Posted on 09/16/2013 7:05:52 AM PDT by SJackson
they had a state
they wrecked it with the inifada
now they ain’t got one and they ain’t gonna get one
Syria, whose leader recently used Sarin to gas his own people
assumes facts not in evidence.
If youd like to be on or off, please FR mail me.
..................
Nobody is keeping the “Palestinians” from forming a viable state. The elements simply do not exist in that tormented land. What is there can only be described as several mutually untrusting tribes, with little in the way of common interests other than the destruction of Israel.
Even if by some strange arrangement in which the Israelis were transported en masse to another location, with their relocation costs covered and with no loss of life, and the “Palestinians” were to occupy the entire region that is now defined as Israel, the situation for the “Palestinians” would not measurable improve, and may even degenerate further, as they would have access to advanced technology, which would allow them to pursue their tribal rivalries with even more efficient means of subjugating their neighbors.
Not yet ready for prime time. And maybe never.
No. islamists should be killed.
YEP !!
No such people calling themselves Palestinians before 1946. They’re all from trans-Jordan.
The fascists were socialists, to the "right" of only international communists. To deem them as "right wing" is thus disinformation, and a demonization of conservatism, intentional or otherwise. It is a standard tool of the corporate leftist media to be avoided in a thoughtful forum such as Frontpage Magazine.
Send them back to their homeland Jordan. At least 90% of them anyway.
The difference between Commies and Fascists is like the difference between Bloods and Crips...The only difference is the uniforms they wear.
They’re just Arabs, how many Arab states are there?
Don’t know, but before Israel all they did was spend their time in tribal warfare. Israel is what their leaders use to focus them away from killing each other instead.
Yes and no, but to that distinction I will defer to Homage to Catalonia, by George Orwell:
In reality, it was the Communists above all others who prevented revolution in Spain. Later, when the Right Wing forces were in full control, the Communists showed themselves willing to go a great deal further than the Liberals in hunting down revolutionary leaders.In short, there are substantive differences even within the "true believer" communists, that themselves devolve to fascism and "true" communism which, in fact, is an economic system so impracticable as to be virtual, and therefore devolves back to fascism. Hence is your observation that there is no difference. Still, in their minds those differences are so significant that it can get them shooting at each other, an ideological wedge we would be wise to amplify.[Snip]
Between the Communists and those who claim to stand to the Left of them there is a real difference. The Communists hold that Fascism can be beaten by alliance with sections of the capitalist class (the Popular Front); their opponents hold that this maneuver simply gives Fascism new breeding-grounds. The question has got to be settled; to make the wrong decision may be to land ourselves in for centuries of semi-slavery.
The way to do that is to label most Marxists (and especially American liberals) as "fascists," both to their faces and in print. We must dislodge the common perception that there is anything "right wing" about fascism.
Welcome to Palestine, the sweetheart of the misguided, adoring left and the neo-fascist right.
I must have missed it, the neo-fascist right is connected
HOW?
Oh, now I see. The left are misguided and adoring,
while the right is neo-fascist. Got it.
All of which was set up by the “geniuses” at the Paris peace talks of 1919. You know, the same socialists that gave the Germans enough of a gripe to bet on Hitler as their savior, the Africans ANOTHER group of legitimate complaints about over-bearing Europeans, and the Americans the income tax and direct election of senators - our first whiff of the Constitution running off the tracks.
That's OK, they are politically acceptable. Now if WE start doing the same to progressives...
Not so, even though they are both socialistic models there are differences.
Under Communism the means of production (land, machinery, buildings, raw materials, and yes even workers) all belong to the state. The economy is controlled by central planners who are members of the political apparatus governing the entire collective. (China under Mao, pre culturalo revelotion)
Under Fascism private ownership is allowed and a limited form of capitalism is permitted. Central planning replaces free markets and the economy is top down directed by the government. (Post Mao China)
Regards,
GtG
PS The US is currently being "nudged" toward fascism and is displaying some of the characteristic failures of "central planning" by our "stalled" economy.
As long as they determine that it benefits the State. But there is no concept of property rights under Fascism, the government might temporarily allow you the benefits of ownership, but it could take it away at the drop of a hat. China most closely fits your definition of "Fascism."
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.