Sunday, January 11, 2009

A Zionist Fair Fight?

790 Dead Palestinians
11 dead Jews

11 comments:

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Zionist fair fight is an oxymoron.

Anonymous said...

Are you equating this to some sort of sporting bout with judges, referees, and a victor at the end? Even then, the score isn't what determines whether a contest is fair or not.

When was the last time anyone ever engaged in a fair fight? Why would you expect a Zionist to fight fair? What kind of idiot fights fair? What kind of idiot expects to be in a fair fight? Do you think if Hamas had the firepower, they wouldn't use it to wipe Israel off the map, Zionists and anybody else in the vicinity?
If they could and did would you consider that fair?

Or is it the fact that the Palestinians don't have access to the resources available to the Zionists that you find unfair? But surely that would run counter to your gotta get mine, I am supreme, way of thinking. Surely the Gazan who doesn't have their shit together must be slippin in his or her pimpin. Allowing themselves to be put in such a condition is simply a sign of weakness according to the DV mindset.

Surely we can think of a better way to work out challenges and frustrations than resorting to "last one living wins". Is that the height of advancement in our so-called civilized society? The concept of "fair fight" is the oxymoron. The concept that "might makes right" is ALWAYS WRONG.

Denmark Vesey said...

Excellent points Ex.

Before I reply, allow me to clear up a few things:

1) Would you consider there to be a difference between a Battle and a Massacre?

2) Is there a difference between a Fight and Murder?

My commentary in this piece was more about the Zionist Media coverage of this ... "conflict" ... in Palestine and the conformist complacent consumption of that media by the American people who have been suckered into believing this slaughter has anything to do with "retaliation" and "Hamas rockets".

What is happening in Gaza is no more a "fight" between Israel and the people of Gaza than the Holocaust was a fight between Germans and Jews.

Anonymous said...

There is still a LARGE elephant in the room that no one will address here.

Egypt, despite Palestinian, Iran, etc. calls, has refused to open it's border with Gaza @ the Rafah crossing. However, it has passivley rooted out the flow of weapons via tunnels on it's borders. Effectively playing the role of the house in high stakes poker game.

Intellectual Insurgent said...

That's one way to look at it Casper. Another possible explanation for Egypt's behavior is that they don't want Israel to have an excuse to send its military into the Sinai.

Israeli hardliners have always had their eyes on the Sinai, as part of the vision of Greater Israel (everything between the Nile and Euphrates) and they would love to be able to say they had to go into the Sinai to chase Hamas.

Hamas is their free pass to viciously slaughter civilians, so why wouldn't it be their excuse to annex land that God allegedly promised them.

Anonymous said...

Or one would argue Gaza is a pawn in the struggle of the moderates in the region. Israel entering Egypt would be a GAME changer!. Ain't going to happen!... It's in Eqypt's interest to keep the cage around around the victims for the world to see. DV speaks of the non coverage of the military attacks on Gaza. Well one could argue the non coverage of Gaza's neighbor to the south not allowing the civilians to flee from certain death.

CAIRO, Jan 11 (Reuters) - Egyptian police detained 21 members of the opposition Muslim Brotherhood after a rally in protest against Israel's offensive in Gaza, the group and security officials said on Sunday.

The Brotherhood, the strongest opposition group in the country, said most of the men were rounded up before dawn in the coastal city of Alexandria.

One security official said the detentions were made in response to the Gaza protests and because of suspicion of membership of an illegal organisation.

Those detained include members of the provincial leadership of the Brotherhood, which has historical and ideological ties with Hamas, the Islamist group ruling Gaza.

The government says the Brotherhood is outlawed but allows it to operate relatively openly.

The Egyptian government and security agencies have been eager to suppress protests against the Israeli attacks on Gaza, in which protesters frequently condemn the government for what they see as its complicity in the blockade of the coastal strip.

In recent days protesters have called for the expulsion of the Israeli ambassador to Cairo, and for Egypt to open its Rafah border crossing with Gaza to allow Palestinians to flee the 16-day onslaught which has killed 869 people

Intellectual Insurgent said...

Casper, Casper, Casper. We've got work to do.

Neocon theory, Machiavelli, and all other philosophies of rule mandate that there be an enemy force in order to maintain internal cohesion.

Without the Muslim Brotherhood, Mubarak would not be able to justify the tyranny he has imposed on Egypt since Sadat's assassination. If the Brotherhood didn't exist, he would have to invent it.

Same goes with Israel. Israel would not have a perpetual free pass to slaughter and starve millions, steal land, build apartheid walls, hustle American Jews for billions and extort the American government for billions in "aid" if it couldn't tell the sob story about its neighbors hating it, and the threat posed by Hamas, yada, yada, yawn.

So it invented Hamas. It's actually quite a fascinating study in how Israel finances its so-called enemies in order to maintain its brutal oppression of the Palestinians.

Once you understand the machinations of the State, you won't get so distracted by all these red herrings.

Which Palestinians will be able to flee the onslaught? It will be Hamas who, by the way, already has "leaders" attending truce talks in Cairo. As soon as I read the headline that a Hamas leader said that there would be no peace with Israel because of the Gaza massacre, I knew Hamas was on board with Israel.

Anonymous said...

Nothing like little clarity Bro DV

"Massacre" could be just a battle that went real bad for one side, i.e., what happened to Custer. Or it could be used to describe a situation where atrocities and non-combatant deaths were the order of the day. I certainly can see how the situation in Gaza could be termed a massacre under either definition.

Of course there is a world of difference between a Fight and Murder. For one thing, Murder requires death where fighting can end even without serious harm among civilized honorable combatants.

But that's not really your point. Your point about the media coverage of the fighting is that it fails to sufficiently demonize the winning party for it's role in starting and escalating this affair, or it's brutality in effecting the win. There's surely some validity to that.

But the entire line of thinking seems to presuppose that there is something to be gained from armed conflict between nation states, if only we could get them to fight fair. That's an indefensible proposition as far as I can see.

Anonymous said...

II
if it couldn't tell the sob story about its neighbors hating it, and the threat posed by Hamas, yada, yada, yawn.

Sorry.. I am not quite sure there is a sob story that IDF can tell when the score is 900+ to 13 dead.

Additionally, one may conclude that you don't agree with DV and MFish's position that Obama+ aka U.S. should hyperventilate over this situation beacause it's all fabricated (Hamas)? Is that what you are implying?

Intellectual Insurgent said...

You're not sure there is a sob story the IDF can tell? Oh don't worry, they'll drag out some re-runs of Schindler's List to remind the world of their eternal free pass to slaughter innocents.

I didn't understand your question about DV & MF's position.

Anonymous said...

You let them into your country out of mercy for all their Trojan Horse sob stories...of being a wandering tribe with no home.

Then they come in and steadily take you over, until you die or they kick you out, without showing an ounce of mercy back.

This is nothing new and there's a reason why history keeps repeating itself...

"Rome became so frustrated with the Jews that at its height point during the days of Tiberius, Sejanus, the most influential Roman in Tiberius's court, imitated measures that were designed to destroy the whole race"

Now, why did Jews quickly become despised in every country they've invaded (by immigration) for millenia??? I mean, when you keep encountering the same problem over and over...isn't the common denominator YOU?

Palestine is just another dot in a looonggggg timeline....