Does anyone even care anymore?
July 23, 2002 1:53 PM   Subscribe

Does anyone even care anymore? 14 Dead in apartment building bombing by missile launched from American-made Israeli-owned F-16. Is there any way out of this half-assed occupation, or will both sides continue to blame each other indefinitely while making no progress towards a political solution?
posted by zekinskia (157 comments total)

 
No. (and to the final question, yes)

mmmmm! japanese ice cream!
posted by eyeballkid at 1:57 PM on July 23, 2002


How many people are left over there? They must be down to like, ten on each side, right?
posted by ColdChef at 2:01 PM on July 23, 2002


They must be down to like, ten on each side, right?

Yes. War on Fridays is now business casual as well.
posted by machaus at 2:03 PM on July 23, 2002


I get the fact that I/P Filter turns people off; hey, it bugs me too. But to joke about their deaths is rather tasteless.
posted by BlueTrain at 2:06 PM on July 23, 2002


Sorry. It's a coping mechanism.
posted by ColdChef at 2:07 PM on July 23, 2002


more tasteless than believing that either side is any less reprehensible?
posted by machaus at 2:08 PM on July 23, 2002


Machaus: yes, more tasteless. But less deluded.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:10 PM on July 23, 2002


Sorry mom.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:13 PM on July 23, 2002


Unfortunately, this is the level the Israelis should be operating on. Its called a war. It's called deranged terrorists who dwell amongst civilians. The guy brought it on himself and his neighbors.

As sad as it is, a step in the right direction.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:16 PM on July 23, 2002


P.S: political solutions are not possible with terrorists. We cannot let a society exist which tolerates Hamas, and Yasser, et al.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:18 PM on July 23, 2002


Terrorists: The other side.

Righteous Crusaders For Freedom and Justice: My side.
posted by websavvy at 2:19 PM on July 23, 2002


As sad as it is, a step in the right direction.

Yes, by all means, there should be more missile strikes in homes. A step in the right direction indeed.
posted by mathowie at 2:22 PM on July 23, 2002


Jon Stewart, on The Daily Show a few weeks back, had a piece talking about the latest bombing. Which was in retaliation for the last suicide attack. Which was in retaliation for the prior bombing. Which was in retaliation for the guy who blew up a pizza shop. Which was in retaliation for the occupation of the west bank. Which was the result of war in the 1970s. Which was the result of ... (you get the picture). It's only funny because it's true. What we're seeing is the total and pitiful breakdown of humans as a species. Neither side can claim any high ground anymore.

Of course people care. But implying that death of innocents by "American-made Israeli-owned" F-16 is any more or less worthy of our concern than death by suicide bomber is morally repugnant.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:25 PM on July 23, 2002


websavvy. The people whose MO and aim is to intentional blow up civilians are on one side in this war. That's why the other side needs to lose. Eventually, Israel will bump off enough of the leader-wackos, and cut off enough of the death suppy channels, which flow from Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Syria, that the remaining population will get it. Maybe that will be after the next Iraqi war; maybe before, but until that happens, Israel needs to keep at it. And hopefully, it will have the courage to do so.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:27 PM on July 23, 2002


Neither side can claim any high ground anymore.

That's simply not true. Did one side lose its morality when it successfully bombed the other? Next time, feel free not to get your ethics from a comedy show.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:29 PM on July 23, 2002


("That's why the other side needs to lose.": The "other" side, is, of course Hamas and the hell it creates.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:30 PM on July 23, 2002


ParisParamus:"The people whose MO and aim is to intentional blow up civilians are on one side in this war. That's why the other side needs to lose."

How is taking out the entire apartment building not intentionally killing civilians? Are IDF snipers that bad? They knew where this guy was and he would've had to go outside sometime...
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 2:31 PM on July 23, 2002


feel free not to get your ethics from a comedy show

Yes, because satirical humor never has a shred of truth to it.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:33 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris:

I think both sides are targetting civilians.
posted by websavvy at 2:35 PM on July 23, 2002


Yes, by all means, there should be more missile strikes in homes. A step in the right direction indeed.

Given a choice between killing a criminal-murderer whose entourage may include children and innocents; and not killing him so that he can continue to live and kill many times the number of possible innocents in his entourage, I'd go for killing the criminal-murder. The alternative is the protection of the criminal-murderer in perpetuity. This is true particularly after years of other efforts to liquidate the criminal-murderer have failed.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:36 PM on July 23, 2002


What was funny was hearing the Hamas spokesman speak about the 'outrage'... Meanwhile, their suicide bomb-makers are busy at work continuing their efforts to kill more civilians.

Nobody seems particularly outraged when Hamas blows up buses and restaurants (which are filled only with innocent civilians), but everyone cries foul when Isreal actually strikes back at a strategic leader? Go figure.
posted by eas98 at 2:36 PM on July 23, 2002


The people whose MO and aim is to intentional blow up civilians are on one side in this war.

Both sides have a fair share of blood on their hands. Both sides have claimed the lives of innocents. Neither side has the moral high ground, if war even has one.

Someone needs to stop the cycle of violence.
posted by Bag Man at 2:36 PM on July 23, 2002


websavvy: both sides are not targeting "civilians." What a grotesque lie.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:37 PM on July 23, 2002


Also, listening to Jews bitch about Palestineans is boring. As is listening to Palestineans bitch about Jews.

Let me know when both sides stop killing each other and stop insisting that each other are bloodthirsty bastards.
posted by websavvy at 2:37 PM on July 23, 2002


If there is a spot of humor in all this madness and death it is the remark made after this latest incident by some Palestinian official, who stated that killing innocent civilians was a crimminal act.
posted by Postroad at 2:39 PM on July 23, 2002


I liked it better when we were making jokes about people dying, rather than trying to justify their murders. Which one is worse, again?
posted by ColdChef at 2:39 PM on July 23, 2002


Nobody seems particularly outraged when Hamas blows up buses and restaurants (which are filled only with innocent civilians), but everyone cries foul when Isreal actually strikes back at a strategic leader? Go figure.

eas98, do you watch the news? All of the politicians and commentators that I have heard speak make daily complaints about the suicide bombings, as they should. Hamas is wrong, but is seems to be Israel is constantly afforded the "moral high ground."

Here's a thought: The violence on both sides is wrong.
posted by Bag Man at 2:41 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris,

Yet again, you manage to sway me further away from the side I normally agree with and make me realize that the people I want to consider the good guys are as crazy as the "bad guys."

You've done a masterful job over the past few months of helping me transition from blind support of Israel to blind disagreement with you.

Of course, I suppose blindness is a concept you're not unfamiliar with. I respect your allegiance to Israel. But your steadfast belief that they can do no wrong is utterly wrongheaded, and as many hear have told you, is the exact mirror image of the Palestinian fanatacism you decry.

You would do well to randomly pretend to disbelieve in the occasional Israeli infraction, as you would then at least appear to transition from lunatic reactionary to semi-lucid thinker.
posted by Sinner at 2:42 PM on July 23, 2002 [1 favorite]


Look - there aren't any real ways to make this not horrible. You can argue that Israel is defending itself, and like the US chooses at times to use air power because it either feels that fewer of its own - or other - people will die, but I don't really think it holds water.

Historically, Israel has chosen the methods through which it attacks to make a point - i.e., it wanted somewhat spectacular assasinations of some of the Munich terrorists, but also often uses ground troops and commandos because it doesn't want anything spectacular. In this case, whatever you think of the aim of killing a leader of Hamas, they chose to do it in a way that killed a number of others.

I don't see how that can be made right when there are other options. Israel probably has the best special forces in the world. They shouldn't be doing aerial bombardments of homes a few miles from their borders.

It's tragic. There isn't any two ways about it.
posted by fluffy1984 at 2:43 PM on July 23, 2002


By the way, to answer zekinskia's initial question, it appears someone does care. The fact that it's George Bush will probably send some of you into contortions trying to pick a nit.
posted by pardonyou? at 2:45 PM on July 23, 2002


I think Paris has a ring on a string coming out of his back. Every once in a while, someone pulls it, and he spouts his pro-Israeli rhetoric.

But he's almost convinced me. After all, the most balanced reporting of the I/P situation usually comes from Jewish New Yorkers...
posted by websavvy at 2:45 PM on July 23, 2002


Nobody seems particularly outraged when Hamas blows up buses and restaurants...

Actually, Amnesty International recently released a rather detailed report condemning the indiscriminate killing of civilians by Palestinian organizations as a violation of human rights. There goes your straw man.
posted by mr_roboto at 2:47 PM on July 23, 2002


eas98, do you watch the news? All of the politicians and commentators that I have heard speak make daily complaints about the suicide bombings, as they should.

Hmmm... Interestingly, though, when a suicide bomber goes off and kills some bus passengers, it doesn't get a FPP anymore. However, Isreal does some retaliation against a top terrorist and we get "missile launched from American-made Israeli-owned F-16".
posted by eas98 at 2:50 PM on July 23, 2002


Nobody seems particularly outraged when Hamas blows up buses and restaurants (which are filled only with innocent civilians), but everyone cries foul when Isreal actually strikes back at a strategic leader? Go figure.

How many times do we have to say that both sides are wrong

Yeah, that even includes israel, Paris, you're fucking wrong if you think your side is golden and the other side is pure evil.

both sides are wrong
posted by mathowie at 2:51 PM on July 23, 2002


"wait. so, you're saying that both sides are wrong? I'm still not getting it."
posted by ColdChef at 2:52 PM on July 23, 2002


We don't know what the IDF knew. What we do know is that Israel, more than most nations, is dependent on other nations for its existence. So it makes no sense to needlessly kill civilians and suffer the wrath of trading partners, military aid givers, and potential tourists.

What is know is that much, if not all of Hamas' bomb making facilities are in residential buildings and/or areas. So either the IDF's intelligence was wrong; or the strike was calculated to induce fear, terror if you will; or the IDF concluded, after years of trying to get the guy, that this way the only way.

I'm comfortable with any of those three.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:53 PM on July 23, 2002


See, that was a joke.
posted by ColdChef at 2:53 PM on July 23, 2002


Interestingly, though, when a suicide bomber goes off and kills some bus passengers, it doesn't get a FPP anymore.

By all means, lets in the future make sure that every attack on boths sides gets a front page post. After all, this thread has been so wonderful and thought-provoking.
posted by malphigian at 2:54 PM on July 23, 2002


What does "both sides are wrong" mean? One side is, at the very least, "more wrong" than the other. Stop with this bullshit strawman of "Paris thinks Israel is perfect." How lame.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:55 PM on July 23, 2002


Yes, because the innocent civilians killed by the Palestineans are more dead than those killed by the Israelis.
posted by websavvy at 2:56 PM on July 23, 2002


Interestingly, though, when a suicide bomber goes off and kills some bus passengers, it doesn't get a FPP anymore.

View the archives to see why everyone is fucking tired of talking about this. Every thread turns into the dog and pony show of Paris and Postroad against everyone else, and it's just as pointless as these stories that come out. This isn't an issue of left vs. right, so don't try and make it one.

As much as it sickens me to say this, I've almost ceased caring completely about what's going on over there. I look at the news and 35 people were killed in a restaurant bombing. The next day israel attacks and kills a dozen some other way. After months and months of the same story, I've become completely desensitized, as I have over all these Israel/Palestine posts on MetaFilter.

However, Isreal does some retaliation against a top terrorist and we get "missile launched from American-made Israeli-owned F-16"

....because, to desensitized people like me, adding planes and missles into the mix is at least a new approach in this neverending blood bath.
posted by mathowie at 2:57 PM on July 23, 2002


One side is, at the very least, "more wrong" than the other.

Bobby: 1+1=5

Jimmy: 1+1=3

Teacher: Sorry, Bobby. Jimmy is less wrong.
posted by ColdChef at 2:57 PM on July 23, 2002


So either the IDF's intelligence was wrong [ed: call this option #1]; or the strike was calculated to induce fear, terror if you will [#2]; or the IDF concluded, after years of trying to get the guy, that this way the only way [#3].

It strikes me that #1 and #3 might be justifiable, but #2 is a clear violation of international standards on human rights, and clearly immoral.
posted by mr_roboto at 3:00 PM on July 23, 2002


ColdChef 1, Paris 0.

Time's up folks, thanks for joining in the game, back to the japanese ice cream thread with you all.
posted by malphigian at 3:00 PM on July 23, 2002


One side is, at the very least, "more wrong" than the other.

No, please, continue thinking that. I'm sure this fighting will end when the "more wrong" side understands they are more wrong and seeks to try and be "more right."

Seriously, the mid east is as interesting as two children fighting in the backseat of a car.
posted by mathowie at 3:01 PM on July 23, 2002


I'll set my watch, and we'll all sneak out to the Ice Cream thread. Occasionally, we'll come back and listen at the door to the sound of Paris loudly proclaiming the beauty and truth of his cause. Then we'll go back and have more Ice Cream.
posted by websavvy at 3:02 PM on July 23, 2002


Hamas is trying to wage a war of destruction against the nation of Israel. They explicity reject the prospect of peaceful solutions or coexistance. The danger in convincing someone that you are going to kill them or die trying, you shouldn't expect much sympathy if they start believing you.

Do I think that Israel should have missiled the home of Izzedine al Qassam, in the process killing his family and neighbors? Well, no. I think that they should have shot him while walking down the street, blown up his car while he drove to a meeting, or booby-trapped his cell phone like they did to Yahya Ayyash. But if this is how they chose to do it, no one can claim that they haven't been provoked.

both sides are wrong

Why are you pushing this strict black-and-white view of things? If Hamas is already "wrong", what will they become if they buy some chemical weapons from Iraq and kill 100,000 people in Tel Aviv? If Israel is already "wrong", what will happen if they go door-do-door through the West Bank and tell everyone that they can either start walking toward Jordan or be shot where they stand? Wronger?
posted by jaek at 3:03 PM on July 23, 2002


Metafilter - Middle East threads that are wonderful and thought-provoking.

The reason I don't comment much anymore ...

ParisP, how in the hell can you be comfortable with the idea that the IDF's intel was wrong and innocent people got blown into little tiny bits? Whoops, well gee, I'm Soooooo Sorry!

And I disagree, mathowie. Children fighting in the backseat doesn't leave me with the desire to puke.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:07 PM on July 23, 2002


So there it is...

Paris makes an incredibly partisan, very disagreeable remark, and the thread pounces. Sometimes I have to ask myself who's wrong...Is Paris wrong for making outrageous claims, or are the participants in this thread wrong for swallowing the bait? mathowie says:

Both sides are wrong.

Indeed, this may be the case. Or, it may be that Paris is correct, that one side is more wrong than the other. The bottom line to this is: Which side will stop first? Will the participants of MetaFilter finally agree amongst themselves that Paris will not change his mind, or will Paris finally realize the errors of being completely one-sided?

Tune in next time; same MeFi, different I/P thread.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:11 PM on July 23, 2002


Stop with this bullshit strawman of "Paris thinks Israel is perfect." How lame.

Since you do everything to perpetuate this stereotype, you would do well to heed your own ass-head advice.

Israel has every right to defend itself; however, it also likes to claim the moral highground, so when its multimillion dollar fighter jet takes out an entire apartment building that's packed with one hundred plus civilians and one terrorist, and all the casualties but one are that terrorist, the whole things starts to stink of the very barbarism, the terrorism, that Israel professes to be above.

Now, if Israel just wants to say, we're fucking tired of this guerrilla bullshit and we're going Lord of the Flies on all your starving miseducated Palestinian asses, that's one thing; but to claim otherwise is pure plutonium bullshit.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:12 PM on July 23, 2002


I kinda get the feeling that both sides metaphysically reject the idea of "civilians".
posted by Dagobert at 3:13 PM on July 23, 2002


Thank god we have BlueTrain to clear everything up. I though we'd never hear his final thought on this one.
posted by eyeballkid at 3:13 PM on July 23, 2002


Which side will stop first? Will the participants of MetaFilter finally agree amongst themselves that Paris will not change his mind, or will Paris finally realize the errors of being completely one-sided?

You crack me up! The point is, it never ends ...
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:15 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris: Sinner has a point.

Or maybe you're a stooge using hamfisted reverse psychology to try & turn us all into Hammas supporters?
posted by i_cola at 3:17 PM on July 23, 2002


Also, I've said this before, but if Paris just wants to hear of chorus of "genocide the Arabs" and "Israel can do no wrong," there are loads of hate sites (LGF and its ilk) whose purveyors and patrons will only be too glad to meet his extreme views with extreme and sickening hosannas.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:19 PM on July 23, 2002


donkey: what's really sad is that I've never advocated anything like that. But then again, why am I trying to persuade someone who goes by that name...?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:22 PM on July 23, 2002


Hi everyone!
posted by Postroad at 3:22 PM on July 23, 2002


"Paris thinks Israel is perfect." How lame.

What's lame? My description of your viewpoint, or your viewpoint itself?

Don't just dismiss the argument, disprove it. Although I suspect you'll prattle on about not wanting to waste your time or some such.

Paris, name a specific instance in the current struggle where, to use your terms, Israel was "more wrong" than the Palestinians. Not to suggest that they are wholly "more wrong," simply that they must have erred and done something bad at some point, right?

Or are you ascribing infallibility to their viewpoints, Pope-style?
posted by Sinner at 3:24 PM on July 23, 2002


I would like to add (albeit late) to the chorus of people who has become very much less sympathetic to Israel due to Paris' postings.
posted by adampsyche at 3:24 PM on July 23, 2002


Sinner does not have a point because I have never claimed Israel to be anything other than a flawed, western-style nation. It's just that Israelis are not blowing themselves up in Gaza produce markets, and for this debate, that's what really matters.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:25 PM on July 23, 2002


But then again, why am I trying to persuade someone who goes by that name...?

Ad hominem so soon. I'm disappointed in you ... ParisPariah. No wait, it's fun.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:25 PM on July 23, 2002


I have never claimed Israel to be anything other than a flawed, western-style nation.

More like fraudulent western-wannabe nation at this point, with Sharon and his fundies trying to push through legislation preventing non-Jewish Israelis from buying government lands and whatnot.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:28 PM on July 23, 2002


I'm glad they toasted the Hamas guy, but wasn't there another way to do it than to attack and apartment complex. Like to cap him when he comes out to pick up his morning copy of "Kill the Jews Daily"? This issue is so painful to those of us who support Israel's right to self-defense and Israel's right to exist. Sure, they acheived a goal by killing Hamas man. But they also shoot themselves in the foot every time they do it with disregard to civilians. Agreed, it is very hard to distinguish who is a civilian, especially when the terrorists deliberately operate out of heavily populated areas. But the heavy hand of Sharon's policy, especially this tragedy, is not helping anything.

And Paris, you do more to inflame anti-Israeli sentiment here on Metafilter than a whole army of Meta-lefties. You have all the subtelty of someone who tries to play Brahms on the piano with an aluminum softball bat. You shame us pro-Israelis who also want to have civil and intelligent discussions and who want to retain our humanity. You've seriously cross the line into trolldom, and I'm surprised you haven't been banned.
posted by evanizer at 3:28 PM on July 23, 2002


name a specific instance in the current struggle where, to use your terms, Israel was "more wrong" than the Palestinians.

I think closing that office down in Jerusalem was wrong. I also think most of the Israeli settlements should be dismantled NOW. I think it's disgusting that a large number of religious Israelis don't serve in the military. I think blaming every attack on Yasser Arafat is erroneous and impossible. I think many Israel's laws, which discriminate against Arabs are offensive.

How's that?
posted by ParisParamus at 3:29 PM on July 23, 2002


I've never said anything outrageous. Examples, please, on Metatalk, or by e-mail.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:31 PM on July 23, 2002


(and if you're to pursue that infallibility argument, of course, bear in mind that you are in effect saying that anything is acceptable. "Nuke em! Rape their women! Whatever! They're subhuman anyway, right? All of them... err... I mean their leaders. Yeah. They're brainwashed."

A more realistic, reasoned person would say "there are awful things being done on both sides, and I hope they both learn quickly that further bloodshed by either is sad and counterproductive."

You, of course, will not.
posted by Sinner at 3:31 PM on July 23, 2002


I think closing that office down in Jerusalem was wrong. I also think most of the Israeli settlements should be dismantled NOW. I think it's disgusting that a large number of religious Israelis don't serve in the military. I think blaming every attack on Yasser Arafat is erroneous and impossible. I think many Israel's laws, which discriminate against Arabs are offensive.

In your meager defense, this is the only time you've ever made sense in my experience.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:34 PM on July 23, 2002


How about a ...
posted by y2karl at 3:34 PM on July 23, 2002


I'm glad they toasted the Hamas guy, but wasn't there another way to do it than to attack and apartment complex. Like to cap him when he comes out to pick up his morning copy of "Kill the Jews Daily"?

I think they tried; really tried. For several years.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:36 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris,

For examples of outrageous things you've said, please click on your name, then click on the number next to "comments," as in

"ParisParamus has posted 38 links and 2400 comments to MetaFilter"

Pretty much any of those comments contains an outrageous, poorly thought-out statement. So really just take your pick.

Personally, I think you should be banned, and I reiterate that I am PRO-Israel. First Amendment doesn't apply here. But I'm not running the show.
posted by Sinner at 3:37 PM on July 23, 2002


ParisParamus: How's that?

For one, I'd say not bad. Blinkered polemic was never my cup of tea but sweeten it with a demonstrable understanding of the weaknesses or flaws in your line of argument and I'll perk up no end.
posted by MUD at 3:38 PM on July 23, 2002


A more realistic, reasoned person would say "there are awful things being done on both sides, and I hope they both learn quickly that further bloodshed by either is sad and counterproductive."

Actually, that was precisely what I said, which makes me wonder about what some of the posters to this thread are reading; and what preconceptions they have before they read.
posted by ParisParamus at 3:38 PM on July 23, 2002


Well, sometime soon at least & damn you Kevin--making me use something with stiles project on it--now I'm going to take a bath.
posted by y2karl at 3:41 PM on July 23, 2002


Well I've read a lot of antagonistic comments, and I'm regretting having posted this link at all.


