’)Apparently the Israeli government is confused that we’re now going to be a broker between them and the Palestinians and not just in the mode of doing what Israel wants. Shocker.
According to many observers in Washington and Israel, the Israeli prime minister, looking for loopholes and hidden agreements that have often existed in the past with Washington, has been flummoxed by an unusually united line that has come not just from Obama White House and the secretary of state, but also from pro-Israel congressmen and women who have come through Israel for meetings with him over Memorial Day recess. To Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.
“This is a sea change for Netanyahu,” a former senior Clinton administration official who worked on Middle East issues said. The official said that the basis of the Obama White House’s resolve is the conviction that it is in the United States’ as well as Israel’s interest to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “We have significant, existential threats that Israel faces from Iran and that the U.S. faces from this region. It is in our mutual interest to end this conflict, and to begin to build new regional alliances.”
I still don’t read the article as suggestive the Israeli government will continue (or even begin) to act in good faith as concerns the Settlements and the Palestinians.
Rather, I foresee that if they conclude the Obama Administration’s not going to stand on their side, then they must by definition no longer be friends, but Enemies, and the Israelis will start doing all they can to provoke an Arab/Palestinian War…as cover for their simply taking all they want, and screw the losers…
I’d be fascinated to see if anyone could cite a single example of the Palestinian side being the one to make a “good faith gesture” or abiding by any of the agreements they’ve met or even shown some serious interest in stopping ongoing attacks on Israel.
J.
How about both sides quit being asshats? That’s not too much to ask.
Encouraging news from the White House. Still, Israel seems to be shocked because no administration has ever operated in this way before. Again, this really does seem to be good news, but I wouldn’t bust out the champagne just yet. Let’s look back two years from now and see how hard Obama really pushes this, or if he, like all those that have come before him, folds at the first sign of AIPAC pressure.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
Good suggestions, Newsy. Unfortunately, that plan would attract about zero supporters. Everybody on both sides would hate it.
We have just observed what looks like the conclusion to a similar problem in Sri Lanka. Several decades of patience wearing thin in dealing with hostile terrorists and finally opting for a purely military solution without regard to “world opinion”.
It is a paradox that such a policy at the start would have saved countless lives despite its somewhat brutal outward appearence.
Jay,
You’ll be a long time waiting.
“Newsy,” in an astonishing show of terseness, put forth his/her/its plan for Mideast peace:
“1967 borders.”
Which means, mainly, “let’s divide Jerusalem, and give the Golan Heights — which is a great attack point and a major water source — back to Syria!”
“Dismantle all settlements.”
Well, that certainly worked wonders in Gaza, didn’t it? Why, since Israel stopped occupying Gaza, it’s been remarkably peaceful and trouble-free!
“No right of return.”
The only thing that makes any sense whatsoever here.
Here’s an alternative:
The Palestinians go a certain stretch of time (say, three months) with no rocket, missile, or mortar attacks, suicide bombings, or other attacks on Israel. They stop inciting hatred and anti-Semitism on their official television shows. They repeal laws like the one that makes selling land to an Israeli a capital offense.
If they can make even SOME of these “good faith gestures” (the likes of which have been demanded of — and provided by — Israel time and time again), then talks can start. Borders, governance, security concerns, economic development (we won’t mention the Gaza greenhouses) — those can be discussed once the Palestinians have shown they’re really interested in peace.
I ain’t holding my breath.
J.
I’d be fascinated to see if anyone could cite a single example of the Palestinian side
Well you’re running into trouble already. There’s not a “Palestinian side,” there’s about a dozen.
Several decades of patience wearing thin in dealing with hostile terrorists and finally opting for a purely military solution without regard to “world opinion”.
It is a paradox that such a policy at the start would have saved countless lives despite its somewhat brutal outward appearence.
Yes. Why bother with trivialities like “world opinion” when there is killing to do?
Yes. Why bother with trivialities like “world opinion” when there is killing to stop?
Fixed that for ya, Quaker.
J.
Shorter Jay Tea: Israel’s never done anything wrong ever!
Like I said both sides need to give up ground.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
PERIOD.
===========================
“To [Israeli leader] Netanyahu’s dismay, Obama doesn’t appear to have a hidden policy. It is what he said it was.”
There is no “good faith gesture” with a side that is always seeking a back door “hidden policy” to wiggle out of their obligations.
Sheesh, that was poor translating, Oliver.
How about this: “Israel’s done some good things in the past. The Palestinians? Still waiting for number one.”
Like I said, it’s long past time for the Palestinians to willingly give up some ground, make their own “good will gesture” for the first time.
J.
Fixed that for ya, Quaker.
No, you have simply pointed at the ground and insisted that way is called “up.” World opinion is typically in favor of less killing. Our friend AO, more.
Like I said, it’s long past time for the Palestinians to willingly give up some ground,
And if they don’t, Israel will take it to show them how it’s done?
Well, Quaker, let’s look at some facts. Israel pulled out completely from Gaza, but still has some forces and settlers in the West Bank. Which place is the launching point for more terrorist attacks?
J.
Quaker,
You completely misunderstood my post. I am of the opinion that 20 or 30 years of a war with terrorists causes more death than eliminating the terrorists in the first year. Which part did I make unclear?
There is no “good faith gesture” with a side that is always seeking a back door “hidden policy” to wiggle out of their obligations.
So true, “Newsy.” Unfortunately for your side, your description matches to a “T” the Palestinian conduct during each and every single round of peace talks — they make all kinds of promises, then never take a single step that they pledged to make.
Not once.
J.
You completely misunderstood my post. I am of the opinion that 20 or 30 years of a war with terrorists causes more death than eliminating the terrorists in the first year.
I understood you perfectly.
You advocate a military “solution” to the problem of hostility by an unidentifiable adversary carried out against the objections of the rest of the world.
What part did I get wrong?
Right wingers “Jay Tea” and “Amused Observer” illustrate the fanaticism that has set in on both sides.
“Jay Tea” assumes everyone is just as deceitful as he is.
“Amused Observer” wants a final solution.
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
PERIOD.
Gosh Quaker,
They already had several decades of fighting racking up deaths all along the way. I thought perhaps winding it all up in the first year would have resulted in less loss of life, suffering, and assorted other miseries associated with armed conflict.
That those terrorists are unidentified is not really true. Sri Lanka finally got tired of it and is resolving the issue, they realize world opinion would prefer them to suffer forever rather than end the problem. They chose to try for peace by eliminating the problem.
Always an interesting – emotional – subject.
Like many I’m conflicted.
On the one had we have a people that were nearly exterminated by the vilest hatred of the 20th century that went on to build a democratic, western, modern state literally in the belly of the Arab Islamist Beast.
On the other side of that same coin we have an outside invader that expelled hundreds of thousands, built a Zionist racist juggernaut that now OWNS two concentration camps – the “Good One” and the “Bad One” the Bad One fires rockets aimlessly into the desert and gets bombed back to the stone age. The Good One doesn’t fire rockets and gets more of it’s land stolen every day.
The WORLD will not be safe until SOMEHOW ALL the parties can get a measure of dignity, a measure of security and a measure of prosperity. It is CLEAR that this cannot be achieved by the parties – for all sorts of reasons. Either it MUST be IMPOSED – OR – the parties have to be left to the forces of whirlwind. The whirlwind is a notoriously messy force.
As to the 1967 “Borders” – EVERYONE in the world has known for 60 years that was/is/willbe the ONLY solution – everyone apparently – except Jay Tea.
“The whirlwind is a notoriously messy force.”
Now that is a true statement.
You know “Newsy” is getting worked up when she/he/it (pronounces “she-it” starts frothing about “Right wingers” as if saying those words is a “ZOMG FTW!” game-winner.
