October 12, 2000

8:26 AM

"Israel declares war"I guess things have gone a little too far on both sides. Sad.
posted by Cavatica (86 comments total)

A mob fights off police and kills two Israeli soldiers. The Israeli army flattens Arafat's compound. Now that's certainly a show of strength, but little more. The difficulty is that the Israelis are politically forced to attribute the violence directly to Arafat's authority, when the radical elements within Palestine have more or less given up on him.

Again, the Economist has an insightful analysis of the situation.
posted by holgate at 9:22 AM on October 12, 2000

A declaration of war against whom? Let me know when the politicians actually put into writing a war declaration, and then come to the table to sign a cease fire or some pretend peace agreement, otherwise declare all you want. Anyone even remember when was the last time another country declared war on another? Not some NATO, UN, or "Operation (enter serious sounding name)"?

Any "war criminals" going to emerge out of this fighting? I mean, just look at the guy at the window. Do you think he is guilty or should be held accountable? Now what about those 97 others. Maybe those know-it-all law makers had better pass some "common sense" gun legislation, with mandatory trigger locks, 5-10 day waiting periods, and the like over there. These seem to be planned attacks to get everyone a little concerned about the middle east. Maybe if mob violence was up in Canada or over in New York City I would pay more attention, but both sides have been fighting for gee......how long has it been? All my lifetime for certain.

Granted there are no "easy" answers I don't pretend to know them, it just seems a little out of my control to tell those fighting to stop. Mob rule and random acts that break out daily, seem to capture the news headlines, but when they can declare this is the most peaceful times we have lived in for some time go ahead and let me know, otherwise maybe a running billboard put up up in time square to keep track of the loss of life.
posted by brent at 9:35 AM on October 12, 2000

The Economist analysis is a lot better than the twee "balanced" language of the original post here. It's not two sides "going a little too far"; it's Israelis killing Arabs. Of 60 people dead, all but 3 are Palestinian... (See link above to Economist article).

posted by andrew cooke at 9:40 AM on October 12, 2000

It's amazing to me, and quite a bit sad as well, how clearly biased and anti-semitic this "community" really is... you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

I know I am.
posted by attitude at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2000

Your headline is wrong, Israel has not declared war. That's not something to take lightly as a casual headline for a link.
posted by Brilliantcrank at 9:47 AM on October 12, 2000

Although if it was in quotes, it would be correct, since it was Arafat's words.
posted by smackfu at 9:50 AM on October 12, 2000

anti-semetic? this is the typical answer of someone who is in complete denial about the atrocities being committed by the Israelis. It is not anti-semetic to say that Israel is wrong. It is not anti-semetic to say that the Israeli army has been killing unarmed civilians for the past two weeks.


Look at the violence, where is it happening? In Israel? No. In the West Bank. Look at who is dying, is it Israelis? No, it is Palestinians. So what you have is a situation where an occupying Army is killing civilians, mostly unarmed, on their own land. And you dare blame a negative reaction on anti-semitism? I find it amazing that the Israelis are trying to portray themselves as victims in this situation. Certainly through the years the Palestinian attacks on civilians have been repugnant and outrageous, but there have been more Palestinians killed by the ARMY and POLICE in the past 2 weeks than have been killed by TERRORISTS in the past 8 years!

If it were any other nation in the world, America would be outraged by this violence. And yet America supports it, through money and a sham "diplomacy" which doesn't even rebuke the Israelis for their patently unfair and indeed murderous tactics. Israel operates on a reverse logic: war is peace, aggressors are victims.

As for the conflict going on for "thousands of years," that is a complete myth. This conflict has been going on for 50 years, and if you really look at the concessions the Palestinians have made (remember that ALL the land was theirs for about 1000 years, up until 1948), the conflict we're talking about has gone on since 1967.
posted by s10pen at 9:56 AM on October 12, 2000

War, schmore... what's the difference? Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Binyamin Ben Eliezer says "This is war." Arafat considers the attacks a declaration of war. Good enough for me.
posted by sudama at 9:56 AM on October 12, 2000

>how clearly biased and anti-semitic this "community" really is...

Biased? I suppose so. We all have our axes to grind, don't we?

Anti-Semitic? I disagree. Consider this online newspaper. Are their views Anti-Semitic or Pro-Arab? Is one necessarily the other?

Though violence solves nothing, is it remotely possible that the Palestinians might have a legitimate complaint? After all, it wasn't so long ago that displaying their flag was illegal.

Extermination of the Jews was wrong too, and if I was a member of a People that faced genocide at any time in recent history, I'd be keenly interested in a) preventing another go at it, and b) self-preservation. So I don't necessarily view the Jews as the "problem" in the Middle East. It takes two to tango.

gsxl: I agree. One should not bandy about declarations of war casually.

