Now everything in this post, I agree with.
And I agree with Shayna that it’s nice to see you back.
They’ve brought themselves into the discussion, or so I thought. See post 415.
Let’s just say that I don’t believe it’s killed 280 Hamas terrorists, and had collateral damage of 35 civilians.
If you don’t care how many civilians you kill, it hardly matters if you’re ‘targeting’ them or not, now does it?
No, but have they killed as many Palestinian civilians by bombing and whatnot as the Palestinian terrorists have done by planting bombs on schoolbuses? Sure looks like it, doesn’t it?
Look, dead is dead, killed is killed.
I don’t care if the Israeli bombardiers kill Pal children, then agonize it for hours afterwards with their girlfriends. Killed is killed.
Because I’m pointing out some flaws in some arguments you’ve directed at Arabs, I’m an apologist for Palestinian terrorism?
By the same token, you’re an apologist for men who’d sodomize small children, seeing as how you’re gay.
No, I don’t think that for a second - just driving home the weakness of your claim.
Yeah, playing the Holocaust card. There should be some sort of Godwin variant for this.
OTOH, there appear to be far too many Israelis – not a majority, but far too many – who feel exactly the same way about the Palestinians. (They might be satisfied with expulsion, but ethnic cleansing in that form is in practice little short of genocide, as any Oklahoma Cherokee whose ancestors walked the Trail of Tears from Georgia will tell you.)
Well, that sure is a problem, isn’t it? And the Israeli population on the West Bank went from 130,000 in 1995 to 270,000 last year; they’re getting harder to move, and they pretty much drive the Israeli policy towards the Palestinians.
Meanwhile, you have all sorts of barriers and checkpoints and all for the Palestinians - not just between pre-1967 Israel and the West Bank, but between different parts of the West Bank, in order to protect those settlements, and in the process make life impossible for Palestinians. I’m sure that if someone chopped up the D.C. area like that, so that going from Old Town to Shirlington, you had to wait two hours each at three checkpoints, we’d all just take it in stride.
If Israel pulls out of the West Bank, why do the settlers need to leave? Surely the Palestinians would be tolerant of a Jewish minority, no?
Why should they tolerate trespassers, no matter what their ethnicity?
If an Arab family moved into your back yard, would you be “tolerant” of that minority?
Maybe for the same reason that American Indians tolerate white people living in Minnesota. Or maybe for the same reason that white people in Minnesota tolerate American Indians.
What if the “trespassers” were born there? Remember, some of those settlements have been there for 40 years. If you were born in a place, grew up there and raised a family there, does anyone have the right to tell you its not your home because of something your *parents *did? I believe that being born in a place makes you a native - it’s pretty much the definition of the word. Why does a Jew native to the the territories have less right to live there than an Arab?
Ever heard of squatter’s rights?
Look - by and large, I’m not all that crazy about the settlers. I think a lot of them are pretty obnoxious, and I don’t really get along with them on a personal basis. Still, they’re my people, and I can’t be as blasי as you are about kicking them out of the only home they’ve ever known. Talk about removing the settlers all you want, but bear in mind that there’s a human factor here, too.
Plus, they don’t want to go, and I’d rather fight Arabs than Jews. It’s part of the whole “sticking together” thing.
I’m so proud, and so offended.
To continue the Godwin, in WWII the US killed thousands of German and Japanese civilians. If the US had not taken up arms in WWII, and all those civilians were not killed, would we be living in a better world?
Similarly, the Palestinian combatants hide behind civilians; should Israel not fight for fear of hitting a civilian, and let the Palestinians attack them unimpeded?
There is a huge moral difference between the unavoidable killing of civilians during combat and the deliberate targeting of civilians. Again, the Pals deliberately target Israeli kids and think nothing of sending their own children to die in jihad.
A. Being gay has nothing to do with child molestation.
B. Statistically, hetero men commit the vast majority of attacks on children, so your “riposte” is nonsensical
C. I’m not buying your disclaimer. “No, I don’t think that for a second” --I think you just showed what you really think about gay people.
I attacked you for holding a morally reprehensible position. You attacked me for who I am. And don’t play innocent with the “Oh, I was just drawing a parallel argument”. You knew what you were doing.
Not only that, but there was a Jewish community in Hebron for quite a while before they were kicked out in 1929.
There seems to be an unspoken assumption floating around that the Palestinians should have a state which is Judenrein and I would like to question it. The Jewish state is expected to be tolerant of an Arab minority. Why shouldn’t Palestinians have to accept and tolerate a Jewish minority?
That’s if we are to accept the premise of equivalent morality, of course.
In the first case, because the Indians are powerless; in the second case, because the Indians are powerless.
Damn well said.
They are not just a “minority” but a ruling caste. The settlers have forced the Palestinians into tightly controlled Bantustans within their own country, taken the best land, and built their own economy in which Palestinians do not participate. No Palestinian state can be economically viable until all that is swept away, and I can’t think of any way to do that that allows the settlers to remain. Can you? Just maybe, best-case scenario, it would be like post-Apartheid South Africa – the whites were not forced to leave, but, deprived of their monopoly on political power, many chose to do so. But Israeli-Palestinian tensions are even worse than racial tensions under Apartheid.
Let’s suppose that’s true. It’s still a possible answer to Dio’s question.
I think you’re politely trying to say that a West Bank under Palestinian control is likely to be intolerant and hostile towards a Jewish minority and is very likely to slaughter and chase out the Jews just as was done to whites in Zimbabwe.
Or did I misunderstand?
I know you don’t let facts get in the way of a good screed, but no.
By the way, is there any serious support for BrainGlutton’s claim that Jewish settlers have grabbed the “best land”? It sounds like liberal bullshit to me.
If he is, I’d like to sugest that the Jews will be sufficiently determined and well-armed to not make this nearly as easy as the Zimbabwe actions.
Warning: Weirddave, we don’t have a lot of rules in the Pit, but you’re breaking one of them. Don’t wish death on another poster - this includes suggesting their death will make the world a better place. If you do this again you’ll be suspended or banned.