Rereading my own post, I realize that "American-made Israeli-owned" was more inflammatory than I meant it to be. But it speaks to the following point:

Both sides are fighting a gruesome war, with much disregard for human rights. They are both wrong for that.

Only one side (Israel) is flying around in multimillion dollar death machines that the U.S. has essentially donated.
Only one side (Israel) is a member of the United Nations.
Only one side (Israel) has had the military security necessary to implement an organized government.

So my opinion, however crude it may be, is that if we're going to say "both sides are wrong, let them fight it out," then we must stop giving F-16s with guided missiles to one side, or else start giving them to the other as well. I hope you can guess which option I'd prefer.
posted by zekinskia at 3:42 PM on July 23, 2002


P.S. I think I've found the answer to my question too:

Yes, people care, but they don't care to get in lengthy childish finger-pointing threads of comments. Sorry for instigating, and I don't plan on posting anything about I/P ever, ever again here...
posted by zekinskia at 3:43 PM on July 23, 2002


Sinner: name a specific instance in the current struggle where, to use your terms, Israel was "more wrong" than the Palestinians.

Paris: I think closing that office down in Jerusalem was wrong. I also think most of the Israeli settlements should be dismantled NOW. I think it's disgusting that a large number of religious Israelis don't serve in the military. I think blaming every attack on Yasser Arafat is erroneous and impossible. I think many Israel's laws, which discriminate against Arabs are offensive.

How's that?


To be honest, that's something. The reference to the dismantling of the settlements surprises me. So to, I suppose with the "legal discrimination against Arabs."

But for the most part it's pure politics and very little practicum, and says virtually nothing about anything to do with the deaths of many, many innocent people. No reference to Jenin, which to me still smells like mass-murder (although there are many who disagree here)?

Not even an acknowledgment that "wow, they probably could have killed the Hamas leader without leveling a building."

Essentially, you have some minor political disagreements with Israel, but anything they do or have done in the past few years militarily is hunky-dory by you. Me, I sadly can't even say that about my own country.
posted by Sinner at 3:46 PM on July 23, 2002


Seriously and sincerely Paris, if you said balanced things more often, like you finally just did right now, I think these Israel/Palestine threads wouldn't be such Signal/Noise fests.
posted by donkeyschlong at 3:52 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris: Actually, that was precisely what I said, which makes me wonder about what some of the posters to this thread are reading; and what preconceptions they have before they read.

Hmmm... where did you say "precisely" that "there are awful things being done on both sides, and I hope they both learn quickly that further bloodshed by either is sad and counterproductive."

Was it here?

Paris: Unfortunately, this is the level the Israelis should be operating on. Its called a war. It's called deranged terrorists who dwell amongst civilians. The guy brought it on himself and his neighbors.

As sad as it is, a step in the right direction.


Maybe it was here?
Paris: The people whose MO and aim is to intentional blow up civilians are on one side in this war. That's why the other side needs to lose. Eventually, Israel will bump off enough of the leader-wackos, and cut off enough of the death suppy channels, which flow from Lebanon, Egypt, Iran, Iraq and Syria, that the remaining population will get it. Maybe that will be after the next Iraqi war; maybe before, but until that happens, Israel needs to keep at it. And hopefully, it will have the courage to do so.

Boy, I simply can't find it. Paris, could you provide a link to your evenhanded thought? In fact, it doesn't have to be in this thread. With over 2400 comments now. This should be easy for you. Just find one.
posted by Sinner at 3:53 PM on July 23, 2002


NIGYYSOB!
posted by quonsar at 3:54 PM on July 23, 2002


Actually, that was precisely what I said, which makes me wonder about what some of the posters to this thread are reading; and what preconceptions they have before they read.

You're mistaking yourself for me. Read it again.

You're the one that wants to sit here and fit about which side is more wrong or more right, when again, both sides are wrong and they need to take a step back and stop this nonsense.
posted by mathowie at 4:05 PM on July 23, 2002


!
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on July 23, 2002


I know nobody will get this far in a thread this bad, but I want to make a correction to an interesting issue that has been ongoing for a while.

Zekinska: ...Only one side (Israel) is a member of the United Nations.

Actually this is what's been going on: Israel has been the only UN member excluded from a regional group (in the UN's 50 year history). Geographically, it belongs in the Asian Group; however, the Arab states have barred its membership. Without membership in a regional group, Israel cannot sit on the Security Council or other key UN bodies. (source - biased I guess, but factual)

Paris makes it hard to be a supporter of Israel here. But we try. We try. And in this case, I'll be the first (well, looks like the 50th) to say that this is some seriously reprehensible shit that Israel has pulled. Completely and totally uncalled for. It's a brute strength smash-it-all-with-the-biggest-hammer-you-can-find approach to a problem that is infinitely more nuanced. If you ever want to have normal relations with a group of people, don't kill their children by leveling buildings. If you mean, as Paris even suggests, to inspire fear in the hearts of your enemies to get them to cower in the corner, then by all means, go right the fuck ahead.
posted by zpousman at 4:11 PM on July 23, 2002


Tune in next time; same MeFi, different I/P thread.

In the interest of fair-play, can the next one be P/I? Or is that like saying the Palestinians come first?
posted by msacheson at 4:13 PM on July 23, 2002


Is that it? Over now?
posted by Postroad at 4:20 PM on July 23, 2002


Neither side has the moral high ground, if war even has one.

Some wars do have a clear higher moral high ground.

And count me among those who has become more sympathetic with Israel as this issue has been discussed on Mefi.
posted by owillis at 4:24 PM on July 23, 2002


Seriously, the mid east is as interesting as two children fighting in the backseat of a car.

Sounds like the whole nut in the shell, right there.

1. You can't stop looking as you see them through the windows.
2. You can't do anything as they're not in your car.
3. You have to wonder why the parents can't get them under control.
4. You hope they don't distract the driver then the car looses control and hits you.
5. Your left frenzied and frustrated.
posted by thomcatspike at 4:26 PM on July 23, 2002


When will people realize, human life in the Middle East is just not worth anything. I mean, obviously they don't care.
posted by delmoi at 4:33 PM on July 23, 2002


Well, now that this has degenerated into a "bash Paris" thread, rather then a "bash Israel" thread let me get my two cents in.

I really did consider the possibility that Paris was actually an anti-Semite trying to convert people. I think I said that once to try to shut him up. Paris's constant arguments and seeming complete disregard for Arab life. His only argument seems to be that "suicide bombing" is somehow worse then "regular bombing/shooting". Personally, I don't really buy that argument, I mean dead is dead and a lot more Palestinian civilians end up dying then Israelis.

I would be pretty shocked if there was anyone here who disagreed with these basic tenants of a peace agreement:

1) Israel gets to exist within it's pre-1967 borders
2) The Palestinians get the west bank and Gaza as an independent state
3) The Israeli settlers are moved back to Israel.
4) Refugees from the 1967 war are bought off, rather then get to return home.
5) Terror attacks on Israel stop.

Of course, there are lots of nuances and stuff, but that�s the gist of what I think everyone pretty much agrees on.

For me, I think a lot of the onus for what's going on right now really falls on the Israelis. They could make 1, 2, 3, and 4 happen right now if they wanted to. In contrast, the PA really only has limited power to stop 5... Its debatable wether or not they are trying, though.

