Assassination!!Follow

Once again let me draw the simple metaphor here.

Someone throws you and your family out of your house and starts living in it. You try to take the house back and they kill most of your family and take your car which you had been living in.

You need someplace to sleep so you sleep in a shed. The people who threw you out of your house send their relatives to live in the shed. The relatives throw you out of the shed.

How do you react when someone suggests that you give up any rights of ownership over the house or the shed, and that in return the people in the house won't send any mro relatives to **** with you?


Get the **** over the Arab's treatemnt of the Palastinins.

It's irrelevant.

The governments of Europe treated Jews like **** for most of the first half of the 20th century. That didn't make the holocaust any less of a big deal.



/yawn.

That's crazy talk. Muslims want Isreal for religous reasons. Allways have, allways will. Christians too. Jews too. If anyone wanted a real peace in Isreal they'd make Jersulem a demilitrized zone run by the Chinese who mostly couldn't give a **** about any of the monothesitc western tradtions and would instead focus on building factories to make tiny drink umbrellas.

And, really, isnt' what we need in this situation more umbrella drinks? I think it is.


Maybe you should argue that Lawrence of Arabia is a bad leader for the Syrians.

The only thing maintaining the number of poor people here in the richest country in the history of the planet is the greed of the wealthy.

In politics, that greed is manifested by the Republican party. People vote for them because they want to be wealthy some day. That, and everyone understands greed.

What the hell are you talking about?


That's deep, man. If only they'd realize that the only way to succeed is to let the people who ruthlessly have exploited them over and over do whatever they want without recourse. When will the fools ever learn?

That is absolutely, unequivocally correct, Thundra.

Now if I may use your metaphor, Smasharoo, I'd like to point out that you and your family never owned that house you lived in and your neighbors-- who resemble you, believe like you do, act like you do, and own the home --occasionally put you in that shed you mentioned for reasons unexplained.

Then those neighbors sold the house to some new neighbors who cleaned it up, remodeled it nicely, and generally added to its' value. They are different than you in just about every way, but for the most part mind their own business unless provoked. Granted, when provoked they go crazy, but generally they keep to themselves.

Interestingly, these new neighbors have some friends who have encouraged them to share the plot of land on which the house and shed reside. After some arm twisting by these friends your new neighbors agree to let you not only live in the shed, but own the land upon which its' placed.

Oddly enough, however, this isn't good enough for you. You want all the land, the house, and the shed despite the fact it wasn't ever yours, outside of you living in the neighborhood all your life.

That sums up the situation, Smasharoo. The Arab's treatment of the Pallies is relevant insomuch as it proves land ownership and the intent to grant them nationhood status. Beyond that, no, it has no other relevance outside of my disgust at the cynical manipulation of Muslims to use their religion to rally others to their cause.

My point when including our own country's poor was not to push your button, but to illustrate that the use of any particular group's political base for unconstructive purposes is just that: unconstructive. It solves nothing, it eases nobody's pain, and it does nothing outside of retaining that group's interst in things which aren't pertinent to problems closer to home.

Thundra is correct when he uses American Indians as an example. Nobody disputes they got a raw deal. But to argue they were here first and therefore deserve the land ignores the reality on the ground-- they lost, there is no way to reverse what has been done, and we move on from there.

In the same way, the Pallies have lost, there is no way to reverse the presence of Jews and Israelis in the Middle East, and they need to learn to move on from there. While a nuke could change the balance of power over there, short of that, no amount of suicide bombings, angry mobs running through the streets holding dead Hamas leaders over their heads, work stoppages, or boycotts is going to change what is the reality in Palestine. And that reality is Israel is there to stay, they are exceedingly tough militarily, and they have the backing of powerful friends. Those things are immutable. And they need to get used to it, learn to get along, and eventually succeed. Otherwise they will be just like the Indians who have refused to accept what has happened here in the United States: despondent, destitute, and drunk (or just pissed off, I guess, since if you're muslim you're not allowed to drink).

Totem

I can think of only one other time I've disagreed with Smash on an economic, social, or religious topic. And I can think of no other time where I agreed with Totem on any such matters.

This is a terrifying precedent, in that I managed to do both simultaneously. I suddenly feel the urge to defend Rush Limbaugh's hypocritical stance on drugs and support the war in Iraq.



I agree. And that's why their cause is dead.

Totem said -

"They are different than you in just about every way, but for the most part mind their own business unless provoked."

Now that ain't true, they (well Ariel Sharon) deliberately provoked the current round of unrest.

And btw, Israel was set up in 1947 by the British under the auspices of the League of Nations. And what was there before *Israel* arrived? Why, Palestine of course (under British rule).

So to be fair, that crappy little dust-blown piece of land they all covet has been laid claim to by just about everyone over the centuries. And whose to say the Israelis have more claim to it now than the Palestinians.

Both sides need to compromise but, because of the religious passions involved, they won't. So the bloodshed will continue.

Actually maybe we could just blame the British

And the real point here (which has been conveniently ignored by the Palestinian appologists) is that Israel has shown a willingness to compromise.

Lets see. They currently hold all the territory in the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip. And the Golan Heights. They currently have a single state and hold emminent domain over all the Palestinians living in those areas.

That's what they have *right now*. Not compromising would mean that any deal would result in them keeping all of that.

But what have they put on the table? They have offerered to give the Palestinians roughly 90% of that land. They have offerered to give up their emminent domain claim to that territory. They have agreed to a separate Palestinian state. All they've asked in return is that the palestinians give up a claim on the other 10% of the land, and give up their claims of property within the lands that would remain Israel. Note. This is all stuff that Israel already holds.

Let's see what the Palestians have? Um... No state. No control. No lands of their own. Second class status in someone else's country. They do have a list of demands though: They want statehood. They want all the lands in the diputed zones. They want to be able to reclaim the property they "lost" in Israel proper back in 47. They want reparations for that loss.


How on earth can you say that the numerous Israeli offers have not been compromises? Isreal is willing to give up a ton just so the Palestinians will stop being a thorn in their side. But the Palestinians are refusing to accept a wonderful deal even when it's handed to them giftwrapped. They refuse to budge on a single one of their demands even though they have little to give in return. All the Israelis are asking for is a reduction in the demands of the Palestinians. I cant see how anyone who takes an honest look at the situation can say that Israel is not compromising. It's Palestine that refuses to do so, and as long as they do, they will always be in a world of ****. They are literally causing their own problems. Until they have a leadership that can make a compromise and get the Palestinian people to follow it, there will be no peace between those two peoples.

It's not on the Isrealis folks. They can't really do anything other then wait and hope that eventually someone will rise in Palestine who's willing to deal, and who has the support of the people to do make a deal happen.


Yeah. Sharon is a reactionary leader. He's not exactly part of the solution either. However, he was elected when it became obvious to the Israeli people that the Bark/Arafat peace plan was not going to work because the Palestinians simply would not put aside any of their demands. Cause and effect folks. Once it became obvious that Arafat either couldn't make the Palestinians follow a compromise or he didn't really want one, they elected a more hard line PM.

Wow. You really are just that insecure, aren't you?

Sure. And the issue of compromise was never resolved. You stated several times that Isreal wasn't compromising anything. Totem made a wonderful few posts about the history of Palestine, and how they'll have a better chance at statehood with the Isrealis then they ever had with Jordan, Syria, or Egypt, but he never mentioned what exactly the Israelis have done to try to make that happen.


Look. I understand that you basically got spanked from all sides in this thread and would like it to drop off the front page as quickly as possible, but I'm going to say my bit. The world does not revolve around you Smash. Just because you don't want to keep a thread around doesn't mean that the topic is over.


There's lots more to discuss here Smash. Heck. We could talk about what exact terms the Palestinians could maybe agree with. We could talke about which leaders may or may not be able to take the Palestinians towards the self rule that they desire? Heck. Just to put this back on topic, maybe we could look at the politics of the two Hamas leaders that were killed. Were they moving Palestine towards a compromise? Or away from one? Should we see those assassinations as a good thing, or bad?


That was the topic, right? Just because you decided to take it and turn it into your own personal attack on the whole US/Israel/Palestine political situation, and got spanked badly doesn't change that. But hey! Let's not actually talk about the issue. Let's just spew our own brand of innuendo out there as long as possible, and then hope the thread drops fast so people don't notice when facts outweigh rhetoric.

I care, Smash. I didn't at first, and then I saw the above quote and I thought to myself, "Self, you care."

Yes, I'm admittedly insecure and petty. And I'm O.K. with that.

The Pallies ( cant help but think of EQ on this one Totem =P poor damn Paladins) are getting a raw deal, Israel keeps saying they will cooperate with one side of their mouth while nuking Pallies out the otherside.

The biggest problem with the Pallies as I see it is their lack of cohesion. They lack unified leadership. Which the Israelis are careful to cultivate. That is as soon as one Pally gets to a point where he might be a leader for his people he is eliminated.

I wish we could cut Israeli funding and let them get on their own but unfortunately every attempt to do so is met by anti-Sematic rhetoric which labels the nay-sayer as a Hitler in the making.

If we really want peace in the Middle East we need to quit taking sides, the Israelis are not intrested in peace anymore then anyone else in that area is. We are stuck with Iraq and have to make the best we can out of it and hopefully that will lead by example. But Sharon needs the Pallies to stay in power. We who are the only super-power at this point are being played like a violin and supporting his regime.

As to terrorism, do I think that if the Pallies could get at Sharon instead of innocent people they would? Damn right I do. But thanks to our billions in support not likey to ever happen.

Hmmm... I both agree and disagree. Certainly, they lack cohesion. I don't think that's a "goal" of the Isrealis though. I'm relatively certain that the Israelis would absolutely love for a single, strong leader to emerge in Palestine (sorry. I can't call them "pallies"... ). That would give them someone to deal with, and someone who could actually speak on the behalf of all the Palestinians.

The reason Israeli citizens are getting killed is because there are groups of Palestinians who are upset about the current conditions and will use terrorism to make this displeasure known (as if all involved didn't know already). The reason the current conditions exist is because there is no single authority for the Palestinian people. There are lots of people who represent a small portion of the Palestinians, but no one who speaks for all of them.


The Isrealis are in the position of having to make a deal with an entire people, who are themselves composed of several dozen different factions, all of which have slightly different demands, but all of which will continue the violence as long as any single group of Palestinians aren't happy. They have no ability to please every single one of these groups. Until those groups combine together, the violence will continue.


Sure. I suppose we could play the conspiracy theorist and assume that for some secret reason Isreal wants Palestine broken into factions, and therefore wants the violence to continue. I kinda doubt it though (ok. With Sharon, I could *maybe* see it, but not as a general Isreali policy). There's just not enough gain in the violence. The Isrealis aren't happy about it. If they could put the Palestinians on the other side of a border tomorrow they would. The problem really is that they can't get enough of the Palestinians to agree among themselves as to where that border should be and to ensure that they'll all move to the new state and leave Isreal alone. It does them no good to give up land for a Palestinian state if 20% of the Palestinian population stays in Isreal and continues being a problem for them.

No one's talking to you, Cliff, yet you answer.

Do you yell at the movie screen?

Just curious.

I can't with a clear conscience claim that I coined the term "Pallies," but offhand I can't recall seeing anyone else use it either. For me it was either shorten the name or continue to laboriously type out P-a-l-e-s-t-i-n-i-a-n-s-u-p-e-r-c-a-l-l-a-f-r-a-g-a-l-i-s-t-i-c-e-x-p-e-e-p-e-e-a-l-a-d-o-c-i-o-u-s.

It was slowly killing me on the inside...

Totem