Evolution of Dispossession

Evolution of Dispossession
How to Steal a Country?

Monday, May 31, 2010

Israel Attacks Unarmed Civilian Flotilla

This is so enraging I cannot even type. The Israelis blockaded Gaza for close to 2 years now, and they killed 1400 Palestinians during Operation Cast Lead, which was classified as war crimes by the Goldstone Commission, and now they attack unarmed civilians in international waters who are trying to bring aid to the blockaded Palestinians in Gaza. And what do these murderous bastards always hide behind ? "We are fighting terror" say the Israelis. Well the whole world needs to kick this rogue state out of the UN. It won't sign the NPT. It won't abide by the many UN resolutions which criticize Israeli policy, it won't listen to the US on settlement demands. That is enough. This is so appalling.


MOM said...

Unforgivable, but then the attack on Gaza (Operation Cast Lead) was also unforgivable. We see this country of Israel falling into an abyss from where it can never recover in the world in which I live. Israel, in this last act against an unarmed flotilla carrying medical aid to Gaza, in international waters, has committed crimes against all humanity and should be kicked out of the U.N. This latest attack mirrors the attack that Israel made against the U.S.S. Liberty, also an unarmed ship. President Johnson, of Jewish origin from Mexico, covered up the U.S.S. Liberty attack by Israel, but the world is now watching and this latest act can not be covered up, white-washed, or media-censored.

wdporter said...

OK...so forgive me. But you don't think it's possible that this flotilla of "activists" were doing this expressly for the purpose of inciting a violent incident?

I mean...you can definitely argue against the blockade. I'll take it. Fine. But GIVEN there is a blockade, and Israel is most likely going to enforce it...how could this be anything short of an instigation by the "activists."

They've expressed quite openly for the last full day that they went with the intent to be martyred.

Again, not defending the blockade itself. That's another conversation. But if they went in with the intent of being martyred, how can you blame it 100% on the evil Israelis?

ronazuker said...

Are you a Nazi by the way??? it sounds like u are... or is that u are stuped or naive... i can't even know where to start from and explain to u how wrong or blind u are!!!

and why bother... u are the kind of people that probably doesn't want to listen anyway and already have your mind set up. all i can say is that i'm glad that i do have these who u call " bastards", and i call our only Hope (IDF) to survive this really really absurd reality!!!

i hope that one day people like u will have some wisdome put in them and for once c the Big picture, and try to understand how it is to be an Israeli citizen!!

scottie said...

Thank you for your comments Ronazuker.

The first article on my blogsite now is an essay written by your countryman Amos Oz. So how about you read that article and then get back to me.

Your country needs to stop : killing innocent people like the Nazis did to Jews, stealing Palestinian land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, demolishing Palestinian homes, plowing under olive orchards, killing international human aid workers like Rachel Corrie and Michael Hurndall and others, violating international law, violating Geneva conventions, and committing war crimes, like Justice Goldstone attested to. I doubt you have the chutzpah to assail his character because he has a character that is virtually unassailable ; outside Israel that is !!!!


The whole world is currently outraged at your country's recent actions in Gaza (2008-2009) and Lebanon (2006) and using British passports for an extra-judicial assassination and not living up to the terms of an agreement Israel signed, the Roadmap, concerning illegal settlement building, forcing a row with the Obama administration whose chief of staff is a Zionist whose father was a member of the Irgun, and now the murder of innocent civilians onboard a peace mission flotilla.

The whole world does not despise your country because of its Jewish character. Get that through your propagandized head. The whole world hates Israeli policy because it runs contrary to every moral system we know as human beings ; it embodies racism and theft and deceit and terror and manufactured victimization. If your leaders follow the majority of Israelis which say that Israel needs to dismantle the illegal settlements, return to the June '67 borders, follow international law and gain the recognition of EVERY Arab country, then Israel will have no more problems.

But your leaders want the land for Eretz Israel and reject the peace and blame the Palestinians for the problems that their flawed ideology has created.

