Terror, Mideast and Hypocrisy.

May 24, 2002 7:11 AM

Terror, Mideast and Hypocrisy. "We can tell the Israelis to stop, but we wouldn't stop. We can tell them to negotiate, but we wouldn't negotiate." I agree to the hundredth percent.
posted by I am Generic (43 comments total)

But let's be consistent. Our nearly 3,000 dead in the World Trade Center was horrific, but Israel, relative to its small population, has lost a half-dozen World Trade Centers in the last 18 months -- all to suicide bombing. Every time you see five Israelis dead in an attack, it is like 250 Americans dead here. How many of those events would it take for us to lash out with all our power?

Notice he doesn't apply the ratios to the Palestinian dead. Why? Because the Palestinians have died at a rate of roughly 3:1 and they are a smaller population. So the calculated magnitude of each Palestinian death is greater and the adjusted death toll in U.S. terms would be huge.

Of course this kind of logic is absurd in the extreme since nobody intelligent (or compassionate) would calculate the significant of a death on the basis of ratios. One life is one life and they are all important.

Suicide bombings are wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Colonial expansionism and oppression are wrong. The problem with the Middle East is that boths sides are horribly wrong in their actions and responses yet both sides think they are divinely right. If it were not for the fact their are huge numbers of otherwise decent ordinary people who do all the suffering in this conflict I would say the two side deserved each other.

If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your enemies.- Moshe Dayan
posted by srboisvert at 7:35 AM on May 24, 2002

I agree with him 100%. It is hypocritical. It is not right for the United States to tell Israel to "Do as we say, not as we do." We should lead by example and follow our own advice before we expect anyone else to heed it. We wouldn't stop, or negotiate. But we should.
posted by donkeymon at 7:46 AM on May 24, 2002

Suicide bombings are wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Colonial expansionism and oppression are wrong. The problem with the Middle East is that boths sides are horribly wrong in their actions and responses yet both sides think they are divinely right. If it were not for the fact their are huge numbers of otherwise decent ordinary people who do all the suffering in this conflict I would say the two side deserved each other.

I can agree with that.
posted by a3matrix at 7:59 AM on May 24, 2002

Nice sentiment A3matrix, but can't you say this for just about every conflict?
posted by Postroad at 8:11 AM on May 24, 2002

Of course this kind of logic is absurd in the extreme since nobody intelligent (or compassionate) would calculate the significant of a death on the basis of ratios. One life is one life and they are all important.

You are conflating two entirely different calculations into one: (a) the significance of a human death (personal, moral, sympathetic, etc.); and (b) the (estimated) cost of the loss of a citizen to a government or society. Both are valid and useful--but quite different--measures.
posted by rushmc at 8:28 AM on May 24, 2002

The real hypocrisy is that the US wouldn't give a s**t if this kind of thing was happening in, say, Africa since we don't see Africa's problems on TV every night. Is it really America's politicians who are hypocrites, or the sensationalist-TV-news-sucking-people who they represent?
posted by plaino at 8:29 AM on May 24, 2002

The comparison is ridiculous.

We can tell them to negotiate, but we wouldn't negotiate.

Who would America negotiate with? What were Al Qaeda's demands? All they wanted was to blow up some infidels and convert some new followers.

The Palestinians, on the other hand, have a leader with whom to negotiate. They have specific demands -- they want a viable Palestinian state and an end to Israeli occupation.

You can't negotiate with Al Qaeda, but you can negotiate with the Palestinian Authority. Al Qaeda want nothing more than to kill infidels, the Palestinians would gladly give up the lives of death they lead if Israel would afford them the opportunity.

(The suggestion that America wouldn't have negotiated if Al Qaeda had any genuine, legitimate demands is probably accurate. But that just shows that the US would be as bad, if not worse, than Israel.)
posted by robcorr at 8:35 AM on May 24, 2002

Hypocritical? Ooops, except that, in typical whiny fashion, we're forgetting that Israel stole Palestine 50 years ago and has been ghettoizing and killing the Palestinians during all the time since then. Did we do that to Al Qaeda or Afghanistan?

I think that the Israeli response to resistance from the people they've made into permanent refugees in their own ancestral homeland should damn well be restrained.

911, on the other hand, was a unilateral, large-scale attack that came unprovoked. Not a response to occupation.

Talk about hypocrisy... sheesh. I'm really sick of Israelites trying to milk 911 for permission to annihilate the Palestinians.

