Gaza: The Killing Zone

June 23, 2008 9:45 AM

A Dispatches documentary Gaza: The Killing Zone shows the shocking reality of seemingly ordinary Palestinians caught in the crossfire between Hamas and Israeli forces. Feels almost like a sci-fi movie about some fictional totalitarian regime. Hard to believe it's their everyday life. WARNING: contains scenes of graphic violence, which you may find disturbing.
posted by Surfin' Bird (65 comments total)

Related: B'tselem's Shooting Back program, which puts video cameras in the hands of Palestinians so they can document attacks from violent Jewish settlers.
posted by mediareport at 10:11 AM on June 23, 2008

Do you know the original airing date of this documentary?

I remember the level of anger and frustration that existed -- especially in the Pacific Northwest -- back when Rachel Corrie died, but that was back in March '03. I could only imagine the level of anger that would've existed had the US media actually shown footage of her memorial being interrupted by an Israeli tank and teargassed. Why this didn't happen, I don't know.

Those were very bad times... that said, things are hardly peachy nowadays.
posted by markkraft at 10:26 AM on June 23, 2008

Aired 22 May 2003, apparently.
posted by Hogshead at 10:29 AM on June 23, 2008

I'm sure that the press was too preoccupied with how a dead American was grossly disrepected and dishonored by our good allies.

After all, there were big statues to topple and a victory to declare.
posted by markkraft at 10:38 AM on June 23, 2008

I'm in the office, so I can't watch it now. But I'm expecting a very balanced documentary.
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:40 AM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

In North America, I find that the media is insanely in favor of the Israeli point of view. When I get to the UK, I find there is always a more balanced debate. The problem with the unbalanced American/Canadian media is that it creates crazy anti-Palestinian war hawks who do not have good understanding of how brutal the oppression of Palestinians has been.
posted by FastGorilla at 10:42 AM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

So fucked up. It's all so fucking fucked up. That's all I'm going to type right now because I'm so fucking outraged.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:45 AM on June 23, 2008

I just don't know the solution to this, and it's enormously disheartening. How much more so must it be for the people who live in the region and DO want to find a solution.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:47 AM on June 23, 2008

Single Link Jew Tube?

No? No.
posted by Debaser626 at 10:56 AM on June 23, 2008

Why this didn't happen, I don't know.

Really?

If you want a good debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, go to Israel. People are far more balanced, open to debate, and accepting of a wide spectrum of opinion then they are in the US. Go figure.
posted by cell divide at 11:12 AM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

It is enormously difficult to discuss this from any perspective without one's communication turning into pure catharsis.
posted by fleetmouse at 11:12 AM on June 23, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

...meanwhile, back making rockets for Hamas And firing them daily at Israel, and stating over and over the intention of Hamas is to destroy Israel, we find another perspective. Clearly any group occupying land is "bad," and so too, sucidie bombers and rockets...but when you lose during a war, and you want to get back to normal, you sit down and negotiate a peace settlement. So far, this has not happened. True I generally support Israel. But I know all that they do that ought not to be done. Here then is the big question: if the Palestinians in Gaza are so poor, live in such terrible conditions, have next to nothing, how do they get so much in the way of guns, bombs, and rocket-making materials? ...not from the U.S. the Israelis do get much support from the US. When both suppliers for both sides decide to settle this thing in a reasonable manner, then perhaps both war parties will be forced to make peace.
posted by Postroad at 11:20 AM on June 23, 2008

If you want a good debate on the Israel-Palestinian conflict, go to Israel.

What we want is a good debate on the I-P conflict IN AMERICA.

You know, it must be the internal debate in Israel that restrains the IDF from gassing those evil Palestinians like Saddam Hussein did to those insurgent Kurds. Surely such a show of strength and determination in the face of terror would be widely applauded in America.
posted by three blind mice at 11:31 AM on June 23, 2008

In North America, I find that the media is insanely in favor of the Israeli point of view

Actually, I think that Adrienne Arsenault of the CBC (and also Neil McDonald when he was in the Middle East) worked really hard at trying to give a fair and balanced view.

Nahlah Ayed (also of the CBC) is also very good.

