Israeli forces move into Jericho.
September 14, 2001 1:46 AM   Subscribe

Israeli forces move into Jericho. The Israeli Army said the raids were intended to "root out terror". Sounds like opportunism to me...of the nastiest kind. Or are they really trying to assist America in locking down the bad guys? (Link via Fark.com)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken (30 comments total)

 
Another possibility: they are trying to kill those who have been trying to kill and eradicate them. Seems no matter what others do, they are wrong and their motives questionable. When extremists decide to try for a peace arrangement rather than what has been going on for a year perhaps then we could single out instances such as reported. (note: I am not talking about the rights and wrongs of either side in this issue but rather responses taking place; there is certainly enough blame for both sides.)
posted by Postroad at 3:39 AM on September 14, 2001


Root out terror my arse. Nobody gives a damn now, all eyes are turned to NY - mind you, nobody would give a damn anyway.. Hell, come on, only 15 Palestinians killed, thats nothing, right? They die all the time. I'm pissed off.
posted by Mossy at 4:52 AM on September 14, 2001


Sending tanks into the occupied territories will do nothing to end terrorism, in Israel, the US, or the world.
posted by Loudmax at 5:01 AM on September 14, 2001



The only way to end the terrorism in Israel and Palestine is to nuke them both, totally.

As long as there is contested ground these two governments are going to be fighting. How many cease fire agreements do they need to make and break?
posted by DBAPaul at 5:11 AM on September 14, 2001


...or what most of the Arab world considers to be further atrocities of a terrorist organisation whom the United States give sponsorship and shelter to?

O wad some Power the giftie gie us
To see oursels as ithers see us!
Wad frae mony a blunder free us,
An foolish notion
(Robert Burns 1759-1796)
posted by RichLyon at 5:15 AM on September 14, 2001


As a tangent to some of the points here, the bbc interviewed an american politico last night on the subject of the global coalition against terrorism. At one point the interviewer asked if the move to "stamp out all terrorism" meant that the UK could count on US help with the Northern Ireland situation. To paraphrase, his answer was that "regrettable violence" when it's part of a political process is not terrorism.
Grab a crayon and draw some conclusions...
posted by muppetfiend at 5:45 AM on September 14, 2001


The only way to end the terrorism in Israel and Palestine is to nuke them both, totally.

As long as there is contested ground these two governments are going to be fighting. How many cease fire agreements do they need to make and break?


I hope you say this as an expression of frustration, rather than an actual goal. Personally, the only thing I can imagine working is the international community essentially roping off the entire Holy land as a place of worship, where anyone can visit, but no one can live.

Just as unrealistic as your "proposal," with a whole lot less death.
posted by Sinner at 6:17 AM on September 14, 2001


Muppetfiend: A big problem with the IRA is a large part of their funding came from Boston. If you're going to go after states that harbour terrorists... You could concntrate on just Massachussetts I suppose.
posted by vbfg at 6:25 AM on September 14, 2001


i think is his point is as long as religion is involved, as long as there are people who see it is their destiny to inhabit their holy land, their homeland where from once they were driven away, there will always be conflict.
posted by teradome at 6:32 AM on September 14, 2001


The opportunists are creeping out of the woodwork now. The Lunatic fringe of Christianity sees this as a chance to blame all the sinners, Israel sees a green light for further assaults on their ethnically ghettoized slave labor pool in the occupied Territories. The extreme right in the U.S. is pushing for decreased civil rights, military involvement on U.S. soil, and the circumvention of the constitution.