Apparently, “Newsy’s” typical frothing fury has made “Newsy” deaf (those darned pronouns are just so annoying) and/or blind.
EVERY SINGLE round of “peace talks” has opened with demands of Israel to make “good faith” gestures.
EVERY SINGLE time, Israel has complied.
NOT ONCE have the Palestinians been asked to make a single “good faith” gesture — not even returning the bodies of kidnapped and murdered Israelis. Those have a value as bartering chips. (This has had the undeniable establishment of a currency: a single Jew, even dead, is worth about a thousand living Palestinians. Personally, I think that’s a bit low — the Palestinians have been getting a bargain — but that’s what the market has determined.)
NOT ONCE have the Palestinians actually kept a single promise in any part of any peace agreement.
It always works out the same:
Talks start. Israel is called upon to make a “good faith” gesture. A grand plan is announced. Israel starts abiding by their obligations. The Palestinians start making excuses why they can’t. Israel starts talking about how the Palestinians aren’t living up to their end. The Palestinians say that Israel’s bringing it up is bad. Israel says they’ll stop making concessions until the Palestinians start. The Palestinians accuse Israel of threatening the peace process. Then terrorist attacks “suddenly” resume, the whole deal falls apart, and the Palestinians and the rest of the world blame Israel for destroying the peace process.
Oh, yeah — then, a little while later, the “peace process” resumes. Only this time, the concessions Israel made before are now the new starting point.
“Newsy” doesn’t bother to notice how the “1967 borders” s/he/it parrots make Israel incredibly vulnerable, or is too anti-Israel to care. (I’ll be generous and say it’s stupidity, not anti-Semitism.) Here’s betting that “Newsy” will keep repeating it, but each time with a touch more blatant anti-Semitism each time, and will NEVER address what “concessions” the Palestinians ought to make, or their utter lack of good faith in previous rounds.
J.
Israel has 200 nuclear weapons, at least. It would be nice if that fact was acknowledged before talking about how going back to 1967 borders makes Israel “vulnerable”.
I agree the Palestinian leadership is crapola, but if Israel had relinquished this territory decades ago, instead of initiating the settlement program in the early 80s, this thing never would have blown up into the huge mess it is.
Without a two state solution, eventually Israel will be dragged by demographics and other pressures into a one state solution, where Jews are the ethnic/religious minority in the country they founded. An apartheid state is essentially unsustainable in the long term, and all the alternative proposals by Israeli right wing parties are completely impractical.
If the Palestinians have a sovereign state, well, sovereign states have to be fully responsible for keeping peace with their neighbors, or else their neighbors are fully within their rights to hold them responsible and declare war. So there’s a powerful incentive, once a state is fully formed, to hold up their end of the bargain.
I thought perhaps winding it all up in the first year would have resulted in less loss of life, suffering, and assorted other miseries associated with armed conflict.
I’m curious, AO. What would “winding it all up in the first year” look like?
Probably much the same as the current ending but smaller, not quite nipping in the bud, it will take time to try and manuever in such a way as they can save face and withdraw thier campaign never to seriously consider it again. Sort of like cancer, its easier to treat when its smaller.
I would prefer that to letting it linger for several decades. 30 years of lowgrade war seriously disrupts countless innocents held hostage by terrorist’s military activity in and amongst and sometimes used directly at them.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
__________PERIOD.__________
===========================
Right winger “Jay Tea”: “a single Jew, even dead, is worth about a thousand living Palestinians.”
Israel’s Holy War against the Palestenians last left 1,300 Palestinians killed, nearly a third of them children.
In response to what? Three Israeli civilian deaths?
Probably much the same as the current ending but smaller,
And you’re of the notion that the only thing that prevented this from happening was deference to “world opinion?”
Quaker,
No not really. Not world opinion, but rather Sri Lankon
resolve in the face of world opinion.
What would you have done if you had been in political power in Serendip and had suffered 25 years of this?
Right winger “Jay Tea” pulled the anti-Semitism card on his second post.
Then he proactively pulled the anti-Semitism card on me without reason, but rather just to cover that base.
It’s a common, though incredibly vulgar, tactic to attempt to shut down debate.
It’s important to note that right winger “Jay Tea” works for a warmongering psychopath who has so misused that vulgar tactic that it’s lost it’s power.
It’s also important to that right winger “Jay Tea” has never served in the military and yet seeks war.
Even WARS. Plural.
Warmonger “Jay Tea” has also advocated for war crimes and torture crimes.
“Jay Tea” and his employer Norman Podhoretz and right wing extremists like them have become the greatest threats to Israel even while they’ve deluded themselves into believing their sick warmongering is the answer to Israel’s peace.
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
PERIOD.
Not world opinion, but rather Sri Lankon
resolve in the face of world opinion.
What would you have done if you had been in political power in Serendip and had suffered 25 years of this?
No, no. You were making recommendations about the first year. Your proposed “winding it up” sounds very much like the Hutu solution to ethnic division.
I can’t speak intelligently to the Hutu solution to ethnic division, I’m unfamiliar with the specifics. It sounds like an African tribal thing gone medieval.
What would you do if you were in charge politically in Sri Lanka and you were subject to terrorist attack?
What would you do if you were in charge politically in Sri Lanka and you were subject to terrorist attack?
Why would I be subject to terrorist attack?
As for the Hutus, they put into practice your doctrine of “winding it up in the first year.” And you were correct. The outward appearance was “somewhat brutal.”
“Why would I be subject to terrorist attack?”
Well Quaker that is what the situation has been in Sri Lanka for 20 or 30 years. Although it is only been half as long as the problems in Israel, it is in some ways quite similar.
In the end the Sri Lankons patience ran out. I was asking you what you would do in thier position in response to your hectoring. I obviously misunderstood your grasp of the situation when you jumped in with this remark,
“Yes. Why bother with trivialities like “world opinion” when there is killing to do?”
I was under the impression you were aware of the conflict between the Sri Lankans and the Tamil Tigers and had enough context to form a response to the specifics.
It’s honest question time, cons.
1) Do the Tamils and Palestinians each have a legitimate gripe?
2) What is you want the Tamils and the Palestinians to do?
A) STFU and do whatever the government wants
B) Come to the table and pretend they’ll get a fair deal from the infinitely more conventionally powerful government
C) Move to Somalia and help you set up your free market wonderland
D) …?
“Newsy” is getting desperate — he’s trotting out his standard “take a quote out of context” ploy. Unfortunately for him/her/it this time, I fully expected that he’d go for the precise one I chose as bait.
NOT ONCE have the Palestinians been asked to make a single “good faith” gesture — not even returning the bodies of kidnapped and murdered Israelis. Those have a value as bartering chips. (This has had the undeniable establishment of a currency: a single Jew, even dead, is worth about a thousand living Palestinians. Personally, I think that’s a bit low — the Palestinians have been getting a bargain — but that’s what the market has determined.)
From Wikipedia:
Over the last 30 years, Israel has released about 7,000 prisoners to secure freedom for 19 Israelis and to retrieve the bodies of eight others. A number of diplomatic efforts have been made to secure the release of Israeli IDF personnel following their capture by enemy forces.
Let’s see… 7,000 divided by 27 works out to about 260. I exaggerated the number for rhetorical effect (and it worked — look how “Newsy” jumped all over it), but again, I’m not establishing the fact that there is an exchange here: to the Palestinians, a dead Israeli is worth a couple hundred Palestinians — in the context of “we can trade this corpse for a couple hundred prisoners.”
I didn’t establish that, I don’t even particularly like it, but that’s how it adds up.
Nice to see you’re so easily manipulated and predictable, “Newsy.”
Now cut and paste your “three point peace plan” again, “Newsy.” Never mind that it’s utterly unworkable and would doom Israel…
J.
1. The Palestinans have an honest gripe. When the Arabs started the conflict by attacking Israel in 1947 Jews who were living all over the mideast were forced to leave places they had lived sometimes for thousands of years, Israel welcomed them in. When the 6 day war was concluded and Egypt and Jordon lost portions of thier territory to Israel neither Egypt or Jordan let these people who had been thier citizens into thier respective countries. So yeah the people who only recently have been called palestinians ( for thousands of years the term palestinian refered to jews) have a legitimate gripe with Egypt and Jordan for not letting them in.
The Tamils not so much. They mostly live in India and were using terrorism to try and grab a chunk of anoer country.
2. I would have both of them quit using terrorism and have the palestinians go live in the countries they used to be citizens of. The Tamils who don’t like living in Ceylon ought to go back to India.
What are your honest answers Parthenon?
Hey, Parthenon! I’ll take on those questions:
Do the Tamils and Palestinians each have a legitimate gripe?
I haven’t really studied the Tamils, but yes, the Palestinians do have several legitimate gripes. Mostly against their “leadership” who’ve misled them for decades. Also against their Muslim brethren, who’ve used them as political footballs and prolonged and exacerbated their suffering for political reasons. And yes, against Israel as well, but they’ve been treated far, far worse by the Palestinian leadership and the rest of the Muslim world.
2) There is one path open to the Palestinians that they have never tried. It’s, ironically enough, one way that has been proven successful in two similar cases in history: a people occupied and oppressed by a vastly superior nation that claims a level of moral superiority. It’s to use that self-image of moral superiority against the occupiers.
Sadly, the Palestinians tend to see potential Gandhis or Martin Luther Kings as “collaborators” and kill them.
It’s been said, many times, that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And it is sad but true.
J.
Right winger “Jay Tea” has a new BFF!
“Amused Observer” is a mutli-talented right wing sociopath who can fluidly go from making racist comments, to defending the indefensible Swift boat liars to obliquely suggesting a final solution in this thread.
Right wingers sure know how to distinguish themselves.
Yes, we do, “Newsy.” We just look to see who drives you into the most inane diversions. The more you make ad hominem attacks and the less you talk about the topic, the more obvious it is that you have nothing else of value to say — and being harangued by you is a mark of distinction.
“Distinction,” in this case, meaning literally “a way of distinguishing from the rest.” In this case, it’s kind of like “hey, that guy over there is also having his leg humped by the chihuahua.”
It’s more of a sympathetic reaction than a badge of honor.
Oh, and “Newsy,” AO used the phrase “conclusion.” As in, “A resolution to the problem so it doesn’t go on killing people.” You’re the one who morphed his phrase into “final solution” just so you could play the Nazi card.
You are so transparent, you could be used in a Windex commercial.
J.
The profoundly dishonest right winger “Amused Observer” falsely asserts that the “Sri Lankans and the Tamil Tigers” … “is in some ways quite similar” to the “problems in Israel”, clearly illustrating that right winger “Amused Observer” has no grasp of history, culture, and especially warfare.
Do you just make this stuff up on a whim, “Amused Observer”?
Right winger “Jay Tea” at least has a script provided to him by his programmers. Sometimes it’s even consistent.
“Jay Tea”: “We just look to see who drives you into the most inane diversions”
Which sums up what the Israeli right wing has been doing internationally for decades even while they’ve been trying to terrify the Israeli left wing domestically for the same period of time.
The Israeli right wing doesn’t want peace they want land.
The Israeli right wing has become as fanatical and obstinate as the Palestinians the Israeli’s keep in ghettos.
Hmm… let’s do a little compare and contrast, shall we, “Newsy?” Let’s see which side is more tolerant and open and accepting of the other.
How many Palestinians live in Israel?
How many Jews live in the Gaza Strip?
Keep dodging and changing the subject, “Newsy.” I find it remarkably entertaining.
J.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
=========================
Right wing extremist “Jay Tea” is here to speak on behalf of right wing Israeli’s theft of Palestinian land.
Israel can keep that choice bit by the sea, but the parts that Israeli fanatics have been squatting on since 1967 goes back to the original owners.
Why do you keep dehumanizing those original owners “Jay Tea”?
Does it make it easier to wash the blood off your hands?
“Original owners,” “Newsy?” That depends on how far you go back.
Or who has done more to use and improve the land.
And I see you’re back to cutting and pasting your grand solution — “let’s leave Israel in an absolutely undefensible position, and then see what happens!”
What’s so magic about the 1967 borders, anyway, “Newsy?” Other than they led to yet another Arab-initiated war that they lost, that is?
Could you cite some concrete evidence that the Palestinians, by and large, are interested in peace, and not the total destruction of Israel? Just a little?
Come on, “Newsy.” I know you can do it. There must be SOMETHING that leads you to think that your plan will actually bring about peace, and not genocide…
J.
Let me get this right… you just want one example of the Palestinians keeping their agreements?
How about the fact that the Israeli Government’s official spokesman admitted the fact that Hamas didn’t break the ceasefire before Israel did?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SILJxPTqjAM
Ignorance is bliss?!
“What’s so magic about the 1967 borders, anyway, “Newsy?” Other than they led to yet another Arab-initiated war that they lost, that is?”
Except, of course, that Israel started the conflict by launching a surprise attack on Egypt.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six-Day_War
Really… you’re appallingly, childishly uninformed. Do you ever support any of the things you say with facts?!
Hmm… let’s do a little compare and contrast, shall we, “Newsy?” Let’s see which side is more tolerant and open and accepting of the other.
How many Native Americans live in the U.S.?
How many U.S. citizens who aren’t Native Americans live on the reservation?
Point made, I think…
I’ll just point out again that both sides have their heads up their asses, point to slights – perceived or real – from decades ago to back up their speechifying and nothing gets solved. Both sides have to make concessions and we have to be an honest broker in those negotiations and not have it be a partnership with Israel vs. everyone else.
Now of course my true feeling is for us to pull out of the entire situation and let all the nuts sort it out for themselves, but then we don’t have an oil alternative.
Yet.
Mark, Israel launched the air attacks AFTER Egypt imposed a blockade of Israel’s only Red Sea port — and blockades are an act of war.
Oh, and that video report? After the “ceasefire” started, there were 18 attacks from Gaza. And while Hamas didn’t fire them, as the governing body of Gaza, they are responsible for what happens there.
The six gunmen shot inside Gaza? Israel says they were digging a tunnel into Israel. And Hamas immediately retaliated with more rocket attacks — they didn’t “exercise restraint” or “wait and see what develops” or any of the other things Israel was expected to do during those 18 rocket attacks.
That no Israelis were killed by the rocket attacks is NOT a testament to Hamas’ humanity, but their incompetence. It certainly wasn’t for a lack of trying.
J.
Nice equivocation, Oliver. Yes, both sides have done wrong. But have both sides done right on occasion?
I think not.
There has NEVER been a single sign that the Palestinians want peace or are willing to compromise. There have been numerous times Israel has done both.
I don’t see the equivalence.
I also know that Israel has been, on the whole, a boon to the world. It has contributed tremendously to the general welfare of humanity, far out of proportion to its size, population, and modern history.
The Palestinians? Let’s see… I think the biggest contribution they’ve made is the introduction of rat poison into bombs to keep the wounds from coagulating.
J.
It seems you two gentlemen have ingested information primarily from 100% pro-Israel sources. That’s unfortunate, because it seems to me you’ve missed a bit of nuance that lends itself to a somewhat more thoughtful position (not that I’m claiming expertise, mind you).
1) Yes, the Palestinians and the Tamils each have legitimate gripes against the governments under which (or next to which) they live. The Israelis used terror tactics to force Palestinians to vacate land in the post-war, pre-independence declaration era, including massacring civilians in one village (against which the Palestinians unfortunately retaliated) and playing radio broadcasts saying people were coming to kill their men and rape their women. (Israelis – among them future PM Menachem Begin – also used terror tactics against the British at the time, killing civilians and booby-trapping the dead body of a British soldier to kill more.) In the time since then, you’ll have a hard time arguing that Palestinians are anything but a second class in the region, thanks in part to Israel, in part to its neighbors.
2) Jesus, I don’t know. If I could answer that I’d be accepting a peace prize in Norway next year. NR is absolutely right about the 1967 borders, I think. There’s a psychological factor involved for Palestinians and arab neighbors – the six-day war was a staggering humiliation for them, in other words – in addition to the other reasons for doing so.
JT, how exactly would a return to the ‘67 borders leave Israel indefensible? They made it though the era from 50-67, did they not?
It’s pretty clear that it’s impossible for the Palestinian to make the first step: with the way Israel has destroyed their infrastructure and government, they don’t have the power to enforce law and order, and can’t prevent factions from acting of their own initiative. Both sides SHOULD stop, but only Israel CAN. And it chose not to.
NR is absolutely right about the 1967 borders, I think. There’s a psychological factor involved for Palestinians and arab neighbors – the six-day war was a staggering humiliation for them, in other words – in addition to the other reasons for doing so.
(emphasis added)
Good. It should be. They picked a fight, they bragged about how they would drive Israel into the sea, and they got their asses handed to them. That is not something that Israel should need to atone for or apologize for. It is something the Palestinians don’t need to get over, but remember and learn from.
It’s part and parcel of their being a “shame” culture. Any defeat, any humiliation, any loss must be avenged. And if the world caters to that, then we end up in an endless cycle of excusing their atrocities in the name of “peace.”
As far as Israel being largely indefensible by the old borders… look at ‘em.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/borders.html
In some places, the country is only 9 to 11 miles wide.
Then take into account the range of the rockets Hamas has been firing into Israel.
J.
It’s part and parcel of their being a ’shame’ culture. Any defeat, any humiliation, any loss must be avenged.
Yeah. Shame cultures are so lame. They should be more like America. We are totally not a “shame culture.” We’ll walk away from any defeat, humiliation or loss. Just look at 9-11. Thank god we had the good sense to accept the “shame” and walk away from the rubble with our heads hung low.
I mean, gosh, we wouldn’t have wanted to end up in an endless cycle of excusing atrocities in the name of ‘peace.’
fafaroo, so true. I remember how we resorted to nukes when we left Viet Nam.
And are you serious? The United States has been the most insulted, most scorned, most spat-upon nation in the world for decades, and we have NEVER gone apeshit over simple insults. Most of us just shrug it off; dips like you tend to cheerfully agree with them.
On the other hand, “insulting Islam” is a capitol offense in much of the Muslim world. Just ask Salman Rushdie or certain Danish cartoonists. I’d suggest asking Pym Fortuyn or Theo Van Gogh, but they’re not available for comment any more.
J.
fafaroo, so true. I remember how we resorted to nukes when we left Viet Nam.
Yeah, I totally forgot about Vietnam because it so didn’t completely fuck up our entire national debate about foreign policy for some 40 fucking years, including the 2004 presidential election. Yeah, we totally handled that defeat in stride. Just shrugged and moved on. No biggie.
Give me a break, Jay Tea.
You’re asking the Palestinians to get over their loss in 1967 when conservatives in this country were still trying to re-fight Viet Nam as late as 2004.
Hell, the whole damn country went along with invading Iraq because, well, fuck it, we had to bomb the shit out of some country with significant targets after 9-11.
Jay Tea, conservatives in this country have made a cottage industry of preserving and polishing every perceived insult or outrage, no matter how manufactured, to keep their anger and raged stoked all the while insisting that we bomb the fuck out of any country that dare defy us.
The Palestinians do not have some kind of cultural monopoly on “not letting go” and looking for vengeance.
That is the very life blood of the modern conservative movement.
Jesus, Jay Tea, while were on the subject of letting go:
For fucksakes, dude, get over it!
News Reference: “1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No ‘right of return’.”
I say give the Palestinians a slightly larger West Bank, but get rid of the Gaza Strip.
How’s that for, ‘Crazy enough it just might work?’
Or is that just crazy?
If it’s the latter, I blame my fucking computer. I’ve spend the better part of the last 2 hours trying to get it to connect to the internet.
My sympathies, Strowbridge, on the connection issues. Have had my own in that vein.
Your idea isn’t crazy. It’s just plain fucking stupid.
“Slightly larger West Bank?” Where would that extra land come from? I vote for Jordan.
“Get rid of the Gaza Strip?” How, precisely? Egypt doesn’t want it. Israel doesn’t want it. Maybe just nuke it out of existence?
Man, even for you, that’s stupid.
J.
Well Quaker that is what the situation has been in Sri Lanka for 20 or 30 years. Although it is only been half as long as the problems in Israel, it is in some ways quite similar.
And before that?
In Quaker-in-a-Basement-governed Sri Lanka, the ethnic Tamils would be too busy preparing for the annual Hanuman festival to engage in guerilla warfare.
I was under the impression you were aware of the conflict between the Sri Lankans and the Tamil Tigers and had enough context to form a response to the specifics.
So you’re admitting that I was correct? Your position is in favor of genocide on spec?
J.G.Thayer: “‘Get rid of the Gaza Strip?’ How, precisely? Egypt doesn’t want it. Israel doesn’t want it. Maybe just nuke it out of existence?”
Take the land and give it to Israel. Move the people to the West Bank, and enlarge West Bank by the amount of land currently in the West Bank.
Ta da!
(And no, that’s not a serious suggestion, you humor-deficit automaton.)
Wow Quaker,
Admit you’re right on what? Before that the Brits kept a lid on it for a couple hundred years.
If you are good enough to get guerrillas to lay down thier arms and worship monkeys there is a lot of work out there for you.
Before that the Brits kept a lid on it for a couple hundred years.
The Brits kept a lid on it for a couple of hundred years? But…but…your advice earlier was for the ethnic Tamils to “go back to India!”
Are you now saying that a people who had lived on Sri Lanka for “a couple of hundred years” have no right to continue living in that homeland?
As a matter of fact, AO, the Sri Lankan government tried it precisely the way you recommend, with pogroms against ethnic Tamils. Were they too gentle, in your view, by practicing mere ethnic cleansing instead of outright genocide?
On a separate note, I feel I should apologize. I have been less than forthright in my challenges to your posts. On review, I can see how my point might be less than clear. Please allow me to clarify.
Early on, you proposed that the Sri Lankan government should have responded more vigorously, “winding it up within the first year.” Yet when challenged on that recommendation, you cite the violence that occurred over the next 25 years. Of course, the Sri Lankan government did not have the benefit of foresight. They wouldn’t have known what would happen in the years to come. It’s my position that “world opinion” quite correctly frowns upon a government attacking an ethnic minority based on what it suspects will happen in the future.
My apologies for any confusion.
Jay,
You asked if the Palestinians can go three months without a rocket attack. Well, in Fall of 2008, they did just that. Hamas had ceased rocket attacks, and then in November Israel went in and launched a raid on what it said were Hamas positions. Then, Hamas started firing rockets from Gaza, adn Israel used that as an excuse to start bombing the daylights out of Gaza. What was the aim – the Israelis said it was to eject Hamas. But, Hamas was still in control of Gaza after the bombing, at a cost of several hundred dead Gazans.
And that so called “withdrawal” from Gaza is a bit of a joke. Israel controlled all the airspace, sea access, and land access to an area about twice the size of DC. That is hardly vacating.
The fact is, Israel’s guiding principle when dealing with Palestinians is either a closed fist, or divide and conquer. When Hamas won the Palestinian election in 2006, Israel and the U.S. encouraged Fatah to reject the election results and take up arms, to the point that Israel was providing weapons to Fatah forces. Then, that ended badly, with Gaza breaking off.
The Sri Lanka example does not work. For starters, that was a case of where a specific ethnic group – the Tamils – felt it was being denied its political rights in the country to which they had citizenship. In the case of the Palestinians, Israel does not want to extend political rights to a specific group that is under its political control. More importantly, Sri Lanka does not depend on the U.S. to bail it out of trouble. As horrible as the fighting was in Sri Lanka, we do not have a dog in that fight. Israel, OTOH, is always running to us for diplomatic cover when it undertakes action in the West Bank and Gaza.
Quaker,
The world is filled with a lot of problems isn’t it. The details change but human nature is a constant. Your point about foresight is well made. It is all too easy to fault anothers defecient foresight when using one’s vastly more accurate hindsight.
I take a harsher view while i believe you take a kinder one. In the end the pendulum swings between the two and it is what it is.
I have a low tolerance for terrorists. I know it is said one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. But I have little regard for thier lives if thier terrorism is directed at me or my interests. You undoubtedly feel differently. My sympathies lie with majority from Serendip not the Tamil terrorists. But I have little at stake there but a fondness for the strange quirky island. As I said earlier the world has a lot of problems.
KXB, kindly review the video clip Mark Kraft linked to above. There’s a summary of rocket atttacks against Israel through most of 2008:
May: 149
June: 87 (84 before “ceasefire,” 3 after)
July: 8
August: 3
September: 1
October: 1
November: 68
December: 52
No, Hamas didn’t actually launch the rockets. But as the legal and de facto governing body of Gaza, they are responsible for what happens there. They didn’t prevent the attacks.
On November 4, Israel attacked and killed six Hamas fighters who Israel claimed were digging a tunnel into Israel to kidnap Israeli soldiers– and entirely plausible statement, as Hamas has held one hostage for years and declared its intent to kidnap more.
And why would Israel just decide, off the cuff, to kill six gunmen who weren’t posing a threat? Especially without a serious plan behind it to exploit it properly? All it achieved was a return of the rocket attacks — it gained Israel nothing.
I realize trying to apply logic to the Middle East is a sketchy proposition in most cases, but here Israel’s explanation of why it killed the six terrorists in November makes more sense than the Hamas account.
J.
Sorry about missing the humor in your comment, Strowbridge — I forgot that nothing you say should ever be taken seriously. Dunno how that slipped my mind…
J.
KXB, your stereotyping of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians is simplistic and inaccurate. Israel withdrew from Gaza, and things promptly went to hell. (Google up what happened to some Israeli-built greenhouses that were left behind, intact.)
Oddly enough, for all of Israel’s vaunted control of Gaza’s borders, they still get plenty of rockets, mortars, bombs, and other weapons. And doesn’t Egypt control a hunk of that border? Why aren’t you giving them part of the blame?
Every single “peace process” has started off with Israel making concessions and “good will gestures.” And every single one has failed.
As far as Hamas and the elections go… it might have escaped your notice, but Hamas is a terrorist organization. Just because they won an election (presumed by most to have been a “fair” one) doesn’t suddenly whitewash their essential nature as terrorists. They were terrorists. Now they’re terrorists who won an election and hold legitimate political power.
J.
Jay,
Noting from your own posts, Israel launched a raid into Gaza on November 4. You also note that there were 68 rocket attacks from Gaza that same month. Guess which came first. Prior to November 4, the trend line for rocket attacks was downward. Not surprisingly, when Israel broke the truce – Hamas fired back. Equally unsurprisingly, the crude rockets did no real damage, quite unlike the American-supplied munitions that Israel used during its aimless bombing campaign in December.
“As far as Hamas and the elections go… it might have escaped your notice, but Hamas is a terrorist organization.” So was Irgun, that did not prevent both Manachim Begin and Yitzhak Shamir, both members of Irgun which targeted British target, Arab civilian, and Jewish opponents. Is there any particular reason that Americans should believe a Jewish terrorist can be transformed into a head of government while his Palestinian neighbor cannot?
YXB, I did not mean to imply that the Israeli raid followed the rocket attacks. Yes, you are quite correct that the attacks ramped up after the Israeli attack, and I apologize if I implied otherwise.
But just when did the “cease fire” commence? Traditionally, it’s when both sides cease firing. The Palestinian attacks were trending down, as you noted — NOT ceasing.
And the ineffectiveness of the Palestinian attacks is irrelevant. It’s not because of any humanitarian concerns on their behalf — it’s strictly because of their ineptitude and the Israeli civil defense efforts.
Imagine that once a day, every day, a blind man goes into downtown Manhattan and fires off a single shot from a gun. The odds of him hitting anyone are incredibly slim. Do you wait until he gets lucky before you try to stop him?
Toss in another element: every now and then he upgrades his gun to a more powerful, longer-ranged weapon, putting more and more people at risk.
That’s the situation in Gaza. That’s what Israel is facing.
J.
Also, Irgun, as I recall, renounced terrorism when they became a political entity. So did Fatah, technically.
Hamas, on the other hand, simply says that it has a “political” and a “militant” wing and wants the rest of the world to pretend that the two are separate.
Well, they’ve apparently got you to go along…
J.
(Google up what happened to some Israeli-built greenhouses that were left behind, intact.)
Jay Tea, please explain why the greenhouses were left behind in the first place.
J.G.Thayer: “Hamas, on the other hand, simply says that it has a ‘political’ and a ‘militant’ wing and wants the rest of the world to pretend that the two are separate.”
And is Hamas had to survive politically, it would have to divert resources from its militant wing. That’s what happened to Sinn Féin in Ireland.
Terrorism is easy. It doesn’t take a lot of effort to plant a bomb. Running a government is hard.
Having Hamas trying to become a legitimate political entity would have solved a lot of problems.
Too bad the United States and Israel decided to destroy them, which not only made Hamas more popular, it also showed Israel and the United States were not interested in democracy.
I don’t care what your opinion of Hamas is, personally I wouldn’t complain if they magically were erased from history. However, what Israel and the United States did was a tactical mistake.
J.G.Thayer: “Sorry about missing the humor in your comment, Strowbridge — I forgot that nothing you say should ever be taken seriously. Dunno how that slipped my mind…”
I write that you should be turned into Soylent Green, but you would make bitter tasting food. And you react like I’m serious.
I write that you were fired as a blogger, but follow that with (Tee hee hee). And you still react like I’m serious.
You are a fucking ‘tard. And I am being serious.
Jay,
You wrote, “But just when did the “cease fire” commence? Traditionally, it’s when both sides cease firing. The Palestinian attacks were trending down, as you noted — NOT ceasing.”
After Hamas won the elections in 2006, and after the U.S. and Israel formented civil war among Palestinians, the Hamas-run Gaza Strip fell under a blockade. Blockades are considered an act of war. I’m not excusing the rocket attacks, but what did Israel think was going to happen when you cut 1 million people off from the rest of the world? And, given that the rocket attacks were going down before the Israeli raid in November, isn’t that yet another case of Israel pursuing a tactical advantage at the expense of a strategic goal?
Look, the Palestinians are the whipping boy of the Middle East. Kuwait kicked out all their Palestinians in 1991 after the U.S. pushed out Saddam, since Arafat was dumb enough to side with Saddam. But in a simple matter of effectiveness, the U.S. acting as Israel’s lawyer has not improved America’s standing, Israel’s reputation or security, or the plight of the Palestinians. There is no evidence to suggest that continuing with that method would yield better results. After all, the U.S. was quick to realize that working with some Sunni tribes would bring down the violence in Iraq. Why can’t Israel learn the same lesson?
“KXB” refutes right winger “Jay Tea” here, here.
In the second post, KXB provides historical context by mentioning the Israeli terrorist organization Irgun which had been run by Israel’s prime minister Menachem Begin.
Consider what right winger “Jay Tea” says about terrorists:
“Just because they won an election (presumed by most to have been a “fair” one) doesn’t suddenly whitewash their essential nature as terrorists. They were terrorists. Now they’re terrorists who won an election and hold legitimate political power.”
But right winger “Jay Tea” applies Right Winger’s First Rule: Rules Are For Other People.
The rules right winger “Jay Tea” applies to his adversaries are not rules he applies to his allies.
Hypocrisy = Right Wing.
Strowbridge, that was actually pretty funny, but I’m going to act like you were sincere. Probably a mistake, but I’ve made ‘em before.
Could either you or KXB cite a single time when Hamas gave the slightest sign that it was interested in peace? That it would even consider giving up terrorism? That it might consider renouncing their decades of pledging the extermination of “the Zionist entity?”
At every single opportunity, they’ve affirmed their goals and their methodology and their commitment to their charter.
What Bush did was probably the most heinous thing one can do to Arabs — he took Hamas at their word. He listened to what they said, loudly and repeatedly, and said “OK.”
From Hamas’ own charter:
That’s Hamas’ charter. That’s the group you want to make buddies with JUST because they won an election — not that they have shown a single sign of moderation.
Let THEM show a few signs that they’re actually interested in peace, and not genocide, and then we can talk. Until then, take them at their word.
Unless, of course, you’re one of those racists who thinks that “you can’t go by what they say; their culture doesn’t allow them to speak honestly.”
J.
“Could either you or KXB cite a single time when Hamas gave the slightest sign that it was interested in peace? That it would even consider giving up terrorism? That it might consider renouncing their decades of pledging the extermination of “the Zionist entity?””
Jay – you do know that Hamas was midwifed by Israel, don’t you? Back in the 1970s and 1980s, in an attempt to dilute the support for Arafat’s Marxist heavy PLO, Israel allowed the Muslim Brotherhood to start organizing at universities in the West Bank and Gaza. Their thinking was that since the Brotherhood focused on religion, that it would be hostile to the PLO, who eschewed religious rallying cries. Egypt, which had just signed a peace treaty with Israel, was jumping up and down – warning Israel that to allow the Brotherhood to operate was playing with fire. Members of the Brotherhood founded Hamas, believing that the PLO was too corrupted.
As I stated before, Israel is so focused on the short term, they cannot see problems coming long-term. Now, if Israel chooses to continue to behave this way, there may not be much we Americans can do to change that. But, what we can do is stop protecting Israel from its own errors. They are a separate country, not the 51st state. Israel does not really do much for us anyway. They have captured no Al Qaeda leaders, but they did sell radar technology to China which can be used against American naval forces in the Pacific. I don’t recall allies like Japan or Great Britain behaving in such a fashion. But Israel is not an ally in the traditional sense, it is a client.
Wasn’t that tough a question, KXB:
Two paragraphs later, you still haven’t answered it.
I think I see your point, though: “Islamist psychos aren’t to be trusted, ever!” Doesn’t really help your current argument, that we should negotiate with Hamas, but it is a pretty good point.
J.
I have a low tolerance for terrorists. I know it is said one man’s terrorist is another’s freedom fighter. But I have little regard for thier lives if thier terrorism is directed at me or my interests. You undoubtedly feel differently. My sympathies lie with majority from Serendip not the Tamil terrorists.
The Tamil rebels were absolute bastards. No question about it.
However, to “wind it up in the first year” would involve preemptive killing, indiscriminate killing. “World opinion” rightly takes a dim view.
“Mark Kraft” knocks down winger “Jay Tea’s” falsehoods here, here, and here.
“KXB” continues to knock down right winger “Jay Tea’s” falsehoods here, here, here, and here.
In “KXB’s” third post he points out that “Israel fomented civil war among Palestinians, [and] the Hamas-run Gaza Strip fell under a[n Israeli enforced] blockade.”
Right winger “Jay Tea” agrees that “blockades are an act of war.”
And yet, again, right winger “Jay Tea” fails to apply the same standards to his client as he expects to be applied to others.
Israel’s acts of war against Palestinians are redefined acts of peace by right wing “Jay Tea’s” Orwellian Newspeak.
Right Winger’s First Rule, that ‘Rules Are For Other People’, must be rejected by an honest broker.
RULES ARE FOR EVERYONE:
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
PERIOD.
You are correct Quaker,
However with the benefit of hindsight I find my sympathies leaning towards a more pragmatic approach, sooner rather than later.
J.G.Thayer: “Probably a mistake, but I’ve made ‘em before.”
Yes you have made plenty of mistakes. Like when you said Waterboarding was only simulated drowning and not controlled drowning. Or when you said simulated drowning wasn’t considered torture. Those were two big mistakes.
I said when Hamas because a political organization, they would have to actual run the government, and that would be good for the peace process, just like it was in Ireland win Sinn Féin. I was talking about events that should have taken place in the future.
That’s not happening now, because Israel and the United States attacked them. And by doing so, they gave Hamas political legitimacy with the people, unearned political legitimacy. Now we won’t know how things could have played out had Israel and the United States acted smart, instead of acting tough.
Netanyahu will tell Obama to shove it anyways. No one on earth is going to listen BO as we’ve already seen. His pie in the sky speeches worked on the idiot masses in this country, but they don’t and won’t mean a damn thing to world leaders whose nations very existence is on the line, or whose people are led by genocidal maniacs. The Israelis will do what they have to in order to survive whether we help them or not. It’s plainly obvious to anyone that’s not an idiot or a jew-hating nutbar that the arabs have absolutely no genuine intentions of abiding by a long-term peace agreement. They never have. They’ll do as they always do – try to get the Israelis to concede more territory, break that agreement, and then demand more territory. I don’t believe there will be peace ever between jews and muslims in the region as long as Israel exists. And muslim hate for them will not end with cheesy speeches off of a teleprompter. I just wish we’d let’em fight it out already and get it over with. I’m tired of both sides and their bullshit.
KXB: “Jay – you do know that Hamas was midwifed by Israel, don’t you?”
Of course he doesn’t.
J.G.Thayer: “Wasn’t that tough a question, KXB:”
No. But is it a stupid question.
Can you show me a quote that showed the IRA would allowed British rule of Northern Ireland?
Strowbridge, a few questions:
When did the US ever attack Hamas? I know they’ve killed Americans, but when have we ever hit at them?
“Negotiations” require two parties to talk. Has Hamas EVER shown the slightest bit of interest in talking? (Note that their charter specifically rejects such things.)
Thanks for the recap, “Newsy.” Utterly useless and wildly inaccurate, but a nice reminder that you don’t let anything get in the way of repeating your talking points — not even the fact that you have nothing at all to contribute.
J.
Jay, there mere fact that you’re asking people to attack the Palestinian government indicates that you’re on Israel’s side.
Nobody even thinks you’re being honest here. They think you’re a piece of shit that throes mud around to try and cloud every issue.
Israeli’s have killed American soldiers before. You’re walking a dangerous path there bub.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, a few questions:”
I’ll try to answer them, but I doubt you will do the same for my questions.
“When did the US ever attack Hamas? I know they’ve killed Americans, but when have we ever hit at them?”
The United States attacks them through Israel.
“‘Negotiations’ require two parties to talk. Has Hamas EVER shown the slightest bit of interest in talking? (Note that their charter specifically rejects such things.)”
And they would have to change should they be forced to govern.
I keep pointing this out to you, and you keep ignoring it.
And I will again ask…
Can you show me a quote that showed the IRA would allowed British rule of Northern Ireland? Can you show me evidence that shows the IRA was willing to negotiate for peace?
Or are you going to ignore that point and run away?
“Quaker in a Basement”: “to “wind it up in the first year” would involve preemptive killing, indiscriminate killing.”
Right winger “Amused Observer”: “You are correct Quaker, However with the benefit of hindsight I find my sympathies leaning towards a more pragmatic approach, sooner rather than later.”
To right winger “Amused Observer”, “a more pragmatic approach, sooner rather than later” “would involve preemptive killing, indiscriminate killing.”
“Amused Observer” advocates a final solution.
And Israel appears to be following advice from right wing eliminationists like “Amused Observer”.
Israel has put Palestinians into ghettos, even blockading Palestinians from humanitarian aid.
It’s collective punishment.
Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians is not something new.
Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians has been going on for years.
Israel’s collective punishment of Palestinians is like a broken record.
This isn’t to say that the some Palestinians don’t do stupid, even evil things. But it’s like Minnie Me picking a fight with Shaq.
Israel has lost the claim of having the moral high ground.
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
Strowbridge, I never followed the Northern Ireland situation in the least, so I don’t know the answer to your question. I also question its applicability — the IRA NEVER stooped to the depths of depravity that Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups have done. I think my “favorite” example was the scarred Palestinian woman (I believe she was maimed by her husband) who was going to get plastic surgery, for free, inside Israel. She was caught heading for the hospital with a suicide bomb belt, and intended to blow up the hospital.
Hamas has had a couple of years to show their priorities as a governing body. So far those priorities have been getting more and more unguided missiles, killing members of Fatah, rooting out “collaborators,” stealing humanitarian supplies, and putting out more and more anti-Semitic propaganda.
Peace isn’t exactly a priority for them. But I’m sure that if Israel just makes a bunch more concessions, they’ll suddenly see the light and make nice.
J.
However with the benefit of hindsight I find my sympathies leaning towards a more pragmatic approach, sooner rather than later.
In other words, the Hutu solution.
By the way, aren’t you the same fellow who was here last week describing our own southern Confederate terrorists as “honorable”?
I also question its applicability — the IRA NEVER stooped to the depths of depravity that Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups have done.
Since you “never followed the Northern Ireland situation in the least,” I wonder how you can make such a definitive statement.
News,
Let us grant you your wish.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
Now that we have done that, in the highly unlikely situation that Israel is the target of aggression, say a rocket attack or some sort of bombing incident within her borders what would an appropriate response be?
Quaker, I don’t have to be an expert on Northern Ireland to deduce that — when that incident happened, NO ONE cited a precedent. Rather, the main commentary was that “this was utterly unprecedented.” So I feel pretty comfortable in saying the Irish never tried it — or anyone else.
Plus, I’m quite certain that the Paletinian terrorism apologists (like, say, yourself) would have glommed on to such things had they occurred. “The Palestinians are only doing what the Irish did, and it worked for them!”
If you don’t like that incident, how about the Palestinians bombing a pizza place, then setting up a display at a college recreating it in all its bloody glory? How about naming a UN-sponsored summer camp for children after a suicide bomber? How about deliberately murdering children for the heinous crime of being Jews? How about using ambulances for transporting terrorists to and from attacks? Or using ambulances for smuggling suicide bomb belts into Israel?
I can get links for all of ‘em, if you want.
And I’ll bet the IRA never did any of those, either.
But I’ll repeat my main point: what the fuck makes any of you think Hamas is the least bit interested in a peaceful settlement? When have they given any indicator that they are so inclined?
CAN’T YOU FUCKING MORONS READ THEIR CHARTER?
J.
Plus, I’m quite certain that the Paletinian terrorism apologists (like, say, yourself)
What on earth are you imagining now, Mr. Tea? Perhaps I should follow your example here (as demonstrated in your dealings with Mr. Strowbridge) and demand proof or a retraction, and add sinister hints of legal action?
It takes two sides to make a conflict, Mr. Tea. Here’s a tip: whenever you come across anyone who places all the blame on one side, you’re dealing with a zealot.
Right winger “Jay Tay” accuses others of being “Paletinian [sic] terrorism apologists” when he’s been a torture advocate and war crimes apologist in multiple threads.
Right winger “Jay Tay” cites lurid instances of indefensible savagery and yet conveniently forgots that Israeli religious fanatics have deliberately murdered Palestenian women and children.
Israel has lost the claim of having the moral high ground.
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
Hey Newsy,
Rather than take some responsibility for your position and articulate the merits of your case you go off on another tirade. I sense a pattern here.
Oh, ouch. A spelling flame. I typoed. Someone shoot me.
“Newsy” conveniently overlooks the factor of INTENT.
When Israel kills innocents, it’s accidental — and often the result of Palestinian terrorists using human shields (often willing ones, but not always).
When the Palestinians kill Israeli children, it’s cause for celebration.
And “Newsy,” Amused asked an interesting question. Let’s assume that your stupid little “peace plan” were to come about. And then there’s an attack on Israel from Palestine. What would be an appropriate response?
J.
Quaker, you seemed eager to excuse the Palestinians for their responsibility in committing acts of terrorism. If I misunderstood you, I apologize.
And no, I don’t think the Palestinians are 100% to blame. I said so earlier. But I think that they need to be held accountable for their actions and their decisions.
J.
Right wingers “Amused Observer” and “Jay Tea” ask a hypothetical question: “there’s an attack on Israel from Palestine. What would be an appropriate response?”
To which I’ll give a concrete answer.
NOT THIS:
Israeli squad commander Aviv: “One of our officers, a company commander, saw someone coming on some road, a woman, an old woman. She was walking along pretty far away, but close enough so you could take out someone you saw there. If she were suspicious, not suspicious – I don’t know. In the end, he sent people up to the roof, to take her out with their weapons. From the description of this story, I simply felt it was murder in cold blood.”</a
Zamir: “I don’t understand. Why did he shoot her?”
Aviv: “That’s what is so nice, supposedly, about Gaza: You see a person on a road, walking along a path. He doesn’t have to be with a weapon, you don’t have to identify him with anything and you can just shoot him. With us it was an old woman, on whom I didn’t see any weapon. The order was to take the person out, that woman, the moment you see her.”
===========================
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
===========================
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I never followed the Northern Ireland situation in the least, so I don’t know the answer to your question.”
There you go. J.G.Thayer admits he doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
“…the IRA NEVER stooped to the depths of depravity that Hamas and the other Palestinian terrorist groups have done.”
But he will still use his total lack of knowledge to make a statement of fact.
That’s all we really need to know about you to judge your arguments.
Nothing you say matters, because you treat your uninformed opinion as fact.
Normally I would call this a lie. Representing your uninformed opinion as a fact is a lie. It is a textbook definition of a lie. However, you really think your uniformed opinions are facts. You are not lying, per se, you are delusional.
This is why you think your opinion on waterboarding can overrule expert testimony, first hand accounts, and even legal documents.
In your warped mind, if J.G.Thayer thinks it, it is fact.
I got nothing to say about that report, “Newsy.”
Because Melanie Phillips already answered it two months ago:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3464331/the-haaretz-blood-libel.thtml
A brief excerpt, on that particular incident:
You gotta keep up on your blood libels, “Newsy.” Find some that haven’t already been answered. Hey, what about Muhammed Al-Durah? How about the Jenin “massacre?” How about the “beach massacre?”
So, “Newsy,” are you on the Pallywood payroll, or do you do their work for free?
J.
Strowbridge, you colossal dipshit. I explained why I believed the IRA hadn’t committed certain atrocities — logical inference and simple application of common sense.
If you want to prove me wrong, and demonstrate that the IRA did indeed engage in atrocities like the Palestinians do routinely, feel free.
The main thing I remember about the IRA was that they tended to “kneecap” informers and the like, and they often called in warnings about bombings. Oh, and they tried like hell to avoid injuring Americans.
