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.
You are blinded by your bias. The Israelis are targeting children and civilians no less, no more than the Palestinians. When they go after Hamas leaders, they fire their missiles straight into crowded Gaza neighbors........."children and defenseless civilians" are always hit. Why do you think twice as many Palestinians have died as Israelis? It is the Palestinians who are getting the worst of it and yet your sympathies lie with the Israelis.
They aren't sneaking on to over overrunning Palestinian farms to slit the throats of children.
And the Israeli soldiers are killing Palestinian children in the streets while they play.
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.
Once again, your bias is showing.......the murderers are on both sides. The Israelis' AK-47s are no more blessed than the suicide bombers.
BTW - The Palestinians are the ones using AKs (as well as suicide bombers). Perhaps you mean an M-16s, Uzi's and Galils.
Yes, and the Israelis are using tomahawk and patriot missiles.
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.
Which Indians are you talking about?
In many cases the Palestinian Arabs did not own the land. It was owned by foreign Arabs, or Turks, or later by Europeans.
That does not change the fact that ownership was a concept familiar to Palestinians. Its not a concept familiar to Indians.
<
"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.
The Zionists were terrorists because they wanted to be free. That's the way it works in the ME. Why are the terrorist methods of the Zionists okay and the Palestinian methods not?
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.
BS. There was no provisional gov't except what the Brits put in place in order to control their mandate. The Brits issued the White Paper in 1939, limiting Jewish emigration to Palestine. That's when the Zionist movement when from being political to a militancy. That's when Zionist terrorism began. Many of the Zionist terrorists were respected members of the Zionist movement.
In fact, many of the Zionist terrorists later became members of the gov't when Israel became a state. One of them, David Ben Gurion, was Israel's first PM. He played a critical role as an important leader of the Zionist terrorists in their fight for freedom. And trust me when I say that the Jewish terrorists were just as vicious as the Palestinian terrorists.
jafi.org.il
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.
Yes, just like the Zionist Jews.
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.
Of course, the people are not free. Whatever power was in the PA has been stripped from them by Sharon and rests in the hands of Sharon.
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.
I don't understand you. If someone has taken away your power to move around and you are at their beck and call, then how can someone else also take away your power.Its already gone! Israel holds all the strings except the ones leading to Hamas.
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.
At the time of the UN partition, the Palestinians had been majorly screwed. During the past fifty years, what was offered in 1947 has been reduced further. The Palestinians would be stupid to take what Israel is offering now. I would fight to the bitter end. The Palestinians have little to lose; the Israelis a lot.
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.
The Israelis have taken over parts of the WB, and Gaza and all of Jerusalem. They control the withdrawals from the water aquifer in the WB. They have refused the Palestinians "Right of Return" nor will they pay reparations for the property they confiscated in 1948.
If I were Palestinian, I would choose murder. I bet you would too.
ted |
