R.CAllen

Laurent Cantet died. 63! Time Out (2001) is the only one of his films I’ve seen but it’s loomed really large in my head ever since I first saw it. I think I’ve seen it ... twice? I’m not sure when or under what circumstances. I think maybe it made some big list of Best Films Of The First Half Of The 00s and so that would’ve been in ... ‘05. The premise was intriguing enough that I watched it and, like, the feelings it evoked are still with me. I should probably see it again.

Okay! Thank you for saying that. I appreciate it! (The preceding nine words from me were not sarcastic or an attempt at wit or some kind of online argument standard-for-the-Lyceum posturing. I do thank you for telling me that and I do appreciate you telling me it.)

Well, I feel like I’m repeating myself. Neither of you have convinced me that I am mistaken. I don’t think I’m substantially misunderstanding either of you. If I keep restating your positions and saying that I think it’s wrong if what you want is what you want it’s only because you both keep restating your positions and saying that you think it’s right. There’s no way to know for sure short of President Biden changing his mind — I don’t have to ask myself why that hasn’t happened yet because I can see that it’d be bad for all directly involved (and, long-term, the US and the rest of the world too!) for that to happen so it makes sense he hasn’t! — or Netanyahu being assassinated. If either of those two things occur and it turns out the outcome is good I’ll be glad to eat my words. Although, I struggle to see either Netanyahu being assassinated or President Biden changing his mind actually happening. Neither is an absolute impossibility, of course. Somebody might kill Netanyahu. What would make President Biden change his mind? I don’t know. Maybe if Israel sinks the International Freedom Flotilla. Anything can happen.

Look at what’s happening even though Israel is strong. Thinking things would be better if Israel was made weak is wrong. Look at what Sinwar and Nasrallah and Khamenei are willing to do even though Israel is strong. Think about what more they would do if they had good reason to believe Israel was weak. Think about what more Israel would do if it genuinely believed that it was under immediate existential threat. Assassinating its prime minister or cutting off the US supply of support and funding and arms to Israel would not make things better for anyone in Israel or the Gaza Strip or the West Bank or Lebanon or Iran. Or, in the long-term, the US and the rest of the world.

“I know the perfect tools to make things better. Making more war happen and assassination!” I try my hardest to assume the best of people but I can’t help but think you haven’t given much thought to what would happen if what you say you wanted actually occurred. I probably just need to try harder.

So you just want this assassination to happen even though the outcome will be bad. Okay! I like it when bad things don’t happen! My response to this is to refer you back to what I think will happen if that happens. Do you know what reality is? Reality is the things that happen. I think if that was really the case Nasrallah and Khamenei would stop attacking Israel. For all the talk about Netanyahu wanting war with Iran to stay in power it seems like this might not actually be the case. Gantz and Eisenkot pushed for immediate retaliation before the attack from Iran had even properly happened — shades of 2000AD! — and Netanyahu said no. Netanyahu knows that the Israeli public punishes prime ministers electorally when wars are on their watch. He’ll go with what assures his political survival, sure, but I suspect President Biden’s statement that the US won’t participate in any Israeli counterattack actually did that. No way to know for sure — I always think of Don Draper’s reply to Roger Sterling in the Cuban Missile Crisis episode of Mad Men (‘07-’15) : “Kennedy’s daring them to bomb us. Right when I got a second chance.” “We don’t know what’s really going on. You know that.” — but that’s my take. Yesterday? It’s Tuesday. What are you talking about? I’m glad you like the guy from Three’s Company (‘76’-84) and, yes, it is difficult to do that! Oh, I got the impression you didn’t care. My mistake! I don’t usually look at real things in reality and think about ideal solutions. What should happen? That’s just asking to be disappointed. Reality isn’t some piece of sci-fi fantasy make’em’up offered to me for my entertainment. When it comes to the real world I just try and see what’s happening and, from time to time, I wonder about what will happen. I mean, I’m human. Sometimes I do wish for better, sure. But that’s an impulse I try my best to tamp down. If you put me on the spot, though, my answer is pretty simple : Hamas should return the captives. Israel should end the war. The peace process should restart. If you feel like you’re wasting your time, well, I don’t know how to assuage your feelings on that score. I do think Hamas is pretty bad for the Palestinians! I think there’s some pretty strong evidence now that this is the case! I don’t agree with Sinwar’s statement that he was willing for the entire population of the Gaza Strip, down to the very last infant, to be killed so long as the dream of Hamas survives. I think that’d be bad if that happened! But if you do disengage and I ever wonder to myself, “Self! What would Ondine think about what’s going on the Middle East?” I’ll just watch John Ritter’s television show and get the real deal straight from the source.

I also think it’s funny — not hah hah funny, it doesn’t make me laugh, but kind of funny in the abstract — how your stance has softened. You go from saying “Netanyahu needs a bullet to the back of the skull” on April 5 to “I think Netanyahu deserves death” on April 9 to “I stand by my statement Netanyahu needs a bullet” on April 11. I believe you think you stand by your statement, sure. But that’s not what you stated. It’s not all of it! You’re missing a few of those colourful little words at the end. They really set the stage! And you dropped a register there in between. “Deserves death” is just not the same thing as “needs a bullet to the back of the skull” or “needs a bullet”. Tough for me to imagine a principled character in some old war movie going from saying “Zee Führer must be shot in a humiliating and painful fashion!” in one scene to “I think Zee Führer deserves death” in another to finally settling on “I stand by my statement Zee Führer must be shot” in his last. If I were watching that old war movie I wouldn’t think that this was a guy who really wanted anything but to get mad at someone he’s allowed to get mad at. That guy in the old war movie was just changing the tempo of his tune as he blew off a little steam. Mixed metaphor, sure, but I hope what I’m saying here comes across. My point is either as far as you’re concerned Netanyahu is Hitler — which would make any deviation or fluctuation odd. you’re talking about Hitler here! are you soft on Hitler? — or he’s not Hitler and you know that and you’re just kind of scrambling around. It could be I’m wrong. I might be reading too much into it! Maybe you meant the exact same thing all three times. Many people — myself included! — often have difficulty making themselves understood.

I said that Hezbollah will do a full-scale invasion depending on what the US does — what Zathras wants it to do! — and that it might very well do so even if the US does not do anything. You decided to tell me about Israeli incursions into Lebanon and how Netanyahu was trying to draw Iran into the conflict by doing this. You made the point of how Netanyahu is trying to draw Iran into the conflict by posting a screenshot about Israeli strikes on Lebanon — which have become somewhat routine over the past few months alongside Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel — rather than, say, a screenshot about the strike on a consulate (!) killing Iranian generals. I was telling you this and that I was aware of what Hezbollah might do no matter what the US does. I said I was aware of what Hezbollah might do no matter what the US does when I wrote the words “It might very well do so even if the US does not do that”. You were telling me something I already said I knew and you were supporting this information with bottom shelf evidence. I was telling you this. I am now telling it to you again. ME: Hezbollah will invade if [x] and it might invade if [not-x]. YOU: Hezbollah might invade if [not-x] and I have weaksauce proof. ME: I already said Hezbollah might invade if [not-x]. And if you want to talk about the reason why Hezbollah might invade if [not-x] then you should support it with something better than that. Here you go! Here it is! This is what you should support it with! You don’t care what I think. I took your words ““Netanyahu needs a bullet to the back of the skull, and every member of his regime should be tried for war crimes.” and “I think Netanyahu deserves death, yes. And his regime needs to be tried for war crimes. I'm saying nothing particularly controversial given the context. No different from saying Hitler should've been assassinated and saved the world a lot of trouble.” and “I stand by my statement Netanyahu needs a bullet.” as directly analogizing assassinating Hitler and saving the world a lot of trouble with killing Netanyahu and trying his regime for war crimes. You were saying Netanyahu and his regime are Hitler and you were saying that you saying this was not particularly controversial. Netanyahu and every member of his regime are Jews. (Are they? I suppose that’s not true in the strictest possible sense. The head of COGAT is Druze!) I characterized the above in the following fashion : “Controversial? Me? I just think these Jews are Hitler.” If you really think I’ve misinterpreted you and what you really meant to say all along, well, fine. I’ll revise. “Controversial? Me? I just think this Jew is Hitler.” It got called controversial because you used the word ‘controversial’. I don’t know how to explain to anyone who has already attended kindergarten that a bad thing doesn’t become a good thing because you think it’ll make a good thing happen. The prime minister of a parliamentary democracy being assassinated isn’t a good thing. And a moment’s thought from anyone familiar with the particular parliamentary democracy being discussed ought to make anyone realize that the consequences of that happening wouldn’t necessarily and automatically be good consequences. If you want something bad to happen because you think it’ll make good things happen and I pipe up with, “No, that’s bad! And it’d make bad things happen!” you can of course keep insisting that you want it to happen because it’ll be good. It’s up to you. I can’t stop you!

You’re both insisting your motives are good so the outcome of what you want to happen would be good. I believe you think you’re good and the violent results of what you wish for will therefore lead to good things. I understand that this is something you both think. “Violence? Where? Wrong! A leap of logic! I just think there should be more war.” “Controversial? Me? I just think these Jews are Hitler.”

When I wrote the words “It might very well do so even if the US does not do that” those words meant that Hezbollah might very well do a full-scale invasion even if the US does not cut off any more weapon shipments to Israel and if it does not stop funding and arming Israel. I’m aware of Israeli strikes in Lebanon and, of course, Syria!

Nope! No leap of logic! I don’t believe Israel is weaponless without US weapons. It isn’t! I believe Hezbollah will do a full-scale invasion if the US cuts off any more weapon shipments to Israel and if it stops funding and arming Israel. It might very well do so even if the US does not do that but I think it definitely would if that happened. You think Israel doesn’t deserve US backing because it wages war in a manner inconsistent with US policy and human rights — does it? I guess we agree! pretty sure Americans would’ve killed millions if there were multiple terrorist attacks in America by Al-Qaeda sympathizers in the six months after 9/11! Israel’s actions so far are thus pretty inconsistent with American policy and the American track record on human rights! — but I think deserve’s got nothing to do with it. Do people in Gaza deserve to die? No. Do people in Israel and in Lebanon deserve to die? No. If there’s something that’ll make more people die I don’t want it to happen. I guess we’re different!

If someone assassinated the Prime Minister of Israel (again!) and then abducted everyone in Israel’s thirty-seventh government and put them on trial the outcome would not be good. I don’t think the thirty-eighth government would be any nicer. Like, who would lead it? I guess considering that Gantz’s presence in the war cabinet means he would probably count as part of “his regime” I suppose that would make Yair Lapid the next — wait, no, realistically speaking it’d be some brand new fascist nobody who would be swept into office by promising to invade Holland or whatever.

Given that you’ve repeated yourself I suspect you may already know my answer to your question. “Biden should CUT OFF any more weapon shipments to Israel. Period.” and “I think we should stop funding and arming Israel.” are wanting more violence to happen. No one can predict the future but cutting off weapon shipments to Israel would result in a full-scale invasion by Hezbollah in the short-term. And in the long-term the consequences of every American ally knowing that the USA will switch off the spigot when things get bloody would probably be worse in terms of body count.

You are both looking at events and seeing a huge heap of violence and somehow you all just want MORE violence to happen. In this particular respect neither of you seem all that different than a trigger-happy IDF soldier. Or a Hamas/PIJ terrorist. You all think that things will be better if the right people just die. I don’t have some magic toggle switch to change anybody’s mind — surely arguing about things online in this forum won’t do that — but I still felt I needed to type these words.

Lynne Reid Banks died. Wrote the Indian in the Cupboard books. 94!