I find that the CBC gets accused of being right-leaning by the left and left-leaning by the right. I wonder if this is what they mean by being "well-balanced?"
posted by bitteroldman at 11:35 AM on June 23, 2008

Single Link Jew Tube?

Incidentally, there is actually a JewTube.com. The tagline: "Here's looking at Jew!"

No Palestine-tube though. Maybe it's because "Palestine" doesn't rhyme with "You".
posted by WalterMitty at 11:37 AM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

The CBC coverage typically leads with "More people died today" which is pretty unbiased. Then they say who dies and, of course, the accusations of bias begin. But yeah, they do a good job.
posted by GuyZero at 11:39 AM on June 23, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

When both suppliers for both sides decide to settle this thing in a reasonable manner, then perhaps both war parties will be forced to make peace.

Hah! The way this thing's been going, if they can't find guns, missiles and rockets to shoot each other with, they'll just revert to sticks and bows & arrows and little rocks.

I'm in my twenties and I fully don't expect this conflict to ever end in my lifetime. Unless maybe one side gets exterminated (not necessarily by the other).
posted by WalterMitty at 11:40 AM on June 23, 2008

When both suppliers for both sides decide to settle this thing in a reasonable manner, then perhaps both war parties will be forced to make peace.

Obviously Postroad this is not the desire of any the parties.

America benefits from having an open sore in the middle of all those Arab states which keeps the dim-witted Arabs from fully exploiting the ecomonic value of their oil resources - or using it as an extension of their foreign policy.

The Arab States and Palestinains alike benefit from being able to blame the Israelis for everything. How else do hugely incompetent, despotic monarchies survive into the 21st century?

Israel benefits least of all, but there is some real value from the low-level terrorism that keeps the IDF on its toes and the nation armed to its teeth whilst not in any way threatening Israel's existence as a nation. The Palestinians have made superior sparring partners in preparation for potentially bigger fights.

Why mess up such a good arrangement by making peace?

Who really gives a fuck about some dead civilians? It's the cost of doing business and there's plenty more where they came from.
posted by three blind mice at 11:43 AM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

if the Palestinians in Gaza are so poor, live in such terrible conditions, have next to nothing, how do they get so much in the way of guns, bombs, and rocket-making materials?

Your question is perverted into nonsensical gibberish by your biases and desire to make a statement with it.

The Gaza Strip is 140sq miles. There are 1.4 million residents, mostly refugees or descendants of refugees. 10,000 people per square mile, but without much of a secondary or tertiary economic zone to support this population concentration.

What sort of wealth-creation economy do you imagine these people in Gaza have? How great is their access to fresh water, energy sources, raw materials, or even arable soil for that matter?

As for their weapons, these come from friends. There's a war on, if you haven't noticed.
posted by tachikaze at 11:54 AM on June 23, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

What we want is a good debate on the I-P conflict IN AMERICA.

Unless Paula Abdul is judging it, no such kind of debate exists in America. It's not even clear we'd want the average American weighing in on this one. even if you screen for the millions who either hate A-rabs or hate Heebs, you're still going to be stuck with a population that's overwhelmingly willing to bomb and torture the rest of the world so that they feel safe while driving their Hummers.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:06 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

if the Palestinians in Gaza are so poor, live in such terrible conditions, have next to nothing, how do they get so much in the way of guns, bombs, and rocket-making materials?

Here is one idea. (Yeah, I linked to camera.org. Feel free to present an argument that disputes the actual data, rather than empty attacks on credibility of the messenger.)
posted by Krrrlson at 12:08 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Here is one idea. (Yeah, I linked to camera.org. Feel free to present an argument that disputes the actual data, rather than empty attacks on credibility of the messenger.)

As we all know, correlation = causation!
posted by delmoi at 12:32 PM on June 23, 2008

The Palestinians have made superior sparring partners in preparation for potentially bigger fights.

Yet, they thoroughly got their asses handed to them in Lebanon. Sure, they could bomb stuff but they were unable to hold any ground or accomplish anything beyond killing a lot of civilians.
posted by delmoi at 12:33 PM on June 23, 2008

Sure, they could bomb stuff but they were unable to hold any ground or accomplish anything beyond killing a lot of civilians.

