What Sympathy is Deserved for the ‘Palestinians’?

What real sympathy does Hamas, and by extension the “Palestinians,” deserve in this latest conflict with the self-defense employing Israelis? A simple review of the facts may convince that the answer to that is “not much.”

Firstly we have to dismiss two of the Palestinians’ major claims; that they live in an “apartheid” state and that Gaza is “occupied territory. Both are lies.

Israel is a democratic society and has duly elected Muslims in its government. There is no Jewish-sponsored “apartheid,” not in Israel nor in Gaza.

Secondly, the Israelis do not “occupy” Gaza. In fact, to satisfy international demands, Israel left Gaza years ago. When they left, they also left all infrastructure intact (in other words, they did not destroy buildings, roads, the power gird, etc.). Israel also provided materials for the so-called Palestinians to build new homes and helped them support their economy. But the fact is Israel left Gaza to the Palestinians to govern on their own. There is NO “occupation.”

So, what did the Palestinians do with their resources? Instead of building roads and homes they spent their resources building secret, underground tunnels into Israel in order to smuggle bombs and guns into the Jewish homeland for the purposes of killing Jews.

In fact, Hamas and the Palestinians used 800,000 tons of concrete to build their murder tunnels. It only took 110,000 tons of concrete to build Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest tower. Just imagine the infrastructure the Palis could have built if they hadn’t wasted their resources on their murder tunnels!

But what of the “Palestinian homeland,” you ask. Well, there is no such thing. There never has been. Palestine is a city, not a nation. There is no such thing as a “Palestinian.” Not historically and not contemporarily. There has never been any such people, no such “homeland,” and no such nationality.

Now, if our collective humanity agrees to allow these people to create a homeland, if that is a decision arrived at through diplomacy, then, sure, there will be such a thing as a Palestinian. But since that has not yet happened there currently is no such thing as any Palestinian.

OK, so all that being said, is the Israeli incursion into Gaza at all justified? Well, the truth is, for well over a decade, Israel has ignored tens of thousands of bomb-carrying rockets launched from Gaza into their cities. Israel has for years absorbed these rockets that have caused death and destruction in order to come in line with foreign expectations that Israel should negotiate with the Palestinians.

But while Israel has generally eschewed its own safety in favor of diplomacy, the so-called Palestinians have continued to build their murder tunnels, continued to fire rockets into Israel, continued to perpetrate kidnappings and murders of Israeli citizens, and continued to thumb its nose at peace.

Worse, every single action of these people is based on the vocal and never disavowed desire to kill all Jews and to eliminate the nation of Israel.

The problem is, the Palestinians begin their argument from an immoral position. They are in the wrong before they make their first diplomatic overture. With their original sin of Jewish genocide backing up their every move, everything they say afterward is a lie.

In light of all this, there is no logical way to blame Israel for its desire to invade Gaza with the single purpose of destroying the military capabilities of Hamas and the Palestinians.

It is solely a matter of self-defense. And they deserve the right for self-defense.

Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has promised to ignore the whiny international community and will continue the military engagement in Gaza to put an end to Hamas’ power base. As well he should.

OPEN THREAD: Doofus GOP Congressman Asks US Officials of Indian Descent About 'Their' Country
Wizbang Weekend Caption Contest™
  • Commander_Chico

    Keep up the hasbara propaganda, Warner. Maybe the Israeli government will give you a free tour.

    • warnertoddhuston

      I’ve been meaning to ask how your trip to Palestine went? Did the Palis let you torture and kill an Israeli child like you’ve always wanted?

  • jim_m

    None. Next question?

  • GarandFan

    Far as I’m concerned, the Palestinians should have “I’m Stupid!” tattooed on their foreheads at birth. Don’t like Israeli’s shooting up your neighborhood? STOP FIRING ROCKETS AT THEM!

    Simple concept. Yet they can’t wrap their heads around it. They’d rather stand there with their finger up their collective asses moaning about being A VICTIM!

    • http://www.rustedsky.net JLawson

      They’ve been taught that being a victim is the most important thing in the world. THE most important. When you’re a victim, nothing’s your fault, and you don’t have to do jack shit to improve your condition.

      • Brucehenry

        Remarks like that make me wish I had a time/space warping machine so I could make those uttering them live as a Palestinian in Gaza for a month.

        BTW, the Israelis don’t allow the importation of bootstraps into Gaza so the Arabs can’t pull themselves up by them.

        • jim_m

          Why is it that you don’t find any responsibility for the arab nations that refuse to do anything to help the palis like allowing them into their nations? Why is it that you don’t find any responsibility with the Egyptians, who have enforced a blockade of the Gaza border for far longer than the Israelis?

          I think I know the answer. It’s either because you are ignorant or you are prejudiced. Let us know which one you want to be known as.

          • Brucehenry

            You mean like the US should be welcoming destitute Honduran and Guatemalan children, any and all who want to come?

            The Egyptians sure deserve some blame for helping Israel continue the blockade. But the solution to the Palestinian issue isn’t “allowing them into” other nations. The solution would include allowing them to continue to live where their families, their ancestors, have lived for generations, while allowing the Israelis to have the security involved in, you know, not having rockets raining down on them.

