The Israeli army snipers who were ordered to shoot unarmed Palestinian protesters last Friday at the Gaza border, killing 17 outright and wounding hundreds of others, were acting according to the contemporary script of Middle Eastern dictators.
The Israeli army initially admitted in a tweet that the tactic was premeditated and precise, but then deleted the tweet, as the Israeli peace group B’tselem pointed out:
Israel is correct in assuming the U.S. and U.K. are the only nations which matter - they are the only ones left who still support them. Once a ‘Lefty’ or ‘Progressive’ version of Trump takes office and brands Israel a rogue terrorist nation which has forfeited the ‘right to exist’ how long will it take for the end to come? Will the Jews then demand to be treated as well as Israel now treats the Palestinians?
I don’t think Hamas nor the PA have any animosity toward world-wide Jewry, just the apartheid state of Israel.
I didn’t mention it before, but I think it is highly unlikely that a US president of any stripe would be allowed to brand Israel a rogue terrorist nation which has forfeited the right to exist. The PTB won’t allow that, imo.
That is why their Samson Option is worrying. Israel has nukes and they might be crazy enough to use them if they feel they are “existentially threatened”, i.e. can’t continue their genocide against the Palestinians.
“Palestinians are probably a majority of the people ruled by the Israeli government.”
Nowhere near that; not as long as both the PA and their willing UNRWA handmaids count many Arabs multiple times, which they do. And Molotov cocktails, petrol bombs and the like have NO place at ‘nonviolent’ protests!
This is something I repeat so much I bore myself with it: observe the different Israeli and Arab patterns of behavior. Most importantly, who is able to share power and the land with minorities? If you’re honest, the obvious answer is Israel. The Arabs’ behavior pattern continues to mirror that of our own Jim Crow and currently unreconstructed racists and until that changes–until a critical mass of them are ready to acknowledge Israel as legitimate and Jews as their equals, both in humanity and before God–any ‘nonviolent’ campaign they mount will show itself with remarkable speed (as happened in this case) just another sham. The Arabs have long been the ‘white men’ of the Middle East and they’re worse than even Byron de la Beckwith at letting go of that!
A bedrock of American foreign policy should be made clear: that any nation which launches a nuclear ‘first strike’ (whether N. Korea, or Pakistan or India or Israel) or even threatening to launch such a strike, will have their nuclear and military capabilities rendered totally inoperable. While the U.S. may not be able to prevent a nuclear strike, I’m pretty sure we are still in a position to put an END to one.
Defenders of Zionists accusing the Palestinians of being the racists is rich indeed.
The Zionist project was the brain-child of mostly 19th and early 20th century European Zionists who wanted to forcibly create a Jewish state in a land where the overwhelming majority of its indigenous residents during the past 2000 years were not Jewish.
Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that the concept of ethnic cleansing (euphemistically called “population transfer”) came to be embraced by nearly all shades of opinion in the Zionist movement.
“The problem is fundamental: Founding a modern state on a single ethnic or religious identity in a territory that is ethnically and religiously diverse leads inexorably either to politics of exclusion (think of the 139-square-mile prison camp that Gaza has become) or to wholesale ethnic cleansing. Put simply, the problem is Zionism.”
Zionists are in no position to call ANYONE (much less those upon whom they continue to forcibly impose themselves) racists.
I still don’t quite get what the love affair with Israel is all about. On one side of the equation you have money and religion neither one of which I would enjoy seeing as a countries ruling construct.
On the other side of the coin you have the fact that they are allies. But that is a good thing for them, not for us. We wish we could say that they are for peace. Well, it doesn’t show. Do they fight in other countries wars? Do they give financial support to anyone? Are they isolationists, whereas in the U.S. that is unpopular among leadership? I just don’t get it. G
The problem is what defines a probable threat. Does the bellicose talk N. Korea does toward the United States could as a threat to justify a first strike? Does the recent announcements from Putin on the new development of Russia’s nuclear weapons justify having their military infrastructure inoperable? The threat of MAD can only be a deterrent for so long. In the end the only permanent solution is the worldwide dismantlement of nuclear weapons.
Correct me if I am wrong but it seems that having an ally in Israel allows the U.S. to have a permanent presence in the middle east. Same with being allies with Saudi Arabia even though their state religion is the most extreme version of Islam.