Tags:


Jewish Occupation of Catering Supplies
September 1, 2005 2:00 AM   Subscribe

Made-in-Israel Paper Cups Used in Local Hospital.
posted by mosch (147 comments total)

 
I've improved the last paragraph significantly: "The paper cups were quickly withdrawn from use but might there not be other, less obvious, Israeli products in our shops and marketplaces? [*Dramatic Chord*]"
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:13 AM on September 1, 2005


dum-dum-DUM!
posted by dabitch at 2:25 AM on September 1, 2005


crucifixes?
posted by NinjaPirate at 2:31 AM on September 1, 2005


Absurd, racist, xenophobia. The fact that this kind of article gets written at all, shows how anti-jewish views are imbued into the culture of places like Saudi Arabia. I'm not Jewish, but it certainly is disgusting.
posted by Dag Maggot at 2:36 AM on September 1, 2005


And the problem is?

Is it not considered the right of any consumer to not buy products from companies (or countries) one considers hostile to human rights or to one's own self-interest?

Let the market decide.
posted by three blind mice at 2:40 AM on September 1, 2005


Is it not considered the right of any consumer to not buy products from companies (or countries) one considers hostile to human rights or to one's own self-interest?

Yes, especially if that county is filled with the descendants of apes and pigs.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 2:43 AM on September 1, 2005


We aren't talking about 'a consumer.' We are talking about a damn hospital. Sure they still have the right to choose, but it is a seriously sick choice they mace.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:43 AM on September 1, 2005


made.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 2:43 AM on September 1, 2005


What's the big deal? I often choose not to buy stuff from Isreal.
posted by biffa at 2:52 AM on September 1, 2005


Is it not considered the right of any consumer to not buy products from companies (or countries) one considers hostile to human rights or to one's own self-interest?

This line of thinking has long been a pet peeve: where on earth do you get the idea that to condemn some one's actions is to condemn their right to perpetrate those actions. Too often, when a partisan from any side (say, an obnoxious pundit) says something truly offensive, the cries of indignation are met with "free speech! free speech!" chirpings. As long as no one is arguing for a world where people shouldn't be allowed to boycott/say stupid things/enage in consentual fun/etc, why should one not be allowed to condemn behavior on its own (percieved) merits?
posted by allan at 2:54 AM on September 1, 2005


I am officially boycotting this hospital
posted by ronenosity at 2:56 AM on September 1, 2005


Sure they still have the right to choose, but it is a seriously sick choice they made.

Well despite the fact that buying paper products from Israel instead of Finland or Canada seems to be an incredibly inefficient use of natural resources, the hospital has to consider the welfare of its patients. If Saudi citizens do not want to drink from paper cups made in Israel - for whatever reason - then the hospital would be undermining patient care by providing their patients with paper cups made in Israel.

If the story was about a hospital in Tel Aviv buying paper cups from Saudi Arabia, this probably wouldn't even be news.
posted by three blind mice at 2:57 AM on September 1, 2005


What. The. Fuck?!
posted by loquacious at 3:02 AM on September 1, 2005


Yes, especially if that county is filled with the descendants of apes and pigs.

Steve_at_Linnwood, are we not all descended from apes (unless you live in Virginia)?

I'm not sure where the pigs fit in though, is this some new genetic experiment.
posted by bap98189 at 3:04 AM on September 1, 2005


WTF loquacious is that racism and anti-semitism is behind every negative opinion of Israel. Which is, itself, a point of view as pernicious and ugly as racism and anti-semitism.

But it is a damned convenient way for Israel and for Israelis to avoid a discussion about their policies and behaviour.
posted by three blind mice at 3:07 AM on September 1, 2005


Bap98189: Pigs would be especially offensive to an Arab and/or Muslim. That's a particularly nasty comment, right there.

Yeah, yeah, don't feed the troll. But seriously: Whiskey. Tango. Motherfuckin' foxtrot on a pointy stick.
posted by loquacious at 3:14 AM on September 1, 2005


Is the purpose of this post to produce a nasty thread? 'Cause that's about all I can see. This post makes me a lot more angry than the stupid PS3 post that precedes it. It exemplifies almost everything that's wrong with the FPP of mefi nowadays, excepting complete irrelevancy and inaccuracy...which the preceding post provides.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:20 AM on September 1, 2005


I've had enough of your sheep ship.
posted by furtive at 3:22 AM on September 1, 2005


"[*Dramatic Chord*]"

By the way, I swear to God that's how I heard the ending of that last sentence of the article when I read it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:26 AM on September 1, 2005


Lucky they weren't serving freedom fries...
posted by bystander at 3:26 AM on September 1, 2005


The more I see, the more convinced I am that we are not a pretty sight in public.
posted by furtive at 3:27 AM on September 1, 2005


Saudi Arabians not fond of Israelis! News at 11!
posted by Bugbread at 3:31 AM on September 1, 2005


It's a strange article, and one that makes me sad. But the site on the whole is a good find. I have another entry on my bookmarks list. The editorials page is definately worth a read.
posted by talitha_kumi at 3:36 AM on September 1, 2005


Absurd politics aside, the hospital in question may well have had no choice in its decision to withdraw the cups from use. It is illegal to import Israeli goods into Saudi Arabia. The government of Saudi Arabia's "Saudi office for boycotting Israel" still enforces the Arab League boycott of Israel.
posted by RichardP at 3:39 AM on September 1, 2005


Is it any stranger than the US and Congress derisively calling french fries (or chips) freedom fries? Or people boycotting or destroying French wine?

Stop the world I want to get off!
posted by loquacious at 3:39 AM on September 1, 2005


Is the purpose of this post to produce a nasty thread?

No.

Most of us live in a world where there is very little day to day hatred of other countries or people. As such, I find it difficult to understand the substance of the mutual animosity between Israelis and Arabs.

I feel that the banal nature of this article offers some insight into this mindset. The article assumes that the readers will want to know that these Israeli cups are being destroyed, and an investigation is occurring. The "scare" at the end that other Israeli products might be in use.

My goal was not a nasty thread, though that could be informative in its own unfortunate way.
posted by mosch at 3:56 AM on September 1, 2005



Don't some non-Jews live and work in Israel, too?

(Lucky I RTFL, eh?!)
posted by uncanny hengeman at 4:03 AM on September 1, 2005


posted by mosch Most of us live in a world where there is very little day to day hatred of other countries or people.

You're joking, right? Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage--these folks are paid to spew day-to-day hatred.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:10 AM on September 1, 2005


Definitely not a pretty sight
posted by Joeforking at 4:13 AM on September 1, 2005


I feel that the banal nature of this article offers some insight into this mindset.

Exactly. It's the tone of the article, and the fact that there is a newspaper article at all about this that is interesting. Good post.

