April 10, 2002

9:14 AM

Overwhelming nausea. Reality is simply disregarded. The evolution of human mind is merely an elaboration of masks, and lies about primal hatred, cruelty, and violence.
posted by semmi (37 comments total)

Matt, will you *please* place a limit on how many Israel/Palenstine threads can be posted in a given week? I am so sick of seeing this stuff in every damned thread. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but give it a rest already! This isn't beating a dead horse, this is beating the dry, dessicated remains of a long-dead horse.

Enough!
posted by mrmanley at 9:21 AM on April 10, 2002

I don't mind a new thread when a new event occurs, but that has to be one of the most ridiculous writeups I have ever read. A one-word writeup could have said as much, maybe more.
posted by mischief at 9:27 AM on April 10, 2002

(mrmanley - what's your problem? you don't have to read them).

As for 'reality' - such fundamentalism is entirely what keeps the hatred ongoing.
posted by niceness at 9:27 AM on April 10, 2002

speaking of nausea, my eyes rolled upon reading your soapbox rant, semmi. i don't think this kind of posting has a place on metafilter.
posted by moz at 9:28 AM on April 10, 2002

Call me old fashioned but if you don't approve a post, don't comment. Why impose what you believe should and should not be posted? Lots of stuff I dislike or do not approve of and so I just move on rather than say that something should not be said. ps: oil trumps all in Europe. They are not boycotting Arabs, who, so far as I know, do not make the weapons they use.
posted by Postroad at 9:32 AM on April 10, 2002

This attacking of Semmi has nothing to do with his post, his writing style, the wave of palestine/israel posts or anything else. It's just anti-semitism, that's all.
posted by cell divide at 9:39 AM on April 10, 2002

Yeah and anti-arab!

"Oil trumps all in Europe"??
Ha, is it sarcasm or are you for real? Now that really IS the pot calling the kettle black.
posted by niceness at 9:42 AM on April 10, 2002

Thanks for posting that New Republic piece, semmi. A very useful insight into what goes on in the mind of a Zionist fanatic. If critical statements and acts of vandalism add up to a top down antisemetic indoctrination of France, I can see how those who operate on this same wavelength come to loathe the Palestinians, a people who dare to fight for their freedom. When disagreement is construed as a racist threat, then active resistance becomes attempted genocide. Thus Israel convinces the world that its actions are justified in the name of self preservation. No fallability, no accountability. Millions of deaths exploited by those who claim to protect the memory of the dead. How many years of total impunity for Israel will The Holocaust buy?

If the skewed, paranoid, and rage-filled tone of this article is in any way indicative of the common zionist mindset, I can see why the Palestinians have been driven to desperation. I probably would be too if people who thought like that were carrying guns and driving tanks down my street.
posted by hipstertrash at 9:53 AM on April 10, 2002

Semmi's post is fine, in my opinion. The fact that Germany now refuses to sell arms to Israel is news and opens up an old can of worms where, yes, anti-semitism plays a big part. Let's also not forget the rise in attacks on synagogues in France and elsewhere. The second link, Martin Peretz's article, is an intelligent, heartfelt statement of opinion. Taken together they make one think.

As happened with mapalm's recent post - and was discussed on MeTa - I'd prefer to see semmi's own opinion in the thread; rather than in the original post. Though his position, as far as I can see, is much more philosophical. It's about hypocrisy and moral authority.

I mean the Germans were happy enough to sell arms to the Israelis until now. But the moment international opinion - which has always been massively against Israel - becomes even more radicalized, they quickly jump on the bandwagon.

There's a lot to discuss here and the dialectic between the two links is very interesting. People who are "sick" of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, or "bored" with it, have elsewhere to show their debating skills.

