Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Israel Palestine Cyber War

By David Hume in MLP
Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 03:57:26 AM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

Wired News has a series of stories about the cyber war between Israel and Palestine. The most recent is Palestinian Crackers Share Bugs. According to this article, 'Palestinian supporters are using a combination of hacking tools and viruses to gain what appears to be the upper hand in the Middle East’s ongoing cyber war.' Said supporters are allegedly using a recently created attack site to distribute 'tools and viruses for destroying Israeli sites.' There appears to be a license agreement, though I doubt it will be approved by the FSF. To use the tools, one must agree you 'will not use these programs on anyone but Jews and Israelis.'

Other articles, from Wired News and CNN, include:


  1. Israeli Hackers Vow to Defend , posted 2:00 a.m. Nov. 15, 2000 PST, regarding the Israeli Internet Underground.
  2. Hacker War Rages in Holy Land, posted 2:00 a.m. Nov. 8, 2000 PST, regarding the start of the war.
  3. Mideast 'hacktivists' take conflict online, November 3, 2000.
While the Palestinians allegedly have the current advantage in strategic virus production and hacking weapons, Israel has the upper hand in TypoSquating (or is it Typosquatting). According to the article Virtual battle rages in the Mideast, 'The latest in the Israeli offensive is www.Hizballa.org, which is meant to lure people who try to reach the real site but misspell the URL. An Israeli flag has been posted on the site with the word WAR; written in flames above it. The Israeli national anthem plays in the background.'

It also appears that the supporters of Israel lead in DOS technology. As the aforementioned article explains:
Israeli sites leading the charge against Hezbollah list their targets — which include the Web sites of al Manar, Hezbollah’s television station, the Palestinian National Authority and the Islamic militant group Hamas — with military precision. Site visitors are asked to click on a button that reads, “Press Here to Destroy.”
By clicking, the user activates a script that hits the targeted Web site once every second. Ayoub said many of the attacks originate from university campuses in the United States and Canada, where 24-hour high-speed connections allow pro-Israel surfers to keep their Web browsers open all day and night, vastly multiplying the number of hits on a site.
My question is, how serious is this? After all, to my knowledge nobody is killed or wounded as a result of a cyber attack. Yes, web pages are defaced, servers are DOSed, but nobody bleeds. Then again, as the net becomes more and more important, does cyber war become relatively more and more important as well?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Related Links
o Wired News
o Palestinia n Crackers Share Bugs
o Israeli Hackers Vow to Defend
o Hacker War Rages in Holy Land
o Mideast 'hacktivists' take conflict online
o TypoSquati ng
o Typosquatt ing
o Virtual battle rages in the Mideast
o aforementi oned article
o Also by David Hume


Display: Sort:
Israel Palestine Cyber War | 66 comments (64 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
For future reference (2.37 / 16) (#2)
by Inoshiro on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:16:25 AM EST

I do not care about a pair of people who can't get along in peace. I'm normally cool headed, but both sides of this conflict DISGUST ME. Killing/etc people for no other reason than the simple fact that it's happened in the past, and that people won't stop it, does not make it right. Every year or so, [Israelis, Palenstiniens] will go and hurt [same sides, reverse order] in some [bomb, shooting, preceived] way. The recent outbreak of violence was because of ... a visit to a temple! Hold on, I feel the need to vomit.



--
[ イノシロ ]
You must be very naive (3.85 / 7) (#5)
by maketo on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 03:39:35 AM EST

If you studied history you will know there is a difference between a _reason_ and a _cause_. While the _cause_ of the latest bloodshed might be a simple visit to a temple, the _reason(s)_ are much, much deeper. Now, the cyber war between the two sides can be discussed from several viewpoints: technical (geek), tactical (what are they gaining with this), social/historical (proof that computers are not immune to the social/national/religious divisions between people) etc. Do not be a naive CNN pawn - try to understand why things are the way they are...
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
[ Parent ]
Reasons to die or kill. (4.00 / 5) (#10)
by David Hume on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 06:41:58 AM EST

Killing/etc people for no other reason than the simple fact that it's happened in the past
I respectfully disagree with you.

Please don't get me wrong. If, in fact, the "killing/etc." was "for no other reason than the simple fact that it happened in the past," I would agree with you. However, I disagree, strongly, with your premiss. I do not agree that all of the "killing, etc." is "for no other reason" than the fact it happened in the past. Unfortunately, people in the area have current, "living" grievances that effect -- in real, present time -- themselves, their spouses, children, friends and loved ones. Some of these grievances are, I dare say, just. And no, I'm not saying on which side (if not both).

Again, don't get me wrong. I am not trying to justify the violence. I am just saying the causes, reasons and purported justifications for the violence are not solely in the past.

I know it is a bit of a cliche, but I have really come to believe that where there is no justice there will be, in the long run at least, no peace.

I can all too easily imagine circumstances where, if I was a Israeli, I would be willing to die, or kill, and feel justified in my decision. Similarly, I can all too easily imagine circumstances where, if I was a Palestinian, I would be willing to die, or kill, and feel justified in my decision. Regardless of whether I was an Israeli or a Palestinian, nobody would threaten -- in real, present time -- the lives, health, safety or legitimate rights of myself, my (presently nonexistent) spouse, my (presently nonexistent) children, friends or family without me making an appropriate effort (such effort of course not always involving killing) to protect them.

Therein lies at least part of the tragedy.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
Cycle of violence (2.50 / 4) (#21)
by Inoshiro on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:11:54 PM EST

"than the fact it happened in the past. Unfortunately, people in the area have current, "living" grievances that effect -- in real, present time -- themselves, their spouses, children, friends and loved ones. Some of these grievances are, I dare say, just. And no, I'm not saying on which side (if not both)."

Yes. Does that make it right to just violently rise up and continue to fight a guerilla war that has been going on since Isreal was first invaded (I forget the specific time/name of the war)? Sometimes you have to be big enough to say "enough is enough" and just walk away. Otherwise, you're just going to do the same things previous generations did -- be angry, filled with hate, kill people, and then die in the same violent way. Does that sound like a life to you? I'd not want to raise children there, but then I'm a peaceful person to the world at large.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
To turn the other cheek. (3.50 / 2) (#29)
by David Hume on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 01:21:17 PM EST

"than the fact it happened in the past. Unfortunately, people in the area have current, "living" grievances that effect -- in real, present time -- themselves, their spouses, children, friends and loved ones. Some of these grievances are, I dare say, just. And no, I'm not saying on which side (if not both)."
Yes. Does that make it right to just violently rise up and continue to fight a guerilla war that has been going on since Isreal was first invaded (I forget the specific time/name of the war)? Sometimes you have to be big enough to say "enough is enough" and just walk away. Otherwise, you're just going to do the same things previous generations did -- be angry, filled with hate, kill people, and then die in the same violent way. Does that sound like a life to you? I'd not want to raise children there, but then I'm a peaceful person to the world at large.
The issue of right and wrong can be a very difficult one, as anyone who reads either my Slashdot Bio or my Kuro5hin Diary may attest. :)

I completely agree that the best thing would be for both sides to turn the other cheek and walk away. However, I can understand when and why they don't do so. I can even imagine situations when it is not wrong not to turn the other cheek. Horribly, I can too readily imagine situations when it would be morally and ethically wrong, horribly wrong, to turn the other cheek. When?

If somebody were to physically attack my girlfriend, or her children, I would do what was necessary (and nothing more than was necessary) to defend them. To turn the other cheek under such circumstances would be morally wrong. I would hope I would do the same for any innocent and defenseless person.

Where does it end? I'm honestly not sure. It gets difficult. Lets see how far we might extend it. Let me give you a hypothetical based on a true story.

