4 dead, at least 30 hurt in terror attack on Hadera banquet hall.

January 17, 2002 2:31 PM

4 dead, at least 30 hurt in terror attack on Hadera banquet hall. We're so damn sick of it, will the violence ever stop ??
posted by martz (44 comments total)

It's a vicious circle. Israel bulldozes houses, and other Palestinian suicide bomber. Israel takes over headquarters, another Palestinian suicide bomber. Who knows or cares who started it - there's little will to end it.

I am sick of it. I don't care what they do to each other - both sides are guilty and only they can stop it.
posted by Red58 at 2:36 PM on January 17, 2002

Yeah, its just so important that we listen to the desperate cries of terrorists, isn't it. I for one am indeed sick of this shit (and was well before Sept. 11). I'm not convinced that anything can stop it at this point, save extreme violence (terror) on the part of the stronger party (and no, I'm not convinced its Isreal at this point). Call me an Ostrich if you want, but I'm not convinced I can handle reading a whole lot more Middle Eastern news.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:50 PM on January 17, 2002

I don't think they can stop it themselves-- you have two socieities traumatized, two leaders who know only violence, and two conceptions of past, present, and future.

Only an outside body will be able to break this kind of cycle; clearly either side is not able to do so.
posted by cell divide at 2:52 PM on January 17, 2002

I'm edging dangerously close to the "nuke the region from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" PoV.

What a gang of murderous scumbags, the whole fucking lot of them.
posted by UncleFes at 2:54 PM on January 17, 2002

"What a gang of murderous scumbags, the whole fucking lot of them." said the sioux to the cherokee.
posted by quonsar at 3:03 PM on January 17, 2002

These are two societies that raised their children in hatred and violence. The children, now grown, are raising their own children in hatred and violence. And their children's children will be raised in hatred and violence. It will always be so.

Those who are tired of the violence will move away from it. Those who seek it, will remain. It will always be so.

My opinion: Cut off all diplomatic, economic, and every other tie with them. Let them sort their own sordid mess out on their own. Funding the violence certainly doesn't help. Let them annihilate each other.

Alternatively, nuke them from orbit. Destroy every g.d. building, road, bridge -- everything. Let them spend a generation being so busy rebuilding their lives that they don't have time for war.

And do the same for those bastards in Ireland. Just the other week, some sick fuck tried to use a home-made bomb on a bunch of six-year-olds.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:07 PM on January 17, 2002

I'm not blaming anyone but the two nations involved for the bloodshed. However, one way I think we can help hasten the end of this and all other conflicts like it is to stop feeling like we have to pick a side. The Palestinian/Israeli conflict has degenerated into such a free-for-all bloodbath that there really isn't a good guy anymore, just two stubborn brawlers who can't recognize futilty when they see it. The same could be said of Northern Ireland, Chechnya, and much of the Balkans. The best thing Americans can do at this point is basically say to all concerned "OK, You wanna carry on with this bullshit? Fine, then you're on your own. And don't ask us for no favors till you can behave reasonably." This applies to both governments and private organizations who raise funds for both sides from misguided Americans.
Will this stop the killing. Probably not, we're dealing at least partly with fanatics here. But atleast we won't have to be a party to it.
posted by jonmc at 3:08 PM on January 17, 2002

"What a gang of murderous scumbags, the whole fucking lot of them." said the sioux to the cherokee.

He must have been referring to the plains indians that would burn thousands of acres of land, killing hundreds of animals?
posted by insomnyuk at 3:11 PM on January 17, 2002

Yes, you could nuke them, or possibly the U.S. could work to pressure Israel and PA to implement Mitchell. I think if you feel like nuking someone you might just want to hang back and let people who still care talk about it (it seems funny you're so sick of violence you want to resort to ultimate violence). As far as Ireland goes there has actually been progress since the '95 IRA ceasefire, though things have been sliding recently.
posted by chrismc at 3:14 PM on January 17, 2002

The violence won't stop until the occupation ends.
posted by fleener at 3:16 PM on January 17, 2002

Eventually they will be able to nuke themselves. Israel already has nukes, and it won't be long probably before the PLO can get their hands on a so-called 'dirty nuke' (crude but effective nuclear device)

Fleener: what occupation? By who?
posted by insomnyuk at 3:16 PM on January 17, 2002

hmmm...please redeem yourself with some sort of statement that clarifies the murderous scumbags to be--you know--the actual murderous scumbags and not Everyone? Please? For me?
posted by th3ph17 at 3:21 PM on January 17, 2002

Insomnyuk: The occupation refers to the Isrealis in Palestine.
posted by skyline at 3:23 PM on January 17, 2002

No, not everyone, obviously. But the murderous scumbags seem to be both plentiful and averse to id'ing themselves as such.

Personally, I can't imagine that the entire region isn't totally depopulated. Why on earth would anyone stay is such a shitty, violent place?

And I'm not sure I'm the one that should be seeking redemption. I can't imagine ever killing someone over something so inherently stupid as religion. Even if I was that sort of idiot, I'd like to think that I'd have the dignity and honor to not target children. That's what makes someone a scumbag, and what makes the place that nurtured that scumbaggery worthy of nuking.

::sighs, leaves::
posted by UncleFes at 3:28 PM on January 17, 2002

Well, the Israelis fought several wars, and they won. They deserve to be there. Why don't the Palestinians appeal to their Arab and Moslem brethren in oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia for a nice tract of unused land (i'm sure there's lots of it still out there) and some seed money to start some settlements? That would end the Palestinian - Israeli conflict pretty quickly. Of course, my question is rhetorical, because the fact is, the rampant anti-semitism in the neighboring nations, a combination of racial and religious hatred. Iran just tried to supply the Palestinians with 50 tons of weaponry. For self defense? Against wedding partygoers? Right..
posted by insomnyuk at 3:38 PM on January 17, 2002

I think that the US and other world powers have bent over backwards trying to stop the constantly degrading situation in Israel or Palestine. Peace Accords, Summits, etc....

Eventually we must come to the point of either ignoring the entire mess and leave them to their own devices or physically step in. Sometimes simply talking nice doesn't work. I'm not in favor of nukes even jokingly, but if having a third party step into the situation is the only way to stop these assholes from killing each other then I'm all for it.

I'm not a big fan of Colin Powell-style 'Police Actions', but I don't think simple negotiation is going to stop it. That's been established already. Third-party action is the only alternative.
posted by ttrendel at 3:40 PM on January 17, 2002

er, racial and religious hatred prevents this from happening.
posted by insomnyuk at 3:40 PM on January 17, 2002

The problem isn't the occupation, it's Jerusalem. As long as Israel holds Jerusalem, some folks will take the view that the occupation continues whether or not there is a Palestinian state.

The solution, therefore, is to incinerate Jerusalem, kill every living thing within the boundaries of the city, and poison the earth with Vx so that nobody can set foot in the area for the next thousand years.

...that way there won't be anything to fight over. And while, we're at it, everyone outside the region should immediately cease all aid to the involved parties. No US aid to Israel, no Arab aid to the Palestinians, and let them sort it out with their own cash.
posted by aramaic at 3:42 PM on January 17, 2002

Why don't the Palestinians appeal to their Arab and Moslem brethren in oil rich countries such as Saudi Arabia for a nice tract of unused land (i'm sure there's lots of it still out there) and some seed money to start some settlements?

