7 Comments

1. bw  •  Nov 11, 2009 @10:52 am
   

   You start a war, you may just lose ground, and if you do, yes,
   you should just get over it. That’s a chance every nation to ever start a war has taken.

2. jb  •  Nov 11, 2009 @1:52 pm
   

   You win a war, you conquer some ground, the enemy may still keep fighting until you agree to a less-favorable distribution. If that happens, yes, you should just get over it.

   Neither side gets to dictate terms here.

   Of course, what I ask is why the U.S. is so involved here. Which of our other allies besides Israel do we stick our neck out so far for, against (what they claim to be) their domestic enemies?

3. Jdog  •  Nov 11, 2009 @3:25 pm
   

   There’s no particular reason that the Pallies should get over their obsession with Jews living in, say, the location of the Hebron massacres. After all, it’s worked so well for them, so far, and now that Gaza has, by unilateral Israeli action, been rendered not only settlement-free judenrein, it’s heaven on earth.

4. piperTom  •  Nov 12, 2009 @8:15 am
   

   One of the hallmarks of good government is respect for property rights. The U.S. is far from perfect here (Kelo!), but at least … if it came to light that our government was trampling property rights of one ethnic group in order to favor another, we would be embarrassed about it. This is an outrage that Israel could easily (and profitably) avoid.

   Yes, it’s true that all the surrounding states also have poor records in this regard. It’s no excuse. The U.S. should set aside a portion of our promised foreign aid to Israel for a trust fund, from which — after judicial review — compensation would be paid to victims of expropriation. That would fix the problem, but it would improve the moral standing of the U.S. by a large measure.

5. Yehoshua  •  Nov 12, 2009 @9:42 am
   

   I do think that it would be helpful for Hamas to take the eradication of Israel off the table. I mean, I wouldn’t be in a bargaining mood if my enemy was seeking a deal for the return of land but continued to reserve the right to destroy me utterly.

6. SG  •  Nov 12, 2009 @11:58 am
   

   “…but continued to reserve the right to destroy me utterly.”
   With what ? Stones and Katyusha rockets ?
   I’m no fan of Hamas, but everybody talks like it’s a fair fight between Israel and Hamas. Israel is of the utmost hypocrisy in that vein : it prevents the Palestinians from having a state, an army, or any kind of 21st-century weaponry, then it accuses them of playing dirty, instead of waging a regular ole war like regular ole states do. Well, perhaps if they’d give them one the would.
   Plus, last time I checked Israel doesn’t acknowledge a palestinian state’s right to exist, either. So it’s kind of a “no, you first” game here. But I think that the first that should be required to “put down its weapons” by any international umpire should be the one that has drones, missiles, tanks, an airforce and probably the atom bomb, not the one that has pre-WW2 projectiles and the (kinda stupid) will to use them.

7. Rougman  •  Nov 12, 2009 @8:37 pm
   

   It would be a lot easier if all those damn Jooos would just jump into the sea.

Leave a Reply