You own your home, and the land it sits on. Your family has owned it for generations. You decide to build an addition to your home. Your wife is pregnant, and you want to provide your new child with a room. Plus, your bother and his family are refugees, and need a place to stay. However, the government that is currently in control of where your house is situated says no. It is not permitted. You don't have a permit, and you cannot get one. Sounds like a zoning problem in the states, right? There is only one problem.

You are not a citizen of the government that has police power over your land. You have no right to vote for that government. The government has no duty or need to listen to you.

American school children are taught, perhaps simplistically, that the Revolutionary War was fought because of taxation without representation. Call this zoning without representation.

Say you are a bit stubborn. You don't think any government of which you are not a citizen, for which you have no right to vote, or be heard, can morally and ethically tell you not to build a room to house your child, or your brother and his family. You build a room anyway. The government addresses the problem.

With a bulldozer. The house was leveled.

What do you do? Immediately start killing people? Of course not. Leave? But you can't go anywhere. Protest? How long? And when they don't listen? When they shoot you with rubber coated steel bullets?

You also state:
and continue to fight a guerilla war that has been going on since Isreal was first invaded (I forget the specific time/name of the war)?
With respect, please ask yourself, who was there first? Who are the refugees? Do you know what the Deir Yassin Massacre is? Read some history.

Finally, let me apologize for being overly didactic. I do not mean to offend you. And I do not mean to imply that the Palestinians are innocent, or that the Israelis are wrong. There is right and wrong on each side.

But the sad truth is that some things are worth fighting for, and others are worth fighting against. At one time, to be simplistic, Americans thought taxation without representation was worth fighting against. Perhaps, just perhaps, zoning without repression is also. At least when it results in the destruction of your home.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
Deir Yassin massacre. (4.00 / 2) (#48)
by i on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 04:13:23 AM EST

Deir Yassin Massacre.

See, it's a complicated world...

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Deir Yassin (4.00 / 1) (#49)
by David Hume on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 05:35:28 AM EST

See, it's a complicated world...
Yes, it is.

"There are several Deir Yassin memorial Web sites by Palestinian organizations and Arabs. This is only such site assembled by an Israeli and a Zionist, and to my knowledge it is the most comprehensive and most thoroughly researched one."

"Red Cross Eye-Witness Report On The Deir Yasin Massacre April 9, 1948"

"Deir Yassin Massacre (Eye-witness testimonies and an interview with a retired member of the Israeli Defense Force is found at the bottom of this page)"

Two Snippets of Israeli History: "By writing articles critical of Israel, I, as a Jew, open myself to accusations of self-hatred or antisemitism."

"REINTERPRETING DEIR YASSIN," by Sharif Kanaana, Department of Anthropology and Sociology, Birzeit University

Then again, if it were not off-topic, we could discuss Al-Dawayima

Believe it or not, my purpose is not to establish that the Palestinians are "right," and that the Israelis are "wrong." It is, if anything, to establish that the Palestinians are not "wrong," and the Israelis are not "right." There are good and bad, past, and more importantly, current legitimate grievances and rights violations on both sides. I'm sorry for reacting the way I have, I guess, but I tire of Americans' ignorance (I can say that, I'm an American :) of history and, until recently at least, shamefully ignorant biased views that the Israelis have all consistently been heroic freedom fighters, and the Palestinians have all consistently been foaming at the mouth mad terrorists. There were freedom fighters, and unfortunately foaming at the mouth mad terrorists, on both sides.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
Well said... (2.33 / 3) (#12)
by _cbj on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 08:42:13 AM EST

My feelings exactly. I'm sure a lot Israelis and Palestinians are not raving lunatic fundamentalists, but the ones who are, i.e. any using violence, deserve nothing but contempt. Same for the Northern Irish. Ignoring rather than indulging them (putting them top of the news) is my prescription.

In general, if we as a society stop viewing wars with fascination (it's not like they're new or lacking documentation), and instead publically viewed their participants as the lowest unwashed vermin, I'm inclined to believe they would happen less frequently. I mean, what was it this time - land, money or godsize? Oh yeah, they're worth fighting over. Sure.

[ Parent ]

Oh thank you! (1.60 / 5) (#13)
by i on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 08:59:17 AM EST

Now I know what to do. Next time they come over here to kill me, I'll tell them: "You are the lowest unwashed vermin, because _cbj said so! No I won't fight back, because I'm intelligent, liberal kuro5hin reader!"

Try to apply your logic to people that fought and defeated Hitler, and see how much of it remains intact. Have a nice day, and sorry for the offtopic post.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Heck yeah! (2.00 / 2) (#14)
by _cbj on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 09:56:43 AM EST

That's the spirit, Gandhi.

[ Parent ]
Was your family killed in the Holocaust? (1.00 / 3) (#16)
by i on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:10:48 AM EST

Mine was.

You have moral right to talk about how Ghandi was great only when you personally is in the kill-or-get-killed situation.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Uhhh... (4.50 / 2) (#17)
by Legolas on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:34:56 AM EST

Ummm, dude, if your family was killed, where did you come from?

That aside, the sad story about life is that BAD STUFF HAPPENS. My ancestors had to flee Ireland because of famine. My high school was full of people who fled persicution various countries in the middle east, eastern europe, africa, asia, and other parts of the world. It sickens me to hear people, instead of using facts, arguments, or whatnot, instantly drop back to "The holocaust happened, and I'm Jewish, therefore I'm right."

The fun part of Kuro5hin is being able to have intelligent, well thought out conversation with people from different places with simular interests. It lets us help understand issues from different points of views. Please keep inflamatory, purely emotional comments out of here.

Thanks,
legolas

[ Parent ]

Good thing your ancestors managed to escape. (3.00 / 5) (#20)
by i on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 11:56:04 AM EST

I'm from Ukraine, if it tells you something. My grandparents survived, but all their relatives were killed. You English-speaking people may call it "extended family" or something, but we don't have such a concept.

Now about rational, intelligent discussion. You know, facts and arguments. Do you agree that Inoshiro's posting, and _cbj's posting, contain neither? Do you agree that they are inflammatory and purely emotional? "I have to go vomit". Very rational exchange of opinions, yeah right.

Finally, "The holocaust happened, and I'm Jewish, therefore I'm right." No, Holocaust doesn't make me right. I just happen to think Holocaust and some other events in the history make _cbj wrong. Specifically, his views about every poor soul who have to wear uniform and carry an assault rifle, and use it from time to time, are wrong. Not all of them are unwashed vermins. More specifically, at least those people who fought and defied Hitler are not unwashed vermins. They are great heroes. This is just a different (mine) point of view for you. Sorry if it's too much influenced by the Holocaust (it certainly is), but this is life. This is my point of view, and I don't have another.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

I gave rational points.. (2.00 / 4) (#24)
by Inoshiro on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:22:09 PM EST

Or rather, I wrote why I see it as a pointless waste of resources that could be better spent elsewhere. I'm sure the money for those Isreali tanks would go well towards fixing up the streets in that city... If Japan can get by without a military, why not other countries? With a UN peace keeping force, and some common sense, we could certainly be moving towards world peace (IMO).

As for the vomit bit.. I really do feel a strong reaction to the news of people slaughtering one another. I feel the same kinda reaction when I watch something like "Schindler's List" .. Since my heart hasn't been "darkened" by exposure to the Internet or 3D fps video games, some might find this odd. But I actually care that innocent people don't get hurt.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
Japan (4.00 / 1) (#30)
by FlinkDelDinky on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 02:06:45 PM EST

I'm not totally sure about this so definetly take it with a pound of salt but...

I think the surrender of Japan in WWII placed restrictions on their military.

Also they do have a military that protects their nation. It's just that the nationality of that military is USA and not Japanese.

[ Parent ]

Japanese consitution (3.00 / 2) (#32)
by Inoshiro on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 03:48:53 PM EST

The Japanese consitution says that they will not have a military (quoted from the link):

" Article 9, Chapter II of the Japanese Constitution, brought into effect a few years after the war ended. I quote (emphasis is mine):

Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a soverign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.

In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized.

"

--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
About Pointless waste of resources. (none / 0) (#46)
by i on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 03:14:17 AM EST

I don't like paying 50+% income tax either. But wait... isn't, say, Royal Canadian Mounted Police is a pointless waste of resources either?

I mean, wouldn't it be great if we all come along and won't murder, rape, steal, and cheat? Then we could spend the money for those horses and guns and helicopters to buy another server for K5, and maybe that other site as well (hey I'm feeling generous today).

If you care that innocent people won't get hurt in this world, you have to spend tremendous sums of money. In some other world it won't be necessary, but we're living here.

As for Japan -- it doesn't have enemies. Israel, sadly, does have a bunch, and some of those won't like any solution of the conflict, unless it's a final solution.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Peace in our time (3.00 / 1) (#55)
by spaceghoti on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 04:29:51 PM EST

If Japan can get by without a military, why not other countries?

Because Japan isn't living in disputed territory, surrounded by enemies who view racial intolerance and bigotry as a way of life.

Most Arab countries would invade and obliterate Israel without a second thought and consider themselves heroic for doing so. This has already been attempted once during the Six Day War, and more recently during the Gulf War when Iraq sent missiles into Israel hoping to provoke a confrontation with them, knowing that the rest of the Arab nations would leap into the fray of Israel got involved.

Of course, the Palestinians are not pleased about having territory they regarded as rightfully theirs controlled by a people they have hated unconditionally for generations. By this point, it would seem that the hatred is now mutual, and with equal justification (in case you were wondering, my opinion of that "justification" is that it's worth the paper it's printed on. That is to say, not at all).

Who started it? And who started the latest conflict? I don't care. All anybody seems to care about anymore is who will be left standing in the end. Until they can either get past this self-defeating concept or succeed at being the last one standing, Israel and the Arab nations are going to continue to need and build standing armies for the inevitable conflicts. It would be nice if these people could grow up, but that still doesn't give us the right to force them to stop. The US is already under heavy criticism for stepping in to enforce our idea of right and wrong in other cultures, and I have no wish to justify that criticism.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
This is my subject. There are many like it... (3.33 / 3) (#25)
by Legolas on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:38:18 PM EST

... but this one is mine.

I will be the first to admit that both Inoshiro and _cbj's posts were full of emotion. However, within that context, they were saying stuff like...

I mean, what was it this time - land, money or godsize? Oh yeah, they're worth fighting over. Sure.

They were justifying their positions with reasons... the fighting is stupid BECAUSE it's over land or money. It have a place for someone to object (which you did, which is fine). However, statements like...

Was your family killed in the Holocaust?
Mine was.

...doesn't justify the situation, and indicates the other person couldn't possibly have a justifiable response. This, I find, poisons the conversation, and is just bad. Personal attacks don't do anything to contribute to the topic at hand.

On a side note, I appreciate your very well written rebuttle to my post. It's well thought through positions like this that makes me enjoy reading though K5. I have nothing against your view... just be careful to present it in a mature and useful manner, instead of name calling. If you find other people (Inoshiro, _cbj, etc.) are doing this, take the moral high-road.

legolas

[ Parent ]

The fight is stupid because it's over land. (4.00 / 1) (#44)
by i on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 03:02:04 AM EST

So what I'm to do? Pack my belongins and leave?

If you are willing to call this particular fight "stupid fight over land", it IMHO means that you have absolutely no idea whatsoever about what's going on.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Ah, a favourite literary device. (1.50 / 2) (#18)
by _cbj on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:43:18 AM EST

I've always been a big fan of "You don't have a right to talk about foo until..." arguments. Bravo!

[ Parent ]
Obviously, somebody decided that it's OK (3.00 / 1) (#22)
by i on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:13:11 PM EST

to preach what you don't practice. Sorry, I missed that; must've been smoking my hourly cigarette outside. Bad habit, I know :(

In all seriousness, do you think your views on war and peace bear any weight whatsoever? If so, why? Please bear in mind that most people here have access to the same books you've read, and the same TV channels you watch, and, in general, are not less informed than you. When they make judgements which are different from yours, that might be because of two things:

  1. These people are stupid/bigoted/unwashed and cannot follow simple logical arguments
  2. These people know something that you don't know
Which do you think is the case?

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]
True, but.. (1.00 / 1) (#23)
by Inoshiro on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:16:06 PM EST

If they are the second case, rather than the former case, logically they'd tell you what they know in a rational way, vs. just being a person who can't follow logical arguments.



--
[ イノシロ ]
[ Parent ]
I tried to present some information (none / 0) (#47)
by i on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 03:39:06 AM EST

but my Netscape crashed. Argh! Anyway, this textfield is way too small do put anything remotely meaningful here. Search engines (and deadtree libraries) are your friends.

What no search engine will tell you is how it feels to live here. Personal experience has no good substitute. I'm not very good writer so I won't try to explain it. Actually I tried, but it was just pathetic. Sigh.

One advice: if you want a balanced view of the conflict, don't rely on your general-purpose newsfeed (such as CNN or Yahoo news).

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

Or... (4.00 / 1) (#38)
by Matrix on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 07:58:23 PM EST

3. These people have been raised in a different enivronment (or have different genes, if you're of the nature-over-nurture school), have had access to information with a slightly different spin, and have made a logical conclusion with exactly the same level of information and knowledge that just happens to be different from yours for whatever reason.


Matrix
"...Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
- Lord Vetinari, pg 312 of the Truth, a Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

Ghandi (2.00 / 1) (#34)
by roih on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 05:02:56 PM EST

It might be pertinent to recall that Ghandi's advice to Europe's Jews was to commit collective suicide rather than resist the Nazis.

[ Parent ]
A brief list of reasons (3.60 / 5) (#28)
by theboz on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 01:05:15 PM EST

There is a good reason for a conflict, although I disagree with killing over it. However, you have to look at some of the facts and will probably see some of the reasoning behind the fighting:

- Israel as we know it today did not exist until about 50 years ago. The U.S. basically stole some land from the Palestines and gave it to the Jewish people residing there now.

- The Jewish people, who viewed the land as theirs because of their religious beliefs, see it as business as usual and are unwilling to work with the other side.

- There has been 50 years of time for people to get settled and to have their angers grow, so both sides will continue to fight until one is gone.

Try to see it from another perspective and I will assume you are a U.S. citizen. Imagine that China comes in and says that you have to abandon your house and land, because they are going to open it up for the Cherokee to live in since it used to belong to them a long time ago. You will not be paid for your land, you just have to get the hell off of the property now. I don't think you would stand for that, and you would possibly fight to get your land back. You would feel some resentment towards China also because they should have no authority in your country to take your land. That's why a lot of people in the middle east hate the U.S. Our government really has done some evil things in fairly recent history, including the Japanese concentration camps, creating Israel, and J. Edgar Hoover's FBI. Any of those things will make you wonder if you really are living in a free and just country.

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

A brief list of reasons (3.00 / 2) (#31)
by CyberQuog on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 03:39:39 PM EST

- The Jewish people, who viewed the land as theirs because of their religious beliefs, see it as business as usual and are unwilling to work with the other side.
Not quite, in the Camp David peace agreement Arafat was offered 95% of what he wanted including a good chunk of Jerusalem, but Arafat would not agree without ALL of Jerusalem, gee, ever here of something called compromise? I agree the US shouldn't have taken land, but you could also blame that on England not letting more than 10k Jews immigrate after WWII.

And, slightly offtopic, the media in the US is VERY arab centric. The palastinians bomb a schoolbus full of children it's retaliation; Israel bombs empty buildings and it's a full frontal assault. So don't believe everything CNN says to get some ratings...