OTOH, I can imagine that if, during the height of the Cold War in the 1950's, it had been discovered that a US hospital was using paper cups produced in Russia, a similar article might have appeared in the local press. Or even today, if, say, someone's City Council discovered that their ice water was being served in cups imported from Cuba.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 4:20 AM on September 1, 2005


Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Savage--these folks are paid to spew day-to-day hatred.

None of these people get on the air, and calmly tell a story about how they were served water from a French cup, in order to produce their daily dose of outrage.

The people you mentioned are brash, aggressive, and stand against many of my personal ideals, but I don't think that they have anything resembling the kind of hatred that exists between Israelis and Arabs. Not even for Democrats.
posted by mosch at 4:24 AM on September 1, 2005


The perspective of this link I've assumed is "we are all human".

Inside the US it's not a common occurance to hear of other countries spewing the same jingoistic horsehockey.
posted by loquacious at 4:28 AM on September 1, 2005


I can imagine that if, during the height of the Cold War in the 1950's, it had been discovered that a US hospital was using paper cups produced in Russia, a similar article might have appeared in the local press. Or even today, if, say, someone's City Council discovered that their ice water was being served in cups imported from Cuba.

This gives me some hope that the situation, while difficult to remedy, isn't beyond repair.
posted by mosch at 4:28 AM on September 1, 2005


That isn't racist. It's political. Remember how Israel hasn't exactly been kind to Arabs? Hasn't been kind as in having come into existence by claiming territory that belonged to them, then expelling most of the people who lived there, then refusing to allow them to return to their homes, then creating a system of apartheid that discriminates against them, then randomly killing them to this day, etc.? Shouldn't Arabs be a little upset if their money is being used to support the economy of a state like that?

I think there would have been quite an outcry if hospitals in the US were using Russian paper cups during the Cold War or German paper cups during World War II, and those countries didn't do nearly so much wrong to Americans as Israel has done to Arabs.
posted by leapingsheep at 4:34 AM on September 1, 2005


People here on MetaFilter regularly proclaim their intense hatred of everyone involved with the Bush Administration.

I would think we would be numbed to group hatred by now.

I once saw some irrigation pipes in Israel that were stamped, "Made in W. Germany." I asked the foreman why they were stamped that way and he said that if they didn't do that, the Jordanians and the Saudis wouldn't by them. Evidentally, the boxes were shipped to W. Germany (dating myself here), re-wrapped and affixed with a Germany postmark and then sent to various Arab countries.

I asked him if they knew they came from Israel and he calmed responded, "Oh, of coure. They send the checks directly to us."
posted by Dagobert at 4:41 AM on September 1, 2005


Most of us live in a world where there is very little day to day hatred of other countries or people.

You are relieved of crackpipe duty.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:43 AM on September 1, 2005


Well duh Republicans and Democrats haven't been literally at war and bombing each other battling over borders in the past fifty years, that's why they don't go to such lenghts as boycotting paper cups.
posted by funambulist at 4:43 AM on September 1, 2005


How is this any different than the American fear of Cuban cigars? They're assholes, we're assholes, everyone's an asshole, so let's sodomize the world!
posted by Citizen Premier at 4:45 AM on September 1, 2005


I would love to see this kind of thing happen again, multiplied a million times: burkas made in Israel; Korans printed in Israel (with the notation somewhere in the middle of the book), etc., etc.
posted by ParisParamus at 4:50 AM on September 1, 2005


Pigs & Apes
posted by Kiwi at 4:56 AM on September 1, 2005


Sorry: P & A
posted by Kiwi at 4:58 AM on September 1, 2005


In fact, dang, the more I think about this the madder I get. How can you people imagine that its ridiculous for peope to boycott the products of an oppressive state? Seriously!?
posted by leapingsheep at 4:59 AM on September 1, 2005


What's wrong with boycotting the products of a state that has a secret nuclear weapon's program (and I'm not talking about Iran or North Korea).
posted by furtive at 5:03 AM on September 1, 2005


/me runs from the grammar police.
posted by furtive at 5:04 AM on September 1, 2005


Definitely a disturbing paper:

What we wonder is whether the coalition forces which invaded Iraq for no reason have opened the door to Jewish immigration into Iraq. Are they attempting to create a Jewish state in northern Iraq which is an area rich in natural resources? Is this the fulfillment of the Zionist dream to create a Jewish state from the Nile to the Euphrates? This all comes on the heels of the Israeli decision to force the remaining Palestinians off their land so as never to establish a Palestinian state and to defy all peace initiatives.

(from joeforking's link)
posted by callmejay at 5:10 AM on September 1, 2005


So is that story more depressing or less depressing than this one?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 5:36 AM on September 1, 2005


The Filipino employee who works in the Al-Musbah coffee shop asked: “Why is everybody mad about the cups?”

comedy gold
posted by PenguinBukkake at 6:04 AM on September 1, 2005


MetaTalk, btw.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:08 AM on September 1, 2005


My dentist in L.A. told me that he had seen Israeli fruit being packed into boxes labeled as being from Greece-- for shipment to Arab countries.
posted by brujita at 6:09 AM on September 1, 2005


I can see how it would be severely bad policy for, say, the US to use Israeli bullets to kill Arabs and Muslims, so they said those are only for training.

But paper water cups? Stupid. There are worse things to get upset over.
posted by Balisong at 6:10 AM on September 1, 2005


Absurd, racist, xenophobia.

Really, would that include my informed moral decision to boycott Israeli produce too? If so, how disturbing to learn that I've actually been an absurd, racist xenophobe for twenty years now without knowing it.
posted by Decani at 6:14 AM on September 1, 2005


I find it difficult to understand the substance of the mutual animosity between Israelis and Arabs.

This, I would suggest, is due to a severe failure of education.
posted by Decani at 6:19 AM on September 1, 2005


"If so, how disturbing to learn that I've actually been an absurd, racist xenophobe for twenty years now without knowing it."

Well, at least your ignorance abated before its 21st anniversary...
posted by ParisParamus at 6:24 AM on September 1, 2005


You're all ignoring the real issue here. Apes and Pigs folks. APES and frigging PIGS!!!



yeah
posted by Tuatara at 6:36 AM on September 1, 2005


My dentist in L.A. told me that he had seen Israeli fruit being packed into boxes labeled as being from Greece-- for shipment to Arab countries.

Yeah, I saw them packing coffee into sacks labeled "Colombian" and potatoes into crates labeled "Product of Canada" when I lived in Costa Rica too.

Well, at least your ignorance abated before its 21st anniversary

So much for the kinder, gentler PP. Since when is making a political stance racist? If they had banned Coca Cola because Jews sit on the board of directors, I might have bought that, but this story is just as the poster said, banal.

I'd really like to get some of the stuff I had in Syria, but guess what? I can't because of my country's political stance in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Apparently that makes us absurd, xenophobic racists.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:40 AM on September 1, 2005


digestive tract of a pig + throwing power of an ape == SOLDIER OF THE FUTURE
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:41 AM on September 1, 2005


Anti-Semitism never fails to raise its ugly head here.
posted by caddis at 6:41 AM on September 1, 2005


Well despite the fact that buying paper products from Israel instead of Finland or Canada seems to be an incredibly inefficient use of natural resources

I could be wrong, but I don't think so. If Israel has trees, it's a better use of resources to log, pulp, and fabricate in Israel than it would be to do so in further-away places.

If Israel doesn't have trees, it's still probably better to ship raw wood or pulp to an Israeli factory (from Canada, say) than it would be to ship the actual cups, because one would want to ship the product or materials in the densest possible form. I don't know how much wood it takes to make a cup, but shipping costs are usually determined by volume and weight, and a box of cups takes up a bunch of volume while the lumber or slurry (on a per cup basis) could certainly take up much less.

Further, I'd guess that energy, labor, and water are the other key components of paper cup manufacture. It's true that I don't know the costs of these inputs in any of the three places. On the other hand, if the power plants in each of the three countries are oil-fired, it's pretty inefficient to ship oil from the Middle East to Finland for the manufacture of cups that go back to the Middle East, wouldn't you say?

All I'm trying to say is that your supposition is a facile one, unless you know the economics of cup manufacture and overwater shipping more intimately than you let on. Further, in the absence of subsidies, you can bet that the market will allocate the resources efficiently. No matter what their other failings may (in your opinion) be, this is the sort of thing that they're really good at.
posted by Kwantsar at 6:46 AM on September 1, 2005


Completely OT, but: doesn't the slurry have a lot of water (in addition to the wood pulp) in it that would make it weigh a lot more than paper cups?

Further, in the absence of subsidies

Heh. The equivalent of physics class' "in the absence of friction".
posted by sonofsamiam at 6:54 AM on September 1, 2005


Really, would that include my informed moral decision to boycott Israeli produce too? If so, how disturbing to learn that I've actually been an absurd, racist xenophobe for twenty years now without knowing it.

You would be considered an absurd, racist xenophobe only if, upon discovering that you had accidentally bought an Israeli orange, you felt the need to issue a breast-beating press release about it, and promised to investigate in detail how such a shocking event could happen.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 6:58 AM on September 1, 2005


"If Israel has trees..."

Yes, Israel has trees. But they aren't used for lumber or paper; they're used to undo the damage of 10 centuries of neglect and destruction of the land.
posted by ParisParamus at 6:58 AM on September 1, 2005


Anti-Semitism never fails to raise its ugly head here.

The ones who can't separate anti-semitism from anti-Israelism are the ones who scare me the most. Just because one thinks that Israel should not exist doesn't mean they have hard feelings to any person of that race/culture. Its more of a "god told us that this land is ours" thing that bugs me.... as it would with any other deity that dabbles in real estate.
posted by re_verse at 7:02 AM on September 1, 2005


they're used to undo the damage of 10 centuries of neglect and destruction of the land.

Well said. Friggin' tree-hating Ottomans...
posted by senor biggles at 7:02 AM on September 1, 2005


Palestine has trees as well, but only on the Israeli side of the wall. On the other side they block targets.
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:04 AM on September 1, 2005


"Its more of a "god told us that this land is ours" thing that bugs me.... as it would with any other deity that dabbles in real estate."

Actually, "the UN told us that this land is theirs"; and at a time when the UN hadn't yet been taken over by the undemocratic hordes. Nice ignorance you got there.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:04 AM on September 1, 2005


they're used to undo the damage of 10 centuries of neglect and destruction of the land.

Actually, they are mostly used to make olive oil and orange juice. The cedars of Lebanon have been being cut for a lot longer than 1000 years. Damn tree-hating Egyptians.
posted by Pollomacho at 7:10 AM on September 1, 2005


Actually, wasn't it more like the British saying: "Please stop bombing us. Ok, then fine. You can have it"
posted by ob at 7:11 AM on September 1, 2005


Actually, "the UN told us that this land is theirs"; and at a time when the UN hadn't yet been taken over by the undemocratic hordes. Nice ignorance you got there.

Wow, I was really holding out hope for your "change" Paris. You want to back up that vitriol and insult with some facts rather than just rhetoric?
posted by Pollomacho at 7:13 AM on September 1, 2005


I think it would be both fun and constructive to spread those kind of rumors. Israeli-made software, orange juice, pharmaceuticals...there's defintely some room for creative subversion. A kind of Israeli Madge; YOU'RE SOAKING IN AN ISRAELI PRODUCT.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:17 AM on September 1, 2005


Its more of a "god told us that this land is ours" thing that bugs me.... as it would with any other deity that dabbles in real estate.

Most of the early Zionists were secular. Most Israelis are secular. Don't let the ones screaming the loudest form your impression of the whole.
posted by callmejay at 7:19 AM on September 1, 2005


Pollomacho, when someone questions Israeli's right very terms, there's no need to pretend the person is reasonable, and needs to be handled with kid gloves.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:19 AM on September 1, 2005


So much for the Disposable Dinnerware Accords of 1977. Perhaps at least the Condiment Clause will remain intact.
posted by tetsuo at 7:23 AM on September 1, 2005


oops--I am convinced that this instant preview thing mangles text--" Israeli's right to exist...
posted by ParisParamus at 7:23 AM on September 1, 2005


All I'm trying to say is that your supposition is a facile one, unless you know the economics of cup manufacture and overwater shipping more intimately than you let on.

No Kwantsar, your defense is what is facile. Whilst I am not an expert on the economics of paper cup manufacture, it seems rather unbelievable on its face that paper cups are manufactured to greatest efficiency in Israel which lacks in abundance the two major natural resources essential to the process - forests and water. It seems to me like the sort of phony industry supported by government money on which Israel builds its fraglie economy - one ever dependent on American largesse.
posted by three blind mice at 7:24 AM on September 1, 2005


I wonder if the people, who have said here that they also boycott Israeli products, believe that if Israel had no nukes, and the Palestinians had their own state (just to pick two common grievances), the attitude of Saudis and other Arabs towards Jews would be any different? I sure don't.
posted by Eyebeams at 7:24 AM on September 1, 2005


The history of the boycott and an article on the um technical difficulties of maintaining a boycott today.

mosch: perhaps you confuse "understand" with "approve"? you don't have to find the idea palatable or convincing to understand how it happens. I myself don't like boycotts of entire countries be it Israel or Cuba or Iran, as in the end it only affects people who work and not governments and their policies, but it doesn't take much effort of imagination to understand the "animosity" between Arabs and Israel unless you completely ignore history. The Arab boycotts may also play upon antisemitism or even just populism like in these "banal" stories - besides this is in Saudi Arabia so it's even less suprising - but it's not like they have nothing to do with political positions on the conflict and occupation. It's a bit disingenous to pretend that, don't you think?
posted by funambulist at 7:28 AM on September 1, 2005


Eyebeams - to paraphrase: you believe that if
a) Israel was far less of an immediate threat
and
b) had recognised Palestine as a separate, legitimate entity rather than attempting to subjugate it as a Stepchild State
Arab nations would still feel the same about Israelis?

