Posted on 05/23/2005 9:53:18 PM PDT by Nachum
Well, I think he's pretty smart.
Arguing that one should give up land because later it supposedly will be easier to take back is well....dumb.
They were in a stronger position then. It would have been hard in any case...I don't mean to second guess them.
The Canaanites are still around? get that from the PLO fact book?
They were not extirminated. You don't think they stopped breeding because they lost political power and cultural cohesion, do you? The latest archeological findings are that the ancient Jews were themselves Canaanites.
Where and who are the Canaanites and tell us of their glorious past and the wonderful present society they have developed that we should move Jews out for them.
You mean only the glorious have any rights, deserve any consideration? Certainly you don't mean that. But if you do then there are no injustices. Historically, peoples get what they deserve.
That's all you got? LOL!
That's all I need. That's all your worth.
What's irrelevant is some wannabe revisionist making land control/possession important when he wants to, and then deciding it's inappropriate when it doesn't if his weak argument.
Why don't you elaborate? I don't remember doing that. Let's see your argument layed out.
No need for me to be rude to two people.
Arguing that one should give up land because later it supposedly will be easier to take back is well....dumb
L'Audace! Toujours, l'audace! No retreat. Stand your ground. Sometimes that's the right strategy...and sometimes it isn't. It's a question of judgement. I trust Sharon's, you trust Yehuda's.
Oh, well.
And?
Where do I say land possession/control is inappropriate? You do understand that reality is complicated and messy and that generalizations are difficult at best and require some mentality to apply correctly?
What's irrelevant is some wannabe revisionist making land control/possession important when he wants to, and then deciding it's inappropriate when it doesn't if his weak argument.
I reply
Where do I say land possession/control is inappropriate?
You respond
you're a complete ignoramus, a moron, a self-righteous fool.
You're answer says far more about you than about me.
How you can conclude from any of this - even if it were accurate - that I think land possession/control is inappropriate is beyond me.
But it isn't accurate.
I said the two peoples can't coexist in one land.
I said the Arabs should have been expelled in '67 because - with hindsight - that seems to be the only time it could have been done.
Sharon is pulling back because he thinks the present borders can't be defended. I said I think that in the future Israel may be able to reconquer - because I don't think the Palestinians will be able to govern, or feed, themselves. When the place collapses into anarchy Israel may be able to take advantage of the situation. There's no way to determine whether it will be harder or easier. Too much depends on the assumptions being made.
The number of morons disagreeing with my analysis doesn't matter. What matters is the quality of the arguments.
I said Israel must pay very close attention to America's strategy. It cannot afford to alienate America - except in extremis...and in this I trust Sharon.
Make up your mind, pinhead
It's a matter of judgement...and in this I trust Sharon. Apparently that too is beyond your grasp.
Sorry. I don't buy that. Sharon would not sell out Israel to avoid indictment. He's changed his mind because he believes circumstances warrant it. That often happens.
the left in Israel and Europe and the left and the paleomorons in the CIA and in State still cling to pre 9/11 idiocy and think appeasing arabs is to Americas benefit.
This is true but it has nothing to do with Bush's or Sharon's policy...except insofar as they are forced to consider opposition opinion.
If it was truly a military "defensible" issue, Israel could WIPE OUT GAZA IN 36 HOURS.
Boy, you're a real military and political genius. A perfect example of your truly hopeless stupidity.
Give us ONE EXAMPLE OF WHERE SURRENDER OF LAND BY REASONABLE REPUBLICS TO TYRANICAL SCUM REGIMES LED TO: less future demands buy the scum; easier defeat of and regaining of the territory by the good guys.
Military history is full of examples of tactical retreats which led to ultimate victories. Look at WWII, for starters.
"Easier" is a straw man you set up. I never said it would be easier. I said it would be possible. But I can defend easier as well. Sharon thinks that trying to hang on to everything will fatally weaken the Israeli military and society with police work, bankrupt the economy, and isolate Israel diplomatically. I think that granting the Palestinians independence in a very shrunken West Bank and Gaza will result in civil war and anarchy, isolating them and bankrupting them. Depending on what else is happening in the world it may be possible for Israeli to simply march in and transfer the population.
Thank you for making my argument above on America's short-sighted vision on forcing an ally to surrender land to terrorists
I said you were a hopeless moron. You continue to prove it.
"However, two of Sharon’s predecessors as prime minister, Ehud Barak and Benjamin Netanyahu both survived the threats of indictments, which never materialized in the end. The 76 year old Sharon has said he will serve “at least until 2007,” when the next elections are scheduled."
From one of your posted links.
Not only can you not think, you can't even read.
Why should I...when you're so easy to annoy? And I'm having such a good time.
You selctively pulled this quote from of about 27,800 for "sharon indictment withdrawal".
You, of course, have read all 27,800 entries and can thus say with complete confidence that my quote was selective and unrepresentative.
"Moron" is too kind a descriptor for you.
First, let's be clear about this. None of the players believes that giving up Gaza and parts of the West Bank is going to result in less Palestinian agression - despite what they say for public consumption.
Second, Sharon's motive is not primarily to gain time although that certainly is a consideration.
Third, exact historical parallels are hard to come by and I'm not so conversant with history that I can find one without considerable research. But I do have something pretty close. In 1956 the British, French, and Israelis were forced by the superpowers to relinquish their conquests. In 1967 the Israelis not only returned but were far more successful.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.