Social Media Companies Have Absolutely No Idea How to Handle the Gaza Conflict
betabeat.com
betabeat.com
The total number of deaths in the entire Israeli-Arab conflict over the past 70 years or so, is - according to Wikipedia - under 100,000. Out of which, about 25,000 are Israeli, a similar number are Palestinians, and the rest, I guess are casualties of all the other fighting arab countries combined, although the total seems to me a bit high. That's the total for the past 70 years.
By comparison, in the Libyan and Syrian civil wars, Wikipedia puts the number of deaths at about 30,000 in each country in the last year alone. And the Mexican drug war has claimed the lives of about 56,000 since 2006; some estimates go as high as 100,000.
So, not to compare suffering, but the entire Israeli-Arab conflict has claimed, over the last 70 years, more or less the same number of lives as the drug war in Mexico in the past 6.
I'm not even sure what I wanted to say by that.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_military_casualti...
_________
Iran-Iraq War [2]
Casualties and losses
320,000–720,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iran)
150,000–375,000 soldiers and militia killed (Iraq)
Economic loss of more than $500 billion (per side)
100,000+ civilians killed on both sides
______________
World War II was the deadliest military conflict in history. Over 60 million people were killed, which was over 2.5% of the world population. [3]
_________________
[1] This is also clearly visible in the citation of the GP comment, but i provide more examples.
You say that the 'cost' of the Iraq war is a mere 5,000 deaths, coldly ignoring the deaths of many tens of thousands of people just because they're on 'the other side'.
I hesitate to ask exactly which historians you recommend that would justify this selectivity.
The post-9/11 wars are not in (or near) the top 10 conflicts for the US. And, en-toto casualties are an order of magnitude lower than Iran-Iraq war, etc if you want to look at it that way.
Either way, you lose.
I'm not really interested in whether certain wars are bigger than other wars. I am interested in how the trivialisation of ongoing conflicts tends to dovetail neatly with pro-war agendas ('cost of doing business').
[Unexplained downvotes, how novel.]
Your repeated attempts to politicise (a/k/a dumb down) the conversation are also trivial and out of place.
What I have pointed out, and what your own comments clearly demonstrate(d), is that this exercise in 'comparing data across conflicts' as you so euphemistically put it, has a distinctly political edge which could be missed by the unwary reader.
Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence
http://www.amazon.com/dp/1455883115
Filmed Mar 2007 • Posted Sep 2007 • TED2007
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen...
to which the counter=argument is somthing like this:
The biggest problem with [Pinker], though, is [his] overreliance on history, which, like the light on a caboose, shows us only where we are not going. We live in a time when all the rules are being rewritten blindingly fast—when, for example, an increasingly smaller number of people can do increasingly greater damage. (Scientific American)[1]
I don't fully dis-agree with this latter qualication. If you go back and read my initial comments, you will see this.
[1] from: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=bookreview-...; See also: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-decline...
But failing to acknowledge the circumstances surrounding outbreaks of violence as being intrinsic to the nature of that violence is, generally, a matter of choice.
[Again, the fact that you don't like what I'm saying doesn't give you the right to set the terms of the discussion, and condescending comments about my ability to read don't really help either.]
[Edit: Your reply below, which doesn't yet have a reply button, is not coherent so I can't respond to it anyway. (A? B? Bozos? What?) I don't think there's much more that can be usefully said at this point. Speaking of non-falsifiability though, ain't evolutionary psychology a hoot?]
____________________
[1] http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/waldo/2012/07/27/the-bozo-event...
Pron explained why the association with your comment was unfair and I admitted that it was. Your comment, however, remains.
1 Hamas terrorist killed - CNN breaking news.
Make your own conclusions.