I also caution against charging "Anti-Semitism" with such a broad brush. (clarification: gsxl has not made such an accusation that I'm aware of)
posted by ethmar at 10:03 AM on October 12, 2000

"If it were any other nation in the world, America would be outraged by this violence."

Exactly. Let's think about this for a minute: What do you suppose would happen in America, if hundreds upon thousands of people would riot in the streets, all simultaneously throwing large, lethal rocks and molotov cocktails at passing civilians, cars, police, soldiers, and lets not forget, a FUNERAL PROCESSION!!!

Do you think this government would just sit back and allow that to happen? How many people do you think would die before it ended? Don't be naive.
posted by attitude at 10:04 AM on October 12, 2000

My apologies to anyone who was offended by the link. Smackfu's right, it was something that Arafat said, and I should have added quotation marks accordingly. I didn't realize that until a few posts into the thread.
posted by Cavatica at 10:06 AM on October 12, 2000

Actually, the last country I remember declaring war on another was Panama, where the legislature voted a declaration of war against the US about 48 hours before we invaded.

More to topic, I thought the... jubilation of the Palestinian kid with the Israeli soldiers' blood on his was... disturbing, to say the least.

The real problem, as it's always been through the negotiations, is that senior officials of both the US and Israel have assumed Arafat has control. It's been clear since the first days of the intifada that he has little if any influence on his own people, just on diplomats and journalists.

posted by aurelian at 10:08 AM on October 12, 2000

Oh, it's such a fucking mess:

* Barak's government, a flaky coalition like all Israeli governments, is forced into shows of strength to appease the right-wing elements of the Knesset.

* Arafat's authority, also a flaky and unstable regime, is forced to indulge pan-Arabists such as Tamzim and Hamas to sustain its constituency.

In short, both sides are led by moderates who've sacrificed control of the situation to extremists.

Personally, I think that Arial Sharon deserves to be locked up for his trip to the Temple Mount a couple of weeks back. And to regard his role as pure incitement isn't anti-semitic, given that plenty of Israelis -- Jews and Arabs -- agree.
posted by holgate at 10:11 AM on October 12, 2000

aurelian> That's where a lot of people are mistaken.

Arafat has always had complete control over the situation. He could end it at any time. In fact, this whole "situation" was orchestrated by Arafat, and had nothing to do at all with Sharon's visit to the Temple Mount, contrary to what the media and the Palestinian's would have you believe.

The fact remains that the Palestinians do not want, and in fact never have wanted, any peace with Israel. If that's not obvious now, then it never will be. May God help all of us.
posted by attitude at 10:15 AM on October 12, 2000

large, lethal rocks and molotov cocktails...

Well, I doubt the US would deploy troops with Kalashnikovs and helicopter gunships.
posted by holgate at 10:15 AM on October 12, 2000

It's amazing to me, and quite a bit sad as well, how clearly biased and anti-semitic this "community" really is... you should all be ashamed of yourselves.

If you're going to tar the entire MetaFilter community as a bunch of anti-Semites, the least you can do is to cite some evidence to support that theory.

My guess is that you would call any statement negative towards Israel or positive towards the Palestineans "anti-Semitic."

Personally, I think that Israel had to respond with force when a mob was allowed to storm a police station and kill two Israeli soldiers.
posted by rcade at 10:15 AM on October 12, 2000

attitude: Arafat has always had complete control over the situation.

This is simply not true. But Israel's political leadership is forced to say it. Which is why things are such a mess.
posted by holgate at 10:21 AM on October 12, 2000

large, lethal rocks and molotov cocktails...

And how many people were killed by these lethal rocks? At last count there were 2 Israeli civilians dead. It's never good to get into body-count comparisons, but when the disparity is so great, I can't just sit back and not comment. As the media says, "most" of the 90 people killed have been Palestinians. Of course in America most means 90%, I guess.

Don't sit there and try to turn it around, try to justify the use of live ammuniation against protesters, even if their rocks are large, they are certainly not lethal! If they were lethal there would many dead Israeli soldiers, Lord knows thousands of rocks were thrown....

As far as Arafat "orchestrating" the whole situation, there wouldn't be a "situation" if the Israeli government didn't start shooting civilians. Period.
posted by s10pen at 10:23 AM on October 12, 2000

attitude is showing "attitiude", give it time it'll pass almost unnoticed and become very insignificant.

Generalized name calling is never good policy. I hate posts that attack the "community" like we all share the same brain. On the contrary, there's lots of intelligent people here with differing opinions, but unfortunatly when one or two posters don't agree with you its because we're such a prejudiced/racist/close-minded/leftist/whatever community. Deal with it or find a community that welcomes calls of anti-semitism at the drop of a hat.


posted by skallas at 10:24 AM on October 12, 2000

...Anti-Semitic...

