This slideshow of images from across Palestinian terroritory shows why true peace between Israel and the Palestinians will be impossible for decades. How can you expect peace when you teach your children nothing but hate?
The Dark Heart Of Hate
Published
“How can you expect peace when you teach your children nothing but hate?”
Is the military training not mandatory for every “kid” in Israël?
Oh I forgot again, on this side of the wall, it’s terrorists!
Last time I checked, the IDF wasn’t training six-year-olds.
Can’t wait to see Vincent’s reply.
So what’s your solution Jay? Wall them off and let them stagnate some more? We could perhaps deport them somewhere. Got any ideas as to where? Yeah. That’s what I thought. Israel could perhaps stop killing three innocent Palestinians for each innocent Israeli dead. Nah, that would greatly hamper their otherwise amazingly successful track record in going after such terrorist groups.
Or perhaps we could deport everyone within 500 miles of Jerusalem to Antarctica and turn the area into a nuclear weapons test facility. Then everyone could quit they’re bitching already over that desolate miserable piece of land. Or perhaps not…
Well shit, I’m out of ideas.
the ratio of kills from each side is really in “favor” of Israel. Isn’ it the most hateful one who kills more generally?
they don’t really have the same life expectancy, nor opportunities anyway…
I have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who deliberately targets innocent civilians by sending their own children to a horrific death.
The Palestians cannot have, nor do they deserve peace until they end their campaign of hate and violence against Israel. When that happens, a negotiated settlement will be possible. Until then, there is no prospect for anything better than a cold war between the two.
Jay,
1st paragraph: totally agree
2nd paragraph:
everyone deserve peace (as when you’re in peace, you’re not a “warrior” anymore!!)
you cannot deny that the “campaign of hate and violence ” is on both side.(only one side has the technology and the money, which make the other part even more ready to sacrifices and local actions).
When people say “cold war”, it means in fact: no war! just waiting, no fight, no death. This is not the case here.
The solution is not “the palestinian rot without water” and neither “the crush of Israel”. The solution is peace on both side. I really think this can only be achieved with ONE common state for all, working hands in hands. A wall that doesn’t match the “real” frontier is definitely not in this direction.
Israel could perhaps stop killing three innocent Palestinians for each innocent Israeli dead.
Alex, you are just being silly. Why don’t you give us the ratio of dead Israeli women/children to dead Palestinian women/children.
the ratio of kills from each side is really in “favor” of Israel. Isn’ it the most hateful one who kills more generally?
Uh. No. Israel doesn’t kill “more generally”. When you pack a bomb full of shrapnel and set it off in a crowd of civilians you are killing “generally”. On the other hand, when you fire off a rocket at a specific terrorist then you are not killing “generally”.
they don’t really have the same life expectancy, nor opportunities anyway…
They have more opportunities/life expectancy then any Arabs in any arab country.
you cannot deny that the “campaign of hate and violence ” is on both side.(only one side has the technology and the money, which make the other part even more ready to sacrifices and local actions).
Vincent, you are just not making sense. If you were to equate Palestinians and Israelis and claim that both are practicing “campaign of hate and violence” with only difference being Israel’s military superiority… Wouldn’t all the palestinians be dead by now?
I really think this can only be achieved with ONE common state for all,
There is a one common state for all. Its called Israel. 20% of Israel’s population is Muslim. Those who chose not to accept Israel in 1948 became jordanians (till 1967). Please check history, Vincent.
A wall that doesn’t match the “real” frontier is definitely not in this direction.
I am gonna take a wild guess, but I bet you have a lock on your door. And your neighborhood is probably not as bad as the Middle East.
What gives?
…generally?
Generally (according to American Heritage Dictionary) means without reference to particular instances or details.
“On the other hand, when you fire off a rocket at a specific terrorist then you are not killing “generally”.”
I’m sure that’s quite a consolation to any bystanders, which there usually seems to be quite a few, if they even got the guy they were after which seems to be quite a rare occurance these days.
“Alex, you are just being silly. Why don’t you give us the ratio of dead Israeli women/children to dead Palestinian women/children.”
Okay either innocents by your definition excludes women and children(!), or men can’t be innocent.
They have more opportunities/life expectancy then any Arabs in any arab country.
That’s not saying much.
Anyway, a clarifacation: three to one was a wild stab in the dark I’ll admit, but I’m certain it is greater than one to one, fairly close to two to one, perhaps slightly more.
Prove it you’ll undoubtedly ask. No. Find the numbers yourself. I’m getting to the point where I could almost care less about either side in this conflict anymore. Israel dug themselves this hole, and got themselves a population willing to either sacrifice their lives to kill any Israelis they can, or at least applaud the act thereof.
See above comments on Antarctic relocation.
I’m sure that’s quite a consolation to any bystanders…
Are you equating colateral casualties with intentionally targeting civilians?
…which seems to be quite a rare occurance these days.
It is? IDF is doing just fine.
Okay either innocents by your definition excludes women and children(!), or men can’t be innocent.
Huh? What I am saying is, if you are going to try to infer something based on casualties ratio alone, then why not compare the women/children ratio?? What’s so wrong with that?
That’s not saying much.
Ok. What are you saying then?
Prove it you’ll undoubtedly ask. No. Find the numbers yourself.
Why would I ask that? The ratio tells me nothing. I find it rather interesting how people accuse Israel of doing what Palestnians happily admit and brag of doing (targeting civilians) and yet Israel is the bad guy… Nope, no bias here.
Israel dug themselves this hole, and got themselves a population willing to either sacrifice their lives to kill any Israelis they can
Israel dug themselves this hole by negotiating with pallies. Let’s face it. Palestinians are not these brave freedom fighters you’ld like to make them out to be.
Look. Jewish kids didn’t throw stones at Nazis in the Warsaw Ghetto – cause that would get you shot. The fact that Palies harass Israeli troops speaks for itself. The fact that “human shields” go to Israel speaks for itself. They wouldnt’ go there if they faced real danger from the Israeli army (ie, no human shields in Chechnya, Philipines’ jungles, Liberia, Rwanda, etc).
One needs to look at the events of Black September. King Hussein slaughtered them by the thousands in the matter of days. No intifada there. No suicide bombings there. No kids throwing stones at Jordanian army there, either.
Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah.
Are you equating colateral casualties with intentionally targeting civilians?
Yes, I am. The end result is the same.
Ok. What are you saying then?
Exactly that.
Let’s face it. Palestinians are not these brave freedom fighters you’ld like to make them out to be.
Brave freedom fighters and despicible murderers are not necessarily mutually exclusive.
and yet Israel is the bad guy
No, both sides are. One is worse, I’ll agree, but I find neither to be worth my support.
Israel dug themselves this hole by negotiating with pallies.
They dug themselves this whole thinking, for some odd reason, they can conquer other people’s lands without repercussions.
The fact that Palies harass Israeli troops speaks for itself.
That would be the least an occupying army would have to worry about if they came here.
Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah.
Right. Becuase there wouldn’t be a single Palestinian left in the West Bank or Gaza.
Yes, I am. The end result is the same.
Equating terrorists blowing up civilians with colateral damage? Nice.
Exactly that.
Exactly what? Arabs in Israel have more freedoms/opportunity then in any arab state. Hence, Vincent’s they don’t really have the same life expectancy, nor opportunities anyway… as an excuse is debunked.
No, both sides are. One is worse, I’ll agree…they can conquer other people’s lands without repercussions
Uh. There is over a million of Israeli arabs living in Israel. Your point is debunked. I’ll debunk it even further. Jordan conquered the Palestinian state in 1948 and held onto it in 1967.
That would be the least an occupying army would have to worry about if they came here.
Faulty analogy.
Pallies got their autonomy under the Oslo agreement. The checkpoints were discussed and agreed to in Oslo, as well. Palestinians still “harrassed” the troops manning those checkpoints (to which they agreed) after Oslo.
As for today, Palies (as they ahve admitted) planned this intifadah the summer before it began – hence their current predicament is solely their doing.
Becuase there wouldn’t be a single Palestinian left in the West Bank or Gaza.
That’s an illogical conclusion. King Hussein of Jordan slaughtered thousands (out of millions)in a matter of days during the events of Black September. That put a stop to that short lived intifadah.
