Unreserved Apology

March 16, 2009 9:56 AM

Unreserved Apology

I recently posted an FFP which had a leading link to a page by Mark Weber whose name was not familiar to me. I have been informed Weber is a holocast denier. I was unaware of this and apologise profusely. The only thing I would like to send to his websites are a flamethrower and a bucket of shit. The post was rightfully nuked. The rest of the post was not in any way about holocast denial it was about the power of the lobby by foreign interests on US foreign policy. Again, my apologies.

posted by adamvasco to Etiquette/Policy at 9:56 AM (90 comments total)

You could probably re-do the post without the objectionable link.
posted by DU at 9:58 AM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

Is he hanging you out the window? You can tell us.
posted by jonmc at 9:59 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

See what happens you piss off Rush?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:00 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

I did something like this once. I don't think is was a holocast denier, but I linked to some hack. It totally derailed what could maybe have been a decent post. I forget if mine survived and don't really care. I put the link in there to pad the links a bit and to try to give the other side of an issue. I didn't realize I was picking someone that was a hack. Oh well, live and learn.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:01 AM on March 16, 2009

What.

Is this some future mending device we're apologizing about? Funk that noise, I'll stick with the good old plaster kind you can write on with a sharpie.
posted by carsonb at 10:06 AM on March 16, 2009

"The rest of the post was not in any way about holocast denial it was about the power of the lobby by foreign Jewish interests on US foreign policy."

Fixed that for you.
posted by KokuRyu at 10:12 AM on March 16, 2009

I deny that this post ever existed. It's a plot to take over the favorites-banking system.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:13 AM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

Mark Weber is a Holocaust denier? Well, now I suppose I've got to go buy a new barbecue grill.
posted by box at 10:21 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

You know who else denied the Holocaust?
posted by Joe Beese at 10:22 AM on March 16, 2009

cortex?
posted by gman at 10:24 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

The rest of the post was not in any way about holocast denial it was about the power of the lobby by foreign interests on US foreign policy.

And this is why you focused on the "Jewish" -- not Israeli -- lobby and not on Freeman's puppetmasters in Saudi Arabia and China? Holocaust denial is not the only form of antisemitism.
posted by Krrrlson at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2009

Mark Weber is a Holocaust denier? Well, now I suppose I've got to go buy a new barbecue grill.

something something two in the front, two in the back something something in the backyard grill

Or something.
posted by backseatpilot at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2009

Thanks for the apology, AV.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2009

You know who else denied the Holocaust?

Ichabod Crane?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:25 AM on March 16, 2009

Holocaust deniers like Weber would get more market share if instead of idiotic flat denials, they railed against more substantive issues like the monopoly on sympathy that Jews seem to have cornered and the abuses that they've been able to justify because of it.
posted by Burhanistan at 10:31 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

The only thing I would like to send to his websites are a flamethrower and a bucket of shit.

adamvasco has a dream ...

...

"FedEx brought you another package."

"Yeah, what is it this time?"

"Looks like ... well ... well, it looks like a bucket of shit."

"Goddam Metafilter chuckle-hounds. Put it next to that weird machine thingy that was delivered yesterday. The thing with the hose, tanks and valves."

"Ever figure out what that thing is?"

"No idea. You?"

"Nope. Here, stand next to this here open flame so we can see what we're doing. OK, you hold that end, and I'll hold this end, and on the count of three..."
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:33 AM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

Man, I just don't get holocaust deniers. I mean, there are political views that I disagree with, but I can intellectually understand how that person arrived at their mentality, and often can see why they have the emotions that make them feel so strongly about an issue. But this? I don't get it. I even read the Explainer article for crying out loud.

Metafilter: The thing with the hose, tanks and valves
posted by niles at 10:49 AM on March 16, 2009

I wouldn't worry about it; I made the same mistake here. Go fuck yourselves, ihr.org!
posted by mattdidthat at 10:50 AM on March 16, 2009

Holocaust denial is not the only form of antisemitism.

Blindly attacking anyone who dares to question Israel's actions is not the only form of moral bankruptcy.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:52 AM on March 16, 2009 [19 favorites]

Eating popcorn is not the only way to enjoy an Internet fight.
There's also Mike & Ike's!
posted by inigo2 at 11:04 AM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

Apart from being morally bankrupt, you'd also have to be kinda stupid to attack people if you were blind.

Unless, of course, you were Rutger Hauer in Blind Fury - then you'd kick ass.
posted by UbuRoivas at 11:05 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

Damn - sorry, adamvasco I didn't look at Meta before doing up my post. I should have given you time to redo (or at least MeMailed you to ask permission to re-do).
posted by cimbrog at 11:06 AM on March 16, 2009

Here's the structure:

1. Comment about Israel.
2. Concerns about antisemitism.
3. Complains that any criticism of Israel are immediately dismissed as antisemitism.
4. Shrillness, screeching, and furious invective.

I've done it in the past, and am sick of it, so will recuse myself if I sense I am falling into the pattern. I would humbly invite anybody who likewise falls into this pattern to steer clear of discussions about Israel, because I suspect we are a big part of the proble,.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:06 AM on March 16, 2009 [11 favorites]

m.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:07 AM on March 16, 2009

FYI there's a new post on the same topic over on the other side.
posted by Mister_A at 11:11 AM on March 16, 2009

See what happens you piss off Rush?

18 minute Neal Peart drum solo?
posted by drjimmy11 at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2009 [20 favorites]

What he said.
posted by Mister_A at 11:12 AM on March 16, 2009

Holocaust deniers like Weber would get more market share if instead of idiotic flat denials, they railed against more substantive issues like the monopoly on sympathy that Jews seem to have cornered and the abuses that they've been able to justify because of it.

wh... what?
posted by shmegegge at 11:18 AM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

Apart from being morally bankrupt, you'd also have to be kinda stupid to attack people if you were blind.

One word: Zatoichi.
posted by Astro Zombie at 11:24 AM on March 16, 2009 [12 favorites]

cimbrog - no apology needed. I fucked up, pure and simple. I can't FPP for 24 hours anyway and your post is adequate and up there. I don't claim ownership of my posts, all the links are freely available.
posted by adamvasco at 11:29 AM on March 16, 2009

I've never heard cortex deny that he's a holocaust denier, is all I'm saying.
posted by Kwine at 11:32 AM on March 16, 2009

MetaFilter: we are a big part of the proble,.
posted by DU at 11:33 AM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

If I did that it'd blow my cover as a deep-cover Zionist double agent, Kwine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:34 AM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

I deny the holocene. People just use it as an excuse cuz they don't want to be associated with the pleistocene.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:44 AM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

[...] substantive issues like the monopoly on sympathy that Jews seem to have cornered and the abuses that they've been able to justify because of it.

You know, as an American Jew I'm *ALWAYS* using my monopoly on sympathy to justify my many abuses. My elderly grandparents are the same way. I'm glad somebody finally had the intelligence and bravery to call us on it.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:13 PM on March 16, 2009 [11 favorites]

I'm a holoprosencephaly denier.
posted by DU at 12:13 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm a hologram denier. Al on Quantum Leap was a bluescreen effect, and I have proof.
posted by Spatch at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

One side is crawling with anti-semites, the other is crawling with neocon freepers. The whole debate is poisoned before it begins, as reasonable people don't even realize they're taking unreasonable positions.

Until this dynamic changes, I don't think Israel/Palestine conflict FPPs are a very good idea.
posted by Slap*Happy at 12:19 PM on March 16, 2009

You forgot self-loathers.
posted by gman at 12:22 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

You know, as an American Jew I'm *ALWAYS* using my monopoly on sympathy

I don't mean to be argumentative, but I must say as a Canadian Jew I'm always also using my my monopoly on sympathy. It's really more of an oligopoly... a "cabal", if you will.
posted by ~ at 12:23 PM on March 16, 2009

We let Canadians in now? Someone must have changed the Protocols while I wasn't paying attention.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:24 PM on March 16, 2009

Yes, yes, you're still using the older protocols of zion.
posted by ~ at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2009

If I wasn't half-Jewish I'd get twice as much shit around here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:26 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Half-what? You know you're only in the club if...
posted by gman at 12:31 PM on March 16, 2009

Yes, yes, you're still using the older protocols of zion.

You wouldn't perhaps mean the elder Protocols, would you?

Actually, after doing a bit of research, it turns out that you're right. They retired.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:33 PM on March 16, 2009

Blindly attacking anyone who dares to question Israel's actions is not the only form of moral bankruptcy.

That's why the post spoke about the "Jewish" lobby right? Antisemites who hide behind the fig leaf of "criticizing Israel" to avoid well-deserved criticism are even more repugnant than your average out-of-the-closet antisemites.
posted by Krrrlson at 12:36 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

I guess I just don't understand how anyone could think the article was cool, even if it was by Eli Wiesel instead of a neo-Nazi goosestepper. It wasn't just about Israel, it was a series of factoids about the supposed Jewish control of all aspects of U.S. society.
posted by Kirklander at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2009 [5 favorites]

Yes, yes, you're still using the older protocols of zion.

Aren't the new protocols are just a Proposed Standard RFC?
posted by juv3nal at 12:43 PM on March 16, 2009 [2 favorites]

I dig the scare quotes on "Jewish" lobby. They create a suitable air of menace. Yet signify nothing. There are lobbies that advocate for Jewish interests. Particularly with regard to Israel. They're pretty powerful too. What should we call them to avoid charges of antisemitism? I get that there are people who believe in a broad Jewish conspiracy and they are crazy, but there are also people who believe that there is an ordinary organization of people, primarily Jewish, who have views on the United State's policy with regard to Israel and spend money and energy communicating their desires in a way very similar to the ways to the way that steel manufacturers agitate for policy with regard to steel. I get that conflating the too is an effective ad hominem tactic but it doesn't seem too fair.
posted by I Foody at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Don't worry, adamvasco, I once posted to the site of a confederate apologist. The site itself was interesting but wasn't diligent about checking out the guy's other stuff. It can happen to everyone.
posted by Kattullus at 12:56 PM on March 16, 2009

Yikes! My apologies to juv3nal and Afroblanco. Canadians are included in the draft standard, and so my confusion. Back to the corrupting transmission and control protocols for me.
posted by ~ at 12:57 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Holocaust deniers like Weber would get more market share if instead of idiotic flat denials, they railed against more substantive issues like the monopoly on sympathy that Jews seem to have cornered and the abuses that they've been able to justify because of it.

wh... what?
posted by shmegegge at 1:18 PM on March 16 [1 favorite +] [!]

Wha wha whibble?
posted by shakespeherian at 1:01 PM on March 16, 2009

There are lobbies that advocate for Jewish interests. Particularly with regard to Israel. They're pretty powerful too. What should we call them to avoid charges of antisemitism?

umm, well, if their primary focus is Israel, you could call them Israel lobbies. You know, like AIPAC? I mean, they do have Israel in the name.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:06 PM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

As a Jew, I'm not exactly sure how AIPAC's lobbying in favor of blowing up Gaza is one of my "interests."

The linked article also asserts that I have a "grip on Hollywood." Can I just go to the synagogue and get my screenplay over the transom?
posted by Kirklander at 1:09 PM on March 16, 2009

I think that's fine, but I don't think that's such a big improvement. Because there are Jewish Americans that have opinions on Israel by virtue of them being Jewish. And calling them Israel lobbies creates an ambiguity as to whether they are a lobby acting on behalf of the nation of Israel like most every other 'Country's Name' lobby. At any rate I think taking this style point as proof of antisemitism is unfair and unproductive.
posted by I Foody at 1:12 PM on March 16, 2009

BTW this new moderate Israel policy group J Street is interesting.
posted by Kirklander at 1:17 PM on March 16, 2009

Kirklander: There are a great many people in Israel who share your opinion on the efficacy of bombing Gaza in regard to their interests. That doesn't invalidate the Israel Lobby construct any more than your objections invalidates the Jewish Lobby construct. I would also like to point out this article in the washington post where the use of "Israel Lobby" is similarly maligned.
posted by I Foody at 1:19 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

See what happens you piss off Rush?

He's such a big target, surely no one's aim is that bad.
posted by jamjam at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

In case you missed it, there's no need to worry about the Cabal any more.
posted by lukemeister at 1:21 PM on March 16, 2009

I Foody, you are ignorant to the point of absurdity. There is no Jewish lobby, and referring to such assumes that all or most Jews agree on the subject of Israel. Furthermore, it assumes that only Jews are stridently pro-Israel. Both are incredibly wrong assumptions, and no amount of argumentative gymnastics will set them right.
posted by Afroblanco at 1:23 PM on March 16, 2009

That's why the post spoke about the "Jewish" lobby right?

To be fair, the post spoke about "the Jewish Lobby" because the phrase was taken from the title of the IRH kvetch-piece for which adamvasco has apologized.
posted by CKmtl at 1:28 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Most Jews do agree on the subject of Israel unless you define 'agree' to mean something very specific or define most to mean "not most". I don't have a problem with this. I don't think only Jews are stridently pro-Israel. I do think most of the lobbying conducted with regard to specific policies with regard to Israel is done at the behest of Jewish people. I don't think this is a bad thing. I don't have a problem with it. What I do have a problem is this treating the word "Jewish" as proof of bad faith. Because I don't think it is. I don't even prefer the phrase Jewish lobby to the phrase Israel lobby, in fact the opposite.
posted by I Foody at 1:38 PM on March 16, 2009

Most Jews do agree on the subject of Israel

Hah. Hah. Ahahahahahah.

Seriously though, evidence please?
posted by Afroblanco at 1:47 PM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

Most Jews do not agree on the subject of the color of the sky, much less the subject of Israel.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:51 PM on March 16, 2009 [9 favorites]

What is it they say? Get 4 Jews together, and you'll have 5 different opinions?
posted by Afroblanco at 1:53 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

Two Jews, three opinions.

See, we're already fighting.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

I should have left that line out because it was a semantic point. Most means more than half, thus most americans agree on abortion. Because more than half share a given opinion. Most americans agree on evolution because more than half share an opinion. I'm not going to defend myself on this one because I was making what amounts to a nitpick with your comment. Most people agreeing on even a very divisive issue isn't particularly strange because on a divisive issue there will very often be a majority viewpoint. I think I've given you the wrong impression of what I believe.
posted by I Foody at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2009

Most Jews do agree on the subject of Israel

I've spent Purim with friends of mine, some of whom believe that Israel as a country should not exist based on their interpretation of the Torah, along with others who quite literally think that the best course of action is for Israel to nuke Mecca during the hajj (that one I'm not as close with anymore). I fall somewhere in between that.

2 Jews, 3 opinions.
posted by Lemurrhea at 1:56 PM on March 16, 2009

Most Jews do agree on the subject of Israel

Haha most jews don't even agree whether Rachel's daughter Muriel needs to start exercising more or she'll never get a husband when clearly, I mean look at her, she's like a house!

On preview: The sky is blue, what is this rocket science?
posted by Potomac Avenue at 2:00 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

there's no need to worry about the Cabal any more.

That's right. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along please.
posted by the Cabal at 2:02 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Holocaust denial is not the only form of antisemitism.

Quite true. Right at the moment, the worst form of antisemitism, in the sense of being the most dangerous, is to blindly encourage Israel in its pursuit of policies which will compromise its long term viability, if not threaten its very survival.
posted by jamjam at 2:05 PM on March 16, 2009 [3 favorites]

I want to make clear that everyone is arguing with me over something that I intended to communicate and that it is my fault that people are arguing over something other than what I meant to communicate.

What I meant: "On a digital decision like the question of settlements with regard to Israel assuming a certain threshold for nuance (typical of polling) most Jews will agree with one position. Because most people will agree with one position of two decisions if there are only two decisions available axiomatically."

Realistically there was no way that anyone would read what I said that way but that's what I meant. Sorry for the distraction.
posted by I Foody at 2:09 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Holocaust deniers like Weber would get more market share if instead of idiotic flat denials, they railed against more substantive issues like the monopoly on sympathy that Jews seem to have cornered and the abuses that they've been able to justify because of it.

So the main problem with anti-Semites is not so much that they promote loathsome and contemptible politics but that their strategy is misguided and ineffective?

Is that what you're arguing, Burhanistan?
posted by jason's_planet at 2:12 PM on March 16, 2009

On preview: The sky is blue, what is this rocket science?

It's so much to ask that you should look outside on a rainy day?
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:22 PM on March 16, 2009

I actually feel mild sympathy for the keepers of the "the Cabal" and "Meta Filter" sockpuppets. It must be a pain in the ass to log out and in every time someone sets you up to make a hillariousish comment.

Enough of a pain to make a baby version of a mod cry...

oh please oh please oh please
posted by SpiffyRob at 2:28 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

Hey, have you guys seen my 10-foot pole?

That's alright, I don't think I really need it right now.
posted by Mister_A at 2:30 PM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

Is that what you're arguing, Burhanistan?

I would redact that comment if possible, but what I meant, unrealistically of course because these people are nuts, is that if they have issues with the holocaust and/or Israeli agenda then they would serve their own cause better by focusing on how there were lots of groups that were subject to Nazi exterminations, and that the Jewish people were not the only ones. I was playing devils advocate, however poorly.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:33 PM on March 16, 2009

I don't think even most Israeli Jews agree on the subject of "Israel," with "Israel" meaning policies towards Gaza and such. There are liberal parties in Israel, they just don't seem to win many elections lately. That is like saying every single American agreed with Bush, because he happened to win 2 elections.

And the non-Jewish citizens of Israel certainly have differing viewpoints.
posted by drjimmy11 at 3:16 PM on March 16, 2009

I am so sick of the Jewish lobby using the holocaust to get sympathy.They're always getting stuff they want! Like I was trying to get a sandwich the other day, and the Jewish lobby was in line in front of me, and turned to the dude making the sandwich, stared him straight in the eyes, and said, "Auschwitz." And bam, free sandwich! What the hell Jewsish lobby!?

Also: Mexicans!!!
posted by supercrayon at 4:02 PM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

It's an easy mistake to make. Holocaust deniers go out of their way to make themselves look like legitimate unbiased historians. You saw "Institute for Historical Review", and, not knowing what it was, assumed it was some sort of legitimate organization of historians, which is exactly what a name like that is designed to make you think. No apology necessary, it was obviously an innocent mistake. Now you know, though, and probably won't fall for that kind of deception again.
posted by DecemberBoy at 6:07 PM on March 16, 2009

Wha wha whibble?

Ishkabibble!
posted by deborah at 6:50 PM on March 16, 2009

Also: Mexicans!!!

Don't get me started on their carpooling and their good work ethic and their general thriftiness. A cancer on American society, they are.
posted by middleclasstool at 7:35 PM on March 16, 2009 [1 favorite]

18 minute Neal Peart drum solo?

When drums stop, VERY BAD!

Me, I'm more of a halocline denier. Cave-diving is dangerous!
posted by Devils Rancher at 8:02 PM on March 16, 2009

The sky is blue, what is this rocket science?

It's so much to ask that you should look outside on a rainy day?

Fine, you just stay inside all warm and cozy. I'll just sit out here in the rain, and catch my death a cold. Never mind me.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:14 PM on March 16, 2009

That's why the post spoke about the "Jewish" lobby right?

To be fair, it's fairly routine to refer to certain lobbies by names that are less than accurate. People talk about the "religious" lobby when they really mean specific evangelical Christian lobbies (I'm guessing that Buddhists and Rastafarians aren't at the forefront of "defending marriage).

Although it's not exactly right to call these pro-Israel lobbies Jewish, it's not necessarily accurate to call them Israeli lobbies either. It's reasonable to assume that these lobbies are mostly run, peopled, and funded by American Jews. I wouldn't be surprised if their interests might diverge from the interest of the general Israeli population.

I think it needs to be stressed, and repeated, over and over again, that just like everyone else, the Jewish people do not share one opinion (apparently we share n+1 opinions, where n is the total number of Jews; although maybe it's 1.5n?). So yeah, there are some Jewish people who supports the Israeli government's position on Palestine. There are some who don't... because they believe in Israel should be larger. There are others who think the concept of a political Jewish state is nonsensical. In my gut I feel that a majority of Jews want Israelis and Palestinians to coexist peacefully, and that they should be able to live without disturbance. This probably means a two state solution (my personal favorite, the "no-state solution", is unfortunately untenable).