-...-
[ Parent ]
Yeah... (4.00 / 1) (#37)
by Matrix on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 07:51:22 PM EST

Plus, Palestinians were offered money for their homes and land. This was back around the end of the Second World War. Remember, when the Jews in Europe had been virtually wiped out by the Nazis, their homes destroyed, and were living in camps near the outskirts of mostly-destroyed cities? Anyways, the Palestinian leadership at the time issued a law forbidding the sale of land from Arab to Jew. I don't remember exactly what the penalty was, but it was quite severe. This, of course, irritated the British, who were in control of the land at the time, and were trying to encourage Arab to Jew land transfers (a limited number) to improve the situation in Europe.

I agree with Inoshiro, though. This kind of conflict disgusts me. Yes, its not the kind of thing that goes away overnight. Yes, there has been provocation on both sides. But it is still a pointless confrontation, and the fact that the leaders on both sides seem to rely on the conflict to stay in power doesn't help.

I don't think its ever going to be determined who rightly owns the land. Is it the original inhabitants (in which case every single nation on Earth except for maybe a few in Africa are living on illegally siezed land)? Those who are currently there? The best solution would be for both sides to get those who have a vested interest in the contiuation of hostilities out of power and start trying to find a compromise.


Matrix
"...Pulling together is the aim of despotism and tyranny. Free men pull in all kinds of directions. It's the only way to make progress."
- Lord Vetinari, pg 312 of the Truth, a Discworld novel by Terry Pratchett
[ Parent ]

Reason for my opinion (3.00 / 2) (#40)
by theboz on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 08:54:36 PM EST

And, slightly offtopic, the media in the US is VERY arab centric. The palastinians bomb a schoolbus full of children it's retaliation; Israel bombs empty buildings and it's a full frontal assault. So don't believe everything CNN says to get some ratings...

That is true, and I think violence by either side is wrong. I guess I just see things the way I do because I have friends from Lebanon and Jordan, and an uncle from Libya (part of Africa, but still arabic.)

Stuff.
[ Parent ]

Reason for your opinion. (none / 0) (#42)
by Apuleius on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:21:27 PM EST

Lybia, you say?
Ask your uncle some time how he feels about the massacres in 1947 in which hundreds of Jews were murdered, in Tripoli, Ben Ghazi, and Amros. Ask him how he feels about Khadaffi's decision to confiscate the homes of Lybia's remaining 500 Jews, and how Italy helped evacuate them so they wouldn't have to live in the streets.

Ask the same of your Syrian friends, and the massacres in Damascus and Aleppo.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]

Violence breeds violence (none / 0) (#65)
by decaf_dude on Sun Dec 10, 2000 at 05:22:59 AM EST

How exactly does this differ from the treatment of Palestinians in Israel (and Israeli-occupied Palestinial territories)?
Israelis have all too soon forgotten that you cannot destroy a nation, no matter how hard you try. Trust me, it's gonna come back and haunt you (if it already hasn't). I've been to Israel not too long ago and have been sickened by the treatment the Arabs get there. I've also been to apartheid-era South Africa and let me tell you: blacks there had it great in comparison.

--
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=89158&cid=7713039


[ Parent ]
To answer your question. (none / 0) (#66)
by Apuleius on Sun Dec 17, 2000 at 08:01:16 PM EST

It doesn't, except that Palestinians (and Arabs in general) are 50% in denial about the violence they perpetrated against Jews, and 50% celebratory about it (since "the Jews deserved it.")

And it's not just mistreatment in Lybia. There were massacres all over the Arab World, and as bad as Palestinians have it in Israel, Jews in Arab countries had it much, much worse.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]

You need to learn your history, boy. (3.00 / 2) (#41)
by Apuleius on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:17:42 PM EST

- Israel as we know it today did not exist until about 50 years ago. The U.S. basically stole some land from the Palestines and gave it to the Jewish people residing there now.
The US did not get involved in any meaningful way until the 1960's. As for land theft, it was in both directions. Arabs lost their homes in one swatch of land in Mandatory Palestine, but Jews were also robbed of their homes in the other parts of Palestine in 1948, including thousands of homes in East Jerusalem.


There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)
[ Parent ]
Land Theft (none / 0) (#64)
by David Hume on Wed Dec 06, 2000 at 07:09:55 AM EST

You need to learn your history, boy.
This subject line of your post is insulting. It doesn't help your argument.

As for land theft, it was in both directions. Arabs lost their homes in one swatch of land in Mandatory Palestine, but Jews were also robbed of their homes in the other parts of Palestine in 1948, including thousands of homes in East Jerusalem.
This it correct. However, this is a matter where, when it comes to ethics, morality, theft, and justice, the degree matters. Numbers matter.

According to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA):
Under UNRWA's operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict, and who took refuge in Jordan, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic, the Jordanian-ruled West Bank or the Egyptian-administered Gaza Strip. UNRWA's services are available to all those who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. UNRWA's definition of a refugee also covers the descendants of persons who became refugees in 1948. The number of registered Palestine refugees has subsequently grown from 914,000 in 1950 to more than 3.6 million in 1999, and continues to rise due to natural population growth.
Source: UNRWA: Refugee: Who Is A Palestine Refugee.

See also: UNRWA.

914,000 in 1950.

The number grew to 3.6 million in 1999.

These numbers, of course, do not include the Palestinians displaced and rendered homeless after 1950.

It has been the consistent Israeli negotiating position that, even after a peace treaty, these people will not be allowed to go home. After all, their villages have been destroyed. Their land has been taken.

What was this? At the time, perhaps the necessities of war, the fog of pain, anger and fear, mixed with a policy of ethnic cleansing. But what does this continue to be today? Pure ethnic cleansing. Why? If the Palestinian Refugees were allowed to return and become citizens of Israel, their present number and birth rate would soon threaten, in any real democracy, the Jewish democratic majority, and thus the Jewish nature of the Israeli state. The Jews would soon become a minority in their own state. The only way for Israel to safely remain both a democracy and a Jewish state is to make sure that the Jews always remain in the comfortable majority.

The simple truth is this that after World War II and the Holocaust the majority of Jews, the United States, and the rest of the world decided, neither unanimously nor without dissent, that the Jews needed, and were entitled to, their own state. The Jews needed to have a state in which they were, and would remain, in the clear majority, and in control.

The Palestinians were made to pay the price.

And we wonder why they are angry.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
It was a Swiss idea... (4.00 / 2) (#57)
by weirdling on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 05:05:53 PM EST

Actually, if I remember right, Switzerland initially provided the impetus, and, oddly enough, Israel had to win the land from Great Britain, *not* from Arabs. It wasn't very populous back then. It's not as if Israel caused a massive trail-of-tears exodus of Arabs from that area. In the end, as usual, the British Empire changed to helping rather than fighting Israel as an independant nation and the US stepped up aid and exports due largely to the large number of Jewish refugees who came here after WWII and achieved prominence. The US has consistently supported Israel due to the large Jewish lobby in the US and the fact that it is the only nation in the middle east that is solidly pro-US. The detente with the Saudis and the relatively good relations with the smaller Arab states are what the Gulf War bought for us, but neither of them are even close to us ideologically, and Israel is. This rehetoric insisting that Israel is necessarily a land stealer is recent and erroneous, as is the rhetoric that South Africa stole the land from the indigenous tribes. Truth there is that those tribes had fled a plague, and, upon returning, fought to regain land the English and Dutch had settled. Remember this: conventional wisdom is almost always wrong.
I'm not doing this again; last time no one believed it.
[ Parent ]
Some Advice (3.20 / 5) (#33)
by Carnage4Life on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 04:07:27 PM EST

Inoshiro, I expected better from an admin of K5. If you are going to post a response to an article that is nothing more than a flamebait, poorly worded, ranting, naive opinion it is better not to post at all than to wreck the discussion thread with what is an undisguised troll.

