As long as it's backed by some Israel company, I don't want to have anything to do with it.

July 28, 2006 12:46 PM

"NUKE ISRAEL!... Hezbollah, where can I enlist?"
Jani Taskinen, one of the lead PHP developers, has upped and quit. Why? Because Jani has served as a UN peacekeeper, Zend is run by Israelis, and, well, you work out the rest.
posted by reklaw (105 comments total)

"Run by Israelis"? There's two out of nine people who are Israeli in that list. Jeez.
posted by grubi at 12:54 PM on July 28, 2006

"I'm going to be openly anti-Israel from now on. This was the last straw for me. Fuck you jews."
--Taskinen (according to the first link)

Where's that thread that asked about being anti-Israel, vs. anti-Jew?
posted by inigo2 at 12:58 PM on July 28, 2006

You know, because its the guys from Zend who set us up the bomb, too. Not like developers really need a reason to go all wacky or anything...
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:59 PM on July 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

I'm sure most people (the ones who matter) can understand why. If someone doesn't, I could not care less. Take care.

Lame flameout. I've seen lots better.

Not everyone in a particular country agrees with the actions of their government. If you tried to hold me responsible for everything George W. Bush does, you'd be a fucking idiot. This whole thing is regrettably infantile.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 12:59 PM on July 28, 2006

Some of his work was for Zend, a commercial product. But some of it - and it's a lot of valuable work - was for core PHP. And that part, thanks to the genius of the GPL, will live on and be built on by others and benefit all web users and thousands of developers.

Also, this rant may have been at least in part a retrospective reason. He had also griped about dissatisfaction with bugfixes, feature requests, etc. - 5 or 6 years is enough to burn out working on one system.
posted by jam_pony at 1:00 PM on July 28, 2006

Sounds like something he'll regret later.
posted by cell divide at 1:03 PM on July 28, 2006

Programmers are too high strung. Must be the caffeine.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:03 PM on July 28, 2006

Why do people say "fuck the Jews" when they mean "kill the Jews"? If you say you're gonna fuck me, that's what I'm gonna expect.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:08 PM on July 28, 2006 [3 favorites]

That may be true, grubi, but Zend identifies itself as an Israeli company.
posted by jefgodesky at 1:09 PM on July 28, 2006

Would I be right in thinking that most Americans support Israel in this dispute and most Europeans don't? He's European, right?
posted by A189Nut at 1:15 PM on July 28, 2006

To blame someone else for the faults of their government is definitely the most idiotic and counterproductive things imaginable. I could see it if they were always bugging each other or sending Muhammed porn pics to the guy but otherwise if there was no personal friction then Jani is off his rocker. Our office is filled with people of different nationalities and religious persuasions but we all get along well enough to work with each other.
posted by JJ86 at 1:15 PM on July 28, 2006

Your gifts of over $250 are eligible for a US IRS tax deduction.
perhaps they'll need a lot more than pizzas...eh?
posted by Unregistered User at 1:22 PM on July 28, 2006

It's not "to blame someone for the faults of their government", it's a good, old-fashioned boycott of a country whose policies you dislike.
posted by Joakim Ziegler at 1:24 PM on July 28, 2006

I was under the impression that the general sentiment in Israel is supportive of the attacks on Hezbollah.
posted by catachresoid at 1:25 PM on July 28, 2006

I'm flagging this post. To me it is supremely offensive. I'm perfectly comfortable with people disagreeing with my perspective (which generally tends to look favorably on Israel), and engaging in debate that argues a certain position. This post is something different altogether. This is casually advocating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Israelis (Jews and non-Jews alike, by the way - does he really think that detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel will NOT result in the deaths of countless Arabs?). This is racism. I disapprove strongly with the actions of certain people - Jews and non-Jews, Americans and non-Americans, etc - but that doesn't mean that I publicly call for their wholesale slaughter. Or that I think we ought to be giving a platform for others to do so.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 1:28 PM on July 28, 2006

Might as well add there is zero proof that Jani is the guy in the IRC logs (which can be faked using notepad).
posted by the ghost of Ken Lay at 1:30 PM on July 28, 2006

I think one of the victims killed in the Israeli bombing was Finnish, in addition to being a member of the UN (as was Taskinen, as a UN peacekeeper in Afghanistan and elsewhere). Apparently Taskinen's comments were also written at 2 AM after a night of drinking. All issues to consider.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:33 PM on July 28, 2006

"This post is something different altogether. This is casually advocating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Israelis "

In what way is this post advocating *anything*? PHP is a very big programming language on the internet. This is what we call News. Even better: Internet News.