So they've achieved parity with the US in Iraq, then?
posted by SPrintF at 12:45 PM on June 23, 2008

There are live reports in English from Gaza almost daily,breaks the heart.
posted by hortense at 1:35 PM on June 23, 2008

To create hell, you need religion. Only way it'll work.
posted by Flex1970 at 1:35 PM on June 23, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

I always wonder why documentaries like this always have to resort to bush league "they say..." comments. Two that stuck out were that a) the Israelis say there are tunnels under the houses in Rafah used for smuggling weapons and b) the Israelis say that Palestinian ambulances are sometimes used for smuggling. Both of these have been pretty well documented. You can find photos of these things from both terrorist and IDF sides online. You have plently of good points to make and tons of great footage. Stop being a twat by trying to make the one side sound devious.
posted by FuManchu at 1:43 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

As for their weapons, these come from friends.

With friends like these ...
posted by me & my monkey at 2:38 PM on June 23, 2008

As we all know, correlation = causation!

You say that as if the reverse is somehow true. Firstly, correlation is potential causation. Secondly, a correlation that strong warrants a thorough investigation. Too bad it's such a taboo subject.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:49 PM on June 23, 2008

Still can't get past the section of the video in the hospital where the blind girl wakes from her coma and is being fed by her family--you can literally witness the moment when it dawns on her just how fucked the rest of her entire life is going to be, when she starts sobbing and begs them to just kill her and end her suffering. Twelve year-old girl, shot sitting in her damned classroom.

And can someone please explain to me just what in the fuck was the point of driving an armored personnel carrier (literally) through the memorial service to a slain foreign protester? Shooting over the heads of unarmed people trying to mourn the death of their friend? Tear-gassing them? What in the hell was that supposed to accomplish?

It'd be a lot easier to swallow the bullshit the IDF spokeswoman was dishing out (46:40 in the video) if their forces displayed even the tiniest bit of discipline. It's a lot harder to take the moral high-ground when you're murdering unarmed reporters carrying white flags (on camera).
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 4:06 PM on June 23, 2008

What sort of wealth-creation economy do you imagine these people in Gaza have?

Less than they could have had. There was a big greenhouse complex in Gaza run by Israelis which employed a lot of Palestinians. When the pull-out was scheduled, unnamed international philanthropists bought the place from the Israelis and gave it to the Palestinians, so they could run it, keep those jobs, and export the fruit and vegetables grown there.

Instead, the Palestinians looted the place. Nothing is grown there any longer because all the equipment is missing, and there are no jobs.
posted by Class Goat at 4:09 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

i've read the comments, and got 33 seconds into the film before stopping it.
I've had friends killed by palestinians while visiting israel.
Where is the film for them?
posted by pedalpete at 4:39 PM on June 23, 2008

To create hell, you need religion. Only way it'll work.

I'd agree with that statement as long as your definition of "religion" includes, say, the philosophy of the Pol Pot regime during the Cambodian holocaust, or, say, Cultural Revolution-era Maoism. Those were certainly hell-on-earth situations that didn't have "religion", as that term is generally defined, at their core.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 4:40 PM on June 23, 2008

Where is the film for them?

while nobody has a monopoly on suffering, if we're going by the bodycount, then the natives deserve more footage than the colonizers.

There was a big greenhouse complex in Gaza run by Israelis which employed a lot of Palestinians

wikipedia: These greenhouses also provided employment for many hundred Gazan Palestinians.

unnamed international philanthropists bought the place from the Israelis

wikpedia: When Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in the Summer of 2005, the greenhouses were purchased with money raised by former World Bank president James Wolfensohn

and gave it to the Palestinians, so they could run it, keep those jobs, and export the fruit and vegetables grown there

wikipedia: However, the effort faltered due to limited water supply, inability to export produce due to Israeli border restrictions, and corruption in the Palestinian Authority.

nstead, the Palestinians looted the place

wikipedia: Most of the greenhouses were subsequently looted or destroyed.

and there are no jobs

indeed. There is a vested interest on all sides to make Gaza [and the W.B. for that matter] an uninhabitable hell on earth.
posted by tachikaze at 5:04 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

And can someone please explain to me ... the point of driving ... through the memorial service...? The very reason the IDF and girl were there in the first place, if you were paying attention. The girl died while the Israelies were razing the area for smuggling tunnels. They considered it a combat area. People there could either become a threat, or become an impedence to removing a threat. I'm not sure whether the filmmakers want you to make that connection, though.
posted by FuManchu at 5:10 PM on June 23, 2008

impedence impediment wow
posted by FuManchu at 5:27 PM on June 23, 2008

To create hell, you need religion. Only way it'll work.

