It's ironic that Israel helped fund and develop Hamas as a counterweight to the mostly secular Fatah of Yasser Arafat.

How often has history shown big powers getting their ar[is[/ies bitten by the dog they previously fed?

I never knew that. I don't think irony even begins to over it.


Oooh - I know this one. Is it 'every single time'?

So you're saying that it's OK to kill civilians as long as you're the smaller side in an uneven struggle? Only I'm not sure that my moral compass - or International Law for that matter - makes that distinction.

No i am not, you just cant stand any criticism of your pet cause.

No I’m not, I know im not because I really don’t care about how ‘even’ the struggle is, I find it quite moronic that people like you are keeping some kind of score, or that there should be some kind of equity in war.


I don’t see why yet again you are trying to down play the attempted murder of people, of civilians. ‘lobbing a few rockets’ isn’t some kids vandalising the local park, this is explosive weaponry, designed and used to indiscriminately kill and maim, this isnt done out of frustration or anger, this isnt some husband coming home and kicking his wifes lovers head in, it is murder, and attempted murder. It is a person, taking the time and effort to launch rockets and kill indiscriminitely, being Isreali or Palestinian doesnt make that action any better of worse.
I cant tell whether you do this because you are an actual mental who hates jews/Israelis or you have the rather patronising viewpoint that we should Palestinians should be held to a lower expectation.

No. I'm saying that you're playing at moral equivalence – and that you still have not bothered to suggest just what you imagine those Palestinians should do in your nice, clean, imaginary world where they don't lob rockets in frustration and anger.

It's a redundant exercise in pleasantries to pretend that you can finger wag at both sides equally, when the situation is utterly unequal, and when you don't appear to have any suggestion of how to change that situation.

So I repeat again: in order to avoid your condemnation, precisely what do you think the Palestinians should do?

Let's face it, when youngsters do throw stones, they get shot.

Not frustration? Well obviously. After all, they're not effectively in a prison, being fired on while there. They shouldn't remotely respond to the aggressor in this situation. Of course not.

I keep looking for your ideas on just what the Palestinians should do.

I haven't spotted any yet.

Makes the rhetoric easier for you, I suppose.

And how very unoriginal: 'Oh, oh look – you're probably an anti-semite!'

Do you also accuse people like Gideon Levy, Shlomo Sand and Ralph Schoenman of being 'self-hating Jews'? Along with the likes of B'Tselem and Independent Jewish Voice and many more.

And you call me "moronic".

As opposed to all the evidence that the state of Israel has ever wanted anything less than the removal of all Palestinians?

Really?

What evidence is there that the state of Israel has ever been sincere or serious about a long-lasting peace that involved a two-state solution? Seriously – what evidence is there?

Maybe the Palestinians have got off lightly?

Then dont throw stones, whats the worst thing that happens there? Stones are no longer thrown? big f@cking whoop.


The aggressor isn’t the kids in schools hit by rockets, they aren’t the families in their houses hit by rockets, they aren’t civilians on buses which are bombed, they aren’t the young couples having dinner in restaurants in Tel Aviv The civilians in Israel are no more ‘the aggressors’ when going about their daily business, than the civilians of Palestine are ‘terrorists’ whilst going about theirs.
Not murder people. Im not asking for the moon on a stick here sweetheart, im not asking for them to be some kind of angels, im not mistaking the Palestinians for a rag-tag bunch of Ned Flanders types, simply asking that they don’t murder people, don’t glorify murdering people, and don’t whine when the people they are trying to murder do it better than them. Incompetance isnt moral mitigation.
Your double standards do seem to indicate that, as I said, i could be wrong, you could see the Palestinians as lesser people with a lesser standard to live up to, either way, it is stupid to apply a double standard.

Why? Do they say that the murder of Jews is acceptable?

If the yarmulke fits..........

Because you can't even suggest a tiny thing that they should do to change the situation, can you? Except 'don't do naughty' things, children. Let the big bully keep on kicking you – but don't dare even make a gesture back.'

Still not even an attempt to explain just what you'd have the Palestinians do while they're being murdered in the prison that the state of Israel is keeping them in. As for this:

"... and don’t whine when the people they are trying to murder do it better than them."

This is precisely the f**king point, you apologist for a neo-fascist regime that is aiming at ethnic cleansing. They didn't f**king start it, and the people that did have no intention in stopping until they're wiped out or driven out of their homes.

If the coalscuttle helmet fits, chucky wucky ...

I don't consider 'moral equivalence' a game to be played. I do consider moral relativism to be, well, immoral. Using your line of reasoning any terrorist organisation can easily justify any atrocity by claiming inequality of conflict.

I'm not 'finger-wagging' at anyone as that would be trivialising the death and destruction taking place. I am stating that you can't draw a moral or legal difference between the actions of Hamas and the Israeli government, no matter how much sympathy you have with the Palestinian cause or loathing for Israeli government actions.

Your demand for alternatives is pointless and, TBH, disingenuous. Throwing your hands up and saying 'well what else can they do' is just avoiding the issue. For a start they could limit themselves to military targets.

And lastly, I have not condemned the Palestinians. I have condemned the tactics used by both Hamas and the Israeli government.

Gestures aren’t worth lives. War is, in general, in pretty much all cases, senseless and moronic. To murder not as a consequence of war but as a gesture is unequivocally evil. What a sad, horrific, value on Israeli lives you must have to see it as acceptable that they are murdered as a gesture. No life is worth that little that it should be used simply to make a point. I honestly feel sorry for you that you see it like that.

You may think the Palestinians are ‘better’ because though they try and murder people, they are rubbish at it I think it’s the trying that’s the wrong part, the success of it is neither here nor there really. Competence isn’t really part of the equation. Once again, im not apologising for anyone.

Interesting reports:

[urlhttp://csis.org/publication/fighting-gaza-just-round-two-endless-series-future-clashes-and-battles[/url

[urlhttp://csis.org/publication/iran-israel-and-effects-nuclear-conflict-middle-east[/url
Open the pdf to see the full report with maps, charts and graphics.

I've wandered around the site, seems to be an interesting and sometimes grim resource.

Latest proposal for the West Bank?

[url=http://www.sott.net/article/254147-Israel-considers-racially-segregated-bus-lines-in-West-BankWelcome to 1950s Mississippi[/url

I really can't be bothered debating with these nonsensical fools who accuse the victims of being equally culpable as the aggressors. In their topsy-turvy, bubble-gum world ten million people could be obliterated by some invading, genocidal army but let half-a-dozen of them band together and exact revenge upon non-combatants living on OCCUPIED LAND and suddenly they, the ten million dead and anyone else lucky enough to be left alive are instantly [uEQUALLY AS BAD[/u as the aggressors.

I agree that in some cases it is very often difficult to identify the party at fault. But not here. The Palestinians were appallingly short-changed by Britain, the UN and later Israel when their lands were pulled from under their feet without representation. The surrounding Arab states didn't help immediately after and both they and the Israelis combined to deny what little land the Palestinians had left. After this point the responsibility is solely Israel's. They had no moral or legal right to the occupied territories and they should have withdrawn. Period. Instead they not only fortified their positions but embarked on a cynical policy of gradually appropriating Palestinian territory (usually the most irrigated and fertile) in sufficiently small amounts not to attract the politically unwelcome label of conquerors.

The Palestinians, after years of fruitless negotiations in which they couldn't win so much as an inch of concessions out of the Israelis (often they weren't even allowed to bring maps to the discussion table - as was the case years later at Oslo, the much-vaunted "peace process" Israelis claim Palestinians reneged on despite the fact that one of the ISRAELI chief negotiators later claimed even he wouldn't have signed ) , then - quite understandably - resorted to more direct and desperate forms of action. Do I agree with it? No. Do I understand it? [uAbsolutely. [/u

Kosh, Smokey and the rest of these armchair general Custers would have us believe that despite the litany of injustices listed above and in Norman Finkelstein's eloquent and morally forceful summation of the conflict, despite the appallingly one-sided casualty rate (which itself speaks volumes about the colossal disparity of men, materiel, foreign aid etc.) this AUTOMATICALLY makes them "just as bad" as the Israelis.

By their rationale - the Native Americans were "just as bad" as the conquering colonists. Ditto the Incas and the Mayans against Cortez and Pizarro. And any sane person would recognise this as phooey.

Carefeul Mugwump, because once Smokey sees this he will proceed to brow beat you into submission with response after response after response . Pretty much what all pro Israeli defenders do to all detractors.

Anyway, could be a great day at the UN for the Palestinians.

I see your comprehension skills are still taking second place to your penchant for rhetoric. Well done you.

Come back when you've actually managed to understand what people have been saying to you.

I think your interpretation is pretty close to the truth. The preferred outcome would be to sweep the Palestinians into the sea and hand their lands over to the settlers. Given the recent influx of large numbers of Jews from the former communist states the Israeli government is under extreme pressure to provide lebensraum.

The second best solution would be to force the Palestinians to accept the manageable (for the Israelis) governance of Egypt (Gaza) and Jordan (the West Bank). That said, the recent shenanigans south of the border may make Israel think twice.

Sans the above I think we'll see the continuation of expansion into Palestinian territories (especially those which are cultivatable or water bearing), a ratcheting up of the system of segregation none dare call precisely what it is - Apartheid, and ever more one-sided death tolls.

I want to know why Hillary thinks the UN recognition of a Palestinian state obstructs the path to a peaceful agreement between Israel and the palestinians? The fact is the only peaceful solution Israel wants is one in which there are no longer any Palestinians living anywhere in the region.

Isn't that also what the Palestinians want, in fact Hamas want the total annihilation of Israel. Lets have some balance.

Do keep up lad

And Netanyahu's response to overwhelming worldwide criticism (including, Britain - which is at least suggesting it might withdraw its ambassador - a rarity in itself) regarding YET MORE new settlements on Palestinian land?

[i"We will carry on building in Jerusalem and in all the places that are on the map of Israel's strategic interests."[/i

And there you have it.

Yes. That's why Hamas acknowledged the right of Israel to exist a number of years ago.

Yet see today's quote from Netanyahu – as posted by Mugwump.

Yet the destruction of Israel is still part of their charter.

Ah yes – charters.

Thankfully, Israel hasn't got a charter that states that it will spend decades actually pursuing a policy that means the destruction of any hope of a Palestine.

Even the UK government is in a slight tizz about this latest demonstration of an absolute lack of interest in a peaceful, two-state solution.