That would be Jordan...you know, that other big chunk of Palestine already in Arab hands...the one that occupied the West Bank for about 20 years?
posted by Mid at 3:45 PM on January 17, 2002

STEP ONE: WHACK ARAFAT
posted by clavdivs at 3:47 PM on January 17, 2002

look, as a former journalist in israel i will be the first to admit that all these events are starting to look the same. i have often despaired of either side ever making real progress towards a peaceful resolution. i don't have any answers. but anyone interested in good background on the region and how and why this game is being played should read From Beirut to Jerusalem by Thomas Friedman. a thorough explanation and an easy read.

and anyone who thinks that there is a simple solution is just wrong. this is an issue clouded by years and years of mythmaking and coverups, by both sides.

let he who is without sin cast the first stone....
posted by prodigaljester at 3:48 PM on January 17, 2002

let he who is without sin cast the first stone

Oddly enough, I don't think anyone in the Middle East has paid attention to that line.
posted by aramaic at 3:58 PM on January 17, 2002

shortened to: cast stones apparently.
posted by th3ph17 at 4:08 PM on January 17, 2002

Update: 7 dead, plus the Israelis found and shot the perpetrator, along with promising, "We are going to respond in a manner which will teach the Palestinian Authority a lesson they will not forget."
posted by insomnyuk at 5:54 PM on January 17, 2002

UncleFes: The U.S. has one of the highest, if not the highest (crime stats are eternally unreliable, so . . . ), crime violent rates among the world's developed nations. I still live here, as do you.
posted by raysmj at 6:43 PM on January 17, 2002

The problem with "letting go" and allowing the Middle East to deal with its own problems is very simple. The situation in which Israel can afford not to nuke everyone adjacent to them is the one where the US is providing constant backing. Take that away, and a few simple things happen:

1. Israel undergoes full mobilization.

2. Major cities and military installations of adjacent nations are nuked.

3. In the 90 days that Israel has between full mobilization and economic collapse, every non-Israeli is expelled, and major oil wells/shipping lanes are siezed all around the region.

4. Israel quadruples the price of oil.

5. The US sues for peace.

Because of its posession of a) the best-trained military in the world b) nuclear weapons, Israel is the only country in the region capable of "ending the conflict." But that's an ending nobody wants. By constantly funding both sides of this issue, the US has managed to keep either side from being forced into a "final solution." Not to say that both haven't pondered it at one time or another, but the lack of do-or-die immediacy is directly related to the presence of USDs, and that fact is not to be ignored.
posted by Ptrin at 6:58 PM on January 17, 2002

It's all about zinc deficiencies, people. Only Marmite can save the Middle Yeast.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 7:11 PM on January 17, 2002

2. Major cities and military installations of adjacent nations are nuked.
You seriously think they are going to pepper nukes all around their borders? Not knowing how deadly the radiation fall out is, I will assume you know that is not already a death penalty for everyone in Israel. I think after that, the rest of the world gets super pissed, Israel has no allies, and won't control squat as far as oil is concerned.
posted by thirteen at 7:18 PM on January 17, 2002

You seriously think they are going to pepper nukes all around their borders?

just because zionist fanaticism has been legitimized by 50 years of Western support does not make it any less dangerous or irrational. they are religious fanatics with weapons of mass destruction, plain and simple.
posted by hipstertrash at 8:24 PM on January 17, 2002

"zionist fanaticism"? Channeling David Duke, are we?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:51 PM on January 17, 2002

It seems that everyone I know who is Israeli or Palestinian believes that peace is impossible.

The only difference in this case is that the Palestinian government wants to invite the U.N. and the Israelis don't. After all, doesn't it undermine their complete authority and autonomy in this matter?!

Well, yes... but that assumes two things:
- That the Israelis really have any more right to institute their version of peace in the Holy Land than anyone else, including the Palestinians. After all, the place is sacred to many of the world's religions, and there is a strong argument that Israel is a artificially-made state and not one that would have occured without outside intervention.

- That any group of people who are so polarized that they have given up hope for a lasting peace (short of the other side's demise) really deserve the right to complete self-determination.

Case in point - peace between the Serbs and the Bosnians seemed impossible at one point, short of the extermination of the Bosnians. Both sides were that polarized. The only solution was for U.N. peace keepers to come in and try to depolarize the environment. It will take a while, but eventually Serbs and Bosnians will accept that peace is the only answer.

If the Israelis really want peace, they need to accept their occupation by a benevolent foriegn power... one that will fight (and probably die occasionally) for peace. One that will tell the war mongers and the hawks on both sides of the table to sit down, shut up, and agree to a lasting peace.

This, frankly, can only be done by the U.N... the reason being that the U.S. government's official stance on this issue is laughably, pathetically everything but neutral. When the U.S. has to veto nearly unanimous U.N. Security Counsel proposals, then there can be no illusions that they will do whatever it takes to make sure Israel gets things there way, and if Israel or the U.S. think that they're going to force the Palestinians to the table to accept a bad deal, they are seriously mistaken.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:08 PM on January 17, 2002

LJ makes some good points, excellent points really, and ideas that ought to be central to US policy because it is truly in America's best interest to be a neutral party here.

To me it boils down to this: Nationalism doesn't work. Palestinian nationalism, Jewish Nationalism (Zionism), Arab nationalism, Serbian nationialism, all have engendered conflicts and not provided the 'glorious victories' they promise to their people.

There cannot be peace as long as both sides embrace a form of nationalism. World powers must step in and regulate the state they created.
posted by chaz at 9:21 PM on January 17, 2002

"zionist fanaticism"? Channeling David Duke, are we?

Name calling are we? I can't think of a more applicable term for a country that writes out an official assasination list and starts launching missiles into apartment complexes. Call it justice/revenge or whatever but its still a military group attacking civillians without care for law and barely tolerated by the international community.

I don't see how there can be an easy solution to such a complex problem, the most likely event is there will be skirmeshes for hundreds of years. There are other parts of the world that are just as if not more unstable than this media-friendly region. In semi-industrial and third world nations war and violence are more common than peace.

Even if someone invented a pill that would remove crazed nationalism and fanatic religious convictions I doubt either side would care to take it.
posted by skallas at 10:31 PM on January 17, 2002

Three more centuries to go before Captain Picard can show up and talk them into an armistice, probably with the help of some alien pancreas-being housed in a deaf-mute, six-fingered host body. With sequined boots and bad hair.

Ha ha. I'm making jokes. Does this tell you how through I am with both sides of this "struggle?" I used to be decidedly pro-Palestinian, but now I realize both sides have thrown away decades of opportunities for their presence, their struggles, to have meaning. It's nothing but a stale blood feud now.

I agree with whoever said we should just leave them to themselves. I don't think the media attention and the interest of the co-called international community is helping at this point. Let them live in rage and destruction if they wish. No one else can raise them out of it.

This is not the face of apathy.
posted by scarabic at 11:04 PM on January 17, 2002

This pollyanish ideal that the U.N. can mediate this ageless conflict is actually quite amusing. They did SO well in Kosovo (oh wait, that was mostly U.N. troops), and remember the massacre in Rwanda? There were U.N. troops in the region who did NOTHING to prevent it. 500,000 dead people later, they started helping with the refugee effort. Furthermore, the U.N. is increasingly being influenced by 3rd world muslim nations extremely hostile to Israel. The U.N. summit on race in South Africa explicitly criticized 'zionism.' Basically the anti-semitism of some of these nations has filtered into the U.N. I would say that Iraq is better equipped than the U.N. to negotiate a peace between the two countries.

By the way, Israel has retaliated.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:18 PM on January 17, 2002

er, mostly U.S. troops in Kosovo
posted by insomnyuk at 11:18 PM on January 17, 2002

So, you're saying that the reason that the U.N. shouldn't act is because the U.N. doesn't act?

Okaaaay.

And blaming a few hundred U.N. volunteers (most of them not soldiers) for not stopping the deaths of 500,000 people in Rwanda is like blaming a leaf for not stopping the wind from blowing.

The problem lies with the U.N. member states (and particularly with the United States) for not giving the U.N. teeth except when they find it of convenience to their foriegn policy interests.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:26 AM on January 18, 2002

And a clarification on the U.N. summit on race in South Africa... different countries were allowed to express their concerns on the agenda, and those countries included some Arab countries that wanted to say that zionism was a form of racism.

