I'd like to hear a very succinct answer from those who oppose Israel's current policies as to what they SHOULD do to solve this problem. Short, to the point, black and white answers please.
Withdraw from the Occupied Territories.
Done. 2005: all Israelis ghost from Gaza. Result: rocket fire from Gaza ever since.
"succinct " enough for you? or maybe they should have evacuated the entire W. Bank at the same time as Gaza, you know, just to "see what happens."
thank the lawrd people like you aren't at the helm; there'd be far, far more dead people.
Truly a compromised termite. Your head must be hollow. I'm thinking of inhabiting it like a steroidal pomegranate.
Goodbye.
You asked for an explanation of this post. Here it is.
First, you claim that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005. If you control COMPLETELY what goes in and what goes out, how is that withdrawing? Palestinians in Gaza have been suffering from lack of food, medical supplies and medical attention, water --and that's just the basics. You seem to believe that no television, no sports, no walks, no hot shit between horny teenagers, no dancing, no partying, no social activity whatsoever, hiding in the hard parts of the house --is NORMAL?!
If you control COMPLETELY what goes in and what goes out
How are they getting those gosh darn rockets, or the materials to make them?
Are you really as dim as your avatar? How is this question relevant? I've tried to argue that the Palestinians are resisting an illegal occupation. You've ignored that argument and sided with Israel.
Let's call a spade a spade. You've admitted you don't know much about this subject and yet you support Israel. Why? Why is that your de facto position? From my perspective, you're the guy who would have supported Great Britain in 1774.
If you control COMPLETELY what goes in and what goes out
How are they getting those gosh darn rockets, or the materials to make them?
Are you really as dim as your avatar? How is this question relevant? I've tried to argue that the Palestinians are resisting an illegal occupation. You've ignored that argument and sided with Israel.
Let's call a spade a spade. You've admitted you don't know much about this subject and yet you support Israel. Why? Why is that your de facto position? From my perspective, you're the guy who would have supported Great Britain in 1774.
1) The question was deadly serious and I'd love to know the answer.
2) How does a opinion restricted, law lusting simpleton like myself side with Israel?.....
Pretty easily, and I'll boil it down to the simplest of terms so that the other termites and muppets can understand......
It's not based on biased media reports or partisan hack blogs.
It's Hamas and their stated goal of "Total destruction of Israel".
Not, we want our shit back.....not, hey let's get together and work this out like you did with Egypt.
They want "TOTAL DESTRUCTION" of Israel......and as your blue eyed Philly brethren would say "I can't go for that".
If you control COMPLETELY what goes in and what goes out
How are they getting those gosh darn rockets, or the materials to make them?
Are you really as dim as your avatar? How is this question relevant? I've tried to argue that the Palestinians are resisting an illegal occupation. You've ignored that argument and sided with Israel.
Let's call a spade a spade. You've admitted you don't know much about this subject and yet you support Israel. Why? Why is that your de facto position? From my perspective, you're the guy who would have supported Great Britain in 1774.
1) The question was deadly serious and I'd love to know the answer.
2) How does a opinion restricted, law lusting simpleton like myself side with Israel?.....
Pretty easily, and I'll boil it down to the simplest of terms so that the other termites and muppets can understand......
It's not based on biased media reports or partisan hack blogs.
It's Hamas and their stated goal of "Total destruction of Israel".
Not, we want our shit back.....not, hey let's get together and work this out like you did with Egypt.
They want "TOTAL DESTRUCTION" of Israel......and as your blue eyed Philly brethren would say "I can't go for that".
Not as a group, not as a Government.
Okay, so you ARE are dense as your avatar, in certain respects.
Let's try this again, Rich. Your grandpa's land is stolen from him. It was his dad's, and his dad's dad's. And that guy's dad's. And so on. Imagine this happening in the US, to you. Your great great great great great great great grandpa farmed a big parcel of land. His sons and his son's sons lived on this land. You were born there --and then, in 1948, thrown off by Jews attempting to establish a new country. My father was eight years old in 1948, and I'm not an old man. Do you understand how recent this history is? Would you just let all this go? I really don't think so.
[Okay, so you ARE are dense as your avatar, in certain respects.
As learned as you may be, sitting there reading my posts and thinking "He just doesn't "get it"....I can assure you the same thing is happening here.
