roachboy

nice dodging of the central question.
but maybe i blab too much and it gets obscured.
so this way:
what has this strategy gained anyone?

i would argue that it hasn't gained anyone shit. i mean nothing,
it's a stupid strategy. period.

let's not play the game of pretending that this conflict is written in stone. it isn't. the starting point is not text 2000 years old nor is it texts that are 800 years old--this conflict dates from 1967. it dates from the start of the israeli occupation of the west bank and gaza. unless we agree on this, we aren't talking about the same thing.

the problem with linking this back to some imaginary intractable conflict is that intractable is a byword for passivity. there are definite, concrete reasons for the present situation in gaza.

my argument is that those reasons are fucking stupid, based on the sort of assessment of the situation that only stupid people buy into, and that chief amongst those people are american conservatives. so far as i am concerned, this is basically just another example of the catastrophic consequences of allowing the american right any power at all anywhere ever.

that clear?
i hope it's clear.
i want this to be clear.
let me say it another way: american conservatives are delusional both in general (look around you) and in particular when it comes to politics involving israel. the policies of the bush administration with respect to gaza are evidence of this. the result of them is that alot of people end up dead for nothing.

there is not question but that israel is laying siege to gaza, and has for 18 months. read some actual information about what reality looks like and take the trouble to interpret it. if you rely on american conservative talking points, you'll never know anything. read through the material i linked to from electronic intifada above. you might not like it, but much of it is reality, deal with it, then we'll talk.

so i didn't think i'd have to do this, but it appears that i do.
because i started this thread, i insist upon two points:

(s) the starting point of this conflict is 1967
(b) israel is laying siege to gaza.

there is no argument about either of these that makes any sense.
so consider both constraints from this point out.
if you do not agree, then start another thread.
with that option available, i'll not hesitate to vaporize posts that do not conform to these constraints.
consider if an occupational hazard.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite