My question was: in the context of the proposal, what does “demilitarized” mean, and in what way would that be distinct from demanding that the Palestinians blessed with such a state would remain at the mercy of Israel.
You answer: elucidator is a poopyhead and a hypocrite!
The record speaks for itself, commentary is superfluous.
And yes, I am a friend to Israel, and am disappointed in her as only a friend can be. I love my own country second to none, and will not hesitate to criticize, even rail, when she is party to an injustice. If that be hypocrisy, make the most of it.
While your neighbors have been stealing land and abusing you for over sixty years – never mind having one of the most powerful military forces in the world and being a (“secret”) nuclear power.
Hmmm…were I a Palestinian, a simple “No thanks and fuck you” to such a “proposal” would suffice.
No, you’re not.
But it makes a good soundbyte… if it’s divorced from your actual position. If it’s not, the nature of your argument becomes much more obvious, which is why you keep trying to change the subject to Netanyahu’s proposal for a Palestinian state. (He’s a gigantic Friend of Palestine, too, by the way).
"Hamas should be allowed to attack Israel as much as it wants and inflict as much carnage as possible, and Israel will not be allowed to respond and must continually offer peace. In fact, we will claim that no amount of Israel refraining from military responses or offering peace counts, and that Israel must “finally” do it or be the “first” to do it even if it’s done so several times. The fact that such rhetoric makes it seem like Israel hasn’t tried ignoring violence while still offering peace is just incidental. Naturally. But the important part is that Israel should let Hamas kill as many Israelis as possible. I only say this because I am such a friend of Israel.
Oh, also I’m totally against any peace proposal that requires one group to be at the mercy of another and asking for a demilitarized Palestinian state is simply beyond the pale! It’s just wrong to ask a nation to sit still and let someone else potentially attack them, but it’s very friendly to ask a nation to sit still and let someone actually attack them. It’s just one of those weird quirks that Friendship helps excuse. Go figure, eh?"
You can’t be serious? It’s been Israel who has been repeatedly attacked for 62 years, since she declared herself a nation. She has fought several defensive wars, and after the war of 1967 (which was not the last wherein she had to defend herself) she occupied some territory. In fact, if it were not for the additional strip of land known as the West Bank, she may well have been defeated in the subsequent Yom Kippur war.
well I think we would have to consider why are Jews persecuted in the first place. There has to be some reason since it has been going on centuries. There has to be something about them that irritates the hell out of the rest of the people around them. What is that? Once you find that out and solve it then I suppose there would be no need to persecute them. It’s not like this is a new phenomena. It started long ago.
To be honest and if you knew the Arabs and the Muslims, you would find them very forgiving in general. This region seems to settle disputes very well without all the drama. The people themselves are very adept at settling disputes between themselves and rarely if you lived in this region do things escalate into a matter for police or authority. You would probably find that if the Palestinians were treated with justice and equality then they most likely would forgive all those 60 years of injustice. To be honest there is much more bad feeling for the USA than there is for Israel in this region. If you were to ask any Arab they would tell you that the real enemy is American foreign policy. They are the ones who have allowed this all to happen. They are the ones to have turned a blind eye and deaf ear to the Palestinians. What would be useful would be to spend some time here talking to the people.
It’s all about the oil.
it’s quite obvious he is only interested in cleansing Palestine.
I really don’t think Israel will exist in the next 10 years.
Italian flotilla journalist: My credit card was used after IDF confiscated it
An Italian journalist who was detained by the Israel Defense Forces following the raid on the Gaza-bound flotilla says his credit card was used to purchase items after it was confiscated by the Israeli authorities.
U.S nurse and aid activist on board flotilla Kathy Sheetz reports her credit card was used to buy beer in Tel Aviv and shows bank statement showing transactions.
Her interview at 2 mins into the video.
Good grief. I’m an American Jew who finds himself much farther to the left than you do, but this is precisely the sort of thing that really makes me want to fucking give up and just support Israel unconditionally.
The Palestinians have sure been asking for it. They’ve been rolled over by just about every larger power in the middle east. Somehow they even managed to piss of the Jordanians. They must really deserve it if they are getting persecuted by the Jews, of all people.
Unless you have an explicit reason why you believe that they have a history of being persecuted that you are going to provide in this thread, then your rhetorical question looks very much like an anti-semitic screed that is the sort of rationalization for violence against Jews that has been employed by Muhammed, Martin Luther, Pope Paul IV, and Hitler.
That’s what Jews would call chutzpah: being antisemitic but stating it’s the Jews’ fault. There’s just something about those Jews, you know. That’s why they’ve been persecuted for centuries.
So can Israel expect another great attack from the Arab countries in the next 10 years?
You brought it up, in post #1099. I then asked you to define “demilitarized” in a way that does not equate to militarily helpless, whereupon you discovered an overpowering need to discuss my various character flaws.
Of course you realize that no one with even the most rudimentary reading skills will think that this faux paraphrase resembles my position.
You disrespect your audience when you try to achieve by slander what you cannot by persuasion.
Fiction. It was claimed that Netanyahu did not offer to recognize a Palestinian state, and I cited the fact that he had done just that and that his precondition was that it be demilitarized.
Which, of course, had nothing to do with whether or not Netanyahu had indeed endorsed a demilitarized Palestinian state and was a diversion.
Likewise, it showed that your objection to Netanyahu’s demand was a rationalization as you were “opposed” to a nation being militarily helpless, except when you were demanding that a nation be militarily helpless out of your deep and enduring Friendship for it. (It’s amazing how Friendship changes an equation).
You won’t even accept the possibility that Israel might somehow attack a Palestinian state if it doesn’t have a military, but you demand that Hamas be allowed to attack Israel, with no limit, and that Israel cannot defend itself. Then you call your own demand “slanderous”.
You did demand that Israel should allow itself to be attacked and not respond militarily. You put no limit on this. If you’d like to claim that you’d allow your Good Friend Israel the right to self defense after N attacks, you should specify how many that would be.
You did construct a story in which Israel must “sooner or later” suffer an attack and not respond militarily, ignoring that it’s already done so in order for you to claim that it must “sooner or later” do so. And you did indeed claim that Israel must allow Hamas to attack it, with no defensive measures.
And obviously, since all the times Israel has taken an attack and not responded and has, in fact, gone on to offer peace don’t count in your narrative and it must do so “sooner or later” even when it’s done so several times, then no actual amount of “taking the first blow and not responding” counts and your argument remains that they must do so “sooner or later”.
Of course, that it’s absurd to make such demands and call it “Friendship” is not my fault, nor does it make your own demands fictitious. Of course it’s very odd to demand that Hamas be allowed to attack Israel and call that a Friendly demand. And it’s very odd to demand that Hamas be allowed to attack Israel while strongly opposing a demilitarized Palestinian state (since you’re totally against your Friends defending themselves), but hey, Friendship means not being able to defend yourself. I guess.
\
We’ve been friends now for so many years
We’ve been together through the good times and the tears
Dim dipple ee dim dipple ay dim dipple oo dim dee aye oh
