🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Disgruntled Customer <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote:
> Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> enscribed:

>>      The topic is why failing to send Hamas money constitutes
>> strangling them.  Self-sufficiency isn't in their vocabulary.

> Are you naturally stupid or did it takes years of arduous effort? (rahul.net is good indicator.) 

     A good indicator that I have enough computer knowledge to use
Unix/Solaris/Linux.

> Israel is blockading Palestine, preventing normal trade including cash donations.   Israel prevents Palestine from becoming self sufficient.

     The need for cash donations indicates they are not self sufficient.

> Israel prevents them from opening their airport. Israel was  blocking the formation of a self-sufficient Palestine before the last election. And it's not money for Hamas, it's money for the Palestinian government. 

     Hamas is the Palestinian government.  If you believe in
democracy as you say you do, that is.

> It also includes money that belongs to Palestine, that Israel agrees belongs to Palestine, that Israel is stealing.

     That money is being released.  As it should have been long ago.

> Also the elected Palestinian government had taken no action against Israel. 

     The elected Palestinian government isn't capable of anything,
including controlling its own thugs.

> Israel and U.S are trying the overthrow the elected government simply because Palestinians had the nerve elected the wrong people.

     Israel and the US, and Europe, and Australia, and Japan, and
just about everybody except the Arabs, are not actively trying to
overthrow the elected government, but are refusing to subsidize it
(which frankly amounts to the same thing) because, in violation of
the UN charter and international law, it is sworn to the overthrow
of a neighbor.  How ironic that you accuse the US and Israel of
trying to overthrow the Palestinian government (although they claim
otherwise), while you seem to be perfectly OK with the declared
intent of the Palestinian government not just to overthrow the
Israeli government but to destroy it as a sovereign nation.  

>> And their supposed supporters, with the possible exception of
>> Iran, aren't trying very hard to get the money to them.
>>      FWIW, I disagree with Israel not allowing Arabs/Muslims to

> Disagree? You didn't even notice it until you were told. Repeatedly. You don't have the facts. You're willing to put a country to sword and fire and you don't even have the facts. How....American.

      Believe it or not, there are things I know other than what you
told me, that I have not mentioned to you yet.  That was one of 
them.  Out of pure curiosity, why is it that you suppose I didn't
know it until you mentioned it?  Because you are prejudiced against
Americans among many other things?

>> send money to Hamas.  That is among the best uses of the oil
>> money, assuming it's not going to be used to better the lot of
>> the average resident of the oil-rich countries.

>>      The Oslo Agreements were negotiated in good faith, and
>> followed by Israel, never by the PA, e.g., the PA promised to

> Actually things were moving along until Israelis murdered their own prime minister 

     Were there many Israelis involved in the assassination?  I had
thought it was a lone gunman.  But then you claim to know a lot more
than the rest of the world does.  Do you have any evidence?  I didn't
think so.

> and elected a Likud government. The same people how were dedicated to the Greater Israel (which means seizing all Palestinian land and ethnically cleansing it of Christians and Moslems). 

     Without accepting your characterization, "the same people" for
the most part have learned their lesson, starting with Sharon.  It
has become clear to all sane Israelis (probably about 80%) that they
can't have all three of: Jewish state, democracy, and control of the
whole area.  The third thing is what they are willing to give up,
starting with Gaza.  Of course once the Israelis left Gaza, it
became rather like Weimar Germany, with rival armed gangs roaming the
streets and shooting anybody who got in their way.  Plus firing
rockets at the neighboring country--I guess rockets had not been
invented in the 1920s.

> They murdered Palestinians that got in their way and destroyed the power of the Palestinians' chosen leader; they then blamed Arafat for not controlling Palestinian while assholes like you cheered them on, ignoring that they were responsible for Arafat's impotence.

     Arafat was impotent to stop the hate propaganda in PA schools
and media because of the Israelis?  What a laugh.  He never had any
intent of keeping that part of the Oslo accords.  I will agree he
didn't have the power to stop the terrorists, but it's not due to
the Israelis, and I don't believe he had the intent even if he had
the power.

>> end anti-Israel and anti-semitic propaganda in their schools
>> and radio/TV which they never did.  Eventually Israel got tired

> You need to escape American commercial TV and see what Israelis really say about Palestinians.

    I work with many Israelis...but let's not listen to them, you
tell me what Israelis say about Palestinians, and what relevance it
has to the Palestinians' inability and unwillingness to keep the
Oslo accords.

>> of being the only party keeping the agreement so they quit as
>> well.
>>      The 2000 Camp David negotiations were carried out in good
>> faith, certainly by Israel and probably by Arafat as well.
>> Arafat turned down a really good offer for complete peace
>> because he thought he could do better.  He was wrong.  Too bad,
>> it will be a long time, if ever, before the opportunity for
>> that good a deal for both sides occurs again.

> Which offer? All the ones I've seen involved Arafat agreeing to break up the West Bank into segregated ghettoes that would be little more than slave labor concentration camp. I realize it does not make it on Fox News for you, but some of Eretz Yisrael supporters have been explicit to this intent. Why don't you comment on this?

     You seem to be the only one holding that opinion.  I don't watch
Faux News so I don't know what they say, but none of the media I have
observed said anything like that.  (OTOH I don't watch Al Jazeera
either...)  Everything I've seen says that Barak's offer was for 97%
of the West Bank & Gaza with land swaps from pre-1967 Israel to make
up the difference, but Arafat thought he could do better.  Note that
he didn't make any counter-proposals.

>>      BTW, what would be the motivation for Israel not
>> negotiating in good faith, i.e., to put on the appearance of
>> seeking a peaceful solution but not really wanting one?  Do
>> they like the current situation of continuous war?  Why

> Likud was not part of those negotiations.

     And?

>> wouldn't they want a peaceful resolution on acceptable terms?
>> There are very few now who don't realize that Israel can't have
>> all three of a democracy, a Jewish state, and control of the
>> whole area, and the last is the one that they are willing to
>> give up.  

> They've already sacrificed democracy.

     No, if they were trying to retain control of the whole area
they would have to sacrifice democracy.  How ironic that an Arabist
can accuse Israel of not being a democracy.