I also wish people who have objections to the post itself wouldn't ruin it for everyone else and had the courtesy and courage to take it to MetaTalk.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:58 AM on April 10, 2002

Matt, will you *please* place a limit on how many Israel/Palenstine threads can be posted in a given week? I am so sick of seeing this stuff in every damned thread. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but give it a rest already! This isn't beating a dead horse, this is beating the dry, dessicated remains of a long-dead horse.
matt, will you *please* place a limit on how many whining -pissing-moaning-about-threads threads can be posted in a given week? i am so sick of seeing this stuff in every damned thread. i'm saying it's unimportant, and give it a rest already! this isn't beating a dead horse, this is beating the dry, dessicated remains of a long dead horse.
posted by quonsar at 9:59 AM on April 10, 2002

This attacking of Semmi has nothing to do with his post, his writing style, the wave of palestine/israel posts or anything else. It's just anti-semitism, that's all.

Bullshit. Now we can't disagree with trolling without being called anti-semitic? That's ridiculous.
posted by anapestic at 10:02 AM on April 10, 2002

"take it to MetaTalk" is an exercise in futility.
posted by mischief at 10:03 AM on April 10, 2002

Ah, it's just the old good-vs-evil thing all over again. Two peoples are at war, and it's utterly vital to demonize one of them: that way, all the death and suffering is A-OK.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:05 AM on April 10, 2002

It's just anti-semitism, that's all.

What are you, a Genesis song? Give me a fucking break.

The evolution of human mind is merely an elaboration of masks, and lies about primal hatred, cruelty, and violence.

This is a bunch of empty, pontificating horseshit. You could write this same unfortunate sentence about tadpole-spearing boys, abortion, librarian-bashing, or emotional blackmail among the Inuits.
posted by Skot at 10:06 AM on April 10, 2002

read: anti-semmitism
posted by sonofsamiam at 10:07 AM on April 10, 2002

A different Jewish perspective: Please, Dad, Tell Me: How Do I Stop Being Complicit?
posted by cell divide at 10:10 AM on April 10, 2002

Call me old fashioned but if you don't approve a post, don't comment. Why impose what you believe should and should not be posted?

i imposed nothing; i spoke my mind, as is my right.
posted by moz at 10:13 AM on April 10, 2002

Miguel:

I also wish people who have objections to the post itself wouldn't ruin it for everyone else and had the courtesy and courage to take it to MetaTalk.

i have come to disagree with the notion that for every disagreement a thread must be created in metatalk. such a thread, it seems, often becomes a harbor for complaints that so-and-so is "being dragged onto metatalk" or "i hate this guy and his postings" or "i hate everyone who hates this guy and his postings." i think that nothing can be solved from voicing disapproval if no solution is offered and if there is no clear majority that feels said post is wrong. i cannot help if you feel that my comment is thusly discourteous or cowardly.
posted by moz at 10:22 AM on April 10, 2002

semmi:

While I still think that the constant posting of items relating to the Israel/Palestine situation is a complete no-op in terms of illuminating or explaining the issue, I would never (even unintentionally) try to curtail your right to speak your mind. Because my post was whiny and unfair to you, I apologize.
posted by mrmanley at 10:32 AM on April 10, 2002

Moz: I wasn't referring to your post or to anyone's here - just a general tendency to post beginning-of-thread comments saying "this shouldn't have been posted" and all its variations. I'm sorry if you got the idea I was calling you rude or cowardly. You post a lot to MeTa and God knows you don't mince words. And you're a fine, polite upstanding young man. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:51 AM on April 10, 2002

Ok, maybe I'm dim, but what's the big deal? If Germany doesn't want to sell Israel weapons, then how is that anti-semitic? Are they somehow obligated to sell Israel all the guns and bombs they want?

I mean, WTF?

Personally, I probably wouldn't sell Israel weapons either. Not that I have any. But if I did, I can't imagine that I would sell them to either side.