Tell me what you don't understand/disagree with in my last post.
Seriously, Rock, it genuinely surprises me that you just can't understand how f*cking angry and desperate you would feel if you were Palestinian. Have you thought about how many years we're talking about here? Do you realize how long it took before the first Intifada? This is a long-standing serious brutal injustice, yet you believe -seemingly- that there should be no difficulties in resolving it even though the aggressors have no intention of giving up a single inch.
I'd like to hear a very succinct answer from those who oppose Israel's current policies as to what they SHOULD do to solve this problem. Short, to the point, black and white answers please.
To quote Norman Finkelstein from 2008:
"...There is a consensus in the world how to resolve the conflict. It???s not a speculative matter; we all know it, because there???s a record. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly in November???every single year???it votes on what???s called the ???Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question.??? I???m sure none of your listeners has ever heard of it, and you probably haven???t heard of it. Every year, and it???s the two-state settlement: full Israeli withdrawal to its June ???67 border, a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and some sort of resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with Resolution 194, the compensation or return resolution.[/b]
Every year the vote is the same. It just happened this past year: 161 countries on one side[/b], the United States and Israel on the other???including the U.K. on the 161 side. It???s just the U.S. and Israel, and then there are five other countries every year: Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands[/b]. That???s literally it. I mean, people like???like yourself, you???re about to laugh. That???s because the whole reality is laughable. Everybody is trying to pretend that this is such a complicated conflict, this is such a controversial conflict, it???s not amenable to simple solutions, we need President Bush???s ???vision??? in order to help us make our way. This is not complicated. When the World Court had to rule on its issues, it wasn???t a close vote. I told you, it was 14 to 1. And even the one dissenter basically agreed."
I'd like to hear a very succinct answer from those who oppose Israel's current policies as to what they SHOULD do to solve this problem. Short, to the point, black and white answers please.
To quote Norman Finkelstein from 2008:
"...There is a consensus in the world how to resolve the conflict. It???s not a speculative matter; we all know it, because there???s a record. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly in November???every single year???it votes on what???s called the ???Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question.??? I???m sure none of your listeners has ever heard of it, and you probably haven???t heard of it. Every year, and it???s the two-state settlement: full Israeli withdrawal to its June ???67 border, a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and some sort of resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with Resolution 194, the compensation or return resolution.[/b]
Every year the vote is the same. It just happened this past year: 161 countries on one side[/b], the United States and Israel on the other???including the U.K. on the 161 side. It???s just the U.S. and Israel, and then there are five other countries every year: Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands[/b]. That???s literally it. I mean, people like???like yourself, you???re about to laugh. That???s because the whole reality is laughable. Everybody is trying to pretend that this is such a complicated conflict, this is such a controversial conflict, it???s not amenable to simple solutions, we need President Bush???s ???vision??? in order to help us make our way. This is not complicated. When the World Court had to rule on its issues, it wasn???t a close vote. I told you, it was 14 to 1. And even the one dissenter basically agreed."
And yet it really matters what Israel thinks about the right of return. It means in essence no Israel. It's sort of a major sticking point.
I'd like to hear a very succinct answer from those who oppose Israel's current policies as to what they SHOULD do to solve this problem. Short, to the point, black and white answers please.
To quote Norman Finkelstein from 2008:
"...There is a consensus in the world how to resolve the conflict. It???s not a speculative matter; we all know it, because there???s a record. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly in November???every single year???it votes on what???s called the ???Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question.??? I???m sure none of your listeners has ever heard of it, and you probably haven???t heard of it. Every year, and it???s the two-state settlement: full Israeli withdrawal to its June ???67 border, a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and some sort of resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with Resolution 194, the compensation or return resolution.[/b]
Every year the vote is the same. It just happened this past year: 161 countries on one side[/b], the United States and Israel on the other???including the U.K. on the 161 side. It???s just the U.S. and Israel, and then there are five other countries every year: Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands[/b]. That???s literally it. I mean, people like???like yourself, you???re about to laugh. That???s because the whole reality is laughable. Everybody is trying to pretend that this is such a complicated conflict, this is such a controversial conflict, it???s not amenable to simple solutions, we need President Bush???s ???vision??? in order to help us make our way. This is not complicated. When the World Court had to rule on its issues, it wasn???t a close vote. I told you, it was 14 to 1. And even the one dissenter basically agreed."
