is a fact of life.

Conversely, it is also a fact that those with the lion's share of power and wealth bear most of the responsibility for perpetuating the conditions of conflict. If power won't accept responsibility for at least halting its own abuses, then it becomes illegitimate.

You grew up in a "war on drugs" (i.e. war on minorities and the poor) America; I didn't. Perhaps you didn't notice the police state that emerged late last century, but plenty of other people have.

You may also think its an accident that NYC (formerly) stop-and-frisk police were trained in Israel. That policy thankfully has been repudiated. But the mentality that seizes upon apartheid-like policies is a shared factor. The same goes for the walls built in Israel and the ones built on the Mexican border.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. My avatar is born of my belief that people should govern themselves rather than be

governed by others. To me anarchy isn't license but the highest form of governance. I envision a world that has no law against stealing because each person is aware of and cherishes the humanity of his neighbors thus obviating the need for such laws to be written and enforced.

I have no problem with self-defense but the King riots were not self-defense nor were they a legitimate expression of outrage. The people who were victimized by the riots were not aggressors yet they had every reason to not only claim a grievance and even act in self-defense. If a man oppresses you justice is not served by striking some random stranger.

Perhaps you didn't notice the police state that emerged late last century, but plenty of other people have.

You would do well to not treat your ignorance of my posting history as an opportunity to inflate your personal sense of self-righteousness.

The same goes for the walls built in Israel and the ones built on the Mexican border.

The wall was built to keep out suicide bombers. And it worked. I am old enough to remember that.

[cprise]

16. The eastern block had similar reasons for the Berlin wall

If riots occur as a reaction to oppressive conditions, then the oppressors bear some of the responsibility.

The ANC would still be outlawed as terrorists today and South Africa still an apartheid state if your rationalization of disproportionate force held sway.

Maybe a population of robots in place of human beings would suit your sense of justice better.

The same goes for the walls built in Israel and the ones built on the Mexican border.

The wall was built to keep out suicide bombers. And it worked. I am old enough to remember that.

It didn't stop Israelis from capriciously shooting kids in the streets, or bulldozing their homes and crops.

[BlueCheese]

9. I'm sidestepping the main issue here...

but want to point out that ironically, a lot of the people most victimized by the riots were neither black nor white.

[AgingAmerican]

8. Those without power should have higher ethical standards

As was long been proven by Ghandi, MLK Jr and others.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

12. !

gotta think about this one.

ironically?

sarcastically?

real poser there.

gotta ponder on it.

a real WTF.

wow.

[Chathamization]

14. "Everyone complains about apartheid, but we should be talking about ANC terrorism!"

"They complain about slavery and oppression, but are we just supposed to let another Nat Turner slaughter civilians?"

"The natives chose to launch King Phillips war, they got what they deserve."

A good way to know you're on the wrong side of history.

[redgreenandblue]

15. Thanks.

Exactly my point.