"Thousands of Gazans have fled their homes to escape the immediate onslaught of the Israeli tanks battling Hamas fighters who refuse to halt the rocket fire that has provoked this campaign."
The Palestinians know who is firing the rockets. They know where the launchers are and where the terrorists are hidden.
They have the capacity to finish off Hamas themselves.
Which they should use because this will not get any better until they do.
And if they do that Israel will surely give them back all the land they've stolen from them since 1948, right Jay.
Probably not. Just as I rather suspect the Jordanians will not "give back" the land originally covered by the Balfour declaration. However, get rid of Hamas and I suspect you would see real progress toward a two state solution.
(And, Robert, firing rockets into Israel is certainly not going to get back one bit of land nor lead to a two state solution.)
Probably not.
So why do you think the Palestinians should stop fighting; especially now that global public opinion is turning against the Israelis.
However, get rid of Hamas and I suspect you would see real progress toward a two state solution.
You mean like the "real progress" we saw before Hamas existed?
Robert, I don't think "global public opinion" is actually shifting that far. But, more to the point, I don't think the Israelis give a rat's ass about global public opinion.
Most of the Palestinians are not fighting now - Hamas has about 10,000 front line fighters and another 20,000 support. Plus a political leadership which is now either underground or in Syria.
The Palestinians should stop fight because they are losing and losing badly. But as I said above, I would suspect that the Israelis, after a year or two of actual peace, would be more than happy to see a moderate Palestinian state.
What they cannot have is a radical Islamic enclave. (They already have one of those in South Lebanon.)
Hamas' role in the firing of rockets isn't so clear-cut as Israel would have us believe.
As for the 'game' Israel is playing with Hamas, journalist Jonathan Cook has some ideas that he explains here. Indeed, for now, Israel may need Hamas more than it want it destroyed no matter what its rhetoric is in the wake of the carnage being perpetrated there.
Uh, oh. Turns out that the Norwegian doctor whose words you quote in the title of your post, isn't such a noble "healer" after all. It seems he didn't so much mind wading in "death, blood and amputees" when, for example, three thousand people died on Sept. 11, 2001.
"If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq, then there is also a moral right to attack the United States with the weapons they had to create. Dead civilians are the same whether they are Americans, Palestinians or Iraqis."
…
Do you support the terrorist attack on the United States?
"Terror is a bad weapon, but the answer is yes, within the context I have mentioned."
His political party also supported Pol Pot.
http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009...-for-terrorism/
Geo:
I see the CAMERA machine is going full blast.
Not to parse for the sake of parsing, but the initial statement you quote begins: "If the U.S. government has a legitimate right to bomb and kill civilians in Iraq..."
That's what's known as a counterfactual conditional. Obviously the US government has no such "legitimate right." The doctor is simply saying that you can't have it both ways, arguing for the affirmative in one case and the negative in the other.
I suspect he's reacting to those who do want to have it both ways. I think you and I would argue for the negative in both cases, and I have no reason to believe that he wouldn't.
As for the Pol Pot nonsense, there is no evidence that Gilbert was a member of the Red party in its former incarnation. Here's the quotation:
Mads Gilbert is described on his Wikipedia page as a “Communist politician as a member of the party Red“. The Red party was previously the Workers Communist Party, which supported Pol Pot
That's really reaching for it.
"And if they do that Israel will surely give them back all the land they've stolen from them since 1948, right Jay."
How about this Robert? The day Jews can live as a minority in Christian and Muslim nations without 1. worrying about being sent to the gas chamber by racist Nazis; and 2. being forced to pay the Jizya and live as Dhimmis by bigoted Muslims, then perhaps Israel as we know it will no longer be needed. Why don't you let us know when that happens ...
What's even more interesting is that when that guy made the statement you quote (apparently a couple of weeks after 9/11), the US invasion of Iraq was still 1½ years off.
As for the Pol Pot connection, yes, it's tenuous. But (per Wikipedia) his party still regards Stalin and Mao as political heroes. Maybe he thinks the Hamas "militants" are their natural heirs.
Geo:
You'll recall that there was an earlier invasion of Iraq, by Bush père.
Maybe Gilbert is speaking and working as a doctor. Just possibly.
BTW, (to continue the parsing of his statement), the first part may be "conterfactual conditional", but I can't see how that interpretation applies to his "yes" answer to a very straightforward question, "Do you support the terrorist attack on the United States?" Even by his standards, the answer should have been no (i.e., "two wrongs don't make a right", etc). But independent logic and standards are probably too much to ask from a member of the cadre.
Oops, that should have been: "even by your standards"...
Geo:
He said, "within the context I have mentioned." But being a plain-spoken fellow myself, and recognizing the ease with which words can be misinterpreted, I would have responded more like what you suggest.
Dr Dawg: Just wondering why you're not outraged by the Sri Lankan blitzkrieg (well, more one than what the Israelis are doing in Gaza) against the Tamils?
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/ne...YdA&
refer=india
Another poor, oppressed people seeking freedom being subject to severe military assault. But then it's just Asians doing it to Asians, no big deal, eh?
Also, the kicker, no wall-to-wall TV coverage. Amazing how the MSM focus some people's outrage. Not that I'm outraged that the Tigers are being done down; after all they invented suicide bombing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Tam...Suicide_bombing
Mark
Ottawa
Uh, Mark...have you posted om the subject of the oppression of Tamils? Or do you support the government (both governments, in fact, ours and the Sri Lankans') in designating the victims' fight-back organization as "terrorist?" If I'm correct about this, you're being just a tad hypocritical, no?
Also, the kicker, no wall-to-wall TV coverage. Amazing how the MSM focus some people's outrage.
Actually, that's a fair point. We tend to talk about what other people are talking about.
I did post on Burma a while ago--you pooh-poohed the notion of doing anything about it. Ditto, on several occasions, Darfur. So haul back a bit on your implicit charge of racism, m'kay? And post something about the Tamils, while you're at it.
Dr Dawg: a draft at "Daimnation", Nov. 27, 2008, that Damian for whatever reason chose not to publish:
"Maybe insurgents/militants can be beaten after all
Though it can a very long and terribly hard slog:
Tamil Tigers headquarters 'about to fall' to Sri Lankan Army
Under the Conservative government Canada at last started doing its bit (unlike the Liberals--see the Update at this post)."
Mark
Ottawa
So in other words you're on the side of the blitzkriegers. At least you're consistent.
Dr Dawg: Now, now, now: I've never favoured the German attacks in 1940/41 on The Netherlands, Belgium, France or the Soviet Union. There is some questioning in military historical circles whether the attacks on Poland or Yugoslavia were true "blitzkriegs".
Do you support Tamil independence achieved by a combination of guerrilla war and pure terrorism? Er, militant methods.
Mark
Ottawa
Now, Mark, you know I'm referring to the Israeli assault on Gaza.
I support Tamil self-determination. It's a tragedy that it's come to this.
4 Visitors Online
Commenting by HaloScan