Disasters like this reveal the true character of everyone. While many have shown that they are heroes and exemplify a great American ideal, many others are showing themselves to be lowest form of humanity casually spewing hate and seeking gain in others losses.
posted by srboisvert at 6:37 AM on September 14, 2001


Wow. That's my last front page post for a while.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:48 AM on September 14, 2001


DBAPaul, that is offensive.
posted by tranquileye at 6:58 AM on September 14, 2001


Postroad: they are trying to kill those who have been trying to kill and eradicate them

i see this completely differently. the way i see it, many Palestinians feel that Israel is constantly expanding it's territory into their areas, squeezing them into smaller and smaller parcels of land. when they complain they get no response from Israel, the US, or the UN. their human rights are repeatedly infringed upon. so they respond, first with intifadeh. this has been going on for years. no improvement.

there are violent and terrorist elements that hurt the cause i've descibed above, but lumping them all together is like making all Americans racists or something similarly unsavory.

Israel's relative power and Palestine's relative powerlessness are a big deal in this situation, as far as i'm concerned. and the US is culpable (in this regard) for supporting, indeed, empowering, the oppression of Palestinian Arabs at the hands of Israel.
posted by Sean Meade at 7:00 AM on September 14, 2001


I no longer have any care or concern for the palestinians. As far as I'm concerned, the Israelis can erect a barricade between themselves and the rest of the middle east and sporadically shell their neighbors. The palestinians do it to themselves all the time, always choosing the wrong side.
posted by theJaybird at 7:10 AM on September 14, 2001


You know something is very wrong when you stop caring about people.

What side could the Palestinians have taken? What choices did they have? Did they bring Israeli occupation on themselves then?
posted by Mossy at 7:39 AM on September 14, 2001


Yes, theJayBird, after only a few decades short of a century of living harassed, then terrorized by a massive wave of immigrants, surely these third or fourth generation starving battered refugees should show at least some more rationality and moral integrity. [heavy sarcasm. (implied.)]
posted by ProfLinusPauling at 7:50 AM on September 14, 2001


"You know something is very wrong when you stop caring about people.

What side could the Palestinians have taken? What choices did they have? Did they bring Israeli occupation on themselves then?" Stravo-i mirror your sentiment. with thinking like this, which seems rapid throughout mefi, The chance to say anything seems shot. I miss lagado.
posted by newnameintown at 8:21 AM on September 14, 2001


What choice do the Palestinians have? Admittedly, not many.

But ask yourself this...

Why is it that the Palestinian refugees were kept in shanty-town refugee camps for 40 years while surrounded by ever more wealthy arab countries, self described as pro palestinian, with enough money to pay for tap water that was once sea water (not to mention a Beverly Hills class penchant for luxury goods and generalized conspicuous consumption)

Crowded land? The palestinian people have been encouraged, officially,for 40 years and many generations, to have as many children as possible. Families of 8 or more offspring living in one room cinder block housing is the norm in Gaza.

So is the Palestinian's lot in life slim pickings? Absolutely. But the real crime is that the average palestinian refugee has bee manipulated to a degree not often seen in history books. Its no wonder they line up to be human hand grenades.

You're an uninformed fool if you think

  • Palestinian disenfranchisement is the product of Israeli oppression

  • that only a "handful of misguided kids" went hip-hip-hooray on 911

  • They were ready to be good neighbors if they got all the west bank and Gaza rather than 97%

  • there's a difference between the way America and Israel feel right now towards ethnic groups aiming terror at their homeland
    posted by BentPenguin at 9:15 AM on September 14, 2001


  • tranquileye > DBAPaul, that is offensive.


    To you it's offensive, but you don't offer a better 'solution'.


    sinner > [R]oping off the entire Holy land as a place of worship, where anyone can visit, but no one can live.

    Just as unrealistic as your "proposal," with a whole lot less death.



    I agree your proposal is unrealistic. It would cost more lives in the long run by creating a permanent terrorist target for all time. And who would maintain the 'rope'?
    posted by DBAPaul at 9:48 AM on September 14, 2001


    When Hamas blew up that bus during the negotiation of the Oslo Peace Accords, Yasser Arafat could have said "You know what - this peace process is very important to us. We will not tolerate these acts of terrorism at this critical juncture, and will find those responsible and punish them appropriately." Instead, he merely shrugged his shoulders and said "Oh well..." Barak was shown to have been played for a fool, and the Israelis voted in Ariel Sharon.

