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.