In another thread here someone was apparently disgusted that Amazon had reviews of this book. But, again, perhaps people should read it - it's all about how cries of "Anti-Semitic" are being used to manipulate attitudes. Yes, the holocaust happened. Why does that mean I am wrong to point out when Israelis start killing Palestinians?

Israeli response is, as ever, out of proportion. It's sick.

posted by andrew cooke at 10:25 AM on October 12, 2000

Personally, I think that Israel had to respond with force when a mob was allowed to storm a police station and kill two Israeli soldiers.

There was no alternative. But the nature of the retaliation simply escalates the violence, because it's predicated on the notion that Arafat's authority has control over the rioters. And it doesn't: the people on the streets who regard this as a "revolution" no longer look to the old PLO hierarchy as the guarantors of their freedom, but instead seek out support from the new, inexperienced regimes in Syria and Jordan, the old guard in Iraq, and the extremists challenging Mubarak in Egypt.
posted by holgate at 10:25 AM on October 12, 2000

I truly hope for the day when America (and the rest of the world) can ignore these two idiot factions in their neverending battle over some dirt.
posted by owillis at 10:27 AM on October 12, 2000

What do you suppose would happen in America, if hundreds upon thousands of people would riot in the streets... ?

False analogy - unless it's native Americans doing the rioting.
posted by Mocata at 10:28 AM on October 12, 2000

From another BBC correspondent's report:

For Palestinians, fed up with Yasser Arafat's failure to improve their lives, and the stink of corruption that surrounds his administration, the feeling of helplessness is overwhelming.

Periodically, they resort to the only kind of language they and their occupiers seem to share. Mr Arafat is compelled to climb aboard, in an effort to gain some political capital.
posted by holgate at 10:28 AM on October 12, 2000

>In another thread here someone was apparently disgusted that Amazon had reviews of this book

Andrew, not true. At no time did I mention that book or condemn the idea that anyone reviewed it favorably or otherwise.

My remarks concerning this may be found at the Amazon Reviews thread, piping hot off the grill.
posted by ethmar at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2000

owillis: do you suggest giving Palestinians the rights to run casinos, then? After all, the US crushed its own Intifada a century ago...
posted by holgate at 10:30 AM on October 12, 2000

>What do you suppose would happen in America, if hundreds upon thousands of people would riot in the streets... ?

Probably the same thing that happened during the Vietnam war protests. And the WTO protests. Etc etc etc.
posted by ethmar at 10:33 AM on October 12, 2000

The difference is that these protestors are protesting on occupied land! not in Israel. In land that the UN has said time and time again belongs to the Palestinians. They are being shot for protesting against occupying troops-- they aren't marching through Tel Aviv, and throwing rocks at civilians. In fact, the only mobs marching in Israeli streets are Israelis, who have tried to murder Arabs in Tel Aviv, while the Israeli police stand by. God. I could go on for ever, I really wish America would get out of the situation-- it is American tax dollars (4.1 billion a year, to a relatively wealthy nation) that directly and indrectly buys the missles and guns used to kill civilians, on their own land.


posted by s10pen at 10:37 AM on October 12, 2000

With out picking any sides on this issue, cause I'm remarkably ignorant of the facts of this situation, I would like to comment on how funny it is that the one person to freak out and call everyone anti-semetic and biased is probably the most biased person in the whole discussion. I'm assuming Attitude has family in Israel, or friends there, because that emotional and irrational attack seems completely out of the blue.
posted by Doug at 10:51 AM on October 12, 2000

Nobody compared anybody else to Hitler, so that's good news, Doug.

Well, not yet, anyway.
posted by ethmar at 10:55 AM on October 12, 2000

This was not a proportionate response, by any rational criterion. In response to the murder of three Israeli soldiers by a disorganized mob armed with knives and rocks, Israel obliterated two PLO outposts with cruise missiles and warplanes. They blew up a Palestinian TV station, declared martial law in the occupied territories, and surrounded the town of Ramallah with tanks. The murder of those Israeli soldiers may have demanded a response, but this wasn't it.
posted by shylock at 10:55 AM on October 12, 2000

What is the correct response, then? Maybe I've become too accustomed to the Clinton foreign policy tactic of blowing stuff up, but the so-called "disorganized mob" pulled two Israeli soldiers out of their cells and beat them to death. Would it be better if a disorganized Israeli mob pulled two Palestineans out of a jail and beat them to death too? I don't pretend to understand the situation in the Middle East, but I find the murder of the soldiers as horrifying as the murder of that 12-year-old Palestinean boy.
posted by rcade at 11:17 AM on October 12, 2000