Between 1860 and 2010 there were a reported (by Israel) 3,971 Israeli civilian casualties of terrorist attacks.[1]
Between 2000 and 2012 there were a reported (by Israel) 3,034-3,726 Palestinian non-combatant civilian casualties of IDF operations.[2]
Obviously, tank battles in Sinai are not going to produce the same casualty rates as wars of attrition fought at street level in densely populated cities. Air strikes on Gaza (10,000 people / km2) are precisely on the same order of devastation though. The broader you make the context, the more you mask that fact.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_casualties_of_war
[2] http://old.btselem.org/statistics/english/Casualties.asp
Of course, while not a big conflict in terms of actual warfare, it carries a lot of political influence worldwide.
Because of the gross disparity in casualties between the two sides, attempting to minimise perceptions of the conflict as a whole (with a frame of reference chosen for statistical convenience) amounts proportionally to discounting the importance of the (overwhelmingly Palestinian) deaths.
This attitude of "it's bad but we can live with it" is directly reflected in the policies of the current Israeli government with respect to peace.
So, far from being a 'useless statistic', the relative hardships and pressures faced by each side have a direct bearing on the longevity of the conflict.
BTW, it's not necessary to speculate about how little I know. Let's stick to the facts.
[1] http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Backchannels/2012/1114/Is-Ham... [as-responsible-for-Gaza-rocket-fire-Not-exactly]
In other words, behaving like a government, which they supposedly are?
I do think, though, that you really must take into account, when measuring the intensity of the conflict, its entire history. After all, the violence didn't start when the occupation began, and, sadly, it's not likely to end when the Palestinians finally get an independent state (as I hope they would). But let's not turn this into an endless political argument. This isn't the Daily Beast.
(Of course, the Israeli-Arab conflict doesn't encapsulate the 'entire history' of the Jewish/Palestinian-Arab conflict either, some of whose bloodiest events happened before 1948. But that doesn't alter its magnitude.)
[Kindles suck for skimming back though a book, and I don't have an eidetic memory. My apologies if I get any of these facts wrong.]
On the first day of the 1967 conflict, based on glowing, but false, reports from the Sinai outposts, President Nasser and Egyptian military leaders thought that they had knocked out most of the Israeli air force, when in fact the opposite was true. The cascade of misinformation not only aided Israel's efforts against Egypt, but it also lead Jordan's King Hussein to commit to the conflict in the West Bank. Similarly, news of Egypt's success is thought to have emboldened Syria and lead to the battle in the Golan Heights.
Now, 45 years later, with the social media and other communications channels available, there is less chance that the conflict could escalate due to false information. (It could still escalate for other reasons, of course.) It's just a theory, but maybe Israel's in-your-face social media strategy is a blunt retaliation to any Baghdad Bob style reporting taking place within the Arab world. Their goal might not be to provoke the enemy, but instead to dampen any groundswell that might occur due to false reporting.
The system of independent reporters going to partisan press conferences really muddles the independence of reporters and gives a false air of legitimacy to the claims of spokesmen.
Things should be claimed publicly and then reporters should report, fact check, and reveal inconsistencies.
But next we need a global forum that no politician could credibly not see so we can force questions and make it politically damaging not to answer.
Then they will want their old media arraignments back. :)
I suspect that is where a lot of the resistance to "promoted posts" is coming from. Most people don't object to promoting posts but feel like pushing a button on Facebook to do it would be "cheating" and hate that idea.
Humans value fairness highly...
You would need to scrape Twitter to get events, you could scrape EXIF data on the coverage photos and use D3 to visualize the results, and use HTML5 audio to run a reading of Twain's "The War Prayer" in the backgruond.
You could even expose a simple REST API to let the IDF and Hamas POST targets and PUT munitions/attacks, and then give some neutral body a key to confirm attack success or failure.
We could have badges. We could have freemium content--exclusive access to kill videos, or you could buy coins to sponsor your favorite charity for repairing the region.
It'll be great.
EDIT: Come now, sarcasm detectors. The above is meant in jest (mostly).
The coverage by Peter Kafka of AllThingsD is also worth reading:
http://allthingsd.com/20121114/social-warfare-israel-live-tw...
