Cancelled Israel Lorde gig sparks anti-boycott lawsuit

[aranthus]

18. It isn't merely the year.

It's that you keep trying to mitigate and excuse Palestinian rejectionsim.


Ken: "We still have no reason to assume that Ben-Gurion, who had been operating on the assumption that there could be no possible relationship with any of the Arabs OTHER than that of perpetual war, would have permitted a viable Palestinian state to be established."

It wasn't an assumption that came out of nowhere. It came out of persistent Palestinian rejectionsim. Do you seriously think that the Israelis, if faced with a Palestinian people that accepted a Jewish state and wanted to make a territorial deal, that the Israelis would have found a way to start a war? That's preposterous speculation, that exists only to let the Palestinians off the moral hook. It won't wash.

Ken: "And even if, even IF you were right about 1947...can you truly say that what happened then, SEVENTY YEARS AGO, justifies EVERYTHING, or even anywhere close to the majority of things, that have been done to Palestinians since that date?"

Except that the Palestinians never stopped pushing the conflict. Palestinian terrorism led to the 1956 Sinai war, fomented the Six Day War, the Lebanon war, the Intifada and today. Does seventy years of Palestinian rejection of compromise and peace justify everything that the Israelis have done over the last seventy years? No, of course not. But it does justify most of it. And yes, Palestinian aggression justifies the Occupation just as the genocidal aggression of the Nazis justified the occupation of Germany.

Ken: "Also...really, when you come down to it...we all know Israel as a country is never going to be ended-we all know that-how much difference does it really make what words Palestinians say about it? Why is it not enough for them to simply say(as the PLO said in 1994) that the recognize "the State of Israel"? Why the bloody minded insistence that they recognize it using the EXACT words Netayanhu, Prime Minister-for-Life, the man whose party will never ever be replaced in government by any party with humane, democratic values, insists that they must say?"

It's the difference between being able to defend yourself and having the other guy not want to kill you. No matter how capable you are of defending yourself, you want the other guy to stop wanting and stop trying to kill you. Why is that unreasonable?