Another problem I see with the Israeli side is that 1,2,3 and four could have been accomplished at any time after 1967 but weren't, even when there were no terror attacks (afik). Settlements increased even! It's hard to believe that the Israelis would even negotiate if it wasn't for the terror attacks.
posted by delmoi at 5:02 PM on July 23, 2002


delmoi: I'm seriously asking and not to flame or anything. But why should Israel have to give these things up? From all I've seen Palestinian claims to many of these lands is specious at best. Also, if you look at any Palestinian rhetoric, they want the whole thing. In their view, it seems there is no room for Israel.

[If I were an Israeli I would say to hell with the Middle Eastern nuts and move to Florida where I can have people of all races shoot at me]
posted by owillis at 5:09 PM on July 23, 2002


owillis: If I were an Israeli I would say to hell with the Middle Eastern nuts and move to Florida where I can have people of all races shoot at me

Yes any rational person would, but many of those in the settlements believe in the Zionist expansion and ancient prophesies regarding the true fate of Israel. Could they deny their god, beliefs, community and religion? They don't seem to want to. Superstition and ancient cosmologies drive the I/P conflict much more than politics in my opinion.
posted by skallas at 5:15 PM on July 23, 2002


Perhaps a high-ranking official of the Israeli government will have the decency to organize a performance of Mahler's Kindertotenlieder by Mahler, express official condolences, and use the concert proceeds to assist the surviving families. (Given the vindictiveness and moralizing tone in the online community, and today's inauguration of an official propaganda operation, it seems doubtful that even this small gesture of respect for the dead would be possible.)
posted by sheauga at 5:18 PM on July 23, 2002


What utter nonsense! Israeli had been prpared for most of what is now being suggested under Barak and Arafat walked. Tell me of course he did for this and that reason but then read what the chief American negotiator, Dennis Ross, says. Israel is not going to give up some of Golan Heights, a spot that has always been used to fire down on Israel.
Jerusalem issue not mentioned. But there is an old chestunt in history: the force that loses territory gets it back when they reach an accord with those that in war took the land--the land by the way that was Jordan's and Egypts.
Hamas et al have said simply: they will not stop what they are doing till they get back Arab lands--but they never tell what Arab lands consist of, and from the maps I have seen used, it includes Israel.
Get away if you will, from the P/I issue. Imagine we had gone into Germany (as we did) as a conquering army and demanded surrender, without terms (as we did) and the Germans had organized groups that shot at and killed American troops. Would we say: what the hell. Give them back everything and let's go back to where we were before the war? It just is not done that way.
The Palestinians if they could stop the shooting might call Israel's bluff and see how much they would give back. The Israelis have no reason to do anything till there is an end to shooting and a sitdown to negotiate.
Useful too to remember that the terror groups are armed and funded by Iraq, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia. The Israelis are funded as are the Egyptians by the US.
The UN and EU today condemned the killing of innocents but remain silent when innocents get killed in Israel
Israel needs to get out of territories. But they would be foolish to do so till they have a peaceful accord signed in advance. Would you give up everyting your kids fought and died for without first getting an accord in advance?
posted by Postroad at 5:19 PM on July 23, 2002


From all I've seen Palestinian claims to many of these lands is specious at best.

Specious apparently meaning actually owning the land, in many if not most cases for generations. What would you consider a non-specious claim to land if having owned it for a long time is specious? Is the Bible preferable to modern concept of ownership?
posted by cell divide at 5:25 PM on July 23, 2002


Palestinian claims to many of these lands is specious at best

owillis, you're asking for complete and basic history of the land. This will never come across on MeFi in response to a request, though you will get many diatribes. It's hard to suggest one book, but I think the Israeli historian Benny Morris is a good balance (moderate Israeli, not so moderate that he doesn't currently endorse some pretty aggressive and uncompromising political views about the untrustworthiness of the Palestinians, agree with Postroad about Camp David, etc., but a man whose scholarly view of history is admirably untainted by nationalist mythology, too).

His complete history is Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-1999.

Or for a blunter look at the real answer to your question (i.e., what happened ca. 1948), see his
The Birth of the Palestinian Refugee Problem, 1947-1949.

P.S. Some of the more unthinking pro-Israelis will decry these books as "revisionism." But it's not pro-Palestinian writing, it's what you get from sifting through the complex facts and looking at the multiple causes.
posted by Zurishaddai at 5:25 PM on July 23, 2002


1. You can't stop looking as you see them through the windows.
2. You can't do anything as they're not in your car.
3. You have to wonder why the parents can't get them under control.
4. You hope they don't distract the driver then the car looses control and hits you.
5. Your left frenzied and frustrated.



thomcatspike, in your own inimitable way, you have (IMHO) defined the basic problem with this whole issue - there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to make either side change their position and there is no likelihood of a resolution in the foreseeable future, making everyone frustrated for their own reasons.

Arguing over whether one side is more wrong than the other is pointless - wrong is wrong is wrong. The more attention that is focused on this issue worldwide, the bigger it will become and those who predict the next worldwide conflict starting in the middle east will get closer to being right. Sooner or later, someone will step in and say "I don't care WHO started it, I'm going to finish it" and it will be on for young and old.
posted by dg at 5:32 PM on July 23, 2002


If my comments focus on defense of Israel, its because there are so many comments on Mefi which seek to treat Israel as the moral, ethical and political equivalent of the PA (or what's left of it) and the various other terrorist mafias. Whatever its military prowess, Israel is the little guy. The cards are stacked against it. If there were less anti-Israel comments on Mefi, my comments would be more nuanced and less hyperbolic.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:42 PM on July 23, 2002


No, you're just oversensitive. When people say both parties are at fault, you take it as an insult. Both parties have blood on their hands, and neither can take the high moral ground. Unbiased, bored, non-P, non-I Mefites have pretty much unanimously reached this conclusion. You, however, are too proud to (or just too biased). You are not approaching this with anything close to an open mind, and your only goal is to convert us, because we're stupid. You are wasting your time and ours.
posted by websavvy at 8:49 PM on July 23, 2002


If there were less anti-Israel comments on Mefi, my comments would be more nuanced and less hyperbolic.

We don't agree with you. So you employ rhetoric less likely to persuade us? You are in front of an audience likely to criticize the credibility and motivations of what you have to say. So you ratchet up the exaggerations, you resort to the hyperbole of "PA=terrorist mafia," etc.? Go figure.

I am not pretending never to be polemical. It's just that I thought it was understood that stridency only "works" if you're sounding off against the sympathetic. Give a real think to the many people who have said they've been tempted to think your discrediting of your cause might be on purpose.
posted by Zurishaddai at 9:21 PM on July 23, 2002


We don't agree with you. So you employ rhetoric less likely to persuade us? You are in front of an audience likely to criticize the credibility and motivations of what you have to say...

What's this "we" crap, Kemosabe?

So what you're admitting, in effect, is that Metafilter has a liberal, anti-Israel bias? Ha! Gotcha! I'll have to remember this thread during the next chorus of "Metafilter's not biased!"
posted by evanizer at 9:24 PM on July 23, 2002


It's absurd that my contributions to Mefi have shifted sympathies away from Israel; I suspect those who write this are BS'ing, or never had any sympathies in the first place.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:30 PM on July 23, 2002


So what you're admitting, in effect, is that Metafilter has a liberal, anti-Israel bias?

