There is no news today

May 2, 2002 7:27 AM

There is no news today
The Israelis are the masters of changing the subject, and they have managed (not entirely without his own enthusiastic participation) to turn Arafat into the issue, rather than the occupation and all its machinery of oppression, dispossession, starvation and destruction.

The Arab-American writer and activist, Ali Abunimah, is frustrated and disheartened...but not hopeless. Abunimah's intelligent and reasoned writing gives a solid context to the past few days' events, from the cancellation of the Jenin fact-finding mission by a seemingly duplicitious Kofi Annan, to the distraction of Yasser Arafat's release.
posted by mapalm (20 comments total)

'A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject' --Winston Churchill
posted by boaz at 7:49 AM on May 2, 2002

Six in a row. Someone doesn't pay attention to MetaTalk.

Enough, already.

To reiterate: Dimestore revolutionary. Fuck off.
posted by mcwetboy at 8:04 AM on May 2, 2002

Totally with you, mcwetboy. This trolling is ludicrous and gets us nowhere.
posted by aeiou at 8:23 AM on May 2, 2002

I come to metafilter for 'dimestore revolutionaries' mcwetboy: fuck off to another thread if you're not happy.
posted by niceness at 8:44 AM on May 2, 2002

No I won't, "niceness". You'll find I'm not alone in my opinion. I'm tired of people using Metafilter's audience to promote their cause. We're all tired of the same people harping on the same subject again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again . . .
posted by mcwetboy at 8:49 AM on May 2, 2002

Maybe he's doing research for another film on the subject and your comments help him write his scripts.
posted by pracowity at 8:50 AM on May 2, 2002

SEE... he's RELENTLESS... heh.
posted by techgnollogic at 9:09 AM on May 2, 2002

mcwetboy: since when did you become a spokesperson for the mefi members? You may not be alone in your opinion, you may be the majority but since when were minority views and subjects disallowed. There are plenty of posts that I tire of and guess what? I don't read them. It's a free country/internet....blah, blah, blah.
posted by niceness at 9:33 AM on May 2, 2002

This article was a bit different from what I run across on my own, so the link was useful. A resolution supporting Sharon's positions is under consideration today in Congress, so the topic is certainly timely. But, I'm posting from the heartland, right?

(When I come across people telling each other to shut up using four letter words, it piques my curiosity to know what it is I'm not supposed to be hearing.)
posted by sheauga at 9:54 AM on May 2, 2002

The Israelis are the masters of changing the subject, and they have managed. . .

And the Palestinians are Masters of playing the total victim.

(15-love, your serve. . . )
posted by BentPenguin at 9:55 AM on May 2, 2002

lllllSince the post gave no indication of source etc I clicked on Home and found: The Electronic Intifada...now I know this must be an unbiased position.
posted by Postroad at 11:02 AM on May 2, 2002

The author wrote:

Amnesty International, among others, has sent experts to Jenin, and they reported evidence of 'serious war crimes,' not the least of which was deliberately denying medical aid to the injured for almost two weeks. This alone constitutes a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

---
A point of information for my clarity, with several subparts, not to flare a war, but because I do not know.

1) Is the PA a signatory of the Geneva Convention?

2) Do the rules of engagement in the Geneva Convention support the use of children as bombs and the use of children to lead soldiers to their deaths in ambushes?

3) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the attacks on purely civilian targets such as pizzaria's, homes, discotechs, malls, supermarkets and hospitals?

4) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the murder without trial of suspected collaborators?

5) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the use of civilian sheilds and the use of hospitals, schools and other "civilian targets" as hiding places?

6) Don't _both_ sides need to follow the Geneva Convention before you can point to one side that has signed and say "hey, they're not playing fair, even though we're not bound by this because we're not a recognized nation nor a signatory nor do we follow the rules?"

Now, I do not know the answers. Perhaps the GC is meant purely to provide medical aid to people? I literally don't know, this isn't a framework of sarcasm.

A few more points of information for my records, I'm guessing that the author is unable to answer here, but if he should be reading this:

1) Should the composition of a fact finding team be limited to members who have, before entering the fray, already expressed opinions, or should they be used to find facts? Even if it's the United Nations doing this.

2) In the case of Iraq, should the people of Iraq who have been systematically killed by their autonomous military dictator be ignored in the face of a wide ranging US-Israel zionist conspiracy? Documentation of which is sparse, while documentation of using chemical and biological agents on the Kurdish population of Northern Iraq is pretty thick.

3) If gunmen are shooting out of windows and from houses, should a soldier attempt to discern which window in particular the bullets are coming out of, or should the soldier shoot the house, and hope to get the gunman?

