Comment Re:Radicalization (Score 1) 868
Lets see...first, you're ignoring the Israeli violence that precipitated the bus bombings. Secondly, uniformed Israeli soldiers used those buses for transportation. Using Israeli reasoning, that makes the buses valid military targets (since the IDF bombs anything they claim has anything to do with Hamas) and the Israeli government a bunch of soulless terrorists for using the bus passengers as "human shields".
Israeli violence? This was 1993-4, the peak of the Oslo peace process. There were no violent events in that time. If you are referring to events that had occurred before that, well, by that logic there is no way to ever achieve peace.
Soldiers use public transportation to get from their homes to their bases and back. It works that way everywhere in the world (I've seen it personally in the US). Comparing that to Hamas' strategy of storing rockets under schools and homes is unacceptable.
Lets see...that's a lie. Even Israeli official will tell you that Hamas had, unlike Israel, been observing a cease fire prior to IDF dropping bombs on Gaza. Not only that, Hamas was arresting those who were firing rockets.
When Israel disengaged from Gaza, it did so under a constant barrage of rocket fire which did not stop for any significant period ever since. Picking some specific period where one Palestinian faction fought with another over whether today is a good day to fire rockets or not is irrelevant. The naval blockade was imposed to stop the incoming flow of GRAD rockets to Gaza.
Sorry to inform you, but that's a pile of racist bullshit. Just because the people of Palestine didn't have a flag doesn't mean there hasn't been a place called Palestine or a Palestinian people.
Before the creation of Israel all its residents were referred to as Palestinians. There were Palestinian Jews and Palestinian Arabs. There was never a Palestinian country or a Palestinian people per se and if there was one, well, my Jewish grandmother was Palestinian as well (and to this day holds a British mandate era passport saying "Palestine"). However your definition of Palestinian seems to exclude the Jews. Sounds a little apartheidish to me.
Other than the constant land confiscations for "parks" or "building code violations", to make way for taxpayer-funded apartments for squatters. Oh, and there's that little system of Apartheid, of course: no right to vote, no right to travel on "Jewish roads", no right to intermarry, and so on.
I have no idea what your first sentence referred to (parks? squatters..?).
Palestinians have the right to vote - for their own government.
"Jewish roads" - these were established as part of the Oslo accords in order to prevent Jews from traveling through Palestinian cities, in order to reduce the tension this caused (Arabs don't like seeing Jews and like to stone their cars). In any case these roads are open for all users and there is no checkpoint preventing anyone's entry.
Intermarriage - you're making this up, right? Or do you have a source?
So if the Romans, the Turks, the British or the Egyptians had wiped out the "continuing Jewish presence" in the area, you would have been okay with that because said Jews were under the thumb of another empire and had no flag of their own?
Of course not. I would fight and establish a state, which is exactly what my grandparents did. What have the Arabs achieved over the past century except for slaughtering innocent people, destroying anything they can, and squandering every opportunity for statehood?
Israel utterly dominates the borders of Gaza, travel to and from Gaza, and what goes into or out of Gaza.
No it doesn't. Gaza has a neighbor to the south who apparently cares much less for Gaza despite being their brethren.
I'm not even going to answer your nonsense about the Marmara, which was stockpiled with more cold weapons than food. But...
Guess what, Slick, that makes it an occupation.
No, it doesn't. You can call it many things, an occupation it is not.
All of Israel's territory grabs in the West Bank and Jerusalem are illegal and always have been. All of them.
By what law? Was the Jordanian occupation before that any more legal? Ever since the Arabs rejected the Partition Plan there is no internationally legal sovereign over the land and all attempts to establish one have failed. Arab houses in Bethlehem are no more legal than houses in Jewish Beth El.
Despite that, Palestinians were willing to make massive concessions
Name one.
Israel started the 1967 war with a sneak attack on the Egyptian Air Force. Their excuse was - after their claims that they were the ones who were attacked first fell apart - that it was to stop the Egyptian blockade of the Straits of Tiran. But guess, what, Slick: by Israeli reasoning that means that any and all attacks in response to the blockade of Gaza are justified.
The blocking of the Straits of Tiran was a unilateral offensive act by Egypt. Israel was not launching rockets at Egypt, so you can't compare the two cases. Anyway, if you think Gaza's attacks on Israel are justified then that's cool with me; just be prepared to deal with the consequences. Such as digging bomb shelters for your population rather than attack tunnels. But Hamas has their priorities and the safety of its civilians is not one of them.