And yet it really matters what Israel thinks about the right of return. It means in essence no Israel. It's sort of a major sticking point.
Does Israel or America recognise Palestine's existence? As a country? Last time I checked, it was a 'no'. Has this changed?
It's difficult to compare this to - say - Ontario fires rockets at Buffalo, NY! Because the elected representatives of Ontario actually care whether or not huge numbers of Toronto residents die. With Gaza, you're talking about folks who have basically decided they will never be allowed to live with dignity, Israel will never stop blockading/invading/bombing their shit and they will live in this hellhole until the day they die.
And when they die, woooooh shit! Virgins, dude. LOTS of them. And also fruits and honey and stuff, which ranks a far second.
The only real problem with what Israel is doing is that it won't solve the above. That and the dead babies...
This is disgusting, and clearly the ranting of a racist lunatic. You claim you understand what is happening in Gaza?
I'd like to hear a very succinct answer from those who oppose Israel's current policies as to what they SHOULD do to solve this problem. Short, to the point, black and white answers please.
To quote Norman Finkelstein from 2008:
"...There is a consensus in the world how to resolve the conflict. It???s not a speculative matter; we all know it, because there???s a record. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly in November???every single year???it votes on what???s called the ???Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question.??? I???m sure none of your listeners has ever heard of it, and you probably haven???t heard of it. Every year, and it???s the two-state settlement: full Israeli withdrawal to its June ???67 border, a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and some sort of resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with Resolution 194, the compensation or return resolution.[/b]
Every year the vote is the same. It just happened this past year: 161 countries on one side[/b], the United States and Israel on the other???including the U.K. on the 161 side. It???s just the U.S. and Israel, and then there are five other countries every year: Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands[/b]. That???s literally it. I mean, people like???like yourself, you???re about to laugh. That???s because the whole reality is laughable. Everybody is trying to pretend that this is such a complicated conflict, this is such a controversial conflict, it???s not amenable to simple solutions, we need President Bush???s ???vision??? in order to help us make our way. This is not complicated. When the World Court had to rule on its issues, it wasn???t a close vote. I told you, it was 14 to 1. And even the one dissenter basically agreed."
And yet it really matters what Israel thinks about the right of return. It means in essence no Israel. It's sort of a major sticking point.
Does Israel or America recognise Palestine's existence? As a country? Last time I checked, it was a 'no'. Has this changed?
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, persuaded his reluctant cabinet to accept the international road-map for peace yesterday in a breakthrough that marked, for the first time, explicit Israeli government endorsement of a Palestinian state.
The Israeli Prime Minister, Ariel Sharon, persuaded his reluctant cabinet to accept the international road-map for peace yesterday in a breakthrough that marked, for the first time, explicit Israeli government endorsement of a Palestinian state.
The vote, by 12 to seven with four abstentions, came at the end of an acrimonious six-hour debate and under intense pressure from the US. But to persuade his right-wing colleagues to agree to the road-map, Mr Sharon reaffirmed that 14 Israeli reservations, which the Americans have agreed to take seriously, were a "red line" for future negotiators.
The cabinet also accompanied its qualified acceptance of the road-map with a separate resolution stipulating that Israel would never accept a right of return for Palestinians who fled or were evicted from their old homes[/b] inside Israel when the Jewish state was created in 1948.
The three-stage road-map, drawn up by the US, the EU, the UN and Russia, sets out a series of reciprocal steps intended to lead to the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in 2005.
What happened? Gridlock? The hypocrisy of the bold part is the bit I love the most.
In the US, Gaza is a different war[/b] By Habib Battah
The images of two women on the front page of an edition of The Washington Post last week illustrates how mainstream US media has been reporting Israel's war on Gaza.
On the left was a Palestinian mother who had lost five children. On the right was a nearly equally sized picture of an Israeli woman who was distressed by the fighting, according to the caption.
As the Palestinian woman cradled the dead body of one child, another infant son, his face blackened and disfigured with bruises, cried beside her.
The Israeli woman did not appear to be wounded in any way but also wept.
Notice how the red part has been stolen (annexed by Israel in agreement with Egypt & Jordan) from the Palestinians. Increasing Israel's territory by 38%. Even though the the Zionists agreed to and voted on the UN Partition Plan in the first place.
