Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Prep for the CompTIA A+ certification exam. Save 95% on the CompTIA IT Certification Bundle ×

Comment Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score 1) 710

The two-state solution is not anti-zionist. Since it maintains the jewishness of the main state it is acceptable to a broad range of the Israeli public as well as to a large part of the international players and international public. The interpretation about the makeup of the second state varies a lot though: the more left wing Israelis will accept a larger Palestinian state but rarely a real state that would be armed, contiguous and viable. The facts on the ground point towards a Bantustan of disconnected statelets that cannot survive without external help.

The one state solution is anti-zionist if it does away with the jewishness of the state and transforms the state in one of its citizens as the US or France have.
That idea is unacceptable for liberal zionism. That is, in principle, not because it would be unfeasible.
There is also a rightwing interpretation of a one-state-solution, although they aren't thinking of a Jeffersionian democracy.
Thers's also post-zionism, which can mean anything from liberal zionism to antizionism.

The idea that a Palestinian state would be committed to Jewish genocide is a racist caricature.

Comment Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score 5, Insightful) 710

Clear communication does not require precise definition and in fact this often works counterproductive. The word 'antisemitic' is generally understood as being against Jews, in a way that resembles european attitudes against Jews in the thirties for instance
That part of it is clear enough. Picking a logical but unused meaning of the word does not add clarity. The part that does demand attention is what is sufficient to put someone into that basket and you give examples of that.

Comment 3d printers (Score 1) 74

I hope they've got 3d printers. It's one of those things that provides fixes for a variety of problems.
These isolation experiments would still require some kind of 'McGyverMath'. Measures of dual usage of objects, ability to use things in ways not originally intended. But just printing the shapes you need can help a lot. That and a stash of TEC7, WD40 and a ball of wire :)

Comment Re: Brought about by the internet? (Score 3, Informative) 710

I only object against the word 'clear'. There are constant attempts to defend the distinction between criticism of the state of Israel and antisemitism. In reality it requires a lot of sophistication and political correctness to criticize the Israeli side in a way that avoids the antisemitism stamp. It's pretty obvious. If you take the simple case of mixing up 'jewish' and 'israeli'. There has been a very strong support amongst jews for Israel, and in Israeli public communication there has been a longstanding practice of talking for all the Jews. But as soon as someone blames 'the Jews' instead of 'the state of Israel' this person becomes an antisemite and therefore a foul person. I can't imagine the majority of people passing that test. To put it differently, the test is rigged.
When discussing Nazi stuff in WW2 I've also mixed 'german' and 'nazi' constantly. It's normal.

Comment Re:Brought about by the internet? (Score 5, Interesting) 710

As times change the meaning of the laws changes as well. For the last generation or so laws that target Holocaust denial are almost entirely about targeting critics of Israel. On the one hand by equating critics of Israel with antisemites, on the other hand by equating the Holocaust denial that is common in the arab world with german or western european Holocaust denial. In fact the two are very different. the latter is denial of guilt, or it used to be that, while the former is not. In the arab world Holocaust denial is highly correlated with recent Israeli operations against for instance Gaza. It's an act of spite.

And really, I've read that 97% of the inhabitants of Gaza are antisemites. Authoritative poll. That conclusion is completely daft.

Comment Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience (Score 1) 332

I regard the version of Tsuyoshi Hasegawa (http://japanfocus.org/site/view/2501) as more or less definitive. The bombs scared them, the Russians terrified them. The Russians were the main reason for the unconditional surrender. I'm convinced though that many in the US were sincerely convinced that the bombs caused the surrender. And as BadDreamer already remarked after WW1 the victors really punished the Germans hard and that was a major reason for WW2. While after WW2 we had Marshall.

The idea that nothing less than a complete destruction of the enemy will suffice is a pernicious myth.

Comment Re:False dichotomy of the guilty conscience (Score 1) 332

There were more options that rarely get mention. There were options of agreeing on a less favorable peace agreement with Japan. In the end the reasoning remains that the US conquered Japan because it could. And that it feels justified because atomic bombs made it cheaper. What would the US have done had they had less power advantage? It has been shown since that the atomic bombs didn't even have the time to have a large influence on Japanese decision making and that it was the russian invasion that made them capitulate. The US may have thought (probably) that the nukes made Japan capitulate but it wasn't even the case.

But guilt is looking backwards. If you look at dangerous myths resulting from the war there is one that limited use of nukes is justified in some cases. This is becoming more relevant as the threshold for using nukes is dropping, especially the smaller 'pinpoint' types. A new type is being developed just for that purpose. But we still have a system in place that can destroy humanity on very short notice and the understanding of how to limit escalation of conflicts is laughable.

As far as I'm concerned if nukes were brought down to small numbers the main risk would be avoided. That looks like a good goal.

He: Let's end it all, bequeathin' our brains to science. She: What?!? Science got enough trouble with their OWN brains. -- Walt Kelly