"We Should Kill Everyone There"
March 19, 2009 1:45 PM Subscribe
IDF in Gaza: Killing civilians, vandalism, and lax rules of engagement. "During Operation Cast Lead, Israeli forces killed Palestinian civilians under permissive rules of engagement and intentionally destroyed their property, say soldiers who fought in the offensive." Can Israel dismiss its own troops' stories from Gaza? [Via]
After Gaza, Israel Grapples With Crisis of Isolation.
posted by homunculus at 1:49 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by homunculus at 1:49 PM on March 19, 2009
I believe Hamas wished upon a star when they fired rockets in Isreal that they wouldn't hit any civilian areas, so, yeah, they're clear.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:50 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu at 1:50 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
Krrrlson: You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?
There's an interesting article about how Israel is grappling with the PR fallout, and how they are now viewed in the world. Apparently they feel the need to "rebrand" and are spending $2 million on "improving Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy."
posted by delmoi at 1:53 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
There's an interesting article about how Israel is grappling with the PR fallout, and how they are now viewed in the world. Apparently they feel the need to "rebrand" and are spending $2 million on "improving Israel’s image through cultural and information diplomacy."
posted by delmoi at 1:53 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
Can Israel dismiss its own troops' stories from Gaza?
Yes.
Report on Hamas "rules of engagement" is forthcoming?
Maybe you're looking for the Hamas Covenant, which was issued on August 18, 1988. Maybe not.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:55 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Yes.
Report on Hamas "rules of engagement" is forthcoming?
Maybe you're looking for the Hamas Covenant, which was issued on August 18, 1988. Maybe not.
posted by filthy light thief at 1:55 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe Hamas wished upon a star when they fired rockets in Isreal that they wouldn't hit any civilian areas, so, yeah, they're clear.
Well, those wishes worked well, because they barely hit anyone. I don't know the numbers, but I don't think more then one Israeli had been killed from the time of whatever ceasefire they were on and the time Israel started it's offensive.
There's no way to know what anyone's intent actually is. People just make up stories about what those intents might be, and usually those stories just serve whatever side they are already on. The only realistic way to view what happened is by what actually happened and what actually happened is that the Israelis killed 100 times as many people as did the Palestinians in Gaza.
posted by delmoi at 1:56 PM on March 19, 2009 [6 favorites]
Well, those wishes worked well, because they barely hit anyone. I don't know the numbers, but I don't think more then one Israeli had been killed from the time of whatever ceasefire they were on and the time Israel started it's offensive.
There's no way to know what anyone's intent actually is. People just make up stories about what those intents might be, and usually those stories just serve whatever side they are already on. The only realistic way to view what happened is by what actually happened and what actually happened is that the Israelis killed 100 times as many people as did the Palestinians in Gaza.
posted by delmoi at 1:56 PM on March 19, 2009 [6 favorites]
delmoi: Krrrlson: You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?
I do. I care what everyone has to say.
posted by netbros at 1:57 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
I do. I care what everyone has to say.
posted by netbros at 1:57 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
delmoi, that's good news for commercial photographers looking for work.
(I blame Caduceus for this comment).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:57 PM on March 19, 2009
(I blame Caduceus for this comment).
posted by filthy light thief at 1:57 PM on March 19, 2009
And for those who missed it, the post title is from the first link:
posted by filthy light thief at 2:01 PM on March 19, 2009
The squad leader said he argued with his commander over the permissive rules of engagement that allowed the clearing out of houses by shooting without warning the residents beforehand. After the orders were changed, the squad leader's soldiers complained that "we should kill everyone there [in the center of Gaza]. Everyone there is a terrorist."Apparently a quote from a group of soldiers? Did they speak with one voice? Why quote the phrase and attribute it to a group?
posted by filthy light thief at 2:01 PM on March 19, 2009
Krrrlson: You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?
That's out of line. Unless there is some sort of history here you'd like to let us know about.
Anyway, I would venture that the only reason why Hamas or whoever (name your pick) has not killed more Israelis is because of heightened Israeli security since all this stuff started happened back in the 80s.
And Hamas knew what it was doing when it started to fire rockets into Israel: it wanted to start a war, and was gambling with civilian lives in Gaza.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
That's out of line. Unless there is some sort of history here you'd like to let us know about.
Anyway, I would venture that the only reason why Hamas or whoever (name your pick) has not killed more Israelis is because of heightened Israeli security since all this stuff started happened back in the 80s.
And Hamas knew what it was doing when it started to fire rockets into Israel: it wanted to start a war, and was gambling with civilian lives in Gaza.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
This is the same kind of faulty and deadly reasoning that causes them to blame Hamas for the death of children at the UN school because they were "based there".
I realize this is turning into a somewhat futile and ghoulish discussion, but the UN school was never attacked.
For whatever it's worth, I believe the IDF did indeed commit war crimes, and the scale and scope of the invasion of Gaza was illegal and unjust.
However, it's tiresome to see MetaFilter turned into IsraelOutrageFilter every day, and skirt just outside the margins of outright antisemitism. This post is not best of the web.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:16 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
I realize this is turning into a somewhat futile and ghoulish discussion, but the UN school was never attacked.
For whatever it's worth, I believe the IDF did indeed commit war crimes, and the scale and scope of the invasion of Gaza was illegal and unjust.
However, it's tiresome to see MetaFilter turned into IsraelOutrageFilter every day, and skirt just outside the margins of outright antisemitism. This post is not best of the web.
posted by KokuRyu at 2:16 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
Yet another anti-Israel editorial post. You must understand that this is against the posting guidelines, right?
posted by longsleeves at 2:19 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by longsleeves at 2:19 PM on March 19, 2009
Krrrlson: You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?
Given the abundance of posts vilifying Israel and the stunning lack of discussion of Hamas atrocities (including, but not limited to, murder and terrorizing of Israeli civilians, murder and oppression of the Palestinian population, the use of human shields, and the theft of foreign aid), you're probably right. It's quite telling that even a single voice of dissent is enough to get such a rise out of you.
This is the same kind of faulty and deadly reasoning that causes them to blame Hamas for the death of children at the UN school because they were "based there".
If you think that terrorists should be held blameless for using children as human shields, then you are a true psychopath.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:20 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
Given the abundance of posts vilifying Israel and the stunning lack of discussion of Hamas atrocities (including, but not limited to, murder and terrorizing of Israeli civilians, murder and oppression of the Palestinian population, the use of human shields, and the theft of foreign aid), you're probably right. It's quite telling that even a single voice of dissent is enough to get such a rise out of you.
This is the same kind of faulty and deadly reasoning that causes them to blame Hamas for the death of children at the UN school because they were "based there".
If you think that terrorists should be held blameless for using children as human shields, then you are a true psychopath.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:20 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
Most of us already know who's gonna come out and say what about what in any mefi Israel/Palestine thread.
Are we all happy to simply parrot our smug convictions about this conflict, or is anyone ready to move on to discussing workable solutions? Myself, I'm fairly convinced that the Israel/Palestine situation will never be resolved til there's an arbitrated solution and a 3rd-party peacekeeper keeping them apart (eg UN or NATO).
Of course Israel won't ever be happy about giving up settlements and the "right" to strike out whenever they choose; likewise the Palestinians and their Arab backers won't ever like giving up right of return or declaring their acceptance of the state of Israel. However the hallmark of a fair resolution is often that both parties are equally pissed.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
Are we all happy to simply parrot our smug convictions about this conflict, or is anyone ready to move on to discussing workable solutions? Myself, I'm fairly convinced that the Israel/Palestine situation will never be resolved til there's an arbitrated solution and a 3rd-party peacekeeper keeping them apart (eg UN or NATO).
Of course Israel won't ever be happy about giving up settlements and the "right" to strike out whenever they choose; likewise the Palestinians and their Arab backers won't ever like giving up right of return or declaring their acceptance of the state of Israel. However the hallmark of a fair resolution is often that both parties are equally pissed.
posted by Artful Codger at 2:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
An eye for an eye will do what now? I can't see so well these days.
posted by filthy light thief at 2:25 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by filthy light thief at 2:25 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
KokuRyu Three links to a breaking story in Israel's most highbrow newspaper is "skirting on outright antisemitism"?! Whoah!
posted by Skeptic at 2:26 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Skeptic at 2:26 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
And if they are indeed intentionally using children that way, why does the IDF need to oblige them and launch mortar attacks?
Right, why doesn't the IDF and the rest of Israel just oblige them and die? Unfortunately for you and your Hamas pals, it won't be that easy.
Three links to a breaking story in Israel's most highbrow newspaper is "skirting on outright antisemitism"?! Whoah!
Systematic and disproportionate vilification of Israel to the exclusion of all other involved parties -- taken in context with other Metafilter posts and comments on this subject -- skirts on outright antisemitism, yes. Or, if you prefer, rabid xenophobia.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:37 PM on March 19, 2009
Right, why doesn't the IDF and the rest of Israel just oblige them and die? Unfortunately for you and your Hamas pals, it won't be that easy.
Three links to a breaking story in Israel's most highbrow newspaper is "skirting on outright antisemitism"?! Whoah!
Systematic and disproportionate vilification of Israel to the exclusion of all other involved parties -- taken in context with other Metafilter posts and comments on this subject -- skirts on outright antisemitism, yes. Or, if you prefer, rabid xenophobia.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:37 PM on March 19, 2009
Also, one can be outraged by the IDF's behaviour, without thinking that Hamas are anything else than a bunch of fanatically murderous thugs. The difference is that Hamas aren't in the very least apologetic about being fanatically murderous thugs. They do not pretend to be my friends, so I don't think that my outrage is going to change their ways one little bit.
The Israeli authorities, on the other hand, do pretend to share my basic values. I can't possibly ignore the crimes committed under cover of those values. Israel should be aware that actions such as those in Gaza aren't going to finish their enemies, but may well lose them their friends.
posted by Skeptic at 2:37 PM on March 19, 2009 [13 favorites]
The Israeli authorities, on the other hand, do pretend to share my basic values. I can't possibly ignore the crimes committed under cover of those values. Israel should be aware that actions such as those in Gaza aren't going to finish their enemies, but may well lose them their friends.
posted by Skeptic at 2:37 PM on March 19, 2009 [13 favorites]
Or, if you prefer, rabid xenophobia.
And who doesn't?
posted by ob at 2:39 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
And who doesn't?
posted by ob at 2:39 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
And Hamas knew what it was doing when it started to fire rockets into Israel: it wanted to start a war, and was gambling with civilian lives in Gaza. Actually I believe Tzipi Livni wanted to win an election.
posted by adamvasco at 2:44 PM on March 19, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by adamvasco at 2:44 PM on March 19, 2009 [7 favorites]
Artful Codger : I'm fairly convinced that the Israel/Palestine situation will never be resolved til there's an arbitrated solution and a 3rd-party peacekeeper keeping them apart (eg UN or NATO).
I've said the same thing. I think at this point it's pretty clear that everyone involved has so many old grudges and lack of trust, that any efforts at peace are doomed to failure. Even a minor infraction or hostile act is seen as a new act of war, and causes the entire fight to start up again. Which means that any single individual on either side, with an interest in continuing the conflict, has the means to do so.
If the leadership on the ground there really wants to put a stop to this (and I'm not convinced that either side really does) they need to try something radical and new. Because everything that they've tried so far has come up short, and if bombing and shooting each other has failed the last 1000 times, it's a pretty good bet that it won't work the next time either.
posted by quin at 2:48 PM on March 19, 2009
I've said the same thing. I think at this point it's pretty clear that everyone involved has so many old grudges and lack of trust, that any efforts at peace are doomed to failure. Even a minor infraction or hostile act is seen as a new act of war, and causes the entire fight to start up again. Which means that any single individual on either side, with an interest in continuing the conflict, has the means to do so.
If the leadership on the ground there really wants to put a stop to this (and I'm not convinced that either side really does) they need to try something radical and new. Because everything that they've tried so far has come up short, and if bombing and shooting each other has failed the last 1000 times, it's a pretty good bet that it won't work the next time either.
posted by quin at 2:48 PM on March 19, 2009
Can we just all line up and say which side we're on? Seems easier.
I'm for the kids with the rocks.
[NOT TANK-IST]
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:51 PM on March 19, 2009 [11 favorites]
I'm for the kids with the rocks.
[NOT TANK-IST]
posted by Baby_Balrog at 2:51 PM on March 19, 2009 [11 favorites]
it is so much easier to sit on the sidelines and argue about what is taking place thousands of miles away. I have just been reading this, from inside my own country:
"This lawsuit alleges that in the 1950's and 1960's, the soldiers were used as human experiments at Ft Detrick, Md, and elsewhere, in a program called MK-ULTRA. Promised health care, the vets never got it and the experiments were covered up. This law suit asks that the participants to the experiments be released for the secrecy oath they took, and they want to know what chemicials were used on them; additionally they want medical help.Vietnam Veterans of America et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al..
Rules of engagement when we did our Shock and Awe in Iraq? Ah, that was different. We were way up in the sky, in planes, so that does not count.
posted by Postroad at 2:51 PM on March 19, 2009
"This lawsuit alleges that in the 1950's and 1960's, the soldiers were used as human experiments at Ft Detrick, Md, and elsewhere, in a program called MK-ULTRA. Promised health care, the vets never got it and the experiments were covered up. This law suit asks that the participants to the experiments be released for the secrecy oath they took, and they want to know what chemicials were used on them; additionally they want medical help.Vietnam Veterans of America et al. v. Central Intelligence Agency, et al..
Rules of engagement when we did our Shock and Awe in Iraq? Ah, that was different. We were way up in the sky, in planes, so that does not count.
posted by Postroad at 2:51 PM on March 19, 2009
The BBC has crossed a line in covering this story that I never expected to see them cross:
Israel troops admit Gaza abuses
One account tells of a sniper killing a mother and children at close range whom troops had told to leave their home.
Another speaker at the seminar described what he saw as the "cold blooded murder" of a Palestinian woman.
..."The climate in general... I don't know how to describe it.... the lives of Palestinians, let's say, are much, much less important than the lives of our soldiers," an infantry squad leader is quoted saying.
In another cited case, a commander ordered troops to kill an elderly woman walking on a road, even though she was easily identifiable and clearly not a threat.
Testimonies, which were given by combat pilots and infantry soldiers, also included allegations of unnecessary destruction of Palestinian property.
Netanyahu is truly rushing into a burning building with a bucket of gasoline.
posted by jamjam at 2:55 PM on March 19, 2009
Israel troops admit Gaza abuses
One account tells of a sniper killing a mother and children at close range whom troops had told to leave their home.
Another speaker at the seminar described what he saw as the "cold blooded murder" of a Palestinian woman.
..."The climate in general... I don't know how to describe it.... the lives of Palestinians, let's say, are much, much less important than the lives of our soldiers," an infantry squad leader is quoted saying.
In another cited case, a commander ordered troops to kill an elderly woman walking on a road, even though she was easily identifiable and clearly not a threat.
Testimonies, which were given by combat pilots and infantry soldiers, also included allegations of unnecessary destruction of Palestinian property.
Netanyahu is truly rushing into a burning building with a bucket of gasoline.
posted by jamjam at 2:55 PM on March 19, 2009
Israel should be aware that actions such as those in Gaza aren't going to finish their enemies, but may well lose them their friends.
Fair enough, and I agree in principle. I believe, however, that disproportionate and exclusive condemnation of Israel is not going to either better Israel or its help neighbours. This blog post summarize the idea that isolation will only drive Israel to adopt the tactics of their adversaries.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:56 PM on March 19, 2009
Fair enough, and I agree in principle. I believe, however, that disproportionate and exclusive condemnation of Israel is not going to either better Israel or its help neighbours. This blog post summarize the idea that isolation will only drive Israel to adopt the tactics of their adversaries.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:56 PM on March 19, 2009
Er, "help its neighbours," of course; dyslexics untie and all that.
posted by Krrrlson at 2:57 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by Krrrlson at 2:57 PM on March 19, 2009
If you think that terrorists should be held blameless for using children as human shields, then you are a true psychopath.
That's a straw man to rival the Wizard of Oz, and I'm pretty sure you know it, Krrrlson. Further, while you're right that there's not a whole lot of love for Israel on this site, I can't for a moment see how you expect to change any minds by spouting that same reactionary crap that not even The Weekly Standard prints anymore.
posted by The White Hat at 3:02 PM on March 19, 2009
That's a straw man to rival the Wizard of Oz, and I'm pretty sure you know it, Krrrlson. Further, while you're right that there's not a whole lot of love for Israel on this site, I can't for a moment see how you expect to change any minds by spouting that same reactionary crap that not even The Weekly Standard prints anymore.
posted by The White Hat at 3:02 PM on March 19, 2009
Here are a couple of educational links relevant to the discussion of Hamas's use of human shields (which has NOTHING to do with how densely populated Gaza is, btw) and the IDF/IAF's actions:
1. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center gathered lots of intelligence on this throughout the war. Of particular interest here is this release, which combines photos, aerial footage, information from captured Hamas terrorists, and other sources.
Video no. 7 (direct link to streaming Windows Media) on this page shows three separate incidents where an IAF missile on its way to a Hamas vehicle was diverted to avoid hitting civilian crowds into which the vehicle had driven.
2. The IDF Spokesperson's channel on Youtube has a number of videos documenting both Hamas's brutal abuse of the local population and the IDF's targeted attack strategy that was intended to minimize collateral damage while effectively achieving the operational goals of the mission (note I'm not saying Israel is perfect, blameless, etc., nor even that ALL the goals of this operation were achieved, but there are far fewer missiles, rockets, and mortars flying into Israel today).
And delmoi: you're really doubting Hamas's intent while firing the 9,000 or so rockets into Israel over the last 8 years? Can I have some of what you're on?
posted by yiftach at 3:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
1. The Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center gathered lots of intelligence on this throughout the war. Of particular interest here is this release, which combines photos, aerial footage, information from captured Hamas terrorists, and other sources.
Video no. 7 (direct link to streaming Windows Media) on this page shows three separate incidents where an IAF missile on its way to a Hamas vehicle was diverted to avoid hitting civilian crowds into which the vehicle had driven.
2. The IDF Spokesperson's channel on Youtube has a number of videos documenting both Hamas's brutal abuse of the local population and the IDF's targeted attack strategy that was intended to minimize collateral damage while effectively achieving the operational goals of the mission (note I'm not saying Israel is perfect, blameless, etc., nor even that ALL the goals of this operation were achieved, but there are far fewer missiles, rockets, and mortars flying into Israel today).
And delmoi: you're really doubting Hamas's intent while firing the 9,000 or so rockets into Israel over the last 8 years? Can I have some of what you're on?
posted by yiftach at 3:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
That's out of line. Unless there is some sort of history here you'd like to let us know about.Huh? You mean besides his long history of making preposterous comments from a delusional Pamela Geller, LGF, etc perspective?
I realize this is turning into a somewhat futile and ghoulish discussion, but the UN school was never attacked.Here's the first paragraph from that article:
GAZA CITY, Feb. 6 -- The United Nations said this week that Israeli mortar fire that killed at least 43 people in Gaza's Jabaliya refugee camp on Jan. 6 had landed just outside a U.N.-run school housing refugees from the fighting but did not hit the school itselfSo 43 people died, including those who had sought shelter in thee school but the school was apparently "never attacked". Okay.
…
Among the dead, he said, were those who had sought shelter in the school but happened to have been standing directly in front of it when the mortar shells landed. "It did kill and injure people who had sought shelter inside the school,"
The Israeli authorities, on the other hand, do pretend to share my basic values. I can't possibly ignore the crimes committed under cover of those values. Israel should be aware that actions such as those in Gaza aren't going to finish their enemies, but may well lose them their friends.And let's not forget our money (if you're an American). We send them billions of dollars, we cover for them in the U.N with our security council veto, etc.
posted by delmoi at 3:07 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
And delmoi: you're really doubting Hamas's intent while firing the 9,000 or so rockets into Israel over the last 8 years? Can I have some of what you're on?
What I said is that intent dosn't matter what matters is the result. And the result of those thousands of rockets is hardly any casualties. In fact, There had been 19 total casualties since 2002 (at least when that article was written). About two per year on average, and about two for every thousand rockets fired.
It's the number of people killed, not the number of rockets fired that counts. I mean if you count every shell and grenade and bullet used by the Israelis in "Operation Cast Lead" you probably still have the 100:1 ratio or morel. It really doesn't matter.
posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
What I said is that intent dosn't matter what matters is the result. And the result of those thousands of rockets is hardly any casualties. In fact, There had been 19 total casualties since 2002 (at least when that article was written). About two per year on average, and about two for every thousand rockets fired.
It's the number of people killed, not the number of rockets fired that counts. I mean if you count every shell and grenade and bullet used by the Israelis in "Operation Cast Lead" you probably still have the 100:1 ratio or morel. It really doesn't matter.
posted by delmoi at 3:12 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Fair enough, and I agree in principle. I believe, however, that disproportionate and exclusive condemnation of Israel is not going to either better Israel or its help neighbours. "
For hijacking the concept of the end of the Diaspora *prior* to the coming of the Messiah, and the proper fulfilment of the Abrahamaic Land Grant from the Nile to the Euphrates before the temple has been rebuilt...
For putting the Star of David on their flag, and having the balls to pretend to act for the benefit of Jews, rather than their own political and financial agendas...
For their constant refusal to follow through on their commitments to the UN -- upon which *all* their legitimacy hinges -- that all the Ethnically Cleansed have a Right-of-Return..
They deserve all this condemnation and more. And I want that Star off the flag... And I want a refund on all the aid money.... And I want the US to stop selling arms to Israel... While I'm at it... A pony would always be welcome. I'll keep it in the backyard.
posted by mikelieman at 3:13 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
For hijacking the concept of the end of the Diaspora *prior* to the coming of the Messiah, and the proper fulfilment of the Abrahamaic Land Grant from the Nile to the Euphrates before the temple has been rebuilt...
For putting the Star of David on their flag, and having the balls to pretend to act for the benefit of Jews, rather than their own political and financial agendas...
For their constant refusal to follow through on their commitments to the UN -- upon which *all* their legitimacy hinges -- that all the Ethnically Cleansed have a Right-of-Return..
They deserve all this condemnation and more. And I want that Star off the flag... And I want a refund on all the aid money.... And I want the US to stop selling arms to Israel... While I'm at it... A pony would always be welcome. I'll keep it in the backyard.
posted by mikelieman at 3:13 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
It is entirely possible for both parties in a war to be idiots.
Hamas and Israel are both being morons.
posted by kldickson at 3:17 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
Hamas and Israel are both being morons.
posted by kldickson at 3:17 PM on March 19, 2009 [5 favorites]
And Palestine needs neither Hamas nor Israel to survive.
posted by kldickson at 3:17 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by kldickson at 3:17 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
I get more upset about IDF atrocities than Hamas atrocities for the same reason I get more upset about crimes committed by the cops than by gangs: because they're the goddamn cops. "Terrorists commit atrocities" is the same as "gangs commit crimes"; yes, it's terrible, but they are behaving in a way appropriate to what they are.
But the cops, like the IDF, claim special authority to act in certain ways that normal citizens may not. If you live in Israel, you can't simply pick up an assault rifle and start killing Palestinians (well, theoretically anyway); if you live in New York, you can't just grab a gun and start shooting suspected criminals. Inherent in the claim of authority made by police and militaries is the obligation to behave according to certain codes of behavior and standards of morality which are higher than those of the criminals or terrorists; a police force or military which commits the same kinds of atrocities as the criminals or terrorists is no better than those they oppose.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [22 favorites]
But the cops, like the IDF, claim special authority to act in certain ways that normal citizens may not. If you live in Israel, you can't simply pick up an assault rifle and start killing Palestinians (well, theoretically anyway); if you live in New York, you can't just grab a gun and start shooting suspected criminals. Inherent in the claim of authority made by police and militaries is the obligation to behave according to certain codes of behavior and standards of morality which are higher than those of the criminals or terrorists; a police force or military which commits the same kinds of atrocities as the criminals or terrorists is no better than those they oppose.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [22 favorites]
KokuRyu: However, it's tiresome to see MetaFilter turned into IsraelOutrageFilter every day, and skirt just outside the margins of outright antisemitism. This post is not best of the web.
NewsFilter is part of MetaFilter and always has been. It's a subjective call when it's worth posting, but for me it boils down to how important the news is and/or how widespread it is. I think the fact that these IDF soldiers are talking about this so openly and being published in an Israeli newspaper is important, just as the Winter Soldiers were important here in the US. They should to be heard, but my guess is the mainstream media (at least in the US) is going to ignore it, just like they ignored the Winter Soldiers.
And accusations of borderline antisemitism? Who, me and Sullivan for linking to it? Haaretz for publishing it? The soldiers for speaking about it? I'm sorry but that's just nonsense.
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [10 favorites]
NewsFilter is part of MetaFilter and always has been. It's a subjective call when it's worth posting, but for me it boils down to how important the news is and/or how widespread it is. I think the fact that these IDF soldiers are talking about this so openly and being published in an Israeli newspaper is important, just as the Winter Soldiers were important here in the US. They should to be heard, but my guess is the mainstream media (at least in the US) is going to ignore it, just like they ignored the Winter Soldiers.
And accusations of borderline antisemitism? Who, me and Sullivan for linking to it? Haaretz for publishing it? The soldiers for speaking about it? I'm sorry but that's just nonsense.
posted by homunculus at 3:21 PM on March 19, 2009 [10 favorites]
And Hamas knew what it was doing when it started to fire rockets into Israel: it wanted to start a war, and was gambling with civilian lives in Gaza.
posted by KokuRyu
I have enough respect for your intelligence to think you might actually know the historical record cuts strongly against this, KokoRyu:
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. ...
You could add immensely to my estimate of your integrity if you were to acknowledge it, even as a point of controversy.
posted by jamjam at 3:28 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by KokuRyu
I have enough respect for your intelligence to think you might actually know the historical record cuts strongly against this, KokoRyu:
NORMAN FINKELSTEIN: Well, the record is fairly clear. You can find it on the Israeli website, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs website. Mr. Indyk is correct that Hamas had adhered to the ceasefire from June 17th until November 4th. On November 4th, here Mr. Indyk, I think, goes awry. The record is clear: Israel broke the ceasefire by going into the Gaza and killing six or seven Palestinian militants. At that point—and now I’m quoting the official Israeli website—Hamas retaliated or, in retaliation for the Israeli attack, then launched the missiles.
Now, as to the reason why, the record is fairly clear as well. According to Ha’aretz, Defense Minister Barak began plans for this invasion before the ceasefire even began. In fact, according to yesterday’s Ha’aretz, the plans for the invasion began in March. ...
