Skip to main content

View Diary: Israeli newspaper: Israel attacked Gaza knowing truce was in the works (238 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Why Mexico? The Cuban analogy ... (0+ / 0-)

    might be easier to understand.  Except that Cuba got smart a lot quicker than Hamas.

    •  Cuba got smart (0+ / 0-)

      on January 1, 1959, although I doubt you meant that.

      •  Missiles in Cuba threatened the US (0+ / 0-)

        and the US responded with a blockade. The US has boycotted Cuba for 52 years. It's not a policy I support, but it's instructive.  Imagine what would have happened if a Cuban missile had landed on US territory.  This is a scenario that is easier to appreciate than a fictional attack from Mexico (but cf. the Pancho Villa Expedition).

        January 1, 1959 was a good day for the Cuban people, getting rid of the bad and corrupt Batista regime. Both the Israelis and Palestinians would also benefit from a change of leadership, and leadership on both sides will have to change if the situation is to be resolved for the benefit of both peoples.

        •  Your example is quite instructive. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Terra Mystica, Florida Democrat

          Cuba has moderated itself noticeably, and our boycot remains firmly in place.

          •  A boycott from the US is not even close to what (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            corvo

            the citizens of the Gaza Strip are being subjected to on a daily basis.

            Cuba is not the Gaza Strip.

            So, no, it's not instructive.

            •  Well, of course they aren't close. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              protectspice

              I didn't mean to say they were.

              I meant to say only that the two situations are similar in that there's really nothing the weaker entity (Cuba, Palestine) can do to satisfy the stronger one (Israel, USA) short of absolute capitulation.

          •  Yes, Cuba is an interesting analogy (0+ / 0-)

            It was occupied by the US following war with a third country (Spain). Then the Americans left but repeatedly re-occupied and intervened in its affairs for decades before the revolution and the US blockade and boycott that seriously damaged its economy.  (I think the blockade was a mistake from the get-go.)  Also, Cuba was used as a pawn by a third country (USSR) as a means of creating a military threat to the US from a new direction. However, there are limits to the analogy: Cuba wisely never attacked the US, and it made no irredentist claims on our territory or challenged the legitimacy of our government. I think there is a good chance that Obama will continue to ease the restrictions on Cuba, perhaps considerably, but that is getting OT.

            •  I wouldn't say that (0+ / 0-)

              Cuba "wisely never attacked the US," just as I would never say that "Mongolia wisely never attacked the US" -- in neither case was there wherewithal or desire.

              And don't get your hopes up on Obama.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site