Jewish and Arabic enmity is deep seated and has lasted for longer than you can imagine. The hostility can no easier wished away than can racism in the southern United States. To put forth such a comment adds nothing to the discussion but only detracts from it.

This comment is just as bad as all the Anglo-centric complaint posts that are made whenever someone posts an article that is U.S. specific.



[ Parent ]
Article Was Not Intended As Flame Bait (4.33 / 3) (#45)
by David Hume on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 03:03:15 AM EST


an article that is nothing more than a flamebait
FWIW, I did not intend the article to be flame bait. This being Kuro5hin, I neither intended, nor expected, to get into a discussion of the merits of the underlying Israeli Palestinian conflict. If I am guilty of anything, it is of being naive. I was honestly interested in an objective discussion regarding the methods, effects, implications, political science (game theory), etc. of the attacks. About what they might imply for the future of the net. I was also interested in how serious they were and how serious they were taken. (To tell you the truth, I also wondered if the participants in the cyber "war" were perceived as just a bunch of computer nerds engaging in intellectual masturbation at the keyboard, imagining that they were "doing" something real, or if they were if fact "doing" something real.)

I tried to redirect the discussion below (above?) by asking further technical questions. I was, unfortunately unsuccessful.

Perhaps I should not have responded to Inoshiro's post. I tried not to, I really did. :) I skipped over it a number of times. Unfortunately, in the end I succumbed to temptation. I'm honestly sorry I did.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
My apologies: I meant his post not the article. (3.50 / 2) (#50)
by Carnage4Life on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 10:53:17 AM EST

FWIW, I did not intend the article to be flame bait.

When I read the opening line of your post I was wondering what you were talking about and went back to reread my post and realized that it contains a very poorly worded sentence.

    If you are going to post a response to an article ,that is nothing more than a flamebait, poorly worded, ranting, naive opinion it is better not to post at all than to wreck the discussion thread with what is an undisguised troll.
I was describing Inoshiro's response not your article. I guess that explains why my post was scored so low(it started off at 1).



[ Parent ]
Thank you. (3.00 / 1) (#53)
by David Hume on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 02:11:28 PM EST


Thank you. I misread your post.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
Excellent book about the subject (none / 0) (#39)
by theR on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 08:26:35 PM EST

Inoshiro, it is fine that both sides of this conflict disgust you. I do not agree with the violence and I would probably be considered by most to be a pacifist, although I'm not sure I would label myself as such. I do think you are oversimplifying the reasons for the conflict, though.

For an excellent insight into the thousands of years of conflict between Muslims, Jews, and Christians, I would recommend The Source, by James Michener. While it is a work of fiction, I think this book does an excellent job of illustrating the conflicts between these three groups, including the history and reasons behind some of it. I share in your disgust towards the violence, but I also see that it is an uphill battle for two groups with such a long history of animosity to be peaceful.



[ Parent ]
Effects of the So-Called CyberWar (3.90 / 10) (#4)
by Nimster on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 01:16:09 AM EST

As an Israely, I see myself very much affected by this so-called CyberWar. I'm a user of Netvision - Israel's largest ISP, for over 4 years now, and NV is the main ISP the "Net.Shahid" attacked. Over the last 2 monthes, including just yesterday, I've had speed dropping to 0.1Kbps (byte, not bit) for a few hours at a time, disconnections (I'm 24/7 ATM), inability to connect to services such as ICQ or IRC due to ping timeouts... They even cut my connection to K5 at one point! :~(. I myself, am really, really against this war, both in CyberSpace and in Real(tm) life, and therefor did not join the massive "ping -t -l 4196 www.hizbullah.org" which Israely Users were asked by e-mail to do, however I know many people who did, and I know for certain that the site, along with some more Palestenian sites did come down after this DOS, and others. Many sites on our side failed and crashed as well. It might not be bleeding or being killed, but it's surely an effect... Tel Aviv's Stock Exchange, for example, was down a some point, for a very short amount of time. But who knows how much exactly the economy suffered due to that?

Btw, Someone, I don't remember where tho, pointed out that Hezbullah.org was DOS'ed by innocent visitors who saw the news and the site on CNN and went to see what's this all about as much as it was DOS'ed by Israely hacker... Take it with a grain of salt but it does have potential to be true. Things like that happen on online events for example, when a site is simply flooded by the visitors coming to see what's happening...

P.S, Please, do not flame me for being an Israely, or start an issue here on who's right. If you think you'll come to a concusin, you are absolutely wrong. This war has gone for 50 years now, with a decade breaks here and there... Try to stay on-topic ith the CyberWar.
-Nimster
slashdot effect as a weapon (2.33 / 3) (#6)
by enterfornone on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 05:58:37 AM EST

It would be intesting to see if you could deliberatly cause a DoS on an enemy's server by having the address published on international news sites. I imagine many Israeli/Palestinian servers would only have enough capacity to handle local traffic. Handling millions of cnn.com readers would bring a such a site down pretty quick.

--
efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
E-Mail Request for Ping Attack (3.50 / 2) (#7)
by David Hume on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 06:08:17 AM EST

and therefor did not join the massive "ping -t -l 4196 www.hizbullah.org" which Israely Users were asked by e-mail to do, however I know many people who did
Could I ask who or what organization the e-mail came from? Who made the request that you join the ping attack? Could you attach or forward the email?

I don't mean to put you on the spot. I am just curious regarding how effective, organized, official, and meaningful these cyber attacks are.

I don't suppose you reported the ping attack request to your ISP or to your equivilant of the FBI as a crime? This question is not intended as a personal attack (I certainly wouldn't blame you if you did not). I'm just trying to get a sense regarding what cyber behavior is considered acceptable, moral, ethical and/or legal under the circumstances.


The is-ought problem.
[ Parent ]
Local press had this letter all over the place. (3.00 / 1) (#11)
by i on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 07:52:21 AM EST

So I guess few people bothered to report it, to their ISPs or otherwise :)

I did urge everyone I know not to participate in this affair. Being viewed as cyber terrorists is the last thing Israeli hackers need.

Maybe this whole fiasco will make our sysadmins think in the right direction, security-wise. I'm curious, what the recent massive switch of gov.il sites from Apache/{xBSD, Solaris} to IIS/NT was: the response to the fiasco, or its cause? If the former, I suppose we all have issues to think about; if the latter, it's just gov.il sysadmins having big problems.

and we have a contradicton according to our assumptions and the factor theorem

[ Parent ]

terrorism (3.00 / 2) (#36)
by Delirium on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 07:01:50 PM EST

Yeah, I think in general it's in the Israelis' best interests to try to take the moral high ground as much as possible. For quite a few years I tended to support them in most of the conflicts, since they exhibited restraint most of the time while the Palestinians often resorted to terrorist acts and violence. However, in this last conflict I'm unable to support either side, since Israeli citizens have been lynching other Israeli citizens in Jerusalem simply because they are Arab. Murdering a fellow citizen because he is Arab is simply not acceptable any more than bombing a bus is. It seems both sides have degenerated into a combination of state-sponsored and spontaenous terrorism.

The same goes for the "cyberwarfare." Taking down a Hezbullah side is petty vandalism and doesn't help your cause at all. It's not like they use their website as their primary method of communication (hell, they even own television stations), so taking it down has little effect on them but gives them a public relations advantage, as they can portray the Israelis as "cyberterrorists."