You could add immensely to my estimate of your integrity if you were to acknowledge it, even as a point of controversy.
posted by jamjam at 3:28 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
It should be noted that the reason Hamas launched the rockets was because Israel was unwilling to fully open the borders per the cease fire agreement.
However let's not act so naive and really think that Hamas didn't want this to happen. They needed Israel to do something like this so they could maintain control of Gaza. If something dramatic like this hadn't happened then Fatah probably would have retaken control of Gaza and that would be bad for Hamas.
But the way Israel responded was based more on politics than any outright defense. They say this was just to destabilize Hamas for a year or so for them to get the missile defense system online, but I doubt anyone believes them. Also telling is the fact that the rules of engagement for US/NATO troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were much stricter than the ones that the Israelis followed.
So who is the real criminal here? I would say both Hamas and Israel. They have sacrificed any potential peace for popularity at home. Hopefully a new peace process that recognizes Hamas will go further to help, but after what has happened I doubt any real ground will be gained. The real losers in all of this are the Palestinians.
posted by Allan Gordon at 3:29 PM on March 19, 2009
However let's not act so naive and really think that Hamas didn't want this to happen. They needed Israel to do something like this so they could maintain control of Gaza. If something dramatic like this hadn't happened then Fatah probably would have retaken control of Gaza and that would be bad for Hamas.
But the way Israel responded was based more on politics than any outright defense. They say this was just to destabilize Hamas for a year or so for them to get the missile defense system online, but I doubt anyone believes them. Also telling is the fact that the rules of engagement for US/NATO troops in Iraq/Afghanistan were much stricter than the ones that the Israelis followed.
So who is the real criminal here? I would say both Hamas and Israel. They have sacrificed any potential peace for popularity at home. Hopefully a new peace process that recognizes Hamas will go further to help, but after what has happened I doubt any real ground will be gained. The real losers in all of this are the Palestinians.
posted by Allan Gordon at 3:29 PM on March 19, 2009
Is anyone ready to move on to discussing workable solutions?
Ooo, ooo! I wanna go first ...
"Palestinians should renounce terrorism and engage only in peaceful protests."
Do I win a prize?
The reaction or non-reaction to this will answer the question. No, nobody here is interested in discussing workable solutions. They just wanna fling poo.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:33 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Ooo, ooo! I wanna go first ...
"Palestinians should renounce terrorism and engage only in peaceful protests."
Do I win a prize?
The reaction or non-reaction to this will answer the question. No, nobody here is interested in discussing workable solutions. They just wanna fling poo.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 3:33 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Further, while you're right that there's not a whole lot of love for Israel on this site, I can't for a moment see how you expect to change any minds by spouting that same reactionary crap that not even The Weekly Standard prints anymore.
I love how calling out Hamas atrocities is "reactionary." If only cognitive dissonance was equivalent to fact.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2009
I love how calling out Hamas atrocities is "reactionary." If only cognitive dissonance was equivalent to fact.
posted by Krrrlson at 3:41 PM on March 19, 2009
Unfortunately for you and your Hamas pals, it won't be that easy.
Don't worry, I don't have any Hamas pals any more. The jerks didn't return my serving platters after our last potluck. When I called them, they just mumble something about needing a different kind of shield.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:46 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Don't worry, I don't have any Hamas pals any more. The jerks didn't return my serving platters after our last potluck. When I called them, they just mumble something about needing a different kind of shield.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:46 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
MetaFilter: did you miss the part about how incredibly dense the population is there
posted by oaf at 3:47 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by oaf at 3:47 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
The solution is for both sides to stop the violence. You guys criticizing the other side in the comments above are every bit as effective at solving the problem as the Israelis and Palestinians themselves. There's plenty of blame for both sides. When both sides decide they have had enough of the violence, there will be hope for a solution. Until then they will keep killing one another. It's up to them to come together.
posted by Daddy-O at 3:50 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by Daddy-O at 3:50 PM on March 19, 2009
kill them all and let old testament god sort them out.
posted by davemee at 4:02 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by davemee at 4:02 PM on March 19, 2009
I'd be a rich Arab country I wouldn't spend my money on supporting Hamas or Palestinians. I'd spend it on PR in the United States like the Israeli have been doing since the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I'd try to sway the American public opinion in favor of the Palestinian civilians, who have been suffering the dire consequences of the Israeli occupation for the past 40 years, so that Americans would start protesting against Israeli support. The thing is it's not in the interest of many Muslim nations for which the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has been a very handy distraction to their own human right violations and rather autocratic ruling.
posted by surrendering monkey at 4:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by surrendering monkey at 4:03 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Myself, I'm fairly convinced that the Israel/Palestine situation will never be resolved til there's an arbitrated solution and a 3rd-party peacekeeper keeping them apart (eg UN or NATO).
Israel tried that a couple of times on their border with Lebanon and with Egypt. What happens is that the other side say "Get your guys out of the way: we're attacking." And the UN troops get out of the way because ... well, I don't really get that bit, but that's what they do. There are only two techniques that have actually worked, and the second one of these doesn't work for very long:
1) A peace settlement made with an actual government that controls its own borders. This has kept the peace on Israel's border since the Camp David talks.
2) Attacks in force whenever the situation gets unbearable. This seems to work for a while on the Lebanese border. It helps that Lebanon would probably like to make peace with Israel: it's the proxy forces of Iran and Syria that are responsible for the recent attacks. Before then it was largely ex-Jordanian Palestinians. The Lebanese government wasn't really capable of doing much about it in either case, so a peace agreement with Lebanon wasn't a solution.
So, my solution for the conflict is to have a Palestinian government that controls its own borders. And you would think that there would be one by now. My feeling is that you can't have a Palestinian government unless the major players feel that they have more to gain from a constitutional society than a lawless one.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:05 PM on March 19, 2009
Israel tried that a couple of times on their border with Lebanon and with Egypt. What happens is that the other side say "Get your guys out of the way: we're attacking." And the UN troops get out of the way because ... well, I don't really get that bit, but that's what they do. There are only two techniques that have actually worked, and the second one of these doesn't work for very long:
1) A peace settlement made with an actual government that controls its own borders. This has kept the peace on Israel's border since the Camp David talks.
2) Attacks in force whenever the situation gets unbearable. This seems to work for a while on the Lebanese border. It helps that Lebanon would probably like to make peace with Israel: it's the proxy forces of Iran and Syria that are responsible for the recent attacks. Before then it was largely ex-Jordanian Palestinians. The Lebanese government wasn't really capable of doing much about it in either case, so a peace agreement with Lebanon wasn't a solution.
So, my solution for the conflict is to have a Palestinian government that controls its own borders. And you would think that there would be one by now. My feeling is that you can't have a Palestinian government unless the major players feel that they have more to gain from a constitutional society than a lawless one.
posted by Joe in Australia at 4:05 PM on March 19, 2009
Krrrlson, your problem is this: (a) you continually make the same response to every criticism of the actions of IDF soldiers (even neutral mention of negative actions by them), and that response amounts to "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMASSSSSSS?????"; (b) you have a sneering, sniggering, whiny, downright nasty attitude to the "other members" of the site, which makes us question exactly why you want to be one of us.
So, what about Hamas? What do you actually want done to Hamas members? No, seriously, what? Or is that a "what should happen to aborting mothers" gobstopper question for you? Potential answer: maybe tried and prosecuted, and where appropriate, executed? Had I a magic wand of making that happen, I would gladly, joyfully, wave it for you. To hell with Hamas. I would be very happy to see all the mortar-bombers and suicide-bomber equippers and enablers and fundamentalist Wahhabis and various jihadis hung by the neck until dead.
The thing is, I want the IDF snipers who shoot schoolchildren, the "settlers" who intentionally provoke confrontation in Gaza by building "farmhouses" on top of other people's crops, the Israeli politicians who decide that it's somehow a good idea to deprive Palestinians of food and medical supplies, the squad leaders who encourage their men to destroy whole shantytown blocks because a rocket came out of there, those thug-soldiers who rape and beat Palestinians and destroy their little shacks and meagre belongings, I want them all hung too.
But either, let alone both, would take a magic wand. You seem to be unable to comprehend how that does not make me, and the many who agree with my position at least to some extent, a "supporter of Hamas". On the subject of magic wands, hey, if there were some way to completely and unilaterally defeat and destroy Hamas, I'd be up for that too. I honestly think that outcome would lead to peace. It's just that it's logistically unachievable at the relative equipment levels the sides have. It's an IDF outright win, a Hamas outright loss, but I don't believe that makes me a "supporter" of the IDF either.
I believe that the majority opinion here is that everyone who commits murder, regardless of motivation, be it at the behest of a superior officer, in the name of some bizarrely virulent and self-aggrandizing tribal religion thought up by people thousands of years gone, be it in vengeance for other murders, or just for the sheer bloody joy of it, should be dealt with. People shouldn't murder each other, no matter what their team colors. War is not an excuse for murder.
