Saturday, August 20, 2005

There's just no pleasing some people.


Apparently, Pete Rempel is (oh, yawn) still miffed at me:

Apparently you don't know what a trick question is. Is pulling out of Gaza the right thing to do?

If you're too much of a coward to answer, fine. It's no suprise to me that an anti-semite like you would have difficulty extending praise to the Jewish state. Do you and Eugene Plawiuk have tea and mull over the Jewish conspiracy to take over the world?

To which one can appropriately respond, "Eugene who?"

But let's address Pete's childish whining, shall we? Apparently, in Pete's world, one should be giving credit where credit is due and praising the Israelis for their beneficence in returning land from the Gaza strip to the Palestinians, ignoring the obvious fact that they really didn't have much choice and ignoring the fact that they're still hanging onto gobs of valuable land in the West Bank.

As the CJR Daily points out, perhaps some historical perspective of the Gaza strip is in order (emphasis added):

What has gone missing in the fray, as usual, is any kind of historical context. Drama on this scale usually overwhelms. The New York Times seems to acknowledge this today and tries to provide a little background history lesson. Oddly, the place it chose to do so was in its lead editorial, "Gaza Reality Check," which offers a kind of critique of its own articles of this morning and the past few days.

Points covered: Gaza was never an original part of the Jewish State. Not in 1948 when Israel was born by UN decree or after the 1949 armistice that followed its war of independence. The Strip was Egyptian land and home to Palestinian refugees, and only came under Israeli control in 1967 when it was captured during the Six-Day War. The peace plan signed between Israel and Egypt in 1978 even stipulated eventual autonomy in Gaza for the Palestinians living there. But this never happened. Instead Israel began building the settlements it is now uprooting.

Also lost amidst the drama were the proportions. Just under 9,000 settlers were living on 33 percent of the land, with 1.5 million Palestinians inhabiting the rest. (And the compensation that most of the settlers will get ranges from $300,000 to $500,000 -- apiece.)

So, to summarize, Israel broke its original agreement regarding Gaza and illegally began establishing settlements there. On top of that, a grand total of 9,000 Jewish settlers laid claim to a full 1/3 of the land, leaving the remaining 2/3 for some 1.5 million Palestinians. And I'm supposed to be falling over myself with effusive praise when Israel finally starts to return it?

Try again, Pete. And come back when you've figured out how to have an intellectual discussion without throwing around accusations of anti-Semitism. It just makes you look like a dick.

7 comments:

Dr. Dawg said...

The "anti-semitic" ploy is so old it has whiskers. It's just a cheap rhetorical attempt to silence criticism of Israeli policy. It never fails to annoy me, because it is so maliciously and stupidly deployed, as it was here. Good article, CC, and keep posting.

Mark Francis said...

Peter is just a shit disturbing troll anyway. "What liberal can I piss off today?" is the game he plays.

Jon Dursi said...

Don't be too hard on Peter. For him, and most of right blogistan in Canada, namecalling is all he's got. History isn't on his side; science certainly isn't on his side. Facts are something best avoided. Calling someone anti-semitic, or anti-family, or simply evil, is about all they've got to buttress their `arguments'.

PR said...

You're evil, Jon.

Junker said...

I don't understand this, you completely side stepped Peter's point. He asked you if the pull out was good, a posative action done by Israel. You have again launched into why the Gaza occupation was wrong, but fail to address the pull out.

We understand why you thought the Gaza occupation was wrong, but do you think the pull out was right? Indeed, a right, done by Israel?

An aside, to Jonathan, I agree Peter name called and assumed a bit about CC, but in your reply, you just name called an entire group of bloggers. Very impressive, sure works toward supporting your arguement :)

Finally, speaking of historical context, I might add a few tidbits that color this situation a little differently. Firstly, the refugee problem was created when the surrounding arab nations requested the Palestinians leave, ahead of the war. With wars end, and Israels demise, they could return. Didn't quite work out that way. Secondly, in 1967 when Israel gained the Gaza territory, they were in fact attacked, and fighting a war of defense. Wasn't the first time, wouldn't be the last. The main aggressors were always arab nations.

I wonder what steps Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, and Syria are taking to allieve and heal the ills they brought upon the Palestinians???

Ann Coulter Of Canada said...

Get this thru your thick moonbat head "Canadian Cynic.. if that *really* IS your name!"

We rightwingers who complain incessantly about being called racists and rednecks all the time, by liberals and progs and Dippers or by the politically correct Vast Liberal Media Conspiracy (VLMC) get to call other people "anti-semite" anytime we feel like.

2 wrongs don't make a right! But three wrongs breaks the tie!

That's Ethics and Moral Consistency for you CanCon Style!

weech said...

junker,

Ariel Sharon on unilateral disengagement from Gaza - "this should be seen as a punishment and not a reward for the Palestinians".

Basically the Iraesli tactics here are to leave Gaza Palestinians with no soverignity, water control or economy. Besides the Gaza borders are easily controlled always allowing the IDF to roll in at the drop of a hat.

Here's another good quote- Sharon has said that his withdrawal plan is a part of Bush’s much vaunted "road map" to peace and Palestinian statehood. This is curious since his most trusted adviser, Dov Weisglass, is on record as saying that "the significance of the disengagement plan is the freezing of the peace process, and when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state, and you prevent a discussion on the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package called the Palestinian state with all that it entails, has been removed indefinitely from our agenda". So the idea of following the road map is yet another lie by Sharon, though Weisglass was forced to withdraw his prepared statement.

source-"http://leninology.blogspot.com/2005/08/sharons-moment-of-truth.html

So its not good or positive just another method of stifling Palestinian dreams of freedom.

Your wrong on the Six day war. Israel attacked Eygpt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon before they could attack first. And they have no right to the terroity for it was siezed by military force.
Just like Saddam had no right to Kuwait just because he conquered it.

I'm guessing the last question is retorical. But I'll give a short answer. Those countries aren't exactly shining models but unlike Israel they dont occupy Palestinian lands and kill them (not anymore). Rather they send humanitarian aid, build them houses ( Saddam was all ova that one), and allow Palestians to stey in their respective countries i.e. 1.5 million Palestinians in Jordan.

Peace bro