The hypocricy of the anti-Israel brigade

Sorta the way I've been reacting to our own Federal government settling foreign nationals in American towns that don't want them?

@ecky : Agree fully. I'm not making a defense of Hamas.

I've been hearing that support for them in Gaza has weakened somewhat due to corruption and other issues but that it does tend to harden when Israel attacks. I'd be interested in learning more about just how soft it is, and where it might go to, either to some more extreme group aligned with ISIS or say, Fatah. Israels long-term strategy here, whatever one thinks of their tactics, will have to take into account that type of thing.

Indeed. There is no such thing as an innocent Israeli living in the West Bank. Every single settler old enough to know better is a member of an invading army, a war criminal, and a legitimate target.

I don't know that I'd go so far as to say that, Liet, but I do think the Palestinians have a legitimate grievance, and one that most people would rally around were it happening somewhere else. Look at the way idiots like Castle flip out about immigrants, who are not remotely engaged in land theft. Imagine how he'd respond to an invading army charged with evicting people from their homes.

Actually, we know how he'd respond, he's given it in this thread. @John Castle: please explain why you support land theft in the West Bank.

Sure, after you explain why you support land theft in the American southwest. How's that deal grab ya?

NBC News Correspondent Is Returning To Gaza Days After He Was Pulled

NBC News is sending foreign correspondent Ayman Mohyeldin back to Gaza days after he was abruptly and mysteriously pulled from the region.

In a statement issued Friday, a network spokesperson praised Mohyeldin's "extraordinary reporting" and said that, after re-assessing the situation, the correspondent will resume his coverage of the Israel-Hamas conflict.
----------------
Well done, but his removal in the first place remains disgusting. Hopefully someone was fired.

Since I don't support the "theft of the American southwest," I have fulfilled the requirements, so go ahead and answer.

I love how arranging for places for REFUGEES to stay while their status is considered is now "land theft" in the minds of the Shrieking Lunatic Fringe.

I'm curious, has the government eminent-domained anyone's property to build housing? Forced anyone to lodge people in their homes? What exactly makes it "theft"?

His refusal is noted, and not at all surprising.

Remember, there is no social contract so there is no land theft. Possession is ten tenths of the law. If you can't employ the violence needed to keep your land then fuck you.

That's also why if you're a twelve year old Guatemalan escaping gang servitude you have no right to try to make a better life for yourself. No social contract, fuck off and die. If you refuse to fuck off and die when you can't survive on your own then you deserve whatever torture is handed out to you.

That sort of ludicrous hyperbole is what has undermined you in the past.

Just saying.

Why can't you answer his question?

It's absolutely not hyperbole. Settlers are an invading force, highly armed war criminals stealing land with every breath, and it's entirely appropriate to treat them as such. By what standard could they be considered anything else? That they don't wear military uniforms doesn't change the fact that they are legitimate military targets. It's not legitimate to torture military targets, but it sure is legitimate to shoot them when they're invading your land.

Seriously, think about it a little bit. When an invading army steals land, that's a war crime. The refusal to label the Israeli settlers as war criminals is a cowardly effort to ignore the clear-cut truth.

Unless they're Central Americans escorted by MS-13 gangsters into the U.S., and then, whoa, way different story, right?

I'm still waiting to hear whose property has been stolen to house the Central American migrants.

Good for Israel.

It seems to me that if you're a Palestinian and your issue is Israeli settlers in the West Bank, you'd be better off coming to the negotiating table than firing rockets randomly into Israel. I don't see how rockets get you anything other than a devastating Israeli response.

Which, of course, is the whole point. The Palestinian strategy is to goad Israel into a strike and then decry the violence.

I have little sympathy. Mess with the bull, get the horns, after all.

The Palestinians should get their house in order (i.e., cease fires are honored by ALL Palestinians) and negotiate, or be prepared for the status quo to endure for a long, long time.

Are you saying that's why you have little sympathy for Israel getting hit by rockets, or for Palestine getting hit by Israel's offensive, or both?

Yeah, but nobody can back down, because the Invisible Sky Fairy is involved.

But no, religion's good for people.
All that "hope", and crap.

What are the rocket attacks supposed to accomplish?

I really don't know -- according to Israel's military they're not even sure which group(s) is or are firing them.

What is the offensive supposed to accomplish?

To stop the rockets.

Only it has always accomplished the opposite so far.

I think the Palestinians are going to keep firing the rockets no matter what happens.

But the offensive will at least remind them that there is a price to be paid for doing it.

You realize you can turn those two sentences right around and they still make as much sense, right?

Not really. The Israeli offensive will do far more damage to the Palestinians than the Palestinian rocket attacks will the Israelis. A continuous trade of this behavior will result in far more Palestinian suffering than Israeli suffering.

Anyway, the Israeli offensive would not happen at all but for the rocket attacks. The rocket attacks will happen no matter what the Israelis do, so long as the Palestinians are capable of launching them.

And this is good because...?

I never said it was. I only say it's far worse for the Palestinians than the Israelis, so the Palestinians should reconsider their tactics.

That would assume the groups that are firing rockets to be identical with the suffering, and that they believe the suffering would stop if they stopped. Neither is the case. So they shouldn't and won't reconsider their tactics, and you've said as much. What point are you trying to make?