Why do you think that?
posted by NinjaPirate at 7:32 AM on September 1, 2005


"Pollomacho, when someone questions Israeli's right very terms, there's no need to pretend the person is reasonable, and needs to be handled with kid gloves."
I will not take the thing from your hand.
posted by klangklangston at 7:33 AM on September 1, 2005


The paper cups were quickly withdrawn from use but might there not be other, less obvious, Israeli products in our shops and marketplaces?

...wow... just... wow.
posted by odinsdream at 7:34 AM on September 1, 2005


This is the last straw. I'm going to start boycotting Saudi Arabian products immediately. What are their chief exports?
posted by gwint at 7:35 AM on September 1, 2005


Oil and terrorism. In about equal amounts.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:38 AM on September 1, 2005


It seems petty to people here, but politics are simply that intense there.

My friend went to a dinner in Jerusalem that had orange napkins by each plate, and all of them bore a small ink-stamp saying: "I do not signify any political affiliation-- I am just an orange napkin." (Orange being the color of the liberal faction over there, vs. conservative blue). Even with such a disclaimer, some people were sure to be offended. Ever day there is like the week before our 2004 elections, times a hundred.
posted by hermitosis at 7:47 AM on September 1, 2005


Oh, hate feels so good, doesn't it?
posted by CynicalKnight at 7:52 AM on September 1, 2005


The ones who can't separate anti-semitism from anti-Israelism are the ones who scare me the most. Just because one thinks that Israel should not exist...

Wait, okay, in all honest curiousity, how is that last bit not anti-semitic? I can see how you'd be against the Israeli government, but what is wrong with a Jewish state? The Jews are a culture, a nation, a people just like anybody else. I don't think that anybody should be displaced in the name of creating a Jewish state, or any other, but I don't understand how it's not anti-semitic to say that one shouldn't exist.
posted by timory at 7:54 AM on September 1, 2005


An internal despute over Gaza (the napkins were about that, actually) is minor compared to this.

"Politics are simply intense there" = We'd kill every last Jew in the world if we could.
posted by ParisParamus at 7:56 AM on September 1, 2005


Actually, orange is the anti-disengagement color now. So conservative.

You're right about the politics though. About ten years ago, I was in Israel wearing a green shirt with the word Shalom on it in Hebrew. An Israeli stranger came up to me and literally cursed me out for wearing it, since it apparently implied a stand regarding the Palestinian issue that he disagreed with. I hadn't realized that the word for "hello," "goodbye," and "peace" could be controversial.
posted by callmejay at 7:57 AM on September 1, 2005


Wait, okay, in all honest curiousity, how is that last bit not anti-semitic?

Because the State of Israel does not equal The Jewish people?
posted by twistedonion at 7:59 AM on September 1, 2005


btw I have no problem with an Israeli State - just the treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories.

And I wouldn't buy anything if I knowingly knew it was produced in Israel. But then again, I don't buy Gap so maybe I'm an anti-American as well. And I don't buy from Zimbabwe - shit I'm a racist!
posted by twistedonion at 8:03 AM on September 1, 2005


Oh my God! I just figured out that this writing on my coffee cup "We are happy to serve you" is in some sort of Greek script.

For all I know, these cups were made by them damn Grecians! Will we ever be safe agin?
posted by fungible at 8:11 AM on September 1, 2005


So in a way...the Saudis got served by the Israelis.


Sorry.
posted by Atreides at 8:28 AM on September 1, 2005


NinjaPirate - I believe that the attitude reflected in the paper cups article is pure anti-Semitism, and has little or nothing to do with Palestinians (whom other Arabs appear to loathe more than Israelis do), or nukes, or any other "political" issue.
posted by Eyebeams at 8:39 AM on September 1, 2005


"Arabs appear to loathe more than Israelis do"

Totally true. Israel is as much a victim of this as the Palestinians are.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:43 AM on September 1, 2005


The only thing I don't get, is the way this was linked. In the UK or US, that headline makes no sense. Perhaps "local arab hospital" or something, but even then. *shrug*
posted by SharQ at 8:49 AM on September 1, 2005


Paris, you aren't even taking words in context any more. I guess you pledge to be better was just a load of horse shit. Way to prove your detractors right. The terrorists have already won.
posted by Pollomacho at 8:55 AM on September 1, 2005


I am making out a list and checking it twice....

Laura Jane's Boycott list 2005
Texas Products.
Morman Doohickies
WalMart Thingamajigs
Fundie Stuff
Tobacco Junk
Gentically Altered Produce
Republican Affliated Output
Anything Manufactured by Men


Oh man. This is going to save me so much money!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:08 AM on September 1, 2005


I beg to differ. Perhaps if you knew people whose daily existence is threatened by a HURRICANE of hate, you might get it. It's a question of proportion. Ignorami who think Israel shouldn't be there, or don't think it's there legitimately, deserve all the scorn I can dish out.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:15 AM on September 1, 2005


Totally true. Israel is as much a victim of this as the Palestinians are.

Of course it is. Poor little Israel. Always being bullied and picked on.
posted by twistedonion at 9:15 AM on September 1, 2005


I'd really like to get some of the stuff I had in Syria

(Slight derail for piqued curiosity- what sort of stuff? I can think of figs and pistachios, but those are more or less fungible. What things are peculiar to the country?)
posted by IndigoJones at 9:17 AM on September 1, 2005


It's a question of proportion.

Indeed it is. There are literally thousands of Palestinian stone throwers for every nuclear missile Israel has. Against those incredible odds it is a wonder that the Israelis have time to make paper cups at all.
posted by three blind mice at 9:25 AM on September 1, 2005


I know I came in late on this conversation but did I hear there was something NOT made in China??
posted by j.p. Hung at 9:56 AM on September 1, 2005


NinjaPirate: Eyebeams - to paraphrase: you believe that if
a) Israel was far less of an immediate threat
and
b) had recognised Palestine as a separate, legitimate entity rather than attempting to subjugate it as a Stepchild State
Arab nations would still feel the same about Israelis?

Why do you think that?


See the history of the 1967 war. Nasser's initial goal may not have been war, but things got out of hand pretty rapidly--Arab public opinion wanted a war. I'd recommend William Polk's The Arab World Today for a fairly objective history. The conflict predates Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza--Israel occupied those territories as a result of the 1967 war. Prior to that, the territories were controlled by Jordan and Egypt, respectively. In 1967, Israel's nuclear weapons program wasn't public knowledge, either. (It was started in secret after the 1956 war, as a joint program between Israel and France.)

A long debate on the 1967 war.