Just letting people know someone said something racist and unjustifiably dangerous is the same as advocacy?
posted by zerolives at 1:33 PM on July 28, 2006

It is somewhat ironic whereby the implicitly held belief that "the only thing the arabs understand is force" is so woefully misunderstood by those who reach for it in mass with every imagined provication. Everyday Israel (& the U.S.) continues their lopsided celebration of overwhelming force, their hazy self representation to the rest of the world becomes more succinctly an image of evil. An evil whose prime supposition is fear and death. Or rather, the control of fear and death. Its not so far off primitive ritual sacrifice, where the control of death is a demonstration of political prowess ment to rival the powers of nature or god. Megalomania then, in modern parlance is the color and value -- the self-portrait, Israel and the U.S. are now unveiling upon the world.
posted by Unregistered User at 1:36 PM on July 28, 2006

I admire his courage.
posted by Addiction at 1:37 PM on July 28, 2006

Would it be unfair to ask what the scorecard is for Israeli civilians killed vs Lebanese civilians (not Hizbollah) in the last few weeks? Anyone know?
posted by A189Nut at 1:37 PM on July 28, 2006

I'm not sure I understand your point here fingers_of_fire.
posted by OmieWise at 1:38 PM on July 28, 2006

This is casually advocating the slaughter of hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Israelis (Jews and non-Jews alike, by the way - does he really think that detonating a nuclear weapon in Israel will NOT result in the deaths of countless Arabs?). This is racism.

It is a war at this point, I don't think there's any way to reasonably deny that. He's picked a side, and he wants that side to win. Is that racism? I can follow that argument, but then again, that would make it equally racist for Israelis to support Israel's actions. Which I'm fine with, but are you?

Since you mentioned that you "[tend] to look favorably on Israel," I'll mention that I don't support any of the sides involved here. They've all got way too much blood on their hands and committed far too many atrocities for me to pretend that any of them has any kind of moral high ground relative to the others. All that's left is villainy and carnage, as far as I'm concerned, and a large population of innocent people who get to suffer for that. But isn't that the way civilization has always run?
posted by jefgodesky at 1:39 PM on July 28, 2006

A lot of people in that slashdot thread seem to think the log's either fake or 'enhanced'. Not saying it is, but 'Joe Q. Slashdotter sez so' isn't my idea of a credible source either.
posted by boaz at 1:40 PM on July 28, 2006

I don't think fingers_of_fire really understands fingers_of_fire's point.
posted by xmutex at 1:41 PM on July 28, 2006

I think fingers_of_fire heard someone say something bad about jews on teh intarwebz and figured he could pull the trump card.
posted by Addiction at 1:42 PM on July 28, 2006

12 Israeli civilians vs 250 Lebanese my quick googling reveals.
posted by A189Nut at 1:44 PM on July 28, 2006

FYI: I don't care at all what anybody thinks about me. I'm going to be openly anti-Israel from now on. This was the last straw for me.
This is a perfectly reasonable position.
Fuck the Jews
This isn't.
posted by Flashman at 1:47 PM on July 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Body count here.
posted by Vaska at 1:48 PM on July 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Agreed Flashman.
posted by OmieWise at 1:48 PM on July 28, 2006

goodbye and good riddance sniper
posted by caddis at 1:49 PM on July 28, 2006

I am flagging fingers of fire's comment. To me, it is supremely offensive. I'm not OK with people commenting on posts they've scarcely bothered to skim.
posted by adamrice at 1:50 PM on July 28, 2006

Why do people say "fuck the Jews" when they mean "kill the Jews"? If you say you're gonna fuck me, that's what I'm gonna expect.
posted by Astro Zombie. at 1:08 PM PST on July 28

To be fair, if he was going to fuck you, he'd have to be a necrophiliac.
posted by Pastabagel at 1:53 PM on July 28, 2006

cheers to jefgodesky and adamrice. neither side is right in this conflict. neither side ever will be. even if one was right in the beginning, they've lost that claim now. and, fingers read the goddamn post before you flag it. idiot.
posted by Doorstop at 1:53 PM on July 28, 2006

Oh, necrophilia is not okay on Metafilter now?

When will the moratoriums end!
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on July 28, 2006

If Israel is going to present itself as the high point of Jewish self-expression and independence, isn't it worth asking whether they really think they're the best representatives of Jewry?

You know, after 1973, things could have gone so much better. The Israeli state could have cut out such a different legacy for itself. Pity.

Living in Odessa in the 1880s, he argued for colonial settlements in Palestine, not because he wanted a state—not yet—but because he wanted a “Hebrew national atmosphere” that could provide a new and more congenial space in which Jews could work out in individual ways what it means to be Jewish—a place they could ask modern questions in Hebrew. He edited and mentored the generation that created the state’s DNA: A. D. Gordon, the founder of the kibbutz movement; Eliezer Ben-Yehuda, the creator of the modern Hebrew dictionary; Chaim Weizmann, the moderate leader of world Zionism during the Mandate; even, indirectly, Ben-Gurion.

It is Zionism’s singular tragedy that all of these figures are just street names today, while “Zionism” is applied to the people with caravans, Uzis, stylish forelocks, and visits from Pat Robertson.

— Bernard Avishai
posted by Firas at 1:56 PM on July 28, 2006

I admire his courage.

What on earth is courageous about this behavior? If you're upset about what's going on now, you must disassociate yourself not only from the government of Israel, but from all Israelis? All Jews?