4) Is there a way to avoid civilian casualties if your enemy is holed up in hospitals, schools, houses of innocents, churches and mosques?

5) What War Crimes in particular are we talking about here? Please plead your case with specificity and particularity, even insofar as simply _naming_ your charges. You may absolutely be right, I _don't_ know. But until we can figure something out past the unspecified "war crime" charge, the United Nations was looking for a way to send three diplomats, two of whom have a track record of anti-Israeli bias (I believe, but I may be wrong, which I freely admit) into a refugee camp to explore a military incursion, while of the three none of them were military nor versed in military tactics. The framework of the investigation is what's under debate.

6) (and this one _is_ a bit tongue in cheek) How about Israel and the US make a deal with the UN - full unfettered access to the Jenin camp in exchange for full unfettered access to the Iraqi weapons programs for inspectors - since Iraq is paying a good deal of money to the Palestinian Authority _and_ the Palestinian people, the two things are inextricably linked.

I do agree with the author on one point. Sharon is out for Palestinian blood. This is _not_ good and he _must_ be stopped.

However, it is difficult to see, in these circumstances, after an unrelenting wave of assaults on civilians, even as the rest of the arab world proposed to normalize relations and cease hostility, what else Israel should have done, except let themselves continue to be killed, and that is clearly a non-option. No elected official will ever just let his people be wholesale slaughtered.

The question I would pose to the author, because I am frankly a man of peace and would like to see the Palestinians get their own state and oust Arafat who has been, since day one, a large source of the problem, the question I would pose is:

What do you propose be done to end this systematic cycle of violence? Arafat, who has won a nobel peace prize, has been funding missiles, bullets, and specific targeted attacks on civilians in direct violation of the agreements he's signed. So, while that sucks, it's part of life.

What, then, do you propose?
posted by swerdloff at 11:27 AM on May 2, 2002

It certainly has been over covered in the news today. Irritatingly so.

And I enjoy these posts, especially as an alternative to all the posts which seem to assume that everyone here grew up glued to a playstation and listening to bad garage bands.
posted by HTuttle at 11:59 AM on May 2, 2002

Wow. Just, well...wow!

"Fuck off"?

That's what this has come to?

Wow.
posted by mapalm at 12:33 PM on May 2, 2002

The author wrote:

Amnesty International, among others, has sent experts to Jenin, and they reported evidence of 'serious war crimes,' not the least of which was deliberately denying medical aid to the injured for almost two weeks. This alone constitutes a serious breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

---
A point of information for my clarity, with several subparts, not to flare a war, but because I do not know.

1) Is the PA a signatory of the Geneva Convention?

2) Do the rules of engagement in the Geneva Convention support the use of children as bombs and the use of children to lead soldiers to their deaths in ambushes?

3) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the attacks on purely civilian targets such as pizzaria's, homes, discotechs, malls, supermarkets and hospitals?

4) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the murder without trial of suspected collaborators?

5) Do the rules of the Geneva Convention support the use of civilian sheilds and the use of hospitals, schools and other "civilian targets" as hiding places?

6) Don't _both_ sides need to follow the Geneva Convention before you can point to one side that has signed and say "hey, they're not playing fair, even though we're not bound by this because we're not a recognized nation nor a signatory nor do we follow the rules?"

Now, I do not know the answers. Perhaps the GC is meant purely to provide medical aid to people? I literally don't know, this isn't a framework of sarcasm.

A few more points of information for my records, I'm guessing that the author is unable to answer here, but if he should be reading this:

1) Should the composition of a fact finding team be limited to members who have, before entering the fray, already expressed opinions, or should they be used to find facts? Even if it's the United Nations doing this.

2) In the case of Iraq, should the people of Iraq who have been systematically killed by their autonomous military dictator be ignored in the face of a wide ranging US-Israel zionist conspiracy? Documentation of which is sparse, while documentation of using chemical and biological agents on the Kurdish population of Northern Iraq is pretty thick.

3) If gunmen are shooting out of windows and from houses, should a soldier attempt to discern which window in particular the bullets are coming out of, or should the soldier shoot the house, and hope to get the gunman?

4) Is there a way to avoid civilian casualties if your enemy is holed up in hospitals, schools, houses of innocents, churches and mosques?

5) What War Crimes in particular are we talking about here? Please plead your case with specificity and particularity, even insofar as simply _naming_ your charges. You may absolutely be right, I _don't_ know. But until we can figure something out past the unspecified "war crime" charge, the United Nations was looking for a way to send three diplomats, two of whom have a track record of anti-Israeli bias (I believe, but I may be wrong, which I freely admit) into a refugee camp to explore a military incursion, while of the three none of them were military nor versed in military tactics. The framework of the investigation is what's under debate.

