Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss.


David Davis

The pointless slaughter being described, although no different qualitatively from all other pointless socialism-induced-slaughters of blameless civilians which have ever occurred and will ever occur in the future – as they will – is the result of just one thing: a Stalinist outfit deflecting our gaze from its own deliberate uselessness as regards the supposed requirements of “its” citizens captives, and towards instead a pretend-enemy: in this case Israel.

Israel is an increasingly vulnerable target of course, as memory of three things as follows: the historiographic-philosophical reasons why Jews think they exist as an identifiable entity (largely un-understood), the Holocaust, and 9/11, all recede into folk-legend….or, worse……..cease to be aired on British mainstream “Wireless Tele Vision”.

In the minds and dark hearts of people such as Hamas, whatever that might be, and its friends, whoever they may be at any given time, it is easy to demonize Israel. Israel , seen across a barbed-wire fence, represents the negation of all their deeply-held beliefs about how rights and duties work. Israel has made the Hamas-driven poverty in the Gaza strip hideous, because Israel, just a fence away, has shown what can and will be achieved instead in a pluralist democracy. Israeli democracy is not perfect, but then neither is Gordon Brown’s, Nicholas Sarkozy’s or Tony Blair’s. But it is a galactic distance improved from that exercised by Hamas, if they do at all, inside Gaza.

I cannot think of a war, in those centuries of history which I have studied, in which either or both sides did not accidentally or even deliberately kill “women and children”, or even civilian non-combattants generally. I’m not sure either what today’s British lefties are silent about the fact that there’s a poor woman trying to save her “nine children” from Israeli shellfire.

Rather than blame the Israeli Navy for threatening her children with its shrapnel, should they not ask why Hamas has not arranged doctors to prescribe her the “Morning After Pill”, to be obtained at any secondary school “student services office” near her home?

Why should she have nine children, but any of my teenage students, if they wish, ought not to? She probably started when she was 14 or 15. Why ought they then not to? We ought to celebrate diversity and adopt it surely? No?

Where is the moral equivalence that we seek from these lefties, when we need it the most?

Hamas is saying it’s going to do a Stalingrad:-

A Hamas delegation travelled to Egypt to discuss ceasefire terms but its leaders vowed to continue the rocket attacks and said its were committed to attack Israeli troops “in every street, every alley and at every house.”

So what do “ceaefire terms” mean, then, when you say you’re going to do FISH to the end regardless?

I thought Israel was (a) suppling electric power, (b) sending in “aid” (consisting of food and medicines etc) and (c) had evacuated the Gaza Strip of Israelis some years ago?

What do the buggers want? Spaghetti?

it also does not look to me, a bumpkin from Lancashire, that the Ghazis are doing much growing of stuff. look at this Googleearth image:-

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

Don't grow stuff if the enemy gives it you!

About these ads

5 responses to “Hamas does not need to attack Israel: discuss.

  1. Steven Northwood

    One thing’s for certain – Israel has made much more of the land they occupy than the Palestinians have of theirs.

    Of course there’s the American support, but ultimately, they’ve done so for the same reason that that bloke drove past me the other day in a Porsche 911 as I was walking to the bus stop. It’s not necessarily that he’s worked harder than me, or expended more of his energy or because, necessarily, that he’s smarter than me.

    It’s because he’s in some way interacted with other people in a way that he has obtained the resources, probably in the form of currency, to acquire said automobile. Didn’t Smith have plenty to say about that by the way?

    And as for the war, they can win it, but something I saw on that Torygraph video clip got me thinking.

    As they were showing the footage of the IDF armour, the reporter said “Yes, it’s not a modern armed forces versus a modern armed forces, it’s very much a modern IDF versus angry Palestinians with Kalashnikovs and a few RPGs”

    It must be remembered what the actual situation is.

    If you work up from, for example, a civilian militia such as the Police, through to armed response units and the Garda as used in Northern Ireland, you eventually end up with armoured warfare with close air support. But there’s always a ‘paper, scissors, stone’ quality to this sort of thing, and I’ll bet that’s what happened last time in Lebanon.

    I can’t articulate further, because I’m not a General Staff Officer and I don’t know all the facts, but I reckon it’s bearing such points in mind which will decide the outcome of this battle.

    From my old scrapbook;

    If I were to join the military, I would need to be able to assert that, for example, the Army does not exist to have its personnel wear camoflaged uniforms and use armoured vehicles, nor does it exist to brutalise and break its recruits. It exists solely to perform its function, and that is to protect the national security and interests of the UK by armed force. It just so happens that this aim requires people to wear camoflaged uniforms and use armoured vehicles, for practicality’s sake. It must always be remembered that despite all the uniforms, weapons, insignia and regimentation, one old man with half a housebrick can take even the most highly-trained and dedicated soldier.

  2. Steven:

    That’s a superb post.

    Tom Engelhardt and I differ as to the protagonists of 9/11. He captures brilliantly the cinematic quality of the events of that day. To him, the grand sweep of events is fortuitous: to me, it looks near-perfectly planned and scripted, with all the evidential hallmarks of a priori planning.

    Whatever you think, do read his article.

    “TomDispatch” is well worth adding to your online reading. His researcher Nick Turse is a friend of mine.

    http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/9_11_an_explosion_out_of_the_towering_inferno_

    Sincerely,

    Tony

    Pilots for 9/11 Truth

    PS: Visit our Web site: read some articles; watch some videos. Use your own intelligence…

  3. Steven Northwood

    Thanks for that Tony.

    I remember seeing the film “Loose Change” on Google Video, and although I can’t really doubt the actual WTC attacks, the points they raised about the plane hitting the Pentagon are highly suspect.

    There should have been much more wreckage from one of those American Airlines planes, and the impact spot must surely have looked much different than it did. There’s also the issue of the small jet engine spool found inside the building, which did’t match the supposed plane which crashed there.

    Personally I doubt we’ll ever really be sure. Think about the JFK assasination, for example. But he’s added to my bookmarks anyway.

    Cheers,

    Steve.

  4. Pingback: …and the pressure on Israel builds up…. « The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  5. Just like you, I go forever with out reading RSS. My view is, if it’s important at all, It will hit my twitter stream.