Comments on: Gaza: One giant prison, but not because of Israel

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 20:09:31 +0000

Like I always say, you don’t need high tech weapons to destroy a nation, or a race. You don’t need even need a real army.

All you need is to be granted unlimited second chances, with no penalties for trying and failing. Sooner or later, one of the attempts will succeed, no matter what the odds are againt you. It’s like playing a slot machine that you don’t have to put money into; just pull the lever as fast as you can enough times, and you’ll hit the jackpot sooner or later.

By: Alex Bensky

Alex Bensky — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 12:47:56 +0000

Actually, Meryl, the 6/4/67 lines are hardly the Arabs’ resting place. And it’s worth mentioning that from 1949 to 1967 the Arabs constantly reiterated that the 1967 lines were only cease-fire lines, points at which they’d agreed merely to stop fighting for the time being, until the moment was ripe to wipe out the Zionist entity.

Once, if at all, Israel retreats to those lines, does anyone doubt that the 1947 partition lines would come into play? The Arabs figure that wars are cost-free enterprises; if they win, they wipe out Israel and if they lose they get to start all over again. Since neither other Arabs nor anyone else has ever suggested otherwise, they have no reason not to believe it.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:49:23 +0000

Eli, the Arabs could have had their land back immediately after the war. They chose not to treat with Israel. That puts the ball in their court.

For the past 40 years, they have insisted that the only thing they will accept is a return to the status quo of June 4, 1967.

You know, they lost the fucking war. Let them act like the losers they are for once, and accept that they don’t get to have everything they want. Because that’s still what they want, forty years later.

The ones that don’t want Israel’s destruction, that is. And there are many that do. If not all.

Arab rejectionism is the underlying problem here. It always has been. Only now it’s been radicalized and Islamicized.

By: Sabba Hillel

Sabba Hillel — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:44:30 +0000

Eli, had Arafat died before he came back from Tunis, and the local population been allowed to continue the path they were on at the time (unofficially developing a modus operandi to live with Israel) the terrorists would not have gotten a foothold. Now we are reaping the bitter fruits of that original error.

By: Tatterdemalian

Tatterdemalian — Sun, 17 Jun 2007 04:19:57 +0000

That isn’t what Meryl said, Eli, and you know it. Troll somewhere else.

By: Eli

Eli — Sat, 16 Jun 2007 19:40:28 +0000

And, therefore, because of that offer after the 6 Day War, *NOTHING* that’s happened since then is germane to the question.

Meryl, you’re very very smart, but there’s always a gap in your reasoning between your assumptions and your conclusions, where your will sneaks in and amps up the conclusion to be what you want to believe.

By: John M

John M — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 19:56:27 +0000

Oh, come on, just give them the right of return and they’ll all settle down and get jobs and become good neighbors. Really, they promise.

By: Meryl Yourish

Meryl Yourish — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:33:02 +0000

Really? Because Israel offered to give back all of the territories except for Jerusalem, right after the Six Day War, and the Arabs said, in unison, “No.”

It isn’t wishful thinking. It’s attributing the problem to its roots: Arab rejectionism of the Jewish state.

By: Eli

Eli — Fri, 15 Jun 2007 17:22:22 +0000

Meryl, if you don’t think that both the *Egyptians* and the *Palestinians* and the *Israelis* all have a hand to play in where we are now, you’re simply refusing to be realistic.

Your criticisms of Egypt and the Palestinians are spot on, but then your conclusion that the occupation had nothing to do with the problem just doesn’t follow from your criticisms. It’s wishful thinking.