The two groups are basically a couple of kids fighting and conveniently getting amnesia over what they did before "the other guy started it" -- sounds to me like the mentality illustrated in the following words:

"You wanna know how to nail Capone? This is how you nail Capone: he pulls a knife, you pull a gun; he puts one of yours in the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. THAT'S how you nail Capone."
- Sean Connery in "The Untouchables"

Who gets to play Daddy? Who gets to shake his fist in the general direction of the back seat and threaten to turn the car around? SHOULD anyone play Daddy?
posted by aprilgem at 11:22 AM on October 12, 2000

Here's a CNN.Com description of what happened to those soldiers:

The Israelis ran inside the police station, seeking shelter. ...

Word got out that the Palestinian police were holding several Israeli soldiers. Hundreds of Palestinians -- as many as 1,500 -- surrounded the police station and called for the execution of the Israelis. Police ordered the crowd away, but about a dozen men climbed in through a window.

TV footage showed one of the attackers run to the second-floor window and make a victory sign, and then return to the fray. In the background, several men were seen pounding on something or someone lying on the floor. The crowd erupted into cheers.

The attackers tossed one of the men out of the window, another out the door. The mob -- some with bloodied hands -- surrounded the men, some stabbing at them with the broken bars of a window grille. One of the men was dragged out of the police compound and through the streets, witnesses said.

The army eventually received two bodies. Army officials said the two Israelis had been badly mutilated. Initial examinations showed contusions from kicks and beatings with a metal bar. One of the bodies was beaten beyond recognition, they said.

What's the proportional response to that?
posted by rcade at 11:26 AM on October 12, 2000

Sorry, Ethmar; I hereby declare Godwin's Law in effect. You don't have to *compare someone* to Hitler; mentioning him in the context of The Law is enough.
posted by baylink at 11:27 AM on October 12, 2000

What's the proportional response to that?

Would you have bombed the governor's mansion in Austin in response to the murder of James Byrd in east Texas?
posted by holgate at 11:31 AM on October 12, 2000

>Would you have bombed the governor's mansion in Austin in response to the murder of James Byrd in east Texas?

Don't tempt fate. Dubyah as Martyr doesn't sit well with me.
posted by ethmar at 11:36 AM on October 12, 2000

anytime you have a mix of religion, politics, historical injustice, automatic weapons and mobs this can happen. It can happen with even less than that....look at the series of work-or-race-related riots in the US over the past 150 years. Ever wonder why some of the old post offices, public buildings and treasury offices in the old US metropolitan areas have towers with rifle slots above the doors? Not for defense against foreign invaders.

Mobs + Armed Authorties = Casualties

Occupying forces are never going to respond proportionately...not the US, not Israel, not the Palestinians[if the roles were reversed], it is an impass created by Tactical needs...and there is no way around it until the whole socio-political sytem changes. i'm not saying that its justified, i am merely saying that it would be naive to assume anything else could happen.
posted by th3ph17 at 11:46 AM on October 12, 2000

violence only begets violence. the israelis shell in response to the soldiers murder. but the soldiers were murdered in response to the 80 palestinians killed recently. the holocaust prompted the need for a jewish homeland. Isn't it obvious now that the palestinians need a home state and that part of Jeruselam should be shared for their capital.

but the right wing israelis won't allow it, years of frustration boils over. anyway this is how I understand it and the answer seems obvious. I don't really think what the palestinians are asking for is very much.
posted by chrismc at 11:58 AM on October 12, 2000

Would you have bombed the governor's mansion in Austin in response to the murder of James Byrd in east Texas?

Maybe I haven't been paying enough attention to the presidential race, but I wasn't aware that Governor Bush participated in that crime. You'd think Fightin' Al would have found a way to mention that as they discussed the Byrd murder for 10 minutes last night.
posted by rcade at 12:10 PM on October 12, 2000

i have to add my piece because the discussion here is so messed up in some quarters.

Israel has not declared war. bad 'headline/link' for something so important.

'attitude's indictment of us all as 'biased and anti-semitic' bears no resemblance to reality.

let those of us who want to keep this site a place for intelligent discussion, especially by people with different views, be self-policing as much as we can. i'm not asking for censorship. the key is to censure inappropriate or poorly reasoned commentary while retaining high standards for ourselves.
posted by Sean Meade at 12:14 PM on October 12, 2000

I'm hoping MeFi (FoFum) never turns out like this.

posted by ethmar at 12:19 PM on October 12, 2000

I just added quotes to the original post, hopefully that at least straightens some things out.
posted by mathowie at 12:19 PM on October 12, 2000

I wasn't aware that Governor Bush participated in that crime

And likewise, I wasn't aware of Arafat's participation in this one.