Sorry to introduce a tangent (or maybe, on this thread, that's a good thing,) but I hold a political science degree and I have never been able to figure this out - why is support for Palestine a "liberal" position and support for Israel a "conservative" position?

Whose government - Sharon's or Arafat's - would you consider more "liberal"?

Moreso, why is this a matter of politics at all?
posted by PrinceValium at 9:55 PM on July 23, 2002


It's absurd that my contributions to Mefi have shifted sympathies away from Israel; I suspect those who write this are BS'ing, or never had any sympathies in the first place.

Right, because you say so. That seems to be your recurring argument.

I love how the same people who decry/deny I/P moral equivalence and project a higher value on Israel simultaneously complain the most bitterly when Israel is actually held to that standard. You can't have it both ways.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:02 PM on July 23, 2002


I think the conservatism comes into play because right-wing fundo Christians in this country actually think the End Times are a-comin' and that Israel is our token of salvation ... or something.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:05 PM on July 23, 2002


I was being tongue in cheek. Sorry, I should have said so, though I'm a bit baffled by this liberal=Palestinian supporter conservative=Israel supporter thing myself. Once upon a time, support for Israel was a big American liberal cause, and many conservatives, especially the radical Christian kind, despised Israel because of the Jews. Strange how the times change...
posted by evanizer at 10:11 PM on July 23, 2002


Paris: It's absurd that my contributions to Mefi have shifted sympathies away from Israel; I suspect those who write this are BS'ing, or never had any sympathies in the first place.

I assure you that you're wrong. Listening to your zealotry is a reminder that not all of the lunatics are on "their" side.
posted by Sinner at 10:33 PM on July 23, 2002


What's this "we" crap, Kemosabe?

Paris says "we" (MeFi community in general) are amazingly anti-Israel, and therefore he resorts to hyperbole. I'm just granting the premise for the sake of argument and wondering how the hell you get to the conclusion.
posted by Zurishaddai at 10:35 PM on July 23, 2002


Incidentally, Paris, I challenged you to provide some solid evidence of your being evenhanded over your time here, and aside from three very small political disagreements in this thread, you've yet to provide anything else, whether in terms of disapproval of Israeli policy or actions or approval of Palestinian policy or actions (other than those directly serving yours or Israel's direct self-interests).

Basically anything suggesting you don't see things in purely subjective, black and white terms. So far you've not responded.

Could that be because even in over 2400 comments you simply haven't made them?
posted by Sinner at 10:36 PM on July 23, 2002


When you have to compare your government to Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists in order to make it look good, you know you've got a problem.

Wow, Sharon is occupying a moral high ground 2 inches above Islamic Fundamentalist terrorist. I'm sure Israelis are proud.
posted by chaz at 10:47 PM on July 23, 2002




Sharon's moral high ground consists of hailing this attack as a 'great success' while 9 children were killed. Just how many innocent children is a Hamas leader worth?

and yes both sides are wrong but what hope when Israel's best friend 'condemns' their fuck-up by describing it as 'heavy-handed' - no chance of him doing it again when he's under that kind of pressure.
posted by niceness at 2:06 AM on July 24, 2002


Ariel Tracy it just doesn't have the same impact does it.
posted by johnnyboy at 5:18 AM on July 24, 2002


evidence of your being evenhanded

Since I don't view Hamas, or Yasser or the PA, or their sponsors in Iraq, Syria, Iran or Lebanon; or suicide bombers or coercively covering womens' heads or faces as anything other than facets of barbaric societies, I don't want to be "evenhanded," whatever the hell that means. And thankfully, I live in a country where the vast majority of people agree.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:19 AM on July 24, 2002


So Paris, one Hamas is worth nine children?
posted by niceness at 5:30 AM on July 24, 2002


On the other hand, what's so unfair about so many of the posts here is that people presume I am not unset about the death of truly innocent people in an IDF bombing. Too many people here are looking for a characature to attack: that's really easy and cheap.
posted by ParisParamus at 5:33 AM on July 24, 2002


Since I don't view Hamas, or Yasser or the PA, or their sponsors in Iraq, Syria, Iran or Lebanon; or suicide bombers or coercively covering womens' heads or faces as anything other than facets of barbaric societies, I don't want to be "evenhanded," whatever the hell that means. And thankfully, I live in a country where the vast majority of people agree.

This, of course, is a piss-poor way of providing justification to virtually any means of warfare. It doesn't answer the question of whether Israel can actually kill too many people by mistake, or really whether Israel can even make a mistake.

For example, while I don't approve of the Palestinians attacking Israeli in any way, it's more justificable under traditional rules of war for them to attack a military outpost than a shopping center. It's quite similar to how no one here would be complaining if Israel had killed just the Hamas leader, but takes serious issue with them killing more than a dozen civilians in the process.

Yet again, you've managed to hurl invective without answering the question, all the while claiming the support of an unseen majority which doesn't actually exist and which has clearly shown disapproval of Israel's more heavy-handed efforts. With all that hot air pouring out of you it's no wonder New York is sweltering right now.
posted by Sinner at 5:38 AM on July 24, 2002


On the other hand, what's so unfair about so many of the posts here is that people presume I am not unset about the death of truly innocent people in an IDF bombing. Too many people here are looking for a characature to attack: that's really easy and cheap.

I guess that makes you easy and cheap.

I guess all "we" had to go on was your presumption of guilt for everyone involved and lack of any expressed remorse (saying "the guy brought it on himself and his neighbors" is justification, not remorse) despite repeated entreaties for such (no specific link there, because it's the story of the entire thread).

People didn't "presume." They asked and you either refused to answer or did answer and are now mischaracterizing those responses.
posted by Sinner at 5:44 AM on July 24, 2002


"Everyone involved" refers back to the Palestinians referenced in Paris's statement about "...the death of truly innocent people in an IDF bombing," not to Israelis. Sorry to be unclear.
posted by Sinner at 6:03 AM on July 24, 2002


Paris: You seem to want to have your cake and eat it.

Unfortunately, this is the level the Israelis should be operating on.

I presume that 'level' is acceptance of infanticide?
posted by niceness at 6:31 AM on July 24, 2002


"I don't want to be "evenhanded," whatever the hell that means. And thankfully, I live in a country where the vast majority of people agree." - Paris

Brilliant Paris! I think you just pinpointed the problem!

"And hopefully, it will have the courage to do so." -Paris

Firing missiles at apartment buildings does take a lot of courage, I must say.

"It's just that Israelis are not blowing themselves up in Gaza produce markets, and for this debate, that's what really matters." -Paris

Israelis are also not waiting at checkpoints for days. I wonder how many Israelis would be willing to accept the humiliating practices they inflict on Palestinians. I think that's what really matters.
posted by aLienated at 6:43 AM on July 24, 2002


We started with some witty reparte and ended with a 9th grade social studies level discussion.

The other kids are trying to explain to the kid whose dad brought home body parts from Vietnam that not everything America does is good.

Can't we stop this thread hijack?
posted by goneill at 7:19 AM on July 24, 2002


I've counted 19 ParisParamus posts in this thread. Nearly 1/5fth of the total number of comments. Impressive.
posted by Loudmax at 8:12 AM on July 24, 2002


That's called 'talking loud and saying nothing'.
posted by niceness at 8:49 AM on July 24, 2002


Personally, I'm quite eager to see Paris respond to the statements made here, in the hopes that he'll reconsider his "lack of nuance" in future discussions, but I'm starting to doubt that he'll ever do so.
posted by Sinner at 9:10 AM on July 24, 2002


for paris read devils' advocate.
posted by johnnyboy at 10:00 AM on July 24, 2002


I doubt if anyone's interested, but I once wrote down some thoughts on the bare minimum that could be done to put an eventual end to the conflict.
posted by queequeg at 10:15 AM on July 24, 2002


Sharon's moral high ground consists of hailing this attack as a 'great success' while 9 children were killed. Just how many innocent children is a Hamas leader worth?