Here is a UN map from 1996 (couldn't find a more up-to-date map with all the settlements located) showing the widespread colonization of Israeli settlers. Keep in mind that the amount of settlers in the West-Bank has since then more than doubled and at least 20 thousand more Israelis have since then settled in East-Jeruzalem. One of the major reasons, outside of ideological reasons, for this rapid growth is this: "The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens."
The map is too big to display here, so here is the link:
Just for clarification as it's an older map: Gaza has since then been de-occupied in 2005 (although it's under siege since 2006 with more disastrous consequences) and the settlements in the Golan Heights (Northern part) are not an issue to the Palestinians as they claim no right to that. Also notice the long list of settlements that are established but not located on the map.
What needs to happen is some blackhawk down shit. Have 20 Israeli soldiers killed in an ambush. 5 airlifted out after fleeing for their lives. One or two dead ones dragged through the streets for emphasis. Maybe that would turn Israeli public opinion against the invasion (although maybe they're already starting to... and maybe it would just make them more bloodthirsty). As long as Israelis think this kind of nonsense is in their best interest (it's not) they'll keep doing it.
For the life of me I can't understand where it's going though. Some people actually think the Lebanon operation was successful because hey, they're not firing rockets anymore. Never mind that Hezbollah gained influence in mainstream politics. That Israel is largely seen to have overextended itself and retreated. It doesn't seem to matter that Hamas will ultimately benefit from this invasion, that the people in neighboring countries may elect more hardline governments because the moderate ones in office are sitting on their hands... if Israel bombs Gaza back to the stone age they will at least feel better.
First I saw a young protester telling a CNN reporter in Trafalgar Square, "Every single day, as soon as we turn on the TV, we see children there die in the hospitals, adults dying, children dying on the floor. Why, why, why? Why do children have to die? Why do innocent children have to die on the floor? Why?"
And I thought, She's right, those children in Gaza are innocent, every human life is precious, civilians aren't combatants. Doesn't everyone deserve basic human rights like food and water and life itself?
But then I thought, Where was she when 80 or 90 Hamas rockets a day were raining down on Israel? Where were all the television cameras when innocent children in Ashkelon and Sderot were being maimed and killed?
But then I saw pictures of massive devastation in Gaza on the front pages of the newspapers, and I thought, What good does it do if Israel appears to act like its enemies?
But then I heard Shimon Peres tell George Stephanopoulos that Hamas "did things which are unprecedented in the history even of terror. They made mosques into headquarters. They put bombs in the kindergartens, in their own homes. They are hiding in hospitals." Where were all the people of Gaza rising up in outrage when Hamas used them as human shields?
Then I heard Palestinian negotiator Hannan Ashwari say that Gaza was a secondary issue, that the real imperative was to reach a lasting political agreement, not a temporary military outcome, and I thought, She's right, there will be no peace and security for Israel unless a viable two-state solution is reached.
But then I read a blog by Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg recounting his interview with Nizzar Rayyan, the Hamas leader who was killed by Israeli bombs last week. "This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: 'The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.' There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. 'Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God... You [Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah.... Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.'"
And I thought, How can you negotiate with people who reject your nation's right to exist, and whose version of religion calls you a murderous race? If someone claimed that the best way for America to deal with Bin Laden is to reach a political agreement with al-Qaeda, I'd say that they're nuts, that there can be no negotiation or accommodation with people lusting for a final battle to rid your people from the earth.
But then I heard an Arab diplomat railing against Israel's continuing tolerance of illegal settlements, and I thought, As long as Knesset coalition governments are dependent on ultra-Orthodox parties who have no respect for the law, how can anyone expect Arab moderates to gain enough political power for Israel to negotiate with them, when Israeli moderates can't muster that clout either?
Then I reminded myself that the people of Gaza overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a democratic election, and I thought, What good is democracy, if it can put terrorists in charge of governments?
But then I read that tens of thousands of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli town of Sakhnin had rallied against Israel's Gaza offensive, and I thought, What Middle East nation except Israel would ensure that anti-government protesters had the right to hold such a demonstration?
And then I remembered reading that former Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon warned Israelis not to delude themselves about Israel's Arab population, that Israeli Arabs - a fifth of Israel - constitute a potential fifth column.