So, are you saying that your issue with the U.N. is that member states shouldn't be allowed to put issues on the agenda to be talked about and voted upon by the world's nations, and that zionism needs to be protected by the selective censorship of Arab states?

In other words, people who don't see eye-to-eye with Israel should be denied the right to equal representation and free speech.

Next thing, you'll say that they should even be forceably removed from their lands, have their property confiscated, and be relegated to segmented sections of territory little better than ghettos, where they can be embargoed and more easily controled...

ra.cism
1. An excessive or irrational belief in the superiority of one's own racial group.
2. A doctrine, program, or practice based on that belief.
posted by insomnia_lj at 2:58 AM on January 18, 2002

All palestinians were offered citizenship inside israel. Almost none were forceably removed (I can think of one massacre that took place in a suburb of Jerusalem in 1947 but there aren't that many others). Lots of them took citizenship (1 million at last count). Others fled to the west bank of the Jordan. Still others fled to the East bank of the Jordan.

I, for one, am all in favor of a palestinian state. I always thought it'd be best on the west bank and the east bank. Jordan was the country that the British drew for the Palestinans. But the Palestinians are hated by the rest of the arab-muslim world. So they didn't go there -- but then King Hussien (Sr.) did mary a Palestiaian, so this argument doesn't hold as much water as it once did.

It's a fucking shame, that's for sure. But for a lot of smart people, the above are some really dumb solutions.

All solutions that call for the use of nuclear warheads are dumb solutions. All solutions that call for the mass muder of lots of people are dumb solutions. Butting out is a dumb solution.
posted by zpousman at 8:56 AM on January 18, 2002

Almost none were forceably removed

Do you really believe that mythological version of history? Start by reading this book. Every fair account has agreed that violence and intimidation combined to terrorize Palestinians into fleeing as refugees. That's the great efficiency of all ethnic cleansing campaigns—you kill and make homeless a certain number, and the mass of others will not stick around!

List of Palestinian Localities destroyed after the creation of the State of Israel (1948)

Of course, if the Palestinians were more politically sophisticated and more able to summon in themselves a belief (against appearances) in the tortured Israeli conscience that lies beneath the brutal Israeli colonial project, then they would realize that nonviolent resistance would be the best way of recovering some small share of their rights. But it is not hard to see how hard it is for the weaker party to see beyond the daily brutality and start conceiving of a moral revolution.
posted by Zurishaddai at 3:08 PM on January 18, 2002

Channeling David Duke, are we?

and this is how Israel and its supporters keep such a high batting average on the international stage. Anyone who disagrees with us or dares to separate the history and culture of Judaism from the political/historical movement of Zionism is a bigot. Throw in a few pictures of the Holocaust and you have a winning formula to silence those who disagree with you.
posted by hipstertrash at 10:53 PM on January 18, 2002

It's funny how an activist can claim to be silenced without actually providing the requisite silence. Anyone who tosses out incendiary phrases like 'religious fanatics with weapons of mass destruction' has no business whining about being called names.

I'm coming to this discussion late so I'll have to pick the top points:

Every fair account has agreed that violence and intimidation combined to terrorize Palestinians into fleeing as refugees. That's the great efficiency of all ethnic cleansing campaigns—you kill and make homeless a certain number, and the mass of others will not stick around!

The Palestinians were terrorizing the Jewish population decades before the war, and they stayed put. What this 'revisionist' analysis misses is that the main cause of the Palestinians leaving was the assurances by the neighbouring Arab states that they would be allowed to reclaim their land and property once they destroyed Israel. I have read the book, and I repeat: Almost none were forcibly removed. The vast majority became refugees of their own volition under the mistaken belief that it would be a short-lived situation.

In other words, people who don't see eye-to-eye with Israel should be denied the right to equal representation and free speech.

Yeah, that's pretty much what America was thinking when they cancelled....Oh, wait. It didn't get cancelled. They actually had the conference. Moreover, they did vote and decided not to include the anti-Israel language proposed by the Arab delegates. Yet more hallucinated censorship of the anti-Israel lobby.

