Comments: Custer ≠ Sitting Bull

Isn't military checkpoints how WE stole Brooklyn from The UNTAXABLE INDIANS?

Posted by Mike Meyer at December 8, 2011 12:55 AM

Isn't "aided Hamas directly" a slight fudge? The Likud government of the day wanted to wedge the PLO by succouring the Islamic Religious Right in the form of Ahmed Yassin's Islamic Association but this was before said organisation founded Hamas itself (after which the Israelis went cool on Yassin and took him out with an air-to-wheelchair missile). But, yes, the Islamic Association were the local branch of the shock! horror! Muslim Brotherhood; y'know, the guys the Brits and Eisenhower tried to help overthrow Nasser.

Just sayin'.

Posted by weaver at December 8, 2011 05:26 AM

"you can no more reasonably equate their motivations than you can compare the Sioux to the European colonists who drove them from the land."

Well actually, to the Indians who lived in the Black Hills and surrounding areas before the Lakota came in and took over, which is thought by historians to have happened in the late 18th century, the Lakota were probably hated about as much as European colonists, and for pretty much the same general reason. Many of those other Indians--Pawnee, Crow, Arikara, Mandan to name some--hated the "Sioux" as much or more as they hated anybody.

Posted by N E at December 8, 2011 10:21 AM

No, no, no darling. You are using the l-word in the wrong context. It's only supposed to be typed if it has the word "home" in front of it. That recalls the only good purpose of said area/province/plot.

The word you are looking for is "border."

Posted by Lewis T at December 8, 2011 01:11 PM

weaver: ...but this was before said organisation founded Hamas itself...

According to Sale's article the funding continued even after Hamas began violently resisting the occupation:

But with the triumph of the Khomeini revolution in Iran, with the birth of Iranian-backed Hezbollah terrorism in Lebanon, Hamas began to gain in strength in Gaza and then in the West Bank, relying on terror to resist the Israeli occupation.

Israel was certainly funding the group at that time. One U.S. intelligence source who asked not to be named said that not only was Hamas being funded as a "counterweight" to the PLO, Israeli aid had another purpose: "To help identify and channel towards Israeli agents Hamas members who were dangerous terrorists."

...(after which the Israelis went cool on Yassin and took him out with an air-to-wheelchair missile).

Yes, if by "after which" you mean 17 years--Yassin wasn't assassinated by Israel until 2004.

Posted by John Caruso at December 8, 2011 08:39 PM

I would like to add to the discussion, that even by the mid-nineteen nineties, there had been over fifteen moderate groups, some that sprang forth from the Palestinian side of the equation, some from the Israelis, who were moderate groups intent on spreading peace.

And these groups were always decimated - and usually the blame was laid at the feet of the Palestinians. Often the violent end of a moderate group would come just as whatever Zionist candidate was about to see himself re-elected.

Posted by Elise Mattu at December 8, 2011 09:14 PM

Yes, if by "after which" you mean 17 years--Yassin wasn't assassinated by Israel until 2004.

Well, he was an favourite bad guy for the Israelis for a long time before nthey whacked him.

The interesting thing is how neatly the Likud plan paralleled the efforts of Wetsern imperialists to succour religious right Muslim groups and leaders as a counter to third world leftism and nationalism - Zia and the Afghan mujahideen being the most famous examples. It seems like these people always have the same dumbass idea.

Posted by weaver at December 10, 2011 05:08 AM