We're all monsters, see.
posted by kosem at 1:59 PM on July 28, 2006

The guy strikes me as a nutter, but, that said, he should know that the UN not only seems to have been friendly to Hezbollah but that one of those killed was a Chinese "observer." What the heck was a Chinese observer doing there?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51265
posted by Postroad at 2:00 PM on July 28, 2006

Bringing takeout? What kind of a stupid question is that?
posted by dame at 2:02 PM on July 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

sorry. forgot this:
"...EBKAfile adds: The holier-than-thou tone of outrage taken by Annan is surprising when it generally known that many UN missions are exploited as the cover for foreign agents, often hostile, to carry out spying operations in war zones. The inadvertent Israeli air strike revealed the fact that the UN force in Lebanon includes Chinese observers. One was killed along with an Austrian, a Canadian and a Finn. The presence of Chinese observers keeping an eye on the combat in South Lebanon has never before been reported.

Our intelligence experts compare the incident to the inadvertent US bombardment which wrecked the Chinese embassy in Belgrade in 1998 (picture), killing a number of Chinese “diplomats.” It was discovered that from that building the Chinese had operated sophisticated surveillance to track the performance of American warplanes, missiles and smart bombs.

The Khaim observer post was located near Hizballah positions and training facilities in the eastern sector, where the IDF has launched the next stage of its campaign against Hizballah in southern Lebanon. .."
posted by Postroad at 2:04 PM on July 28, 2006

[i]Would I be right in thinking that most Americans support Israel in this dispute and most Europeans don't? He's European, right?[/i]

That's about right. Americans love a winner. Europeans root for the underdog while claiming they'd rather not be watching the game at all.
posted by fusinski at 2:07 PM on July 28, 2006

Considering that the largest community of Jews in the world is in the United States, and that many of the center of modern Jewish theological thought are also located here, I would say the United States is to Israel as Babylon was to Jerusalem at the time of the writing of the Talmud. Israel is the metaphoric home of the Jews, but America is the de facto home.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:07 PM on July 28, 2006

Blasted bulletin board code wrecking my brain...
posted by fusinski at 2:08 PM on July 28, 2006

he guy strikes me as a nutter, but, that said, he should know that the UN not only seems to have been friendly to Hezbollah but that one of those killed was a Chinese "observer." What the heck was a Chinese observer doing there?

fair enough. but it should also be pointed out that according to the UN officials, israel had previously been told about the location of the observers (not exactly a clandestine operation, if that's what you're suggesting) and israel had agreed not to target the area. this whole situation is sad and just getting sadder. just check out the difference between bbc's coverage and cnn's. It's funny. According to our press, there's apparently some doubt about whether it was israel or in fact hezbollah that targeted the observers. chalk another one up to the "fog of war."
posted by saulgoodman at 2:13 PM on July 28, 2006

The phrase the "fog of war" reminded me of this piece in Ha'aretz today by Tom Segev. Better to read something interesting than to snipe back and forth in metafilter to no great effect.
posted by kosem at 2:26 PM on July 28, 2006

I'm flagging this whole thread because I came here for something supremely offensive, and this isn't even marginally offensive.

Stupid, yes, but not offensive.
posted by scrump at 2:34 PM on July 28, 2006

Oh, necrophilia is not okay on Metafilter now?

Necrophilia may not be okay, but flogging dead horses is a Metafilter gourmet specialty.
posted by blucevalo at 2:39 PM on July 28, 2006

Just letting people know someone said something racist and unjustifiably dangerous is the same as advocacy?

You are absolutely right, zerolives - I should differentiate between the motives of the poster and the motives of the subject of the post.

The topic of nuclear retaliation is a bit of a red flag for me, obviously. Taskinen is essentially saying "Let's kill as many Israeli Jews as possible." I find that amazingly offensive. I think we can do better here than to give hate-speech a platform. Just my opinion.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 2:40 PM on July 28, 2006

omiewise, sorry if I wasn't clear. What I'm trying to say is that I have no problems with people disagreeing with the positions or actions of the Israeli goverment. I'll gladly and enthusiastically debate people on these issues. On the other hand, this post gives a platform to what I consider hate-speech - I just think you don't joke about nuking Israel, or anyone, for that matter. I admit that I'm particularly sensitive about Israel, and if that led me to over-react in flagging this post, I apologize. That said, I still think it's a grotesque position Taskinen takes, and it angers and saddens me to see it on the blue.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 2:49 PM on July 28, 2006

"I'm going to be openly anti-Israel from now on. This was the last straw for me. Fuck you jews."
--Taskinen (according to the first link)

Yes, according to an anonymous slashdot comment he said that.
posted by delmoi at 2:49 PM on July 28, 2006

You know what I'm sick of this "Israel has a right to defend itself" sentiment. As if any action taken, no matter how brutal is justified in 'self defense'. That it's OK to kill a hundred Arab civilians in order save one Israeli, as long as you get someone on Fox News saying how they weren't "targeted" they were just "collateral". I honestly think the Israelis are trying to increase the number of civilian casualties, or at least have a blatant disregard for them.