How can you expect peace when you teach your children nothing but hate?
A very good point, Jay. So why haven’t we deported Ann Coultier yet? While we’re at it, maybe American churches could back off the steady stream of invective against homosexuals?
Ah, but I forget – American hate is different.
Chet,
Ann Coulter is not in charge of the department of education, is she? Stick to the topic at hand.
Equating terrorists blowing up civilians with colateral damage? Nice.
Quite.
Exactly what? Arabs in Israel have more freedoms/opportunity then in any arab state. Hence, Vincent’s they don’t really have the same life expectancy, nor opportunities anyway… as an excuse is debunked.
Apparantly life doesn’t suck in Palestine, becuase it sucks only slightly less than any other Arab nation.
The above implies that both are playing the same game, but Pallies are worse. The reality is different.
I implied no such thing. Both sides are killing scores of eachother senselessly in retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation after retaliation…
…they can conquer other people’s lands without repercussions…
Uh. There is over a million of Israeli arabs living in Israel.
So that justifies conquering the West Bank. Gotcha.
Your point is debunked.
No it’s not.
I’ll debunk it even further.
Be my guest.
Jordan conquered the Palestinian state in 1948 and held onto it in 1967.
So I guess being conquered first by the Jordanians first gives Israel a free pass to do the same.
Faulty analogy.
Pallies got their autonomy under the Oslo agreement. The checkpoints were discussed and agreed to in Oslo, as well. Palestinians still “harrassed” the troops manning those checkpoints…
I had misinterpreted you apparantly. I was referring to resistance against the IDF as a whole during times of conflict.
…(to which they agreed) after Oslo.
You’ll get no argument from me saying the Palestinians haven’t been sabotaging thier chances for autonomy.
As for today, Palies (as they ahve admitted) planned this intifadah the summer before it began – hence their current predicament is solely their doing.
I think a little tact from Sharon might have prevented or at least delayed that, until tensions from the recently failed talks simmered down a bit. I also think the generalisation you’re making that all or even a majority Palestinians were complicit in overtly planning such an action are outright ludicrious as well. Once it sparked, I think it would be safe to say it saw overwhelming support in the conquered lands.
That’s an illogical conclusion.
Okay, how?
King Hussein of Jordan slaughtered thousands (out of millions)in a matter of days during the events of Black September. That put a stop to that short lived intifadah.
What does that have to do with anything I said? Sure, saying there would be no Palestinians is a overstatement and was intended to be taken as such, but are you implying one atrocity justifies another? To be perfectly frank, that is outright horrid, and would normally make question your moral character, however I’ll just assume you didn’t think before you typed.
Again, see Antarctic relocation plans, unless someone honestly has a better idea.
Quite.
Yea. Quite. The result is hardly the same. If IDF’s goal was to go after civilians there would be no intifadah.
Apparantly life doesn’t suck in Palestine, becuase it sucks only slightly less than any other Arab nation.
Actually, it sucked a lot less before the intifidah. Their GDP was 4x of their arab neighbors, etc. The sucky part came from being ruled by Arafat, though.
Both sides are killing scores of eachother senselessly in retaliation after retaliation…
Not true. Israel does pin pointed strikes. Is there colateral damage? Yes, sometimes. Which is unfortunately unavoidable when battling groups which operate from dense civilian centers. The strikes are aimed at prevention (since they take out terrorists – not retaliation (otherwise Israel would just missile palestinian shopping centers, discos, etc).
So that justifies conquering the West Bank. Gotcha.
Strawman. Are you familiar with the events of 1967 and their geography?
So I guess being conquered first by the Jordanians first gives Israel a free pass to do the same.
Now you are just twisting my words. My reply was to your:
They dug themselves this whole thinking, for some odd reason, they can conquer other people’s lands without repercussions.
Which reprecussions did Jordan suffer?
I was referring to resistance against the IDF as a whole during times of conflict.
There was no resistance other then Intifadah 1 and Intifadah 2. It was fairly quiet (very quiet) in between. The “resistance” consists of suicide bombings against civilian targets and shooting/rock throwing at IDF checpoints (to which Arafat agreed in Oslo). In fact, when you are watching the news you’ll note that there are several armoured IDF trucks/tanks standing still, and palestinians throwing rocks/shooting at them. Those are the checkpoints. Arafat agreed to them. Its much like the whole thing with prisoner release. The roadmap makes no mention of it, yet Palestinians have already convinced the world that its a huge part of the agreement.
I also think the generalisation you’re making that all or even a majority Palestinians were complicit in overtly planning such an action are outright ludicrious as well.
I am not making the generalization, how ever its their internal groups are that have caused it. If Palestinians are sitting idly by without preventing the attacks on Israelis – then IDF needs to act.
I think it would be safe to say it saw overwhelming support in the conquered lands.
Ooook. They support the intifadah? Fine. Then why complain of the side effects of something you support?
Okay, how?
How is it an illogical conclusion? I addressed that in my post.
Initially I said Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah.
To which your reply was Right. Becuase there wouldn’t be a single Palestinian left in the West Bank or Gaza. That’s an illogical conclusion. As I proved (by events of Black September) you don’t need to kill all, half, quarter, 10%, 5% or even close to that to stop the intifadah.
but are you implying one atrocity justifies another? To be perfectly frank, that is outright horrid, and would normally make question your moral character, however I’ll just assume you didn’t think before you typed.
Classical strawman and attack on my character.
I will request for you to post exactly the parts that led you to believe that I have implied any justification of the sort.
All I said was Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah.
Hence, proving that Israel is not doing what it’s being constantly accused of doing (intifadah is still on, no?). Now justify your strawman.
where exactly can you find a justification for the “security fence” (8 meters high, concrete…big fence!!) in the roadmap?
How about the location of this wall also?
Vincent, Palestinians are *still* attacking Israelis – something they were supposed to cease doing under the roadmap. What’s more, they are now demanding release of prisoners – where is that in the roadmap?
Yea. Quite. The result is hardly the same.
More people pissed off, willing to kill eachother, and unwilling to calm the fuck down? Seems to be a commonality to me…
If IDF’s goal was to go after civilians there would be no intifadah.
The killing of civilians is not a goal but a despicable means to a goal they’ve resorted to. Of course you’ll then state their goal is to annihilate Israel. To which I would say you’re confusing the goals of the Palestinian people with the goals of the terrorists. Terrorists who would continue regarless of the Palestinian cause.
Sure many are probably bigoted against Israelis, and would cheer their destruction. I won’t argue against that, but I’m going to go out on a limb here and argue, using America as an example, that a highly bigoted people given peace, prosperity, self-government, and time at the very least aren’t going to blow themselves up, indiscriminently killing those they hate, at the very best shed their hatred and coexist in relative harmony.
Actually, it sucked a lot less before the intifidah. Their GDP was 4x of their arab neighbors, etc. The sucky part came from being ruled by Arafat, though.
Bullshit.
Consulting the CIA World Factbook:
Unless otherwise noted, estimates are from 2001-2.
PPBL = Population Below Poverty Line.
Bahrain:
Population : 656,397
GDP : $8.4 billion
GDP – per capita : $13,000
Unemployment rate : 15%
PPBL : NA%
Egypt:
Population : 70,712,345
GDP : $258 billion
GDP – per capita : $3,700
Unemployment rate : 12%
PPBL : 23% (FY95/96 est.)
Iran:
Population : 66,622,704
GDP : $456 billion
GDP – per capita : $7,000
Unemployment rate : 14%
PPBL : 53%
Iraq:
Population : 24,683,313
GDP : $58 billion
GDP – per capita : $2,400
Unemployment rate : NA%
PPBL : NA%
Jordan:
Population : 5,307,470
GDP : $22.8 billion
GDP – per capita : $4,300
Unemployment rate : 16% official rate; actual rate is 25%-30%
PPBL : 30%
Kuwait:
Population : 2,111,561
GDP : $30.9 billion
GDP – per capita : $15,100
Unemployment rate : 1.8% (1996 est.)
PPBL : NA%
Lebanon:
Population : 3,677,780
GDP : $18.8 billion
GDP – per capita : $5,200
Unemployment rate : 18% (1997 est.)
PPBL : 28% (1999 est.)
