My Israeli expatriate comrade seems to forward a lot of articles from this Mondoweiss website:
‘Are you a f#&*ing leftist?’ –Israeli fascists target anti-occupation activists in Tel Aviv
Israeli police ransack Tariq Abu Khdeir family home and arrest relatives in apparent revenge raid
|
Obama humiliates Muslim guests at White House Ramadan event, endorses Israel’s Gaza assault and NSA surveillance
Given that this quote is in that page:
"But this time, amidst a one-sided Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip that was about to claim its 200th death in just a week, and which the US had backed to the hilt, the heat was on."
I wouldn't take it too seriously. (emphasis mine). It's simply, factually wrong.
EDIT: later in the article, there's this quote:
"[Obama] went on to claim against all evidence that his administration had “worked long and hard to alleviate” the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and that it had “emphasized the need to protect civilians, regardless of who they are or where they live.”"
"Against all evidence"? Carry was working tirelessly for months trying to reach an understanding between Israel and Palestine, in what one could easily see was an honest, serious attempt to solve the conflict without farther violence.
I think, Anklebiter, that this source of information is not very objective.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What's the Israeli death toll up to now?
One civilian and one cat?
I think, Anklebiter, that this source of information is not very objective.
As opposed to your source in the IDF?
|
|
What's the Israeli death toll up to now?
One civilian and one cat?
Oh, I see, then. Israel spends billions of dollars on defense systems and manages to protect it's citizens, so the attacks are one sided?
No. Hamas initiated over a thousand attacks in the last week and a half, and several of them came very very close to ending up in several casualties. When reading the description "one sided" one can imagine that Israel is attacking without provocation.
Having given my "Israeli's are not a bloodthirsty tribe of child killers, war means unintentional casualties" speech... I believe this round of fighting is almost exclusively Israel's fault. Following the union of the Hamas with Patah in the Palestinian government, Israeli leadership has been anxious to find away to undo the union, not wanting Hamas to get a stronger political foothold than it already has. Using the kidnapping of the three Israeli children as a flimsy excuse, they sent the IDF to try and break the new government by force. When it was later found out that while "searching" for the children (in practice taking dozens of prisoners with no charges against them, wrecking homes and public buildings, and disrupting life in any way possible) the army already knew they were dead... that's inexcusable. That was a pointless, dangerous provocation. And lo and behold, Hamas retaliated. And when they did, they did it in such force that Israel had to retaliate too... and from there to here it was the usual spiral of violence.
|
|
I think, Anklebiter, that this source of information is not very objective.As opposed to your source in the IDF?
*shrug*. A friend from highschool, talking with me unofficially. She advises me to take her words with a grain of salt as she only gets information through the inner information channels of the army - and indeed I was careful to present the info I got from her as "from a friend in the army" and not as a fact.
But, when a journalist feels fine with such blatant falsities in their articles, that usually hints that they are writing with an agenda, and there's no point in taking their report of events as anything other than an essay about their opinion. The actual facts will have to come from more reliable sources.
|
|
Having given my "Israeli's are not a bloodthirsty tribe of child killers, war means unintentional casualties" speech... I believe this round of fighting is almost exclusively Israel's fault. Following the union of the Hamas with Patah in the Palestinian government, Israeli leadership has been anxious to find away to undo the union, not wanting Hamas to get a stronger political foothold than it already has. Using the kidnapping of the three Israeli children as a flimsy excuse, they sent the IDF to try and break the new government by force. When it was later found out that while "searching" for the children (in practice taking dozens of prisoners with no charges against them, wrecking homes and public buildings, and disrupting life in any way possible) the army already knew they were dead... that's inexcusable. That was a pointless, dangerous provocation. And lo and behold, Hamas retaliated. And when they did, they did it in such force that Israel had to retaliate too... and from there to here it was the usual spiral of violence.
That's a "who started it" question, that is independent of an irrelevent to the question about the allegedly one sided nature of the attack.
Case in point - Hamas twice now declined ceasefire terms that Israel was willing to agree to. So are the attacks one sided if Israel twice now was willing to stop but Hamas would not relent?
I'm not asking whether it's OK or not that Hamas refused to a ceasefire, I'm asking how can a fight be one sided if the one who's supposed to be doing all the attacking wanted to stop, and the side taking all the beating wouldn't let it stop?