I'd agree with that statement as long as your definition of "religion" includes, say, the philosophy of the Pol Pot regime during the Cambodian holocaust, or, say, Cultural Revolution-era Maoism. Those were certainly hell-on-earth situations that didn't have "religion", as that term is generally defined, at their core.

They were communists, right? Was Communism/socialism created with religion in mind, at all?
Shit, I don't know, and I wasn't thinking of them devils. Thanks for setting me straight. Religions under a different guise?
posted by Flex1970 at 7:01 PM on June 23, 2008

There's a war on, if you haven't noticed.

You know, I'm deeply deeply tired of defending Israel, especially when it is often indefensible, but this point of view? This point of view is hard to understand. You seem to be saying that it's ok for the Palestinians to attack Israel but that it is unacceptable for the Israelis to attack back. Make your mind up. Either there is a war on or there is not a war on.

Which side is the one that explicitly, openly and overtly targets civilians and which side is the one that at least nominally attempts not to, for all that they fail far too often?
posted by motty at 7:06 PM on June 23, 2008

It's so hard not to jump into conversation about this, but all I have to offer is my know-nothing response to that video filtered through my own unoriginal and calcified biases.

I'll say this, though: that video was absolute and utter shit. Terrible and damaging shit. It took horrific video of what looked like terrible crimes, and turned it into a snide little tract. I don't have the opportunity to see scenes like those very often, and what a waste not to have some real journalism attached, because I'd like to know more.
posted by ~ at 7:10 PM on June 23, 2008

i've read the comments, and got 33 seconds into the film before stopping it.
I've had friends killed by palestinians while visiting israel.
Where is the film for them?

It would have to be a proportionately very short film since the kill ratio between Israelis and Palestinians is well over 10 to 1.

Your chance as an Israeli of dying by violence (whether by Palestinians or not) is significantly less than your chance of being murdered here in the US. If you are a Palestinian, your chances of being murdered are worse than if you were African-American male in the US.

Israel is the only possible force in this region that has any possibility of taking the high road. When it continues to do things like attacking people's memorial services for crying out loud! then it's making a firm commitment to an ongoing war.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:22 PM on June 23, 2008

(Not that the film isn't propaganda. Sigh.)
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:23 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Which side is the one that explicitly, openly and overtly targets civilians and which side is the one that at least nominally attempts not to...?

Perhaps "nominally" but in fact many times as many Palestinian (or Lebanese or...) civilians get killed as Israelis. In the case of "civilian deaths" I think hard numbers trump supposed good intentions.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 7:27 PM on June 23, 2008

I'm reading this thread, but I'm still haunted by the Carlin thread. If anyone is still of the opinion that Carlin in his later years stopped being as funny as he used to be, and started getting madder? This is why. This is why he would say things like:

"The planet is fine. The people are not."

"Pacifism is a nice idea but it can get you killed."

"God bless the homicidal maniacs. They make life worthwhile."

"The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music."

"Property is theft. Nobody 'owns' anything. When you die, it all stays here."

"A lot of these people who keep a gun at home for safety are the same ones who refuse to wear a seat belt."

"I love and treasure individuals as I meet them, I loathe and despise the groups they identify with and belong to."

"Do you believe in God? No. Boom! Dead. Do you believe in God? Yes. Do you believe in MY God? No. Boom! Dead."

"The very existence of flame-throwers proves that some time, somewhere, someone said to themselves, 'You know, I want to set those people over there on fire, but I'm just not close enough to get the job done'."

"Religion is like a lift in your shoe. If it helps you stand up straighter and walk a little better, good for you! But don't you go and try to put your lifts in my shoes, and for crying out loud, let's stop sending missionaries to Africa to nail the lifts to the natives' bare feet!"

"The world isn't going anywhere: WE are."

This. Right here. This thread. What this thread shows. How people are going out of their way to create reasons to kill one another, and then they kill one another. Repeatedly. Often. Like it was a sporting event. The very fact that we label ourselves "Israeli" or "Palestinian" or "Whatever." This is what he shook his fist at. This is what George Carlin ranted and railed against, like King Lear shouting down the brewing storm. George Carlin looked in the face of this hellish grueling string of atrocities humanity has performed upon itself. George Carlin looked at it all and he stared it down and he laughed at it. He found a way to not gouge his own eyes out, or make us want to do the same. You have to laugh at this to keep from crying - to keep from going absolutely hysterically mad. His life had been dedicated to making us look at ourselves. He made us see how ugly the picture of humanity really is.

The only real way to honor that man's life is to stop this senseless death. We're not going to stop though, and he knew that. He did not defend Israel. He did not defend Palestine. You're all wrong. You're all diseased. He gave up on humanity, because humanity has given up on itself. I still want to defend humanity, but humanity has to meet me halfway; not killing one another would be a good start. I don't see humanity doing that.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:54 PM on June 23, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

The single best summary of that situation I've ever heard was this: The Palestinians want to commit genocide, but cannot. The Israelis can commit genocide, but will not.

I see the Palestinians as being the international equivalent of alcoholics or heroin addicts. They have been given opportunity after opportunity, big and small (e.g. the greenhouses) to improve their lot, and have thrown them all away. They insist on following a path of self-destruction, and refuse to consider that they are their own worst enemy.

There comes a point where you must withhold help and sympathy from a drug addict, because offering those things enables them to further follow their path of self-destruction. And so I think it is for the Palestinians.

Life for them cannot become better until they themselves choose to make it better. And so far they have not.

Like a drug addict, this has meant that as time has gone on they seem more and more pitiable as their situation gets worse and worse -- but to give in and help them, at this point, is worse than to refuse to do so. It's like giving money to a drug addict so he can buy more drugs. All you're doing is to reinforce the self-destructive behavior.

Like a drug addict, they must hit rock bottom and truly desire to change. Only then can we help them without that help being a total waste. Only then can we be sure that our help won't result in more death and misery.

That is why I no longer feel any sympathy for their plight. That is why I am unmoved by descriptions of their miserable conditions. Until I hear that the Palestinians have truly given up on the "right of return", and truly given up on trying to destroy Israel, then I will know they are not serious about improving their lives. Until I believe they've changed in that way, I will know that all their claims of victimhood and appeals for international sympathy are cynical manipulation in service of further self-destruction.

Golda Meier once said, "This war will not end until the Palestinians love their children more than they hate us." She didn't live to see it, and I don't expect to, either.
posted by Class Goat at 8:13 PM on June 23, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

Trying to decide whether to repost Class Goat's comment, with every instance of "Palestinian" replaced with "Black" or "poor person", or whether to ask Class Goat how many of these Palestinian he seems to enjoy grouping together into one violent, jihadist mass he's actually met in person and had a cup of tea with....
posted by Jimbob at 8:45 PM on June 23, 2008 [5 favorites has favorites]

Jimbob, if you did that the result would be nonsense, because Blacks did not embrace a path of self-destruction the way the Palestinians have. How many "black suicide bombers" have you heard of, compared to the number of "Palestinian suicide bombers"?

I am not impressed by your attempt to find moral equivalence where there is none. But I am disappointed; I thought y'all were supposed to be more sophisticated and nuanced than that.
posted by Class Goat at 9:02 PM on June 23, 2008

I apologize, I was not attempting to compare the actions of hypothetical "blacks" with hypothetical "Palestinians".

I was attempting to draw attention to the eagerness with which you group 3.7 million people into a single group to lay blame on, and accuse of specific personal attributes.

There's this guy; owned a patch of pasture where he grazed some sheep, and had an orchard. It was his father's land, and his grandfather's land, and his grandfather's before that, after which the history gets a bit hazy. Anyway, he's just been there, doing his thing, grazing his sheep, looking after his family, not really bothering anyone much. Then one day, and bunch of people come with bulldozers, flatten the place, kick him out, and put up some houses with soldiers to protect it. Then another group of people start firing rockets at the place. This guy is a Palestinian - a guy you've just described as "equivalent to a drug addict" and "his own worst enemy". Someone who "could have made it better, but chose not to".