The holocaust is an important mental landmark for the Jewish people. Setting aside the obvious horrors of the event itself, for better or worse it has become a central focus not just within the Jewish context, but in how Jews and non-Jews address political situations. The truth is, a lot of ethnic groups have been subject to massacre, and some had their numbers dwindle more (absolutely or relatively). Many of them do not have their own nations. In my opinion, until we arrive at a post-state world, the problem of "nations" and ethnic conflicts will continue to lead to death and suffering. Obviously the holocaust happened, and it should never happen again. The tragedy is that, in a sense, it keeps happening to different groups under different names. Maybe not at the same intensity, volume, or for the same reasons, but it happens.

When encountering suffering, people often react by either becoming sympathetic to other people's suffering, or by becoming defensive. Israel chose defense. Now, realistically, it is also surrounded on all sides by countries that don't recognize its right to exist. But it also hasn't gone out of its way to make friends. There is a sentiment among some people that the reason that Israel behaves the way it does is because it believes the holocaust gives it a free license. Personally, I think Israel behaves the way it does out of force of habit. I'm pretty sure the situation is exacerbated by the political instability of its neighbors. I can't help but think of the Freakonomics article on drug dealers, which argued that while gang leaders benefited from a peaceful neighborhood, underlings could use violence as a means to promotion. Similarly, I think that a lot of the terrorist activity in the area is really just a tragic and violent form of political maneuvering in order to increase or maintain political power. It's certainly equally in the best interests of the Palestinians, Lebanese, Egyptians, and Jordanians to engage in trade with Israel rather than warfare.

I think it's time we redefined what it means to be "pro-Israel". There should be lobbies that push towards a peaceful and equitable solution in Israel and Palestine. The feelings of powerlessness and oppression experienced by the Palestinians (who, let's face it, have encountered significantly more casualties and financial hardships) overwhelm normal motivations for peace. As long as bulldozers still knock down their houses, as long as walls still divide their towns, as long as their movements are controlled, peace can't be achieved. Israel responds to pressure from the US (people who believe that Israel controls the US' foreign policy have it backwards: neo-cons who wanted a strong capitalist democracy in the Middle East support Israel, and so they push the US government to behave in certain ways and support Israel in certain ways. Inevitably this leads Israel into certain positions where the positions of the government in Israel will mirror the positions of the US government, and people get confused about which is the hand moving and which is the reflection).

A quick note on Mexico: as I understand it, Texas and New Mexico (and maybe other parts of the US) were basically annexed by the US in circumstances not entirely different from the Palestinian territories (NOT HISTORY-AN). I wonder if Texas had joined the US just 50 years how our relationship with Mexico and Mexican immigrants might be different. I personally have a very casual attitude towards borders in general and the northern and southern borders of the US in particular. Outside of the very real problem of overworking (not underemployment, overworking) I don't see the problem in letting people in if they want to live here.

Disclaimer: I know f-all about Israel, Israeli politics, and have a just passable knowledge of US politics. These are mostly gut speculations and idle wonderings.
posted by Deathalicious at 9:23 PM on March 16, 2009 [4 favorites]

If I deny the existence of holocaust deniers, does that elevate me to MetaDenial?
posted by Dunwitty at 1:15 AM on March 17, 2009

Perhaps "American Zionist Lobby" or "American Anti-Palestine lobby" would be more accurate than "Jewish lobby" for the purposes of the deleted post?

I used to wish they'd picked Madagascar instead of Palestine as the new Jewish nation (how arrogant was that), but now I realized it'd have ended in misery either way.

I keep wanting to fault the Israelis for their choices, but I think most countries under similar pressures for long periods would have also incrementally edged towards perpetual war by making decisions that were only optimal in the short term. I hope someone figures out a strategy to end the conflict.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:41 AM on March 17, 2009

Most means more than half...
Are you sure about that?
posted by dg at 1:59 AM on March 17, 2009

Most (pronounced [ˈmost]; German: Brüx) is a city in the northwest of the Czech Republic, in the Ústí nad Labem Region.
posted by qvantamon at 7:59 PM on March 17, 2009

More importantly, "most" is Czech for "bridge". The Czechs, a deeply civilized people, understand that on any given issue or distinction it is the absolute duty of the majority to reach out (build bridges, as it is) to the minorities. Or throw them out a window. Really, either works.
posted by ~ at 7:41 AM on March 18, 2009