Let's cool it on the partisan Mideast links. However articulate, they're worthless trolls, every one.
posted by scarabic at 8:35 AM on May 24, 2002

Forgetting that Israel STOLE Palestine?

I don't think so. Israel was given a part of Palestine by the United Nations.

I am not saying what Israel has done since then is right, but they have every right to respond with force when people with links to the recognized government of Palestine are performing suicide attacks against them.

Don't think the U.S.A. wouldn't do the same if it was happening here.

As for Palestine being the Palestinian's ancestral homeland, well, it is also Israel's ancestral homeland. Who has a claim? Palestine? Israel? Christians?

I think we should kick them all out that land and salt the soil so no one will want to live there.
posted by da5id at 8:43 AM on May 24, 2002

Of course this kind of logic is absurd in the extreme since nobody intelligent (or compassionate) would calculate the significant of a death on the basis of ratios.

Sure, each life is important, but show me one fatal fire, plane, train or automobile accident where the news is reported as just "Some people died today in a tragic loss of life... Its human nature to quantify loss of life and the bigger the number, the greater the emotional reaction to the loss.

Talk about hypocrisy... sheesh. I'm really sick of Israelites trying to milk 911 for permission to annihilate the Palestinians.

No nation ever asks permission to pursue it own interests. And your statement ignores the central palestinian strategem that Isreal as a "western" nation would never solve their problem by slaughtering the Palestinians. The Palestinians, otoh, would exterminate all Israelis in a heartbeat if they could. Now thats hypocracy!

Not that you asked, but I'm sick of the deeply validated culture of hatred and annihilation in response to dispute thats to be found throughout arabic "culture". As descendants of Abraham, its quite remarkable how pious muslims simply grant themselves exclusiion from one of the more important of the ten commandments. There's even more hypocracy for you.

Let's cool it on the partisan Mideast links. However articulate, they're worthless trolls, every one.


Both sides are as right as they are wrong. And the response to these trolls repatedly illustrate the singular righteousness of each opposing point of view. So rather than pointing a finger of blame at those who disagree with you, first look within yourself if you really want an end to this conflict. This conflict is no longer being fueled by the issues that spawned it, but rather by raw and naked hate. And hate can only squelched from within.
posted by BentPenguin at 9:03 AM on May 24, 2002

After swearing I would not get involved:

"We can tell them to negotiate, but we wouldn't negotiate"

Now all we need in the US are ID cards listing your religion to make the comparison totally apt.

"As for Palestine being the Palestinian's ancestral homeland, well, it is also Israel's ancestral homeland."

And why is it that the US has not been returned to the natives, whose claim is far more recent and valid than any that could be pressed on Palestine? Maybe it would help if the Natives self-identified as God's chosen people.

"The Palestinians, otoh, would exterminate all Israelis in a heartbeat if they could."

Way to generalize dude -- tell me, which side has compulsory military service, attack helicopters, F-16s, a multi-billion dollar military budget and weapons of mass destruction?

But hey, peace in your own time, man
posted by fellorwaspushed at 9:12 AM on May 24, 2002

Israel was given a part of Palestine by the United Nations

The other part, meant for the Palestinians, that in fact was refused by their military faction, not wanting to accept any deal with Israel and chose war instead, became Jordan. At a later point the Palestinian militants tried to take over Jordan too, but were beaten with much greater cruelty than Israel ever treated them. Jordan would be the Palestinian homeland, but they're not wanted there either.
posted by semmi at 9:15 AM on May 24, 2002

if this kind of thing was happening in, say, Africa

Where'd they move Israel to?
posted by yerfatma at 9:27 AM on May 24, 2002

Hey BentPenguin, do you know why the population of Palestine was 34% Jewish in 1947 (when the UN sanctioned a 'temporary partition')? Because Palestine admitted over half a million Jewish WWII refugees. During that war, more than 10,000 Palestinians enlisted in the British military to fight the Axis. So temper your assumption that Palestinians would wipe out all Jews if they had the chance. You are engaging in gross ethnic stereotyping.

It's all too easy to start history in 2002 and say "both sides are wrong." Very convenient escape from an otherwise controversial topic. Very even-handed and magnanimous. You can feel good about yourself, no matter how little you actually know, if you just don't take a side, right? NAs an added bonus, it relieves you of the burden of having to learn all that HISTORY!

I'm sorry but I don't do it that way.
posted by scarabic at 9:35 AM on May 24, 2002

Good post scarabic !

Yep, there were lots of Jews in the area. Let's not forget Deir Yassin.

Terrorism refers, generally, to using civilians as targets. Seems everyone is guilty of this. But defending oneself against occupation does not fall into this category.

Israel is illegally occupying Palestinian territory. Since 1993, the "settlement" construction has increased. This is not a sign of wanting peace, in my view.

peace
posted by Mondo at 9:47 AM on May 24, 2002

Israel never took any land from anyone, except Jordan and Egypt (who invaded Israel).

To anyone who claims Israel took land from the "Palestinians":

(1) There was never a Palestine.

(2) You are as bad as the terrorists.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:03 AM on May 24, 2002

You are as bad as the terrorists.
Am I? Did I blow up a building and kill thousands of people? Whoops, that must have slipped my mind.
Man, look at all the knees jerking in here.
posted by Allen Varney at 10:29 AM on May 24, 2002

Oh, Paris...can't let that one get by.

Never a Palestine? Sheesh, that flies in the face of thousands of years of cultural heritage.

Israel never took any land from the Palestinians? What do you call Gaza and the West Bank?

As bad as the terrorists? You are laughable.
posted by mapalm at 10:31 AM on May 24, 2002

There's even more hypocracy for you.
By the way, Bent, don't do a spelling flame unless you know how to spell.
posted by Allen Varney at 10:32 AM on May 24, 2002

Silly, silly, silly Paris,

There was no Palestine? Have you totally flipped your lid dude? Now, come on, admit you're trolling with that one.

Here's a map of Asia Minor under the Greeks and Romans, from The Historical Atlas by William R. Shepherd, 1923.

Here's a map of Palestine from "A Classical Atlas, to Illustrate Ancient Geography; Comprised in Twenty-Five maps, Showing the Various Divisions of the World as Known to the Ancients; Composed from the Most Authentic Sources." by Alexander G. Findlay, F.R.G.S. 1849.

Here's a bunch more maps all predating modern Israel.

Here's some stuff from the archeology guys at Oxford.

Here's a non-political history of the land you claim doesn't exist.

Need more proof punkin? I can find bunches.

Don't try revisionist history around here, we're all far too well educated and have the world of research at our fingertips.

And I'm as bad as the terrorists? Oh please...that's just absurd.

And that being said, I should know better than to feed the trolls, and yet sometimes...it's just impossible to pass up.
posted by dejah420 at 11:13 AM on May 24, 2002

thorough post, dejah. very nice (and thanks for the maps).
posted by mapalm at 11:18 AM on May 24, 2002

>>Of course this kind of logic is absurd in the extreme since nobody intelligent (or compassionate) would calculate the significant of a death on the basis of ratios.

Sure, each life is important, but show me one fatal fire, plane, train or automobile accident where the news is reported as just "Some people died today in a tragic loss of life... Its human nature to quantify loss of life and the bigger the number, the greater the emotional reaction to the loss.

Exactly - in numbers, not ratios. They never say, .00000012 percent of the population died today in a terrible train wreck. The population of Israel is similar to the population of a medium populated US state - say, Georgia - so just think of it that these deaths are as personal to israelis as deaths in georgia are to georgians.

>>There's even more hypocracy for you.
By the way, Bent, don't do a spelling flame unless you know how to spell.

dunno if you were joking too, but, I'm pretty sure he bolded the misspelling on purpose - a hypocritical state (like, democracy, meritocracy...)
posted by mdn at 11:19 AM on May 24, 2002

Israel never took any land from the Palestinians? What do you call Gaza and the West Bank?

An inability to read what I wrote.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:20 AM on May 24, 2002

(2) You are as bad as the terrorists.

AHAHAHAHAHA

If this kind of thing was happening in, say, Africa

Or maybe in asia? perhaps, say, sri lanka? Where far more people have died in the last couple years that have died in israel / palestine?
posted by jnthnjng at 11:24 AM on May 24, 2002

Israel never took any land from the Palestinians? What do you call Gaza and the West Bank?

Did the Egyptians take land from the Palestinans, too? Or was it the Turks or Ottomans? How about the Palestinians in Jordan? Did the Jordanians take their land from the Palestinians? And who did the Saudis take their land from?
posted by ParisParamus at 11:25 AM on May 24, 2002

Paris, all I can say is, what happened? You used to have semi-cogent arguments. What has come over you?

On Preview:

No, the Egyptians did not take any land from the Palestinians. Sinai has always been a part of Egypt, Gaza always a part of historical Palestine.

Jordan didn't even exist until the Allies, during & after WWI, created it (and it never included what is now known as the West Bank). Same goes for Saudi Arabia - an arbitrary geographic creation. Palestine, however (as noted above) has been in existence for centuries.

Keep it together, Paris. You are crashing in a ball of flame.
posted by mapalm at 11:32 AM on May 24, 2002

Just to follow PP's train of thought, though, mapalm... (disregarding the rest...)

It seems pretty apt to say that if Israel "stole" Palestinian land, so did Jordan.
posted by Marquis at 11:47 AM on May 24, 2002

And more of what formerly was referred to as Palestine is now in Jordan than Israel/WB.

As for all the cartological stuff, the region was long populated by tribal peoples. The concept of nationhood is a western one, imposed upon the regning lords of these tribes late 19th century into the early 20th.

Personal to Mr Varney: Its a pun. Flaming typos might be your game, but its not mine. (next time try thinking out of the box.)

As for the MEFi Vanessa Redgrave club, consider that as you froth righteously from the mouth, the Kurds, the Bahais, the Suffis are being savagely oppressed (by their arab "brothers".) Why the global cotton mouth? (cuz there ain't no right and wrong when it comes to humans, its all about power in all its glorious forms, and in the end, morality is but a pipedream.)

I'll say it again: Both sides are as wrong as they are right. Ask yourself why its so hard for you to let go of that perspective (answer: HATRED) How can one hate and think clearly at the same time?

The search for righteously pure victimhood is whats leading this circus around in big deadly circles. Its a path that leads to only one place. And that place glows in the dark.

I'm beginning to believe that just like people lined up to see Evel Knievel's jumps hoping that he'd crash, you all secretly wanna see some thermonuclear action.
posted by BentPenguin at 12:11 PM on May 24, 2002

As for all the cartological stuff, the region was long populated by tribal peoples. The concept of nationhood is a western one, imposed upon the regning lords of these tribes late 19th century into the early 20th.
BentPenguin: the concept of a nation-state is a western one. The concept of ethnicity has been around for quite a while now in many parts of the world. Similarly East Timor is a collection of various peoples that wish to construct a nation state. While their "national identities" might be a bit murky (and boy does fighting a foreign invader fix that quick), the fact that Indonesia occupied and settled their country and slaughtered their people, was in no way a lesser crime because of the lack of ethnic homogeneity of these people. To summarise: people who live and have lived continuously in a land have a right to decide what to do with it.
As for the Kurds: Arabs, Turks and Persians have been oppressing these people for a century now. Their excuse: Kurds are "mountain Turks", "tribal people with no real national identity" etc. basically arguments very similar to those you have made about the Palestinians. And I should also mention that S. African Blacks were similarly influenced by the "European" concept of nationhood, without that diminishing the justness of their fight at all.
posted by talos at 1:17 PM on May 24, 2002

At the end of the world war, the Jews should have been given Florida as a homeland. Or Texas. It would have avoided this whole mid-east mess.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:21 PM on May 24, 2002

It would have avoided this whole mid-east mess.

I know you're joking, but you bring up a valid argument that is easily refuted. It is true that giving the Jews or Palestinians a homeland, away from the madness, sounds like a great idea. But when you look back though US history, you'll see that the US government gave the Native Americans land when the violence was becoming extreme. But then the govt. continued to push the Native Americans westward. Think Trail of Tears. This isn't a new phenomena and the solution, or problem, is not in what land was given. It truly comes down to religious and racial pride and self-determination.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:50 PM on May 24, 2002

What would have really avoided the whole mess would have been for the nations bordering Israel to have created educated, democratic, economically-viable societies, and ones which had not squandered their natural resources; ones whose citizens weren't susceptible to diversionary propaganda labeling Israel as the devil.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:10 PM on May 24, 2002

It truly comes down to religious and racial pride and self-determination.

Religious AND racial pride...so, doubly repugnant!
posted by rushmc at 3:23 PM on May 24, 2002

Well, no, PP, what really would have avoided the whole mess is if the British had stuck to their island, instead of trying to dominate the entire world back in the 19th century. The whole mid-east is bolloxed because the Brits just *had* to impose their idea of nationalism and nations on an area that didn't have borders of any meaningful sort. And then, upon deciding to impose borders, completely ignored the traditional tribal boundaries, alliances, and feuds.