            I’m not ever going to address your silly insinuations and charges of anti-Semitism, so you can quit fucking that chicken. I’ve said nothing on Wizbang, EVER, that can honestly be construed as anti-Semitic. If you have quotes or links of me doing so, put ‘em up or shut up, you lying sack of shit.

          • jim_m

            The solution would include allowing them to continue to live where their families, their ancestors, have lived for generations

            So I will take your failure to lay the blame at the arab landlords, who sold their land to the Jews at many multiples of the market value and evicted their tenants, as simply an oversight. You really intended to criticize the wealthy arabs who made homeless the lower classes, turned them into refugees, and then refused to allow them to immigrate to where they wanted.

            Otherwise you are just an ignorant bigot. It isn’t what you say. It is what you omit that is the evidence of your prejudice.

          • Brucehenry

            Certainly there were Arab and Ottoman landlords who sold land to Jewish “settlers” and turned out their tenants in the days before 1948. Who has ever denied that? Not me.

            But where is your evidence that these newly evicted tenants wanted to emigrate? More likely they saw the injustice that had been committed with the complicity of some of their more unscrupulous countrymen and remained committed to holding on to their country.

            The ones who wanted to emigrate did so. I personally know several Palestinian-Americans. There is such a thing as the Palestinian Diaspora, perhaps even you, in your hate-filled ignorant state, have heard of it. There are many Palestinians in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia and the UAE as well as Europe.

            It is true that Arab countries refuse to allow the Israelis to evict en masse the Palestinian population of the lands they currently occupy and/or blockade, so there’s that.

          • jim_m

            It i s true that Arab nations have refused to allow palestinian arabs to immigrate for over 50 years. Having been evicted by arab landlords these people were refused any opportunity to seek a life and a livelihood elsewhere. They were deliberately impoverished with the intent being to create a permanent grievance against the state of Israel.

            When the arab states made war against Israel, the palestinian arabs were told to flee and then they were refused entry into other nations when the war was a failure. In doing this the arab states created a massive refugee population. You and the left overlook this fact and you put all the blame on the Israelis. You make no effort to apportion blame where it belongs. Arabs created the problems. They should be held responsible for a solution.

            Arabs created this situation because they hate the Jews. By buying into their narrative you are adopting the same anti-semitic lies as your own. You are supporting the tactics of hate that the arab states have used to try to destroy Israel and to kill the Jewish people who live there. There is no position that is against “Zionism” that is not anti-semitic at its core.

          • jim_m

            It should be noted that while there are palestinian arabs living elsewhere they are denied the right to become citizens of these other nations even when other arab people are allow such a right. This is particularly egregious in Jordan, which was partitioned at the same time and where there is no legitimate reason to deny citizenship to palestinain arabs.

          • Brucehenry

            To whatever extent the other Arab countries must share historic blame for the plight of the Palestinian civilians, the solution must be negotiated now.

            You guys kill me with your what happened 50 years ago schtick. Yet you don’t want to admit that the anti-Mossadegh coup in Iran in 1953 had anything to do with the anti-Americanism rampant in the Shiite Middle East today. You don’t want to admit that the support by the US for dictators like Mubarak and Saddam during the Cold War contributes to the anti-Americanism of the Sunni Middle East right now.

            History only matters when it’s convenient to you. And when you cherry pick historical facts to make specious points.

            The fact is that the West Bank, where Palestinians fled after 1948 and where they found themselves after 1967, has been encroached on by Israel’s condemnation and confiscation of Arab lands for the building of “settlements.” This was happening in Gaza too, but the Israelis were savvy enough to see that wasn’t going to work there. THIS has been going on for 50 years, so what happened BEFORE 50 years ago doesn’t matter quite as much.

          • Retired military

            “the solution must be negotiated now.”
            Bruce
            How can you negotiate with someone who insists that you must die in the process?
            That is Hamas’ stand. Israel must die. Period. How does Israel negotiate with that?
            That isn’t their stance from 50 years ago but from 50 months ago, their stance 50 weeks ago, their stance 50 days ago, their stance 50 hours ago and their stance 50 minutes ago.
            They say it publically and without batting an eye. If you had a dispute with your neighbor and he keeps saying that you must die to settle the dispute than what is your option?

          • Brucehenry

            I agree that Hamas is not the ideal negotiating partner, yet that is who is in power in Gaza, and is likely to continue in power whatever Israel does.

            If we’re using analogies let’s use a hostage-taking bank robber holed up in a robbery-gone-wrong situation. say one that has already killed a couple of hostages but holds 25 more. Does the SWAT team negotiate with that bank robber or move in and accept that those 25 hostages will likely die?

            If Israel exercises restraint — and I’m not saying that they haven’t been more patient than a lot of countries would have been — perhaps the Arab population will throw off the Hamas yoke and peace negotiations can begin in earnest with Abbas or whoever fills the vacuum left by Hamas.

            Naive? Maybe, but this cycle of uneasy truce, rocket attacks, and military reprisals have led everybody exactly nowhere.

          • jim_m

            You don’t have to negotiate when you are winning. FDR and Truman didn’t negotiate. Negotiating with terrorists and mass murderers is not a strength no matter how you look at it. It is a moral weakness and is contemptible.

            If you want to know what Israel does with hostage situations I would suggest looking to Entebbe.

            There is no evidence that the people of Gaza would throw off Hamas. The Germans never got rid of Hitler despite the manifest ruin that he lead them to. Same for the Japanese with Hirohito. Your idealism is not founded in a rational understanding of human nature or history.

            And finally, if you want an end to the cycle then let Israel win already

          • Brucehenry

            The poll inside the link YOU POSTED on the other thread suggests that the residents of Gaza are sick and tired of Hamas, both for its insistence on dragging them into unwinnable military confrontations with Israel and for incompetent and oppressive government. Here it is:

            http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/gaza-public-rejects-hamas-wants-ceasefire

            So maybe it’s not entirely a pipe dream.

            It ain’t 1945 anymore, nor is it 1976. Israel must operate in TODAY’S court of public opinion, as must Hamas. It may seem obvious to you who is in the wrong here but not everybody in the world agrees with you. While most at least profess an aversion to terrorism, many people around the world would disagree that the Hamas rocket attacks are “without provocation.”

            Israel is aware of this which is why they take pains to try to explain every civilian Arab death as unavoidable and not their fault. But at least one observer thinks they are worried about the wrong existential threat:

            http://snarkypenguin.wordpress.com/2014/07/23/the-real-existential-threat-to-israel/

            Just one guy’s opinion, you understand. I didn’t write the article, Jim, just posting it here for your consideration.

          • jim_m

            YEah, well it seems that Israel has been playing according to your rules for many years now but Hamas won’t. I wouldn’t blame Israel for telling everyone to F off and settling this once and for all.

            Israel doesn’t kill civilians indiscriminately as you acknowledge. This is counter to many of the protestations from the left.

            Fact of the matter is that in the final days in Berlin, Hitler wasn’t universally popular. But the fact also remains that even after WWII, those whose families opposed the Nazi regime openly suffered serious discrimination and abuse. While official Germany was anti-Nazi, much of real Germany wasn’t. There are still remnants of that today.

            Even in our own Declaration of Independence states, “… accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

            People put up with a lot of crap before getting rid of their government. Look what we put up with in obama.

          • Brucehenry

            Again it ain’t 1945 anymore, not to mention that Palestine ain’t Germany.

            But I’m glad you mention the whole watering the tree of liberty bit. It’s kinda funny to me that the same guys here at Wizbang who swear THEY will use Second Amendment Remedies if things get much more oppressive under Fascist Tyrant King Barack HUSSEIN Obama find it so outrageous that there is armed resistance in Gaza to oppressive military blockade and economic privation.

          • jim_m

            My point is that people are people and you are an ignorant fool for failing to learn the lessons of history that are available over and over and over again, but you lefties seem utterly invincible to their teaching effect.

            No it isn’t 1979 or 1945 or 1776. But people really haven’t changed one iota since then. You’re an idiot for neglecting that truth.

          • Brucehenry

            I beg to differ. In 1776 slavery was widely considered a normal state of affairs. At least as a matter of international law slavery is now anathema, as it is in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people around the world.

            In 1945 it was considered patriotic and normal to characterize the Japanese people as “Japs.” I don’t think that if a war with Japan was to erupt tomorrow, this would be considered normal. That’s because people’s hearts and minds are different nowadays. People have indeed changed, despite your dogmatic, evidence-free asssertion that they have not.

          • jim_m

            You mistake opinion for human nature. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the two it telling.

          • Brucehenry

            If you say so. Your say so is the only evidence you offer, so there’s that.

          • jim_m

            What you just did is what most people call doubling down on stupid. You show me where human nature has changed. You have shown some examples of popular opinion. I have shown some examples of how it is in the nature of people to put up with oppression and we have many, many examples of that.

            Stop while you are behind you miserable dumbass.

          • Brucehenry

            While I agree that human nature is probably behind the bitterness of the losers in postwar Germany, your citation of the opinion of human nature of the author of the Declaration as scientific fact is laughable. The Declaration is neither a textbook on human behavior nor is it Scripture so forgive me if I fail to be persuaded by your two examples of “evidence.”

            Your assertion that “people have not changed one iota” since 1776 or 1945 is opinion. Dogma. Assertion.

          • jim_m

            I assert that human nature has not changed, not that opinions and ideologies have not changed.

            Once again, you are beclowning yourself by the repeated inability to distinguish between the two. Human nature is rooted not in superficial beliefs but in the the way people think, act and behave. It is not just what they believe but how they interact with the world around them. While technology has progressed and systems of government have changed, basic human nature remains the same.

            The fact that you are incapable of telling the difference between human nature and society is hysterically funny. No wonder you never went anywhere in school.

          • jim_m

            Human nature is not what people think, it is how people think. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that human nature has changed. You are going to be the only one in that camp.

          • jim_m

            Come on you dmbass. Show me where human nature has changed over the last millennium. Show me where people are not concerned with their safety, their family, their livelihoods. Show me where people no longer are interested in making a better situation for themselves and show me where some people are not willing to sacrifice the rights and lives of others to achieve what they want.

            These things are human nature.

            To bad you are so irredeemably stupid that you cannot tell the difference between nature and public opinion. God you’re dumb!

          • Brucehenry

            This is typical religious thinking, in my opinion. Your belief system tells you that human nature is immutable. I say it ain’t.

            I don’t care whether you call it human nature or opinion, that’s splitting hairs for our purposes here. Your original statement said nothing about “human nature.” You said, and I quote, “People have not changed one iota.” That’s bunk, as I have shown. It was only THEN that you wanted to engage in semantics, human nature vs opinion yada yada. Why you must treat every conversation as a fencing match, trying to parry every thrust, is a fucking mystery to me, but it’s quite tiresome sometimes.

          • jim_m

            Idiot. Even people that believe that human nature is the result of evolution will not claim that it has changed in the last century much less the last generation as you are claiming.

            Your comments go beyond ignorant into the realm of the embarrassingly ridiculous.

            You want tiresome? Try exchanging ideas with someone who has failed to graduate high school like you. It’s hard to have a productive conversation with someone so fundamentally ignorant of foundational concepts regarding man, the world, and how man and the world relate. There is not enough time remaining in the universe to get through that thick skull of yours the basc concepts of human understanding.

            Go ahead and live in ignorance. It explains all of your beliefs and posts here.

            Start here dipshit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_nature

            Once you have understood what I am talking about come back and demonstrate your understanding.

            You are beyond stupid. You can’t even read a simple statement with comprehension. You do no t even understand the concept of human nature.

          • Brucehenry

            And again, your original statement did not use the phrase “human nature,” only that “people have not changed one iota.”

            If the mindsets of people have changed as a result of the culture in which they grew up, then people themselves have changed. You can revel in the imaginary Gotcha you think you have if you wish, but you are trying to talk past me with prattle about “human nature.” I don’t give a shit what you call it, people have indeed changed more than “one iota.”

            Here’s a book recommendation for you, Mr Theology student/professor:

            http://books.google.com/books/about/Day_the_Universe_Changed.html?id=63PfDnIuiqMC

          • jim_m

            Get it through you thick skull dumbass: Opinion changes, human nature does not.

            Go ahead and stand against centuries of intellectual opinion that human nature is not something that is easily changed. From religion, to anthropology to psychology, all of these disciplines believe that human nature is slow to change, if not immutable.

            In some cases it is believed that people can overcome their basic nature.

            But everyone from Aquinas to Freud stands with me.

            You’re an idiot and your book link ratifies how epically ignorant you are and how outrageous your ignorance is that you cannot tell the difference between human nature and society. Society changes. Frequently. Human nature does not.

          • Brucehenry

            Your assertion was that “people have not changed.” I say they have. “Human nature,” whatever that is, may not have.

            But the discussion we were having before you attempted to derail it with your semantic gotcha, was about the world’s opinion. My point was that policies and attitudes that were acceptable back in the day are no longer.

            If you want me to say “the world has changed” or “modern attitudes are different” or “the world is a different place than in the past” put it that way. I don’t care what you think is human nature and what is culture or your opinion of whether human nature is changeable or not. My point is the world of 2014, as it relates to human rights issues, is different than 1776, 1945, or even 1979. “Human nature” be damned.

          • jim_m

            My claim was that human nature has not changed. I never claimed that society has not changed.

            Now who is the idiot who cannot read?

            Once more you ratify my allegation that you are a dumbass. Even now you cannot tell the difference between society and social norms and human nature.

          • Brucehenry

            You said and I quote “people have not changed one iota.”

            I say that if people’s cultures, attitudes, and worldviews have changed the people have changed. We have been talking past each other, totally unnecessarily. That’s because of your annoying insistence on fencing instead of discussing.

          • jim_m

            And in the very next comment in response to yours I state:

            You mistake opinion for human nature. The fact that you cannot distinguish between the two is telling.

            And everything you have said since has been an attempt to claim that human nature is as changeable as public opinion and that it changes daily with the Gallup poll.

            I stand by my comment. People have not changed in their nature. Sure opinions have changed, societal norms have changed (well, not in islam, it is still normal to treat women as property and to have slaves), but human nature remains the same.

            I don’t think that we have been talking past each other. You either do not understand the concept of human nature, which I cited from the second comment in our discussion or you were too bent on having a sparing match yourself to bother comprehending my statement.

          • Brucehenry

            Nope, read it again.

          • jim_m

            Personally, since I repeatedly used the phrase “human nature” in no fewer than 10 comments, I can only conclude that you are every bit as stupid and ignorant as I claim .

            You continued to argue that human nature was this ever changing thing and that I was a fool for saying that it wasn’t so.

            So either you lack the ability to read or you are stupid or you are simply too embarrassed now to admit to either of those truths. If either of us was spoiling for an argument it seems that at least in this case it was you.

          • Brucehenry

            Whatever, Jim, you never could read.

            YOU said “People have not changed one iota” since back in the day. I pointed out a couple of examples of how people — their attitudes and opinions — have indeed changed.

            THEN and only then you started harping on the phrase “human nature.” I’ve told you several times I don’t care whether you think it’s human nature or opinion, the fact is that the world — people, public opinion, cultural attitudes — have changed indeed

          • jim_m

            Yes, because obviously, my comment needed clarification. It was only after that initial clarification that you insisted that human nature was fungible and constantly changing. I never once stated that opinion and society never changed. You conflated human nature with public opinion and never once stated that you understood that there was a difference between the two.

            I don’t think that you do understand the difference.

          • jim_m

            And above you claim that you never said that human nature was changing and yet I have found a previous comment on this thread where you say exactly that .

            You can’t even follow your own reasoning because it is pure bullshit.

          • Brucehenry

            Not changing, just not immutable. Because something CAN be changed doesn’t mean it has been.

            But I admit I started to fall into a contrarian position just because of our history. So to clarify:

            “Human nature” is a concept of philosophy and theology. I ain’t interested in arguing about “human nature.” You said people hadn’t changed, I said they had.

            And they have. If their “human nature” hasn’t changed, or is difficult to change, or can not possibly ever change, I don’t give a shit. There is not a number high enough to express the number of shits I don’t give about your definition of “human nature” or your opinion of whether or not it is immutable. So any impression I gave that I do care I hereby retract and apologize for.

            My point again, was that the world in which both Hamas and Israel must operate has changed. You knew exactly what i meant but insisted on this sidetrack. Whatever. Screw you, I’m going to bed.

          • jim_m

            I ain’t interested in arguing about “human nature.”

            Apparently, you are also uninterested in proper grammar. You have a funny way of showing that you aren’t interested in arguing about human nature since you have made a dozen or more comments on that subject already.

            And my point is that human nature has not changed. Israel is justified in crushing Hamas with as much force as is necessary.

            Palis in Gaza, despite not liking Hamas, have done nothing to get rid of them and will not. I have cited examples over 3 centuries of how people have acted in similar ways and how the palis are consistent with that expectation of human nature. Your belief that they will is not founded in any sort of fact but is merely a matter of your own fantasy. Furthermore, your supposition that islamic culture is similar to western culture and that the palis will get rid of Hamas is not supported by fact. Pali and islamic culture is significantly different from western culture. While westerners would be far more likely to get rid of these scumbags muslims do not see them the same way and are therefore very unlikely to oppose them in any meaningful way.

          • Brucehenry

            “Human nature” notwithstanding, if Israel uses “as much force as is necessary” to crush Hamas, and kills too many civilians in the process, it will face even more opprobrium around the world than it does now.

            And so will the US, as Israel’s primary supporter and provider of billions in military aid.

            You could very well be right about my naivete in hoping that the Palestinians of Gaza will rid themselves of Hamas control. But I prefer hope to cynicism. And I prefer the US be seen as a sponsor of negotiatiations, rather than simply financing the bombs raining from Israeli jets and helicopters.

          • jim_m

            One can hope and that is laudable. But to count on a faint hope is naive. There is a difference between making an allowance in plans for that hope to come through and making your plans so that they only work if that hope comes through.

          • jim_m

            Oh, and I preferred James Burke’s original book, Connections. Which I read in 1978 when it came out. (and I was barely a teenager)

            It really is laughable that you think that Burke is talking about human nature. He talks about society and invention and how all invention is the result of people puling together disparate threads of ideas and thought to create something new. Invention never occurs in a vacuum but is the result of everything that has gone on beforehand.

            And none of it has to do with human nature. In fact you would find Burke saying that it is human nature to synthesize ideas. Burke would not have claimed that his books were some refutation of the constancy of human nature. He would have said that his books revealed new insights into human nature.

            Just another example of how hopelessly ignorant you are.

          • Brucehenry

            If I said that “human nature” has changed I was wrong. But oh that’s right I didn’t say that.

            YOU however, said that “PEOPLE have not changed one iota.” Both of Burke’s books show how people have, indeed, changed very much. Maybe their “nature” hasn’t changed — “human nature” being a theological or philosophical construct — but their cultures, attitudes, and worldviews have indeed changed very much.

          • jim_m

            I have consistently referred to human nature. The fact that you are trying to weasel out of this now that you might be finally understanding the difference between human nature and social opinion is merely pathetic.

            Your posting the link to the Burke book is a demonstration that you don’t understand the difference between human nature and society. You posted it in response to a comment that explicitly discussed human nature.

          • Brucehenry

            Consistently insistent that you are referring to human nature, yes. EXCEPT in your original comment that “people have not changed one iota,” which I keep reminding you of and you keep ignoring.

          • jim_m

            And I immediately clarified what I meant by that. So you are admitting that you are incapable of reading English with any comprehension?

          • jim_m

            Your belief system tells you that human nature is immutable. I say it ain’t.

            LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

            You say above that it is changing.

            What a dishonest asshole you are,

        • Retired military

          Bruce
          Israel provided the concrete to Gaza to build houses. Hamas is using it to build tunnels.
          Maybe if the terrorists in Gaza stopped shooting rockets into Israel without provocation, hiding rockets in schools, and using civilians as human shields so that when Israel attacks there are civilian casualties then they would have a case. Personally I feel that as long as the terrorists in Gaza attack Israel they need to be wiped out. If the civilians in Gaza continue to support them then anything that happens to them is as an event of war.

