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?
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.
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.'
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.
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 ...
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.
I have only been wrong once and thats because I thought I was wrong but I was wrong I was right!
Petty authoritarians aren’t man enough to challenge the actions of a person face to face; instead they incite a forum of rumour, innuendo and half truths, and impose rude sanctions to discourage those who dare question fairness.
Advice is what we seek when we already know the answer - but wish we didn't
I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full-frontal lobotomy ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ kirkstaller wrote: "All DNA shows is that we have a common creator."
cod'ead wrote: "I have just snotted weissbier all over my keyboard & screen"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "No amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin." - Aneurin Bevan
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 EQUALLY AS BAD 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? Absolutely.
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.
Whoever stands by a just cause and fights for the freedom and liberation of his land from the invaders, the settlers and the colonialists, cannot possibly be called terrorist."
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 EQUALLY AS BAD 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? Absolutely.
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.
My interpretation of events of the last few decades is that, regardless of what they say, Israel does not want a two-state solution, preferring rather to have a policy of constant encroachment across the West Bank and a squeezing of Gaza towards some kind of elimination, possibly by adoption into Egypt, aiming towards a non-existence of Palestine as any kind of state.
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.
'when my life is over, the thing which will have given me greatest pride is that I was first to plunge into the sea, swimming freely underwater without any connection to the terrestrial world'
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.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot] and 242 guests
REPLY
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...