I suspect that he is referring to the disparity in casualties, but, alas, I am not Max Blumenthal. You can probably contact him if you'd like to ask him why he called it a "one-sided assault." I believe he is one of the leading figures of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, so the two of you should have a lot to chat about.
If those two points that you object to lead you to dismiss the article, well that, of course, is your prerogative.
More articles on the White House Iftar:
Same website, different author:
Why I, a Palestinian-American Muslim, went to the White House Iftar and what I learned
HuffPo
Another White House Iftar, Another Ramadan Without My Brother
The Guardian
White House Iftar dinner guests press Obama on surveillance of Muslims
Ha'aretz
U.S. Muslims fuming over Dermer's White House Iftar tweet
Hamas and the PIJ offered a 10 year truce as well - which was rejected by Israel... it's not only Hamas that is to blame for rejecting ceasefires. And we don't know exactly what fine print conditions were in those agreements Israel apparently agreed to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
From Wikipedia:
Conflict during peace talks
According to Peace Now, during the nine months of peace talks Israel set a new record for settlement expansion at nearly 14,000 newly approved settler homes. During this same period Israel also destroyed over 500 Palestinian structures, including the Palestinian village of Khirbit Makhoul. Sixty one Palestinians were killed, 1,100 were injured, and nearly 4000 detained by Israeli forces during the peace talks. Palestinian official Nabil Shaath condemned settlement construction, saying "the settlement activities have made negotiations worthless." For its part, Israeli spokesman Mark Regev condemned Palestinian incitement, saying "the terrorist attacks against Israelis over the last few days are a direct result of the incitement and hatred propagated in Palestinian schools and media." According to B'Tselem, during this same period forty-five Palestinians and six Israelis were killed.
It's fair to say that 'peacetime' doesn't stop either the subjugation of the Palestinians nor the foment of anti Israeli sentiment in Palestinian territory.
That doesn't necessarily mean it was staged. I'm told that the IDF phones ahead of the knock bomb, so they would have time to set up a camera before a real strike.
Its clearly staged in any case. Note the absolute lack of people...in this building or either of the ones to either side or on the street...even after some bomb goes off on the roof...and the conveniently placed camera filming the whole thing.
Who set up the camera? The Israeli military (in which case this was staged)? A bunch of very quite Palestinians who planned to give it to any member of the Israeli military that happened along (borders on the ludicrous)?
This is clearly staged.
|
That doesn't necessarily mean it was staged. I'm told that the IDF phones ahead of the knock bomb, so they would have time to set up a camera before a real strike.
Its clearly staged in any case. Note the absolute lack of people...in this building or either of the ones to either side or on the street...even after some bomb goes off on the roof...and the conveniently placed camera filming the whole thing.
Who set up the camera? The Israeli military (in which case this was staged)? A bunch of very quite Palestinians who planned to give it to any member of the Israeli military that happened along (borders on the ludicrous)?
This is clearly staged.
Well, the people who set up the camera were obviously Palestinian, and their plan was equally obviously to put the video on the Internet. What part of that is unclear?
Or maybe you are using 'staged' in an unusual way? Nobody is claiming that the camera was filming that building by chance, the attack was announced ahead of time.
Basically... What are you talking about?
|
|
Hamas and the PIJ offered a 10 year truce as well - which was rejected by Israel... it's not only Hamas that is to blame for rejecting ceasefires. And we don't know exactly what fine print conditions were in those agreements Israel apparently agreed to.
Agreed. I was only saying that the fight isn't one sided. Which is a fact.
|
|
I suspect that he is referring to the disparity in casualties
Faulty logic. If "one sided" means one side is winning while the other is powerless, and the metric of winning is how many casualties there are on each side, that implies the goals of each side are to kill as many people of the other side as possible. Clearly untrue, since Hamas are aware that they are not killing anybody yet choose to continue fighting (that is - they think continuing the war is in their favor compared to the other options), and Israel is clearly killing less people than it is capable of killing.
So if neither side is measuring it's own success by the number of people they manage to kill, how is the number of casualties an indication of which side is winning more?
Nope, the guy/girl who wrote the article clearly hadn't given any thought at all to that choice of words. Every sign indicates someone who is more interested in expressing their (not objective or rational) views, not delivering facts. I hate that kind of journalism, because it tries to pass itself off as actual news. It's bad enough that I have Sheldon Adelson and his army of cronies to deal with around here, encountering his counterpart from the Islam world is not really something I wish to do.