Also, why does Israel need torpedos? As far as I know the only ships that Israel really sinks are ours.
posted by bshort at 11:03 AM on April 10, 2002

It seems to me that semmi is simply throwing up his/her/hit hands up in the air. Both sides of the conflict are in the wrong. Whether either of them know it is something else. Unfortunately, too many people insist on siding with one or the other, which polarizes everybody; you only have to look at this thread to realize that there is no consensus except one: too many threads on Israel/Palestine. Everybody's wrong; everybody's right.
posted by ashbury at 11:05 AM on April 10, 2002

To comment on the links only:

I don't see how Germany's halt of military sales to Israel is surprising. After all, the EU has denounced Israel's new occupation, so why be surprised that EU members, especially Germany with 10 votes on the EU councils, took some mild, short-term action around that?

With regard to "reality," can't say I feel too kindly towards anyone who advises America not to admit immigrants "indiscriminately."
posted by RJ Reynolds at 11:34 AM on April 10, 2002

From the linked article:

> (Whatever hardships Arab citizens of Israel endure, they
> are mostly attributable to the unremitting enmity to
> Israel of their cousins in the neighborhood; and they
> are, still, the freest Arabs in the region.)

I've heard just exactly this logic before.

In Georgia, in 1958.

"What do these heah outside ad-gitaters want to come makin' trouble fo'? Our niggers is happy! Anyhow, they's a lot betta off that them niggers over in Africa. How come they cain't be satisfied like they used to was?"
posted by jfuller at 12:13 PM on April 10, 2002

Germany condemning Israel for trying to grab land militarily?
Now thats divine irony.
posted by BentPenguin at 1:01 PM on April 10, 2002

As an American, I don't give two shits about the middle east however much I argue about it. However, I am irritated by this post because the description does not function as it should (to describe the links). I was curious to see what these links were, and when I found out they were about the same horseshit you people seem to like to whack off on 5 times a day (and that's okay, different strokes for different folks), I was annoyed. Had I known what these links were about, I would have skipped them. I don't care how many threads there are about the goddamned jews and the goddamned arabs, I don't care how much you love them, I just want to know where they are so I can avoid them like the endless, nauseating cycles of impotent discussion that they are.

Hope this helps!
posted by Settle at 4:05 PM on April 10, 2002

....although for the record, Sharon is a dick.
posted by Settle at 4:17 PM on April 10, 2002

I agree that one Palestinian thread per-day should be the limit. Besides, I linked to this article earlier today.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:12 PM on April 10, 2002

Semmi:

I appreciate the theoretical position of the post -- that irony has lost its meaning when a country that essentially formed another country's existence through genocide believes in its own moral potency.

It's a fascinating topic but one that too many Meta's didn't get. What I've been finding interesting in my own personal struggle with the Middle East crisis is that the New Republic (yes, the New Republic) is offering the most cogent and most thorough assessments of the situation, for me. And you don't have to be a "zionist" or a conservative to read it.
posted by boardman at 6:39 PM on April 10, 2002

HT: If critical statements and acts of vandalism add up to a top down antisemetic indoctrination of France.

Critical statements? Vandalism? Evidently you do not know that French synagogues are being torched, Hebrew school students are being harrassed as they leave class, and Jews are being attacked in the streets of Paris. I snagged this out of Google's cache:

"In Garges-les-Gonesse, the distinctive blue school bus that takes children to a Jewish school in nearby Aubervilliers has been attacked three times in the last 14 months, when there were dozens of young children aboard.

The first time, a knife was thrown through an open window, the bus driver said. The second time, three men used their car to block the bus from moving. Then one man smashed a window with a tire iron while another menaced the driver with a gun, telling him he was not in Tel Aviv. Recently, rocks were hurled at the windows, smashing one of them."

"Intensification of French antisemitism" seems an entirely reasonable description to me.

