Israel and Palestine

I think that Israel is acting like complete idiots. Before anyone declares I am anti-Semitic and such let me add that I think the USA is acting like complete idiots and the Palestinians are also acting like complete idiots. I started with the Israelis because they are the ones, in my opinion, who have the power to make peace happen and yet they are doing the exact opposite — enflaming the war.

Now look — Hamas is not friendly to Israel. They are quite hostile and they basically if not actually have declared war on Israel. I believe that Hamas is part of the problem in a big way. But I also believe that the Palestinians voted for Hamas for the same reason that people in the USA voted for Bush — to greedily protect their interests, with a heavy hand if necessary.

Obviously, the notion that the Palestinians can wish Israel out of existence is nonsense. Any such goal should and will be crushed. The Palestinians do not get to decide if there is an Israel or not.

At the same time, I’d be pissed off if it was up to the Israelis if there was a Palestine or not. With countries and borders less than a century old, it is irrational to leave the fate of the Palestinians up to the Israelis. Israel rightly expects the world to stand up for their right to exist. I think it is time that the world stand up for Palestine’s right to exist.

You know, when people lob bombs into your neighborhoods, take hostages and kill people, you get pissed off. I can see why Israel is pissed off. But what do they do? They lob bombs, take hostages and kill people. You’ll remember from above that this pisses people off.

The military power of Israel dwarfs that of the Palestinians and this puts the impetus on the Israelis to be utterly measured in their military actions. Blowing up power plants and bridges is fighting the wrong enemy. How can they not see that? Arresting elected Hamas leaders leads away from, not towards, peace.

I’ve asked this before of both sides: do you fucking want fucking peace or not? The answer is obviously, no, you don’t.

The solution is obvious (in no particular order):

1. Palestinians stop killing Israelis.
2. Israelis stop killing Palestinians.
3. Palestine recognizes Israel as a sovereign nation.
4. Israel recognizes Palestine as a sovereign nation.
5. A multi-national, cooperative and good-faith negotiation occurs as to the logistics of #2 with neither Israel nor Palestine having veto rights. It is binding arbitration.

As long as the Palestinians are under Israel’s thumb, there will never be peace. That is the bottom line.

Israel and Palestine

5 thoughts on “Israel and Palestine

  1. I agree with your overall point, that violence is not going to solve the problems for the Palestinians and, in fact, hurts their cause more than helps it.

    My point was that there is not equality in the situations of the Israelis and the Palestinians. You say “We stop aggression as soon as they do” but there is aggression in Israel’s oppression of those people and the lack of freedom that is imposed on them. So when no one is killing anyone else, the Israelis have all sorts of freedoms and benefits that the Palestinians do not. They are occupied and oppressed. Violence happens when people are occupied and oppressed.

    A better analogy is the “troubles” in Ireland. The Irish were abused by the English for centuries. Do I agree with the IRA blowing up markets? Hell no. Yet I do agree with their agenda of freedom and self-governance. The Republic of Ireland would likely not exist were it not for the violent protest of the likes of the IRA. Nor would the USA exist if it were not for the violent revolution of the colonies.

    I DON’T agree with violence to solve problems but I understand why it happens. Stopping it from happening takes solving the problems of occupation and oppression.


  2. micadelic says:

    Please ignore the firt line of my previous post (can I edit once I post?). Sorry about that, too many pale ales. Remind me not to drink and blog, makes me think I’m smarter than I actually am!


  3. micadelic says:

    Your argument is so flawed it isn’t even a real argument.

    American slaves didn’t really take up arms very effectively on their own. They ran away, they went north, they tried to become free. The newly formed Republican Party (made up of Whigs, freemen, anti-slavery Democrats, Free soilers, and abolitionists) took up arms on their behalf and freed them out of a moral conviction, much to the dismay of the southern Democrats. (Pardon the partisan dig here but I couldn’t resist).

    Anyway, let’s say the slaves were freed but they were not too happy with the situation they found themselves in. Oh, wait, that’s what actually happened. Well, that evolved into the civil rights movement led very effectively by Martin Luther King Jr. (who I consider a personal hero) who used the brilliant tactics of civil disobedience and (mostly) peaceful demonstration. Guess what? That actually worked pretty well. What if after the Civil War the blacks who were “under the thumb” of the dominant white society decided to use different tactics, say bombing markets full of innocent people, or capturing whites and beheading them, or forming a religion so intolerant that under the law of said religion, anyone who doesn’t adhere needs to be killed. Would the civil rights movement have gone the same way? I don’t thinks so; I think we’d still be killing each other to this day. Thank God MLK had such an influence and blacks were not led en masse down the path of the more radical black movements such as the Panthers or what has now become the abomination of Louis Farrakhan’s ridiculous Nation of Islam.

    The Palestinians and the Iraqi insurgents/Al Qaeda types need a leader like a Martin Luther King Jr. to lead them out of their culture of hatred and what I call “intellectual incest.” The civilized world actually wants there to be peace with them. We wouldn’t need to fight, we’d have cheaper oil, and we could conduct commerce. I’m not so sure that any peace that involves coexistence with the Jews or the west is acceptable to the Islamo-facists.

    We stop aggression as soon as they do. They stop aggression once they’ve killed or converted us all. Which side are you on?

    (sorry, I know that some of what I’ve written is somewhat hyperbolic (is that a word), but i’m practicing my best ann coulter imitation which i know will make you very happy!)



  4. You make a good point. The flaw in your argument is this (although I’m exaggerating): if black slaves in early America had “put down their arms”, the plantation owners would have stopped beating them right then and there.

    You have a gross inequity over there where the Palestinians have to ask permission from the Israelis to go visit their relatives in neighboring areas. There are walls and checkpoints. The Palestinians are not free, as far as I can tell, and that is the basis of my statement.

    In Iraq, I think there is a similar dynamic. You have the Americans, well meaning though they are, with their tanks, planes, bombs, body armor, technology, etc. and the “enemy”, although clearly far from unarmed, are running around with homemade bombs and hauling RPG’s around in station wagons. There is a vast inequity there, too, that is not helping the situation. We may get civil war but if the alternative is eternal American occupation we are fucked. Almost makes ya wonder why the fuck we sent the bull in the china shop in the first place.

    I do agree: The Palestinians are acting like idiots, too, and end up making their own bed. But, again, we can’t expect peace when the Palestinians are under Israel’s thumb.


  5. micadelic says:

    Oh why can’t we all just get along?

    This applies to Iraq, Israel, Palestine, etc.

    I find myself asking the following question; which side is perpetuating the aggression?

    Not who started it, or who’s fault is it, etc., just which side is keeping the aggression going.

    Israel has given up land, forced their own settlers to move out of occupied territories (which was extremely painful and unpopular) and had shown willingness to negotiate further “land for peace” options. Then, the Palestinians elect a “government” that refuses to even recognize Israel’s right to exist and continues suicide bombings and lobbing rockets indiscriminately into Israel.

    My point, if the Palestinians put down their arms and did not fire another shot and agreed to take the land that Israel has already agreed to give up, it would be over. Israel would not fire another bullet. Conversely, If Israel laid down their arms and did not put up a fight, they would be overrun by the Palestinians and the Palestinians would continue their campaign of terror. The Palestinians will give no quarter; it’s all or nothing for them. In their minds, Israel must not exist and the only solution is the elimination of the Israeli state.

    Same in Iraq, if the insurgents agreed to participate in a reasonable, democratically elected government, and quit indiscriminately killing civilians in the hope of starting a civil war, it would be over. The American forces would not fire another shot if that happened. Conversely, if the Americans laid down their arms and got out, full scale civil war would break out along religious lines. No even slightly secular democratic government would be possible.

    To put it plainly, if a truce was declared, which side would be more likely to break it?


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s