quote: Police reported rioting in Neve Dekalim, the largest of the settlements, around the time troops closed the crossings. At one point, about 300 people were involved, police said. But the situation was reported to be calm by 2:30 a.m. Monday.
In the southern Gaza settlement of Kfar Darom and the central settlement of Netzarim, police said Palestinian militants were shooting at settlers who remain.
While many settlers express religious fervor and a belief that Gaza is part of the historic Jewish homeland, some secular Israelis expressing nationalist sentiment have come to fight the pullout.
One of their chief arguments: That leaving Gaza after years of terrorist attacks by Palestinian militant groups will only reward terrorism and lead to similar tactics by groups wanting to destroy Israel.
In a news conference Saturday, senior Hamas member Ismail Haniyye called the withdrawal a "retreat" and said it was "a result of resistance and our people's sacrifice."
"It is evidence that resistance is able to achieve our national goals," he said.
Judging from what the Hamas guy said, I'd say the argument that the pullout looks like a victory for the terrorists has some merit. However, considering the territory is still occupied lands, I don't think they should have settled there to begin with.
I was hoping it'd be peaceful, and no one has been hurt yet. I hope it stays that way.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, it was an organized rally. But I don't know how it was publicized -- and in fact, I would imagine that it was publicized by a number of different groups, with different agendas.
To me, that's part of what made it so beautiful. Looking at those picture I see people in orange, and people who are just there to pray for peace -- in whatever form it takes.
But they were all there to beseech the heavens for peace, and so many that not only was the Kotel and the plaza filled, so were all the places above that look down upon it, and streets in every direction. On that day, the politics of whether the pullout is wrong or right were set aside, and all joined together to pray for peace, in our time, in our land.
May our prayers be answered.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyhawn, these territories were obtained 38 years ago, and according to international agreements Israel was committed to withdraw from territories some day in the future, and not from the territories - hence there was nothing wrong in settling there.
Hopefully this will involve a minimal amount of violence.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Beanny - The area is still considered occupied by the international community, and most especially by the Palestinians. Regardless of what is right and wrong, it seems silly to settle an area that is considered to be contested. It would have been far more prudent to wait until the matter was settled before moving in, thus, their complaints seem built on a foundation of misguided actions.
And define the difference in "Israel was committed to withdraw from territories some day in the future, and not from the territories "
Why is "from" and "the" in bold?
Pixiest -
Which territories do you mean? Technically, all of the USA is seized territory from some group or another, or are you just referring to the states below the Mason Dixon, post Civil War?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn: I'm refering to the occupied states of the Confederacy. After all, they were seized in a war so that makes them occupied territories. And given that the North started the war by refusing to remove garrisons in the newly independant South, they have less of a claim on them than Israel has on Gaza which was seized in a war they did not start.
Posts: 7085 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Incredibly different circumstances, I'm not even sure if the two are comparable.
The war between the north and the south was a war of saving the union/independence and also to free the slaves (for some).
The six-day war was Israel's pre-emptive strike on Egypt which erupted into an all out (though short lived) war, at the end of which Israel seized the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip. The war was certainly a nice excuse to seize the West Bank from Jordan.
As far as the validity of their claim, it's really a moot point. The point is, it seems rather stupid to me to send 8,500 settlers into a land of extremely pissed off, hostile Palestinians which out number them by well over a million. The Palestinians, who weren't participants in the war that stole what they consider to be their land, don't care about the validity of Israel's claim to own the territory it stole, all they know is that they were displaced from their home land and want it back.
That's another reason by the way, that the two wars, Civil and Six Day, don't match up.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really, your painfully obvious anti-Israel bias is colouring your judgement. How on earth do you conclude that "preserving the Union" is a legitimate reason for seizing and occupying territory in a war, while fighting for the very survival of a Jewish homeland is not? The only difference is that the first is mantra that has been pounded into the American psyche like a quasi-religious dogma for generations.
The territories that Israel seized were strategically necessary for its survival among the surrounding hostile Arab nations. The creation of Jewish settlements in the area were a means to cement their control over those areas that were vital to its survival.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyhawn, I don't know how much research you've done on the 1967 war, but you obviously got some critical points wrong. Yes, Israel started the war, but the only alternative is that several months later (who knows, maybe even weeks) it would already have been forced into war, and under worse conditions. Elaboration:
The Syrians - were constantly attacking Israeli territories, including civilians, including Israeli forces guarding its solemn source of drinking water - Lake Kinnereth, depriving Israel from rights stated in 1949 and 1955. Do you know haw far away was the Syrian Border from the Lake? Make a guess. 10 miles? Nah, less. 8 miles? Less, this isn't Eminem. Try again...nope, wrong again. The length was 10 meters. Israel HAD to expand its border near the Lake because otherwise its source of water and citizens living near it would be in constant danger. Moreover, the Syrians attempted to channel the Jordan river to the Yarmuch in Jordan. Look at the map, and you’ll see that this means cutting down the Lake’s water supply. Israeli forces terminated the action, but it took a very long time.
The Egyptians – well, there's just too much for one post. I'll try and make this short: 1. Moving almost all of is forces into Sinai and demanding the UN forces leave at once. This is a brutal violation of the 1956 international agreements. Look at a map and see how close it is. 2. Closing all ways into the Red Sea, therefore disconnecting Israel from the Pacific - the Isthmus of Tiran and the Suez Canal. Any Israeli transportation or any ships/planes going to Israel are captured by the Egyptians. 3. The Egyptian President (yeah right..."elections" in Egypt...) himself declaring that if Israel wants war - then "Ahalan veSahalan", and he'll crush the Israelis like bugs, or something of the sort. 4. According to “The Czech Deal”, between Egypt and the USSR, Egypt re
Jordan, since 1948, did not fulfill their part of the agreements – lots of problems of movement around Jerusalem, which usually ended with the deaths of armed forces of both sides, and of Israeli citizens. Here’s an anecdote, not sure if it’s true or not: an old lady lived in the vertical street to the border between Jordan and Israel. She put her false teeth in a glass of water on the window, and the glass fell to the street…it took several hours of negotiation until the Israeli were allowed to pick up the teeth.
Jordan, Egypt and Syria signed on a military pact. The power struggle between Arab countries was increasing, meaning each country wanted to prove they were “meaner” to Israel than the other.
Jordan’s army became submitted to an Egyptian General in case of war. This means a substantial threat pf invasion from the east.
Both Israel and the US tried to solve problems diplomatically. It didn’t work.
So a war started. And it was a war of survival.
And now, about the Palestinians being victims of the conquest of other Arab countries and the Israelis. I’ll tell you a secret – they became refugees without the help of anyone. In 1947 it was decided that two states shall stand in Palestine-Country-of-Israel – a Jewish one and an Arab one. The Jewish part – 55% of the land, and the Palestinians – 45%. I’m not saying that eventually the Palestinians should never have any territories of their own, but like I’ve said several times in this forum – but they said “it’s all or nothing“ and got zoot. And when they had opportunities later, they foolishly overruled them, elected murderous madmen like Yasser Arafat, believing that one day the will manage to wipe out Israel from its Jews and establish one Palestinian state on all of Israel’s territory. So yeah, in order to maintain peace, Israel must disengage from the Gaza strip, and from PART of the West Bank. But that’s only because there is no way on the long run to stop terror. But true peace won’t exist for a long time. Decades is my optimist guess.
It’s interesting that people are so eager to blame Israel for conquest while these lands are legally ours, and yet never mention the Brits in Falkland Island, which has nothing to do with them.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And I'll second dh - the settlements were vital for survival. The Gaza strip is controversial, but the West Bank - to risky to leave. If we leave, then like I said - only parts of it. And it will take a long time before we Israel can do that, you can see how the terrorists are so merry about their success.
Posts: 803 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Japan said the same thing when it seized Siberia, and when it seized Manchuria. Yet for some reason those whiney Chinese seemed to have a problem with it. Can't imagine why.
And no, I'm not a real big fan of Israel a lot of the time.