That said, I think it's still possible that there could be a "cold peace" between Israel and the Arab states based on the pre-1967 borders. Egypt and Jordan are officially at peace with Israel. (Unofficially there's still a huge amount of hostility towards Israel in Egypt, but there's no threat of war.) The 1990s Oslo accords were based on this premise. Unfortunately things really fell apart after Rabin's assassination.

More on the conflict.

Avishai Margalit:

If there is one thing that gets on the Palestinians' nerves, it's the talk about Barak's 'generous offer' at Camp David. Palestinians--all Palestinians--regard this expression as a deep contradiction. Just why they do needs explaining.

Palestinians view the Palestine that existed during British rule between 1918 and 1948 as theirs--100 percent theirs, from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan River. They see themselves as the indigenous population of this region and hence the natural owners of the entire land of Palestine. Any part of the land that they yield as part of an agreement is, for them, a huge concession. Recognizing the State of Israel as defined by its 1967 borders--the so-called green line--and thus yielding some 77 percent of British mandate Palestine is to them by itself a colossal concession, a painful historical compromise. By recognizing the Israel within the green line they give up their claim to redress what they see as the wrong done to them by the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. If they accept any deal that recognizes Israel they will have succeeded at most in redressing the wrong done to them in 1967, when Israel occupied the West Bank and Gaza. Thus to ask them to compromise further after what they already regard as a huge compromise is, as they see it, a historical outrage. To call any such compromise 'a generous offer' is to them sheer blasphemy.

The Israeli perception is of course diametrically opposite. And by 'the Israeli perception' I do not refer to the idea of 'Greater Israel,' according to which the entire biblical land of Israel belongs to the Jews, who are the historical indigenous population that was forced out of the land but never gave it up. What I mean by the Israeli perception is something very prosaic and unbiblical. Following the two wars that were forced on Israel, in 1948 and 1967, Israel conquered and held on to the entire land from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River. So the Israelis say that any territory we yield to Palestinians is, to us, a concession. And if Barak was willing to offer them almost all of the territories occupied since 1967--an offer that no previous Israeli leader was willing to entertain, let alone to make--it is entirely apt to see this as a generous offer.

posted by russilwvong at 10:00 AM on September 1, 2005


what sort of stuff?

Textiles, furniture, food products, jewelry, perfumes, soaps...

Ignorami who think Israel shouldn't be there

Where are these people in this thread Paris? Where? Instead you just dish scorn on anybody who gets in your way.

Wait, why am I still responding to this anymore?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:04 AM on September 1, 2005


I think everyone here is missing the REAL tragedy:

"The catering subcontractor for the hospital coffee shops began using them on Saturday after their usual supply ran out."

"The paper cups were quickly withdrawn ..."


How are they drinking coffee now?! /panic
posted by cleverusername at 10:12 AM on September 1, 2005


Do people even realise that the Palistinians are 'Semetic', too?
Questioning Israel isn't anti-semetic. Disagreeing with Israel isn't anti-semetic.
There are a lot of Jews in Israel that think that the Palistinians should be killed. Does that make those Jews anti-semetic?
posted by Balisong at 11:03 AM on September 1, 2005


How are they drinking coffee now?!

Straight from the tap, like REAL men.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:05 AM on September 1, 2005


Yep. When I visited Saudi Arabia, I saw schoolchildren at corner stands selling handfuls of lemonade.
posted by fandango_matt at 11:18 AM on September 1, 2005


Remember how Israel hasn't exactly been kind to Arabs? Hasn't been kind as in having come into existence by claiming territory that belonged to them. . . .

To me, these sound like the words of someone who thinks Israel shouldn't be there.

As for the ban, it is based on the mere presence of Jews in this land. It pre-dates even the formation of Israel.
posted by caddis at 11:19 AM on September 1, 2005


I'm not sure where the pigs fit in though, is this some new genetic experiment.

Yeah, yeah, don't feed the troll. But seriously: Whiskey. Tango. Motherfuckin' foxtrot on a pointy stick.

Sorry if I didn't have the sarcasm flag flying high enough for you. Saying that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" is common in extreme forms of Islam preached in Saudi Arabia, among other places. This is often cited as a reason why it would be bad to use Israeli products.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 11:26 AM on September 1, 2005


You made me LOL, Steve.
posted by sonofsamiam at 11:27 AM on September 1, 2005


As for the ban, it is based on the mere presence of Jews in this land. It pre-dates even the formation of Israel.

Do you have any factual basis for this statement whatsoever?
posted by Pollomacho at 11:31 AM on September 1, 2005


Fandango_matt made me laugh.
posted by Eyebeams at 11:34 AM on September 1, 2005


From a 2004 BBC article: Saudi Arabia is barring visits by Jews after launching a new visa scheme to try to attract more tourists. The Saudi tourism department website said tourist visas would not be issued to Israeli passport holders or Jews. There has not previously been an explicit ban on Jews travelling to Saudi Arabia, though people with Israeli passports or with Israeli stamps in their documents, have not been allowed in.
posted by Eyebeams at 11:41 AM on September 1, 2005


Do you have any factual basis for this statement whatsoever?

December 2, 1945 Arab League declares boycott of Jewish owned businesses in Palestine.

November 29, 1947 - United Nations General Assembly plan for partition of Palestine into a Jewish state and an Arab state. The 1948 War then begins.

May 14, 1948 State of Israel declares its independence.
posted by caddis at 11:50 AM on September 1, 2005


Pollomacho's constant whining makes me laugh.
posted by Joeforking at 11:50 AM on September 1, 2005


Is that all you've got joe?
posted by Pollomacho at 12:17 PM on September 1, 2005


Do people even realise that the Palistinians are 'Semetic', too? Yes, they do, though they spell it "Semitic," and they refrain from inserting this obvious fact into arguments because it adds nothing. In common parlance, "Anti-Semitic" means "Anti-Jewish" and that usage satsifies all but the most tiresome pedants.

More to the point: twistedonion - does the Japanese state (which has only existed since 1945) equal the Japanese people? No? Then driving the Japanese out of Japan wouldn't be seen as ever-so-slightly anti-Japanese, or would it? Perhaps the parallel isn't exact, but the Jewish people have long had a dream of a homeland, and dismissing it outright, on the basis of their politics, seems wrong to me. Does every aggressor nation lose its status as a homeland, or just Israel? Only nations formed after 1940? Just trying to get the logic here.
posted by QuietDesperation at 12:23 PM on September 1, 2005


Perhaps the parallel isn't exact in the slightest.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:24 PM on September 1, 2005


OK, quiet, does that mean the Japanese are permitted to just take over Korea because the Japanese are entitled to a homeland? The Zionist Jewish people that longed for a homeland got a homeland, then they expanded their homeland. Personally, I think its fine if they want to have a homeland. I do not think that they get a blank check to take over other people's homelands to expand. Why is removing the Israeli people back to the 1967 line seen as somehow intrinsically anti-all jewish people including the non-zionist and non-expansionist zionist ones?
posted by Pollomacho at 1:22 PM on September 1, 2005


... does that mean the Japanese are permitted to just take over Korea because the Japanese are entitled to a homeland?

