This is why I love the Dry Bones Blog
I was checking out the Dry Bones Blog and I stumbeld upon this little gem:
Now, seriously, isn't it funny that the same people who are defending Hamas and its positions are the same people who have attacked Sharon on his positions?
I love this world.
posted by The Sandmonkey @ 2/22/2006 12:26:00 AM
10 Comments:
Keep trying to make sense out of all of this SM. Before you know it, your brain will be in the shape of a pretzel. Your choice, hard or soft. :-)
Yes, sandy..its funny always to see bigots not making sense at all contradicting themselves out of pure prejudism.
Christine
soft, You can add butter on it & voila, ready for Hannibal.
ya monkey you need to learn to put yourself in other's shoes, not to understand their excuses or change your position, but just to understand their internal logic.
there is nothing ironic or funny about it, it's rather simple.
if you believe in a one state solution then you believe in one of three scenarios (one can think of other scenarios but historycally these are the ones that had any kind of support at any point in time).
1 Israeli state, where zionism is the ideology of the state, all jews can be israelis if they choose and an arab population is allowed in and allowed to practice democracy as long as the demographics don't change in a way that makes jews a minority.
2 Plaestinian state, where most current Israelis are not welcome, this scenario can take multiple forms that vary in it's tollerance of a jewsih population (arab jews get to stay, jews born in Israel get to stay etc), this is hamas's position with alot of islamic rhetoric
3 a single secular democratic state where all all current citizens of Israel, all current citizens of occupied lands and palestinian refugees are considered citizens, the demography will probably impose an arab identity but focus will be on mutual future building (the south africa scenario), people tend to forget that this was the PLOs original plan
so since we know quite well that sharon and hamas are not for option 3 it's obvious that their positions are mutually exclusive, you cannot support one of the first two positions while accepting the other as a legitimate solution.
now I don't know of any palestinian who thinks the two state solution is actually practical (I'm not talking politicians here, I'm talking friends and stuff). the country is too small to be split, palestine has no economy to support a whole state, there isn't enough water, palestine will be split in the middle and movement between the westbank and gazza will always be controlled by the israeli army, constant movement will also mean constant movement inside israel which means breach of security, and also means palestinians will seek work in Israel, which will lead to new immigrants complaining, trade unions complaining, palestinians complaining because they'll probably get exploited (being illegal immigrants). etc. etc. etc.
True, but so is the opposite:
The same people who were defending Sharon's early position, are the same people who are condeming Hamas's position.
Chew on that.
It is also funny to see all the people who had enough patience to persuade Sharon to accept this formula and reward him in every step, loose all their diplomatic skills and speak about economic sanctions before hamas led government takes any decision. Pressuring Arab countries to prevent flow of donations to hamas is very close to economic sanctions, in my opinions.
Now seriously does not the proposal of hamas have some logic?
1- recognize a Palestinian state and we recognize a Jewish state
2- withdraw your troops from our territory and we disarm our militia our organize them in regular army
As far as international law is concerned, Israel’s borders are defined in the resolution of the UN that created it 58 years ago. There is no other legal basis for holding more Arab territory than those allocated to it by the UN.
Michaelm,
Nahh, they just take it as proof that they were right all along.
The jews are pretty easy to work with. Just be nice, and don't threaten to wipe them off the map, and eventually they will concede little by little.
jonas
MichaelM, exactly, you beat me to it, thanks for pointing this fact to SM and also for having a brain.
Alaa, the fair and just and everlasting solution is option number 3.
You speak as if a unified Arab nation exists and that this nation is democratically represented by its corrupt kings and military dictators. It is needless to mention that neither of them is true, therefore it is illogical to punish the Palestinians today because of decisions made by corrupt kings and in Cairo and Amman 58 years ago, is not it? Furthermore, 1967 according to the Israeli official version of the events was a preemptive strike not a war to repel an aggression. It would be a dangerous world if all states claim the right to blow preemptive strikes to their enemies and further claim the gained territory as legal.
Now, after accepting your assumption that the Israeli acquisition of this territory is legal and the Palestinians can demand complete withdrawal comes the paradox of the Israeli “democracy”:
Tel Aviv controls the lives of a round 10 million people, of these 6 millions are considered citizens and can vote the government in and out, while another 4 millions are excluded.
The human condition in part of the territory governed by Tel Aviv makes it rank among the best 30 countries allover the world in terms of human development index and the other part ranks below 100.
sorry, my reply was directed to elengil
i had a mistake in the sentence
Now, after accepting your assumption that the Israeli acquisition of this territory is legal and the Palestinians can NOT demand complete withdrawal comes the paradox of the Israeli “democracy”:
Post a Comment
<< Home