[ Parent ]

Re: E-mail request to ping attack (4.00 / 1) (#15)
by Nimster on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 10:05:17 AM EST

Hey,
First, don't worry, I'm not offended or anything.
Now, Where the email came from is a good question. In israel there is a saying "Kol Israel Ahim" (All Israelis are brothers). We are very connected, and as a community we usually unite against a common enemy. My point is, I don't know. It was a HUGH chain mail, the number of recipciants like I've never seen before, not to mention how many forwards it had, with no recipciants listed (i.e copy pasted message). I really don't know where it started, although the paper suggested some rumors say it derived from some Netvision employees. (Don't quote me on that).
It was VERY effective, the paper said. The site was successfully DOSed to death. :)

As for reporting it... I think they'd laugh. This is against a different country, It's not like we're attacking or having wars between ourselves. It also happens to be a country we're in war with, so...
The equivilant of an FBI - lol. Let me quote from "Captain Internet" - Israel's leading Internet magazine. (roughly translated) "The chief of Israely Police's computer crimes department admitted (regarding claims that they had not helped in a case of serious user abuse) that the department consists of 6 people, with one connection to the internet, on a 56K modem." If you don't believe me, btw, www.haaretz.co.il or www.captaininternet.co.il should have the article, hopefully in english as well. Search for something like "Women abuse online", it was on last week's edition.
I know it's hard to believe, but the police doesn't have enough manpower, and has a lot of other issues to deal with. As for a different agency, most are busy assasinating terrorist groups leaders.
So... I hope that answers you.
The FBI itself, btw, has been only once in Israel, to catch the famed Analyzer - an Israely who hacked the pentagon.

Legistlations and laws for internet usage has only began to spring up in Israel, and are very premitive. That same article talks about that. It states that currently there are no "internet-based" legistlations, but rather existing laws, like laws against sexual harrasment, were simply rewritten to include the words "consists of written, spoken, ... And computer material abuse". Of course, this is barely viable and very arguable in court.
Yes, we are far from internet enlightment or progress... No one said Israel was a modern country, and if they did, they are, on many issues, quite mistaken.


-Nimster
[ Parent ]
units! (2.50 / 6) (#8)
by vsync on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 06:30:40 AM EST

I've had speed dropping to 0.1Kbps (byte, not bit)

Then you should have said so. Byte == 'B'. Bit == 'b'. 0.1Kbps == 0.1 kilobits per second. 0.1KBps == 0.1 kilobytes per second.

--
"The problem I had with the story, before I even finished reading, was the copious attribution of thoughts and ideas to vsync. What made it worse was the ones attributed to him were the only ones that made any sense whatsoever."
[ Parent ]

cyberwarfare vs. realwarfare (3.80 / 5) (#9)
by Delirium on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 06:30:48 AM EST

Regardless of what happens with computers becoming more and more important, I think that "cyberwarfare" will remain much much less important than real warfare. Even if it disrupts some economic pursuits, it still doesn't reach the level of important of actual killing of people. Cyberwarfare at its worst is equivalent to a blockade or sanctions; it has an economic effect, and might even cause practical inconveniences in people's lives (if it shuts down power or something of that sort). However, sanctions or blockades (and by extension cyberwarfare) don't have nearly the same impact that actual physical violence does. Cutting off someone's electricity may anger them, but making them afraid to walk out of their house without getting shot has a completely different effect.

The impact of sanctions (4.00 / 2) (#26)
by whatnotever on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 12:45:42 PM EST

Sanctions do have large impacts. It's just not as immediate as physical violence.

The simple act of cutting off power may not have an immediate effect, but in the long run it's devestating. Imagine what would happen in a large city if there were no electricity for even a few hours. I can easily imagine that leading to quite a bit of physical violence without the need for any actual attackers.

Power, water, sewer, etc. infrastructures are amazingly important. The demoralizing effect of having no electricity or running water is a very powerful weapon.

[ Parent ]
Real world impact of cyber warfare (4.00 / 2) (#35)
by aprentic on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 06:40:44 PM EST

Just because a cyber attack doesn't cause physical harm doesn't mean it can't cause such damage as a secondary effect. As one user pointed out a loss of power to a major city could cause serious damage just from the ensuing panic. Consider Manhatten. We are connected to the mainland by seven tunnels and bridges. If we lost power here we would lose our street lights and traffic lights. The resulting traffic congestion could effectively strand millions of people on an island that cannot sustain its population without outside resources. The HVAC systems in the tunnels depend on power. If they were shut down the air in these tunnels would quickly become toxic to the point of making passage through them dangerous, if not impossible. Furthermore most emergency response systmems depend on computers to a great extent. Imagine if ambulance, fire, and police dispatchers had to rely on non powered methods of communications. What if the water purification and pumping stations ran out of power? Not to mention that there are three major airports here. How do you safely get planes to land when ATC can't turn their radars on? Backup power? Sure, it would last for a few hours, maybe. But after that you'd have millions of people in very serious danger. Now what if a hacker managed to get controle of some weapons systems? Boeing is currently working on unmanned aircraft for the US military. If a couple of those were suddenly given orders to launch their weapons a cyber attack could quickly turn into a real war. Am I paranoid? Yup. But hackers have consistently proven that no system is as safe as people claim it is.

[ Parent ]
Cyberwarfare (4.50 / 2) (#56)
by spaceghoti on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 04:45:02 PM EST

However, sanctions or blockades (and by extension cyberwarfare) don't have nearly the same impact that actual physical violence does.

While "cyberwarfare" doesn't have the same ethical problems as realtime warfare (I'll always have a stronger reaction to murder than to a DOS), that doesn't make attacks on the Internet any less important. When waging war, the most effective tool is always the control of information. The more information you have while simultaneously limiting the amount of information your opponent can gather, the more successful you're likely to be.

The Internet isn't as prevalent in the Middle East as it is in the United States. Yet. Neither does any nation's control rely heavily enough on the Internet for an enemy to legitimately claim a military victory by taking out a website. But controlling the information is the key. To paraphrase Frank Herbert, "he who controls the information controls the world."

DOSing a website doesn't even begin to compare with the slaughter of innocents that always accompanies war. But slaughtering innocents will never win a war: DOSing websites might help tip the balance in the future. We'll have to wait and see.



"Humor. It is a difficult concept. It is not logical." -Saavik, ST: Wrath of Khan

[ Parent ]
Other Questions (4.00 / 3) (#19)
by David Hume on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 11:22:33 AM EST


I should have posted these questions with the main article, but it was early (or late) when I posted it, and I was tired. :) However, I would honestly be curious to know if people have any concerns regarding the following:
  1. Escalation?

    FWIW, I'm an old (don't ask :) Poli Sci major, and we used to consider this problem different from the one of escalation (see below). Escalation has to do with the quality and quantity of weapons you chose to fire. We frequently analyzed it using the game theory of chicken.

    Does anyone have any concern that the Israel Palestine cyber war could escalate to: (a) greatly harm the participants; and/or (b) adversely effect other persons or systems? Is the danger of escalation perhaps greater because there is no blood and not bodies (thank goodness), and thus less deterrence? Perhaps because it is largely invisible to much of the public? Perhaps because there are not legal sanctions? What about future cyber wars?

  2. An Arms Race? FWIW, I was taught arms race behavior has to do with the quality and quantity of weapons you acquire and develop. We frequently analyzed it using the game theory of prisoners' dilemma.

    Does anyone have any concern that the sides will develop increasingly potent cyber "weapons?"

  3. Proliferation? Is anyone troubled by the fact the article mentions the existence of "a recently created attack site to distribute 'tools and viruses for destroying Israeli sites.'" Will such a site make it easier for crackers and script kiddies to obtain tools to crack and DOS sites?
Or am I taking this way too seriously? :)


The is-ought problem.
Re: Other Questions (4.00 / 1) (#27)
by whatnotever on Sun Dec 03, 2000 at 01:03:57 PM EST

1) If the attacks spread beyond DoSs and website defacements, there is the possibility that they could lead to actual deaths. If the attackers somehow attacked certain infrastructures, such as power or communications, there would be a very real impact on actual people. As I mentioned in another post, imagine a large city losing electricity for even a few hours. A few possibile consequences are people dying in hospitals, looting and riots, heck, even tons of rotting food! And if the attackers gain access to the military's systems, well, I'm sure there are plenty of bad things one can do with that.