As far as for the "Fuck the Jews" comment, that's lamentable, but the Lukidnik types have done everything they can to equate non-steadfast support for Israel with anti-Semitism. It poisons the debate
posted by delmoi at 2:57 PM on July 28, 2006

jefgodesky, my take on I-P debates is that people tend to bring to them a pre-determined emotional sympathy with one of the sides. I'm an American Jew (pretty secular, more cultural than religious), I spent half a year in Israel about 10 years ago (also travelled in Eqypt, Jordan, and Turkey), and the sum of those experiences is that I tend to listen more sympathetically to the Israeli side of things. This is NOT to say that I think Israel is perfect 100% of the time - I'm just trying to be realistic about the effect my upbringing has on my opinions.

That said, I don't have an issue with wanting one side of a war to win (other than the fact that it's tragic that things had to resort to war at all). This is not hoping for an Israeli defeat. It's hoping for the mass slaughter of Israelis on a scale that is exponentially higher than what the Israelis are inflicting on the Lebanese as we speak. By many orders of magnitude.

In fact, this brings up one of the many issues I have with the whole I-P debate. In many if not most cases (certainly this one), the goal for the Arab side (in this case Hezbollah) is the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. The goal for the Israeli side is a sustainable peace on the border. NOT the destruction of Arabs. NOT the destruction of Lebanon. They have called for the disarming of Hezbollah, but that is a qualitatively different thing, in my opinion. There has been a similarly disproportionate set of goals to virtually all of the wars that Israel has found itself engaged in since 1948, including 1948, 1967, and 1973. In all of those cases, Israel was fighting for it's existence, while its attackers were trying to destroy Israel.

Anyway, I think there is a huge difference between hoping that Hezbollah is able to sustain Israel's attacks and hoping that millions of Israelis die.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:00 PM on July 28, 2006

The topic of nuclear retaliation is a bit of a red flag for me, obviously. Taskinen is essentially saying "Let's kill as many Israeli Jews as possible."

Rhetoric gets heated every once in a while. There is a long distance between an offhand (and sourced only to an anon slashdot post) comment and actually wanting to kill people.
posted by delmoi at 3:01 PM on July 28, 2006

jefgodesky, my take on I-P debates is that people tend to bring to them a pre-determined emotional sympathy with one of the sides

This is an I-L debate. Totally diffrent.
posted by delmoi at 3:01 PM on July 28, 2006

A Chinese observer there because he was part of the UN observation team, which was made up of a Chinese national, a Canadian national, and two European nationals I'm not sure the specific citizenship of.

I don't see any problem with this being on Metafilter, or anywhere, it's an interesting story about how the Israel-Lebanon war is affecting interactions on a personal level. Whether or not the guy is a bit high-strung.

Having people you may or may not have served with in the past killed, and then having the killing dismissed as an accident (despite the fact that they paint UN in gigantic white letters on everything, and fly blue flags, and called up the IDF six or ten times letting them know that they were getting a bit too close with the bombs,) is probably very hard to deal with.
posted by blacklite at 3:02 PM on July 28, 2006

It's hoping for the mass slaughter of Israelis on a scale that is exponentially higher than what the Israelis are inflicting on the Lebanese as we speak.

I don't know where anyone could get the idea that massely disproportionate retaliation is a good idea. And yet...
posted by blacklite at 3:04 PM on July 28, 2006

delmoi: I honestly think the Israelis are trying to increase the number of civilian casualties, or at least have a blatant disregard for them - link, please?

Do you object to the notion that Israel has a right to defend itself? Or do you object to the notion that Israel defends itself too aggressively? Or am I mis-reading you?
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:05 PM on July 28, 2006

delmoi, not TOTALLY different - certainly it's related - but your point is well-taken.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:07 PM on July 28, 2006

As far as for the "Fuck the Jews" comment, that's lamentable, but the Lukidnik types have done everything they can to equate non-steadfast support for Israel with anti-Semitism. It poisons the debate

And, you know, the fact that quite a lot of antisemetic rhetoric masquerades as criticism of Israel. I'm sorry, but you can't dismiss it all with a wave of the hand.
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:09 PM on July 28, 2006

jefgodesky, my take on I-P debates is that people tend to bring to them a pre-determined emotional sympathy with one of the sides.

There's a great deal of truth to that. Coming from an American, Christian background, my natural disposition was in favor of Israel. I was disillusioned of that position by actually following events in the region and seeing what Israel—the government, not some codeword for some "Jewish race"—was doing. I could've backlashed and gone the other way, but I retained my disgust for the methods employed by Hamas, Hizbollah, and similar groups, and instead came to my general disgust with basically every player in the region. I know lots of Israelis, and I know lots of Americans who've been to Israel, but I find it no more difficult to reconcile that with a disgust towards Israel's policies and actions, than I find it difficult to reconcile the many kind and good United States citizens I know, with the utterly deplorable policies and actions taken by the United States.

It's hoping for the mass slaughter of Israelis on a scale that is exponentially higher than what the Israelis are inflicting on the Lebanese as we speak. By many orders of magnitude.

I wonder if you're underestimating the Lebanese casualties, then? I doubt "nuke Israel" was meant literally, but even so, the lop-sided body count of Israel vs. its enemies has been going on for many decades I know. I don't have numbers, but my intuition would be that it probably would take a nuclear strike to bring those numbers into anything like a close range.