          • Brucehenry

            According to Hamas the occupation of Palestinian land (the so-called “settlements”) and the blockade of Gaza IS the provocation for the rocket attacks, RM.

            You may not think it sufficient provocation for rocket attacks. I may not think so either. But to claim the attacks are “without provocation” is to misunderstand the situation, both historically and as the facts on the ground are today.

            I don’t justify or rationalize firing rockets randomly into a civilian population with the aim of killing civilians. That is what makes Hamas a terrorist organization. But I’d like a suggestion from supporters of Israel as to what WOULD constitute legitimate resistance to Israeli policy on the part of Palestinians.

            Would Israel be moved to consider change in their policies if Palestinians held mass non-violent protests of the type so effective when used by Gandhi in India or MLK in the 1960s South? I doubt it. Palestinians can’t vote in Israeli elections (except for the few who are Israeli citizens).

            So what avenues are open for Palestinian resistance to Israeli policy other than violence in SOME form or other? The only suggestion I’ve heard is for a divestiture movement similar to the one so effective against the apartheid regime of South Africa in the 80s. And that will probably take another decade or two to have effect, even if it were to take off today.

  • alanstorm

    None. Got any hard questions?

  • LiberalNightmare

    I’ve thought for a long time that every time we stop the fighting over there for humanitarian reasons we really just extend the misery.

    I say we get out of the way and let God (and the IDF) sort it out.

    • Brucehenry

      Yeah but the thing is we AREN’T “getting out of the way” when we are the ones funding the IDF.

      • LiberalNightmare

        Thats OK, we are funding hamas too.

        • Brucehenry

          Sure. Six billion to Israel every year for 65 years, $40 million to NGOs in Gaza one time. Same exact thing.

          • jim_m

            Liar.

            US aid has never exceeded $4.2 B in any single year and has averaged 1.8B per year since 1949. Current US aid to Israel is $3.115B annually.

            When you lie it isn’t even a decent one. It is too easily checked. It’s as though you took some bogus anti-semitic propaganda and repeated it without bothering to check because it fits your ideological hate of Jewish people.

          • jim_m

            Note also that it is entirely military aid these days and not economic aid.

            Note also that 74% of funding for military aid is required to be spent in US armaments so it is effectively an indirect subsidy of US industry.

          • Brucehenry

            OK whatever. I’ll concede I was mistaken as to the amount, so let me rephrase.

            Sure One point eight billion a year every year for decades, a proposal for $40 million to NGOs in Gaza one time. Same exact thing.

          • jim_m

            I am sure that you regularly donate money to organizations officially recognized as terrorist organizations(Hamas).

            So yeah, even $40 M is too much.

          • Brucehenry

            I know the concept of sarcasm doesn’t escape you, so are you just stupid? Or just ACTING stupid?

          • jim_m

            Sorry, it doesn’t sound like you are being sarcastic. It sounds like you really think that giving $40 M to terrorists is OK. It really sounds like you think that giving Hamas $40 M to murder Jews is exactly what you want us to be spending our taxes on.

          • Brucehenry

            Blind hatred makes you believe false things jim. You are a kook and a loon and a rube and a dupe of propaganda. Aside from that though you’re cool.

          • jim_m

            OK, so point out where you were being sarcastic. You have yet to point out where you are agreeing with my position, thereby making your claim to sarcasm relevant.

          • Brucehenry

            The sarcasm was for LN, you can’t-fucking-read lunatic. Not every comment is about you. You are not Wizbang.

          • jim_m

            Yes, I know you were being sarcastic to LN. I pointed out that in doing so you cited bogus data. You acknowledged that your data was bad (even though you won’t admit where you got it from).

            I also pointed out that despite your sarcasm there was still reason to object to the $40M. You seen to think that because your comment was sarcastic that you should be immune from criticism on its substance. Sarcasm is always welcome, just make sure that when you do it that you have a defensible position.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes sir

            I’ll be REAL good from now on!

          • Retired military

            “Blind hatred makes you believe false things jim.”
            Is this like the blind hatred that Hamas has for Israel?

          • Brucehenry

            Yeah kinda.

  • Brucehenry

    And before 1971 there was no such thing as a “Bangladeshi,” but for many years before then there was a movement to free what was then called “East Pakistan” from “West Pakistan.” The people who wanted independence called themselves “Bangladeshis,” even BEFORE Warner Todd Fucking Houston gave them his permission.

    And before 1963 there was no such thing as a “Kenyan,” there was only “British East Africa,” but the independence movement insisted on calling itself “Kenyan” despite the fact that literal-minded morons insisted there WAS no such thing.

    If you’re going to start with the premise that “there is no such thing” as a thing that there obviously IS such a thing as (so to speak, lol), you ain’t gonna get anywhere. What possible difference does it make what you call the Arabs of Gaza, Israel, and the West Bank? What in the world makes cranks and kooks keep on insisting “there is no such thing” as a Palestinian when there IS, and obviously HAS BEEN FOR DECADES, such a thing?

    Just for shits and giggles, when you state as a Gospel Truth that “‘Palestine’ is a city, not a nation,” could you please post a map showing us all where the City of Palestine is? What an ignoramus.

    • warnertoddhuston

      I’d prefer you show me the map from your beloved, terror loving, baby murdering, so-called “Palestinians” that shows Israel first.

      • Brucehenry

        “Palestine is a city, not a nation.”

        Where is the city of Palestine?

        LOL.

  • Par4Course

    Hamas provoked this war. The Palestinians, by tolerating and encouraging the radical Israel/Jew haters, deserve all they are getting. If someone were lobbing rockets into your neighborhood, you would rightfully want to destroy them. The Israelis have no less right of self-defense than any other nation. The IDF should stay in Gaza long enough to clean out all the artillery sites and destroy all the tunnels. They have done all they can to avoid civilian casualties, while Hamas and company have used non-combatants, particularly children, as human shields.

  • Anon9566

    Actually there is such a thing as palestine. It is called the “State of Palestine” and is recognized by the UN General Asssembly. This sovereign state is also recognized by a further 134 of the 194 member states of UN, which is not far of the number of countries that recognize Israel (160).
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/11/29/us-palestinians-statehood-idUSBRE8AR0EG20121129
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_Palestine
    http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/RES/67/19

    • jim_m

      That would be the same UN that voted to create a Special Rapporteur to “investigate human rights violations by Israel only, not by Palestinians”, Despite pleas from Human Rights Watch to investigate both. The same UN that compares Israel to Nazi Germany.

      Sorry, but the General Assembly of the UN is not a terribly credible source on any subject. Given that the UN General Assembly runs about as anti-Semitic as an Arab League meeting there really isn’t a whole lot to discuss here.

  • Brucehenry

    Here are a couple of links to a site called
    Vox.com,” which I hadn’t heard of before. The first shows the disparity over the last 14 years in the number of deaths on each side in this conflict.

    The second is a simple (some might say simplistic) explanation of the issue. It’s not definitive or exhaustive, but since it’s it not simply a parroting of Israeli/Likud talking points I figure maybe you geniuses could learn something from it.

    http://www.vox.com/2014/7/14/5898581/chart-israel-palestine-conflict-deaths

    http://www.vox.com/2014/7/17/5902177/9-questions-about-the-israel-palestine-conflict-you-were-too

    • LiberalNightmare

      Vox is a joke and everyone knows it. You may as well have linked the hamas website.

      • Brucehenry

        Sure. You guys kill me.

        When the UN does something you like, like pass resolutions calling on Saddam to get rid of WMDs, it should be listened to. When it passes resolutions you don’t like, it’s illegitimate and a pack of anti-Semites.

        When the Nobel Committee awards prizes to your favorite whipping boys, the Nobel Prize sucks these days and is illegitimate.

        When you lose elections it’s the fault of ACORN or simply “low-information voters” and you need to “take your country back.”

        And when presented with information that contradicts your preferred narrative the source of that info is “a joke and everyone knows it.”

        • jim_m

          There is a difference between the General Assembly and the Security Council.. The former really is a pack of antisemites. You would fit right in.

          And you deny that any wrongdoing ever happens on the left, that vote fraud is nonexistent. And when presented with proof that it does you walk away saying that it has never effected the results of an election and that if no one was convicted in court then nothing wrong ever happened.

        • LiberalNightmare

          Vox explains everything you need to know, in two minutes.

    • jim_m

      Riiiiight. So according to this website one would conclude that after WWII a proposal was made to create a Jewish homeland, the local arabs rejected that plan so the Jews created Israel through an act of war.

      If that is what you call historical truth you are both more ignorant and more dishonest than I ever imagined.

      • Brucehenry

        Is that what you read?

        • jim_m

          Yeah

          An early United Nations plan to give each group part of the land failed, and Israel and the surrounding Arab nations fought several wars over the territory

          So the partition failed and Israel was created through Jewish aggression and without UN approval. That is the straight froward reading of that line. If you want to believe that the UN plan failed and that Israel was created by an act of war then go ahead and be ignorant. But don’t lie to us about it and don’t lie that you didn’t know that this was the lie your site was spreading.

          • jim_m

            The truth is that Israel was created along with the states of Jordan and Trans-Jordan (ie palestine). The Jordanians and the Israelis were fine with this arrangement. The palis refused to accept the partition and they fomented the war of independence, which Israel won despite being under an arms embargo.

            Go learn some history. It was not that the UN plan failed. The UN plan was implemented. The palis created the problems, are responsible for the problems today and deserve 100% of the blame for the whole situation.

          • Brucehenry

            Nuh-uh, you.

            The “state” of Transjordan, comprising modern-day Jordan minus the West Bank, was created by the Sikes-Picot agreements between Britain and France and approved by the League of Nations, which also approved the British “mandate” in Palestine. The British installed a Hashemite “king” to rule the country they called “Transjordan.” They installed another to rule the fake “kingdom” they called “Iraq.” This happened almost two decades before the creation of the state of Israel.The descendant of the Hashemite “king” of Transjordan still rules as King Abdullah of Jordan.

            I’m afraid you’ve got this detail wrong, Jim.