As I said, you are free to dismiss the article as you please. I provided other links to the same topic for your perusal since you objected to the Mondoweiss piece. But I'm pretty sure Max Blumenthal isn't from the Islamic world.
[Reads article]
Woah, he's Sidney Blumenthal's son? Learn something new everyday in the OTD!
Chomsky, like Norman Finkelstein before him, runs afoul of BDS.
Netanyahu was on CNN a while ago. Stuck to his talking points, perhaps wisely, and pointed a finger at Gaza. I think he hasn't explained himself well, and just encouraged people who have already chosen a side further into their corner/echo chamber.
I'm a little confused. What exactly is the point of blowing up a building if they know the bomb is comming? I mean the entire point of those rockets is they DON"T take a base or infrastructure to set up. Its easier to get down the stairs than grandma.
What makes you think it's about stopping terrorism?
Hamas are aware that they are not killing anybody yet choose to continue fighting (that is - they think continuing the war is in their favor compared to the other options)
Do you want to try to say that they're wrong?
|
|
Hamas are aware that they are not killing anybody yet choose to continue fighting (that is - they think continuing the war is in their favor compared to the other options)Do you want to try to say that they're wrong?
Please take my words in context. That sentence was part of a post dedicated to proving that the attack happening in Gaza right now is not "one sided", in one of the articles Anklebiter linked to. At first I said that obviously the attack is not literally one sided (simple fact - Hamas is shooting, too). Anklebiter replied that the intention of calling the attack "one sided" was probably that there are far more casualties on the Palestinian side.
My sentence that you quoted was an answer to that - I explained that the number of casualties is not the correct metric to measure success in the conflict - for the reasons I explained in that post.
So no, I'm not saying they were wrong to decline the proposed ceasefire. Only used the fact that they did to demonstrate that the attack cannot possibly be one sided.
The question took your context completely into account.
Do you think hamas has a better option than firing the rockets? If so, what?
Why did I post that last post?
Lord Snow, have you got somewhere you can go if things get really bad? Just in case. I remember reading that Hamas has been pursuing chemical weapons and given those tunnels, I would take into consideration whether or not weapons or mass destruction will be employed by either side.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
After doing more reading on Brother's Keeper and the lead up to Protective Edge... I'm even further disillusioned.
As much as the common Israeli might want peace - I don't think Netanyahu or the Knesset has any real interest in it. (and I'm aware the same could be said of the reverse with respect to the militant arm of Hamas)
After Shuja'iyya yesterday the combined death toll is over 500 and rising.
A few of the latest updates from B'Tselem.
A quote from the second one:
Hamas makes no pretense to follow the laws of war. Israel does, but holds Hamas responsible for its own actions – the dead, the refugees, the destroyed homes. Yet unlawful actions by one party cannot justify unlawful actions by the other, and regardless, each party bears sole responsibility for the outcome of its actions. Israel may proclaim its actions in Gaza to be moral and lawful, but the horrifying reality on the ground makes it impossible to further countenance Israel’s cynical use of legal terms such as “proportionality”, “discriminate [attacks]” and “duty of care”. Israel is exploiting these words to justify the death and destruction it is wreaking on the Gaza Strip.
|
|
The question took your context completely into account.
Do you think hamas has a better option than firing the rockets? If so, what?
I'm honestly not sure. I don't know exactly what were the terms purposed by Egypt and it's very hard for me to assess the inner politics of Hamas. Maybe they just couldn't afford to accept the terms, I don't know.
What I do know is what everyone does - the short term results. The ground invasion, that doubled the body count in a couple of days - and, perhaps more of interest to Hamas, did some serious damage to the organization (so far more than 30 tunnels, each of them costing over a million dollars to construct collapsed so far - for Hamas, ~35 million dollars is a whole bunch. In addition, according to the IDF, more than 5k missiles were found and destroyed, depleting Hamas of more than 50% of it's ammunition. Numerous missile making laboratories and equipment were also destroyed).
It may very well be that when Hamas refused a ceasefire, they were thinking that Israel would not attempt a ground invasion - the fact that they are now much more willing to discuss the ceasefire is a strong hint to that.
So I don't know if they should or shouldn't have, and that's something we will have to see in retrospect. So far it hasn't been working so hot for them at all, but maybe they'll manage to get much better terms now. The sane response to your question is "we'll have to wait and see".
The rejection of the Egyptian option might also be purely due to their recent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.
A wiki-sound bite:
A day after the 2013 Mansoura bombing, the military-backed interim government declared the Muslim Brotherhood movement a terrorist group—despite the fact that another group, the Sinai-based Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, claimed responsibility for the blast. On 24 March 2014 An Egyptian court sentenced 529 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to death, an act described by Amnesty International as "the largest single batch of simultaneous death sentences we've seen in recent years […] anywhere in the world." On 15 April 2014, an Egyptian court banned current and former members of the Muslim Brotherhood from running in the presidential and parliamentary elections.
Hamas has stated that they prefer a Qatari intermediary now.
|
|
The rejection of the Egyptian option might also be purely due to their recent crackdown on the Muslim Brotherhood.
A wiki-sound bite:
A day after the 2013 Mansoura bombing, the military-backed interim government declared the Muslim Brotherhood movement a terrorist group—despite the fact that another group, the Sinai-based Ansar Bait al-Maqdis, claimed responsibility for the blast. On 24 March 2014 An Egyptian court sentenced 529 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to death, an act described by Amnesty International as "the largest single batch of simultaneous death sentences we've seen in recent years […] anywhere in the world." On 15 April 2014, an Egyptian court banned current and former members of the Muslim Brotherhood from running in the presidential and parliamentary elections.Hamas has stated that they prefer a Qatari intermediary now.
If it was just about showing spite to Egypt, then it was certainly a terrible move. I doubt that's the case.
I have been thinking more about the subject, however, and I think I've been oversimplifying things a bit. I considered the Israeli ground invasion to be a result of the continued conflict, and presented things as if Hamas might have made a mistake by not taking the ceasefire, because it lead to the ground invasion.
However, I'm pretty sure there wouldn't have been a ground invasion if Hamas hadn't attempted the attack through the tunnels - by revealing that threat, they might have made themselves too much of a menace, and forced Israel to invade. It could easily be that they had good reasons to refuse the ceasefire, and the actual mistake they made was in revealing just how far their tunnels reach.
Comrade Anklebiter, if you haven't heard about this one yet, you're gonna love it:
So apparently I live in an Orwellian dictatorship that blinds the masses with one of the more elaborate lies in human history. Hmm.
Technically, he may be right about the missiles being self-detonation.
If the Palestinian missiles are impact-detonation, then the Israeli defense missiles exploding and releasing a lot of chaff would make sense. The Palestinian missiles would run into the chaff and detonate harmlessly in mid-air. Which would mean the Israeli defense missiles are working as intended and doing their job even though every single one self-detonates.
However, the above is speaking entirely in ignorance of both the defense system and the Palestinian rockets. They might have simply fixed the bugs in the American system and combined it with high-tech satellite and radar systems.
Spite to Egypt... or solidarity with other persecuted Muslims? It's in the fine print I suppose (plus whatever the details of the cease-fire actually were...)
The could they would they argument is hard to get into... but I'd agree the tunnel incursion gave the IDF / Knesset a reason / excuse to push a ground invasion through.
But the rhetoric from Netanyahu and the IDF was brutal post the Palestinian Unity Government announcement. One could purport that the approach was to squeeze and squeeze until something popped and then use that as the trigger to escalate. You've intimated as much by agreeing that the current escalation was alot to do with how Operation Brother's Keeper went down.
*shrugs* None of us know for sure and I'm just aimlessly speculating, but my impression is that Netanyahu was pushing hard for a fight and he was going to get it one way or another.
Lord Snow:
How does the Israeli media internally report on the rocket launches?
Do they ever bring up the other militant groups apart from Hamas like the Islamic Jihad Movement?
|
|
If the Palestinian missiles are impact-detonation, then the Israeli defense missiles exploding and releasing a lot of chaff would make sense. The Palestinian missiles would run into the chaff and detonate harmlessly in mid-air. Which would mean the Israeli defense missiles are working as intended and doing their job even though every single one self-detonates.However, the above is speaking entirely in ignorance of both the defense system and the Palestinian rockets. They might have simply fixed the bugs in the American system and combined it with high-tech satellite and radar systems.