The majority of people in Palestine are held captive, by their own "leaders" as much as they are by Israel. Please try to avoid grouping them into a single, amorphous, evil mass.
posted by Jimbob at 9:20 PM on June 23, 2008 [4 favorites has favorites]

Class Goat: I've taken what you've written and it generalised it so it can be used by anyone to justify killing anyone else who is weaker than they are.

The single best summary of that situation I've ever heard was this: The Other Side want to commit genocide, but cannot. My side can commit genocide, but will not.

I see the The Other Side as being the international equivalent of alcoholics or heroin addicts. They have been given opportunity after opportunity, big and small (e.g. the greenhouses) to improve their lot, and have thrown them all away. They insist on following a path of self-destruction, and refuse to consider that they are their own worst enemy.

There comes a point where you must withhold help and sympathy from a drug addict, because offering those things enables them to further follow their path of self-destruction. And so I think it is for the Other Side.

Life for them cannot become better until they themselves choose to make it better. And so far they have not.

Like a drug addict, this has meant that as time has gone on they seem more and more pitiable as their situation gets worse and worse -- but to give in and help them, at this point, is worse than to refuse to do so. It's like giving money to a drug addict so he can buy more drugs. All you're doing is to reinforce the self-destructive behavior.

Like a drug addict, they must hit rock bottom and truly desire to change. Only then can we help them without that help being a total waste. Only then can we be sure that our help won't result in more death and misery.

That is why I no longer feel any sympathy for their plight. That is why I am unmoved by descriptions of their miserable conditions. Until I hear that the Other side have truly given up on something I disagree with and truly given up on trying to destroy my side, then I will know they are not serious about improving their lives. Until I believe they've changed in that way, I will know that all their claims of victimhood and appeals for international sympathy are cynical manipulation in service of further self-destruction.

Someone who denies that the other side actually exists, once said once said, "This war will not end until the Other Side love their children more than they hate us." She didn't live to see it, and I don't expect to, either.
posted by sien at 9:27 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

In partial response to Class Goat: I think that there is a real struggle within the Palestinian community among the more radical factions and the majority of the people who likely want peace. The problem is, that there have been reports that standing up to the radicals will get you killed. What would happen if the majority stood up to the radicals? Even more violence.

There are shit disturbers in every group - and as few as they might be, they ruin it for everybody. Please don't fall for that trap! Most Black people are not drug addicts, most White people from the American South are not racists, most Palestinians are not suicide bombers whose only goal in life is to destroy Israel, etc.

To paint all Palestinians as not loving their children, is pretty short sighted or naive - actually to paint anybody as anything is short sighted.

There are preadators who recruit young Palestinian children with promises of glory and riches, just like drug dealers and johns do in the inner cities of the West - how can "love" compete with that?

Do Western parents, who lose their kids to drugs not "love" their kids enough?

"Love is the answer" works only in pop music and sappy movies.

If anything we really need to realize that there are a lot of invisible players in this game and that the Palestinians and Israelis who fight on the frontlines are just pawns in a disgusting game played by disgusting people.

And that there are more sides to these stories than there are facets on a diamond.
posted by bitteroldman at 9:45 PM on June 23, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Rachel Corrie too.
posted by semmi at 9:46 PM on June 23, 2008

re: numbers (& lupus_yonderboy).

Palestinians often refer to the number of Palestinians vs Israelis killed in this conflict (the number is too high on both sides).
Two things to keep in mind are this
1) the number of Israelis killed is often quoted as 'israeli civilians'. in a country where the majority under 40 serve in the army, it gets difficult to kill a civilian.
2) the number of non-Israelis killed is not considered
posted by pedalpete at 10:18 PM on June 23, 2008

I think what ClassGoat was getting at, is that Palestinian leadership has been worse than useless in pursuing a better life for the Palestinians. They've chosen endless war over reconciliation and negotiation.

I don't know about painting Palestinians as a whole with that broad brush, but the leadership needs to wake the hell up already.

If the example of Egypt is to be taken, generally, if you approach Israel as a diplomatic rather than a military problem, you can get a hell of a lot more out of them. Face facts... the Palestinians need a Ghandi, not a Saladin, to lead them out of the mess they're in with Israel. Until they rally around a diplomatic rather than military leader, the problem is intractable - Israel will continue to see the conflict as a fight for survival, and be less than accommodating to the civilians propping up the factions fighting against them.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:50 PM on June 23, 2008 [2 favorites has favorites]

All categorical statements are subject to exceptions. You know that and I know that. But that doesn't mean that categorical statements are useless and pointless. It also doesn't mean that they're racist.

The Palestinian culture is diseased. Their children are indoctrinated with hatred of Israel and taught to wish to become a "martyr" in the cause. Maybe it doesn't take with all kids. Maybe some of their parents don't like it. But that's what is taught in their schools.

The Palestinians name streets and other public places after people who have made successful suicide attacks against Israel. They are held up as heroes, and Palestinian children are urged to follow their example.

I know of no other culture on the planet which is so nihilistic, which embraces and celebrates death and destruction and cruelty to such an extent. Not even Imperial Japan near the end of WWII was this bad. (And no, America isn't even remotely close. Thank you for playing, though.)

The Palestinians cannot be helped until this ends, for it is that embrace of nihilism which is the drug addiction which is destroying them all. It is even destroying the Palestinians who have not embraced nihilism.

The problem is, that there have been reports that standing up to the radicals will get you killed. What would happen if the majority stood up to the radicals? Even more violence.

Of course. But a short term purge will yield less violence over the long run -- if the "moderates" manage to win and then commit to peace and reconstruction and genuinely give up trying to destroy Israel.

The real tragedy here is that much of this nihilistic culture was created decades ago and even the leaders have lost control of it. It's become a runaway train.

The Palestinian situation is one of the largest examples extant of the tragedy of the commons.

Now having said that, just what is to be done, then? My point is that ultimately no one can solve this except the Palestinians themselves. Ultimately "the majority" are going to have to stand up to the thugs, even if that does lead to a short term increase in violence.

Coming off a drug addiction is painful, too, but you can't get better unless you go through it.

Why them? Because it's their problem, and because no one else is going to do it for them, becuase no one else can.

And until that happens, no amount of outside sympathy or aid will help the situation, because the thugs will divert it to the war effort and make the situation worse, not better.
posted by Class Goat at 11:12 PM on June 23, 2008

Israeli Palestinian
Palestinian Israeli
The dinosaurs came and went
The neanderthals came and went
The platypus came and went

Palestinian Israeli
Israeli Palestinian
Snails on a beach
Fighting over a shell
The tide is coming in
That tide is but a pale blue
Engulfed by a black void
Interrupted by the occasional star
There are entire galaxies
Out in space
Colliding with each other
They too are insignificant
Compared to that which we do not even yet know.

Israeli Palestinian
Palestinian Israeli
They mean nothing
The dinosaurs came and went
The neanderthals came and went
The platypus came and went
And so will we
posted by ZachsMind at 12:39 AM on June 24, 2008

I find it supremely ironic that the Israelis cannot see they have turned Gaza into the Warsaw ghetto. Oh darn, now I'm a racist.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:27 AM on June 24, 2008

Class Goat, I am assuming you are not trolling, although the opinions you are expressing here are clearly extreme and vituperative.

The language you use, as several other people have pointed out, is very similar to that used by fascists to describe the subjects of their ire. Indeed, the behaviour of the Israeli military/government is akin to that of the fascists, extermination of one race due to their inferiority, blaming them for their perceived shortfall in morality. Whether you call it genocide, cultural genocide or ethnic cleansing, that is what the reality of life is for many people in Palestine.

The Israelis can commit genocide, but will not.

They are doing so, just in a more oblique way than with gas chambers and yellow arm bands. Why use the emotive term genocide? Does this word have any authoritative meaning any more? What do you mean by it?

You clearly have difficulty empathising with the Palestinians. I don't know why that is, maybe you can explain?

There are people who observe the situation and conclude that both sides are in the wrong to some extent, but the behaviour of the vastly superior force that the Israelis command is irreconcilable with a well-meaning government. As mentioned above, many people in Israel share this view. As in the US, the 'threat' of terrorism is used to justify deploying huge military resources against an impoverished foe in what could justifiably be termed state-sponsored terrorism.