2&3) The arms race is continuously occuring in real life, and it's simply sped up in the case of war, correct? I don't see why the same wouldn't be true of cyberwarfare. People are always creating new and better attacks, but an actual war will give people more reason to work harder. The same goes for proliferation. It is possible that more people are creating new attacks and distributing them, so there certainly could be an increase in both the quality and the amount of "weapons."

As with real life weapons, though, the effect of all of these will be much stronger if governments or strong economic forces are behind the "war effort."

[ Parent ]
You'd be surprised how well cities cope with this (3.00 / 1) (#43)
by goonie on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 12:10:46 AM EST

As I mentioned in another post, imagine a large city losing electricity for even a few hours.
It's not quite as bad as you might think. My home state lost its natural gas supply for more than a week. It was a severe inconvenience - aside from cold showers, many people's ovens were useless, much of industry had to shut down (for instance, car plants used gas-fired ovens as part of the painting process), but generally people coped very well - as did the people of Auckland, New Zealand, when the CBD lost power for weeks. Some pretty large mountains had to be moved to keep it that way - for instance, a massive sterilizer oven (autoclave) had to be flown in by the US military, but, all in all, it wasn't nearly as dramatic as one might think.

[ Parent ]
Some MLP for this story (3.33 / 3) (#51)
by Mandos on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 11:34:58 AM EST

I am very biased on this topic, but we can always go to Salon or someplace to argue it in depth. However, please forgive me for some MLP and some book recommendations on this topic that is generally representative of my views on this matter.

  • The Edward Said Archive. Edward Said is a Palestinian-American professor of literature at Columbia University, and he is the most eloquent writer on behalf of the Palestinians that I have ever read. He also has written a great deal on the West's perception of the Arab and Islamic worlds through history and how this harms the relationship between the civilizations. I find it really refreshing considering how much the Islamic world is blamed for being inherently backward (just for being Islamic).
  • The Z Magazine Network's Middle East Crisis pages. A good leftist/anarchist site with lots of links from Israeli sources.
  • The Egyptian Al-Ahram Weekly Newspaper in English.
  • Just to be fair, there is the extreme right-wing Israeli Jerusalem Post and the left-wing, better written Ha'aretz papers (click on the English button). To get some really blood-boiling extreme stuff go to the Women In Green, a settler women's protest group, and Gamla Shall Not Fall Again, an Israeli think-tank whose main purpose is to prove how evil Islam is.
I hope people find all of this educational. I've got a plethora of more links on the subject, but that should be enough for now +)
---------------------------------------------------------

`o Mandos `o tyrannos tôn 'exoterikôn

But Wait, There's So Much More... (3.00 / 2) (#59)
by Lode Runner on Tue Dec 05, 2000 at 02:21:06 AM EST

Even though you qualified your post with an admission of bias and your links are informative, you do not give readers a well-rounded picture of the Middle East.

There aren't any links to extremist Islamic groups.

After seeing the following sites a reader won't have any trouble understanding why Israelis arm themselves to the teeth and shoot people.

Here are a couple:

  • Hamas, the popular militant wing of this group gloats about killing children.

  • ...and for "balance" I'll throw in a refreshingly dissentful Muslim Arab:Abdul Hadi Palazzi

Note that none of these sites are the product of biased American media or anything like that. They're speaking in their own words, uncut. If this ruins Mandos's picture of the Middle East conflict as purely a massacre of peaceful, rational Arabs by bloodthirsty Zionists, then too bad.

After browsing the sites I have posted along with those sites you posted, the intelligent, open-minded reader will hopefully begin to understand what a mess the Middle East is and why it's so stupid to play the blame game.

Even Said should be taken with a grain of salt. Yes, Western Orientalism is a crime... but so is Said's (and his followers') bigoted Occidentalism.



[ Parent ]

Mistake (none / 0) (#62)
by Mandos on Tue Dec 05, 2000 at 09:26:35 AM EST

Forgive me, I'm new to K5 and forgot to post my response under this one.

As for "blame game", a point I missed, I am firmly in the belief that there is a Root Cause, and we really have to take the time to unwind the call stack to see what's throwing that damn exception...
---------------------------------------------------------

`o Mandos `o tyrannos tôn 'exoterikôn
[ Parent ]

No Such Thing as a Root Cause (4.00 / 2) (#63)
by Lode Runner on Tue Dec 05, 2000 at 02:01:15 PM EST

Palazzi is even more outré than Gamla, whose views represent a significant part of the Israeli spectrum; Palazzi doesn't even represent the viewpoint of moderate, Western educated Muslims, which I think is a good thing because, frankly, Palazzi is wrong, a "crow-catcher" trying to find accomodation with wide-scale injustice. I think Quisling is the right word.

Yet you had no problems with citing fringe Israelis and American Jews to support your argument... In another time Palazzi's views would not have been seen as so extreme. That mainstream, Western-educated Muslims denounce the guy as a quisling shows us how closed-minded they can be.

And citing Hamas begs the question of how Hamas came to be in the first place-- I think everyone knows Hamas' views on it in the first place, but no one asks why they feel that way except to blame Islam. I think everyone who knows anything knows why extremist Israeli groups exist, on the other hand. In fact, you yourself give part of the reason.

Okaaaaaayyy... so I'm supposed to believe that extremist Israeli groups arose on their own while extremist Muslim groups merely arose as a reaction to the Israelis. Well, you're just as bad as the Zionist press you so loathe. Fighting lies with lies... how is this going to solve any problems?

Said's "Occidentalism". Heh. Sauce for the gander.

Your goose is cooked. Anytime Said refers to "The West" as a monolith, which is something he does quite frequently, he is being an occidentalist. The funny thing is that Said knows that he has this problem and his response is along the lines of: "Maybe I wasn't the best person to write about 'Orientalism' but I did it and it got people thinking and I'm glad." The problem is still there and is one of the major factors preventing meaningful discourse between USA/Europe and the Third World.

Yes, all of Said's work

All of it? Really? Well, all those contradictions will cause sleepless nights for the Said fan... Heck, the guy can't even keep his autobiography straight. And forget reading his pre-1967 stuff...

Nur Masalha's A Land Without A People. This documents from extensively cited Hebrew sources the attempt to make the myth of a land without a people for a people without a land into a reality through violence. Really bursts the victim-blaming bubble.

Masalha's okay and Palazzi's not? Did it ever occur to you that your bias might be a bad thing?

And finally, my ultimate views on the topic can be paraphrased from Oscar Wilde. "It's either Zionism, or the Arabs. One of them has to go." Mutually exclusive claims unfortunately require mutually exclusive solutions. On the Israeli side, however, the price is much lower--giving up an ideology and a view of history. The price for the Arab side I don't think I want to contemplate. But how it will pan out is a question of whose boot is on whose neck, and the overwhelming nuclear power will likely sit where it wants regardless of history, morality, or the heartfelt outrage of a billion people.

The "price" for Israelis a whole lot higher than "giving up an ideology and a view of history." They would give up freedom and self-determination. They end up in a pre-World War II situation again. And I'm sure Yemen won't welcome 500,000 Jews will open arms.

If you want an idea of how callous you sound I'll turn the tables on you: Why can't the Arabs just leave Israel alone? It would only a require a minor tweak in their already hypocritical ideology and warped view of history. The price Israelis would pay is unthinkably high.

As for "blame game", a point I missed, I am firmly in the belief that there is a Root Cause, and we really have to take the time to unwind the call stack to see what's throwing that damn exception...

dbx -c middleeasternhistory.c
where rootcause

HAH!

History is not analagous to a call stack. You have oversimplified history and made a very arbitrary decision about where it begins.

You see through Western lies, please forgive Westerners if we see through yours.