          • Brucehenry
          • jim_m

            I stand corrected. Transjordan became Jordan when its independence was ratified by the League of Nations AND the fledgeling UN in 1946. While the current state of Israel was partitioned between pali and Jewish lands. The palis refused a single state solution and Israel declared independence (within the boundaries of the partition), which was recognized by everyone except the arabs.

            Jordan changed its name in 1948 at the time of the war of independence which was the source of my error.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes I have no argument with the facts as you present them in this comment.

          • Brucehenry

            So you missed the part that said, “The conflict has been going on since the early 1900s, when the mostly-Arab, mostly-Muslim region was part of the Ottoman Empire, and starting in 1917, a ‘mandate’ run by the British Empire.”

            And the part that said, “The plan was never implemented. Arab leaders in the region saw it as European colonial theft, and invaded to keep Palestine unified.”

            But I guess you saw the part that said “Israel won the 1948 war.”

            I can’t even find the quote you have blockquoted, but really, what part of it is factually incorrect? The plan DID fail, and the Arab states DID fight several wars over the territory. Those are two factually correct sentences. I don’t see where they mean what you claim they mean. There is nothing in them about “Jewish aggression” or Israel being created “through an act of war.” The Plan DID fail, and several wars WERE fought.

          • jim_m

            It is from a different article posted on Vox’s front page.

          • Brucehenry

            Wherever you got it from, those two sentences are factually correct. The plan DID fail (because the neighboring Arab states invaded to make it fail). And several wars HAVE been fought over the territory.

          • jim_m

            It still implies that Israel fought wars of aggression to be created. It was immediately recognized by nearly the entire world as a legitimate state. The partition did not fail. The plan worked, the arabs threw away what they had. They alone are to blame for the loss.

          • Brucehenry

            Well I found the source of the two sentences that are causing you such butthurt and it is more proof that you can’t fucking read, or rather that you can superduper-read, seeing words and implications that are not visible to other readers.

            There is nothing there about any “wars of aggression” on the part of either side, much less Israel alone. It’s a simple, actually simplistic, overview aimed at folks who don’t know much about the origins of the conflict. It reads pretty neutral, really, but I guess because it doesn’t parrot Likud talking points you find it objectionable.

          • jim_m

            I think that it is materially important to state up front that Israel did not fight a war of aggression and that its creation was supported by the UN, was recognized by the international community and was opposed only by arabs, who had become rich from selling land to the Jews. By omitting these facts you create a moral equivalence between the two sides. It doesn’t exist.

          • Brucehenry

            LOL Jim you are too funny

          • jim_m

            I stated that I thought that simply saying that Israel and the arab states fought several wars to establish the state of Israel is misleading. It is extremely misleading.

          • Brucehenry

            Yes the facts are soooo misleading

          • jim_m

            They are when you don’t include them. They are when you only include some and phrase them in a way so as to make it look as though the side that was the aggressor was not and the side that was the defender was not.

          • Brucehenry

            Like I said, you have the ability to superduper-read.

            To paraphrase Karl Childers, my favorite philosopher, “Some people call it hallucinatin’, I call it Jim-readin, mmhmm.”

          • jim_m

            You can impute any meaning you want on the article. My point is that because it includes so very few of the actual particulars it is grossly misleading. Put in context of the rest of the website, which is dramatically pro pali and hamas, one can safely assume that the article leaves out these critical facts for the purpose of misleading the reader and creating the impression that the Israelis have been the aggressors throughout.

          • Brucehenry

            Ha Ha No YOU can impute any meaning you want to the article, as you do to every article you “read,” whatever it might say or not say.

            The rest of us just read the article and see what it, you know, actually says. Then we make judgments about whether or not we find it credible.

          • jim_m

            Yes, that explains why you believe obama’s bullshit. You take everything in from the left with an uncritical view. Since it aligns with your prejudices you see nothing wrong with gaping omissions of fact. It’s true! you cry, but only barely so and the authors would have fought tooth and nail against including the whole truth. This you know but will not admit.

          • Brucehenry

            I show you this other site to show you the difference between a pro-Palestinian site and one that is more centrist. I can’t help it if you insist that every site on the Internet must propagate only Likud-approved information or be deemed not credible. That’s up to you, dude.

          • jim_m

            That was a left wing TV show not a documentary you dumbass. Sure, a lefty would get pissed off about someone making them tell the truth.

          • LiberalNightmare

            Edit: You keep a bottle of hand lotion next to the sofa when you watch the west wing.

          • Brucehenry

            And you are picturing me masturbating right now, apparently. Eeeewww. Leave me alone.

  • JWH

    If Canada started launching rockets at the United States, we’d have tanks rolling through Montreal by sunset the next day. So I definitely see nothing wrong with Israel responding to Hamas’s rockets with military force. But that does not stop me from believing that Palestinian families in Gaza (as opposed to the Hamas leadership) are getting a raw deal.

  • Plinytherecent

    I believe that ‘Palestinians’ in Gaza DO live in an apartheid state – Jews and Christians (if there are any) in Gaza would certainly not have the same rights as moslems. Rather similar to Saudi Arabia and several other moslem countries.

Optimization WordPress Plugins & Solutions by W3 EDGE