 |
|
|
Posted on 10/14/2003 10:44:02 PM PDT by ambrose
|
Get the Likud out of your mind and start thinking about Jihad. Jihad is the enemy of the world, not the Likud party of Israel, a small nation of 6 million. Silly leftist always refer to Ariel Sharon and Likud while never mentioning the Islamic Jihadists who fight and terrorize across the world. Not just in Israel. Islam is a world wide menace. Not the Likud party.
Nope, I don't think Iraq was a close call, and I think that we'll end up there for too long, for too little. We can't make them democratic. Even if we did, they'd just vote themselves another Iran.
I'm not a pacifist. Violence can certainly solve problems, as it did in WWII against Germany and Japan. But in terms of Israel, I don't see how violence will solve their problem. It didn't in 67 or 73. It didn't in Lebanon. Violence may bring them peace with the other Arab gov'ts, but it won't work with the Palestinians. The last 30+ years and two Intifadas show that. Of course, this goes for the Palestinians, too. They'll never get what they want through terrorism, but they're too stupid and stubborn to realise that.
And if Israel threatened Damascus, do you think the Palestinians would care? Most of them hate the other Arab gov'ts. They'd probably love to see Assad go. True, it would help to reign in Hezbollah, and might cut some of the funding to Hamas and IJ, but the problem would still be there--what the hell are they gonna do with all these Palestinians?
Sounds good to me - this death cult homicidal people to bring it on themselves.
As for nuking Mecca, well, we'll see. If it gets to that, the world is pretty much FUBAR and in for another Dark Ages, anyway. If we survive, that is--Israel better make damn sure that it keeps the nukes out of the hand of any of its neighbors. And pray that Pakistan doesn't fall to a coup.
And while I may be doom, I'm not for surrender. I'm more for a well-armed, well-enforced isolation, such as Switzerland has. Enemies to none, trade with all. Strictly limited immigration. And the occasional slapdown of groups like Al Qaeda, when neccesary.
True, some paleos are a bit xenophobic for my taste, but I don't think that there is anything xenophobic about neutrality or a strict immigration policy per se. That's not to mean that some people who pull for them aren't racist. And sometimes neutrality can be a hard position to justify, morally. I still think its the right call, though. The only exception I can think of in recent history is WWII.
And with that, I'll call it a night. It's been nice hammering out this issue with you.
Hope for what? A Jew-free world?
Several points, for the (clearly) historically challenged amongst us:
1.) Rewarding terrorists with land has never, historically, proven a terribly efficacious means of reducing further terrorist actions.
2.) Israel is not illegally "occupying" anydamnthing. The (so-called) "disputed territories" are solely and wholly israeli land. Said land was rightfully won by Israek, in defebding itself from an unannounced and unprovoked attack, by an aggressor nation.
3.) Anyone residing within this country who isn't a full-blooded Native American has absolutely diddley-squat in the way of moral or intellectual firepower to level versus Israel, insofar as "illegally occupied territories" are concerned. Surrender your own homes and lands to some nice Choctaw family, before bloviating further on the topic.
4.) Your argument is turned inwards on itself: it is, if anything, the savage and bloody-minded actions of the Palestinians which "haven't worked up to this point," and continue not to work; and thus, need to be changed, in order for any lasting, genuine Mideast peace to occur.
Here's an idea: maybe -- just maybe, min d -- it's the Palis who need to "understand" the Israelis a little better... by "understanding," first and foremost, that Israel is NEVER going to go away.
Then, they can continue practicing their newly-attempted skills at "understanding" by "understanding" that suicide bombings are not, nor ever will be, a legitimate means of diplomacy.
Finally, they (as well as the rest of their pro-terrorist apologia choir, both online and off, here and abroad) can make a wild stab at "understanding" that -- here in the real world -- actions have consequences; and, thus, the Palis have, now and forevermore, squandered away any faint hopes at a so-called "right of return," or the reinstatement of 1967-era borders.
Just because there are a misguided (purported) "conservatives," hereabouts, with a Buchananist distaste for Jews and/or Israel; neither of these are in any way obligated, therefore, to sign said nation's death warrant... all in the name of some counterfeit notion of "fairness," or "understandinng."
If Israel doesn't end the occupation, its options are limited. It can expell the Palestinians, which wouldn't solve anything, and most likely make things much worse. It could grant them citizenship, which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state. Or it can continue what its doing now, letting the Palestinians bleed them to death, cripple the economy, and make them a pariah in the world community.
Interesting how the entire onus for bringing about peace, ultimately, just happen to fall upon Israel. One might easily be misled into believing that the Palis are blameless, holy creatures; whey-faced innocents who only just happen to trip and stumble their respective ways into Semtex belts, and waking up each morning horrified to find Molotov cocktails mysteriously clutched in their hands. Oh, the poor, poor dears.
Again: overlooking the faux notion of Israel illgally "occupying" their own rightful territories... you somehow manage to overlook the simplest, most straightforward and (long-range) effective means by which peace may finally come to the Middle East.
Big Concept Time: The Palis can actually decide to stop butchering blameless, non-combatant Jewish infants; teenage girls; and Holocausr survivors... and resolve, once and for all, that they'd actually rather have their own country, rather than simply see how many dead Jews they can stack up per Pali, per annum.
Naaaaaaaaaaahhhh. < /sarcasm >
Personally, I don't care what you call it--rewarding, isolating, whatever. My point is the same. The current status quo for Israel isn't tenable, and expelling the Palestinians would make the security situation for Israel worse.
2.) Israel is not illegally "occupying" anydamnthing. The (so-called) "disputed territories" are solely and wholly israeli land. Said land was rightfully won by Israek, in defebding itself from an unannounced and unprovoked attack, by an aggressor nation.
Again, I don't care how the situation came to be, as I'm not arguing from the perspective of 'fairness'. In fact, my ideas are rather unfair to segments of both Israel and the Palestinians. That doesn't mean that they aren't in their best interests, though. But understanding how they tick is important, as you can't begin to solve the problem that is Palestinian society without understanding it.
3.) Anyone residing within this country who isn't a full-blooded Native American has absolutely diddley-squat in the way of moral or intellectual firepower to level versus Israel, insofar as "illegally occupied territories" are concerned. Surrender your own homes and lands to some nice Choctaw family, before bloviating further on the topic.
The Native Americans have been compensated (fairly or not) throught government funding and special perks like legalized gambling. Yes, what the U.S. did to them sucked. But if the moral high ground was a prerequisite for making any kind of argument, then no one could critize any other country. Do you really think what the U.S. did to the Indians justifies China's invasion of Tibet?
And by the way, I don't live in the U.S. Which I have already mentioned on this thread.
4.) Your argument is turned inwards on itself: it is, if anything, the savage and bloody-minded actions of the Palestinians which "haven't worked up to this point," and continue not to work; and thus, need to be changed, in order for any lasting, genuine Mideast peace to occur.
Yeah, and you expect the Palestinians to change? Who is being naive? Israel has the initiative militarily and security wise, so indeed what they do in the long run is more important than what the Palestinians do.
Just because there are a misguided (purported) "conservatives," hereabouts, with a Buchananist distaste for Jews and/or Israel; neither of these are in any way obligated, therefore, to sign said nation's death warrant... all in the name of some counterfeit notion of "fairness," or "understandinng."
My view is neither anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, or racist as you're implying. Neither is it based on 'fairness' for either side. Its based on the prospect that neither side will change signifigantly in their attitudes. Try re-reading my posts.
Big Concept Time: The Palis can actually decide to stop butchering blameless, non-combatant Jewish infants; teenage girls; and Holocausr survivors... and resolve, once and for all, that they'd actually rather have their own country, rather than simply see how many dead Jews they can stack up per Pali, per annum.
And how are you going to do this? Get them all together and sing Kumbaya? Clamp down harder? That's worked splendidly so far. As long as the occupation continues, they're not going to stop. Hell, even after the occupation ends, they might not stop. But at least Israel would be in a better position than the untenable situation that is the occupation. For the security situation in Israel to improve, they need to isolate themselves from the Palestinians. And that cannot happen with the number and distributions of settlements.
You: Personally, I don't care what you call it--rewarding, isolating, whatever. My point is the same. The current status quo for Israel isn't tenable, and expelling the Palestinians would make the security situation for Israel worse.
This offers approximately jack squat in the way of actual rebuttal of my point, which (in all naked candor) doesn't shock me nearly so profoundly as one might otherwise suppose.
Give it another go: rewarding stone, cold-blooded murderers with power and land is a good thing, by you, because...? Be specific; don't dance.
ME: "2.) Israel is not illegally "occupying" anydamnthing. The (so-called) "disputed territories" are solely and wholly israeli land. Said land was rightfully won by Israek, in defebding itself from an unannounced and unprovoked attack, by an aggressor nation."
You: Again, I don't care how the situation came to be, as I'm not arguing from the perspective of 'fairness'.
There's nothing quite so marvelous, really -- in a stunned, disbelieving sort of way, I mean -- as the titter-inducing spectacle of a sovereign nation (one under relentless terrorist attack, mind) being schoolmarm-ishly lectured by someone not of said nation, and who isn't menaced daily by the aforementioned terrorist cabal, re: how THEY ought best to deal with such matters. It's rather like watching one's spaniel attempting to woof an educated opinion on matters relating to the household budget.
The issue of "fairness," at which you disdainfully pinch your nose, is all-important (and devastating against the pallid pro-Pali "argument") precisely because it cannot be blithely swept aside, as you manifestly desire. The land in question rightfully belongs to Israel. To this, you respond (essentially) with: "... yes, yes... but the Palis still want it, and their demands, however groundless, still need to be met!"
When I was but a mere grade school lad, ages agone, we still rightly referred to that sort of drivel as begging the question.
The wholly germane issue of "fairness" cuts straightaway to the very heart of the matter, ultimately. If the land IS rightfully Israel's (and it is): then why SHOULD they knuckle under and acquiesce, grovelingly, to bloody, blatantly illegal terrorist demands for land and power, at their own inarguable expense?
You offer no reason, cogent or otherwise; merely a bland, insipid assurance that it must be so, on your say-so. I trust Israel finds such circular "arguments" as unconvincing, ultimately, as I do.
You: Do you really think what the U.S. did to the Indians justifies China's invasion of Tibet?
Tragically, my monitor doesn't provide subtitles; and it's anyone's guess at this point, really, what this was meant to convey without 'em. And the relevance of this bit of loopiness to anything whatsoever relating to beleagured Israel's attempting to survive one cowardly 9/11-style atrocity after another, daily, isssssssss...?
ME: "4.) Your argument is turned inwards on itself: it is, if anything, the savage and bloody-minded actions of the Palestinians which 'haven't worked up to this point,' and continue not to work; and thus, need to be changed, in order for any lasting, genuine Mideast peace to occur.
Here's an idea: maybe -- just maybe, mind -- it's the Palis who need to 'understand' the Israelis a little better... by 'understanding,' first and foremost, that Israel is NEVER going to go away.
Then, they can continue practicing their newly-attempted skills at "understanding" by 'understanding' that suicide bombings are not, nor ever will be, a legitimate means of diplomacy.
Finally, they (as well as the rest of their pro-terrorist apologia choir, both online and off, here and abroad) can make a wild stab at 'understanding' that -- here in the real world -- actions have consequences; and, thus, the Palis have, now and forevermore, squandered away any faint hopes at a so-called 'right of return,' or the reinstatement of 1967-era borders."
You: Yeah, and you expect the Palestinians to change? Who is being naive?
I find it shocking -- shocking, I say! -- that you'd so casually express the sentiment -- right here, in front of the whole world entire -- that the poor, persecuted, put-upon Pali savages are... well... savages, really; incapable (in your own words) of "changing" their group behavior to meet the baseline standards of rudimentary civilized decorum. And this, somehow, works to advance your "argument" that they actually ought to be awarded with land and power HOW, again...?
This is almost too easy, really.
You: Israel has the initiative militarily and security wise, so indeed what they do in the long run is more important than what the Palestinians do.
Again (as pointed out earlier, in my previous posting): the tired, rote anti-Israel meme, placing all the responsibility for "peace" upon the victim (Israel), and none whatsoever upon the aggressor (the Palis).
This is analogous, roughly, to Lyle Menendez's argument, during his trial, that maybe, somehow, what happened to his father was really all the old man's own danged fault, ultimately. And it bears a markedly suspicious resemblance to the Euro bleatings, post-9/11, that America, too -- being "more powerful" than the rest -- was (somehow) rightly "to blame" for equally craven and unprovoked attacks versus its own citizens, in turn. Hmmm.
ME: "Just because there are a few misguided (purported) 'conservatives,' hereabouts, with a Buchananist distaste for Jews and/or Israel; neither of these are in any way obligated, therefore, to sign said nation's death warrant... all in the name of some counterfeit notion of 'fairness,' or 'understandinng.'"
You: My view is neither anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, or racist as you're implying.
I generally find I needn't do anything so gauche as "imply" anti-Semitism, blinkered Israel-bashing or racism, thanks. Often as not: my opponents take care of such matters quite nicely, all unasked, without my needing to help matters along.
For the record -- and as is obvious to anyone possessed of even a fourth-grade reading comprehension level -- the simple statement that there are "misguided conservatives" with a "distaste for Jews and/or Israel" (an irrefutable observation, surely) addressed you not at all, save (apparently) insofar as your own red-faced and flinching reading of same. Whatever little twinges of sudden, glum self-recognition (if any) you may happen to experience, in response, are surely your affair, and none of my own.
Perhaps you ought to try re-reading MY postings. Just a suggestion, mind.
ME: "Big Concept Time: The Palis can actually decide to stop butchering blameless, non-combatant Jewish infants; teenage girls; and Holocausr survivors... and resolve, once and for all, that they'd actually rather have their own country, rather than simply see how many dead Jews they can stack up per Pali, per annum."
You: And how are you going to do this? Get them all together and sing Kumbaya?
It never fails to tickle me how it's always, always the most rabidly, obdurately pro-Pali out there who metronomically insist -- in response to the simple, reasonable suggestion that they [the Palis] try not butchering quite so many blameless, defenseless Jews, as a new approach to negotiating -- that this "just isn't a reasonable suggestion, goldang it!" One marvels at their simple, childlike inability to grasp, at essence, just how fatally they (unthinkingly) hamstring their own silly oh-please-give-the-poor-poor-Palis-yet-another-chance "arguments," in so doing.
I posit: maybe if they just murdered a few less Jews...? And his response: "And how are you going to do this? Get them all together and sing Kumbaya?"
I repeat: I never, ever have to "imply" ANYthing, ultimately.
You: As long as the occupation continues, they're not going to stop.
This is (for a wonder) absolutely true. The Palis ought to promptly cease illegally occupying all rightful Israeli territories, immediately. I understand Jordan (their rightful home) is lovely, this time of year. Not that I care, mind.
You: For the security situation in Israel to improve, they need to isolate themselves from the Palestinians.
Hence the wall.
Better, more reasoned argument: "For the security situation in Israel to improve, the Arab world needs to be made to understand -- concretely; irrevocably -- that Israel exists, rightfully, and will continue to exist (whether they like it or not); and that any/all future attempts to utilize the Palis as living pawns in their sick, decades-long manipulation of world opinion against Israel -- both in America, and abroad -- will no longer prove effective or worthwhile for them.
For this to happen, of course: self-appointed career apologists for those whose interests and sympathies are most rabidly inimical to Israel's (and ours) would need to stop robotically apologizing for them, regardless of evidence or incident. Just as a first step, mind.
Because I believe that it is in the best interest if Israel's security. The wall is a half measure as long as so many settlements remain outside it, and require the IDF to be constantly defending them, when it should be defending Israel's borders. Everything you've suggested is either a pipe-dream (expulsion) or too dependant on changing how people think and feel, which in most cases is next to impossible.
That's my argument. Believe it, disbelieve it, think I'm a racist cocker spaniel with the reading ability of a fourth grader, whatever. But I'm not going to continue arguing with you if your posts are as incivil as your last one.
You: Because I believe that it is in the best interest if Israel's security. The wall is a half measure as long as so many settlements remain outside it, and require the IDF to be constantly defending them, when it should be defending Israel's borders. Everything you've suggested is either a pipe-dream (expulsion) or too dependant on changing how people think and feel, which in most cases is next to impossible.
That's my argument. Believe it, disbelieve it, think I'm a racist cocker spaniel with the reading ability of a fourth grader, whatever. But I'm not going to continue arguing with you if your posts are as incivil as your last one
...and this is the sort of closely-reasoned rebuttal to which you feel I'm somehow obligated to show even so much as a dram of "civility"...? Not only is your firsthand knowledge of Middle East realpolitik lacking; but your skin badly wants some much-needed thickening as well, if the very best you can do, in the cause of advancing palsied "argument," is to play the grievously wounded drama queen.
Point by slapdash point, quickly: Israel, in establishing (and stoutly safeguarding) the settlements, IS "defending its borders," obviously. You're simply unhappy that said "borders" aren't the withered, indefensible things of 1967, is all; a pigeon-toed intellectual stance which (really) more than adequately speaks for itself, really and truly, without want of further comment on my part.
Israel -- having survived (barely) multiple illegal and unprovoked Arab attacks, over the decades -- has logically concluded that "borders" bulwarked by a Jewish population are actually easier to "defend," ultimately, than ones where the squatter inhabitants of same spend the greater bulk of their days plotting on how best to kill Jews. Shocking, I know... but: there you have it.
Your failed dodge to the effect that actually asking the Palis to negotiate in good faith -- like normal human beings, rather than slavering kobolds or orcs -- and cease killing Jews is just (your own words) "a pipe dream" speaks for itself, once again, in a clear and unmistakable voice. The marvel, here, isn't that you genuinely believe the Palis incapable of articulating their political worldview by any means other than slavering hatred and cold-blooded murder; it's that you (bizarrely) champion this studied inability to belly up to the bar of civilized behavior -- that you blithely redefine soulless atrocity and ambition as just "how people think and feel."
The fact that you are (manifestly) tone deaf to the appalling tenor of such a black and awful little aria is its own best rebuttal, ultimately. A burning, yowling need to butcher as many defenseless Jews as possible -- whether in cold pursuit of land, or else simply for its own horrible sake -- is just "how people think and feel," by you.
And I've no doubt it actually is, either.
The point you repeatedly fail to grasp, however, is this: no Jew is in any way obligated -- no matter how much you stamp your little feet otherwise -- to respect people "thinking and feeling" that way; nor is Israel, as a nation, mysteriously called upon from on high to respond to others "thinking and feeling" that way as if it were a sane and valid socio-political posture.
Jews don't believe that Pali savages -- you've already long since conceded that point, qua the Palis -- possess any sort of God- or Allah-given right to murder Jews, by means of benighted political protest. That's the way Jews "think and feel," on the matter. And all sad attempts to daub that stance as being unreasonable merely end up leaving the Pali "cause" (such as it is) looking that much more intellectually threadbare, and morally indefensible.
The fact that it does likewise to the flimsy exclamations of the Palis' more ardent online defenders is just a sweet, unintended sort of bonus, really.
Post any manner of arrant, pie-eyed foolishness in an online forum, if you like... but: don't blanch with a girlish little squeak of dismay, when others refuse to suffer it, gladly or otherwise.
Have a nice life, Kent.
I'm having a wonderful life, thank you. You try and have a better educated one.
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.
Printable
Comments