If we're talking about hypothetical parallels ... what if Korea had started the war, and lost?

Why is removing the Israeli people back to the 1967 line seen as somehow intrinsically anti-all jewish people including the non-zionist and non-expansionist zionist ones?

To answer your question, I don't regard this as anti-Semitism; my own view is that if there's ever going to be peace between Israel and the Arab world, it's going to have to be based on the pre-1967 borders. What's usually regarded as evidence of anti-Semitism is anti-Zionism, i.e. opposing the existence of Israel as a Jewish state within its pre-1967 borders. (Although I've seen some anti-Zionism from people who don't hate Jews, they're just naive; e.g., they think the world would never allow a second Holocaust to occur, so it's not necessary for Jews to have their own state and their own military.)
posted by russilwvong at 1:42 PM on September 1, 2005


Saying that Jews are "descendants of apes and pigs" is common in extreme forms of Islam preached in Saudi Arabia, among other places.

You'd never find extremist Christian fundies falling for that sort of hate speech. But only because they don't believe in evolution.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:50 PM on September 1, 2005


"December 2, 1945 Arab League declares boycott of Jewish owned businesses in Palestine."
That was back when the Zionists were a Middle East terrorist group. Kinda like the PLO, actually.
And Russil, according to you, I'm an anti-Semite because I don't see the need for a Jewish homeland? How about this? Religious identity is a terrible base for a state, as is most nationalism. It inherently discourages pluralism and contributes to discrimination and segregation.
posted by klangklangston at 2:00 PM on September 1, 2005


I spent 30 minutes writing a reply that addressed many of the comments in this thread, but MeFi died while I was doing so, and my comment got eaten.

I'm not wasting another 30 minutes to try again, but suffice it to say that I think that most of the analogies given in this thread (bush-hating, liberal-hating, modern western racism, african tribal warfare) seem like fundamentally flawed comparisons to me.

I felt like I gained insight from this simple article, and the tone in which it was written, that I could not have gotten by reading a far more outrageous article talking about a suicide bomber, or an Israeli army attack.
posted by mosch at 2:45 PM on September 1, 2005


That was back when the Zionists were a Middle East terrorist group. Kinda like the PLO, actually.

Gross oversimplification. There were terrorists groups, but the Zionist movement itself was not fundamentally a terrorist movement.
posted by caddis at 4:12 PM on September 1, 2005


klangklangston: And Russil, according to you, I'm an anti-Semite because I don't see the need for a Jewish homeland?

What'd I just say? "I've seen some anti-Zionism from people who don't hate Jews, they're just naive." (IMHO, anyway. If everyone else is nationalist--and particularly your immediate neighbors, many of whom are hostile to you--it doesn't make much sense to renounce nationalism yourself. More on this subject.)

mosch: I felt like I gained insight from this simple article, and the tone in which it was written, that I could not have gotten by reading a far more outrageous article talking about a suicide bomber, or an Israeli army attack.

Agreed. Another on-the-ground story that I really like is ihath's.
posted by russilwvong at 4:14 PM on September 1, 2005


Israel and Saudi Arabia have no diplomatic cooperation and are officially in a state of quasi-war.

If North Korean cups, or even worse Iranian or Saddam-Hussein-era cups were found in an American hospital, what do you think the reaction would be? Get a grip.
posted by cell divide at 4:20 PM on September 1, 2005


The reaction? Straight to e-bay!
posted by ParisParamus at 4:32 PM on September 1, 2005


"I've seen some anti-Zionism from people who don't hate Jews, they're just naive."

I certainly don't think of myself an an anti-Zionist; and when people say that they've been very deliberately boycotting Israeli goods for twenty years, I put Israel's actions in the context of much of the rest of the world, including, um, the USA, and I'm more than a little taken aback by that level of sustained outrage.

And suspicious. But I'll get to that in a second.

Anyway, all that being the case, my viewpoint on Israel's policies and treatment of the Palestinians has changed quite a bit over the last twenty years and I do think that I can probably say that I solidly oppose them and find Israel and many of its leaders and some of its people to be morally culpable in some Very Bad Things. So where do I fit on your scale?

But, to the point: the people that are so anti-Zionist and seem to be blase or affronted by suspicions of antisemticism against them as a result have always seemed to me to be astonishingly, um, unreflective.

One way of perhaps explaining this to them that might be totally ineffective, or maybe not, is to say that it's that same vibe that one often gets when certain people have very rational reasons to, say, go on and on about the black people looting in NO and how what?, are they supposed to pretend that all the people doing the looting are black and, come on, look at how they spend so much money on tennis-shoes??. It's like they're completely unaware of their latent racism because they're swimming in it. But every motion is navigation through its currents, it's completely obvious to someone standing on the shore.

There's this huge, enormous, and ancient history of endemic antisemitism in Europe and the US. How can you not be constantly aware of this? And if you make that point, these folks will, just like white apologists, say, hey, so I'm supposed to see everything they do in the context of what was wrongly done to them in the past and let them get away with murder? that's so unfair to my historically and, still, dominant ethnic/religious/racial/cultural group! I demand a level playing field!

And how can one not be excruciatingly aware when one is sharing a political bed with an ideological group who has motives that are utterly unlike one's own and are, in one's view, abhorrent? There's a variety of policy issues on which I am forced to take a side that isn't non-stereotypically leftist, and on some occasions I find that I'm arguing right alongside someone I'd rather not be in the same moral time zone with, much less alongside. In those occasions I'm always particularly careful to be aware that when I take a position that has historically been--and currently is being--taken for evil intentions, that I am tarnished by association, and rightly so. It is rightly my responsibility to demonstrate that I'm not taking that position for the same reasons, or with the same goals, as are these other folks who are stereotypically associated with that position. And, again, they are associated with it because, often especially in the past, they were in many ways identical with it.

For example, I don't like any sort of speech restriction laws on campus and, in general, don't like much of what is called "PC". But in opposing "PCism"--just using that expression--I'm implicitly endorsing the position and aims of those who most publicly have opposed this sort of thing. When, as a matter of fact, I also happen to ardently oppose those people, as well. My aims are often directly opposed to theirs. Anyway, what I don't do is constantly get defensive and claim that it's absurd that someone might call into question my motives for taking that position. Of course they are calling them into question.

A Jewish friend once asked me to try to stop and imagine what it is like for a substantial portion of the world's population to wish me dead merely because of my ethnicity/religion. Yes, this applies to a few other groups. A small few and none I can think of that are as numerous as the Jews. What is the context of a history where all the apparatus of a modern industrial superpower is turned to eradicating, chiefly, a single, carefully defined "people" from the face of the planet and manages to partly accomplish doing so to the tune of more than twenty-million people? I recall that during a time in the 80s, the #1 selling book in black college campus bookstore was The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. What kind of context is that? Is that not a context where a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to anything that looks like antisemticism is completely rational?

And what I don't get with these folks, and with white people who are obsessed about what they call "reverse racism" is how they are so blithely sweeping mountains ranges of human history under the rug as if they never existed and as if their shadows, at least, don't continue to live on today.

So, yeah, I oppose many of Israel's policies and I think they have egregiously violated a great number of human rights and international treaties on human rights. But I also am suspicious of anyone who finds themselves very comfortable and unreflective of their hatred of the nation of Israel.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:48 PM on September 1, 2005


Is that not a context where a guilty-until-proven-innocent approach to anything that looks like antisemitism is completely rational?

Hmm.

I usually try to avoid the guilty-until-proven-innocent approach, myself. I prefer the FidoNet rules: (1) don't be offensive; (2) don't be easily offended.

I think outright hatred of Israel can sometimes shade into anti-Semitism, because of the tribalism that seems to be embedded in human nature; we tend to divide the world into good guys and bad guys, and outrage at Israel can easily turn into outrage at Israelis. But I wouldn't assume that someone in North America who's boycotted Israel for a long time is motivated by anti-Semitism. Israel has oppressed the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, people have been well aware of this since TV coverage of the first Intifada starting in 1987, and the situation is only getting worse, not better.
posted by russilwvong at 5:15 PM on September 1, 2005


My sister's Israeli boyfriend brought back some delicious baklava back from home, it have been made in a Palestinian bakery. I ate them, happily.

...Because I refuse to hold a grudge.
posted by Down10 at 5:26 PM on September 1, 2005


I feel certain that there are no possible circumstances within this cosmos in which I'd refuse baklava.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:38 PM on September 1, 2005


What I find of interest is that any post that has a focus upon Israel gets a huge load of commentary. It never fails.
.
posted by Postroad at 6:24 PM on September 1, 2005


Wait, okay, in all honest curiousity, how is that last bit not anti-semitic?

That depresses the hell out of me. Please read some books on exactly how Israel came to be.
posted by Decani at 7:48 PM on September 1, 2005


What is your point Decani? Are you another one of those people who believe Israel should not exist? If you are, see PP's opinion on you; mine would be the same.
posted by caddis at 7:53 PM on September 1, 2005


Don't mind him, caddis; Decani's just looking for the right Native American tribe to give his home back to, and then he's out of here.
posted by boaz at 8:16 PM on September 1, 2005


Please read some books on exactly how Israel came to be.

Here's a thumbnail version.

Not sure what you think the Jews should have done instead. In the 1930s and 1940s, Jews were regarded as undesirable, unassimilable aliens. In the US, the 1924 Reed-Johnson Act restricted immigration based on the national origin of the existing population. Similarly, Canada's policy towards Jewish immigration during the 1930s and 1940s is described by the title of the book None Is Too Many. As far as I know, Jews have been barred, persecuted, or expelled from pretty much every country in the world where they have lived. That's why Israelis believe that they need the protection of a Jewish state. I'm afraid I have to agree.

I see the conflict as a tragedy, with good people on both sides, rather than a simplistic conflict between good Palestinians and evil Israelis or vice versa. The Palestinians weren't going to give up their land without a fight, and neither will the Israelis. (In the case of the Israelis, they have the memory of the Holocaust to motivate them as well; they know that they can't afford to lose a single war.)
posted by russilwvong at 8:27 PM on September 1, 2005


three_blind_mice said: "racism and anti-semitism is behind every negative opinion of Israel."

Bullshit. The Zionist project is to the native peoples of Palestine what colonizing America was for the Nanticoke and Lakota. Oh wait, you're going to accuse me of being racist against white Gentiles now, aren't you; the green eyes and pink cheeks from 7/8 of my ancestry can't wait to chortle at that one.

Who I am and where I come from also keeps me from condemning those Israeli Jews who were born there and who are descended from Holocaust refugees: the country of Israel, whatever my political differences with its government, is home to lots of people who have not themselves chosen to do anyone harm and who anyway can't be blamed for what happened in 1948. This is why I support the Jewish Israeli people's right to live in the areas that were "Israel" before the 1967 war, why I oppose any effort to "drive the Jews into the sea."

It's also why I think Zionist Americans who "make aliyah" to the Occupied Territories to stir up trouble are sick evil war- mongering bastards: to these colonists I say 'You were not born there, and your parents and grandparents did not go there because they had noplace else to go, so you should stay out of it and let those who live there make peace.' That's why I think Zionist Americans who make aliyah to those places Israel occupied in 1967 should lose their American citizenship. Unlike Hamas, I draw the line at the Green Line.
posted by davy at 9:02 PM on September 1, 2005


russilwvong : "If we're talking about hypothetical parallels ... what if Korea had started the war, and lost?"

Well, if we're going by that form of hypothetical, then since Japan started the war with the US, and lost, America should be able to go in and take over parts of Japan with military force, right?
posted by Bugbread at 10:46 PM on September 1, 2005


Kind of what happened, isn't it? Japan did lose quite a bit of territory: Korea, Taiwan, Manchuria, Sakhalin Island. The US didn't annex any of it, but the US does still have military bases in Japan. If you start a war and lose, the winning side usually demands reparations (territorial or monetary).

That said, conquest is no longer regarded as legitimate, so maybe I should backtrack from my hypothetical argument. I would still say that historically speaking, possession seems to be nine-tenths of the law.

posted by russilwvong at 11:56 PM on September 1, 2005


So, yeah, I oppose many of Israel's policies and I think they have egregiously violated a great number of human rights and international treaties on human rights. But I also am suspicious of anyone who finds themselves very comfortable and unreflective of their hatred of the nation of Israel.

Well said, Ethereal.
posted by QuietDesperation at 11:58 PM on September 1, 2005


davy, read the entire comment.

WTF loquacious is that racism and anti-semitism is behind every negative opinion of Israel. Which is, itself, a point of view as pernicious and ugly as racism and anti-semitism.

But it is a damned convenient way for Israel and for Israelis to avoid a discussion about their policies and behaviour.


In other words I am saying that racism and anti-semitism ARE NOT the reasons behind negative views of Israel - although many would like us to believe this. For some yes, but not for all. As the comments in the rest of this thread illustrate, reasonable non-Jew-hating people can and do criticise Israel for her actions and policies. And as other comments illustrate, the snarky replies that these people are simply anti-semites are never slow in coming.
posted by three blind mice at 12:43 AM on September 2, 2005


Nevermind the is it or isn't it antisemitic, or how much historical validity it does or doesn't have, what strikes me about the argument that Israel should not even exist where it does (as a whole, not just in terms of which borders) is that for all practical purposes it is totally futile argument. There are several million people living there among which more than one point five million Muslims so even if you have some kind of objection to the concept of a Jewish homeland... what exactly do you think should be done about it now?

Also, those objections to a Jewish state as religious based strike me as a little disingenous, because the Jewish identity is as much if not more a matter of community than religion now for most people. The way the state was founded was unique, just like the historical events that led to that founding, but the way it actually works is not that different from any other nation.

Just in case someone misreads this, I'm definitely not saying this from the point of view of those lousy fake pro-Israel wingnuts who just want to exploit Israel for their own ideological agendas (and dilute the meaning of antisemitism by throwing around the label like it's a shorthand for 'contrary to my own political stance'). I just think, to state the obvious perhaps, that reasonable people must see that apart from the extremisms there are rightful grievances and claims on both sides, and for many people, including many Israelis who for the most part are definitely not crazy settler types, opposition to the Israeli military occupation and actions towards Palestinians does not go hand in hand with believing that the founding of Israel was unjustified. That's a while different position and while it is true it's not necessarily based on prejudice it's at best a pure exercise in hypothetics.
posted by funambulist at 2:01 AM on September 2, 2005


"What'd I just say? "I've seen some anti-Zionism from people who don't hate Jews, they're just naive." (IMHO, anyway. If everyone else is nationalist--and particularly your immediate neighbors, many of whom are hostile to you--it doesn't make much sense to renounce nationalism yourself. More on this subject.)
I fixed your link.
And boy, yeah, it sure is naive to think that things have changed since the turn of the 20th century with regard to Jewish rights, immigration and social acceptance. Often, I rail against the current immigration quotas imposed on Jews here in America. No, no, wait...
If arguing that the early 20th century is no longer the context for Jew-Gentile relations is naive, then arguing that the context remains the same is flat-out retarded.
The only reason to think that the world would not act to prevent another Jewish holocaust is that a lot of the world regards what Israel is doing to Palestine as deeply wrong, and as such would be unlikely to do a tremendous amount to aid them. But that's a foolish assertion when you consider who the primary military force in the world is, and their historic defense of Israel (right or wrong).
The reliance upon ethnic identity for constitution of nation-states is an archaic and regressive premise that leads to intractable conflict. This can be seen in Bosnia, Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Cambodia, Tibet, India and Israel/Palestine. With the perpetual defense of Jewishness as state identity, you are only encouraging a reinforcement of Arab as state identity and encouraging more violence.
I'm naive? You're the one who insists on a paradigm for statehood that has failed over and over and over again to bring peace or prosperity.
Luckily, with the demographic shift currently occuring in Israel (which is one of the reasons why Sharon supported a pull-out and a hardening of borders), within 100 years, the Jews will not be a democratic majority in Israel. Because of this, they will need to come up with a new Israeli identity, one that embraces ideals instead of genes, one that puts forward inclusive goals and recognizes both the Jewish and the Arab heritage inherent to their position. That's what will finally bring peace: not bullets, but ballots. And if the Jews wish to have their identity preserved through the process, they should start working now to make sure of that. Instead of working to wall themselves off into a smaller, more defensible position, they should work on expanding their neighbors' views of the ideals of Judeasm. Otherwise they'll go down in history as a temporary apartheid state.
posted by klangklangston at 6:36 AM on September 2, 2005


I fixed your link.

That's funny. I actually mostly agree with you. But nationalism has deep roots, and peace through transformation (renouncing nationalism, war, and power politics in general) only makes sense if everyone else goes through the same transformation at the same time. Otherwise you get bad sequels.

And boy, yeah, it sure is naive to think that things have changed since the turn of the 20th century with regard to Jewish rights, immigration and social acceptance.

You're missing my point: in the 1930s and 1940s, the Jews who emigrated to Palestine and ended up founding Israel and expelling the Palestinians didn't have anywhere else to go. They didn't have a time machine to take them a couple generations forward in time.

The other point I want to make is that things change. Jews in Germany were pretty well assimilated before the rise of the Nazis. In Europe, Jews were admitted, then later expelled, from a succession of countries. (I agree that it seems impossible that Jews would be barred from immigrating to the US in our lifetime. But a couple centuries from now, who knows?)

The only reason to think that the world would not act to prevent another Jewish holocaust is that a lot of the world regards what Israel is doing to Palestine as deeply wrong, and as such would be unlikely to do a tremendous amount to aid them.

Come on! The world didn't intervene in the Holocaust. The world (including the US) didn't intervene in the wars of 1967 or 1973. It didn't intervene in Rwanda. The West didn't intervene in Bosnia until hundreds of thousands of people had been killed and millions displaced. Look at Tibet; look at East Timor; look at Darfur. Look at the Palestinians, for that matter! No people in the world can rely on humanitarian intervention to save it from its enemies.

Luckily, with the demographic shift currently occuring in Israel (which is one of the reasons why Sharon supported a pull-out and a hardening of borders), within 100 years, the Jews will not be a democratic majority in Israel.

Don't you mean Israel plus the territories (West Bank + Gaza)?

Because of this, they will need to come up with a new Israeli identity, one that embraces ideals instead of genes, one that puts forward inclusive goals and recognizes both the Jewish and the Arab heritage inherent to their position. That's what will finally bring peace: not bullets, but ballots. And if the Jews wish to have their identity preserved through the process, they should start working now to make sure of that. Instead of working to wall themselves off into a smaller, more defensible position, they should work on expanding their neighbors' views of the ideals of Judaism.

I admire your idealism (I think it'd be great if Israelis and Arabs could work together), but I still think it's naive. This isn't intended as an insult or a put-down, that's just what I think.
posted by russilwvong at 12:08 PM on September 2, 2005


Well, I've read the "about the company" page of the Israeli company mentioned in the Saudi article (it's in Hebrew), and guess what? Orion is an IMPORT company. The cups are manufactured in China (as correctly guessed by j.p. Hung earlier in the thread)

The Hebrew on the cups read: "Made in China, CPC Free. Orion - Israeli supplier for restaurants of disposable paper, plastic and foam dinnerware". (you can see the cups of discord here
It seems a surplus was sold to a third party, probably a Jordanian go-between.

Some of the comments here are hilarious in light of this information.
posted by dov at 1:38 PM on September 2, 2005


dov wins!
posted by russilwvong at 1:43 PM on September 2, 2005


did any one take a look at the article? it features a pictures of a cup with big red and white letters set on black - I assume, the offensive message. I kind of have to wonder if they didn't fabricate the cup for the article. It mentions the Israeli companies web address and on review, they don't seem very "in your face im jewish" but then i don't read hebrew.

My first reaction was "How the fuck do they allow this tripe to pass as 'news'... then i thought about it and felt silly." Thanks Fox, now i can't look down on bigots and assholes overseas.

also, i like how the silly foreigner (Filipino) had to have it explained to him. "DUH! Cause its JEW paper."
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:38 PM on September 21, 2005


damn... or what dov said - who aparently DOES read hebrew. :)
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 5:38 PM on September 21, 2005


« Older The history of the dollar....  |  Drowning New Orleans... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments