When I had C-Band satellite TV, I used to watch a Palestinian talk show with the studio in the United States. One fellow who called in screamed, “Freedom caanot be given. It must be taken!”
Is there a testosterone/honor/machismo thing going on here? Are both sides trying to convince the other side that they are tougher?
The Palestinians insist on firing their V1 and V2 rockets from civilian areas into Israeli in order to kill as many Israelis, civilians and soldiers, as possible.
The Israelis are defending themselves.
Reminds me of two old sayings -
“If you don’t want Hiroshima, don’t start Pearl Harbor” and “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes”.
p.s. How do you “encourage” further attacks from an enemy who is already attacking you?
My point being you can’t argue about who used to own the joint. There was always someone there before that.
This is like Pearl Harbor - who knew?
I agree. Utterly irrational and divisive. Which is why a lot of people do.
What exactly is the “agenda”?
But if Israel did that, it could have more of World opinion on its side by saying ‘See we gave them a state, and yet they still attack us’ It would appear more justifiable by making the Palestinian leadership appear even more irrational.
Definitely true; if they knew with certainty that there would be no response and could safely fire repeatedly from a fixed location they could adjust shots based upon where they intended the first rocket to land and where it actually went. Even with a weapon as inherently inaccurate as the rockets they are using this would have a big impact on overall accuracy.
Yes – the Palestinians. They’re not people who moved in after the Jews left, they’re the Jews’ cousins, descended from people who have been living in the region since ancient times. There’s DNA evidence.
Israel did, in fact, give them Gaza - a territory Israel used to control (and build settlements in). This has not translated into any noticable increase in world justification for Israeli actions.
In fact, from what I know of Israelis, they mostly discount the actual impact of world opinion.
The turning point in this process was the world’s actions immediately prior to the Six Day War in 1967. Israel had more or less counted on world pressure to force the Egyptians to back down - for example, by breaking the Egyptian blockade, or by reinforcing UN peacekeepers in the Sinai. Instead, the opposite happened - no blockade-busting happened, and the UN peacekeepers were ordered withdrawn by Egypt - and they left.
Blood and soil nationalism, eh? :dubious:
It certainly seems reasonable to me.
I thought the rush from the UN was to stop the war before Israel captured everything. Do I have my wars confused?
That was after the war begain. What I’m referring to is the actions of the UN prior to the outbreak of war.
Before the war, the UN had “peacekeeping” troops inbetween Israel and Egypt. If those troops stayed in place, no war could occur without one side or other attacking the UN.
The Israelis were counting on those troops staying put, as a guarantee of no war. Nasser ordered the UN to leave. Amazingly, they tamely … left.
I am not sure I understand this. I agree that it doesn’t serve Israel’s interests to have Hamas shooting rockets at them, but that doesn’t seem very calm to me.
Regards,
Shodan
Thanks, Malthus.
Yeah, I said they weren’t identical situations? I don’t recall the leaders of Japan being rounded up and executed for war crimes. AFAICT, the imperial family in Japan still occupies the palace. But that’s all besides the point, your distinctions are meaningless to the point I was making.
What pattern is that? Investing several times the local GDP into development of infrastructure while we build a few military bases on their property? Is that really much worse than 60 years of subjugation and occupation?
It seems like you are dismissing one of those options out of hand.
Just to be clear, “unilaterally caving” in this case is agreeing to a two state solution or the arab peace initiative. Right?
No I’m ridiculing people who think that arabs have some sort of genetic predisposition to bloodthirsty insanity. That these guys are pissed off for no discernible reason.
I’m saying that if Israel’s inability to reach any sort of reasonable compromise is based on the fact that the Palestinians are all bloodthirsty maniacs then perhaps third parties should work towards shifting power towards the Palestinians.
And in Christian countries too. So how does that justify carving a country out of largely arab land?
It is this inability to acknowledge the historical context that makes reconciliation so difficult. As far as Israel is concerned, history started the day they were attacked by their arab neighbors. And their treatment of Palestinains are in part justified by a history with arab neighbors who by your own admission don’t have much of a problem with them anymore.
I can’t remember the last time Gaza and the West bank invaded Israel.
If Israel can turn up their nose at peace with the other arab states because they aren’t “at war” why can’t they make peace with the Palestinians? Perhaps if the Palestinians had the military power of Syria or Egypt, they would be willing to make some compromises to achieve peace.
So maybe the secret to peace isn’t a weak Palestinian nation living in squalor but a powerful Palestinian military that has something to lose. Right now, they’ve got nothing to lose, so they strap bombs to their bodies and blow themselves up in Israeli cafes.
Is it true that the rockets fired from Gaza are also getting bigger (larger payloads) and have longer ranges? If so, the technological weapons race is just one more troubling facet of the overall problem.
So the only entity that doesn’t want peace is Hamas in Gaza (and even this is ambiguous) and yet the settlers are stealing Palestinian territory in the West bank and Jerusalem. Its like they don’t actually want peace.