Well, it would appear that IDF intelligence was wrong about the radius of the effect of the bomb they were using.

But to answer your question, as I wrote yesterday, you should ask that question of the maniacs who want to wage war on Israel from the "security" of civilian areas. Like the blood on Saddam Hussein's hands, the Sheik was the proximate cause of his family's and neighbor's deaths, not the IDF.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:19 AM on July 24, 2002


I presume that 'level' is acceptance of infanticide?

No. The level is: parents are responsible for their children. And societies are responsible for controling their wacko elements. And if said societies cannot, people affected on the outside have the right to defend themselves.

Israel is doing what you or I would do in similar circumstances. Stop holding them to another standard.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:23 AM on July 24, 2002


One thing that was interesting about the coverage of the missile attack this morning was that everyone seems to accept that political assassination is ok. Why not arrest the guy? On the other hand, assassinating someone in the most destructive way possible is a good guarantee that you'll have more suicide bombings and soon. One can only conclude that Sharon wants more suicide bombings to happen.

Anyway, wrt political assassination, I'm assuming people think it's justified because the Hamas guy was sending suicide bombers out to kill people.

But surely merely telling people to kill other people isn't worthy of an assassination. If it is, then I'd argue we're setting a very dangerous precedent. After all, if this guy is responsible for the deaths of a few hundred Israeli civilians, what kind of assassination attempts could be justified against someone who was responsible for the deaths of, say, 500,000 Iraqi kids (that would be Clinton) or 3000 Afghani civilians - or the mainstream (and late) estimates of 800+ (that's Bush)?

Is the difference that one is fighting for justice and peace, and the other for Pure Evil? Even if that could be determined, it would have to be determined in, say, a war crimes tribunal, or a court of law, not by the whim of someone with some missiles.
posted by queequeg at 10:32 AM on July 24, 2002


queequeq: yeah, sure, right.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:36 AM on July 24, 2002


This, of course, is a piss-poor way of providing justification to virtually any means of warfare.

No its not. Its grounds for substituting, by necessity, one's own sense of morality and decency, and waging war in that manner, rather than on the barbaric terms Hamas, et al does. This is precisely why some much of the exchanges on this subject are pointless: posters are assuming what I, and others believe; extrapolating, rather than, at least, asking us.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:40 AM on July 24, 2002


Well, it would appear that IDF intelligence was wrong about the radius of the effect of the bomb they were using.

An excuse worthy of Hamas themselves.
posted by niceness at 10:49 AM on July 24, 2002


They thought they were using the bombs with the 6 inch blast radius. Honest mistake.

Geez.
posted by websavvy at 11:11 AM on July 24, 2002


From MEMRI: Transcript of interview with Shehadah.


Sh'hadeh: "We do not target children, the elderly, and places of worship, although these places of worship incite to murdering Muslims. Similarly, we have not targeted schools, because we do not give orders to kill children. The same goes for hospitals, although this is easy for us, and attainable. We act according to the principles of Jihad to which we adhere. Our motto is: 'We are not fighting the Jews because they are Jews, but because they occupy our land. We are not fighting them because of their religion but because they have usurped our land. If we kill a child it is not intentional...'"

Rationalizations and justifications for murder that sound awfully familiar...
posted by cell divide at 11:11 AM on July 24, 2002


By the way, the reason why "who is wrong" or who is more wrong" is important is because past and present "wrong" predicts future wrong. That's why the PA and Hamas need to be destroyed: not for their past "wrongs," but because of the ones they are planning.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:17 AM on July 24, 2002


"The Times has learnt that a Palestinian declaration containing an unconditional commitment to end suicide attacks on civilians was finalised hours before the attack. It was to have been made public yesterday but has now been postponed indefinitely."
posted by homunculus at 11:35 AM on July 24, 2002


The Times has learnt...

Gee. What a coincidence! Frankly, I would never trust a "negotiator" to end a barbaric tactic. Seems like a trojan horse.
posted by ParisParamus at 12:44 PM on July 24, 2002


Paris, I reiterate. You're a lunatic. That's not intended as ad hominem, it's intended as the best encapsulation of your logically incoherent, morally indefensible views. It's utterly pointless to debate you, and returning to my initial statement, I entreat you to understand that with every post you drive more and more people further away from knee-jerk defense of Israel.

For the most part, there are no hard-line defenders of the Palestineans here to counter your zealotry. There are a bunch of smart, educated, largely civil people and then you and Postroad.

While I disagree with virtually everything Postroad says, however, his willingness to at least not dominate every I/P discussion and to speak in a marginally less offensive manner counts for something.

On the other hand, I still think you should be banned. Even if you have arguably a different intent, your views long ago ceased to be just unpopular. Your efforts are functionally the same as trolling, and you make them willfully. Users have been banned for trolling before, I believe, and if not an exception should be made for you.

Short of that occuring - it won't - I think you should seriously consider leaving the I/P threads to the grown-ups in perpetuity as opposed to your oh-I-miss-it-so 10-day moratorium. Your posts are having an impact directly inverse to your intentions, and that's been made plain for the umpteenth time in this thread.
posted by Sinner at 12:52 PM on July 24, 2002


you are beating your head against an intransigent wall, sinner. the only options available appear to be banning him, paying $5 a month for bozo filter pro, or avoiding the threads altogether.
posted by machaus at 1:05 PM on July 24, 2002


Israel is doing what you or I would do in similar circumstances. Stop holding them to another standard.

Actually, I would end the occupation, and then see what happens. I would also stop accepting US charity money. If they could hold to my standard, I would be very happy indeed.
posted by thirteen at 1:35 PM on July 24, 2002


Shit! Missed the party again, any troll whores left for me?

An intelligent person never lets his emotions play with his reasoning. Paris, I strongly suggest you stay away from P/I for awhile, and that goes for the whole of MeFi. Just forget about it, fuck it, nothing you say or do (short of carrying out assassinations) is going to change the situation.

DISCLAIMER: I am an atheist.

LOOK WHAT RELIGION DOES!
posted by ( .)(. ) at 1:43 PM on July 24, 2002


(.)(.), as I've said, I've started very few P/I threads, and usually, I only contribute in response to some stupid moral equivalency comment. So I will probably lay low for a while. Next stop: that shopping mall thread!
posted by ParisParamus at 1:46 PM on July 24, 2002


By the way, the reason why "who is wrong" or who is more wrong" is important is because past and present "wrong" predicts future wrong. That's why the PA and Hamas need to be destroyed: not for their past "wrongs," but because of the ones they are planning.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:17 AM PST on July 24


Little pre-crime with your prejudice Paris? Hmmm, ok...following your rules...let's see...

July 22, 1946 - King David Hotel bombing: Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorists, commanded by Menachem Begin, bombed the British office wing of Jerusalem's King David Hotel, killing 91 people, 17 of them Jews. Among other Irgun terrorist actions was the bombing of the British Embassy in Rome.

September 17, 1948, four Israeli Army officers assassinated Count Folke Bernadotte, the man appointed by the United Nations to mediate the growing Arab-Jewish dispute. The four killers were never brought to justice. Count Folke Bernadotte, a neutral diplomat in World War II, had saved thousands of Jews from Nazi death camps.

On April 9, 1948--the combined forces of the Stern Gang and the Irgun (military arm of the Revisionist party, commanded by Menachem Begin, later Prime Minister) carried out ethnic cleansing in the Arab village of Deir Yassin. Twenty-three men were led off to a quarry and executed, and between 90 and 230 others were shot down in the village. The villagers had actually signed a nonaggression pact with a nearby Jewish village when the Stern Gang decided to destroy Deir Yassin to teach the Arabs a lesson for over-running other Jewish settlements.

Something a little more recent, perhaps on our own territory? How bout:

December 2001-- Jewish Defense League chief Irving David Rubin and JDL member Earl Leslie Krugel were arrested and charged with planning to blow up a mosque and the offices of U.S. Representative Darrell Issa. Mainstream Jewish groups were quick to condemn the JDL, but I'm sure you were cheering them on, weren't ya Paris?

So, Paris...according to your logic, Israeli's are violent murdering thugs who want nothing more than to round people up, shoot them in the head and drop big bombs on them and thus, should be executed ASAP to save the rest of the world.

Do you see how stupid your logic is yet?


People like you give credence to the anti-semites. You make supporting Israel on these threads a much harder task for those that want to present the Israeli side. You've made rational discussion about anything you touch nigh onto impossible because you always manage to get the thread focused on you. You're an attention whore and I'm SO tired of it I could spit. You've got faulty wiring and bad logic, and if anyone ever should have been banned for trolling and irrational behavior from this site...it's you.

And on preview...we've all heard the "I'll stay away from IP threads" before. Nobody believes you about that either sparky. You wouldn't know truth if it bit you on the nose.
posted by dejah420 at 1:56 PM on July 24, 2002


Its SO fun to bash ParisParamus! SO FREAKIN FUN.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:00 PM on July 24, 2002


This thread stopped being rational when it stopped being about the isrealis and the palestininians, and started being about how wrong ParisParamus is or isn't.

If we can't manage to come to some sort of agreement, and we're all safe, fat and happy here in the US or elsewhere in the world, then how are the people who are living (and dying) there supposed to come to any sort of agreement?
posted by crunchland at 2:05 PM on July 24, 2002


Paris:Its SO fun to bash ParisParamus! SO FREAKIN FUN.

Right, because when someone makes a point that makes you look like the blathering maniac that you've shown yourself to be, they must be "bashing" you, and consequently you needn't respond to them. Wait, let me guess, now you're going to accuse dejah240 of anti-semitism? Reiterating her question, "do you see how stupid your logic is yet?" Why not respond to what she has said?

And to reiterate (this will be my fourth use of some form of that word in this thread) my point, Paris, keep your word and don't return to these threads. We (including you) will all benefit from your absence.

crunchland:If we can't manage to come to some sort of agreement, and we're all safe, fat and happy here in the US or elsewhere in the world, then how are the people who are living (and dying) there supposed to come to any sort of agreement?

Using a form of Paris's logic here, those of us who would like to have interesting and education conversation on these topics need to excise from our midst those who want otherwise. Once they are voluntarily gone, the rest of us can go about our little community peacefully. Of course, to make a brief analogy to the "current situation," I wouldn't dispatch 10 or 15 other posters simply to get Paris to go away.
posted by Sinner at 2:21 PM on July 24, 2002


Its SO fun to bash ParisParamus! SO FREAKIN FUN.

I can handle your knee-jerk opinions and even your way of shouting them but I don't think I can take any of this self-pity?
posted by niceness at 2:27 PM on July 24, 2002


the deaths of, say, 500,000 Iraqi kids

queequeg, I don't know what cause you think you're supporting, but you're discrediting it. Pause before jumping on the bandwagon to defend the propaganda of a regime that staged the funerals of all those children by freezing baby corpses, and be patient for reliable information about the Afghan campaign. It'll probably turn out that allied forces took ca. 1000 civilian lives in the course of making Afghanistan an incomparably better place for the millions of people who survived and still live there. Enough to discredit the idea that we've hit on a model form of warfare to replicate ad nauseam, but not enough to sustain the KPFA rants.
posted by Zurishaddai at 11:12 PM on July 24, 2002




Zurishaddai: I'm not supporting any cause, certainly not Saddam's cause. Of course he's a maniac who used chemical weapons on his own people, etc. etc. (though that didn't stop the US from supporting him for years.)

I'm simply pointing to a fact that doesn't rely on Hussein's figures. Whether he staged funerals or not is irrelevant; the figure of 500,000 comes from UNICEF, and was acknowledged by Albright when she said "the price is worth it."

Why wait for "reliable" figures to come out of Afghanistan when the foreign press has been keeping track, while the Pentagon is clearly actively undermining efforts to get exact numbers.
posted by queequeg at 12:43 PM on July 25, 2002


unicef = un = organization directed by, inter alia, Sudan. And China.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:19 PM on July 25, 2002


... a tumbleweed rolls by...
posted by websavvy at 1:39 PM on July 25, 2002


If 500,000 children have died in Iraq, that's SH's fault. As it is Hamas for the civilian deaths in Gaza earlier this week. This is obvious.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:14 PM on July 25, 2002


I usually don't even read the I/P filter stuff. And I have to say that I always assumed I was pretty much pro-Israeli, but PP has been very helpful in making me realize there are nuts on both sides of the middle-eastern scrotum. So, PP, yeah, the force of your 'argument' has a Newtonian reverse-thrust effect. Not 'bashing' just commenting. /me backs out of the thread slowly....
posted by umberto at 2:30 PM on July 25, 2002


I'm very tired of people's inability to see cause and effect; and to blame victims for crimes. A lot of you should be ashamed of yourselves.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:33 PM on July 25, 2002


(Just because victims don't act with detached rationality/flawlessly, does not turn them into something other than victims.)
posted by ParisParamus at 2:43 PM on July 25, 2002


Here's an interesting article by Rabbi Arthur Waskow about the bombing.

He shows that Hamas and other groups were about to agree to a ceasefire; in fact they were going to announce it the day of the bombing.

He asks:
Why did the Sharon government not explore the possibility of a cease-fire? Why did it choose this very moment to kiill a Hamas leader, when the possibility existed of ending the terrorist bombings that have cost so many Israeli lives, so deeply damaged the Israeli economy, and been the target of so many Israeli demands that Palestinians abandon this disgusting, vile, and immoral practice?

Why is this sequence so similar to the one reported by Yediot Achronot last fall?

One possible answer is that the Israeli government thought it so important to kill these two leaders of Hamas that it did so DESPITE the consequences to be expected: that Palestinian civilians wouild die, that suicide bombings would continue, Israelis would die as a result of retaliataory attacks, negotiations would become impossible again, the Palestinian Authority's authority again be undermined and its painstaking efforts for a cease-fire go for nought.

There is another, even more dreadful possibility: That the Sharon government took these actions not despite but BECAUSE it expects these consequences.
posted by queequeg at 11:53 AM on July 26, 2002


Queequeg: hope you are mistaken in your last posit.

Negotiations of one sort or another are almost always in progress. There's also the possiblity that Hamas is just saying this now to maximize their PR. Not necessarily true, but a possibility.
posted by ParisParamus at 2:34 PM on July 26, 2002


« Older   |   Justice Department's Revised... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments