Mayonaise wrote:
Even if Israel went to the 1967 borders, what would happen if some Hamas jerkoff blows up a bus or starts shelling Israeli homes?
Kill him.
Mayonaise wrote:
Its not like the Palestinians have done anything but start shit with Israel. They elected a political party that advocated the destruction of Israel as a state and then they run off and shoot duct-taped rockets at Israeli homes
Except that's not quite true. The Palestinians are a people. It is individuals, or members of organizations, that have committed acts of violence. Collective punishment isn't just unjust, it's also self-defeating. Attitudes can change over time, but antagonizing the entire populace only deepens hatred and strengthens the extremists - all of which has left us here.
Yes, they elected Hamas - which said it would govern and coexist with Israel. This wasn't good enough for Israel, and they refused to work with them.
Jubbergun wrote:
Regardless of who is right and who is wrong, but mainly who is wrong, since neither parties have done much right, I still tend to blame the entire 70 or 80 years of absolute fuckerization on Europeans. If they hadn't have been both so eager to "get rid of the Jews," a little habit dating back to at least the Reconquista, and so guilty about it in light of the holocaust, there wouldn't a buttload of Jews there and this would be a moot point anyway.
You do not understand Jewish history at all.
The Crusades has no bearing on what has happened, and the Diaspora occurred over a thousand years before. Don't talk about what you have absolutely no knowledge of.
If you want, you can go read some good books about the migrations of the Jews and such; I'll be happy to suggest some.
Jubbergun wrote:
The point is this: This fleet of "peaceful activists" were not peaceful activists. At least a significant minority of those involved set out on this little "mission of peace" in order to insight violence for the sole purpose of using the results of their actions as propaganda against their political military opponent.
That is the point. Evil can be enforced only by violence.
Jubbergun wrote:
Someone asked why Israel would do this "to Turkey." My question is, if Turkey, as an informed party, allowed this convoy to set sail knowing what it knew about at least the stated intentions of those aboard, why was it doing this "to Israel?"
What's your explanation - why do you think the Turks allowed this?
Jubbergun wrote:
Israel offered a port for the cargo to be docked for inspection. They offered assistance in transporting legitimate aid goods into Gaza. They were being reasonable. Not complying with Israel's demand that the flotilla deliver to a specific port, especially in light of a naval blockade and the events leading up to the Gaza occupation/lockdown, was not reasonable, and worse intentionally done to create an incident.
It's a fundamentally unreasonable request. They have no right to take control of the delivery of civilian goods. How would you feel if the Chinese decided to blockade our ports because of a disagreement?
Jubbergun wrote:
The assertion that they "don't allow concrete into Gaza" is fallacious. According to the Israeli ambassador I saw on the news this weekend, Israel allows concrete into Gaza, but only if it is attached to an approved repair/build project. This is because the aggressive force in Gaza uses concrete in some manner or another in the construction of the rockets, mortars, and bombs that they use against Israel. I choose to believe this. If you don't, that's understandable. I just choose to believe that if any aid good is tied up in any type of red tape, it's not because one human being wants another to suffer.r
Because he says it, it must be true!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8068864.stm