Personally, I don’t think the Hamas is sufficiently organized to plan the extermination of a pile of sandwiches, but I can only imagine that tensions would lessen if they dropped such rhetoric from their charter and official statements.
What is the appropriate response to the calumny, put about so insistently, energetically and falsely. Biblically speaking 4 times the false accusation should be visited upon the speaker I believe, correct me if otherwise. In any case yet another reason why we should pay no mind to those obsolete books.
I’m stuck at comprehensible, but may break through.
Citey poo?
Although your question is facetious, the answer is yes and no. The general Palestinian position is acceptance of the population and descendants of pre-1947 (give or take a year). This plainly envisages a Jewish minority, but not the one composed in the same manner as your scenario.
Then you should understand that we are not talking about a bunch of people in a damp cellar, but a political party whose supporters make more than half of the population of the area. This is not a bad eighties movie with a cackling supervillain to take down.
I was assuming that you were ascribing to the Israeli myth that everyone apart from the Jews in the region are foreign invaders. You appear to have a more realistic view, so I apologise for this.
Weirddave’s notion that the Palestinians should all become Jordanian is still insane, however.
In this case it’s question whether that day’s arrived. US in decline. Evidence and information is now freely available. These things bode ill for a state aged a fragile 60.
Overt is not practical, hence the plan is genocide by stealth and degrees. Weirddave favors the ethnic cleansing route. Either way it’s a variation on softly, softly.
The lie that will not die.
Tell me, what is the appropriate level of death to deal to Israel for propagating this?
Right. These people support Hamas, they can deal with the consequences. It’s about time they learn cause and effect. They’re obviously slow learners.
Right. Now replace “Hamas” with “Likud” and imagine yourself wearing a beard and a turban while loading a makeshift rocket. See where I’m getting there?
Not really. The guy with a beard and turban and loading the makeshift rocket is sworn to the very destruction of Israel. He deliberately targets Israeli civilians to achieve this goal. The Israeli (Likud/Labour/Kadima/whatever) just wishes to see the rocket attacks stop. He targets Hamas members, not civilians, to achieve this goal.
Firstly:
Latterly:
Yeah, I’m sure that not everyone in any Israeli political party is as hawkish as you, but it was you and your "These people support Hamas, they can deal with the consequences. It’s about time they learn cause and effect." attitude I was talking about, and how much it reminds me of the guys from the side you so fervently oppose.
It never even occurred to me that non-Jews in the region were foreign invaders. Among the Jews, I guess vaguely the “invader” idea might apply to the Ashkenazim Jews who immigrated from Europe and the Americas over the last hundred years, but not the Sephardi Jews whose ancestry in the region goes back millenia.
In any case, “foreign invader” isn’t something I’d consider relevant, unless it is an actual invasion with marching troops and tanks and whatnot, as has happened numerous times since 1948.
I wouldn’t call it “insane”. “Incorrect” or “misleading” or “wrong-headed”, but Jordan conceivably could have annexed the West Bank at some point after 1948 or 1967, or even now (conceivably, though perhaps not likely or feasible). As far as I know, the cultural divide between Arabs on the East Bank and the West Bank are not enormous, or at least not more so than other populations that share a state. Probably less than English- and French-Canadians. If the West Bank does not become a state in its own right, annexation by Jordan could be a viable solution.
I don’t see any reason to link Jordan to Palestinians who don’t live in the West Bank. Perhaps Egypt could annex the Gaza Strip, for example, if Gaza does not also seek autonomy. This annexation may also not be likely or feasible.
If anything, I guess Israel used ancient tactics but not ancient results. In the old days if you conquered territory, you either slaughtered the local population, drove it away or assimilated/converted it. The Israelis did the conquering but not the resolving.
All very simplistic, I admit, but the best I can do in an off-the-cuff post.
The distinction is that the evangelist John, and our friend gobear, are using “the Jews” and “the Pals” in a manner that associates the indefensible behavior of some members of the group, with the group as a whole. That’s different from referring to “the Jew” or “the Negro” to, for instance, describe problems shared by the group as a whole, and advocate a common response by its members.
I honestly don’t understand why I would remind you of Hamas at all. Let me spell out my stance once again:
I support Israel’s campaign on the Gaza strip, due to Hamas’s choice to end the cease fire and to fire rockets at Israel. I have nothing against the Palestinians as a whole, and I feel for the innocent victims on both sides of this war. But Israel cannot just sit back and let Hamas believe that there will be no consequences for their actions. Cause and effect.
Maybe eventually, the Palestinian civilians will also understand cause and effect, and will drop support for Hamas too - not that I’m holding my breath. But this is the desired effect of Israel’s campaign:
No, not that her relatives are dying after being caught in the cross-fire, but that her people would be far better off without Hamas. Then maybe we would actually have a chance of returning to the negotiating table to lay out a two-state solution. Again, I’m not holding my breath.
The Hamas Charter seems to suggest that they would like to see the complete obliteration of Israel.
Maybe, but that’s not the subject. The subject is the oft-made claim of exterminating the Jews.