Following the Civil War however, there was a period of reconstruction in which the north helped to rebuild the south. Where are the Israelis helping out the Palestinians? To which some would argue, the Palestinians are attacking the Israelis, so they couldn't offer the help if they wanted to (which they don't). Well, what do you expect, you're living on what they consider to be their lands.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel isn't seriously threatened by anyone in the region. They have modern weapons, financed by the West, and the US would never let an Arab power around them invade or cut off their supplies/water/food whatever. That excuse worked in 67 maybe, but it doesn't work now.
The Israelis didn't much seem to care about what happened to the millions of Palestinians who suffer as a result of their actions, thus, I'm not inclined to care very much for the woe of Israel.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Japan had expansionist imperial ambitions. Israel has, since it's creation, been fighting for its very survival. If you don't see the difference there, or if you can't even recognize the formidable restraint that Israel has shown towards the people who have been ruthlessly attacking it, one might wonder whether you are really evaluating the situation in good faith.
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Israel is no longer seriously threatened by anyone in the region because they took action to ensure they wouldn't be by occupying and annexing strategic territories that would ensure their security, including Gaza and the West Bank. If they let these territories go to the Palestinian Arabs, they would be threatened again, now wouldn't they?
Posts: 609 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, not really; they'd never allow a military buildup there, and they've ensured a supply of oil, which was a large part of the motive for territory seizure.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you think it's a tad bit easier to prevent a military buildup in a particular location if you have a certain measure of control over the area?
Posts: 1996 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The big trouble will start in 23 hours' time. But that's only this wave. The guys up in Samaria are far more fanatical - mostly the scum of the fascists. Frankly? I have no sympathy for them (the fascist bastards amongst them), and if they are forced to be pulled out by their ears - they deserve it.
If East Jerusalem is to be under question - then the trouble really begins. That's when the real civil war will start. That day seems closer and closer.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Holy crap. Fugu, you and I at least partially agree on something. It's amazing.
And by the way, if you listened to what Japan was actually saying when they were expanding, it was that the west was cutting off their resources, and they wouldn't survive without them, thus they attacked to get them. My point isn't to call Israel expansionist, it's that people tend to say whatever they need or want to say to get what they want.
Either way, I don't for a moment believe that giving the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians would make Israel more unsafe than it already is. There is no military in the area that could challenge them. If anyone started to buildup, they would probably destroy them, or exert pressure to get them to stop.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it won't necessarily make Israel safer. The one thing it may do is stop extremism in "Religious Zionism", which reached peaks no less serious than Islam extremists.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Israel isn't seriously threatened by anyone in the region.
All you have to do is look at a map of the Middle East to realize naive of a statement that is.
quote: and the US would never let an Arab power around them invade or cut off their supplies/water/food whatever.
Which is of course why Israel has been invaded by Arab powers since 1967, right? Ignoring history is not going to work here.
Whose land is Israel occupying? The West Bank and the Gaza Strip were never allocated to either Jordan, Egypt, nor any other Arab country or group and yet its Jordan and Egypt they were taken away from in a war that the Arabs started. Yes, technically, Israel launched the first strike, but they did so because the Mossad picked up intelligence (that proved to be correct) that said Egypt was going to invade Israel and they were in the process getting Jordan, Syria, and others to go along. To argue that Israel attacked first is the equivalent of saying the United States initiated the war with Germany in 1917 even after the Zimmerman Telegram was intercepted.
Posts: 3446 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The territories are not annexed though, that's the key point. Neither Gaza, NOR THE WEST BANK. Israel doesn't want them annexed - lest Palestinians gain voting rights. And why would our corrupt, bigoted government want that?
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not naive. Israel has a ton of Western made weapons, and they are arguably the most highly trained military force in the region. Perhaps only Saudi Arabia has the military power to seriously challenge them, but with a major US base sitting on their door step, it wouldn't take much chatter from Washington to stifle any serious discussion of attack.
If the US can decimate the Iraqi army in 1990, an Iraqi army and air force which was also arguably one of the best in the Middle East, without any real substantial loss, I don't really fear for Israel's chances at warfare anywhere in the region. And you can bet as soon as anyone crosses a border there will be US planes in the air flying to bomb the crap out of them.