In fact, this brings up one of the many issues I have with the whole I-P debate. In many if not most cases (certainly this one), the goal for the Arab side (in this case Hezbollah) is the destruction of Israel and the slaughter of Jews. The goal for the Israeli side is a sustainable peace on the border.

That's certainly the claim, but I'm not sure how much that maps to reality. Notice that once Hamas gained some political traction, they began talking about recognizing Israel. By the same token, this recent act on Israel's part was horribly ill-timed, on the eve of a truly lasting peace, shattering all possibility for that for decades to come—I've become convinced that certain powerful elements in Israel's governments, particularly in the Likud party, see constant warfare as something they want to see continue.

The situation's a lot messier than that. The Palestinians are not entirely wrong when they claim that Israel is an occupying power, after all. Some kind of co-existence must eventually be reached, but it's just as often been Israel that took an absurdly hard-line, no-compromise position to keep the conflict going as not.
posted by jefgodesky at 3:14 PM on July 28, 2006

"nuclear retaliation is a bit of a red flag for me"

Do a search for "Iraq" and "Iran" threads with "glass carpark" suggestions.

Advocating nuclear retaliation is common as dirt in American discussion.
posted by -harlequin- at 3:15 PM on July 28, 2006

link, please?

Well, I said that I thought that, not that I knew it was certain. The reason I think that is simply the number of civilian targets being hit. I mean apartment buildings and such, even in the early days of the bombing before people had a chance to evacuate. It certainly shows a disregard for civilian life in general. Of course it's impossible to prove that they are doing it deliberate, but it seems deliberate to me. Obviously if they were doing it they would claim that it wasn't deliberate.

As far as Israel's right to defend itself: I think they have a right to self defense, but too many people seem to believe that a "right to self defense" means "Israel can take any action it wants, as long as it says it's in self defense."

Think about it this way, people have a right to self defense, but that doesn't mean that if someone threatens you, you have a right to burn down his house with his family inside.
posted by delmoi at 3:15 PM on July 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

Out of interest, is there any other example in post war history of occupied territory not being given back?
posted by A189Nut at 3:17 PM on July 28, 2006

"What the heck was a Chinese observer doing there?"

Why shouldn't there be a Chinese among the observers? It was a United Nations post.

What skullduggery are you infering the UN (or China?) was up to by having it's posts staffed by observers from around the world?

Is there a perception that if a group includes someone of Chinese nationality, bombing them is justified or understanding? If so, where/why/what is that about?
posted by -harlequin- at 3:21 PM on July 28, 2006

A189Nut, I don't know the answer to your question, but I do recall seeing a speech by Abba Eban, then Israeli ambassador to the UN, given to the General Assembly in 1967 in the immediate aftermath of the Six Days War and Israel capturing the West Bank. Already the cries arose for Israel to give back the captured territories. His point was that Israel entered the war defensively, in response to the millions of Arab troops that were ammassed on its borders. Turns out that Israel won the war and captured some territory. THAT is part of the risk of going to war, and the Arabs should have considered that before they started piling troops in the Sinai, the Golan, and the West Bank.

That said, it is of course tragic that Israel is holding on to that land some 40 years later. On the other hand, look at Gaza and Southern Lebanon - two recent (much less complicated) examples of Israel withdrawing from occupied land. Neither is turning out so well, eh? If I were Israel, I'd want to make damn sure that EFFECTIVE safeguards were in place to ensure some kind of peaceful co-existence.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 3:30 PM on July 28, 2006

fingers_of_fire writes "On the other hand, this post gives a platform to what I consider hate-speech - I just think you don't joke about nuking Israel, or anyone, for that matter"

Quoting from the alleged comments by Taskinen

< _sniper_> They kill one of my brother-in-arms-for-peace..I think I'm entitled to kill one of their nazis.

That would explain a strong emotive reaction from Taskinen, assuming that he lost a person that he felt strongly for. He's probably not reasoning clearly.

In my opinion ANY call for nuking israel is as despicable as a call for nuking any other place ; because it solicits a violent action without any kind of consideration, without any tought and because it is generally wiser to avoid the consequences of such actions, as violence is more likely to generate more violence in the long term and a short term peace (on a tangent: the argument of not having a "fake peace" as it would be worse then the ongoing real war is so so so incredibly devoid of consideration for consequences).

Yet this "platform" didn't only generate hate-speech or a mere trite repetition of diktats , at least here.
posted by elpapacito at 3:32 PM on July 28, 2006

As I recall, though I can not at the moment cite the spot, the Chinese guy was NOT a UN person stationed there. Similarly, when we bombed a spot in Iraq in the first war, the Chinese complained that it was an embassy or had been one. We apologized. Turned out there were Chinese tech guys there working with fibre optics to help Saddam.
posted by Postroad at 3:34 PM on July 28, 2006

jefgodesky: Coming from an American, Christian background, my natural disposition was in favor of Israel.

What is interesting about this is that the government of Lebanon is almost equally split between Christian and Islamic factions. Some Arab-American groups claim that Lebanese Christians are the largest sub-population of Arab-Americans, a fact that should turn conservative cries for ethnic profiling on its ear.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 3:40 PM on July 28, 2006

As I recall, though I can not at the moment cite the spot, the Chinese guy was NOT a UN person stationed there.

