Comments on: Palestinian state won’t be forever http://samsonblinded.org/blog/palestinian-state-wont-be-forever.htm A Machiavellian Perspective on the Middle East Conflict Thu, 02 Feb 2012 06:09:32 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: AbuShy http://samsonblinded.org/blog/palestinian-state-wont-be-forever.htm/comment-page-1#comment-113772 AbuShy Wed, 18 Nov 2009 14:57:01 +0000 http://samsonblinded.org/blog/?p=3532#comment-113772 I must say, Obadiah pretty well lets it all hit the wall. That way, there is always an out when you interpret the artwork and maybe dismiss it or attack it. Personally, I think some sense can be made of the very first and the end of this 'Picasso'. There is much belagan and stewyote though, in the main body of this work. But Obadian is right, from the beginning, when the UN decided and a tri-partate Palestinian State was declared, it was obvious, especially when the 6 state Moslem 'fire-ant hill' got agitated after Israeli independence was declared: A UN approved country was not what they wanted. All they were after was dead Jews floating in the sea. After the 1948 armistice lines, this was also all too obvious. When Arafat and the P.L.O. were established a couple of years before the '67 6-day War, it was for the express purpose of exterminating the Palestinians, the Jews. But they never "missed their water 'til the well went dry". For the war (that Arafat was promoted to initiate) only made them more exasperated and blood thirtsy for Jewish blood and longing for land that they no longer controlled. For with Jerusalem firmly under Jewish auspices, it became, almost overnight, Islam's much longed for holy ground, and the Palestinians we know today suddenly morphed into a people who had always desired their own homeland from time immemorial. Their name even changed to that which the world had always used when they mentioned the Jews. As I said, the middle part of this soliloquy has much to be desired. His reasoning goes way out into philosophical left field, probably clean out of the park, yet without making contact on the ball of reasoning. Phrases like: "the settlers will start abandoning their villages voluntarily"; "but that is about what we have now"; "there is no reason whatsoever to cling to the West Bank" read in their context of his article contradict history and have the perspective usually attributed to people who agree with Islam that Israel needs to head out into the Mediterranean Sea. ?"Israel has no practical reason to refuse Palestinians statehood?" That is as practical and reasonable a thought as the way I punctuated that quote he made at the beginning of the 4th paragraph. It almost makes one think Obadiah wants Fatah/Hamas/Islam to succeed as he concludes with these words, "...Fatah refrains from declaring independence (which) suggests that it might be bluffing to pressure Israel into negotiations." The fact that Islam has not succeeded in using warfare in the past, and will ultimately be destroyed, eventually trying one last time to push Israel, once again into the sea, is all the reason one needs to know why they resort to "negotiate" at the present time. The goal is the same: one more moslem homeland - no; dead Jews - yes! I must say, Obadiah pretty well lets it all hit the wall. That way, there is always an out when you interpret the artwork and maybe dismiss it or attack it. Personally, I think some sense can be made of the very first and the end of this ‘Picasso’. There is much belagan and stewyote though, in the main body of this work.

But Obadian is right, from the beginning, when the UN decided and a tri-partate Palestinian State was declared, it was obvious, especially when the 6 state Moslem ‘fire-ant hill’ got agitated after Israeli independence was declared: A UN approved country was not what they wanted. All they were after was dead Jews floating in the sea.

After the 1948 armistice lines, this was also all too obvious. When Arafat and the P.L.O. were established a couple of years before the ‘67 6-day War, it was for the express purpose of exterminating the Palestinians, the Jews. But they never “missed their water ’til the well went dry”. For the war (that Arafat was promoted to initiate) only made them more exasperated and blood thirtsy for Jewish blood and longing for land that they no longer controlled. For with Jerusalem firmly under Jewish auspices, it became, almost overnight, Islam’s much longed for holy ground, and the Palestinians we know today suddenly morphed into a people who had always desired their own homeland from time immemorial. Their name even changed to that which the world had always used when they mentioned the Jews.

As I said, the middle part of this soliloquy has much to be desired. His reasoning goes way out into philosophical left field, probably clean out of the park, yet without making contact on the ball of reasoning. Phrases like: “the settlers will start abandoning their villages voluntarily”; “but that is about what we have now”; “there is no reason whatsoever to cling to the West Bank” read in their context of his article contradict history and have the perspective usually attributed to people who agree with Islam that Israel needs to head out into the Mediterranean Sea.

?”Israel has no practical reason to refuse Palestinians statehood?” That is as practical and reasonable a thought as the way I punctuated that quote he made at the beginning of the 4th paragraph. It almost makes one think Obadiah wants Fatah/Hamas/Islam to succeed as he concludes with these words, “…Fatah refrains from declaring independence (which) suggests that it might be bluffing to pressure Israel into negotiations.”

The fact that Islam has not succeeded in using warfare in the past, and will ultimately be destroyed, eventually trying one last time to push Israel, once again into the sea, is all the reason one needs to know why they resort to “negotiate” at the present time. The goal is the same: one more moslem homeland – no; dead Jews – yes!

]]>