To say nothing of the fact that few in the world doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons. And given how trigger happy they are, I don't doubt they'd use them.
The IDF decimated its opponents in the Six day war, and stopped Egypt from making any progress in the Sinai in the "war of attrition" between 68-70. They also won fairly handily in the October war in 73.
Who has seriously challenged the existance of Israel recently?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: To say nothing of the fact that few in the world doubt that Israel has nuclear weapons. And given how trigger happy they are, I don't doubt they'd use them.
Sure, who would Israel use nuclear bombs on? It makes no sense unless it's a nation as far away as North Korea.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pro-Israel lobbys are too strong in the US for them not to be allies. And despite the fact that I dislike a great deal of the things the Israeli government does, Israel is the only real stable, free democracy over there, and I think we should support them.
Why wouldn't they bomb Cairo? or Damascus? They wouldn't face any serious risk of fallout.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Israel is taking all steps nessasary to maintain their national security without going overboard, all the more power to them.
Posts: 1567 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Israel is the only real stable, free democracy over there
Cyprus.
quote: Why wouldn't they bomb Cairo? or Damascus?
With NUCLEAR WEAPONS? Are you insane?! And Sid, any more power to Israel can be problematic. Despite being a powerful nation in the area, despite powerful military and state-of-the-art technology (sometimes even surpassing the US's), there's far more to it. Remember that this nation is almost falling apart socially, and the "almost" can be scrapped off the board soon, if this situation continues.
The economical, educational and social stati in Israel are simply depressing. I'm lucky to be (at least for now) on the safe side of the line. But don't think that Israel is using its powr wisely. The nation is being undermined from several points of view, and we're talking big-time trouble here.
Money and power is wasted here. The pullout is a waste of money; sure, it's necessary, but if those fascist twats didn't force us t spend so much money on them, if the settlements hadn't received money underneath the table, maybe we'd finally have a little to spend on hospitals, so pipes won't be rusty and food will be clean; so schools will have room to seat all the students.
Power is wasted here. The press doesn't give you the real picture; and I'm not talking about the States alone, I mean locally. When a 15 year-old boy stabs several girls (long story) and the police is proven inefficient, unwilling to listen and ignorant - it gets 500 words in the most serious paper (Haaretz) at most. But all sorts of useless politicians saying big words get the headlines. For crying out loud, except for one serious paper (Haaretz), the rest are like comic books.
Just to give you a bit of flavour, Sid. You're good-willed, sure, I greatly appreciate your will to help the "goodies", but I'm sorry to inform you it's not really so.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If they were seriously threatened, no, I wouldn't be surprised if they used nukes. If it came down to "them or us" I think for sure they would use them.
As for the internal strife in Israel. I don't know what to say to that. Why don't we hear about that more often?
Would you say that trouble comes more from Israel doing this to itself? or someone doing it to them?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The outside influence is that so many countries (both in the Middle East and elsewhere) take the official position that Jews have no right to exist. It's really a combination of factors.
I take issue with you saying Jews, rather than Israel. I think a grand majority of the people of the world don't have a problem with Jews existing. As far back as Mohammed, Islam hasn't had a problem with another believer in the god of Abraham. Despite the rhetoric of many, there is a big difference between a Jew and an Israeli.
And who has any idea on what the command and control structure is for the release of Israeli nukes? Who has the authority to release them to the discretion of field commanders? Who is to say that in the event of an emergency or a panic, one of those commanders won't launch a nuke when it isn't really needed? Of the declared nuclear powers, we have an idea as to what the control apparatus is to their nukes. And we know how much to be concerned, where to push, where to worry. But Israel is a loose canon, a wild card, and that is very dangerous to the stability of the region.
Edit: Yes I realize now (after rereading my post) that it's probably a bit naive to say that most Muslims don't want to get rid of all the jews, but I think it's extremely overboard to say that that many people want to get rid of all Jews, when you should have said Israel.
posted
But they aren't going after Jews everywhere. Jews in America, and Western Europe are much easier targets than in Israel.
The fact that they go after them in Israel should give some credence to them being more Anti-Israeli rather than automatically Anti-Semite.