Sheesh. Couldn't mucked it up worse, they couldn't.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:42 PM on May 24, 2002

(BT: actually, it was a bit of a prod. Texans wouldn't give up their land any easier than the Palestinians have. It's all so easy to sit back and criticize the mid-east mess from the easy chair, but imagining what'd have happened if the Jews were given a big ol' chunk of the USA kinda brings it home...)
posted by five fresh fish at 3:45 PM on May 24, 2002

So the birth of a nation is really just a quasi sanctioned land grab, and ultimately its military and political might that grease the nation making wheels of this planet.

So, someone's always gonna get screwed off their land. But the bottom line is both sides stubbornly claim a right of return to this land, and both would rather fight than learn to trust each other.

History reaches these points where the earth's ambient level of agression gets so high that only a major conflict can return the system to a place of (relative) stability.

[And on preview...]

Talon: The Ottoman empire used heretofore unheard of cunning political and military force to chill the the region out from aeons of tribal bloodshed.

But the wimpy tail end of the Ottoman Empire is what created this malformed part of the world we now call the "mid east."

The brits only inherited the problem from the Ottomans in the 1920s. And they were far from being the only kingdom with colonial aspirations. See also the Belgians and central Africa, for example.
posted by BentPenguin at 3:50 PM on May 24, 2002

Thanks here as well dejah420. Bullshit has well and truly been overcome by the availability of facts on the net. In former times PP would just have been the village pain in the ass that nobody could be bothered spending months proving wrong. Now it's so easy to call him out. Good links too.
posted by Zootoon at 4:50 PM on May 24, 2002

BentPenguin, I think the point about us ignoring Africa has been made before.

Anyway, many prominent civil rights/anti-racist leaders from Africa have declared their support for the Palestinian cause.
posted by robcorr at 7:23 PM on May 24, 2002

when it comes to humans, its all about power in all its glorious forms, and in the end, morality is but a pipedream...
...I'll say it again: Both sides are as wrong as they are right. Ask yourself why its so hard for you to let go of that perspective (answer: HATRED) How can one hate and think clearly at the same time?

BT:You are profoundly right. The Jews have learned from a history of terrible persecutions the righteous necessity to have the power to defend themselves even if it conflicts with their moral standards; without existence, there is no morality to practice. I would say too, that in this conflict for seemingly mutually exclusive self-determination, the Jews were motivated more by political expediency, while the Palestinians more by passionate hatred, and this is what drove the situation to where it stands now. When you wrestle in a latrine, you can't come out smelling like a rose.

About ParisParamus: He reminds me of the character Shylock in Shakespeare's The Merchant of Venice. He may sound abrasive, but he simply insists on his right as a Jew, to serve his interests with the same hypocritical ranting his opponents assume as their birthright. I appreciate and support his seemingly rewardless effort because I believe, above all, that persistency brings its own reward.
posted by semmi at 2:41 PM on May 25, 2002

I meant to Bent Penguin, not BT.
posted by semmi at 2:44 PM on May 25, 2002

five: I think I take your tone correctly. But why are only the British to blame, out of the 15 or so empires who've taken over the region at various times? And then, of course, there's the sheer happenstance that the internal combustion engine was invented, which suddenly made certain deserts atrociously valuable. Without oil money, a lot of the 20th century wouldn't have happened. They probably couldn't have mounted the 1967 and 1973 wars, for one thing. Half of them would probably be simulacra of Somalia. Or without the Cold War ... But the change that would probably make the most difference of all would simply be Jews continuing to live in Europe as they had for centuries.
posted by dhartung at 6:23 PM on May 25, 2002

Well, afaik, dhartung, the Brits get blamed 'cause they were the last empire to fiddle with the area. Having ham-handedly carved new borders as they departed, I think they're mainly responsible for creating the current shape of the land-feud situation.

At the same time, I doubt it'd have gone much better had they taken the tribal/ethnic borders into consideration when creating countries. There's always been tension, and oil exacerbates it.

But, then, too, the British are directly and wholly culpable for the creation of Israel and ousting of Palestinians. That was a complete cock-up from the word "go."
posted by five fresh fish at 7:12 PM on May 25, 2002

You're right FFF, it was a cock up and the Palestinians were shafted in every way imaginable, but the 'Palestinian question' was handed over to the UN in 1948 and the partition had the support of all the allies. The biggest mistake the British made was pretending to be impartial while clearly favouring the Zionists, allowing colonisation and treating the Arabs like inferior peasants. Something both the Brits and Americans continue to do to this day.
posted by Summer at 4:21 AM on May 26, 2002