
Originally Posted by
excon
Is Israel better off with Hamas in control of Gaza or Fatah? I don't know. They're ALL terrorists. Is one terrorist group better than another? Even though Bush set the tone for Hamas's election, Bush wants the Israli's to give weapons to Fatah. Is that a good idea? Such weapons are likely to wind up in the hands of Hamas as previous ones have.
NONE of them are good options. You'll notice that Gaza was actually more peaceful when Israel controlled it. The best option is for Israel to retake Gaza and seal it up, build a bunch of Israeli cities and ANNEX the whole friggin' thing. And if the Arabs get out of hand, you bomb the $h!t out of them until they stop.
Barring that, Fatah seems to be the better choice to support. Fatah is at least willing to make noises about negotiations with Israel. Hamas refuses to even countenance the idea of sitting down at the barganing table.
How did Bush set the tone for Hamas being elected. All he did was push for elections in the PA. He gave the Palestinians the chane to throw off their own internal aggressors by voting in a real democratic government. They failed to take that chance. I don't see why that is Bush's fault.
And I don't think that Bush or Israel should support giving arms to either side of the fight. Let them kill each other with stone knives and spears for all I care.
And, since Bush now loves the Iranians, because he knows he needs them to succeed in Iraq, when is Israel going to bomb the Iranian nuke program? Who is going to let Israli jets fly over their country?
Huh? Where did you get the idea that Bush needs Iran to succeed in Iraq, or that Bush "loves" them? Far as I can tell, that's not the case. Bush is still pissed at Ahmadinejad for supporting Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the PA against Israel last summer, as well as their supplying weapons to terrorists in Iraq. I don't think Bush would shed a tear if Israel were to bomb the nuclear facilities in Iran. In fact, I think he would tell Ahmadinejad that he reaps what he sows.
Pretty screwed up over there. There are THREE civil wars happening: Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza. The interesting thing about those wars is that Israel isn't involved in any of them. It's Islamists against moderates (if you want to call Fatah a moderate).
Yes it is interesting. But I don't see Iraq as a civil war. The insurgents in Iraq are for the most part foreigners. Foreigners can't fight a civil war. A civil war is between two parts or factions of the same country, which Iraq is not.
However, I would argue with your premise that Israel is not involved in any of them. In my opinion, Israel is directly involved in the Lebanese struggle. The outcome of that battle will have a dirrect effect on Israel's military status. If the Hez win over there, it will mean war for Israel for a long time to come. If the legal government in Lebanon wins the war, there's a fair-to-middling chance at a cesation of open hostilities, if not outright peace. And the same argument is true of Gaza.
Can Fatah be called moderate? I'll answer with one of Meir Kahane's responses: A moderate Muslim is a Muslim that wants to kill Jews moderately. There's no such thing as a Moderate terrorist.
It's a powder keg. It's all one war, isn't it? Our boy's are in the middle of it. It's out of control. It's going to get bigger and worse. Whether we stay in Iraq or go isn't going to change that.
Now you've got the idea. So the only question is whether we wish to pull out of the Middle East and let the enemy come here to attack us on our turf, or whether we wish to continue engaging them over there on their turf. Seems to me that 2,102 days without a terrorist attack on American soil (compared to roughly one to two attacks against us per year prior to that for the previous 40 years) is a pretty good indicator of whether the current strategy is working as a prevention of terrorism here at home.
Nothing argues success better than success.
Elliot