And you said Islamic extremists, which most everyone admits are the minority of Muslims, whereas you made it seem before that the entire middle east as a whole, as well as other nations, want all Jews everywhere eliminated. I think that's extreme hyperbole.
I'm not saying that there isn't anti-semitism in the world, there is. But I don't think it is as widespread as you make it sound.
Anti-Israel doesn't automatically mean Anti-Semite.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was reading about Israel the other day (my girlfriend is jewish, so she gave me some stuff she had) and something was kind of confusing. So after all the stuff that happened in europe, a bunch of jews decided they wanted to go back to their "homeland", so they went to Palestine, and then settled there, and then they wanted an Israeli state, and they eventually got one, and yada yada yada, here we are today. My question is, why would they have even gone there to begin with if they knew it was going to stir things up, and why did they want an Israeli state, rather than just living in the country as it was? Obviously I'm lacking certain aspects of the story here, and I'm not prepared to take sides on the issues, as to me, it seems that both sides are equally responsible for any conflict today. But, were there any other reasons other than the religious ones for the jews wanting to go to palestine? I mean, if a bunch of people came into my country, then decided they wanted to take more than half of it and declare it their state, I don't know how I'd feel. I've heard the "they had no where else to go" argument, but it seems like there has to be something more to it all. And please, keep the responses bias free, I'd rather get an objective explanation. thx
Posts: 441 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to hear that explanation too. I've read it in text books, but never from an Israeli.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then why not attack them in the US, it'd be a lot easier.
As far as the WTC, that to me comes off as a crackpot theory. I could rattle off a half dozen right now. New York is a fairly liberal city full of crime and sin, they might have attacked it as a symbol of US areligiousness, they might have attacked it because it was a symbol of US power, of US financial power, to get at the American Psyche, or becuase it was the largest target they could hit that would cause that much damage and create that good of a news bite for them.
There are a hundred different theories on why they chose that spot. But how many Jews are in the Pentagon, which was also attacked, in the White House and the Capitol Building where the third plane was heading?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's exactly why it'd be easier. America, despite the 9/11 still has a big case of "it won't happen to me" going on. Many, I'd say the majority of us, don't actually expect we personally will get attacked.
Buying weapons here is as easy as it is to get them on the in an open air bazaar in Mogadishu. If a hundred Islamic militants got into the country, again, not hard, and each went on a rampage they could kill more Jews in America in a day, than have been killed in Israel in the last year.
And it wouldn't be hard at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: My question is, why would they have even gone there to begin with if they knew it was going to stir things up, and why did they want an Israeli state, rather than just living in the country as it was?
In the 1880s and the following decades, settlers came here to mostly unsettled sand-land, and started building colonies. They did not want to stir things up with the Arabs, and many of them got along pretty well as late as the 40s. Also, remember that WWI had much effect.
quote: But, were there any other reasons other than the religious ones for the jews wanting to go to palestine?
The Zionists were actually the secular ones. The religious were opposed to speaking Hebrew and settling the land of Israel. Of course, the patriotic and nationalistic ideology slowly changed as more religious people came here after the Holocaust, and after 1967, when Religious-Zionism (a very controversial and obscure term) went to settle the lands recently conquered - it started growing more fascistically extremist.
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can you expand on that? In depth if possible. I'm honestly, and seriously curious to hear the short history (that of the foundation of Israel in the last 50 years or so, and an even shorter history of the period before that) from an Israeli, as opposed to a google search or from my history book.
I only know what I read in America. I'd love to hear a conflicting argument from someone on the other side of the argument in Israel about Gaza and Israel, but I don't know how may Israelis we have on Hatrack, and I'm not knowledgable enough to host the debate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know almost nothing about Israel and Palestine. I've visited once and spent time in both "regions" (plus a bit in Jordan).
I have to say this:
1) Most of the Israelis I met wanted peace with the Palestinians. Only a couple voiced any animosity toward the Arabs and, at that, it was mostly over things like the temple area (which has an ancient mosque built on top of the even more ancient temple). There were a couple of older folks who said things like "they have the whole Arab world to go to, why can't they just leave" in reference to the Palestinians. But that wasn't really a common sentiment I heard expressed.