According to everything I've seen, the victims were a Austrian, a Canadian, a Chinese and a Finn, all UN workers.

Also, your notion that the chinese are infiltrating lebanon and helping terrorists is completely baseless as far as I can see.
posted by bob sarabia at 3:51 PM on July 28, 2006

As I recall, though I can not at the moment cite the spot, the Chinese guy was NOT a UN person stationed there.

The BBC and CNN cites above both have the UN listing the four dead/missing (including the Chinese man) as their observers.


Similarly, when we bombed a spot in Iraq in the first war, the Chinese complained that it was an embassy or had been one.

How is that similar? If Israel bombed a cafe at which a Chinese woman worked as a barista, would that be similar also, because she might have been up to no good on the side?
Or is it a general suspicion of the UN? What's the link?

"Turned out there were Chinese tech guys there working with fibre optics to help Saddam."

Are you able to find a cite for this? (If it's the case I'm thinking of, I suspect that the "helping Saddam" bit is propaganda to gloss over (in the US public mind) a genuine transgression or error.)
posted by -harlequin- at 4:06 PM on July 28, 2006

THAT is part of the risk of going to war, and the Arabs should have considered that before they started piling troops in the Sinai, the Golan, and the West Bank.

Actually, since wwII the use of warfair to capture territory has been looked down upon by the international community.

As I recall, though I can not at the moment cite the spot, the Chinese guy was NOT a UN person stationed there.

Guh? The announcement was from the U.N. itself. Are you saying they're lying? No shit you don't have a link.
posted by delmoi at 4:07 PM on July 28, 2006

The BBC and the UN say four UN observers. Period
posted by A189Nut at 4:11 PM on July 28, 2006

And I can't find any record of the Chinese Embassy being hit during the first Gulf War. Do you mean in Belgrade in 1999?
posted by A189Nut at 4:14 PM on July 28, 2006

delmoi, I too look down on the use of warfare to capture territory, and I wish Israel and its Arab neighbors would have reached an agreement long ago whereby Israel returned the land captured in 1967. That said, Israel didn't decide one day to expand its boundaries. It was experiencing attacks on THREE fronts. It defended itself. In so doing, it captured land. I can't fault Israel for being reluctant to return to some status-quo-ante-bellum condition. There need to be safeguards. Returning the land depends on that.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 4:21 PM on July 28, 2006

A BBC report that includes numbers of victims, since someone asked.
posted by clevershark at 4:29 PM on July 28, 2006

This from Wikpedia.

1948 - 1967: Occupation of the Gaza Strip by Egypt. Under the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 it had been allotted to the proposed Arab state in Palestine.

1948 - 1967: Occupation of the West Bank and East Jerusalem by Jordan. The territory had been annexed by Jordan, a step recognized only by Britain and perhaps Pakistan. Under the United Nations Partition Plan of 1947 it had been allotted to the proposed Arab state in Palestine.

1967 - present: The West Bank was captured and occupied by Israel from Jordan during the 1967 Six Day War.

1967 - 1979: The Sinai Peninsula was captured by Israel from Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War and returned under the Israel-Egypt Peace Treaty.

1967 - 2005: The Gaza Strip was captured and occupied by Israel from Egypt during the 1967 Six Day War; Israel unilaterally removed its forces in 2005, although Israel still controls the borders and airspace.

1967 - present: The Golan Heights were captured and occupied by Israel from Syria in 1967. Israel effectively annexed the area in 1981 but the Security Council in Resolution 497 ruled the annexation illegal and declared the region still occupied [1].

1974 - present: Northern Cyprus is occupied by Turkey. Turkey officially disputes this, saying that the legal government of this area is the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC), and that the Turkish army is supporting this government. However no other country recognizes the TRNC.

1975 - 1999: East Timor was occupied by Indonesia

1976 - present: Most Western Sahara is occupied by Morocco, the rest is administered by the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic.

1978 - 2000: The southern (including the Nabatiye Governorateand other parts of Lebanon by Israel.
posted by A189Nut at 4:30 PM on July 28, 2006

There is a philosophical problem that democracy uniquely suffers, when democractic governments decide to do something deplorable. The whole idea of democracy is, the people of a country collectively decide its collective actions. This makes the people collectively responsible for those actions. You cannot make decisions for which you are not then responsible. Even the legal defense of insanity derives from the idea that the insane don't really make decisions as such, they just do things.

"I didn't vote for that guy, don't blame me" is an attempt to duck that responsibility, so as to distance yourself from your countries immoral actions, for your emotional comfort. But your fellow citizens did vote for that guy, and so you are still, along with them, collectively guilty of the crimes that guy led your nation to commit. The distinction between you, and a voter for that guy, is that you feel guilt for your country's actions, and depending on your political power and levels of personal motivation, are trying to change your country's future actions.

There isn't, though, any system of trial and punishment for countries. A citizen of a democracy, except possibly its political leaders, is never going to be tried for the actions of that democracy. The response from other nations towards yours is not to punish your country (although they do use that rhetoric), it is to fight your country. Perhaps they will win.