In other words, assuming you wanted Hamas members tried and prosecuted and stopped from harming Israelis and Palestinians, the majority of us agree with you but wish, oh how we wish, that you would recognize that fact and shut up about it. The actions of Hamas are relevant to a discussion about the actions of the IDF, for sure, but only insofar as they are relevant, which isn't very far. This is the core of your problem: you want to discuss Hamas instead of the IDF, all the time. You don't seem to grasp that the actions of the IDF are equally relevant to the actions of Hamas. You seem to want the IDF not discussed at all. At least, your actions weighing in on every relevant thread lead to that conclusion.
So here I am joining the chain of fools who attempt to answer your "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMASSSSS????". Honestly I have no illusions whatsoever that you will be satisfied and stop asking it. You didn't any of the previous times. Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAAAAAAASSSSS??!!!!", just as if none of those discussions had ever happened. That, in itself, is the clearest indication there is that you are not here to engage in discussion, you're here to vehemently push a singular point of view. This is so obvious, and so unsubtly and annoyingly done, that it puts people off your point of view entirely.
Get a clue or get lost.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:06 PM on March 19, 2009 [49 favorites]
So, what about Hamas? What do you actually want done to Hamas members? No, seriously, what? Or is that a "what should happen to aborting mothers" gobstopper question for you? Potential answer: maybe tried and prosecuted, and where appropriate, executed? Had I a magic wand of making that happen, I would gladly, joyfully, wave it for you. To hell with Hamas. I would be very happy to see all the mortar-bombers and suicide-bomber equippers and enablers and fundamentalist Wahhabis and various jihadis hung by the neck until dead.
The thing is, I want the IDF snipers who shoot schoolchildren, the "settlers" who intentionally provoke confrontation in Gaza by building "farmhouses" on top of other people's crops, the Israeli politicians who decide that it's somehow a good idea to deprive Palestinians of food and medical supplies, the squad leaders who encourage their men to destroy whole shantytown blocks because a rocket came out of there, those thug-soldiers who rape and beat Palestinians and destroy their little shacks and meagre belongings, I want them all hung too.
But either, let alone both, would take a magic wand. You seem to be unable to comprehend how that does not make me, and the many who agree with my position at least to some extent, a "supporter of Hamas". On the subject of magic wands, hey, if there were some way to completely and unilaterally defeat and destroy Hamas, I'd be up for that too. I honestly think that outcome would lead to peace. It's just that it's logistically unachievable at the relative equipment levels the sides have. It's an IDF outright win, a Hamas outright loss, but I don't believe that makes me a "supporter" of the IDF either.
I believe that the majority opinion here is that everyone who commits murder, regardless of motivation, be it at the behest of a superior officer, in the name of some bizarrely virulent and self-aggrandizing tribal religion thought up by people thousands of years gone, be it in vengeance for other murders, or just for the sheer bloody joy of it, should be dealt with. People shouldn't murder each other, no matter what their team colors. War is not an excuse for murder.
In other words, assuming you wanted Hamas members tried and prosecuted and stopped from harming Israelis and Palestinians, the majority of us agree with you but wish, oh how we wish, that you would recognize that fact and shut up about it. The actions of Hamas are relevant to a discussion about the actions of the IDF, for sure, but only insofar as they are relevant, which isn't very far. This is the core of your problem: you want to discuss Hamas instead of the IDF, all the time. You don't seem to grasp that the actions of the IDF are equally relevant to the actions of Hamas. You seem to want the IDF not discussed at all. At least, your actions weighing in on every relevant thread lead to that conclusion.
So here I am joining the chain of fools who attempt to answer your "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMASSSSS????". Honestly I have no illusions whatsoever that you will be satisfied and stop asking it. You didn't any of the previous times. Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAAAAAAASSSSS??!!!!", just as if none of those discussions had ever happened. That, in itself, is the clearest indication there is that you are not here to engage in discussion, you're here to vehemently push a singular point of view. This is so obvious, and so unsubtly and annoyingly done, that it puts people off your point of view entirely.
Get a clue or get lost.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 4:06 PM on March 19, 2009 [49 favorites]
> "Palestinians should renounce terrorism and engage only in peaceful protests."
> Do I win a prize?
Only after mikelieman gets a pony.
Seriously, as President Bell, how would you solve the problem?
posted by Artful Codger at 4:13 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
> Do I win a prize?
Only after mikelieman gets a pony.
Seriously, as President Bell, how would you solve the problem?
posted by Artful Codger at 4:13 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
You could add immensely to my estimate of your integrity if you were to acknowledge it, even as a point of controversy.
I already stated in this thread that I believe the Israeli invasion of Gaza was illegal, and that they committed war crimes. What more do you want?
And questioning my integrity when I express an opinion that's different than yours, well, that's pretty low. If you think there are some facts I should know about, that's great. It adds to the discussion. But to basically call me ignorant, then try to rub my nose in it, and then, to top it off try to bully me by shifting the focus to my supposed lack of integrity demonstrates your own lack of it.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:22 PM on March 19, 2009
I already stated in this thread that I believe the Israeli invasion of Gaza was illegal, and that they committed war crimes. What more do you want?
And questioning my integrity when I express an opinion that's different than yours, well, that's pretty low. If you think there are some facts I should know about, that's great. It adds to the discussion. But to basically call me ignorant, then try to rub my nose in it, and then, to top it off try to bully me by shifting the focus to my supposed lack of integrity demonstrates your own lack of it.
posted by KokuRyu at 4:22 PM on March 19, 2009
You folks want workable solutions? Here you go, in six phases (#3 is not PROFIT!!!):
1) Either Fatah manages to resonate with the Palestinian people and is elected back into power or Hamas declares a cease-fire, not necessarily renouncing their claim on the use of force, and begins shifting its emphasis toward its legitimate social services arm, building schools and technical institutes.
2) Israel loosens up the border and grants more work permits. Some jackass stages a suicide bombing in an Israeli cafe and Hamas condemns it, possibly even making arrests.
3) Israel begins earnestly dropping back to 1967 borders ala UN 242. Hamas recognizes Israel as a legitimate state. US recognizes Hamas as the voice of Palestine.
4) With diplomatic recognition, Hamas spends as much political capital as it can on arranging for itself a large amount of economic development aid. Israel is a chief donor.
5) Aid projects help raise up an actual economy inside of Palestine with jobs for Palestinians. The economy helps bolster the middle class and civil society. The Palestinian government becomes more progressive over time.
6) Israel, meanwhile, undergoes a slow, European-style demographic collapse and shrinks back to its UN 181 borders
6) PROFIT!!!!!!
Agreed, it gets much more pie-in-the-sky as it moves forward, but the plan is not altogether unfeasible. I have a feeling, though, that Netanyahu's generation will have to pass away before it comes to pass. Anyone on either side who fought in the Six Day War will be culturally unfit for this sort of detente.
posted by The White Hat at 4:25 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
1) Either Fatah manages to resonate with the Palestinian people and is elected back into power or Hamas declares a cease-fire, not necessarily renouncing their claim on the use of force, and begins shifting its emphasis toward its legitimate social services arm, building schools and technical institutes.
2) Israel loosens up the border and grants more work permits. Some jackass stages a suicide bombing in an Israeli cafe and Hamas condemns it, possibly even making arrests.
3) Israel begins earnestly dropping back to 1967 borders ala UN 242. Hamas recognizes Israel as a legitimate state. US recognizes Hamas as the voice of Palestine.
4) With diplomatic recognition, Hamas spends as much political capital as it can on arranging for itself a large amount of economic development aid. Israel is a chief donor.
5) Aid projects help raise up an actual economy inside of Palestine with jobs for Palestinians. The economy helps bolster the middle class and civil society. The Palestinian government becomes more progressive over time.
6) Israel, meanwhile, undergoes a slow, European-style demographic collapse and shrinks back to its UN 181 borders
6) PROFIT!!!!!!
Agreed, it gets much more pie-in-the-sky as it moves forward, but the plan is not altogether unfeasible. I have a feeling, though, that Netanyahu's generation will have to pass away before it comes to pass. Anyone on either side who fought in the Six Day War will be culturally unfit for this sort of detente.
posted by The White Hat at 4:25 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
White Hat - that plan or some variant of that, has been the conventional thinking for at least the last 20 years. Hasn't happened, probably not likely to.
Palestinians don't believe in this plan; they elected Hamas. Israel doesn't believe in this plan, they built settlements and a wall.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Palestinians don't believe in this plan; they elected Hamas. Israel doesn't believe in this plan, they built settlements and a wall.
posted by Artful Codger at 4:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Here's the thing: Israel will only come back to Palestine once Palestine forgets about Israel, stops calling, I don't know, whatever. And there's the rub.
posted by mullingitover at 5:02 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by mullingitover at 5:02 PM on March 19, 2009
Codger: Perhaps I wasn't clear in a couple places where I think the plan differs. Primarily, it doesn't require Hamas to say anything about renouncing terrorism. It just has to stop doing it. This is not as impossible as it sounds. They did it for about six months between June and August and were likely to continue had it not been for the escalation. So what does it matter if they posture and frame their politics in anti-Israeli rhetoric? It's an effective vent, and venting is the only reason Hamas got elected. The whole world is so hung up on this damned terrorist label that they lose all pragmatic sense. I recently had the opportunity to ask former SecState Madeline Albright about this issue, and she was firm in her belief that the US simply could not talk with Hamas until it renounced its terrorist ways. I think Ogden Nash put it best when he said "there's no difference between a monogamist who doesn't monog and a polygamist who doesn't polyg." The same could be said for Hamas' terrorism. If there's no difference between a terrorist state that doesn't engage in terrorism and a benign state, then what's the fuss?
Second, not enough plans stress the vital importance of Palestinian economic independence. For the last fifty years, Israel has been pretty much in the business of driving the Palestinian economy into the ground, keeping the workforce low-paid and unskilled. So long as unemployment in Gaza remains at 45%, the GDP per capita floats around that of Pakistan, and 80% of the workforce is engaged in the service industry, there will be no lasting peace.
posted by The White Hat at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Second, not enough plans stress the vital importance of Palestinian economic independence. For the last fifty years, Israel has been pretty much in the business of driving the Palestinian economy into the ground, keeping the workforce low-paid and unskilled. So long as unemployment in Gaza remains at 45%, the GDP per capita floats around that of Pakistan, and 80% of the workforce is engaged in the service industry, there will be no lasting peace.
posted by The White Hat at 5:11 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
This is a huge circle-jerk, and mindless one-sided repetitive posts like this one are bringing this site down. No one who posts here is going to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, although I have a lot more respect for those who are trying to have a conversation about that than I do for the wankers who want us all to witness their five minutes of hate. This is a blatant, pointless editorial post. Metafilter should be above this garbage.
posted by alexwoods at 5:16 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by alexwoods at 5:16 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
In other words, assuming you wanted Hamas members tried and prosecuted and stopped from harming Israelis and Palestinians, the majority of us agree with you
I'm not sure they do. Seriously. I think a lot of people look at Hamas' action and think the wanton launching of rockets is literally and honorably justified.
I really do think that about many people here.
Look, Hamas leaders in Gaza != George Washington at Valley Forge, for a variety of reasons, and not just because I think George Washington was a swell white guy.
Rockets, not radar-controlled missiles. Remember that. It's the same as throwing a grenade in the general direction of a shopping mall. You'll probably miss. You might kill someone completely heinous. You might kill a toddler. YMMV. But, oh what a variance!
Seriously, as President Bell, how would you solve the problem?
I'm a tough love guy, which means I won't ever be president. ;-)
Four-pronged, long-term approach:
* I'd start with stopping military assistance to Israel, but not because I don't like Israel. I'd stop military assistance because the Israeli economy is a real economy, and they can buy their own guns. But I'd offer to double-down on loosening economic restrictions (I like money), but only for meeting certain benchmarks about engaging with Palestinians as a show of good faith.
* Increase foreign aid to American-based NGOs. They can do whatever they like. Including helping poor Palestinian kids. Nudge, nudge.
* I'd refuse to diplomatically deal with any Palestinian leader that even had a whiff of corruption, which is why Arafat was such a joker for so long. Of course, I'd do that with everyone. "President of Swaziland making women dance for the honor to get gloriously raped by the President? Fuck you, too."
* I'd make it very, very, very hard for anyone to do business with the U.S. that's doing business with said corrupt leaders. Frozen assets. Expelled resident aliens. Great big official-looking State Department fuck-yous. Remember, I ended military assistance to Israel. Carrot, meet stick.
For all of this, I'd expect to be impeached in a matter of days. "Whaddya mean we can't buy oil from the Saudis???"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:27 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
I'm not sure they do. Seriously. I think a lot of people look at Hamas' action and think the wanton launching of rockets is literally and honorably justified.
I really do think that about many people here.
Look, Hamas leaders in Gaza != George Washington at Valley Forge, for a variety of reasons, and not just because I think George Washington was a swell white guy.
Rockets, not radar-controlled missiles. Remember that. It's the same as throwing a grenade in the general direction of a shopping mall. You'll probably miss. You might kill someone completely heinous. You might kill a toddler. YMMV. But, oh what a variance!
Seriously, as President Bell, how would you solve the problem?
I'm a tough love guy, which means I won't ever be president. ;-)
Four-pronged, long-term approach:
* I'd start with stopping military assistance to Israel, but not because I don't like Israel. I'd stop military assistance because the Israeli economy is a real economy, and they can buy their own guns. But I'd offer to double-down on loosening economic restrictions (I like money), but only for meeting certain benchmarks about engaging with Palestinians as a show of good faith.
* Increase foreign aid to American-based NGOs. They can do whatever they like. Including helping poor Palestinian kids. Nudge, nudge.
* I'd refuse to diplomatically deal with any Palestinian leader that even had a whiff of corruption, which is why Arafat was such a joker for so long. Of course, I'd do that with everyone. "President of Swaziland making women dance for the honor to get gloriously raped by the President? Fuck you, too."
* I'd make it very, very, very hard for anyone to do business with the U.S. that's doing business with said corrupt leaders. Frozen assets. Expelled resident aliens. Great big official-looking State Department fuck-yous. Remember, I ended military assistance to Israel. Carrot, meet stick.
For all of this, I'd expect to be impeached in a matter of days. "Whaddya mean we can't buy oil from the Saudis???"
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:27 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
alexwoods: Isn't there usually a big argument in Israel / Palestine posts? Can you have an argument in a circle jerk? Wouldn't it be rather dangerous and get messy?
The odd Israel Palestine post is often interesting here. What percentage of posts on MeFi is about this issue? Who forces you to read them much less comment and call people names in them?
It's interesting for non Americans to see that despite the way American politicians are almost of uniform opinion the American public is not.
posted by sien at 5:29 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
The odd Israel Palestine post is often interesting here. What percentage of posts on MeFi is about this issue? Who forces you to read them much less comment and call people names in them?
It's interesting for non Americans to see that despite the way American politicians are almost of uniform opinion the American public is not.
posted by sien at 5:29 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can you have an argument in a circle jerk?
Don't get any on me.
I won't.
You're pointing it me, you're going to get some on me.
Dude, I swear, I won't get any on you.
So stop pointing it at me!
Will you fucking shut up? I'm fucking trying to focus here!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:33 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Don't get any on me.
I won't.
You're pointing it me, you're going to get some on me.
Dude, I swear, I won't get any on you.
So stop pointing it at me!
Will you fucking shut up? I'm fucking trying to focus here!
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 5:33 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
I believe that the majority opinion here is that everyone who commits murder... should be dealt with... the majority of us agree with you but wish, oh how we wish, that you would recognize that fact and shut up about it.
Right. You just somehow choose to focus exclusively on one group. Forgive me if I do not immediately give you the benefit of the doubt after years of one-sided, exclusionary Israel bashing. It is also charming how you presume to speak for the entirety of Metafilter, both on its views of Hamas and on its views of me.
This is the core of your problem: you want to discuss Hamas instead of the IDF, all the time. You seem to want the IDF not discussed at all. Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAAAAAAASSSSS??!!!!", just as if none of those discussions had ever happened.
Would you care to link to some post-Gaza FPPs focusing on Hamas? Until such time as Metafilter is willing to start discussing Hamas, we really won't know if your baseless accusations have merit or if you're full of it, will we?
You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?... Really, a dismissive expletive is called for... you have a sneering, sniggering, whiny, downright nasty attitude to the "other members" of the site, which makes us question exactly why you want to be one of us... Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching... Get a clue or get lost.
Ladies and gentleman, Metafilter's thoughtful, encouraging reaction to a dissenting opinion. You may now resume your Two Minutes Hate.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:14 PM on March 19, 2009
Right. You just somehow choose to focus exclusively on one group. Forgive me if I do not immediately give you the benefit of the doubt after years of one-sided, exclusionary Israel bashing. It is also charming how you presume to speak for the entirety of Metafilter, both on its views of Hamas and on its views of me.
This is the core of your problem: you want to discuss Hamas instead of the IDF, all the time. You seem to want the IDF not discussed at all. Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAAAAAAASSSSS??!!!!", just as if none of those discussions had ever happened.
Would you care to link to some post-Gaza FPPs focusing on Hamas? Until such time as Metafilter is willing to start discussing Hamas, we really won't know if your baseless accusations have merit or if you're full of it, will we?
You realize that no one cares what you have to say about these issues, right?... Really, a dismissive expletive is called for... you have a sneering, sniggering, whiny, downright nasty attitude to the "other members" of the site, which makes us question exactly why you want to be one of us... Look, here's you now, jumping up and down, screeching... Get a clue or get lost.
Ladies and gentleman, Metafilter's thoughtful, encouraging reaction to a dissenting opinion. You may now resume your Two Minutes Hate.
posted by Krrrlson at 6:14 PM on March 19, 2009
alexwoods: I've already responded to this kind of complaint. Take it to MeTa if you must.
posted by homunculus at 6:19 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by homunculus at 6:19 PM on March 19, 2009
Climb off the cross, Krrrlson, it's reserved for people who are actually engaged in a thread rather than just shitting on it.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:27 PM on March 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:27 PM on March 19, 2009 [3 favorites]
It appears Palestinian's lives are worth about that of a street dog. Surely this is a sign that something is deeply and badly wrong with the way Israel is dealing with its Palestine problem.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by five fresh fish at 6:32 PM on March 19, 2009
Climb off the cross, Krrrlson, it's reserved for people who are actually engaged in a thread rather than just shitting on it.
Actively engaged = promoting your point of view?
posted by Krrrlson at 7:20 PM on March 19, 2009
Actively engaged = promoting your point of view?
posted by Krrrlson at 7:20 PM on March 19, 2009
Krrrlson You just somehow choose to focus exclusively on one group.
Absurdly unselfconscious hypocrisy, thy name is Krrrlson.
Would you care to link to some post-Gaza FPPs focusing on Hamas? Until such time as Metafilter is willing to start discussing Hamas, we really won't know if your baseless accusations have merit or if you're full of it, will we?
You misunderstand my accusation. I accuse you of posting what amounts to "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAASSSSS????" over and over again, to which I note that you just provided yet another example.
And if you care to look upthread, people have in fact, as usual, duly discussed the actions of Hamas for you, which you have, as usual, duly ignored except for whinging about how put-upon you are and repeating "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAASSSS????" again.
Ladies and gentleman, Metafilter's thoughtful, encouraging reaction to a dissenting opinion. You may now resume your Two Minutes Hate.
You're not a "dissenting opinion", you're a troll. Dissent implies thought, which is a two-way process. You just say stuff, which is a one-way process.
I don't have much to offer Israel/Palestine debate, personally; I find the whole matter an appalling demonstration of the "dollar auction" principle with human lives as the currency, I find both sides (and peripheral "allies" and catspaw-wielders) to be very, very wrong, and find deciding who is "more" wrong--apparently the object of your MetaFilter existence--to be a pointless, degrading, distracting, futile exercise.
But I'm happy to bring my flamethrower to toast a much-deserving troll.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:29 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
Absurdly unselfconscious hypocrisy, thy name is Krrrlson.
Would you care to link to some post-Gaza FPPs focusing on Hamas? Until such time as Metafilter is willing to start discussing Hamas, we really won't know if your baseless accusations have merit or if you're full of it, will we?
You misunderstand my accusation. I accuse you of posting what amounts to "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAAASSSSS????" over and over again, to which I note that you just provided yet another example.
And if you care to look upthread, people have in fact, as usual, duly discussed the actions of Hamas for you, which you have, as usual, duly ignored except for whinging about how put-upon you are and repeating "BUT WHAT ABOUT HAMAAAASSSS????" again.
Ladies and gentleman, Metafilter's thoughtful, encouraging reaction to a dissenting opinion. You may now resume your Two Minutes Hate.
You're not a "dissenting opinion", you're a troll. Dissent implies thought, which is a two-way process. You just say stuff, which is a one-way process.
I don't have much to offer Israel/Palestine debate, personally; I find the whole matter an appalling demonstration of the "dollar auction" principle with human lives as the currency, I find both sides (and peripheral "allies" and catspaw-wielders) to be very, very wrong, and find deciding who is "more" wrong--apparently the object of your MetaFilter existence--to be a pointless, degrading, distracting, futile exercise.
But I'm happy to bring my flamethrower to toast a much-deserving troll.
posted by aeschenkarnos at 7:29 PM on March 19, 2009 [4 favorites]
Phalese wrote: Semite also refers to the Palestinians
No, it doesn't; certainly not when in the compound form "antisemitism". Similarly, "guinea pigs" don't come from Guinea and they're not pigs. Isn't English funny!
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:36 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
No, it doesn't; certainly not when in the compound form "antisemitism". Similarly, "guinea pigs" don't come from Guinea and they're not pigs. Isn't English funny!
posted by Joe in Australia at 7:36 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
And questioning my integrity when I express an opinion that's different than yours, well, that's pretty low. If you think there are some facts I should know about, that's great. It adds to the discussion. But to basically call me ignorant, then try to rub my nose in it, and then, to top it off try to bully me by shifting the focus to my supposed lack of integrity demonstrates your own lack of it.
I have to admit I am not happy with my comment and was reluctant to read what came after because of it.
I apologize. I think you do have integrity, and that I displayed a lack of it here, just as you say. I appreciate your willingness to throw it back in my face and give me this chance to see where I went wrong.
I did think you knew (what I consider to be) the facts and were choosing to ignore them in order to make the rhetorical position you had chosen to take stronger. I have paid enough attention to your posts to have known better-- you are generally passionate and straightforward, and say what you think without manipulation, as far as I can see-- but I blinded myself to that in order to give my own comment what I thought would be a sharper rhetorical edge.
posted by jamjam at 8:09 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
I have to admit I am not happy with my comment and was reluctant to read what came after because of it.
I apologize. I think you do have integrity, and that I displayed a lack of it here, just as you say. I appreciate your willingness to throw it back in my face and give me this chance to see where I went wrong.
I did think you knew (what I consider to be) the facts and were choosing to ignore them in order to make the rhetorical position you had chosen to take stronger. I have paid enough attention to your posts to have known better-- you are generally passionate and straightforward, and say what you think without manipulation, as far as I can see-- but I blinded myself to that in order to give my own comment what I thought would be a sharper rhetorical edge.
posted by jamjam at 8:09 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
Aw shucks... Thanks... But what a trainwreck thread.
posted by KokuRyu at 8:41 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by KokuRyu at 8:41 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
On the topic of solutions:
Personally, I believe that constructive conversations like I have seen on MetaFilter, despite how heated they can get, are a great start. What would be really great though is if we could have such a forum on national television/radio/something, seeing the US provides millions of tax dollars of 'aid' to the nation.
That will likely not happen unless there is a strong enough counter lobby set up against the pro-Israel 'lobby'/force already existing. In both cases the disclaimer like that of this commenter at the end of his post would be in order.
Reasoning behind this idea is that I do not see any radical shifts at the scene of the crimes. I do however see potential where there is still relative room to speak. Already that is somewhat taking place yet I feel it needs to accelerate and fast with the Hampshire Divestment and sporadic protests here and there as a start.
So, to the point: we need to get a lot of people other than MeFites talking, particularly the common person. We need to get them interested in this issue, we need to get them curious, thus they might be tempted to do some good research on the issue, and in the process advising them on truly biased sources from both extremes (pro-Israel on one, purely antisemetic sludge on the other) aiming them towards Aristotle's mean of the vices. Frankly it is a lack of popular interest and domestic activism that has kept the US from taking a solid stance on the issue, and when I say solid I mean well rounded, educated, and calculated stance.
Get them talking, get them informed, and get them thinking like they were Star Wars/Star Trek/[insert sci-fi series here] OR American Idol geeks on the issue. And then be sure to let them know the mailing address of their congress critters at DC and other potential sources of political influence. Hopefully, a shift in US politics can come about (this is a very loose plan laid out here. Key theme: grassroots with a touch of Obama spirit).
All this happens at the same time we keep down (and hopefully dead) pure antisemetic hate and continue to remember that yes, there were some horrific things done to Jews prior to and during the Holocaust. Yet due to that memory, we need to be like: "look, you've been through shit, why do you (Pro-Israel person, seeing there are Anti-Israel Jews out there as well) now want to put more people through that shit? You will just make things worse, and here's how..."
So we get a US movement going, a government shift here, possibly (likely) an international governing shift in response, and there we go: A likely start to a resolution of this issue. I focus on the US position because my interpretation of history pretty much says once the US got in this mess, the future was pretty much set as it is seen today, and reversing this seems to be a light of hope out of very few. How it plays out from my plan I could not tell you. I am not a fan of this X-State solution BS, sounds like were trying to sell peace in a package. Good Luck with that. What would actually work is going to take more time unfortunately to reveal itself.
That's all. Thanks for reading.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 9:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
Personally, I believe that constructive conversations like I have seen on MetaFilter, despite how heated they can get, are a great start. What would be really great though is if we could have such a forum on national television/radio/something, seeing the US provides millions of tax dollars of 'aid' to the nation.
That will likely not happen unless there is a strong enough counter lobby set up against the pro-Israel 'lobby'/force already existing. In both cases the disclaimer like that of this commenter at the end of his post would be in order.
Reasoning behind this idea is that I do not see any radical shifts at the scene of the crimes. I do however see potential where there is still relative room to speak. Already that is somewhat taking place yet I feel it needs to accelerate and fast with the Hampshire Divestment and sporadic protests here and there as a start.
So, to the point: we need to get a lot of people other than MeFites talking, particularly the common person. We need to get them interested in this issue, we need to get them curious, thus they might be tempted to do some good research on the issue, and in the process advising them on truly biased sources from both extremes (pro-Israel on one, purely antisemetic sludge on the other) aiming them towards Aristotle's mean of the vices. Frankly it is a lack of popular interest and domestic activism that has kept the US from taking a solid stance on the issue, and when I say solid I mean well rounded, educated, and calculated stance.
Get them talking, get them informed, and get them thinking like they were Star Wars/Star Trek/[insert sci-fi series here] OR American Idol geeks on the issue. And then be sure to let them know the mailing address of their congress critters at DC and other potential sources of political influence. Hopefully, a shift in US politics can come about (this is a very loose plan laid out here. Key theme: grassroots with a touch of Obama spirit).
All this happens at the same time we keep down (and hopefully dead) pure antisemetic hate and continue to remember that yes, there were some horrific things done to Jews prior to and during the Holocaust. Yet due to that memory, we need to be like: "look, you've been through shit, why do you (Pro-Israel person, seeing there are Anti-Israel Jews out there as well) now want to put more people through that shit? You will just make things worse, and here's how..."
So we get a US movement going, a government shift here, possibly (likely) an international governing shift in response, and there we go: A likely start to a resolution of this issue. I focus on the US position because my interpretation of history pretty much says once the US got in this mess, the future was pretty much set as it is seen today, and reversing this seems to be a light of hope out of very few. How it plays out from my plan I could not tell you. I am not a fan of this X-State solution BS, sounds like were trying to sell peace in a package. Good Luck with that. What would actually work is going to take more time unfortunately to reveal itself.
That's all. Thanks for reading.
posted by JoeXIII007 at 9:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [1 favorite]
That went about as well as any I/P thread I've ever seen, anywhere.
posted by cj_ at 9:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 9:34 PM on March 19, 2009 [2 favorites]
You know who else wanted to "kill everyone there?"
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:33 PM on March 19, 2009
posted by ZenMasterThis at 11:33 PM on March 19, 2009
And questioning my integrity when I express an opinion that's different than yours, well, that's pretty low.
Let's see your idea of polite dialogue:
and skirt just outside the margins of outright antisemitism.
You know, that's pretty rich coming from someone who throws around implications a bunch of other people are Jew-hating racists.
Fucking hypocrite.
I think a lot of people look at Hamas' action and think the wanton launching of rockets is literally and honorably justified.
You must be reading a differnent site to me.
It is worth noting, though, that pretty much the only Arab nations to get land back from Israeli invasions and not to suffer repeats of the same are the ones that were remarkably effective in the 1973 war. Egypt didn't get land back because israel had an attack of the nice - it got land back because it demonstrated it could represent a real, credible threat to the existence of Israel. Compare and contrast with Lebanon. It creates a pretty peverse incentive, no?
posted by rodgerd at 11:41 PM on March 19, 2009
Let's see your idea of polite dialogue:
and skirt just outside the margins of outright antisemitism.
You know, that's pretty rich coming from someone who throws around implications a bunch of other people are Jew-hating racists.
Fucking hypocrite.
I think a lot of people look at Hamas' action and think the wanton launching of rockets is literally and honorably justified.
You must be reading a differnent site to me.
It is worth noting, though, that pretty much the only Arab nations to get land back from Israeli invasions and not to suffer repeats of the same are the ones that were remarkably effective in the 1973 war. Egypt didn't get land back because israel had an attack of the nice - it got land back because it demonstrated it could represent a real, credible threat to the existence of Israel. Compare and contrast with Lebanon. It creates a pretty peverse incentive, no?
posted by rodgerd at 11:41 PM on March 19, 2009
Actively engaged = promoting your point of view?
No, actively engaged means actually participating in discussion. You're doing nothing of the sort, and have done nothing but spout your usual accusations of racism at everyone who disagrees that Hamas are subhuman animals.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:21 AM on March 20, 2009
No, actively engaged means actually participating in discussion. You're doing nothing of the sort, and have done nothing but spout your usual accusations of racism at everyone who disagrees that Hamas are subhuman animals.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:21 AM on March 20, 2009
Report on Hamas "rules of engagement" is forthcoming?
So the IDF's goal is to not be as bad as Hamas. First, that's a lame goal. Second, they can't even meet that very low bar.
posted by chunking express at 8:24 AM on March 20, 2009
So the IDF's goal is to not be as bad as Hamas. First, that's a lame goal. Second, they can't even meet that very low bar.
posted by chunking express at 8:24 AM on March 20, 2009
Fuck, why didn't I read who posted that comment? Krrrlson you're a fucking parody of yourself. Christ.
posted by chunking express at 8:26 AM on March 20, 2009
posted by chunking express at 8:26 AM on March 20, 2009
Borderline antisemitism.
Remember this, folks. When people talk about IDF soldiers themselves admitting abuses, it's antisemitism. The only way to not be an antisemite is to actually ignore what these soldiers have to say, just like the only way to be a patriot is to ignore any reports of torture, illegal wiretapping, rendition, and otherhuman rights abuses necessary acts by your own government.
Here's a thought. Whenever there's a thread containing some piece of news about this conflict, people discuss the piece of news rather than checking their I/P membership card first so they can trot out their predefined answer to any and all future events in the conflict?
And a tip for those who would decry yet another identical thread -- when you say this is why we can't have nice things, go ahead and add an arrow pointing to your own comment, because you're not helping.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:11 AM on March 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
Remember this, folks. When people talk about IDF soldiers themselves admitting abuses, it's antisemitism. The only way to not be an antisemite is to actually ignore what these soldiers have to say, just like the only way to be a patriot is to ignore any reports of torture, illegal wiretapping, rendition, and other
Here's a thought. Whenever there's a thread containing some piece of news about this conflict, people discuss the piece of news rather than checking their I/P membership card first so they can trot out their predefined answer to any and all future events in the conflict?
And a tip for those who would decry yet another identical thread -- when you say this is why we can't have nice things, go ahead and add an arrow pointing to your own comment, because you're not helping.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:11 AM on March 20, 2009 [4 favorites]
It's like Sarah Silverman said, who can tell the difference, Israelis vs. Palestinians...they're all brown people.
What?
posted by saysthis at 10:15 AM on March 20, 2009
What?
posted by saysthis at 10:15 AM on March 20, 2009
Wow, I was just about to repost something I had written in the just-deleted thread about Israeli soldiers and offensive t-shirts, but while glancing over what was written earlier, decided that this is one thread disaster I'd rather not be a part of. Sometimes these I/P threads make me want to rescind my mefi membership.
posted by incessant at 1:17 PM on March 20, 2009
posted by incessant at 1:17 PM on March 20, 2009
You're right. Totally different situation. I remember when I was young and used to take my hand and put them RIGHT NEXT to my sibling's face...but not touching it. Hey...I wasn't touching, so its all good!
You can take it that way if you want to, but if you're going to get outraged about something at least try to be accurate.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:59 PM on March 20, 2009
You can take it that way if you want to, but if you're going to get outraged about something at least try to be accurate.
posted by KokuRyu at 1:59 PM on March 20, 2009
UN special rapporteur says Israel's 22-day offensive "would seem to constitute a war crime".
posted by paisley henosis at 3:09 PM on March 20, 2009
posted by paisley henosis at 3:09 PM on March 20, 2009
Is Israel's Army Waging a Jewish Jihad?
posted by adamvasco at 4:26 AM on March 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by adamvasco at 4:26 AM on March 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
Can we not use "Jihad" as a generic term for "Holy War"? It's not like Holy War originated with Islam, or like every other religion doesn't engage in them.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:44 AM on March 21, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:44 AM on March 21, 2009
Israeli soldiers say army rabbis framed Gaza as religious war
posted by homunculus at 11:22 AM on March 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by homunculus at 11:22 AM on March 21, 2009 [1 favorite]
A Religious War in Israel’s Army; the clash between secular liberals and religious nationalists for control over the army and society. Another informative article from Ethan Bronner for the NYT.
posted by adamvasco at 2:08 AM on March 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by adamvasco at 2:08 AM on March 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
'IDF troops used 11-year-old boy as human shield in Gaza'
posted by homunculus at 9:25 AM on March 23, 2009
posted by homunculus at 9:25 AM on March 23, 2009
Posting those links is antisemitic.
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:44 PM on March 23, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 3:44 PM on March 23, 2009
Which says an interesting thing about facts or reality, if those links are pointing to something true.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:37 PM on March 23, 2009
posted by five fresh fish at 6:37 PM on March 23, 2009
(Good god, I hope you dont' think I'm serious.)
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:10 PM on March 23, 2009
posted by Pope Guilty at 9:10 PM on March 23, 2009
Lieberman and Wiping Countries off the face of the Map
posted by homunculus at 2:14 PM on April 2, 2009
posted by homunculus at 2:14 PM on April 2, 2009
Obama team readying for confrontation with Netanyahu
posted by homunculus at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2009
posted by homunculus at 11:19 AM on April 8, 2009
« Older Grandmas are calorie-dense foods | It's not about witches. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Krrrlson at 1:47 PM on March 19, 2009 [6 favorites]