So after these comments I don't think I have to answer your question. I think the answer is obvious, and I think the Nazis have clearly been identified !

scottie said...


#1) Israel boarded a ship in international waters. This could be construed as an act of piracy or as an act of war, depending on the nature of the ship being boarded. An argument of self-defense could be made, but entirely on behalf of the members onboard the ship, not by the illegal boarders, the Israelis. The Israelis killed, the people onboard injured a few IDF commandos. But you think the flotilla organizers were seeking a provocation? I think I would accept the simplest explanation that many people of conscience find that the blockade is illegal and immoral and the people of Gaza needed help and that they wanted to alleviate the suffering while perhaps simultaneously making a political statement.

#2) The blockade of Gaza for the last 2 years is illegal under international law. It is a clear violation of the 4th Geneva convention. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International and many other reputable rights groups are very clear on this point. I guess these institutions are biased against Israel, just like the UN is.

#3) During Operation Cast Lead, the IDF killed some 1400 Palestinians, 900 civilians and 400 children. Mark Regev, who scarcely tells the truth ever, admitted in an interview that Hamas held to its commitment for the 6 month cease-fire and admitted that a cross-border raid by the Israelis which killed 6 Gazans escalated the attacks. Hamas offered a 10-year hudnah which Israel categorically rejected. Then Israel attacked. On the Israeli side 14 Israelis were killed ; 3 civilians and 11 soldiers, 4 of which were killed by friendly-fire. The Israelis bombed 12 schools, many operated by the UN, bombed 3 hospitals, destroyed the only chicken farm in Gaza by running over the chickens with tanks killing 100,000 fowl. The Israelis dropped white phosphorous on civilians which is a war crime. The IDF used flechettes and DIME weapons. The IDF herded 40 Palestinians into one apaprtment complex telling them it would be safe and the next day they shelled the building killing 40. Justice Goldstone was asked to investigate war crimes by the IDF. He refused the mandate unless the UN agreed to expand the mandate to cover war crimes by Hamas. At this point in the narrative Israel hailed the appointment of Justice Goldstone. Why wouldn't they? He was a lifelong Zionist and Jewish and sits on the board of a university in Israel, had successfully conducted war crimes investigations in Rwanda and Kosovo and Bosnia-Hercegovinia and he lobbied for the mandate to cover Hamas's war crimes. Then the report came out months later and the Goldstone report found that Israel committed de facto war crimes, used disproportionate force, targeted an unarmed and largely civilian population. Then Israel, and its media mouthpieces over here in the US, started the attacks on him, saying that the investigation was born in sin and biased!
Imagine a Zionist issuing a damning report on the Zionist state being met with the charge that the report was biased!


Edward Peck, a former US Ambassador to Mauritania, was a participant in the Gaza flotilla. Mairead Maguire, a NOBEL PEACE PRIZE winner, was a participant of the Gaza flotilla. Several German parliamentarians showed their solidarity with the Palestinian suffering in Gaza by participating.

I do not think these individuals made the decision to draw a line in the proverbial sand for the sake of political ax-grinding.

I think these retired diplomats and politicians were following their sense of justice and really wanted to help and never thought the Israelis could be as cold-blooded as their clear history indicates they can be.

wdporter said...

Since the majority of your comments have little to do with the topic at hand and you and I have been down these roads before, I'll only respond to your comments about the raid:

1) international waters? You define "blockade" apparently a little differently than I do, but my take is IF you have a blockade (again, you can argue that there shouldn't be one, but part of this blockade is managed by Egypt...so are they killing Palestinians like Nazis killed Jews, or just trying to keep weapons out of a war zone?) But if you HAVE a blockade, it by definition means that ships (especially a group of ships) will be intercepted in International waters. These ships weren't hanging out in International waters fishing. They were headed for shore and they weren't in the least bit shy about it.

2) retired diplomats? Really? So were they practicing diplomacy by defying a blockade? You really believe they were just trying to get humanitarian aid into Gaza? There are a variety of ways to do that. People have been doing it for years. They did it TODAY.

This is NOT a discussion about Israel policy in Gaza. I think Israel has a right to screen ships for weapons and you apparently don't. You think Israelis somehow deserve to have missiles thrown at them out of Gaza because of Israel's draconian settlement policies (which I've expressed I don't support) and I don't. You and I are not going to see eye to eye on that. Ever. You will NEVER take a balanced perspective of this issue because you have decided you don't want to.


However you and I BOTH know what the intentions of these "activists" were. You can sugar coat it all you want and based on your other views you might indeed support the idea. But please don't patronize me by trying to convince me that that these were just "retired diplomats" trying to "help out." you're not that naive and I'm not that dumb.

So let's stop pretending we're children who don't live in the real world and talk about the real issue of this particular incident, because it could apply to other areas of international incident (which, without the I/P element COULD result in substantive discussion):

If a country has a blockade up for the express purpose of keeping people from bringing weapons into a war zone to support what that country considers an insurgency...what are the rules of engagement? What should they do? Let them come to shore? Just shrug and say, " hey the UN isn't going to like it if we enforce this blockade... Let's just go home." maybe they should shoot missiles of their port bow. tear gas?

What if the captain of the ship has called ahead and said, "we're going to get to shore, or die trying." what do you do?you're the commanding officer and your job is to make sure ships with weapons don't get to your shore?

scottie said...

My comments have nothing to do with the issue at hand. In all the years I have known you, Butch, you have some ridiculous things but this might top them all.

All my comments were relevant and I doubt you can respond to them so that's why you resort to your typical strategies.

Explain to me this. What is the legality of an illegal blockade? And if the blockade is illegal, by definition, then why do you criticize legitimate players who criticize it and do something about it.

The flotilla videotaped all materials that were loaded onto the vessels. This was offered to the Israelis to show that no illegal materials were onboard. So that kind of decimates your pathetic argument.

What the Israelis should have done, which your list of narrowminded options did not contain, is tug all the boats to Ashdod, then inspect the stuff, then allow it to pass to Gaza. Then Israel saves face and the flotilla organizers get what they want and nobody loses.

You are totally wrong in saying this is NOT a discussion on the situation in Gaza. How can it not be? Another ridiculous comment by you!

The missiles stopped for 6 months, and Mark Regev even admitted to that. Israel rejected a 10-year extension to the cease-fire. They did respond by crossing the border and killing 6 people, also admitted to by Israeli officials.

For once I would like to hear you that say that is wrong to kill 1400 people, more than 900 of which were civilians and more than 400 of which were children.

But you won't. You cannot. Your FOXNEWS programmed mind makes you play the replay button on the 14 dead Israelis.

Israelis deny Palestinians the eight to fish in Gaza as well, so your analogy died with your ignorance on the totality of the blockade.

Your last sentence I think you need to reference it or retract it.

Seriously, dude, what is wrong with you?

You are making apologia for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and you expect me to honor your attempts to scold me for my beliefs?

The whole world, except the media-controlled US, reacted in a way that runs contrary to your statements, and you want me to believe that you are right and everyone else is wrong, including me.

Quit your job and go write script for Sean Hannity. You two make a nice ideological couple.

scottie said...

Add the word "said" to my first paragraph after "you have" in my last reply to WDPORTER.

change "eight" to "right" in the 6th paragraph from the bottom.

I was a little angry when I wrote this last reply so my poor typing skills were exposed.

wdporter said...

Only one of us is showing an ideological washed brain, Scottie. And it's not me.

I have acknowledged the things that Israel has done wrong, and I have never seen you admit any wrongdoing of Palestinians et al.

As usual, if you would put down YOUR propaganda, and stop trying to straw man and label me to resources I've never referenced, then a) your bloode pressure would be more stable, and b) we could have a productive discussion.

Until then, I'm done.

scottie said...

Yeah man, you finally figured it out. I am a propagandist. I link to articles from outside the US and make a few comments, and that is propaganda according to Butch.

wdporter said...

When did I say that you're a propagandist? I implied that you read it, believe it and repeat it. That doesn't make you a propagandist, that makes you a succer and a tool being used by propagandists.

The propagandist is the guy who creates the propaganda. I don't think you're that guy.

Meanwhile, you accuse me of being a Sean Hannity wannabe based on what? That I disagree with you on the I/P issue? That I asked a question about rules of engagement? Stop it Scottie, I mean you're really killing me here. The hypocrisy is unbearable. Stop reflexively and violently labelling everyone who disagrees with you as Rush/Sean/Glenn or whatever, and you might be taken a little more seriously by people who care about these issues, but may have a different point of view.

My point about putting away your propaganda (which you continue to effectively illustrate) was that for you to imply that I'M somehow brainwashed and subject to influence by propagandists takes the "irony of the week" trophy.

To thine ownself be true. You lost ALL objectivity on this issue years ago. I've NEVER declared Israel as some sort of angellic regime, yet to you, no Israeli official ever does any right and no Palestinian does any wrong.

NOW. I honestly got on this thread because I thought you could resist throwing stones at someone who has for roughly six years been able to intelligently carry on a conversation with you on these issues KNOWING we were not going to change each other's minds.

I honestly believed that you could resist using straw man arguments to try to shut down your friend of 17 years and talk about a particular topic that I sincerely thought you would have a) a thoughtful opinion on and b) an opinion I valued.

I sincerely just assumed that given I'm the one who a) introduced you to political blogging and then b) suggested you start your own, and NEVER denied you a friendly conversation regardless of how blind we both considered each other's point of view, could have a conversation about rules of engagement at the blockade and not be treated like some troll who just popped onto your blog to cause trouble.

I don't get any talking points from anyone, Scottie. The truth is, you really don't have any F***ing idea what I think about the Israel/Palestine issue in general. You haven't bothered to ask lately. If you took the time to have a civil conversation, you might be surprised how much my opinion on the issue has evolved over the years.

But you don't care...because you're too busy straw manning phantom straw men...

Now if you get a sec, go back and read my comments on this thread; take a deep breath; then let me know if you want to have a conversation with your friend, or not.

Enjoy your day.

scottie said...

I guess the words "your propaganda" were not written by you in your previous.

Stick to the subject man. I read your comments and I don't think you realize how really stupid the Israeli action was. It put the spotlight back on Gaza where the whole world was not focused lately. This was terrible from the Israeli perspective.

I was trying to piss you off with the Hannity comment. I am glad to see it succeeded.

You have no idea who takes me seriously or not. None. You have no idea how many people hold the same views as I do on this issue. None. You do not have access to academics the same way I do. I hope you won't be silly enough to dispute this, since I discuss this issue with many colleagues. You seem to not care one iota about the global consensus here. You need to realize that the US is further isolating itself by not making a stronger statement to the Israelis. That much is clear.

I do not distort your position and then attack that distortion Butch. I respond to what you write.

For example, you say that my bringing up the blockade of Gaza and the Gaza "war" are not relevant to the flotilla incident.

I responded of course they are relevant. How is that a distortion?

I get it man. You are not outraged by Israel's actions here. I am.

But I have been outraged at their lawlessness for years now. Every incident like this one just adds to it.

How about you do me a favor. It would take some time on your part. How about you read all the posted articles on my site on this one issue. Start with the Amos Oz essay. And then read the others. Go to Google News and click on the Gaza aid links. You should find between 16k - 20k articles. Just sample them. These articles come from everywhere around the world.

Be thorough. Read the words, left to right top to bottom.

Maybe then we can continue this conversation.

And then perhaps you can explain to me how your position has evolved. A few years ago you either defended Israel's behavior or played devil's advocate with me on the I-P issue. I have a good idea of what you believed back then. I would like to compare it with what you believe today.
You say your views have changed. I certainly hope so and would be excited to see just how they have changed.

But you need to stop lecturing me on being obstinate and hypocritical et al. I know people like that too. Just stick to the issue and make an argument and try not to drag in the history of our friendship and things like that. It has no bearing on this discussion.

When the smoke clears from this, I am sure we will still be friends.

wdporter said...

"putting down your propaganda" meant putting down what you're reading, not what you're creating. There is a difference sorry I didn't make it clear.

I didn't bring up our history to garner sympathy. It's relevant because I specifically wanted to discuss rules of engagement.

And no, Scottie, there's no real desire on my part to go read tons of articles. Like I said, we've been down that road for about four solid years. I always felt there were two sides to this debate. I've tried to see both. You refuse to. That's a fact. You have armed yourself so much with pro-Palestinian propaganda that any question of that line of thinking brings from you such a barrage of snobbery and indignation, it's amazing I don't puke.

For instance, I ask about whether it's possible that the Palestinians were just picking a fight and you almost fall over yourself with rage and anger telling me how wrong the blockade is and how the innocent humanitarians were just trying to "help out."

but you KNOW they were just trying to pick a fight. Of course they were trying to pick a fight. Not only do you know it, but you ardently support it.

And this is where we part ways. I've said it a thousand times to friends of mine, but maybe you haven't heard it lately; we haven't talked for a while:

Israel has been a dick for decades. Everyone knows it. They're building settlements, they took land beyond their defined borders and they've defended it for decades.

But why? Are they just greedy and want more land, or are they just trying to protect the "Jewish State"? They believe in the validity of that Jewish state. I don't. You don't. We don't believe in theocracies. Why would we?

But we don't call that shot. It's not our fucking country.

But the state exists. They were blessed by your prescious U.N. and they have a right to exist. If they feel they are more likely to protect their existence by keeping the Golan Heights (or Gaza or the West Bank) they should do it.

If Mexico was occupied by Muslim fundamentalists (like Hamas for instance) who had as part of their core DNA to eliminate us as a State and replace our Government with one more of their liking...you'd better bet your bottom dollar I'd voting for whatever administration is going to protect that damn border. If that means covering both sides of the Rio Grande and the top three provinces of Mexico, so be it. If the UN doesn't like it, they can suck it.

Lebanon invited Palestinian Muslims in with open arms, and quickly paid the price. If you think Israel didn't take that lesson to heart, then you've never tried to keep a Jewish state alive while surrounded by regimes that dream for your destruction. Regimes whose public educational systems teach their children to HATE your country, your family, your religion, and teach that it's an honor to die while killing you or the likes of you.

Again. I don't believe in a Jewish state. But I can at least for a SECOND put myself in the position of an Israeli diplomat, politician, soldier...whatever and ask myself: what would I do to protect that which I hold dear or have sworn an oath to.

You are not, have not been, and most likely will never be willing to ask that question. You may act like would or say you would, but from what I've read over the years, you never have.

Talk to you next year. I hope and pray that between now and then, you start thinking for yourself...I'm holding out hope anyway.

Now I gotta go prepare for my Sean Hannity interview.

scottie said...

Dude, I could say so many things to your last bunch of collective half-truths and bad analogies, but it has all been said before.

I am afraid you have poisoned the well to the point where I do not care to fully respond.

I cannot resist to ask you a few questions, though:

1. If the entire region wants to "destroy Israel" as you suggest, which you could only get from the real propagandists, i.e US media outlets, then why did the Israelis reject on 2 separate occasions the Arab League Proposal which would have guaranteed FULL recognition from EVERY Arab state on terms which will eventually define the Palestinian State anyway?

2. Why did Israel categorically reject a 10-year hudnah offered by Hamas at the end of a 6-month hudnah which Israel admits was honored by Hamas? Does it not stand to reason that if Israel were interested in the security of its people then it would have accepted that?

3. Do you consider cement a threat to Israel's national security?

So perhaps you can just answer me those 3 questions.

Of course, I might have to wait until next year for a response.

wdporter said...

1) maybe because it doesn't actually give up anything, Scottie. It says basically that Israel should yield to every demand that the Palestinians have ever had, and what does Israel get in return? Basically a ceasefire (at least an indefinite one which is better than a temporary hudna--see below--but it basically just declares an end to hostilities, nothing more). Now maybe you see that as fair, but given that not every member of the League actually supported it, and Hamas (a quite relevant party) managed to not only support it, but wage an attack on the same day... It's hard to see how the Israel government should embrace it. That being said, they never actually turned it down. Netanyahu didn't like (expected) but he wasn't prime minister at that time. Look, maybe they should have accepted it, but as usual they were given every excuse to reject it.

2) a hudna holds no value for a sane person. The length is irrelevant. How much more attractive is "Leave us alone while we gather up enough resources to start shooting at you six months from now" vs. "...ten years from now." would you take seriously a recognition of the right not to be destroyed for a finite period of time as a fair substitute for recognition as a state.

3) I am pro-cement.

Let me ask you something related to (1)...is there anything that you think Palestine could give up of significance? Right of return, East jerusalem, gaza...settlements? If Arab summit is your bar is pretty low in something Israel could possibly consider a compromise.

Enjoy your day.

wdporter said...

wow my typing was rough there:

in first paragraph..."not only did Hamas NOT support it."

In the last...: "If the Arab Summit is their high bar, then I have trouble conceiving of their coming up with anything which Israel could possibly consider a fair compromise."

scottie said...

I have to reply in 2 pieces otherwise the reply is too long to fit. You called down the law and now you got it!

You are confusing the issue a bit with your first reply.

Israel claimed that the reason they attacked Gaza was to stop missile attacks in Sderot, which for 6 months did not happen, which was the duration of the cease-fire. Hamas offered a 10-year cease-fire. I read many articles concerning this offer in real time, when it happened. How did Israel respond in addition to its silence? It said it would not deal with Hamas. (The last comment is funny actually. When Fatah was in power, Israel would not deal with it. Then when Hamas wins a free election in 2006, Israel postures and says they won't deal with Hamas, that they want to deal with Fatah only.) IDF soldiers crossed the Gaza border and killed 6 Palestinians. Then the missile attacks resumed in full force, which was used as a casus belli by the Israelis for a full-scale war. Let's be clear on the chronology and cause and effect.
The Israelis broke the peace. And for the 6 months of the hudnah it was Israel that made war plans for a Gaza attack. That is a fact, and I can certainly support that with documentary evidence if needs be. You claim that's not how it went down. I can support my argument. Can you?

A cease-fire which is honored by both sides is definitely a better alternative to missiles, this again from the Israeli perspective. But they did not want peace or calm. Israel wanted to restore its deterrence capacity.

So what should the Palestinians give up, that is beyond what they have already given up? That is an interesting query. The original partition was, using the population stats at the time of partition :

The Palestinians, which represented 75% of the total population and owned or occupied 93% of the available land, received 45% of the land after the split, while the Zionist Jews, which were 25% of the total population, having only 7% of the land purchased legally, got 55% after the split.

That's the first injustice.

Then after the expulsion of Palestinians, which numbered 750,000 as a result of the war and ethnic cleansing, which is documented well by Israeli historians Benny Morris and Illan Pappe, the Zionists got even more land. Some 400 Palestinian villages were ethnically cleansed. Zionist settlements took their place. The right of return belongs to these original 750,000 refugees and their progeny, which has swelled to millions, scattered about in Gaza, and Jordan and Syria and Egypt and Baghdad.

This is another injustice, which will probably never be undone as the right of return will probably be scrapped in any final negotiations.

Then after the '67 June war, the land numbers changed dramatically. Israel then controlled 78% of the original land, and the Palestinians were relegated to the 22% which remained; the West Bank, Gaza, and East Jerusalem.

Yet another injustice.

The original plan called on Jerusalem to be a protected international city. Obviously that is no longer possible.

Now on the remaining 22%, we have 500,000 illegal Israeli settlers, about 300,000 in the West Bank and 200,000 in East Jerusalem. Then Israel built a barrier which lives 87% across the green line, and the Palestinian bantustans which are surrounded by Jewish-only Israeli roads, are separated one from the other in the West Bank, restricting travel to and from work, to and from families, to and from farms.