No, it doesn't make sense. "Chaff" is a specific thing that would only have an effect if the rockets had radar fuzes of some sort. They do not. Chaff rockets do not put out a dense enough cloud to initiate impact-fuzed warheads.
|
|
Lord Snow:
How does the Israeli media internally report on the rocket launches?
Extensively. We get live updates within minutes of any attack, and news programs throughout each day sum up the rockets fired up to their respective air times. The identity of the shooters, as well as the IDFs response, are discussed all the time. It's quite a bore, really, as usually there's far less to say than time to say it.
Specifically the Islamic Jihad Movement is discussed quite a lot.
I'm honestly not sure. I don't know exactly what were the terms purposed by Egypt and it's very hard for me to assess the inner politics of Hamas. Maybe they just couldn't afford to accept the terms, I don't know.
Unless Egypts plan was a withdraw from the west bank and issuing passports to the Palestinians then hamas' best bet is to fire the rockets and try to keep attention on their situation. Even a ground invasion is better than the slow inexorable division and de facto annexation of what little territory they have left and it is in fact better than any alternative short of genocide. They are the " I hate isreal more than you do" party and because of that you can't shoot them out of power. Israel is getting what, 1 hamas agent per 50 civilians on a good day? Those 50 civilians have families that are going to be voting for the most anti israeli party they can find.
Strike them down all you want, you only make them stronger.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Comrade Anklebiter, if you haven't heard about this one yet, you're gonna love it:
So apparently I live in an Orwellian dictatorship that blinds the masses with one of the more elaborate lies in human history. Hmm.
I'm not really a weapons nerd kinda guy, but I did find a couple more articles I liked:
Why Israel is still afraid of Mordechai Vanunu
Right-wingers beat Haifa deputy mayor during anti-war protest
And an older one that always makes me cry:
Last of Warsaw Ghetto Survivors Calls for Rebellion Against Israeli Occupation
Why Israel is still afraid of Mordechai Vanunu
Woops. I cut-and-paste the wrong (and a decade old) article:
Israel renews restrictions on nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu
|
|
I'm honestly not sure. I don't know exactly what were the terms purposed by Egypt and it's very hard for me to assess the inner politics of Hamas. Maybe they just couldn't afford to accept the terms, I don't know.
Unless Egypts plan was a withdraw from the west bank and issuing passports to the Palestinians then hamas' best bet is to fire the rockets and try to keep attention on their situation. Even a ground invasion is better than the slow inexorable division and de facto annexation of what little territory they have left and it is in fact better than any alternative short of genocide. They are the " I hate isreal more than you do" party and because of that you can't shoot them out of power. Israel is getting what, 1 hamas agent per 50 civilians on a good day? Those 50 civilians have families that are going to be voting for the most anti israeli party they can find.
Strike them down all you want, you only make them stronger.
First, a correction about facts: Israel is getting much more than 1 Hamas operative per 50 civilians. It's more like 50% of the people they are getting. The exact number I do not know, but a 5% success rate is ridiculos and cannot possibly be true.
And... you say Israel can't strike Hamas down, but the flip side of that is that Hamas can't really strike Israel down either. A victory cannot, and will not, be achieved through military means. Freedom for the Palestinian people would come either from diplomacy (not a high chance, but it's there) or international pressure on Israel.
|
|
Comrade Anklebiter, if you haven't heard about this one yet, you're gonna love it:
So apparently I live in an Orwellian dictatorship that blinds the masses with one of the more elaborate lies in human history. Hmm.
I'm not really a weapons nerd kinda guy, but I did find a couple more articles I liked:
Why Israel is still afraid of Mordechai Vanunu
Right-wingers beat Haifa deputy mayor during anti-war protest
And an older one that always makes me cry:
Last of Warsaw Ghetto Survivors Calls for Rebellion Against Israeli Occupation
Oh, it was less about the weapon system itself and more about the idea a government of capitalist pigs enslaving their people by fear and lies.
But, being the stalwart comrade that you are, maybe you just see that as obvious...
I've learned to be wary of the Global Research website, but, yes, capitalist pigs enslaving their people by fear and lies does seem pretty obvious to me.
|
|
the terms, as near as I can tell, were "Stop shooting rockets and Israel will stop bombing and won't send troops in yet." Go back to the status quo before the latest flare up with nothing resolved and no lessening of the conditions in Gaza. Which isn't surprising since the deal was negotiated between Israel and Egypt and the current Egyptian government is not exactly friendly to Hamas. (For internal Egyptian political reasons, Hamas being linked to the ousted Muslim Brotherhood.)