Then I saw a Teleseker Institute poll saying that 95 percent of Israeli Jews support Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. But then I saw a Rasmussen poll saying that while 44 percent of Americans think Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution - essentially a tie, within the poll's margin of error. And I wondered, How long does diplomacy have to keep failing, how many bombs have to keep dropping, before self-defense finally trumps talk?
I wish I didn't believe that the events now unfolding in the Middle East are too complicated for unalloyed outrage. I wish the arguments of only one side rang wholly true to me. I am the first to accuse myself of paralyzing moral generosity -- the fatal empathy that terrorists prey on. But ambivalence is not the same as moral equivalence, and holy war, no matter who is waging it, makes my flesh crawl.
In Milton's poem Samson Agonistes, Samson - blinded, in chains -- cries out, "Promise was that I / Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver; / Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him / Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves." But when Samson shows the strength to shun Delilah, God restores his power, enabling him to pull down the temple and kill the Philistines, though along with himself.
What makes Samson Agonistes a tragedy is the self-destruction that victory entails. I passionately assert Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbors and within secure borders. But I can't help fearing that its military success in Gaza, should it come, will also entail a tragic cost.
The above article seems to be saying that since there isn't a moral side to chose, and since the near eradication of the Palestinian people is probably the only possible end to this solution, we can only wait until that happens - and then be like, "bummer."
Comments
Found it! Nice copy... hit me on the pm's.
You asked for an explanation of this post. Here it is.
First, you claim that the Israelis withdrew from Gaza in 2005. If you control COMPLETELY what goes in and what goes out, how is that withdrawing? Palestinians in Gaza have been suffering from lack of food, medical supplies and medical attention, water --and that's just the basics. You seem to believe that no television, no sports, no walks, no hot shit between horny teenagers, no dancing, no partying, no social activity whatsoever, hiding in the hard parts of the house --is NORMAL?!
You are a brainwashed f*cking muppet.
How are they getting those gosh darn rockets, or the materials to make them?
Are you really as dim as your avatar? How is this question relevant? I've tried to argue that the Palestinians are resisting an illegal occupation. You've ignored that argument and sided with Israel.
Let's call a spade a spade. You've admitted you don't know much about this subject and yet you support Israel. Why? Why is that your de facto position? From my perspective, you're the guy who would have supported Great Britain in 1774.
1) The question was deadly serious and I'd love to know the answer.
2) How does a opinion restricted, law lusting simpleton like myself side with Israel?.....
Pretty easily, and I'll boil it down to the simplest of terms so that the other termites and muppets can understand......
It's not based on biased media reports or partisan hack blogs.
It's Hamas and their stated goal of "Total destruction of Israel".
Not, we want our shit back.....not, hey let's get together and work this out like you did with Egypt.
They want "TOTAL DESTRUCTION" of Israel......and as your blue eyed Philly brethren would say "I can't go for that".
Not as a group, not as a Government.
Okay, so you ARE are dense as your avatar, in certain respects.
Let's try this again, Rich. Your grandpa's land is stolen from him. It was his dad's, and his dad's dad's. And that guy's dad's. And so on. Imagine this happening in the US, to you. Your great great great great great great great grandpa farmed a big parcel of land. His sons and his son's sons lived on this land. You were born there --and then, in 1948, thrown off by Jews attempting to establish a new country. My father was eight years old in 1948, and I'm not an old man. Do you understand how recent this history is? Would you just let all this go? I really don't think so.
As learned as you may be, sitting there reading my posts and thinking "He just doesn't "get it"....I can assure you the same thing is happening here.
If these dudes can get along. I have hope that one day... Long after I'm gone. This shit ends/
Tell me what you don't understand/disagree with in my last post.
Seriously, Rock, it genuinely surprises me that you just can't understand how f*cking angry and desperate you would feel if you were Palestinian. Have you thought about how many years we're talking about here? Do you realize how long it took before the first Intifada? This is a long-standing serious brutal injustice, yet you believe -seemingly- that there should be no difficulties in resolving it even though the aggressors have no intention of giving up a single inch.
Superpoaster
To quote Norman Finkelstein from 2008:
"...There is a consensus in the world how to resolve the conflict. It???s not a speculative matter; we all know it, because there???s a record. Every year, the United Nations General Assembly in November???every single year???it votes on what???s called the ???Peaceful Settlement of Palestine Question.??? I???m sure none of your listeners has ever heard of it, and you probably haven???t heard of it. Every year, and it???s the two-state settlement: full Israeli withdrawal to its June ???67 border, a Palestinian state within the West Bank and Gaza, with East Jerusalem as its capital, and some sort of resolution of the Palestinian refugee question in accordance with Resolution 194, the compensation or return resolution.[/b]
Every year the vote is the same. It just happened this past year: 161 countries on one side[/b], the United States and Israel on the other???including the U.K. on the 161 side. It???s just the U.S. and Israel, and then there are five other countries every year: Nauru, Palau, Tuvalu, Micronesia, and the Marshall Islands[/b]. That???s literally it. I mean, people like???like yourself, you???re about to laugh. That???s because the whole reality is laughable. Everybody is trying to pretend that this is such a complicated conflict, this is such a controversial conflict, it???s not amenable to simple solutions, we need President Bush???s ???vision??? in order to help us make our way. This is not complicated. When the World Court had to rule on its issues, it wasn???t a close vote. I told you, it was 14 to 1. And even the one dissenter basically agreed."
And yet it really matters what Israel thinks about the right of return. It means in essence no Israel. It's sort of a major sticking point.
Does Israel or America recognise Palestine's existence? As a country? Last time I checked, it was a 'no'. Has this changed?
This is disgusting, and clearly the ranting of a racist lunatic. You claim you understand what is happening in Gaza?
Ah. Since 1988, it has, sort of:
What happened? Gridlock?
The hypocrisy of the bold part is the bit I love the most.
Please to explain.
It means in essence 'sharing'. WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA! Dummy. Pram. Out of.
By Habib Battah
The images of two women on the front page of an edition of The Washington Post last week illustrates how mainstream US media has been reporting Israel's war on Gaza.
On the left was a Palestinian mother who had lost five children. On the right was a nearly equally sized picture of an Israeli woman who was distressed by the fighting, according to the caption.
As the Palestinian woman cradled the dead body of one child, another infant son, his face blackened and disfigured with bruises, cried beside her.
The Israeli woman did not appear to be wounded in any way but also wept.
rest here: http://english.aljazeera.net/focus/war_on_gaza/2009/01/20091585448204690.html
yeah its not like you posted a funny youtube video of korean singing.
Notice how the red part has been stolen (annexed by Israel in agreement with Egypt & Jordan) from the Palestinians. Increasing Israel's territory by 38%. Even though the the Zionists agreed to and voted on the UN Partition Plan in the first place.
Here is a UN map from 1996 (couldn't find a more up-to-date map with all the settlements located) showing the widespread colonization of Israeli settlers. Keep in mind that the amount of settlers in the West-Bank has since then more than doubled and at least 20 thousand more Israelis have since then settled in East-Jeruzalem.
One of the major reasons, outside of ideological reasons, for this rapid growth is this:
"The Israeli governments have implemented a consistent and systematic policy intended to encourage Jewish citizens to migrate to the West Bank. One of the tools used to this end is to grant financial benefits and incentives to citizens."
The map is too big to display here, so here is the link:
http://domino.un.org/unispal.nsf/1ce874a...2a!OpenDocument
Just for clarification as it's an older map: Gaza has since then been de-occupied in 2005 (although it's under siege since 2006 with more disastrous consequences) and the settlements in the Golan Heights (Northern part) are not an issue to the Palestinians as they claim no right to that.
Also notice the long list of settlements that are established but not located on the map.
I'm saying!
Just a heads up to Ethiopians....
For the life of me I can't understand where it's going though. Some people actually think the Lebanon operation was successful because hey, they're not firing rockets anymore. Never mind that Hezbollah gained influence in mainstream politics. That Israel is largely seen to have overextended itself and retreated. It doesn't seem to matter that Hamas will ultimately benefit from this invasion, that the people in neighboring countries may elect more hardline governments because the moderate ones in office are sitting on their hands... if Israel bombs Gaza back to the stone age they will at least feel better.
Eyeless in Gaza
Marty Kaplan - Director, Norman Lear Center at the USC Annenberg School
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marty-kaplan/eyeless-in-gaza_b_155204.html
First I saw a young protester telling a CNN reporter in Trafalgar Square, "Every single day, as soon as we turn on the TV, we see children there die in the hospitals, adults dying, children dying on the floor. Why, why, why? Why do children have to die? Why do innocent children have to die on the floor? Why?"