6) (and this one _is_ a bit tongue in cheek) How about Israel and the US make a deal with the UN - full unfettered access to the Jenin camp in exchange for full unfettered access to the Iraqi weapons programs for inspectors - since Iraq is paying a good deal of money to the Palestinian Authority _and_ the Palestinian people, the two things are inextricably linked.

I do agree with the author on one point. Sharon is out for Palestinian blood. This is _not_ good and he _must_ be stopped.

However, it is difficult to see, in these circumstances, after an unrelenting wave of assaults on civilians, even as the rest of the arab world proposed to normalize relations and cease hostility, what else Israel should have done, except let themselves continue to be killed, and that is clearly a non-option. No elected official will ever just let his people be wholesale slaughtered.

The question I would pose to the author, because I am frankly a man of peace and would like to see the Palestinians get their own state and oust Arafat who has been, since day one, a large source of the problem, the question I would pose is:

What do you propose be done to end this systematic cycle of violence? Arafat, who has won a nobel peace prize, has been funding missiles, bullets, and specific targeted attacks on civilians in direct violation of the agreements he's signed. So, while that sucks, it's part of life.

What, then, do you propose?
posted by swerdloff at 2:12 PM on May 2, 2002

"Fuck off"?

That's what this has come to?

If you bother with that pesky thing called "context", you'll find that's what you've come to.

However, it is difficult to see, in these circumstances, after an unrelenting wave of assaults on civilians, even as the rest of the arab world proposed to normalize relations and cease hostility, what else Israel should have done, except let themselves continue to be killed, and that is clearly a non-option. No elected official will ever just let his people be wholesale slaughtered.

Swerdloff is the definative spokesman for moderate angst everywhere. mapalm, instead of posting more "poignant". "intelligent" and "reasoned" writings, why don't you seek a solution that doesn't involve finger pointing and media conspiracy on the part of Israel?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:24 PM on May 2, 2002

I don't get it. Someone generally posts their pick of the day for a significant article on the Middle East standoff. Does this mean everyone needs to start cursing and getting irate with each other for not coming up with the magic solution that produces peace? (If I were the person deciding how to present Israel's PR line these days, I'd be more inclined to put the "Mr. Arafat's a problem" stuff on the back burner, and start working out some calm explanations regarding the specific obstacles to transitioning to civillian rule, the specific challenges an urban police force is trained and equipped to handle, appropriate methods for enforcing the laws on posession of miltiary weaponry, etc. But I'm not, so I'll post a link instead.)

My pick of the day comes from a fellow Clevelander:

"What do Israelis expect? I find this so annoying. Where’s the fighting? Jenin? What’s that, 40 minutes from here? Would Israelis get on a plane to come visit me if there was fighting going on 40 minutes from Cleveland ?"
posted by sheauga at 4:16 PM on May 2, 2002

swerdloff, I'll try to answer some of your questions.

1) The PA is not a Geneva Convention signatory at this time. Legally, they are not a state, though they have been given equivalent status in a number of world bodies such as the Red Cross/Red Crescent.

2) Use of children as bombs or in ambushes is not really covered by the GC which is for a) wounded/sick, b) POWs, c) civilians. Technically this would be under the child soldier treaty, and the Hague convention of 1907.

3) Deliberate attacks on civilian targets are violations. But a) the PA is not signatory and b) supposedly not in control of fanatic organizations.

4) Collaborators may be tried by appropriate means including military tribunal. Lynching by a crowd, alas, is more of a criminal/human rights matter.

5) Deliberate use of civilians as shields is a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. See 3), though, and the proscription is against deliberate rather than incidental combat in urban areas.

6) The GC applies if both parties are signatories, OR if only one is, as long as the non-signatory nation abides by the GC rules anyway. If they do not, the GC only has moral weight on the signatory party. Each Geneva Convention includes this loophole (Article 2); it is no accident.
posted by dhartung at 5:05 PM on May 2, 2002

Hey, Wulffy!...I knew you'd come sniffing around here.

Scoot, scram, move along now.
posted by mapalm at 6:53 PM on May 2, 2002

Thanks Dhartung, that cleared it up for me.

In other words, saying "we demand the Israeli's obey the Geneva Convention, to which we do not demand Palestinians adhere to and to which they are not signatories" is an accurate translation?
posted by swerdloff at 6:05 PM on May 4, 2002