I read a review of a recent book on the 1948 war that seems germane:

"Getting its history wrong is part of being a nation," wrote Ernest Renan, the 19th-century French philosopher. Israel is no exception. Nineteen forty-eight was a seismic year in the history of the Jewish people and that of the modern Middle East. It witnessed the birth of Israel and its first war with the Arabs. Israelis call it "the war of independence"; Arabs call it the nakba or the catastrophe. The literature on this conflict by Zionist and pro-Zionist writers is vast, but it also incorporates a number of myths. Like most nationalist versions of history, this literature tends to be one-sided, selective, demonising of the enemy, and self-congratulatory.

Morris subjects the conflicting national narratives of the 1948 war to rigorous scrutiny in the light of the evidence and he discards all the notions, however deeply cherished, that do not stand up to such scrutiny. One example is the tendency of Israelis to hail the "purity of arms" of their soldiers and to contrast this with Arab "barbarism". "In truth, however," writes Morris, "the Jews committed far more atrocities than the Arabs and killed far more civilians and PoWs in deliberate acts of brutality in the course of 1948." A contemporary Israeli official implicitly conceded the charge but pointed out that "There are no sentiments in war."

Also apropos:

Americans in positions of power, like the American public, don't know history. One of my American students in a discussion of this conflict said, "This is past history." As if history could be anything other than past. But his point was: "Let's talk about the here and now, and not what happened in the past." Not knowing history, Americans cannot make any sense of the situation in the Middle East.

I know of no other culture on the planet which is so nihilistic, which embraces and celebrates death and destruction and cruelty to such an extent.

Really?
posted by asok at 6:01 AM on June 24, 2008 [3 favorites has favorites]

Why use the emotive term genocide? Does this word have any authoritative meaning any more? What do you mean by it?

Genocide means to kill all or most of a people. If Israel were inspired to do so, they could kill 90% of the population of Gaza in two hours.
posted by Class Goat at 10:02 AM on June 24, 2008

Class Goat - what about the settlements? Should the Palestinians not resist the theft of their land by religious extremists in the West Bank?

Also - today I walked past the empty lot where the PLO headquarters used to stand in Bethlehem - before Israeli fighter jets destroyed it. Israel will not permit the Palestinians to have a functional government. It's like Palestine is a frog and Israel keeps cutting its legs off and throwing it in the ocean. Swim little frog! You can do it!
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:48 AM on June 24, 2008

The Two Israels
posted by homunculus at 11:42 AM on June 24, 2008

Israel will not permit the Palestinians to have a functional government. Looks like that attack was in response to a renewed Palestinian suicide attack inside Israel claimed by a faction of that very government. Don't claim they broke it when it was already either duplicitous of ineffectual. So, look, you probably have a point somewhere. Can you restate your case without assuming the Israelis are monstrous or irrational?
posted by FuManchu at 12:06 PM on June 24, 2008 [1 favorite has favorites]

Can you restate your case without assuming the Israelis are monstrous or irrational?

Can't they both be irrational monsters? Why are the Palestineans monsters when they blow up a night club, but the Israelis aren't monsters when they retaliate by leveling a square block? Why are Palestineans monsters when they fire RPGs at IDF towers, but the Israelis aren't monsters when they play target practice with their high-power rifles on innocent civilians walking down the street?

Israel has been able to preserve this double standard for decades because any time anyone calls them out on it, they're labeled ignorant racists who "just don't know what it's like!"
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 5:03 PM on June 24, 2008

Israel:Palestine::Pot:Kettle

There monstrous blame to go around on all sides. Both cultures train their children to treat the other as inhuman and worthless. Both cultures wish to see the other eradicated.

Peace will never come to the region.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:13 PM on June 24, 2008

Israel says it has closed its border crossings with Gaza in response to a Palestinian rocket attack on southern Israel that breached a ceasefire.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:57 AM on June 25, 2008

Both cultures train their children to treat the other as inhuman and worthless. Both cultures wish to see the other eradicated.

I don't buy this argument. It might describe a small minority of Israelis, but most do not want to see the Palestinians destroyed. There is plenty of debate in Israel about how to treat the Palestinians, and some of the staunchest criticism of Israel comes from Israelis. I see no parallel on the Palestinian side. Where are the Palestinian moderates?
posted by rottytooth at 8:42 AM on June 25, 2008

Israel Prodding U.S. To Attack Iran
posted by homunculus at 11:52 AM on June 25, 2008