are you saying that what Israel does is okay because Hamas does it too? Myself I think that Hamas is delaying elections because they know they would lose and this is but one example of why

... except you.

What is being said however is, you won't see massive condemnations by citizens so "concerned" about the plight of the Palestinians, you won't see UN resolutions condemning Hamas or accusing them of genocide, you won't see a Gaza Disinvestment and Sanctions Movement. In fact, you won't even see a single protest sign about this.

once again you reinterpret that in way that is both accusatory and almost nonsensical and then revert to the usual victim-hood spiel as to the "Gaza Disinvestment and Sanctions Movement" the US, Israel, and most the rest of the world is already part of that, you should really try to keep up on that stuff

Last edited Mon Jul 9, 2012, 11:56 PM - Edit history (2)

its just at the means to the end. That has finally been made clear. Complaining about hamas home demolition or lack of civil rights in gaza will do nothing to advance the nationalistic agenda of a palestenians state.

complaining what israel does, whether its a made up lie, an unjust policy is the agenda..its a:
the ends justifies the means type of agenda. The end being a Palestenian State, the consequence of such is not relevant be it internal or external. (i.e. enduring injustice)

to further the point, the israeli withdrawal from gaza, whether it made matters worse for the gazans or for the surrounding israelis is secondary. Far more important was the withdrawal. The consequences of that whatever it may be is simply not a relevant issue. (which is why there is little actual discussion about it)

another example is Iran, removing the shah, put in a far worse theocratic dictatorship, that also included millions of dead in a war with iraq (including sending children to clear mine fields with their bodies), but again because of the genetic make up of khomeni, you will find the the result of the removal of the shah to be justified-again consequences (enduring injustice) is simply not an issue.

Zimbabwa another example, Lybia....

the "progressive" holds two contradictory concepts at one: one is to remove a "historic injustice" using such values as western civil rights etc, at the sametime are wiling, supportive, to replace that historical injustice with an "enduring injustice" that runs over those very western values that were used to overcome the historical injustice.

hence the conclusion is: its not about western value rights, its about "the ends justifies the means" for a nationalistic goal.