A good Guardian leader on the problem faced by both leaders:

For perhaps the real culprits are those two would-be peacemakers, Barak and Arafat. Neither man realised that doves must be as tough as hawks - that in proposing compromise they must be as unbending as the rejectionists who would do nothing...

Those proposing compromise have to bend over backwards to provide security, to reassure their own side that peace is a risk they can afford to take. For if they slip up, their people will not easily agree to compromise next time: they won't be fooled again.
posted by holgate at 12:23 PM on October 12, 2000

Interesting that in the Table Talk thread ethmar linked, the original poster's chief supporter appears to be the same Matt Nuenke who posted the Amazon reviews we were discussing yesterday.
posted by harmful at 12:40 PM on October 12, 2000

Or maybe not that interesting; the Table Talk link was older than I realized. You following this guy's career or something, ethmar?
posted by harmful at 12:44 PM on October 12, 2000

Those proposing compromise have to bend over backwards to provide security

Making the true culprit the legacy-building American president who hastened this process with his end-of-term deadline and inflammatory comments about violence being inevitable. Hence Mr. Bush's comment in last night's debate about not negotiating on America's timetable.
posted by netbros at 12:45 PM on October 12, 2000

I had a feeling I'd find him working his magic there. Saves you a trip to his web site! :-)

Actually the guy who started the Salon thread sounds worse. Nuenke disappears in short order.

One thing I noticed (before I got sick of looking at it) about that thread is that for as ass-backwards as Nuenke and this other guy's views on race and genetics are, every time they go away, the same group of posters post volumes of taunts egging them on to return and spew more nonsense.

A pox on both of their houses, in such case.

I'm glad to see (so far) that MeFi does not fall prey to similar antagonism, even in a high-octane thread such as this one.
posted by ethmar at 12:49 PM on October 12, 2000

>You following this guy's career or something, ethmar?

Let's just say I felt a disturbance in the Force. :-)
posted by ethmar at 12:50 PM on October 12, 2000

Hey, the usual suspects have declared this one to be all the fault of Arabs and that easily-deluded Clinton! Whew! I'm glad that's straightened up. After banging the drum for James Risen's Pulitzer, William Safire interviews Arial Sharon about how the peace process should go. You're 2-2, Bill.

Personally, I think this is likely to be the straw that breaks Arafat's back, which is going to put Hamas in the driver's seat in the West Bank and prevent any sort of lasting peace in Israel for at least another five to ten years. And Hamas will kill more Israelis, and Israel will kill more Palestinians. Arial Sharon is probably very proud.
posted by snarkout at 1:02 PM on October 12, 2000

From the NYT article (@#$% password screen):

And the U.S., as an unabashed ally, should at last recognize an undivided Jerusalem (mentioned in the Hebrew Bible 667 times, to be exact) as Israel's capital.

Yeah, this is gonna help smooth out this whole "situation".

Is that what this has come to now? He who mentions Jerusalem the most times in their religious doctrines gets the keys to the city?

Nice.
posted by ethmar at 1:07 PM on October 12, 2000

Arafat certainly is doing his part to help Hamas attack the citizens of Israel - today he released 350 Hamas and militant Islamic terroists from his jails - terrorists who are responsible for the murder of hundreds of innocent people over the past few years. Peace, indeed.
posted by attitude at 1:14 PM on October 12, 2000

That's the most immediately ridiculous assertion in a ridiculous piece of op-ed. (The random accusations against Jamaica and the Ukraine don't help Safire's case.) A more insidious claim is this one:

If Bibi Netanyahu and/or Arik Sharon win, a realistic "separation process" would take place over time, with clear lines of sovereignty to minimize disputes and grant access to holy sites to all religion.

Given the stalemate under Netanyahu's last period in office, I somehow find that hard to believe. And I won't even go into Sharon's presumed complicity in the 1982 massacre of Palestinians in Lebanese refugee camps.

It's going to be between Barak and Arafat, or Sharon and Hamas. And I know which alternative I find more palatable.
posted by holgate at 1:19 PM on October 12, 2000

"What's the proportional response to that?"

A better response would have been one that didn't escalate the scale of the conflict. There is no longer any likelihood of a peaceful solution. If some miracle occurs and the Israelis and Palestinians are able to back out of this through diplomacy rather than force, I'll nominate the diplomats for sainthood myself.

