Suetonius> My post did not condemn Israel. I merely point out in terms or realpolitik....
It's not like you pointed this out to compliment Israel.
You might as well have tried:
"Obama is a Muslim.
I'm not saying this to condemn him, just pointing it out...."
Equally as bankrupt:
Suetonius> I actually pity moral Israeli citizens for continuing to put in power such short-sighted leaders as they have (and presumbaly will continue to do).
How can it be that all of Israel's leaders, left, center or right, are "short-sighted"?
Worse, in Suetonius' one-dimensional thinking, all these leaders/governments have pursued the same policies:
Suetonius> "Insanity is repeating the same thing over and over and yet expecting a different result." That is applicable to Israel's policies toward Palestine and the Palestinians.
So it doesn't matter if Israel withdraws from Gaza, doesn't respond to rocket-fire from Gaza for months or attacks Gaza, it's all the same? It doesn't matter if Israel is willing to negotiate at Camp David I (but the PLO rejects President Carter's invitation), or Camp David II (but, to quote President Clinton, Arafat "said no to everything"), but Israel - not the Arab leadership - is the problem? Even if Netanyahu imposes a 10-month construction moratorium and still the PA leadership won't resume negotiations?
It gets even worse. My original post noted that rather than condemn the murder of innocents, Suetonius used the murder as a stage to proliferate the murderer's (alleged) political platform. You know, just like some (when not denying the Holocaust), seek to explain that the nazis were just concerned about Jews controlling the banks, etc.:
Suetonius> if they don't give back the settlements, withdraw from the occupied territories, and let the Palestinians develop, there will never be an end to crazy attacks on Israelis and Jews by gihadists?
Those stupid women wearing lipsticks and short skirts. Don't they realize that until they stop doing that, other women will be raped? Not to mention those homosexuals flaunting it. They're just asking to be bashed.
Israel did withdraw from Gaza, and rather than see any peaceful reciprocation, this led to the skyrocketing of Arab terrorism from Gaza against Israeli civilians.
Israel is under no obligation to withdraw from the territories. The accepted framework (UNSCR 242, Oslo Accords) is to first make peace and then for Israel to withdraw to the border to be established in that agreement.
By Suetonius' "logic", the Germans and Japanese should have kept fighting because after the war the Allies occupied them....
Then there's the disconnect between Suetonius' parroting of the party line and the facts:
As if the "settlements" were taken rather than barren land (owned by Jews) which was developed? Not to mention that some of these Jewish villages existed prior to the complete ethnic cleansing of all Jews in Judea, Samaria, Gaza and eastern Jerusalem during the Arab invasion of 1948.http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/960691
It gets worse with this false moral equivalence:
Suetonius> avenge the deaths of Palestinian children killed at the hand of Israelis (of which there have been quite a large number over the years),
As I pointed out, most of the Palestinian Arab casualties are males aged 15-17 (of fighting age under Islamic tradition) and none of them were murdered in cold blood.
Others were killed because the Arab terrorists use their own civilians as human shields, firing rockets - at Israeli civilians! - from school playgrounds and hospital roofs. Something the selective and one-sided Suetonius can't be bothered with.
Suetonius> I think not
You really should try some independent thought.
The change might do you good.
Suetonius> I think Israel would prefer the status quo to actual peace. ...Too bad the Israelis could not learn any lessons from the English and Irish - the Irish continued to fight the English for 800 years
Which is a complete reversal of reality.
The Jewish Agency, in 1939, accepted the principal of partition.
The Arab parties rejected it.
The Jewish Agency, in 1947, accepted the UN partition compromise.
The Arab parties violently rejected it and started a war to "throw the Jews into the sea".
After the war, in 1949, Israel was willing to make peace.
The Arab League declared "No negotiations, No recognition [of Israel], No peace".
After further Arab attacks and the 1967 war, Israel accepted UNSCR 242 (which established the "land for peace" formula).
The Arab League reiterated their "3 NOs".
After another Arab war to destroy Israel failed in 1973, Anwar Sadat decided to give peace a chance.
He found a ready, willing and able partner in Israel, then under its most right-wing government ever.
All other Arab parties, including the PLO, condemned this.
Egypt was expelled from the Arab League and Sadat assassinated.
It would be another quarter of a century before the PLO would finally feign peace.
This because Arafat backed Saddam in 1990 and alienated his Gulf sponsors.
At Camp David and Taba, Israel was ready to accept the Clinton compromise.
But Arafat balked. He couldn't bring himself to end the conflict.
And instead started the intifada.
While Arafat liked to compare himself to General Washington, he couldn't transition to being President Washington.
Making peace, aside from possibly leading to his assassination (as he pointed out to Clinton) would have made him obsolete.
In 2008, Abbas walked out on the Olmert peace plan.
And I'm not even going to mention Hamas and their "insanity".
In 2011, Abbas walked out on Obama, too.
But in the small mind of Suetonius, it is Israel that rejects peace in favor of the status quo?
Were this true, the PA should call Israel's "bluff" and resume negotiations!
They don't because they lack a mandate to do so. And that is the problem.
While 80% of Israelis support making peace, only 1/3rd of the Palestinian Arabs do, with another 1/3rd strongly rejecting it and the rest somewhere in between.
And that's only looking at those in the territories, not those locked up in camps in Arab countries.