The social sites used to keep in contact with our families, friends, fans, and favorites are now being used for this?
What side you're on is irrelevant; using the communication tech we've created to celebrate and promote death and harm as forms of propaganda and entertainment is just wrong.
It was wrong when the Syrian rebels posted video of the execution of 10 Syrian Army members. It was wrong when the Libyan rebels posted video of the execution of Kadafi. It was also wrong for the Israeli Defense Force. And the list goes on and on...
Maybe there's some minimal good in just knowing how violent others can be, but when I wonder if our communication tech can be put to far greater and more beneficial uses like promoting peace and resolving differences, I remember the words of Douglas Adams:
"Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
The alternative, of course, is irrelevance. (Or convincing people to stop being violent. Ha.)
> "Meanwhile the poor Babel fish, by effectively removing all barriers to communication between different cultures and races, has caused more and bloodier wars than anything else in the history of creation."
That's a good quote, but I think modern society's take on violence is to make it highly scenarised. A Brave New World kind of violence, where you know where the good guys and the bad guys are. One could hope that increased media coverage would lead to less wars, because people would realize how disgusting it actually is. That is, until you realize the Romans watching the gladiators also got their violence along with the daily bread.
Why not arrest him and try him for war crimes? Assuming that there's enough evidence to convict - and if not, why is that enough to go and kill him?
Another very similar scenario recently was Northern Ireland. That didn't get solved by the UK grinding Ireland into the ground or posting inflammatory things in the news - it was solved by both sides showing restraint and good will.
Currently neither Israel or Palestine are showing anything of the sort, but as the larger, more powerful party (eg. I doubt Palestinans have bunkers), it's up to Israel to show some restraint... but they aren't, they're still posturing about how tough they are.
It's maddening to watch.
Think about the tweets and newspaper articles about the successful murder of Osama bin Laden, for example - it's the same concept.
And I'm sure you ran to HN to protest when it happened, right?
> It was wrong when the Libyan rebels posted video of the execution of Kadafi.
And you were vigorously denouncing it then too, right?
> It was also wrong for the Israeli Defense Force.
Oh. We finally get to the reason you posted.
I think this might a good trend, despite the (in my view unnecessary) brashness, as both Hamas and the IDF employ spokespeople for the sole purpose of getting their version of the story out and I believe it's better to get that directly via Twitter and other communications mediums rather than through press conferences.
As others pointed out, this also frees up journalists to spend more time doing actual investigate reporting and it changes the scope of a spokesperson's job from saying a lot of nothing to a room of journalists to making their country or organisation's case to the world at large.
Personally, I find the tone of the current campaign a bit too brash but perhaps this is more effective than dabbling with the finer rhetoric and points of this conflict. Israel's media activities won't make any Hamas supporter switch sides, but they are important for the wider neutral population which isn't aware of the details and isn't actively supporting one side or the other (it's the "Oh why can't they have peace" or "Let's nuke the Middle East and be done with it" crowd).
Overall it's a good step forward in the accountability of governments towards the common people.
This caused people to equate the two as if targeting civilians vs militants is somehow equal.
Which is why "The IDF is letting no social media channel go untouched." They are trying to learn from their mistakes.
The point of propaganda is to project strength, not to apologize.
The reason this conflict exists in the first place, is due to a vast lack of perception of strength on either side. A squirrel doesn't pick a fight with a bear. It just doesn't happen.
In short, Israel doesn't have the balls to end this and Hamas doesn't have the means.
I think Western civilization as a whole has completely forgotten how to win wars. Now, they only know how to keep them going for decades.
Please spare me your genocide tripe. An overwhelming military victory saves lives in the long run. That's the truth. Constantly wringing your hands and freaking out over every little thing leads to this ridiculous ongoing violence which harms the quality of life for millions on both sides.