Re: anti-semitism-- Arabs are a Semitic people, too, so the term "anti-semite" here is imprecise at best.
posted by shylock at 1:42 PM on October 12, 2000

attitude: i grant that violence against Israeli citizens is a very bad thing.

in your pro-Israel stand you have said nothing about the deaths of Palestinians. where do you stand on this issue? the death toll is much higher on their side, at least in this current outbreak.
posted by Sean Meade at 1:49 PM on October 12, 2000

shylock wrote:
>Arabs are a Semitic people, too, so the term "anti-semite"
>here is imprecise at best.

Yes Arabs are semites, but the term "anti-semitism" has a
very specific definition:
"hostility toward or discrimination against Jews as a religious, ethnic, or racial group"
posted by ericost at 2:04 PM on October 12, 2000

seanmeade: I in no way meant to imply that the deaths of Palistinians is not tragic. I feel terrible about all the deaths, Palistinian and Israeli alike. Yes, it's true that nearly all of the casualties have been Palistinian - this is hard to avoid when dealing with crowds and guns, unfortunately. But I must say that the blame for all of this falls squarely on one man's shoulders, and it is Arafat who is inciting his people to chants of "Death to the Jews."

So yes, I absolutely feel sorry about the scores of Palistinians being killed, but I see it this way: Israel, a peaceful, democratic country (and an ally of the US), surrounded by hostile enemies who swear every day to destroy them, desperately trying to live peacefully with her neighbors, only to have them spit the peace accords back in their faces and attack them. And they have every right in the world to fight back with all their might, until their opposition waves a white flag. And I know that the US would to the same exact thing if it were attacked. Because that's exactly what happened - the Palistinians have attacked Israel, and Israel is defending itself. Why the double standard?
posted by attitude at 3:18 PM on October 12, 2000

Why the double standard?

Ask the people of south Lebanon, attitude.
posted by holgate at 3:35 PM on October 12, 2000

Holgate: You must not be aware of a terrorist group operating in south Lebanon that call themselves Hezbolla. They just recently kidnapped three Israeli soldiers.... they constantly fire rockets into the homes of Israeli families living in northern Israel

The people of south Lebanon need to demand for Syria to stop supporting these radical murderers for the sake of everyone living in that region, Arab and Israeli alike.
posted by attitude at 3:51 PM on October 12, 2000

Firstly i'd like to sat that holgate is absolutely correct in stating that Arafat has nothing to do with the current uprising. Secondly the only reason the USA has allowed this to happen for more then 30 years now is because unfortunately the USA is controlled by JEWS. I am not being ANTI-SEMETIC or RACIST or anything else, i am stating obvious facts. Any other country does what Israel has been doing would immediately see intervention by the US or even the UN.

Hey now there's an idea, why doesn't the UN step in? Does the UN have the same problems i mentioned about the US?
posted by Zool at 3:53 PM on October 12, 2000

Zool - thank you for reinforcing my original post.
posted by attitude at 4:01 PM on October 12, 2000

attitude - Zool is not the "community."
posted by ericost at 4:05 PM on October 12, 2000

Attitude: I live in SYDNEY AUSTRALIA and there are a large number of LEBANESE in my country. Unlike you perhaps, i've heard their side of the story and holgate is absolutely f**king correct in what he has said. The reason the hezbolla do what they do is because Israel refuses to move out of South Lebanon.

You learn alot about the Lebanese situation when you talk to the people from that country.
posted by Zool at 4:07 PM on October 12, 2000

ericost - you are correct. i apologize for directing my original post towards the community as a whole. It was wrong, and for that I am sorry.

As for you, Zool - I can see that any discussion with you will be pointless. But just to clarify - Israel already HAS moved out of South Lebanon.
posted by attitude at 4:10 PM on October 12, 2000

attitude:1 Zool:0

Unfortunately, the rest of attitude's analysis is wrong.

Israel is not a peace loving nation, it's built on stolen land. It has to keep on fighting to defend what it has gained by force.
posted by lagado at 4:26 PM on October 12, 2000

it's built on stolen land.

Hmm, sounds a lot like my good 'ol US of A.
posted by attitude at 4:32 PM on October 12, 2000

>But I must say that the blame for all of this falls squarely on one man's shoulders, and it is Arafat who is inciting his people to chants of "Death to the Jews."

Back this up with something other than anecdotal evidence, please.

------

ABC News' coverage on World News Tonight of the killing of the 2 Israeli soldiers was clearly a biased report. Peter Jennings began the piece by summarizing the situation and then cut to the correspondent covering the news on scene. His synopsis:

+ 2 Israeli solders were in the wrong place at the wrong time (but he doesn't say HOW)

+ They got "picked up" by Palestinian police (but he doesn't say WHY)

+ An angry mob "tries to storm the police station" to get at the soldiers (but he doesn't explain what set them off)

+ Palestinian police try to prevent the mob from advancing, but are overpowered

+ The soldiers are killed by the mob

+ Israel retaliates with rocket attacks, and tells Arafat to "stop the violence"

Not once during the entire report did either Peter Jennings or the ABC News Correspondent ever explain that the soldiers accidentally drove into a funeral procession, which was already angered and upset about the dead Palestinians they were mourning as it was, but to have Israeli soldiers drive into the crowd and causing commotion sure can't be good for maintaining any sort of civic order.

