and they aren't even acting as badly as the Palestinians are.
Why? Because an AK-47 is cleaner than a suicide bomber?
No because they are not targeting children and other defenseless civilians. They aren't sneaking on to over overrunning Palestinian farms to slit the throats of children. On one side you have a government that can be inflexible and obnoxious and which probably isn't trying hard enough to find peace. On the other side you have murderers.
BTW - The Palestinians are the ones using AKs (as well as suicide bombers). Perhaps you mean an M-16s, Uzi's and Galils.
The Indians had no concept of private ownership; the Arabs did and do.
Many of the Indians did have concept of private or tribal ownership. In many cases the Palestinian Arabs did not own the land. It was owned by foreign Arabs, or Turks, or later by Europeans.
Some of them objected quite forcibly. They tended to die.
Not initially.........they only started to worry when European diseases started to kill them off and by that time, it was too late. The most aggressive Indians were the Sioux in the West. The rest were fairly docile.
Many of them where not so docile. Raids, massacres and small wars were not uncommon in the East. When they where docile it was often because of a recognition of the power they would be up against if they resisted.
On the contrary, they had very little societal structure
Tell that to the Haudenosaunee/Iroquois
jmu.edu
We are talking about a very different culture from the Palestinians.
Lots of cultures are very different from each other. What's your point?
"However there is another side of the story. At least some sources say that warning was provided to try to minimize civilian casualties and the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing."
Oh please, that's a crock of sh*t.
Whether there was a warning or not is debatable. Different people tell different stories about that, but debatable isn't the same thing as "a crock of shit". The fact that the Jewish National Council denounced the bombing also isn't a crock. It would be similar today if Hammas or some other organization bombed some building while the Palestinian Authority denounced the attack and terrorism in general.
BTW the Zionists who committed this travesty were proud of what they had done.......just like the suicide bombers.
"The difference is that the Palestinian Authority, and apparently the majority of the Palestinian population is proud of the suicide bombers."
Huh? How is that different?
In once case the terrorists where proud of the terrorist action, but it did not get wide spread support of the people or of the authority/provisional government. In the other the terrorists and most of the people where proud of and supported the bombing, along with the closest thing to a government that the currently stateless group has.
The terrorists themselves will almost always be proud of their attacks.
They elected Arafat.
And the Soviet leaders and I believe Saddam Hussein where also "elected". Hitler actually was elected that doesn't mean that once he came to power there was freedom or democracy in Germany.
Arafat imposes little control because Sharon has stripped him of his powers. He's been holed up in his office for nearly a year.....living and working there.
Arafat probably does have less control, instead control has been dispersed to many people and groups. That doesn't make the people free. To a large extent they are under the thumb of the radicals. They are subject to execution as collaborators with little or no evidence and no appeal process. And of course the Israelis impose curfews and other controls. Israel is partially responsible for their lack of freedom but not entirely responsible.
How can they accept peace when they are getting screwed?
Because they are getting screwed ten times as bad by not accepted peace. If there is an eventually settlement of the issue both the Israelis and the Palestinians will probably think they are being screwed. Certainly the Indians where screwed by the English and Americans (and even more so by the Spanish in the south). When Pakistan was split off from India millions of people who found themselves in the "wrong" country were screwed in one way or another. You can either take what the situation allows and build from there or you can harbor a grudge forever screwing yourself and your decedents ten times as much as you where initially screwed.
Do the Israelis have the right to take land that is not theirs?
I am perfectly willing to accept that the Palestinians have a claim, but so do the Israelis. The eventually boundaries will be subject to a negotiation, but its unlikely that the Israelis will elect someone who will consider serious concessions when the Palestinians are blowing things up all over the place.
The Israelis consider the land, pretty much everything but the West Bank and Gaza to be theirs. The Palestinians disagree. The Palestinians could have either protested and negotiated or they can murder. They chose the 2nd, and wind up paying a high price for little or no eventual gain.
Tim |
