Yeah, you got where I was going with it. Notice that he never resolves the question you quoted above, though. And without that, doesn't it throw the whole article into contention? I'm with you and KB 100% on the logistical aspects/the calculus behind it. The thing that ends up sticking in my craw is the clumsy attempt at spinning it into a moral decision rather than tactical. In this case, the moral choice is not the prudent choice from the perspective of self-preservation. If we're going to talk morals, I'd argue that a ground commitment is a necessary prerequisite to any claim to moral authority. Not only does it pose a more honest attempt at curbing civilian death, but it forces each side to at least meet each other as humans and then kill each other as such; it also forces Israelis to recognize a human cost to any protracted hostility. After all, hostility shouldn't be cheap- that's a sure fire way to eliminate morality from the equation. Where do you fall on all this, anyhow? Not fightin' whards, just curious.
I did notice, and yes it does. If it's some sort of sliding scale, though... as in, by even allowing the second point onto the debate floor, we admit that if Israel could figure out the right way to wage this mess, it could be "moral" -- under Schwartz's definition. I have some thoughts. I don't take a side, because as kleinbl00 so eloquently pointed out in the most badged post in the history of hubski, there's no good side to take. Even if I agree with the New Republic and think the invasion is moral ... sometimes moral things suck. Today in Gaza every fucking thing sucks. Have you read this? I wish I knew what his inspiration was, because if we could pull that off in Jerusalem it would shove gum in the dam. One -- if you don't know what the Sykes-Picot Agreement is, you are not allowed to have an opinion on this conflict and your blather is leaving my facebook feed forever. I know dozens of Muslims and Jews (and hell everyone else too), and if I were of the inclination, I could convince any of them that they were in the wrong about this war. That is what comes from having an opinion without having knowledge, which is dangerous. Two -- another important conclusion I have drawn is that I was wrong a few years ago when I thought twitter and instant-media were going to have a net positive contribution to the conflicts in the Middle East. When the Syrian Civil War (ha!) began, and when various despots started trying to limit internet access etc, it seemed to me that the "anyone is a reporter" mentality was going to save us from ourselves. Wrong, at least at the moment. Three, and more tangibly related to Gaza -- I get the vibe when reading about the invasion that everyone would feel a lot more "okay" about this conflict if only more Jews were dying. If both sides had lost about the same number of troops. There is a sense that this war is maybe worse than other wars because it is not fair. And when that is a serious thought that is occurring in the liberal subconscious or wherever ... something is seriously broken. Somewhere.Yeah, you got where I was going with it. Notice that he never resolves the question you quoted above, though. And without that, doesn't it throw the whole article into contention? I'm with you and KB 100% on the logistical aspects/the calculus behind it. The thing that ends up sticking in my craw is the clumsy attempt at spinning it into a moral decision rather than tactical.
Where do you fall on all this, anyhow? Not fightin' whards, just curious.
Ooh, have read that book. It's good. Re. your third point- not sure it's that people want to see more Jews dying (although points for finding the most darkly hilarious way to turn the current liberal stance on the matter on its head) so much as it is that it's just really hard to ignore the power imbalance at this point, and the way it's been leveraged against the wrong populations. At which point, fairness becomes a reasonable wartime concern. Geneva Conventions and all that. Anyhow, think everybody would just be happier with less civilian deaths at this point. So maybe a more balanced Israeli-to-Palestinian militant ratio without necessarily upping the Israeli toll? Wow, no, comes off as crass no matter how you paint it. Besides all that though, my opinion on moral aggression stands for the time being- equal threat to both sides underscores the cost of conflict. That's all I got, I'm tired. Think your approach to this is nuanced, and that's the highest compliment I can think to pay somebody in regards to the subject at hand.
I read Perdido Street Station and The Scar when I was younger- they're both fit for YA, I'm not sure how they'd hold up now. Definitely not as subtle as TC&TC. If you're looking for something else by Mieville that matches the tone of that one, you might be disappointed...
Don't get me wrong, they might be worth checking out if you're just into SF and looking for some light reading. It's been a while, I might go back to them if I want to turn my brain off for a while. Could be because I read it roughly at the same time as TC&TC, but I seem to remember Neil Stephenson's Anathem as being somewhere along the same lines of brain-fuckery. You have to get over his writing sometimes, which draws a lot of attention to its own cleverness, but it was pretty enjoyable and marginally thinky.