...Israel, like any democracy, has a right to defend itself. That’s true, but there’s a gap in the reasoning. It has a right to defend itself. It doesn’t follow that it has a right to defend itself by force.
So we might agree, say, that, you know, the British army in the United States in the colonies in 1776 had a right to defend itself from the terror of George Washington’s armies, which was quite real, but it didn’t follow they had a right to defend themselves by force, because they had no right to be here. So, yes, they had a right to defend themselves, and they had a way to do it—namely, leave.
And he worshipped as a fount of wisdom?
Or is that container a pisspot?
(Kippah tip: LGF)
If you have trouble understanding why I am upset at the above, as if it isn't eminently clear, let's try this Chomskyian verbiage:
Israel can defend itself by stopping its crimes. Gaza and the West Bank are a unit. Israel, with US backing, is carrying out constant crimes, not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank, where it is moving systematically with US support to take over the parts of the West Bank that it wants and to leave Palestinians isolated in unviable cantons, Bantustans, as Sharon called them. Well, stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop.
I am sure certain people will find this most logical. Except for the fact that this bit - "stop those crimes, and resistance to them will stop" - is ridiculous.
You see, prior to 1967, Israel did not occupy the WB & G and had built no "settlements" therein and yet still there was not peace but terror, started by the PLO on January 1, 1964.
What 'crimes' had Israel committed then? It's existence?
Posts