2) The Palestinians I met also wanted Peace. They hated Arafat and his cronies and thought Hamas were a bunch of lunatics. They wanted to go to school, work and earn money. Unfortunately, they harbored a lot of resentment toward Israel over things like the settlements, the road blocks, the closures, their 2nd class status, and the way their businesses were continuously ruined by all of the above. Since I saw the effects of this first hand (The town I staid in was completely shut down for two days because of a clash between nearby settlers (who were passing out a flyer with Mohammed's face on the body of a pig -- rather inciteful) and the rock throwing incident that came after it. The other thing that the Palestinians I met had against the Israelis was their practice of bulldozing the houses of anyone they even suspected of being in league with the terrorists. Since they apparently did this on flimsy evidence, and it personally affected many people in and around Hebron, it became kind of a sore point. Everyone knew someone who had lost a home for nothing. And they were serious. I mean, one guy's father spent a year in jail on suspicion of harboring terrorists, and he was a flipping chicken farmer. They let him go. No trial...ever. Just a year of his life and his house destroyed.
So...there's an element of abuse of power in how Israel has dealt with the Palestinians that, I think, has made me less sympathetic toward the government and the military there.
I loved the people.
I met a group on a kibbutz. I was taken there by my Palestinian friend. He used to work for them. It was like family to both sides. They really loved each other. In a way I couldn't have imagined before that trip.
And I just have to say, the governments on both sides have been so terrible that I imagine it's only because the vast majority of people want peace that there is any peace there at all.
posted
1) Did you go and speak to settlers while you were visiting Israel? Just like in the Palestinian world, you have fanatics on the Jwish side. They usually settle in specific settlements, and become even more extremist there - from what I know.
2) Remember that the Hammas started off by offering food, shelter and education from the poor; they didn't get support for nothing.
Oh, and mind you, I wouldn't call what I was living in a year ago peace, and I wouldn't call the current fighting peace either. But that's just me.
[ August 17, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: Jonathan Howard ]
Posts: 2978 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Before I start: Lyrhawn – I was aggravated by your posts, yet it was impolite and disrespectful to phrase my response in the way I did, so I apologize. Another thing: my first post in this thread, which you asked about, meant that Israel was committed to withdraw from some of the territories, and not all of the territories.
You know what really pisses me off? The 10-14 year-olds throwing stones at soldiers, screaming at them, calling them Nazis… What do they know about ideology?! Someone ought to give them a nice spanking first! Their parents were foolish educators, and now, even those who will eventually agree to go at their own will, cannot control their children’s impulses. Even worse – the parents who ordered their children to walk like Jews being sent to Auschwitz, with their hands raised and wearing star-shaped patches. HOW DARE THEY?! The settlers cry because they leave their homes, their community, everything they’ve built and created. But had they agreed earlier on to evacuate, it could have been done much more conveniently, and maybe they could have founded new settlements in the Galilee!
The only people I feel compassion for now, are the soldiers. A fair number of them is religious, educated to believe that leaving the settlements equals betraying their country and God. Now their ideals stand to trial. Understand, that according to religion, no government is above God, and the government decision has no meaning to fundamentalists. Moreover, soldiers have to evacuate their childhood friends. So many men crying…
I hope that this move was worth it. Yes, the terrorists are sure that it’s their victory, but they can’t fight us forever. Some day, this era of terror and murder of the innocents will end, just like the Inquisition ceased to exist, just like World War II ended – this will have an end as well. And terrorists won’t brainwash their children to murder, so Israeli soldiers won’t have to kill terrorists, whose children will remain hopeless orphans, whose only hope of salvation will be to kill and revenge, and become terrorists themselves. The barriers in the territories are essential for the safety of the lives of Israeli citizens, but being there corrupts the souls of our soldiers.
Oi, this gives me a headache. Let’s all be indifferent. To copacabana, mes amigos!
posted
I watched some footage of the pullout last night. The Palestinians had their usual collection of dorks spouting off about Zionists, however I thought the settlers use of children to confront the soldiers was not cool.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Ignoring history is not going to work here.