Oman:
Population : 2,713,462
GDP : $21.5 billion
GDP – per capita : $8,200
Unemployment rate : NA%
PPBL : NA%
UAE:
Qatar:
Population : 793,341
GDP : $16.3 billion
GDP – per capita : $21,200(!)
Unemployment rate : 2.7%
PPBL : NA%
Saudi Arabia:
Population : 23,513,330
GDP : $241 billion
GDP – per capita : $10,600
Unemployment rate : NA%
PPBL : NA%
Syria:
Population : 17,155,814
GDP : $54.2 billion
GDP – per capita : $3,200
Unemployment rate : 20%
PPBL : 15%-25%
United Arab Emirates:
Population : 2,445,989
GDP : $51 billion
GDP – per capita : $21,100(!)
Unemployment rate : NA%
PPBL : NA%
Yemen:
Population : 18,701,257
GDP : $14.8 billion
GDP – per capita : $820 (Score one for the West Bank.)
Unemployment rate : 30%
PPBL : NA%
Gaza Strip:
Population : 1,225,911
GDP : $750 million
GDP – per capita : $625
Unemployment rate : 26% (Inlucdes West Bank.)
PPBL : 60%
West Bank:
Population : 2,163,667
GDP : $2.1 billion
GDP – per capita : $1,000
Unemployment rate : %26 (Inlucdes Gaza.)
PPBL : 50%
Alas I wanted to compare the West Bank before the 2nd uprising but the all important PPBL statistic isn’t available for them before 2002. All other statistics were about 50%-75% more favorable to the Palestinians. I can therefore state with complete certainty that from the economic standpoint you attempted to use as a basis for stating life is much better in the conquered lands than the rest of the Arab nations, is complete and utter bullshit. Why you would do such a stupid thing I do not know, there are plenty of other reasons you could have tried that wouldn’t have been so easy to debunk.
Not true. Israel does pin pointed strikes. Is there colateral damage? Yes, sometimes. Which is unfortunately unavoidable when battling groups which operate from dense civilian centers.
…as retailiation to suicide attacks, which were retaliation to ‘pinpoint’ strikes which were retaliation to suicide attacks…
The strikes are aimed at prevention
Sure seems to be working.
since they take out terrorists
…and make five more for each killed.
Strawman.
That’s not your line.
Now, I might not be the most intelligent person out there, but I was under the impression that a strawman, in a political debate context, was an imaginary figure that took a position favorable to your argument. Are you perhaps trying to call me a strawman? Last I checked I was niether imaginary nor made of straw…
Now you are just twisting my words.
No I’m not.
Which reprecussions did Jordan suffer?
As I recall the Black September didn’t go very well for Jordan either. Regardless, that still does not justify Israel to do the same. Answer me this question: Does Israel have the right to conquer?
There was no resistance other then Intifadah 1 and Intifadah 2.
Yes there was. Obviously not as bad as during the two uprisings.
I am not making the generalization, how ever its their internal groups are that have caused it. If Palestinians are sitting idly by without preventing the attacks on Israelis – then IDF needs to act.
Well no shit.
Ooook. They support the intifadah? Fine. Then why complain of the side effects of something you support?
Being conquered would probably make me complain. Being killed for resisting it would probably make me complain even more. Well get to see how we do when China decides we need regime change in 2047.
How is it an illogical conclusion? I addressed that in my post[…]
…quite poorly I might add.
As I proved (by events of Black September) you don’t need to kill all, half, quarter, 10%, 5% or even close to that to stop the intifadah.
All uprisings are the same, after all.
Classical strawman[…]
Again with the innapropriate usage of the word strawman.
[…]and attack on my character. I will request for you to post exactly the parts that led you to believe that I have implied any justification of the sort.
Oh cry me a river. First of all, it was an exaggeration followed by a joke. If you’re niether capable of properly interpereting that as such, or such that you would take it personally, you’re in the wrong forum.
All I said was Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah.
No shit. Total genocide would probably work. They’ve been accused of that, which they’re obviously not doing…
Hence, proving that Israel is not doing what it’s being constantly accused of doing (intifadah is still on, no?).