[ Parent ]

Stuff (2.75 / 4) (#52)
by perlyking on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 01:44:00 PM EST

Firstly let me make this clear, I am disgusted by the loss of life. I also believe there is no way to gain peace without both sides giving up, current attitudes (politically driven it seems) are "we wont give up until they do" and they are childish and unproductive.
Bottom line for my personal opinion is I can't see any excuse for shooting children with REAL (not rubber) bullets and KILLING them. By far the most deaths are those of palestinians which is not suprising given they are fighting one of the most powerful armies in the world.
Back to the topic its unacceptable racism to suggest hacking tools should only be used against Jews. I believe there is good and bad in all religions/races/cultures and that under different circumstances these two sides could have just as easily ended up living side by side.
I have probable misconceptions about the history of the situation so would appreciate if someone could post an URL for an impartial history. For example I seem to think that the nation of israel was "created" in the middle of a muslim area, perhaps we should take to task who thought this was a good idea!
Anyhow keep those flames light please :-)

Unbiased? (2.66 / 3) (#54)
by Mandos on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 02:35:47 PM EST

There is no unbiased source on the conflict. In fact, attempting to be unbiased produces all sorts of distortions that render one's account of the history completely divorced from the real situation. I trust biased Israeli and Arab sources more than I trust the supposedly unbiased CNN, because I know for a fact where they are coming from.

You bring up an important point as well. To the whole Muslim world, Zionism (the founding ideology of Israel) is simply European colonialism and nationalism warmed over and served with a double helping of potato latkes (and I like latkes). Having just barely emerged from the shadow of direct colonialism, the Muslim world turns around and sees this reminder that It Is Not Over, and that Europe wants to complete the colonial project by introducing a superficially Jewish crusader kingdom. And Israel has done very little to dispel this feeling; quite the opposite, in fact. I find it very difficult to express the sense of outrage this engenders, and how Israel becomes the cynosure/symbol/focus of latent Muslim and 3rd world anger at the West.

Perhaps the best way to express it is to quote M. A. Jinnah, the founder of Pakistan. He was a British-educated lawyer, completely secular, barely conversant in the local languages of Pakistan. He fought to end British colonialism in India and then became disillusioned with Gandhi; thus he demanded a Muslim state on the subcontinent. And the state he founded was officially created at almost the same time as Israel, and suffers often from similar internal ideological dilemmas. He said, tellingly, that "Israel is a dagger in the heart of the Muslim world." If I were him, or if he were living now, that phrase should really be put in more Freudian terms, as the Muslim world at present ironically views itself as a sort of battered wife.
---------------------------------------------------------

`o Mandos `o tyrannos tôn 'exoterikôn
[ Parent ]

Don't believe the hype. (4.83 / 6) (#58)
by Kunstwerk on Mon Dec 04, 2000 at 06:54:48 PM EST

Anyhow keep those flames light please :-)

Will do. Your post is a bit uninformed and idealistic, but I can't blame you. The media have distorted this conflict so much - in both directions - that it's hard not to be quickly polarized one way or the other.

I also believe there is no way to gain peace without both sides giving up

Is it really possible for the Palestinians to give up? You're a second-class citizen. Your state was taken away, and there are settlers occupying what is left of your homeland. You have menial blue-collar jobs and are lost in an Israeli majority with very litle opportunity to break out of your current condition. It's a hard life. You wish you had your own state, your own home, to set things right.

Is it really possible for the Israelis to give up?After hundreds of years of living in the Diaspora, avoiding pogroms and never really fitting in, you have a place you can call your own. In the 50 years following the birth of your state, your country has already been involved in three wars and many, many lives have been lost defending it. Rockets are rained upon you from northern Lebanon. Terrorists go into civilian marketsand detonate nail bombs, school buses are targeted, you're never quite safe... you try to negotiate, but it's hard. Arafat wants to negotiate, but is afraid of extremists in his own midst who would rather have his head than have a compromise. Your own Knesset (parliament) is also made increasingly unstable by extremists. You fought damn hard for what you have, and you're not going to just walk into the Mediterranean sea after all you've done.

my personal opinion is I can't see any excuse for shooting children with REAL (not rubber) bullets and KILLING them. By far the most deaths are those of palestinians

That's a popular thing to say. An easy thing to say. Let me ask you two questions.
1) How, exactly, do children end up being thrown in the Israeli Army's line of fire? I mean, they aren't stupid enough to rush into a firefight. So why are parents bringing 12-year-olds to the front lines of manifestations to throw rocks? I won't be as cynical as to openly declare that they're positioned there to act as a human shield while parents snipe away from a further distance with guns, but... give it some thought. What are the kids doing there?
2) Since Ariel Sharon went ot the Temple Mount, most deaths have been on the palestinian side. Now, please give me the figures comparing deaths on both sides for the last ten years.

This post represents an unpopular viewpoint. It is anything but idealistic. I've probably flushed my mojo down the drain (oh well). But I'll be happy if, for one second, it made somebody out there wonder if there's more to this conflict than what makes a good media story, because the wanton sensationalism surrounding this issue has gone way too far.

--KW [Diary] /* Do all humans pass the Turing Test? */
[ Parent ]

Palazzi (3.00 / 2) (#60)
by Mandos on Tue Dec 05, 2000 at 09:23:36 AM EST

Palazzi is even more outré than Gamla, whose views represent a significant part of the Israeli spectrum; Palazzi doesn't even represent the viewpoint of moderate, Western educated Muslims, which I think is a good thing because, frankly, Palazzi is wrong, a "crow-catcher" trying to find accomodation with wide-scale injustice. I think Quisling is the right word. And citing Hamas begs the question of how Hamas came to be in the first place--I think everyone knows Hamas' views on it in the first place, but no one asks why they feel that way except to blame Islam. I think everyone who knows anything knows why extremist Israeli groups exist, on the other hand. In fact, you yourself give part of the reason.

Said's "Occidentalism". Heh. Sauce for the gander. But I challenge you to point out where in Said's major ideas and assumptions is there any anti-Western prejudice aside from his criticism of Orientialism...All he does is pull down the West a notch from its excessively arrogant position, not try to put it beneath the East. This accusation is a strawman that can really be pointed at any post-colonialist work, since criticism of Orientalism from the very beginning requires criticism of the shibboleths of Western culture.

I forgot some book recommendations which I promised.

  • Yes, all of Said's work, in particular the Orientalism trilogy, Orientalism, The Question of Palestine, and Covering Islam. As well, Culture and Imperialism
  • Noam Chomsky's The Fateful Triangle. (My knowledgeable readers were waiting for that one, weren't they? *grin*) Some Chomsky links are on the Znet page I linked.
  • Nur Masalha's A Land Without A People. This documents from extensively cited Hebrew sources the attempt to make the myth of a land without a people for a people without a land into a reality through violence. Really bursts the victim-blaming bubble.

And finally, my ultimate views on the topic can be paraphrased from Oscar Wilde. "It's either Zionism, or the Arabs. One of them has to go." Mutually exclusive claims unfortunately require mutually exclusive solutions. On the Israeli side, however, the price is much lower--giving up an ideology and a view of history. The price for the Arab side I don't think I want to contemplate. But how it will pan out is a question of whose boot is on whose neck, and the overwhelming nuclear power will likely sit where it wants regardless of history, morality, or the heartfelt outrage of a billion people.
---------------------------------------------------------

`o Mandos `o tyrannos tôn 'exoterikôn

Lode Runner (none / 0) (#61)
by Mandos on Tue Dec 05, 2000 at 09:24:33 AM EST

Oh, I intended this for Lode Runner. I forgot to post it into that thread. Forgive me.
---------------------------------------------------------

`o Mandos `o tyrannos tôn 'exoterikôn
[ Parent ]

Israel Palestine Cyber War | 66 comments (64 topical, 2 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!