JackRiddler wrote:17breezes wrote:"FWIW This is not "hate rhetoric". It's true!"
Of course it's hate rhetoric parroting the classic antisemitic "Jews control the world," bullshit. It's also wacky. If Israel had that much power, there never would have been any peace overtures. IMO anyone who believes that shit is insane.
What are you talking about? There have not been any serious peace overtures from Israel in more than 30 years. There have been a long series of wars and strikes against Lebanon, as well as atrocities in the territories, planned and executed by Israel. Even the routine policy - seizing land, destroying houses and olive groves, building settlements on all the best land and in the middle of Hebron, chopping the territories into bantustans - is a form of ethnic displacement. Or apartheid, as the new (and very accurate) common term goes.
And it's 33 years only if we count the Camp David Accords as an arrangement wherein Israel gave up anything significant in exchange for having Egypt refashioned as a US client state.
Also, your statement is illogical. (Meaning, refusing peace would not necessarily be a sign of strength, it can merely be recklessness or something else.) Israel has had "that much power" - in the region. Thanks in large part to US military backing.
Finally, a great deal of what Alice says is fine. You seem to want to characterize all of it as "hate rhetoric." That's not the case, afaic. (Not that I tolerate even just a little.)
The part that is poisons all the rest afaic. In the region does not mean in the US government. They, like any legal lobbying group have some power of course. One might even say it's too much power but that it controls the US government; that's just crazy.
As the vultures are circling in the region now given the undercurrents of Iranian/Shiite hegemony and and Obama's recent behaviour towards Israel, one can come to the conclusion that its neighbours see a chance to overcome Israel, something they have tried and failed to do several times. So recklessness in that hood? I don't think so.
Since you are a one stater which would mean, given the hate on both sides, huge and numerous bloodbaths, I doubt you care whether a Jewish state, the only Jewish state nestled among a slew of Muslim states, survives. That's an ideological choice and a legitimate one until it slams up against the realities on the ground over there at the current time and concludes the result is counterintuitive to any notions of the end of violence. One state is a choice for another time far in the future or in some alternative universe where over 1300 years of hate has not ever happened. And that's logical? Piff.
