It’s an odd thing indeed, a man contradicting things that exist only in his imagination.
Fail.
Never happen, not from bombing them; last time I checked, the Palestinians are still human. And it’s human nature to want vengeance, and to strike back at oppression and abuse, which means that Hamas or a similar organization is the only one that will be politically acceptable to the Palestinians. Just as Hamas knew that the Israelis would inevitably retaliate for those rockets.
Why would this be any more likely to break the Palestinians than the bombing of Britain by the Germans or that of Germany by the Allies broke the will of either side ? This sort of thing doesn’t WORK. It just kills innocents, increases anger, but without actually stopping your enemy from retaliating. The worst of both worlds.
No you didn’t. Read your post again. i don’t get annoyed at “mere suggestions”.
Not if it had backup from the international community like, say, Israel did.
However, thank you for clarifying your ideas further - they’re not entirely crazy. Your original post was, though.
I know what the Terror was, for goodness sake. I just want to know what it has to do with this situation. Or do you merely mean “It was bad, so is this”?
Well apart from pointing out that a good deal of Palestinians were Christian or Jewish I’m also going to need several cites for this.
Do you know where the majority of Palestinians live? It might be worth your while looking it up.
I’d just assume that the new nation of West-Bank (or whatever it is called) will be at best vassal to Israel and Jordan, with the larger nations cooperating to keep it reasonably stable, well-fed and harmless.
That’s about the best I think they can expect, at least in the short run. Becoming the westernmost province of Jordan might be preferable.
Why does Hamas control Gaza?
One can argue over the relative responsibilities of Israel, Hamas, and the Palestinians in Gaza in this latest round. But one thing that won’t fly is the bizarre notion that nobody was doing anything to anyone when, completely out of the blue, Hamas started lobbing its rockets into Israel.
So much for the Palestinians’ overwhelming support of Hamas. Apparently that brief moment was based on factors much more transient than the much more stable relative attitudes of Hamas and Fatah towards the survival of Israel as a nation-state.
Holy fucking shit, are you kidding me? I was reading along on your side until you went batshit crazy about 4 pages back. Talk about irony.
I know the post count, and have been at work for an almost solid 1.5 days, so pardon me for not going back and reading every single post, but could someone please explain the following mindset, because I really don’t get it at all.
The New York Times print edition (checking the online version: found them), had several anti-Israel letters in it today. Here’s the “best” one:
“I believe the Israeli airstrikes are clear violations of international humanitarian law.
While the Palestinian rocket fire against civilian targets in Israel may be illegal, that
does not give Israel the right to violate the Geneva Conventions. The airstrikes
represent:”
[Follow link to read several paragraphs worth of shameless hypocrisy]
“May” be illegal. Ya think? Two faced hypocritical batsucking dildohole. Hamas can get literally away with murder and these cuntwipes excuse it all, but if Israel responds in kind all of a sudden they are the bad guys and the only ones alledgely breaking any Geneva conventions. It’s thanks to these knee-dick-jerk dissemblers in Europe (& elsewhere) that Hamas is pursuing such a strategy, because they know that these buttlicking morons will inevitably side with them, no matter how henious their actions and no matter what Israel does.
Is this just mere anti-Semitism, misguided ivory towerism, and/or something else? I’ve never understood it. This does not excuse the sins of the Israelis, btw. Sooner or later the entire lot of them, Jew and Muslim and whoever, in that region are just going to have to say “enough” to this endless madness, and stop blowing each other to bits. But this one-sided “commentary” just invariably pisses the hell of out me.
Oh I see she has written several heavily pro-Palestinian books. Have fun while Hamas relentlessly rides you from behind, lying whore. Oh and I hope you used protection.
How fun! Let’s play this game:
“We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Palestine of its Arab population.”
“We must expel the Arabs and take their places.”
----one of modern Israel’s founding fathers, David Ben Gurion.
That actually would be a pretty good solution, and Gaza could be handed over to Egypt; but Jordan has made very clear for a long time that it wants no part of the WB, and I don’t think the Egyptians want Gaza. And Jordan within its current boundaries probably has already taken in all the Palestinians it can handle, and certainly all it wants. Palestinians already constitute 40-45% of the total Jordanian population by government estimates (which may be lowballed for political reasons).
Might could be, but at least they couldn’t blame the Jews for that. And it might not happen at all.
What would they want it for?! Jordan has long since renounced any claim to the WB, and no other existing state ever had or asserted a claim.
Well, a search on this phrase shows it being written in 1937 or 1938 (sources vary) by Gurion in a letter to his son. I daresay that’s quite different from the Hamas charter, published openly in 1988.
Do you have a more recent, more official statement from a prominent Israeli?
No, dammit!
I mean that the minute they lost a common enemy, they’d turn on one another & a far nastier slaughter would begin.
Don’t you think they might have got a bit cleverer about what they say in public after all these years?
The first phrase ("We must use terror, assassination, intimidation, land confiscation, and the cutting of all social services to rid Palestine of its Arab population.”) is apparantly not from Gurion, but rather the Koenig Memorandum, leaked in 1976. I’ll read up on it and post my analysis shortly.
Well, the Irish, after the Brits granted independence to the Republic, did immediately have their own (brief) civil war over the question of whether to accept Northern Ireland’s status as remaining within the UK. We might see something more like that – civil strife over whether to accept just the WB and Gaza rather than all of Canaan* – than like the French Terror, which was more about factional strife between different political ideologies.
Or, we might not.
*I like “Canaan” – a nice, ethnopolitically neutral name for the whole land between the Mediterannean and the Jordan.
Hmm, this getitng more complicated, since further reserarch finds cites with varying sources for the quote. A cite that supposedly contains the actual Koenig report doesn’t include the words “assassinate” or “confiscation” though I admit I haven’t read the entire 11-page text as yet.
I don’t want to downplay hardcore racism from Gurion or other Israeli Jews, and I have no doubt that it still exists, but I’d like to firmly establish the source of these quotes.
What makes you think they’d be less violent if Europe disapproved ? Europe’s disapproval doesn’t make Israel ( or anyone else ) less violent, so why Hamas ?
The first quote I can’t find any citation for at all, and the second one is dubious to say the least.
This article claims it is basically a fabrication:
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49415
I don’t read Hebrew and have no access to Ben-Gurion’s letters to his son - but this is pretty thin stuff compared to the official Hamas Charter.
:rolleyes: Dude, that’s WorldNetDaily. Same source that has been pounding the “Obama birth certificate” canard for months. It has the credibility of TimeCube Guy.