Yes, except it didn't include a return to status quo ante- one of the first things that happened during this go-around was the IDF recapturing a lot of Hamas members who were released recently in controversial agreements. This was after the kidnappings but before the bombing started. The deal did not include freeing them.
Slightly out of date as it's one to two days old
Israel 20 casualties - 2 civilian, 18 military
Palestine 448 casualties - 348 civilian, 75 militant, 25 unknown
|
|
I've learned to be wary of the Global Research website, but, yes, capitalist pigs enslaving their people by fear and lies does seem pretty obvious to me.
Don't worry, I never doubted your intelligence (only your sanity), and Global Research are... unreliable. The sad thing is that left wing newspapers in Israel actually gave that dude quite a lot of attention, which makes it harder that I would have liked to take them seriously. One columnist went as far as excusing the Israeli society of being unable to think as free humans because they didn't even consider believing to the conspiracy.
And... you say Israel can't strike Hamas down, but the flip side of that is that Hamas can't really strike Israel down either.
No, but Hamas can get itself to win a landslide election with this tactic. It can perpetuate itself with this tactic. Israel's bombs are making more hamas than they're killing.
A victory cannot, and will not, be achieved through military means. Freedom for the Palestinian people would come either from diplomacy (not a high chance, but it's there)
Its not. The palastinians have nothing to offer israel. They cannot guarantee an end to the rocket attacks. The palastinians simply have nothing to bargain with.
or international pressure on Israel.
I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.
*I cannot stress how incorrect this is, but it is however how most Americans see it.
|
|
I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.
Well, Israel does care and I know that for a fact. The thought of economic, academic and cultural isolation terrifies the people here - it's evident by the way the media goes bananas whenever some farmer in south America refuses to buy Israeli tomatoes, or some dreary professor would not attend a convention in Israel. Any such event gets twice the press and reaction as any attack Hamas can usually make.
And I'm not counting on the U.S exerting pressure, that's unlikely. In Europe, however, the winds are blowing in that direction.
The palastinians have nothing to offer israel. They cannot guarantee an end to the rocket attacks. The palastinians simply have nothing to bargain with.
They have a couple of very valuable trading chips - giving up the right of return, and recognizing Israel in a truce that promises an end to violence.
The reason these two will suffice is that even without Palestinians offering to give much to Israel in return for their freedom, a truce would mean they would stop taking so much. The price Israel is paying to maintain control on the Palestinians is huge - casualties, the animosity of the entire Arabic world and much of the Islamic and western worlds, billions of dollars every year, the need for mandatory service in the army... and on top of all these pragmatic things, Israel is paying with it's soul. There is a saying in Israel that roughly translates as "the conquest corrupts us", and it's true. The toll of living with almost 2 million refugees in our grip, has eroded the idealistic zionism into a nationalistic, racist, violent ideology over the year. As the recent wave of violence commited against Arabs and leftist activists can testify, there are ever growing forces in Israel that grew up to learn to hate everyone who's different. That might not have happened if not for the conflict.Israel has a very clear motivation to reach an agreement with Palestinians. When asked, most Israelis say they support a two-nations solution. The only ones actually interested in perpetuating it are the religious, who want to unify the lands promised to the Jews by their God, according to that Book. The rest of us would really rather the madness stopped.
And as to the Palestinians... as I said, what they *need* to offer in order to make a diplomatic solution possible is that in exchange to getting more territory (a return to the borders of '67) they give up the right of return, and that in return to their freedom they give up their commitment to destroy Israel. They have so far been unwilling to give up either, which is part of the reason that a diplomatic solution without outside intervention is very unlikely. However, that's very different from having nothing to offer.
P
|
|
I don't think israel cares. Even IF they needed america (i don;'t think they do at this point), in Americans eyes, the palastinians are muslims and therefore terrorists*. No one will side with them: its political suicide.Well, Israel does care and I know that for a fact...
Thank you, that was interesting.
I think we need to replace 'Israel' above with Netanyahu. I don't believe that he cares, he appears to be satisfied with trying to push the status quo as far as possible while letting the conflict simmer.
In a lot of ways, he appears to be your version of Dick Cheney.