Israel weighs response to attacks

August 4, 2002 9:46 PM

Israel weighs response to attacks after the strike on the hamas leader and the collateral damage caused in that attack - a friend of mine and i discussed that it seemed like the people who should be most upset were the relatives and friends of the as of yet undead/injured in the next retaliatory attack... when is the senselessness of the cycle of violence going become clear?
posted by specialk420 (20 comments total)

Sharon: "Ok, who's in favour of a retaliatory strike on the West Bank for the last bus bombing, raise your hand. [raises hand] Hmmm. Let's see, 12 million to one.... I WIIIINNN!!!!!"
posted by timyang at 11:40 PM on August 4, 2002

when is the senselessness of the cycle of violence going become clear?

Look, I'm going to assume you earnestly believe this - but for someone to make a totally dispassionate decision in a case like this is not only unbelievable -- it just ain't human. Does Israel have the higher moral burden to not target civilians? Yes. Does Israel have a right to defend itself against terrorists? Yes.
posted by owillis at 12:51 AM on August 5, 2002

"The bombing flew in the face of increased military action in the West Bank, which Israel said was to deter future attacks."

Much of this article can indeed get one thinking about cycles of violence, how nonsensical they are, and why the participating sides seemingly fail to see the futility of blowing more people up.

I am gratified by the inordinate number of passive verbs and what I would call sanitary words used to describe killing & violence in this article, though. One could argue that they are just a mechanism for masking the true horror of what's happening (and it would be hard to argue that they don't do that), but I think they also hint at how unpalatable the quoted speakers and the writer find this topic. Just to talk about it in rational terms requires a special language.
posted by Bixby23 at 2:08 AM on August 5, 2002

I pass.
posted by Postroad at 3:40 AM on August 5, 2002

what postroad said.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:27 AM on August 5, 2002

what sgt.serenity said.
posted by adampsyche at 5:10 AM on August 5, 2002

History shows that 'never' would be the most likely answer, unfortunately. In other words, what adampsyche said.
posted by ninthart at 5:17 AM on August 5, 2002

well I don´t pass.


I think that Sharon's endgame has only ever had one aim: the eradication of not only the palestinian state, but also the palestinian people. I think that he sees the damage that the suicide attacks of the palestinian freedom fighters cause to his own people as acceptable if he achieves his goal in the end.

And yes one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.
posted by sic at 5:22 AM on August 5, 2002

what adampsyche said.
posted by crunchland at 5:23 AM on August 5, 2002

I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. That's the only way to be sure.
posted by timyang at 8:49 AM on August 5, 2002

What sic said.
posted by thirteen at 10:03 AM on August 5, 2002

i highly recommend last weeks program of "This american life" - www.thislife.org . not yet posted via real audio but worth a listen when it is. the vitrolic statements by the 15 year jewish settler from the US are startling. apologies for the poor syntax in the FPP.
posted by specialk420 at 11:02 AM on August 5, 2002

It's a couple more Israelis out of the vey.
posted by Perigee at 11:17 AM on August 5, 2002

I think the Israelis are on the right course. It may just take some time before it proves effective. Take out a dozen or more Hamas leaders; let Arafat die of natural causes, and things will simmer down. You have to remember that Israel, from the time of Oslo, until about 6 months ago, was acting as if the Palestinians were the Swiss or Belgians. The munitions and explosives which got into the territories were, obviously vast in quantity.
So lets give it some time.
posted by ParisParamus at 11:27 AM on August 5, 2002

Killing begets killing. No offense, but "duh" on this one to any student of history (even a casual one like me).

When the last people willing to kill die off, then and only then will there be peace.

Unless they by some miracle learn their lessons before then... (don't hold your breath).

I feel sorry for the Palestinians. They're basically backed into a corner where they have nothing to lose. It's not really that surprising that their tactics are so vicious and bloody, considering that.

Few entities are as dangerous as those which have nothing left to lose.
posted by beth at 11:47 AM on August 5, 2002 [1 favorite]

So lets give it some time.

So all you are saying, is give war a chance?

[runs & hides]
posted by inpHilltr8r at 12:01 PM on August 5, 2002

Yes. Give war a chance. (Also, John Lennon was a musical genius, but a political dick.)
posted by ParisParamus at 12:03 PM on August 5, 2002

what timyang said.
posted by black8 at 12:40 PM on August 5, 2002

Define victory as peace. Confront an enemy that doesn't want you to have victory under any circumstances. Hilarity ensues.

Define victory as the return of lands the other side is living on. Confront an enemy that doesn't want you to have victory under any circumstances. Hilarity ensues.

Post to Metafilter about Israel / Palestine. Paris posts. ...
posted by vbfg at 1:30 PM on August 5, 2002

We now have peace with Japan. And Germany. We also have peace in the Bronx (largely). Israel sort of has peace with Egypt. And Jordan.

Nice Haiku, by the way.
posted by ParisParamus at 1:34 PM on August 5, 2002