On top of this the Palestinians have to watch this constant encroachment under the Israeli military boot. They have to watch their homes bulldozed over and over again. They have to watch thousand year olive trees plowed under. They have to get permission by the Israelis to live their daily lives. They have to watch new settlements spring up on their remaining scraps of land.

And you ask what the Palestinians should give up? It seems that far too much has been taken from them.

scottie said...

But I would say they should give up violent resistance. They should follow the example of Jesus and Gandhi and King. Let the international community witness the Israeli brutality and eventually the pressure will be too much to bear.

It is totally wrong to call what Israel must give up "concessions". Israel only has to live up to its agreements and comply with all the relevant UN resolutions and the Geneva conventions. In short Israeli concessions, as you understand the word, are nothing more than Israel obeying international law and abiding by UN resolutions. The 4th Geneva convention handles the occupation and all of its ugly facets, and 242 and the many SC resolutions, which the US was the lone veto for.

Israel then gets peace and security and recognition and won't have to accuse Amnesty and B'tselem and Human Rights Watch and the UN and the whole world of being biased against Israel. They won't have to lie their way out of war crimes charges a la the Goldstone report. They won't have to have AIPAC buy US congressional votes on key issues on Israel.

In short they cannot un-do all the old wrongs. But they can do the right thing if they give up their expansionist ideas and elect a sane leader. Rabin tried and got assassinated. Maybe that explains it.

wdporter said...

great answers. Now we're getting somewhere...there's nothing there that I disagree with except this:

If I was an Israeli decision maker...there is no way in hell I would take an offer of "peace" which didn't concede something other than peace.

Right or wrong, in the real world you don't negotiate from a position of strength for no reason. I read somewhere the other day (can't remember who it was, but it was someone with a lot of negotiation experience in the region) that Palestine should give up "right of return" and then maybe they would get somewhere. I think it unlikely Israel will ever be able to accept anything shy of complete control of East Jerusalem, either.

AGAIN, I'm not saying any of this is actually fair...or right. I'm just saying that we're in the real world where something is given up to get something, and a hudna is not giving up something. I'm not saying that Israel DESERVES concessions, but I'm just acknowledging that I don't believe it realistic that any negotiations are going to be possible where the conversations start out with:

"You don't really deserve to exist...at all...but we'll let you if you give us everything we've ever asked for."

I'm just not there...I can't imagine it. Sorry.

And no, I'm not unbiased. I have a decidedly more unfavorable view of Islam than I do Judaism, and let's face it: we're talking about two Theocratic regimes, so the religions are relevant.

But that's another discussion for another time.

Let's leave it on this note, and maybe once I get some of these domestic items off my plate (long story) we can have another discussion about Islam and Judaism...enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Hey...today is D-day. Wow I suck that I just realized that.

scottie said...

I accidentally "rejected" your typo corrections. Sorry about that.

I will give you my take on the theocratic regimes at a later time.

Since we found some common ground, I do not want to resume squabbling!

Check out the video posted above this entry. Near the top. I listened to the Israeli Naval Officer talk to the flotilla and explain what Israel was willing to do, allow them to come to Ashdod, inspect the cargo, and let it pass, and then allow the flotilla people to return to their various ports of embarkation on their ships ; which is something I said days ago would have the best case scenario. I did not learn until today that this option was attempted at all.

Even though the siege is immoral and illegal and deplorable, I think the flotilla organizers should have definitely accepted that offer. Then they break the blockade in a sense and Israel saves face by not allowing a security concern go unaddressed.

That does not excuse the Israeli action afterward. But I now criticize that choice to make a political statement over serving the people of Gaza.

wdporter said...

I'll go along with that...

Hey, I simply can't resist asking you:

What did you think of Helen Thomas' comments?

scottie said...

She was definitely out of line. If she was upset at the Israeli policies she should have constructed a valid argument.

It is a shame, though, that her career will ultimately be judged by one thoughtless moment.