You are also unfamiliar with the history of French Jew-hating, which goes back to the middle ages and is most recently manifested in Le Pen's National Front, who believes that race mixing wrong, immigration is wrong, and that Jews controlling Chirac are responsible for the problems of the French State. His party is sufficiently popular to win elected positions. There is no indoctrination happening here: an old phenomenon is manifesting itself again, and I don't understand how you can minimise it as "critical statements and vandalism". It seems to me that in a quest to even up some perceived imbalance, you are introducing some skewed paranoia of your own.

I also don't see where Israel is made out to be infallible or immune from criticism because of the Holocaust. Will you point it out, please?
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 7:35 PM on April 10, 2002

This is more interesting than that Jack Vance post.. which took up lots of space and made absolutely no sense on its own. (In fact, it made no sense to me even when I read the comments)
posted by wackybrit at 10:24 PM on April 10, 2002

Hey maybe we'd know that this was interesting if the description made any sense whatsoever.
posted by Settle at 10:55 PM on April 10, 2002

Hm. The New Republic is hardly an unbiased source.

Martin Peretz who wrote "the reality" as depicted above is the editor-in-chief and chairman of The New Republic, and is a well-known figure in the Jewish community. Frankly, I wouldn't go to Hugh Hefner if I wanted an unbiased opinion on pornography, so why go to Martin Peretz for an unbiased opinion on the Israeli-Palestine conflict?

His article reads like British Royalists complaining about those damned rebels.

"They don't stand up, they hide behind trees, they kill us in our sleep... they don't fight fair!"

Whine, whine, whine. Wars have long since ceased being "sporting", and it would be suicidal for the Palestinians to face the Israelis in a "fair fight". From the very beginning of the Israeli state, it was obvious that there was going to be blood shed on both sides of the conflict. The truth of the matter is that there will be no peace between nations without considerable sacrifice, and even once there is peace between nations, that does not negate the risk of terrorism by motivated individuals. The failure of the Israeli government is in demanding no conflict or violence by individuals (not states) as a pre-condition of peace. It will never happen.

Meanwhile, technology continues to evolve, and as it does, the ability of a single motivated individual to kill more of their fellow man will only increase. There is no "solution" to terrorism, but peace between nations is its best guarantee.

Frankly, there is only one good way for Israelis to sleep peacefully and die of old age, and that is to move elsewhere. Some people live under the threat of earthquakes and floods, Israelis live with the ever-present threat of death through terrorism.

However, it is still just a war of attrition between two peoples, and no matter how some Palestinians kill Israelis or how some Israelis kill Palestinians, people on both sides most assuredly will kill and will die, and the last time I heard, God didn't consider murder by tank any more noble than murder by bomb.

As they say... it just comes with the territory.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:20 PM on April 10, 2002

Good post, insomnia. FYI, I never made the argument that the New Republic was unbiased. (There's no such thing, in any case, IMHO.) It's just that the New Republic is actually looking at the history of the struggle, the illogic of policies, and the power of the media that is unlike many others, including the Nation, et. al.
posted by boardman at 4:46 AM on April 11, 2002

Arafat: I can't control the terrorists, which I fund and orchestrate

Bush: I can't really control Israel, which the US funds.

Sorry, Arafat!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:53 AM on April 11, 2002

an old phenomenon is manifesting itself again, and I don't understand how you can minimise it as "critical statements and vandalism".

I think the violence in France has more to do with the large arab muslim population there. Or so it says here, and I've read it from other sources as well. pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel factions have been fighting. I can't really see the non-muslim citizens of France suddenly attacking Jews in reaction to the violence in the Middle East. Why would they?

``Even if we have the largest Jewish community in Europe and one of the largest Arab-Muslim communities on the European continent, we must not import this violence,'' said Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.
posted by Summer at 5:07 AM on April 11, 2002

"Arafat: I can't control the terrorists, which I fund and orchestrate"

Can you definitively prove that Arafat is funding, arming, and organizing terrorists (as opposed to the Palestinian police, of which some might be terrorists?) If so, how do you explain terrorist attacks that Arafat clearly didn't/couldn't have ordered?!
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:56 AM on April 11, 2002