SklarO World Tela Pip Danny
This Blog was created by me and for me. I dont take suggestions
and I dont really care what you have to say in regards to content
or design of this Blog. As far as individual posts go, I would
love to hear your opinions in the comment section (especially
if your opinion is radically different then mine). I try to post
often, but sometimes a week will go by where I am to busy to post
Friday, July 09, 2004
The World Circus at The Hague
Imagine that, the UN’s World Court is a big farce just like the UN.
The World Court decided that Israel's separation fence that has reduced terrorist attacks by the fucking unwanted heartless ugly society throwaways known as “The Palestinians” by 75%, is illegal. They said (unofficially at this point) that the wall must be torn down immediately, and that “The Palestinians” must be compensated!! HAH!
Big surprise. Lets look at the Hague for a moment. They have 15 Judges,
Instead of mentioning their names which don’t matter at all, I’ll name their countries and we’ll see if we can guess the one country who DIDN’T vote against Israel's right to defend itself:
• Sierra Leone
• United States
Well you guessed it, The United States. Israel only has one friend in this world and everyone else…..well their all just apart of the world circus of Hypocrites and arabs. A circus of selfishness and greed that will lead to complete and total anarchy followed by complete and total destruction. Follow the UN and you will have a front row seat.
Is Hippocrates a cousin of Socrates?
without entering a debate on the validity of the UN etc... I would like to point out that in 2 seperate instances now the Israeli supreme court issued rulings that [2 parts of] the wall are inhumane. Those parts of the wall are coming down as a result. Use that how you will: I suppose in some way it makes the World Court ruling even less important, as it demonstrates that Israel is willing to recognize where she's gone out of bounds.
Nevertheless, you must admit that the wall is not purely a defensive measure. Its at least as much an offensive move as a defensive one. Its a land grab. I know that's not likely to bother you, but I'd rather it be called what it is.
posted by dov
: 12:55 PM
Land grab my ass. Call it what you will but the fact is...there are no suicide bombings.
Welcome back buddy, havent heard from you in a while.
if it is not a land grab, why not put it on land that is not disputed (at best) territory?
-Also, this is only an advisory decision. The World Court has no jurisdiction because both parties did not agree to have their case brought before the WC. Even if they had, the WC would have no means to enforce the decision. For that matter, the UN really cannot enforce any decision either unless its members agree to send in troops from their countries as part of a UN effort. Which is so not happening.
Because we would then be giving the arabs land that is ours in return for terrorism. In the end, we must disengage from them, but there is no fucking way they are getting all of Samaria. That would national suicide.
David Ben Gurion was willing to give up all of Samria for peace.
We have already given them land for peace. Remember Oslo? Lot of good that did. All we did was give them land, guns, and training so they could snipe and kill our people with our own fucking ammunition!!
Why the fuck would we give them strategic land again?!!
They dont want peace and neither do I. I want total separation from them.
How quickly we forget
who's anonymously sounding like me? I didn't post those opinions... well, whoever you are, goodluck. I've been through all these arguments before.
Complete seperation is fine (for now) - I don't want to get into old arguments. Making an offensive move is stupid. It will only increase terror in the long run. Why not build it on undisputed land? (let me preempt the response claiming that they dispute our right to any of the land: most palestinians by now would be satisfied with 67 borders. Certainly world opinion, since we're discussing the world court, would be satisfied with such a solution.) This is clearly an offensive move -- its not only about stopping terrorism. And you're extremely naive if you think it will solve the problem of terrorism.
posted by dov
: 2:44 PM
That's what I'd like to know. If you are going to comment repeatedly I would appreciate something that lets me know that its you again. For example, at the end of your post, just right "stupid liberal" so I know its you.
As for Dov,
"Certainly world opinion, since we're discussing the world court, would be satisfied with such a solution."
-The world will never be satisfied so long as the arabs are dissatisfied. That being said, no solution will ever be good enough.
Why not build on undisputed lands? What lands are undisputed by the arabs? Havent you seen the palestinian version of the map of Israel? There is no Israel.
"Its not only about stopping terrorism. And you're extremely naive if you think it will solve the problem of terrorism."
-Rather then recognise that the fence has almost completely stopped suicide bombings, you want to talk about ulterior motives? You ARE a Moorest:)
The fence is only 1/4 built! How could it possibly be preventing suicide bombings already! That's obviously not the reason they've slowed down lately.
That doesn't mean I don't think the wall will eventually slow down terrorism. I do think that building on land that could eventually be part of a Palestinian state is only going to prolong our troubles and ultimately increase terrorism if it becomes the excepted border. More importantly, tearing down olive groves and seperating arabic communities from one another is certainly going to deepen the problems we face. The Israeli supreme court was right to pass such rulings, and although I haven't followed it closely enough to say, I hope that the court is applying such rulings liberaly.
posted by dov
: 3:48 PM
Thats right, imagine what results we'll see when its finished!!
As for the arabs olive grove..... wait......can you here the violin...shhh...listen...
I should give a fuck about the arabs being seperated or some of their so called property being damaged?!! Fuck them.
It's our people were talking about here, the arab concerns are quite a distant second to Israels security.
Note I never said I had a problem with seperation. What I said was that if this is purley a question of defense, then why not build it in places where we don't "FUCK THEM?" The answer, of course, is that this is as much about carving up their future state as it is about defending ourselves.
As for the stats you showed me: I'm far from convinced. First of all, they don't mention how long stretches of calm were before the wall was being built. When the first stretches of the wall were being built, you must agree it couldn't have played a role in decreased attacks (I'm talking about the first few months), yet they include that time in their calculations. Secondly: let's not forget Bush's wonderful statistics about decrease in terror. 8 pages of corrections, some slightly new math, and suddenly we went from the best year in modern history to the worst. hmmmm. Remember: 50% of statistics are entirely made up. These stats are clearly self serving.
posted by dov
: 1:04 PM
a quick correction: that "First of all" is actually 2 points. Secondly is the 3rd point.
posted by dov
: 1:10 PM
"if this is purley a question of defense, then why not build it in places where we don't "FUCK THEM?""
Because then we would have an 9 mile wide border, which would leave us quite vulnerable. I dont necesarily want to get into an arguement about the so called "Occupied lands" but I'll just say this.....
We gained that land in war, so why would we give it back? We need that land, and the arabs give us NOTHING but terror. I say again...FUCK THEM
They're lucky we didnt just massacre them like they tried to do to us.
As for the decline in terror, What are you're thoughts if not the wall combines with ground operations?
I don't really have an explanation (you can't expect that I would - there's too much missing information) except to say that the attacks have always come in waves, and I'm sure another wave will come. Materials can't flow evenly, attempts might (coincedentaly) be foiled. I'm sure the wall plays some role as well.
I think it only fair to mention that Bibi wrote an op-ed for the times about this today: http://nytimes.com/2004/07/13/opinion/13NETA.html?hp
BTW - I haven't read much, because I was reading something else, but I have The Revolt. I think its fascinating. We should talk about it sometime.
posted by dov
: 1:52 PM
A great op-ed by Bibi that only reinforces what I was saying.
You are realy reading the Revolt?! Thats great and I'm glad that you like it. I would love to discuss it.
yes - I realize it re-inforces what you were saying... I still disagree that its a strictly defensive move. There's also an article that just came out talking about the supreme-court decision I had mentioned:
This is primarly my point: that we need to think about the hardships the wall may cause.
I'm reading the revolt, but its due back at the library in a few days and I cant' renew it. So I probably wont' get to read more than 100-200 pages. I started at the end, and I'll read what i can. I still recommend that novel I was talking about: I think it was called "wild thorns"? I can't remember if that's the one I mentioned. What's particularly interesting is how the positions have switched so dramatically. One of the characters in that book sounds remarkably like Begin does in The Revolt.
posted by dov
: 2:45 PM