And I thought, She's right, those children in Gaza are innocent, every human life is precious, civilians aren't combatants. Doesn't everyone deserve basic human rights like food and water and life itself?
But then I thought, Where was she when 80 or 90 Hamas rockets a day were raining down on Israel? Where were all the television cameras when innocent children in Ashkelon and Sderot were being maimed and killed?
But then I saw pictures of massive devastation in Gaza on the front pages of the newspapers, and I thought, What good does it do if Israel appears to act like its enemies?
But then I heard Shimon Peres tell George Stephanopoulos that Hamas "did things which are unprecedented in the history even of terror. They made mosques into headquarters. They put bombs in the kindergartens, in their own homes. They are hiding in hospitals." Where were all the people of Gaza rising up in outrage when Hamas used them as human shields?
Then I heard Palestinian negotiator Hannan Ashwari say that Gaza was a secondary issue, that the real imperative was to reach a lasting political agreement, not a temporary military outcome, and I thought, She's right, there will be no peace and security for Israel unless a viable two-state solution is reached.
But then I read a blog by Atlantic writer Jeffrey Goldberg recounting his interview with Nizzar Rayyan, the Hamas leader who was killed by Israeli bombs last week. "This is what he said when I asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (or cease-fire) with Israel: 'The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel.' There is no chance, he said, that true Islam would ever allow a Jewish state to survive in the Muslim Middle East. 'Israel is an impossibility. It is an offense against God... You [Jews] are murderers of the prophets and you have closed your ears to the Messenger of Allah.... Jews tried to kill the Prophet, peace be unto him. All throughout history, you have stood in opposition to the word of God.'"
And I thought, How can you negotiate with people who reject your nation's right to exist, and whose version of religion calls you a murderous race? If someone claimed that the best way for America to deal with Bin Laden is to reach a political agreement with al-Qaeda, I'd say that they're nuts, that there can be no negotiation or accommodation with people lusting for a final battle to rid your people from the earth.
But then I heard an Arab diplomat railing against Israel's continuing tolerance of illegal settlements, and I thought, As long as Knesset coalition governments are dependent on ultra-Orthodox parties who have no respect for the law, how can anyone expect Arab moderates to gain enough political power for Israel to negotiate with them, when Israeli moderates can't muster that clout either?
Then I reminded myself that the people of Gaza overwhelmingly voted for Hamas in a democratic election, and I thought, What good is democracy, if it can put terrorists in charge of governments?
But then I read that tens of thousands of Israeli Arabs in the Israeli town of Sakhnin had rallied against Israel's Gaza offensive, and I thought, What Middle East nation except Israel would ensure that anti-government protesters had the right to hold such a demonstration?
And then I remembered reading that former Israeli army chief Moshe Yaalon warned Israelis not to delude themselves about Israel's Arab population, that Israeli Arabs - a fifth of Israel - constitute a potential fifth column.
Then I saw a Teleseker Institute poll saying that 95 percent of Israeli Jews support Operation Cast Lead against Hamas. But then I saw a Rasmussen poll saying that while 44 percent of Americans think Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians, 41% say it should have tried to find a diplomatic solution - essentially a tie, within the poll's margin of error. And I wondered, How long does diplomacy have to keep failing, how many bombs have to keep dropping, before self-defense finally trumps talk?
I wish I didn't believe that the events now unfolding in the Middle East are too complicated for unalloyed outrage. I wish the arguments of only one side rang wholly true to me. I am the first to accuse myself of paralyzing moral generosity -- the fatal empathy that terrorists prey on. But ambivalence is not the same as moral equivalence, and holy war, no matter who is waging it, makes my flesh crawl.
In Milton's poem Samson Agonistes, Samson - blinded, in chains -- cries out, "Promise was that I / Should Israel from Philistian yoke deliver; / Ask for this great deliverer now, and find him / Eyeless in Gaza at the mill with slaves." But when Samson shows the strength to shun Delilah, God restores his power, enabling him to pull down the temple and kill the Philistines, though along with himself.
What makes Samson Agonistes a tragedy is the self-destruction that victory entails. I passionately assert Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbors and within secure borders. But I can't help fearing that its military success in Gaza, should it come, will also entail a tragic cost.