So the news report gives the impression that the Palestinians are killing Israelis for no reason whatsoever, and naturally Israel is merely protecting themselves against senseless violence.

Does this mean that it's OK for the Palestinian people to engage in acts of violence, or that no violence that has been engaged in by Palestinians is senseless? No.

But considering NPR's All Things Considered delivered the story straight, for gosh sakes, so can ABC News.


posted by ethmar at 4:34 PM on October 12, 2000

"The reason the hezbolla do what they do is because Israel refuses to move out of South Lebanon."

Irish Republican terrorists do what they do because the British refuse to remove out of Northern Ireland. It still doesn't make it right.

I don't approve of the Israeli handling of the situation, I am sympathetic to the Lebanese side, but I cannot condone terrorism of any sort.

The only way to get around this is to stop the fighting and start the talking again. On British TV tonight, Shimon Peres has said he thinks there should be a ceasefire, and they should start talking to each other again, so at least someone has sense. I just hope the Palestinians are not so fired up as to ignore the opportunity.

As an aside, I bet Saddam Hussein is loving this...
posted by tomcosgrave at 4:34 PM on October 12, 2000

Israel still occupies a large chunk of Lebanese land. It is between the Israeli and Lebanese borders. No one will go there as you are likely to get shot. Unlike you attitude, i am quite willing to admit that, yes the hezbolla would continue on their terrorist activities even if the last bit of Lebanese land be returned.

Israel only started using live ammo because they were getting shot at by people with weapons, mainly the palestinian police.

I defend the Israeli soldiers choice for live ammo.

However i do not and will never defend Israel for the invasion of that area 50 years ago.
posted by Zool at 4:47 PM on October 12, 2000

posted by Zool at 4:07 PM > The reason the hezbolla do what they do is because Israel refuses to move out of South Lebanon.

posted by Zool at 4:47 PM > i am quite willing to admit that, yes the hezbolla would continue on their terrorist activities even if the last bit of Lebanese land be returned.

'kay...
posted by attitude at 4:53 PM on October 12, 2000

(With friends like Zool, who needs enemies...)

attitude: the main reason I mention South Lebanon is that the long-established buffer zone seemed to represent a double standard: occupation could never form the basis of a country's "desperately trying to live peacefully with her neighbors".

Barak's decision to pull out and withdraw support from the SLA was brave and honourable, and seeing Hezbollah take over doesn't bring me any joy in the slightest.

I'm with Peres, and the "hawkish doves". But all I can imagine in the next few days is the admission of Likud into the Israeli government, and increased anarchy in the Palestinian authority. My fear is that the West Bank and Gaza (and possibly Israel proper) will become as Lebanon was in the 1980s: a battleground between extremists, where mosques and synagogues become easy targets.

Tom: there's a horrible parallel to the time that a couple of British soldiers accidentally drove into a funeral procession in Belfast?
posted by holgate at 5:11 PM on October 12, 2000

Attitude: Your last comment to me seems like a personal attack.

I should have worded my previous comments a little better.

The hezbolla use the Israeli occupation of South Lebanon as an excuse for violence.

However,i have absolutely no doubt that they would continue even if Israel gave back every last inch of land.

Having hopefully to your satisfaction cleared this up, i will now point out to you, your continued bias towards Israel throughout your postings in this thread.

You pointed out my mistakes in the wording of my comments, however you clearly missed my comment about my agrement with Israel to use force in this situation as they were not the aggresors.

You called me an anti-semetic in a previous post in this thread. Me agreing with Israel using force in this situation does not sound very anti-semetic to me.

I have provided facts in my statements not blind fury.

You on the other hand will not admit any fault on the part of Israel in this whole sad state of affairs.

posted by Zool at 5:17 PM on October 12, 2000

it's built on stolen land.

Hmm, sounds a lot like my good 'ol US of A.

Yes, and my good ol' Commonwealth of Australia.

But our collective "forefathers" could exterminate hunter gatherer societies with smallpox and a few guns. That was genocide on a scale far greater than any modern warfare, is a stain on our histories and a crime against humanity.

The difference here is that we are talking about one modern society trying to displace and suppress another modern society. It started in the 1920s and only really got serious after 1948.

