<<I'm amazed that:
1. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront the atrocities of the Arab world on their supposed Muslim "brothers" . . . >>
Well, the topic is the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. The "atrocities" committed by Arabs "on their supposed Muslim brothers" is a red herring, because logically, what Arabs do to each other can't possibly justify anything the Jews do to the Arabs. If I am fighting with my neighbour about ownership of a piece of land, I don't think any court in the world would want to hear how mean my neighbour is to members of his own family. It would have absolutely no bearing on the dispute whatsoever.
However, if your point in introducing this element into the discussion is to prove that the Arabs are collectively a bunch of degenerate savages who don't even have the decency to respect the lives of their co-religionists, I would say, firstly shame on you for stooping to such a blatantly racist smear of an entire race and religion and secondly, when it comes to committing atrocities on one's co-religionists, the Europeans and the Americans take a back-seat to nobody, if you consider the carnage of the two world wars and the U.S. civil war alone. Ms. Kettle, meet Mr. Pot. People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.
2. No one aside from Rich seems to be willing to confront . . . the fact that the Palestinians are not innocent and have brought much of this on themselves.>>
First of all, "innocence" and "guilt" are not FACTS, as you claim, but merely OPINIONS. Hopefully, opinions
based on facts. Second, I think most sane and normal people, if they can agree on nothing else, would have to agree that "guilt" and "innocence" are, in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian struggle, purely relative terms.
Since you don't bother to state what facts you base your opinion on, I will have to assume that it is suicide bombings which make the Palestinians "not innocent" and lead you to conclude that they "have brought "much of this" on themselves.
Your conclusions are, of course, patently absurd on their face. First of all, the Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the occupation by the Jews of the West Bank of Palestine. They happened to be living (many of them after being expelled from their original homes in what is now Israel) on land caught between the armies of Israel and Jordan, occupied by Israel, and then
in complete defiance of international law, settled by Israeli settlers, many of them arriving from Europe and America after the war. So it is virtually impossible to see, in any reasonable view of the situation, how the Palestinians can be said to have "brought much of this" or indeed
any of "this" on themselves.
Possibly, however, you are referring to the suicide bombings. Again, your argument would make sense only to one who is completely ignorant of the history of the situation. Suicide bombings are a relatively recent response to the Occupation. The Palestinians suffered a military occupation for about 20 years until the first intifada broke out, when crowds of child demonstrators, some as young as 10 or 11 years old, throwing pebbles at Israeli soldiers, were gunned down in the streets. Yitzkhak Rabin gave the orders to his soldiers to "break the bones" of the demonstrators. In response to the brutality of the Israeli forces and the murders of their children, some Palestinians, driven to desperation by the never-ending oppression of the Occupation, turned to the only weapons they had, their own bodies, to bring the struggle back to the enemy. Suicide bombings are the only weapon of a people which lacks the weapons of war possessed in deadly abundance by their enemy.
You might want to at least glance at the actual
facts, however, before coming to your conclusions of "guilt" or "innocence" - - for example, that since 2000, more than 4,500 Palestinians have been killed as opposed to only 1,100 Israelis. It should be pretty clear from these numbers (a 4-to-one ratio) where most of the violence is coming from. In 2007 alone, 373 Palestinians were killed by the Jews, as against only 13 Israelis, a ratio of almost 30-to-one. It is absolutely ludicrous to claim that the Israelis are the "innocents" in this lop-sided carnage against a defenceless civilian population. Further, <<[of] the Palestinians killed this year,
131 were not engaged in fighting at the time of their death, according to the report. That number includes bystanders, militants killed during arrest raids, Palestinians killed trying to infiltrate Israel from Gaza, and armed members of Palestinian security forces who were not actively involved in hostilities when they were killed.>> And, finally, <<[of] the Israelis killed by Palestinians, seven were civilians and six were security personnel.>>
http://www.sunherald.com/311/v-print/story/270946.html for the above death-toll summary
<<2. That after mentioning the Six Day War, you *still* view it as simply "Israel took it over". You condemned me for a sweeping broad summation of the conflict, yet: Pot, meet Kettle. Wikipedia can be your friend>>
So what details of the Six Day War do you think I left out that would have favoured the case of the Occupation against the Palestinians?
<<That Israel is consistently claimed to be the bad guys despite their damndest efforts to reach agreements. To pull the quote out again: "The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity";>>
You know that is just total bullshit. What "damndest efforts" have they actually made? They stall for years "negotiating" agreements that it is obvious they never intend to keep (all the time pouring settlers as fast as they can into the land they are supposedly "negotiating" to give away) and then when the agreements are finally signed, they stall, delay and renege, using phony excuses ("the Arabs are 'inciting' violence") which were never even mentioned in the original "agreements." No real Palestinian leader has any faith left in the Israelis' intentions. Abbas, a corrupt puppet leader, is the only one who will even pretend that there is any point to negotiating with them.
You trotted out that old wisecrack about the Arabs never missing an opportunity, coined by a cynical and morally corrupted Israeli Foreign Minister as if it were proof of anything except his clever tongue. Of course, the Israelis are adept at pouring out lies and bullshit, not enough to fool the Europeans but certainly more than adequate for the dumbass Amerikkkan public.
<<That NO ONE gives credibility to the fact that the poor refugee Palestinians could solve their own plight, and are in large part responsible for it, because heaven forbid their twisted-religious minds allow them to recognize Israel>>
More bullshit. Where is the evidence of any Jewish commitment to end the occupation as soon as the Palestinians recognize Israel? There is no such commitment. All Israel has committed to is to negotiate more. That's not good enough but it certainly gives the lie to your claim that a simple recognition of Israel would solve all their problems. Nonsense. Complete and utter nonsense.
<<That comparisons of Palestinians who are not part of the Islamic Fundamentalist mindset are used to discredit the very real and very terrifying and extremely large faction of the MidEast, and Gaza, who *are* thinking in that regard.>>
The Palestinians can be of any "mindset" they choose and would still be entitled to have military occupation lifted off their backs. Who in the hell are the Israelis to dictate to the Palestinians or to anyone else, "You can have the basic human rights provided by the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights," but first you must adopt a mindset that is acceptable to us?" This is probably the most outrageous of all your statements in its arrogance and its (obviously unintended) glimpse of the "mindset" of Israel and its supporters.
<<I could go on&on actually. It seems rather pointless. You don't want a discussion, you want a fight.>>
I'm sorry. Promise not to contradict you any more, OK?
<<MT & XO seem rather hell-bent on the whole "Israelis bad, Arabs good" propaganda.>>
That's extremely unfair. If something blatantly unjust is going on, I call attention to it, but I'll be damned if any of my reasoned and factual arguments, right or wrong, are at the primitive levels you just depicted. I suppose that if your arguments are rebutted in my posts, the proper response is to assume that your own arguments are clever and sophisticated, while mine and XO's are primitive, Neanderthal and buffoonish. Maybe it's good for your ego, but I can assure you, no one with half a brain is buying it.