    Arafat has made his bed, and now he must lie in it. I have minimal sympathy.

    On the other hand, if anyone knows the name of the American politician who made that statement about the IRA, can they please pass it along? I'd like to contribute to his opponents campaign.
    posted by jaek at 9:58 AM on September 14, 2001


    BentPenguin: calling people who aren't fools fools only degrades the discussion.

    jaek: Arafat obviously has many faults. can you drum up any sympathy for the poor people he represents? i'd hate to be summed up by the actions of the politicians who 'represent' me.

    Sharon is a hawk whose visit to the Temple Mount incited unfortunate violence.
    posted by Sean Meade at 12:17 PM on September 14, 2001


    jaek: Arafat obviously has many faults. can you drum up any sympathy for the poor people he represents? i'd hate to be summed up by the actions of the politicians who 'represent' me.
    I suppose I could if these poor people weren't on average more militant than Arafat. Keep in mind that public opinion in the territories is divided fairly evenly between supporting the PLO and the more militant Hamas.
    posted by boaz at 7:54 PM on September 14, 2001


    I suppose I could if these poor people weren't on average more militant than Arafat. Keep in mind that public opinion in the territories is divided fairly evenly between supporting the PLO and the more militant Hamas.

    no sympathy for an entire people group. that is a sad thing indeed.
    posted by Sean Meade at 8:04 AM on September 17, 2001


    no sympathy for an entire people group. that is a sad thing indeed.

    Wow. I guess we're in full manipulative drivel mode now.
    They're in miserable conditions because they're in a war, a war they still want to fight. Nowhere else in the world do I see a greater disconnect between actions and expectations among both the representers and the represented.
    posted by boaz at 11:45 AM on September 17, 2001


    No, they are in miserable conditions because Israel doesn't know exactly what to do with the remainders of people who were displaced when Israel became a country.

    They are fighting a war because they know what they want: end to foreign military rule and their own country.
    posted by eric anders at 11:53 AM on September 17, 2001


    No, they are in miserable conditions because Israel doesn't know exactly what to do with the remainders of people who were displaced when Israel became a country.

    What Israel did when it became a country was offer citizenship to the Arabs now living in Israel and prevent the 'displaced' ones from returning. Israel's birth is not relevant though since the territories, and refugees, in question were captured in 1967.

    They are fighting a war because they know what they want: end to foreign military rule and their own country.

    Arafat was already offered both these things by Barak and turned it down. He obviously wants something more than that.
    posted by boaz at 1:02 PM on September 17, 2001


    "What Israel did when it became a country was offer citizenship to the Arabs now living in Israel and prevent the 'displaced' ones from returning."

    News Flash: Palestine was invaded by Zionists backed by the US and the GB. This INVASION ( read: encroachment, violation of the lives and homes of thousands of Palestinians) resulted in Israel as we know it ( with horror) today.
    So Palestinans were'offered citizenship' huh? That's big of Israel. They invaded looted and plundered Palestine,and then they have the audacity to make 'magnanimous' offers to their victims? Gee thanks Mister. Can anyone do
    JUSTICE better than this? IS it just me or can anyone else also detect the blatant hypocrisy in all of this.
    posted by Outspoken at 2:03 AM on September 25, 2001


    Wow, nice troll, Outspoken. If you give me your address, I'll send you a history book.
    posted by boaz at 8:57 AM on September 25, 2001


    Keep you history books Boaz.I'll make do with the Truth.
    posted by Outspoken at 11:19 PM on September 27, 2001


    Since I have no clue what that's supposed to mean, I'll leave it be. Well, at least you knew better than to argue the 'troll' part.
    posted by boaz at 7:38 PM on September 28, 2001


    « Older The U.S. Embassy in Manila   |   Nostradamus full of beans Newer »


    This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments