The main difference between what happened to the Irish and the Jews (besides the scale of death) is that the problem in Ireland never had the potential of causing the death of the entire planet.
This is why I get so pissed at the bone-heads in Israel and Washington, they don’t grasp the grandness of the scope.
Another difference is the propaganda machine. Towards the end of Olbermann’s show Thursday night, there was a commercial soliciting for donations for Israel which distorted the current war beyond belief, The Israelis were the victims, and are shivering in the dark in terror.Once again, WHERE is this huge missile defense shield we spent billions for, and WHY can’t it work against the punny Pal rockets? If this is the same missile defense Bush wants to put in Poland and the Czech Republic, well they’d better think twice before pissing off Russia over an impotent anti-missile system.
The other thing that pisses me off is the Israelis just keep pushing.
Settlements illegal? Well, we’ll just call them “outposts” problem solved. The Israelis are committing crimes against humanity and expanding territory, and Washington backs them fully, case closed. One look at a map of palestinian lands in the 60′ and today is very revealing.

Peace came to Northern Ireland when the door to opportunity and prosperity was opened. You’d think the Israelis would get a clue.
Sadly, I see no chance of this happening in my lifetime, especially after Israel’s actions in Lebanon and the occupied territories over the last several years, and the fact that “the lobby” owns both parties in Washington.I’m begining to realize that my words don’t matter, I don’t have enough money to buy any politicians, and that’s the way things work. If anyone says something critical of Israeli policy, they’re thrown into the same group as David Duke.

“All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”

There are Palestinians who want peace, and Palestinians who want war. There are Israelis who want peace, and there are Israelis who want war. This has been true for a long time. It’s not getting us anywhere, mostly because the ones who want war seem to be the ones in charge. This is true on both sides.

Once again, I personally wish Israel well, and if I had the power to do so I would grant Israel peace and security. But I don’t have that power. It’s something they have to do for themselves. And MY point, which continues to fly right over your head, is that their current course of action in Gaza will not give them peace and security. It will just continue the enmity.

I wanted to correct something you said in #51. The people who thought taking out Saddam would solve all the problems of the Middle East were the neocons, not all righties, and I believe I stated that clearly (do learn to read). Pat Buchanan is a paleocon, not a neocon, and he disagreed. Obviously. I have never said otherwise.

Now, FYI, I maintain this blog so that thoughtful people can discuss thoughtful things among themselves intelligently and without acrimony. Every now and then a zombie breaks in and disrupts the place, which can be entertaining for a while, but eventually gets tiresome. You’ve hit tiresome. Bye.

Are you serious?

I cannot go back and rewrite the initial agreements within the nascent United Nations that helped to delinate boundaries, nor can I go back and influence Muslim nations in the area to accept a Jewish nation in the neighborhood.

My argument concerning the creation of the state of Israel is that Jews had, and still have, just as much a right to a nation-state in that region as do Muslims. As well, I also argue that it isn’t the Jews and Israel who are the major impediment to a peaceful resolution, but Muslims and the Islamic regimes in the region.

As well, I believe it is debatable if this military action or this diplomatic initiative will bring about peace, but what is not debatable, in my opinion, is who desires peace and who doesn’t.

If I am reading correctly between the lines, you are also saying that there are no real “Palestinians”, just people who have lived in the region or continue to live there. In that sense, all the inhabitants of that region–Jews, Arabs, Bedouin, Ottomans, etc.–are all Palestinians. Are the only people who have a true “right” to call the region their national homeland the Jews because of references to our having lived in that land in Biblical times? Or are you actually in favour of a one-state solution (lol)?

Your views are interesting only if we are to continue the argument that one side is “righter” than the other. That argument cannot be won, as I pointed out in my initial post. The only shred of hope (slim as it is) lies in ceasing to prove who’s ultimately “right” and starting to create a true modus vivendi. This solution may turn out to be impossible, but I think that it’s the only one that has even the slightest chance of yielding peace.

Humans beings have engaged in internecine, religious and ethnic warfare going back at least as far as the 30th Century BC.

Whats your point?

We are all guests here at the Mahablog. A little civility goes a long way.

Civility is a two way street. You were civil in your analysis of the situation, so I responded to you in a civil manner. The proprieter of this blog demonstrated no such civility in starting this post and therefor is not deserving of civility in return.

With respect to your assertion regarding the Jewish population of Palestine, I quote the Wikipedia and part of its definition of “Palestine”:

“Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.[1] In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River.”

When saying that there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine, this is the area that I was referring to. If the Ottoman census is correct, “kolakavod” to the Jewish population in Jerusalem. However, it takes nothing away from what I said.

I agree with your assertion on the word Palestine and it’s usage, but do you understand that Palestinian is not a unique ethnic or racial hertitage such as Kurdish or Turkish? As well, you do understand there was never a nation in that region called Palestine?

Historically, Palestine was only used as a label to describe a region and not a people. It would be like people who live on the French Riviera claiming 1,000 years later that they are a unique people called Rivierians and not people of French descent.

Yes, very good. Now, based on the rest of your comment, I’d say the next phrase you need to work on is “intellectual dishonesty.”

Yes, your attacks on the right are intellectually dishonest, because…

A.) You advocate positions you know are false or misleading. One such example is your claims about the “collective adolescent brain of the Right”. I’m certain you know who Pat Buchanan is and his long standing opinion on Israel and his political leanings.

B.) You advocate positions you have not thoroughly vetted for truthfulness. As an example, you claim that the right believe that “if Saddam Hussein were taken out, all the problems of the Middle East would somehow unravel.” You clearly have not researched the position of those on the right. All you’ve done is substitute your feelings for actual thought.

C.) You advocate positions while omitting relevent arguments that counter your position.

It’s really sad if you truly believe all you have written, because it shows a true lack of understanding and empathy, and futher shows that your are not progressive or liberal… You’re just a leftist.

We are all guests here at the Mahablog. A little civility goes a long way.

With respect to your assertion regarding the Jewish population of Palestine, I quote the Wikipedia and part of its definition of “Palestine”:

“Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River.[1] In its broader meaning as a geographical term, Palestine can refer to an area that includes contemporary Israel and the Palestinian territories, parts of Jordan, and parts of Lebanon and Syria.[1][2] In its narrow meaning, it refers to the area within the boundaries of the former British Mandate of Palestine (1920-1948) west of the Jordan River.”

When saying that there has always been a Jewish presence in Palestine, this is the area that I was referring to. If the Ottoman census is correct, “kolakavod” to the Jewish population in Jerusalem. However, it takes nothing away from what I said.