So let's see: we are to bring peace to the sides, but the democratically elected leader of one side must be removed and an undemocratically appointed individual must be the one to bring about the agreement cause of course being unelected and basing his power on the support of the enemy and its patron is trully the way to make a deal valid to the people being led (perhaps against their whishes) to said deal. Yes, of course that makes all sorts of sense! Not good ones, mind you, but some sort of sense....
2 things.
1st : LOL @ Arafat being democratically elected.
He had 2 years to base his power while in control of the territories before the elections. He has already been the chairman of PLO. He is known to have threatened, jailed, and even killed people who resisted him, including journalists and palestinian politicians. And some... 8 years have passed since the last (and only) "democratic" election.
Furthermore I remind you again of history: Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan were all "decapitated", humiliated, forced to surrender, appointed a non-democratic western ruler, and brain-washed against their former policies.
Currently both countries are successfull non-militaristic democracies.
This is the only solution that will work in Palestine.
This just seems to be part of Sharon's campaign to work up to expelling all the Palestinians from the occupied territories. Presumably, targeting the Sheikh is meant to provoke the Palestinians into going wild as the pretext for a full invasion and expulsion, which will not be characterised as ethnic cleansing, even though that's what it will be.
And if that happens I'll personally commit myself to spitting on any Israeli I see.
And if that happens I'll personally commit myself to spitting on any Israeli I see.
None of the neighbours would dare do anything. They'd take an(other) absolute kicking.
Right now "transfer" is probably higher in the polls, but not really high enough and it's probably much higher among Likud and other right wing voters. Presumably if there is an extreme crisis the public will support decisive action long enough to allow it to be done.
I did read somewhere (and I'm an idiot for not marking it down) that the IDF has a plan ready to go if ever needed. I don't know if that's true, but it seems likely that it's been thought about.
They don't even have to go the whole way - just make life so unbearable (as if it could get much worse) that many Palestinians leave anyway.
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm trying to make sense of Sharon's strategy here which seems to have been to provoke the militants as much as possible as a pretext for reneging on the promise of a Palestinian State. The attempt to assissinate Sheikh Whatisname is the high point so far. How much more can they push?
Surprisingly I think Arafat is safe - as long as he's alive he remains an excuse.
Right now "transfer" is probably higher in the polls, but not really high enough and it's probably much higher among Likud and other right wing voters. Presumably if there is an extreme crisis the public will support decisive action long enough to allow it to be done.
I did read somewhere (and I'm an idiot for not marking it down) that the IDF has a plan ready to go if ever needed. I don't know if that's true, but it seems likely that it's been thought about.
They don't even have to go the whole way - just make life so unbearable (as if it could get much worse) that many Palestinians leave anyway.
I'm willing to admit I'm wrong, but I'm trying to make sense of Sharon's strategy here which seems to have been to provoke the militants as much as possible as a pretext for reneging on the promise of a Palestinian State. The attempt to assissinate Sheikh Whatisname is the high point so far. How much more can they push?
Surprisingly I think Arafat is safe - as long as he's alive he remains an excuse.
God, you are even stupider than I ever imagined.
From this moment forth see yourself being spat on by me, everytime you make a post about the ME conflict.
Comment