In WWII, we weren't terrible fans of fascism. It was annihilated and replaced with Western-style democratic cultural norms and institutions. In the case of Eastern Germany, Poland, etc. it was communism.
Regardless, there was never any debate that fascism had to go and what had to be put in place. And there was never any doubt that this must be done with force.
Today, the idea of forcing a political system and a way of life onto an occupied territory is unthinkable. As a consequence, victory is not achievable.
> How would you suggest achieving your 'overwhelming military victory' in Afghanistan, or Iraq?
By a sustained and overwhelming effort to turn the cultures of those regions toward American values.
Skip the bombing and the incursions. I would bomb them with DVDs of the Jersey Shore instead.
Look up Ataturk for effective strategies of modernizing large tracts of Muslim populations.
Two points here:
1. Guerilla warfare has become a lot more effective in the 20th century. You can't just drive in with tanks any more.
2. Winning wars in the past has been done with horrific casualties to civilians and troops on both sides, and structural and economic damage that took decades to recover from. That's not winning a war in any sense.
/sarcasm
Interesting that population of Gaza exploded from 40K to 1.6-2M in just 3 generations. How many of them refugees and how many migrants from Egypt/Sinai?
Israel has already demonstrated its strength. Now it needs to convince its enemies that compromise is preferable to death and to convince the first world that its in the right.
Firstly, everybody knows that Israel has vastly superior forces than palestine. This in itself refutes your logic.
However secondly, if your country was invaded or occupied, would you surrender and convert to the invaders way of life on the basis of them communicating well that they have superior military strength? I know I wouldn't. A lot of people will side with what is right not what is more powerful and some will do so at the cost of their life.
That also easily refuted you, but to add a third argument, this twitter thing means being judged morally by the world. On a moral level, showing strenght pretty much never justifies a violent act. It's quite the opposite. Does it make it okay for a thug or mobster to intimidate or tax people if they have better weapons and strength? Should a man raping a women be pardoned of his act if he showed enough strength that the woman should have complied to his desires in the first place?
The type of 'morality' you are advocating here is actually not moral at all. It's the way of thugs and rapists. People behaving this way clearly make the world dysfunctional and violent.
Both sides have faults in this conflict but not showing enough strength or employing enough violence is clearly not one for either sides.
You're not texting your friends. Write in English.
If you don't understand something, ask for someone to explain. Don't assume random nonsense.
> Firstly, everybody knows that Israel has vastly superior forces than palestine. This in itself refutes your logic.
Yes, of course they have superior forces. They can wipe out everyone in Gaza with a single click of a button.
Now, pay attention. It doesn't matter what superior capabilities you have if you refuse to use them. When you do so, you are perceived as weak and it is as if you don't have those capabilities at all.
And yes, Israel has refused to use those capabilities. They could level Gaza. Instead, they keep poking it and they keep asking nicely for them to stop shooting rockets.
The Disengagement plan was sold by Sharon to Israeli citizens: if they will attack us - we'll bomb them just like we bomb in Lebanon, when they start missile attacks.
In fact we still handle import/export taxes, provide food and energy to Gaza and can't bomb them same way as in Lebanon, since they considered under Israeli protection by international community. Or atleast this is the reason stated by Israeli minister Katz today on TV.
If you have no balls - no Air Force or nukes will help you.
If you have no brain and create a terrorist enclave inside your own state - nothing will help you!
Let's not forget who helped to create Hamas in the first place.
They talking about bombing Iran, but they can't handle terrorists living under their nose in the House of Glass.
It is also worth mentioning that when a individual or group of start taking to social media in with such posturing intent that the countries goverments try and often suceede in closing them down. When countries do it then the moral echo of any form of standards becomes defining. Free speech is just that as long as it is just words.
Let them play chess or farmville, pixels alot easier to replace than people.
Good = it will publicize and make the horrors of war very accessible. This is the biggest jump since Vietnam (the first war to achieve widespread broadcast on TV into living rooms daily.)
Bad = it will inflame the irrational players further.