The prospect, though, of collectively suffering for the actions of one's country despite "not voting for that guy" makes war-supporters out of otherwise peaceful, guilty-feeling, non-supporters. This is why so many Israelis, Arabs and Americans are so ludicrously rabid in their calls for violence. The response to threat is shifted by the threat itself.

I'm sure many of the non-supporters of evil collective action would be delighted to stand aside and let outsiders come into their country and arrest and take away--or even execute on the spot--the politicians who implement the policy that shames their nation. The question's a little murkier if the outsiders want to shoot the citizens who did "vote for that guy", or at least those who were members of that guy's political party. But historically the outsiders have just wanted to shoot whatever citizens of the country get in the way, which brings us back to the prospect of collective suffering.

So, what to do, what to do. Well, in an ideal world, the UN would have teeth. Big, sharp teeth. Not "observers", but peace enforcers. Nations would be able to have a voice in a democractically-established world legislature, which would establish international laws, and would have a police arm beholden to no country that is capable of enforcing the laws, including laws that provide for peaceful means of changing national borders. Under present conditions, this will not happen unless the economic consequences of unprecedented fiscal irresponsibility and global climate change make the USA go too broke to enforce its cohesion and fragment as the USSR did.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:32 PM on July 28, 2006 [4 favorites]

Is there no-one else who thinks that the bombing of civilian populations is wrong, full stop, and that therefore Hezbollah and Israel are both in the wrong?

On a tangent, A189, there are plenty of other examples of other occupied territory being held. Tibet is the most obvious example. Also, see the Eritrean/Ethiopian border.
posted by imperium at 4:35 PM on July 28, 2006 [1 favorite]

Sorry, Postroad, but worldnetdaily is hardly what I'd call reliable. (And my understanding of DEBKA is that it runs on a lot of rumors, but I'm not sure of its track record or biases.)
posted by MikeKD at 4:39 PM on July 28, 2006

"Is there no-one else who thinks that the bombing of civilian populations is wrong, full stop, and that therefore Hezbollah and Israel are both in the wrong?"

Uh... pretty much everyone thinks this.
posted by -harlequin- at 4:48 PM on July 28, 2006

Everyone except fingers_of_fire, that is. For those following along, the key phrase is "Isreali defending itself". It can do no wrong, it's defending itself.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:59 PM on July 28, 2006

I think we're losing sight of the bigger issue.

PHP is a crime against humanity that Taskinen shares the blame for.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 5:21 PM on July 28, 2006 [4 favorites]

sorry, bab sarabia, but I have stated repeatedly, in this thread and others, that I by no means find that Israel's actions in this or any other conflict are beyond reproach. Rather, I think the word I have used most is "tragic". Thanks for mis-representing me, though. Hugs and kisses. Salaam. Shalom.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 5:47 PM on July 28, 2006

Oh, necrophilia is not okay on Metafilter now?

When will the moratoriums end!
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:56 PM EST on July 28 [+fave] [!]

Bunch of lousy anti-deadites...
posted by Pastabagel at 5:57 PM on July 28, 2006

Five shot, one killed at Seattle Jewish Federation
posted by homunculus at 6:03 PM on July 28, 2006

Holy Shit!
posted by caddis at 6:07 PM on July 28, 2006

Geez, what is it about Seattle?
Nine "bizarre" murders in Seattle in nine days
posted by Unregistered User at 6:37 PM on July 28, 2006

Yeah homunculus, I was on Broadway waiting for a bus home and thought it was a 'Critical Mass' bike thing. So I looked up the news on what the situation was and read about the Seattle Jewish Federation attack and went 'oh shit'.
Then I wandered on over to Me-Fi and found this thread. . .

For the record, any group or nation advocating attack of another people is engaging in terrorism. If they are using full on military weaponry, that increases the nature of their terrorism.

Attacking a town, community, country etc. with an army and air force for the actions of one religious zealot is not a valid reason to use the excuse 'I was just defending myself'.

The important thing here, and something that Israel as a nation has to face up to one day is that the entire arab world no longer wishes for it's disolution, only a few religous zealots wish that and they are being marginalized day by day.
The Palestinian problem? Try *working* with them instead of crapping on and humiliating them. It seemed like it was moving towards a good start with Rabin before he was assasinated by. . . a right-wing religious zealot. . .

The world would be a much better place if it started coming down on all the religious zealots and allowed the rest of us to live our lives in peace without that kind of idiotic nonsense.

As far as what PHP guy was saying about 'nuke all the jews', 'I'm quitting because this is an Israeli run organization'.

Screw him, he's an idiot.
posted by mk1gti at 6:39 PM on July 28, 2006

only a few religous zealots wish that and they are being marginalized day by day.