As Moshe Dayan once admitted, every Israeli town or village once had an Arab name. This something more a kin to the ethnic clensers of modern europe.

posted by lagado at 5:18 PM on October 12, 2000

In the end we all have to forget about the illusion of owning land and just try to live where we can. There is always the choice to move on.
posted by john at 5:27 PM on October 12, 2000

It seems to me that we are making the mistake that all Israelis speak with a common voice, as well as thinking that the Palestinians form an ideological monolith. I would like to believe that both Barak and Arafat were ingenuously involved in peace talks with the hope that their respective peoples would follow. Perhaps Barak, with the persistent siege on his government by Likud (as well as the fresh memory of Rabin's assassination) had no choice but to send protection with Sharon (over whom he has little control). Likewise, Arafat has received continual criticism for becoming soft, and has little control over the actions of a people that has endured over thirty years of political and military humiliation. Unfortunately, both Barak and Arafat have more to fear from their own people than from each other, and until they have enough support to make a meaningful move towards peace (as the Republican and Loyalist leaders have been able to do in N. Ireland), then we have little basis for entirely blaming either man for the current violence.

I'd like to hear more from Attitude and Zool, but enough with the "you did this", and "you said that", and "you are a horse's ass". Educate and inform us with debate instead of acting like a couple of too-long-memoried adversaries.
posted by Avogadro at 6:09 PM on October 12, 2000

Ok, Avagadro -- you're right. Enough already.

Let me just get one more jab in though ...

Zool: I called you an anti-semite b/c you wrote:
unfortunately the USA is controlled by JEWS. I am not being ANTI-SEMETIC or RACIST or anything else, i am stating obvious facts.

This is akin to saying:
Blacks are a naturally inferior race. I am not being RACIST or anything else, i am stating obvious facts.

That is why you are an anti-semite.

----

You on the other hand will not admit any fault on the part of Israel in this whole sad state of affairs.

This is true -- Does that make me wrong? Certainly I may be wrong, but the fact that I place 100% of the blame with Arafat does not make it so.
posted by attitude at 6:11 PM on October 12, 2000

I will be praying for peace tonight.
posted by tranquileye at 7:29 PM on October 12, 2000

Finally a statement I can agree with!
posted by donkeymon at 8:38 PM on October 12, 2000

Attitude,Why do you think is it that American foreign policy has such an Israeli bias?It's simple Jewish people have an extraordinary influence over American policy towards the Middle East and in the election of politicians in America. When was the last time you heard an American official condemn Israel for their actions?They don't as they can't. To do so would incur the wrath of American Jews and they would quickly be labeled "anti-Semitic". I think this is what Zool is alluding to.



posted by jay at 8:45 PM on October 12, 2000

Attitude, the one you got,
oh baby Attitude, the one you got, oh baby
Attitude, attitude.I don't have any zool lyrics, oh well.
I thought for sure this one would go over 100 posts tonight, I guess the flame that burns twice as bright lasts half as long.
I don't know much about the conflict, but I wish we didn't send so much money to Israel (or anybody else now that I think of it), and I'm against freeing Pollard. Also, Arafat is a very unattractive man. I'm totally out of here. Punk Rock.
posted by thirteen at 9:47 PM on October 12, 2000

until they have enough support to make a meaningful move towards peace (as the Republican and Loyalist leaders have been able to do in N. Ireland)...

don't speak too soon.
posted by holgate at 10:13 PM on October 12, 2000

Too true, Holgate. If there was one thing that I learned in Ulster/N. Ireland history(and subsequently forgotten), it was that one can never underestimate the intransigence of many of its political actors.sigh...
posted by Avogadro at 10:31 PM on October 12, 2000

I'll be damned if this thread doesn't reach a hundred posts.

Jay: Thank you for clearing that up, that is excactly what i was alluding to, unfortunately i don't poses the same writing skills as many in the metafilter community.


posted by Zool at 10:51 PM on October 12, 2000

thirteen:

can't beleive what you said to me, you got some attitude

Misfits kick ass.
posted by attitude at 1:23 PM on October 13, 2000

If we go much further into the song, people will think we don't like each other.
You are correct, asses have been kicked by the Misfits.
posted by thirteen at 2:13 PM on October 13, 2000

Holgate - regarding the soliders in NI shot in 1988.
I can see the paralell, but the situation, while bad, was not as bad as Israel is now. Also the soldiers were in civilian clothes, undercover, not in uniform like the Israeli soldiers. Still doesn't make it right.

As for the two articles from the 13th, well the Unionist meeting is the narrow minded Unionists ranting away as they have always done.

And Sinn Fein are ranting on about the police force.
They've always ranted about that.

The two sides must learn to compromise.
posted by tomcosgrave at 8:20 AM on October 14, 2000