I infer that the IRA didn’t commit atrocities like the Palestinians do is because had they done so, it would have been mentioned countless times in relation to a Palestinian terrorist attack. I don’t recall that ever happening. Indeed, the contrary was often cited — how the IRA was far, far less savage and brutal and inhuman than the Palestinians.
Funny how no one wants to reconcile “negotiate with Hamas” and Hamas’ own Charter, though…
J.
Newsy,
Wow what an intellectually dishonest person you are. Your last post addressed absolutely nothing regarding your position on appropriate response following an agreement in the mideast between Israel and the rest of the Arab world successfully implemented precisely as you wish.
1967 borders.
Dismantle all settlements.
No “right of return”.
Your propaganda website looks a little busy in design. Maybe you need a new webdesigner. You know spruce up the place a bit.
You mistake volume for content in your intellectual endeavors. You sure come across as a blustering pussy here when you debate someone on the merits of a case.
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, you colossal dipshit. I explained why I believed the IRA hadn’t committed certain atrocities — logical inference and simple application of common sense.”
You mean you total lack of knowledge plus your prejudices.
That’s it, man, you’re done.
Game over.
What little credibility you may have possessed is now evaporated.
“logical inference and simple application of common sense.”
Sorry Sherlock, that may work for Arthur Conan Doyle but in the real world one’s subjective self-determination of what constitutes both logic and common sense is not a substitute for the facts. And thehe fact of the matter is the IRA, particularly the Provos, bombed, shot, and otherwise murdered more than their fair share of people both in the Six Counties and the UK. Try googling the Kingsmill Massacre or the Birmingham Pub bombing or look up the link between arms dealers and training between the Provos and Libya.
Simply because all you remember is kneecapping does not mean that was all that happened. The universe of bad deeds is broader than your memory can hold.
Infering that the press would have made a comparison if one existed is utterly specious.
That said – this is not a defense of Hamas – far from it, simply a suggestion that one can only make logical inferences from facts – not from what one wishes facts to be.
That said – this is not a defense of Hamas – far from it, simply a suggestion that one can only make logical inferences from facts – not from what one wishes facts to be.
Lonya, meet Jay Tea. Jay Tea, Lonya.
Jay,
To answer your question – has Hamas ever been serious about a negotiated peace – let’s look at actions instead of words. You cite their charter in which they call for the elimination of the state of Israel. Given that their home-made rockets could not hit the side of truck from 10 yards, Israel is under no threat of destruction. OTOH, before Hamas even had the chance to assume the elected office to which they were elected – Israel, with American help, armed Fatah to start a Palestinian civil war. Then when the civil war did not end the way they hoped, they implemented a blockade.
So, you have Israel actively working to overthrow a neighboring government before it has the chance to even put their name on the office letterhead. Then, it cuts 1 million people off from the rest of the word. But, I guess since Israel does not “say” that keeping the Palestinians under their boot is their goal, then it is ok. Hamas words are, evidently, a far greater threat to regional stability than Israel’s action.
As long as we are taking about the IRA – and they were a nasty bunch – one of its top figures, Martin McGuiness sits in the Northern Island government. He sits alongside Irish Protestants who had their own vicious militias that carried out attacks on Catholics.
So, we’ve established that Jewish terrorists can change their ways (like Begin) to become ordinary politicians. We have shown the same is true of Irish terrorists and Sunni terrorists in Iraq. But, Palestinian terrorists must be so uniquely awful, that they cannot be allowed any say in their own governance. And if they elect a party Israel does not like, that just means they are not ready for democracy.
KXB, during the “ceasefire” that wasn’t, Hamas was continuing to hold Gilad Shalit, a kidnapped Israeli soldier taken during an invasion of Israel, and boasting of its plans to kidnap more and barter them for concessions. It was also stockpiling more and more rockets and missiles that got in despite the “embargo.” Just because they laid off on one form of attack doesn’t mean they were embracing peace.
And as far as the willingness or ability of Palestinians to reach and live by a peaceful settlement… well, one concrete example trumps a thousand theories. Can anyone offer one?
J.
Strowbridge, I stated what I believed, and stated why I believe it. You assail me for how I came to my conclusion, but don’t dispute it. How typical of you.
Lonya, I looked up those two incidents. The bus massacre killed ten men. The pub bombings, despite phone warnings, killed 21 and wounded 182.
The bombing of the Sbarro Restaurant in Jerusalem killed 15 and wounded 130. The injuries were exacerbated by the bombs being laced with nails, nuts,and bolts.
The series of bus bombings generated literally hundreds of casualties. Six of them alone killed 120 and injured close to 400. Again, the bombs were loaded with nails, nuts, and bolts.
The Passover Massacre, when a suicide bomber blew up a religious gathering, killed 30 and injured 140. Once again, the bombs were laced with nails, nuts, and bolts.
I don’t need to be an expert on all terrorist movements to know that the Palestinian form of terrorism is especially savage and inhumane — they seem to have a gift for finding new and creative ways to kill and maim, especially the innocent.
J.
Right winger “Amused Observer”: “You sure come across as a blustering pussy here when you debate someone on the merits of a case.”
Is “blustering pussy” like “Pussy Galore”?
It’s such an inventive insult, “Amused Observer”.
When right wingers call women “pussy” it reduces women to their gender’s reproductive organs.
It’s a way to dehumanize women.
But you can be honest here, “Amused Observer”, since you are comfortable typing out such a misogynistic insult, when you call someone a “pussy” you do so because you think women are less than men.
Wouldn’t it be sad if all of your eliminationist, racist, and violent tendencies that you’ve expressed in various threads, “Amused Observer”, all stem from just not being hugged enough by your mother as a child?
“Newsy,” I raised the same point about calling people “douchebags,” and was roundly mocked. It disturbs me that you came to the same conclusion I did.
But hey, whatever — the insult gave you a chance to dodge the actual issue, so it’s all good, right?
Asshole.
J.
“KXB, during the “ceasefire” that wasn’t, Hamas was continuing to hold Gilad Shalit, a kidnapped Israeli soldier taken during an invasion of Israel, and boasting of its plans to kidnap more and barter them for concessions. It was also stockpiling more and more rockets and missiles that got in despite the “embargo.” Just because they laid off on one form of attack doesn’t mean they were embracing peace.”
So? Israelis hold hundreds of Palestinians in jail without bringing them to trial. And why is Hamas’ re-arming so surprising? Israel is stockpiling weapons too. When did cease-fire equal unilateral disarmament? Given that Israel has demonstrated repeatedly that it does not live up to its word (1982 – we will not go to Beirut, 1993 – we will not expand any settlements, 2006 – we will limit our bombing to southern Lebanon) – Hamas is acting in a very expected, very rational manner.
I don’t need to be an expert on all terrorist movements to know that the Palestinian form of terrorism is especially savage and inhumane — they seem to have a gift for finding new and creative ways to kill and maim, especially the innocent.
It always comes back to this: The Palestinians are the most inhuman monsters that have ever walked the earth and there has never been and will never be a more savage people.
Anyone want to guess why that is?
J.G.Thayer: “Strowbridge, I stated what I believed, and stated why I believe it. You assail me for how I came to my conclusion, but don’t dispute it.”
You conclusion is based on zero knowledge. It could only be right as a fluke.
Therefore, there’s no reason to talk about it.
But feel free to continue to believe your opinions are facts. It makes it so much easier to laugh at you.
And so it begins…
News,
Nice run around. Perhaps I have made a grave error and you are indeed a woman. In that case it is understandable that you might not be familiar with the language that men commonly use amongst themselves. In this instance my language is not a slight towards women but towards you. A milder form might be you throw like a girl.
In any event, my nonexistant misogny aside, why do you never give a straight forward answer to a straight forward question?