Or, you know, elected president of Iran.
posted by boaz at 6:47 PM on July 28, 2006

The important thing here, and something that Israel as a nation has to face up to one day is that the entire arab world no longer wishes for it's disolution, only a few religous zealots wish that and they are being marginalized day by day.
The Palestinian problem? Try *working* with them instead of crapping on and humiliating them. It seemed like it was moving towards a good start with Rabin before he was assasinated by. . . a right-wing religious zealot. . .

mk1gti nailed it. that's about as close to pointing directly at the truth as words can get! unfortunately, recent events might soon require the last bit of the emphasized part to read: "they were being marginalized day by day..."
posted by saulgoodman at 6:48 PM on July 28, 2006

Hezbollah leader said to be hiding in Iranian Embassy. Uh oh, now Israeal has an excuse to take on Iran.
posted by caddis at 7:16 PM on July 28, 2006

I was under the impression that the general sentiment in Israel is supportive of the attacks on Hezbollah.

For lack of any better strategy to support, yes, but I'm not hearing overwhelming support from my Israeli friends. What I'm hearing is:

"everybody knows now that the response was the wrong strategy, but it's too late"

and

"we know what we need to do with the million or so extremists in southern Lebanon, we're still mulling over what to do with the 2 million who will take their place."
posted by scarabic at 9:09 PM on July 28, 2006

Give Mr. PHP a break. He's clearly emotional over the deaths of the UN observers. He identifies with them. Their lives were ended in the worst blunder of a campaign which is reckless at best and genocidal at worst. I'm sure he feels no need to moderate the personal emotions that come up when you learn that one of your own was killed.

Incidentally I work for an Israeli company and my family is fleeing Lebanon right now. Since all this began, I have spoken many times with my coworkers in Israel to make sure they're okay, ask if I can do anything, or just let them talk about what they're going through. When I pass an Israeli coworker in the halls here, I ask them how their family is, how they're holding up, if anyone we know has been called up from reserve (turns out the guy I used to sit next to is now in IDF gear on his way to the front).

Meanwhile, contact with family is all limited to second hand news in emails every few days. You could say there's a little bit of a strain in all this. I try to stay non-politicized about work, and if anything, working with an Israeli company has really helped me overcome my bias and see them as human beings with their own side of the story and their own point of view. I find actual Israelis less partisan about all this and easier to talk to than many fellow Americans, frankly.

It's a shame that Taskinen seems to have gone the other way. But hell, if I find out tomorrow that 4 of my cousins are dead because of a fuckup on the part of Israel's proud air force, lord only knows what my reaction will be.
posted by scarabic at 9:17 PM on July 28, 2006

them camel jocks ain't careful, the jews are gonna light up the desert with thier very own pillar of fire one of these days.
posted by quonsar at 10:03 PM on July 28, 2006 [2 favorites]

*belches, scratches self*
posted by quonsar at 10:05 PM on July 28, 2006

Certainly there is some "hawkism" going on in Israel, but it may not be limited to the usual religious nuts

Justice Minister Haim Raimon certainly need to engage in proactive silence (in the elite circles it is called STFU) . Yet it seems he will be too busy in the near future as he found himself entangled in a sexual harrasment investigation
posted by elpapacito at 2:39 AM on July 29, 2006

So, Israel does something outrageous and DEBKA and WorldNetDaily try to excuse it with some transparently racist "Yellow Peril" shit? Now, colour me surprised.

Frankly, Taskinen's rant was disgusting. If he was completely and utterly drunk at the time, however, it wouldn't be the most shocking thing I've ever heard from somebody shitfaced. I hope he's regretting it at this time.
posted by Skeptic at 3:28 AM on July 29, 2006

Their lives were ended in the worst blunder of a campaign which is reckless at best and genocidal at worst.

IMO people are far too cavalier with the "G" word.
posted by dsquid at 8:35 AM on July 29, 2006

postroad: What the heck was a Chinese observer doing there?

Um, there's an entire battalion-minus of Chinese peacekeepers as part of UNIFIL (since April), supporting the Ghanaian and Indian battalion sectors.

By the way, MSNBC is just reporting an Israeli airstrike against a UN position, taking out an observation tower and wounding at least two Indian personnel.
posted by SenshiNeko at 11:12 AM on July 29, 2006

U.S. Intelligence on Hizballah and Iran
posted by homunculus at 12:39 PM on July 29, 2006

Gibson's Anti-Semitic Tirade -- Alleged Cover Up
posted by homunculus at 1:44 PM on July 29, 2006

Gibson is such a ridiculous tool I almost believe this. However, since Drudge put this up more than 24 hours ago no credible media sources have latched on. Gibson is still a loser, and it looks like he will be hiring a driver, yet I somehow doubt he went this far over the edge (the story gets traction merely because he seems like someone who would do this).
posted by caddis at 5:39 PM on July 29, 2006

"And, you know, the fact that quite a lot of antisemetic rhetoric masquerades as criticism of Israel. I'm sorry, but you can't dismiss it all with a wave of the hand."

I thought that any criticism of Israel, legitimate or not, is 'antisemitic'!
posted by Sukiari at 12:49 PM on July 30, 2006

I read this idiot's bile and figured the MeFi thread would help clear up why we should give a damn about his opinions.

Fool me twice...
posted by waxbanks at 10:52 AM on July 31, 2006

MetaFilter: Necrophilia may not be okay.
posted by waxbanks at 10:53 AM on July 31, 2006