🚀 go-pugleaf

In ba.general Disgruntled Customer <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote:
> Merlin Dorfman <dorfman@green.rahul.net> enscribed:
>> In ba.general Disgruntled Customer <nowhere@nowhow.com> wrote:
>> 
>> ...
>> > Actually Palestinians haven't done anything substantially different than Israelis, just less successfully because they couldn't make the world feel guilty about a holocaust.
>> 
>>      Oh?  The Israelis have sent suicide bombers into Gaza and the

> Hunt around a little and you can get the names of Israeli soldiers who received their Medal of Valor and other awards posthumously. Do you know what "posthumously" means?

     It means they had explosives loaded with metal shrapnel strapped
around them???  And they were just as likely to be women or teen-
agers as men???

>> West Bank, and the Palestinians have sent large conventional 
>> military forces into Israel?  

> How many conventional forces were sent to the King David Hotel? How many conventional force unit did Israel field against the British Mandate conventional forces?

     Ah, the "Israeli successes" you are referring to were 60 years
ago?  Then, yes, the Jewish terrorism against the British, who
didn't really want to be there and had homes elsewhere, was quite
successful.  The Brits threw up their hands and dropped the problem
in the lap of the UN.  I don't think the Holocaust or guilt had much
to do with it.  Palestinian terrorism today will not be similarly
successful because those conditions don't exist.

>>      The Palestinians have actually been quite successful at making
>> the world feel guilty about their plight (with the aid of lots of
>> Arab oil money devoted to propaganda).  Hence the condemnation of
>> Israel in the UN, in Europe, in just about any place that needs
>> oil.

> And which condemnations, exactly, are you claiming are inappropriate, and precisely why you do reject each such condemnations? You should be able to point to the specific language of the U.N resolutions and point to the particular phrases of each you think are wrong. If you cannot do this, then what you really are claiming is that Israel is beyond all reproach and any condemnation whatsoever is unacceptable no matter what IDF has done. Given your expressed racism, that's the most likely case.

     Yes, I can find many phrases in the UN resolutions I can object
to--mainly those that try to deny Israel legitimate tactics for self-
defense--and I also object to the omission from many of those 
resolutions any mention of the atrocities that Israel endures and 
indeed to which the tactics are a response.
     Racism?  Apparently in your view, believing that Israel has a
right to survive constitutes racism.  I will turn that around:
believing that Israel does not have a right to survive and exist
has a large element of racism in it (even if it comes from Jews).