Skip to main content

View Diary: Sunday Talk - State of "Lies" (395 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  This is rich. (none)
    It is so rich.

    Wasn't Arafat allowed to return?  Wasn't Arafat allowed to establish a government, and now the Israelis were in the process of giving them land.

    These are the wrong questions. The right questions are these:

    Didn't the US support over several decades Israel's confiscation of a huge share of the land in the occupied territories?

    Didn't the US allow Israel to settle hundreds of thousands of its citizens in the occupied territories in defiance of international law and numerous UN Security Council resolutions?

    Don't these US policies have consequences for the "War on Terror"?

    Why does the Democratic Party always support Israeli policies against the best interests of our own country and the opposition of the entire world? The entire world, I say. Not the "Muslim world".

    •  The answers (none)
      While these are not "the correct" questions, I will answer them.

      No, Yes and No, and Yes.

      I don't see really the point of your third question.  

      I doubt you could be so objective if I posed some questions.

      By the way there is no occupation.  

      The whole world is against the state of Israel?

      You're kind of scary.  

      I wonder where you would begin your arguments?

      •  Where I begin my argument (4.00)
        Those questions are self-documenting to anyone who has more than a cursory knowledge of the region.

        • The US has supported Israel's illegal confiscation of huge swaths of Palestinian land in the Occupied Territories simply by refusing to do anything about it, despite our leverage with Israel and influence in the world at large.

        • We are in agreement on the answer to question 2, apparently.

        • US support of the Israeli occupation has huge negative consequences on the "War on Terror", as polls in Arab and Muslim countries show. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States reported that the Sept 11 attack itself was directly motivated by resentment of US support of Israel. The report says this about Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, described as "the principal architect of the 9/11 attacks": By his own account, KSM's animus toward the United States stemmed not from his experiences there as a student, but rather from his violent disagreement with U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.  The MSM hasn't given this highly significant point much play, preferring to dwell on "they hate us for our goodness".

        • You answer "Yes" to the question "Why does the Democratic Party always support Israel . . .". Perhaps you'd like to give that more thought.
        •  so I guess your arguement is... (none)
          that we Shouln't support Israel because a bunch of terrorists don't like it.

          Hamas does not recognize the state of Israel REGARDLESS of the United States. The only conclusions I can draw from your statement are a) we should always cave to terrorists, or b) the state of Israel has no right to exist.

          •  It's much more... (none)
            complex than taking an either/or position.

            Yes, there are Paelstinian terrorists. But there are also Palestinians who aren't terrorists.

            There are a lot of those non-terrorist Paelstinians who seem to find their homes bulldozed and blown up in the collateral damage ridden search for the terrorists.

            And there are a lot of Israelis who are very very interested in trying to find some sort of peaceful ground from which to work.

            Engaging in over-simplified assumptions doesn't help people better understand the current situation.

            "Computer. End holographic program...Computer? Computer?"

            by kredwyn on Sun Jan 29, 2006 at 12:09:37 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site