…and since they’re not committing total genocide, they’re not guilty of anything else they’re accused of. Your logic is flawed on that one. Sorry to nitpick your language, but I think the proper statement given your previous statement should be: “Hence, proving that Israel is not doing [a lot but not all, large majority, small minority, relatively little] (pick any or any inbetween) what it’s being constantly accused of doing[.]” That would be more logically consistent. One accusation being false does not disqualify all other related/unrelated accusations.
Now justify your strawman.
Ok I think we need to agree on a formal definition of strawman here. Unless as a direct insult, consistent meaning given your post is eluding me.
Okay I appologize, at 1,310 words that post was way to fucking long. 🙂
To which I would say you’re confusing the goals of the Palestinian people with the goals of the terrorists. Terrorists who would continue regarless of the Palestinian cause.
Given that they are ruled by a terrorist whose own party – Fatah (Al Aqsa Brigades) conducts suicide bombings… Well, your statement just isn’t true.
Bullshit.
How is it bullshit? I clearly said before the intifidah and you even quoted me on that.
Why would you then go ahead and misrepresent what I said? Speaking of “easily debunked”, heh.
…as retailiation to suicide attacks, which were retaliation to ‘pinpoint’ strikes which were retaliation to suicide attacks…
Uh. No. It’s pure idiocy to suggest that suicide attacks are done in response to the IDF.
Sure seems to be working.
The problem is that Israeli policy is being made up in Washington instead of Jerusalem. IDF need to go and take out Arafat just as we have taken out Saddam.
I might not be the most intelligent person out there
I’ll let that point stand 🙂
but I was under the impression that a strawman, in a political debate context, was an imaginary figure that took a position favorable to your argument. Are you perhaps trying to call me a strawman? Last I checked I was niether imaginary nor made of straw…
When was the last time you checked the difinition of “straw man”?
“Straw man” – The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition’s best argument. .
Here’s a link
Example here: I said Bottom line – if Israel did all those things that it’s been accused of doing – there would be no intifadah. , you pretended that I somehow implied that Israel SHOULD be doing what it is accused of doing. And then you went on with but are you implying one atrocity justifies another? To be perfectly frank, that is outright horrid, and would normally make question your moral character, however I’ll just assume you didn’t think before you typed.
No where have I implied that. Classical strawman. You attacked an argument that I was not making. Hence you attacked a straw man – which is much easier to defeat then a real person. What’s more I have requested for you to quote the parts of my posts which lead you to such a conclusion regarding myself (I will request for you to post exactly the parts that led you to believe that I have implied any justification of the sort.). You have not. Which is now leading me to believe that it wasn’t a misunderstanding but a malicious character attack on your part.
As I recall the Black September didn’t go very well for Jordan either
It did not? Please elaborate?
Does Israel have the right to conquer?
I see the true state of the affairs. Israel was attacked on 1967. It has defended itself succesfully and took a chunk of land from Jordan (as a strategic buffer. I invite you to look at the map of Israel and see how thin it is between the sea and Jordan without that buffer. If you need my help just say so). Jordan did not renounce their claims to West Bank until 1988.
Interesting bits of history, no?
First of all, it was an exaggeration followed by a joke
Which part was a joke now? Quote.
Sorry to nitpick your language, but I think the proper statement given your previous statement should be: “Hence, proving that Israel is not doing [a lot but not all, large majority, small minority, relatively little] (pick any or any inbetween) what it’s being constantly accused of doing[.]” That would be more logically consistent.
Uh. No. I have already shown that King Hussein put down the palestinian uprising by killing thousands in a matter of days. No half, not quarter, nothing close to “genocide”. In fact, I invite you to explore the definition of the word and see if it even fits here.
Okay I appologize, at 1,310 words that post was way to fucking long. 🙂
No biggie. I appreciate you going through my post. Better then the hit and run tactics of Vincent.
Given that they are ruled by a terrorist whose own party – Fatah (Al Aqsa Brigades) conducts suicide bombings…
You just proved my statement. Thanks.
How is it bullshit? I clearly said before the intifidah and you even quoted me on that.
Why would you then go ahead and misrepresent what I said? Speaking of “easily debunked”, heh.
It is clearly bullshit. Take thier per capita GDP, (I’m not going to wade through that massive post again. :P) which I believe was about 1,000. I said 50%-75% better for Palestine (I had checked the 97-99 factbooks.) so that yeilds a value of about 1,500-1,750. Still far below the rest of the middle east. Likewise for the rest of the statistics. Given that I believe the PPBL would be the most valuable statistic in this case, and that there was none for those years, I fealt it was not necessary to make another table for them, as I figured your english and mathematical skills would suffice. Obviously I was mistaken. So without further adieu, here are the missing entries (plus some more for good measure):
West Bank (1999) GDP per capita: 2,000
West Bank (1998) GDP per capita: 1,600
West Bank (1997) GDP per capita: 1,600
Gaza (1999) GDP per capita: 1,000
Gaza (1998) GDP per capita: 1,100
Gaza (1997) GDP per capita: 1,100
Now, following that same guideline we can infer that PPBL (I should also mention that standard is relative.) for those years averaged about 20-30% for the West Bank, and about 25-35% for Gaza. That would put them right on par for your average destitute middle eastern nation.
Uh. No. It’s pure idiocy to suggest that suicide attacks are done in response to the IDF.
Hardly.
The problem is that Israeli policy is being made up in Washington instead of Jerusalem. IDF need to go and take out Arafat just as we have taken out Saddam.
And get someone worse in his place. At least while he had him sitting at the table engaging in inevitably fruitless negotiations relative peace and prosperity was enjoyed by all. There could be far worse than Arafat in charge.
I’ll let that point stand 🙂
Likewise. 🙂
When was the last time you checked the difinition of “straw man”?
Interesting, I just found another definition: here. (#2) Different and closer to what I had believe, but not quite mutally exclusive with yours. Consider my vocabulary upgraded!
And then you went on with but are you implying one atrocity justifies another?
That was the exaggeration.
and would normally make question your moral character, however I’ll just assume you didn’t think before you typed.
That was the joke. I shouldn’t have to be pointing that out.
It did not? Please elaborate?
Google is a wonderful wonderful thing.
as a strategic buffer
Small consolation to those who live there I’m sure. BTW you didn’t answer my question.
Which part was a joke now? Quote.
See above.
Uh. No. I have already shown that King Hussein put down the palestinian uprising by killing thousands in a matter of days. No half, not quarter, nothing close to “genocide”. In fact, I invite you to explore the definition of the word and see if it even fits here.
That has nothing to do with what I had said, which was: One accusation being false does not disqualify all other related/unrelated accusations. You’ve spun my words again into something I did not say. There are plenty of things I, and those critical of, might accuse Israel of doing counter to benefit of its own and the people it conquered. I do not accuse them of genocide. Most do not. Some do.
Step 1:
Make a list of all possible things one critical of Israel might accuse Israel of doing.
Step 2:
Eliminate genocide. You’re list should not be empty.
Step 3:
If your list is now empty, quit now. You’re an idiot.
Hence, proving that Israel is not doing what it’s being constantly accused of doing (intifadah is still on, no?).
Step 4:
Notice your list is not empty, therefore you have not proved that ‘Israel is not doing what it’s being constantly accused of doing’. Therefore, my statement stands.
The contents of said list, however, are completely debatable. Now enough of this, we shouldn’t be arguing such trivial matters.
Better then the hit and run tactics of Vincent.
Bah. He probably has better things to do than us, endlessly arguing over trivial matters on some third rate conservative weblog! (Just seeing if you’re still reading Jay. 🙂
At the very least he should find the time to neaten up his posts…
“Better then the hit and run tactics of Vincent.”
I think that I’ve answered the questions and comments on my posts, to a certain point, after which I don’t even understand: answers and questions are always the same, nobody ever quit his original statement…(including me).After this point, a stupid question get a stupid answer. I also don’t really have the time to report on, for example, international GDP comparisons in order to PROVE my words with FACTS and LINKS…).
I’m glad to read it, but look: if Monkey had believed Alex on the GDP, instead of asking for more “official evidence”, we could have avoid this very long scrolling, useless, since Alex (on this point at least) was right. trust…
“At the very least he should find the time to neaten up his posts… ”
Some claims against France on this blog are sometimes really…so intentionaly, obviously wrong and offending.