Next thing, you'll say that they should even be forceably removed from their lands, have their property confiscated, and be relegated to segmented sections of territory little better than ghettos, where they can be embargoed and more easily controled...

But enough about the Native Americans; we're talking about Israel here.

And blaming a few hundred U.N. volunteers (most of them not soldiers) for not stopping the deaths of 500,000 people in Rwanda is like blaming a leaf for not stopping the wind from blowing.

There were over 2500 UN military personnel stationed in Rwanda at the start of the massacre; considering that the trained Hutu militias were estimated at 1700 people, that should have been plenty. Except that most of the UN forces left while it was taking place. It's all here in the UN report.
posted by boaz at 4:42 AM on January 19, 2002

My argument wasn't that Arab U.N. delegates were being censored. It was that the act of insisting that Arab representatives to the U.N. shouldn't make proposals or vote in ways that might be seen as "anti-Israeli" before Israel considers the U.N. a valid broker for peace is absurd. The only reason that Israel refuses the help of the U.N. is that it believes it can use force and economic blockade to make a better deal. In other words, Israel prefers to ignore the legitimate concerns of the rest of the world.

By pointing out that the U.N. can, in fact, choose to not adopt anti-Israeli language, you've proved its impartiality. The U.N. is hardly an anti-Israeli institution. There'd be no Israel without the U.N.

It's also unfair to say that the way that Israel has treated the Palestinians is no worse than how America treated the Indians. The difference is that just about any American you talk to will point out how unfairly our ancestors treated the Indians. I'm sure that most Germans regret the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis too.

In short, how can you try to justify the actions of today by the injustices of history?
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:44 AM on January 27, 2002

Welcome back, insomnia_lj, I was afraid that my tirade had fallen on deaf ears.

My argument wasn't that Arab U.N. delegates were being censored.

Here's what you wrote:

...zionism needs to be protected by the selective censorship of Arab states?

In other words, people who don't see eye-to-eye with Israel should be denied the right to equal representation and free speech.

I had claimed that you had been referring to something as censorship that was clearly not, a conclusion that is quite clearly true on repetition.

It was that the act of insisting that Arab representatives to the U.N. shouldn't make proposals or vote in ways that might be seen as "anti-Israeli" before Israel considers the U.N. a valid broker for peace is absurd.

The UN is not considered a valid broker for peace by me simply because they've proven themselves unable to broker peace anywhere else, not Somalia, not Serbia, not Rwanda, etc. Being disqualified for being both biased and incompetent is about as absurd as being cut from a baseball team for inability to both hit and field.

By pointing out that the U.N. can, in fact, choose to not adopt anti-Israeli language, you've proved its impartiality. The U.N. is hardly an anti-Israeli institution. There'd be no Israel without the U.N.

Is that a joke? The UN, on one occasion, decides not to (ab)use one particular forum to ride this hobby-horse like it has so many times before, and suddenly, its a perfectly impartial, disinterested party? I owe you an apology: I was accusing you of hallucinating, but that kind of logic is more indicative of glue-sniffing.

It's also unfair to say that the way that Israel has treated the Palestinians is no worse than how America treated the Indians. The difference is that just about any American you talk to will point out how unfairly our ancestors treated the Indians. I'm sure that most Germans regret the treatment of the Jews by the Nazis too.

I'll freely admit the Palestinians got shafted, now why don't they all just go back on their reservations and stop expecting to get their country back? My point is that it's one thing to feel bad for the Native Americans, and quite another to give them the whole midwest back. Now contrast what you feel is our country's moral due diligence with what you feel is Israel's.

In short, how can you try to justify the actions of today by the injustices of history?

I must have missed the US law awarding independence to the Native Americans.

If you are, somehow, still convinced that Native American injustice is somehow a mere long ago historical aberration, try typing "mohawk rebellion" into your favorite search engine. You won't get a date from the 1800's back. Maybe it's time for the UN to step in.
posted by boaz at 1:18 PM on January 27, 2002