Terrorism????...Blame America!!!!

[maiden22]

I state who I am and what my bias is now will you be honest and state yours?

I have no bias. I am not a Muslim or a Jew, or an Israeli or a Palestinian. I have no personal interest whatsoever.

I have not spread any hatred, nor made as far as I am aware any unjust accusations. I have not obsessively gone on about Hamas - I made one post, and subsequent posts have stemmed from others replying to or challenging what I wrote.

I would ask you again to point to my unfairly "harsh words", or to false statements I have made. If you can, I will gladly retract them.

 

[Pat494]

I have no bias. I am not a Muslim or a Jew, or an Israeli or a Palestinian. I have no personal interest whatsoever.

.

Nor I
but unfortunately I have to disagree about the personal interest. Everyone has a personal intest. The conflict just goes on and on. If WW3 is going start anywhere it will probably be because of the Middle East problem.
Therefore it's in everyones interest to get a just and lasting settlement as soon as possible imho.
The USA should threaten to DUMP Israel if they refuse to behave - end of problem one way or the other.

 

[Mr Flibble]

That UN report is a complete joke, as indeed is the UN's attitude to Israel in general. Come to think of it, as is the UN full stop.

U.S. Vetoes of UN Resolutions Critical of Israel
(1972-2006)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vetoes: 1972-1982
Subject Date & Meeting US Rep Casting Veto Vote
Palestine: Syrian-Lebanese Complaint. 3 power draft resolution 2/10784 9/10/1972 Bush 13-1, 1
Palestine: Examination of Middle East Situation. 8-power draft resolution (S/10974) 7/2/1973 Scali 13-1, 0 (China not partic.)
Palestine: Egyptian-Lebanese Complaint. 5-power draft power resolution (S/11898) 12/8/1975 Moynihan 13-1, 1
Palestine: Middle East Problem, including Palestinian question. 6-power draft resolution (S/11940) 1/26/1976 Moynihan 9-1,3 (China & Libya not partic.)
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Arab Territories. 5-power draft resolution (S/12022) 3/25/1976 Scranton 14-1,0
Palestine: Report on Committee on Rights of Palestinian People. 4-power draft resolution (S/121119) 6/29/1976 Sherer 10-1,4
Palestine: Palestinian Rights. Tunisian draft resolution. (S/13911) 4/30/1980 McHenry 10-1,4
Palestine: Golan Heights. Jordan draft resolution. (S/14832/Rev. 2) 1/20/1982 Kirkpatrick 9-1,5
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, Jordan draft resolution (S/14943) 4/2/1982 Lichenstein 13-1,1
Palestine: Incident at the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem. 4-power draft resolution 4/20/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1, 0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. Spain draft resolution. (S/15185) 6/8/1982 Kirpatrick 14-1,0
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. France draft resolution. (S/15255/Rev. 2) 6/26/1982 Lichenstein 14-1
Palestine: Conflict in Lebanon. USSR draft resolution. (S/15347/Rev. 1, as orally amended) 8/6/1982 Lichenstein 11-1,3
Palestine: Situation in Occupied Territories, 20-power draft resolution (S/15895) 8/2/1983 Lichenstein 13-1,1



Security Council Vetoes/Negative voting 1983-present
Subject Date Vote
Occupied Arab Territories: Wholesale condemnation of Israeli settlement policies - not adopted 1983
S. Lebanon: Condemns Israeli action in southern Lebanon. S/16732 9/6/1984 Vetoed: 13-1 (U.S.), with 1 abstention (UK)
Occupied Territories: Deplores "repressive measures" by Israel against Arab population. S/19459. 9/13/1985 Vetoed: 10-1 (U.S.), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK, France)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17000. 3/12/1985 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Occupied Territories: Calls upon Israel to respect Muslim holy places. S/17769/Rev. 1 1/30/1986 Vetoed: 13-1 (US), with one abstention (Thailand)
Lebanon: Condemns Israeli practices against civilians in southern Lebanon. S/17730/Rev. 2. 1/17/1986 Vetoed: 11-1 (U.S.), with 3 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, UK)
Libya/Israel: Condemns Israeli interception of Libyan plane. S/17796/Rev. 1. 2/6/1986 Vetoed: 10 -1 (US), with 4 abstentions (Australia, Denmark, France, UK)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored repeated Israeli attacks against Lebanese territory and other measures and practices against the civilian population; (S/19434) 1/18/1988 vetoed 13-1 (US), with 1 abstention (UK)
Lebanon: Draft condemned recent invasion by Israeli forces of Southern Lebanon and repeated a call for the immediate withdrawal of all Israeli forces from Lebanese territory; (S/19868) 5/10/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Lebanon: Draft strongly deplored the recent Israeli attack against Lebanese territory on 9 December 1988; (S/20322) 12/14/1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft called on Israel to accept de jure applicability of the 4th Geneva Convention; (S/19466) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Draft urged Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention, rescind the order to deport Palestinian civilians, and condemned policies and practices of Israel that violate the human rights of the Palestinian people in the occupied territories; (S/19780) 1988 vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Strongly deplored Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories, and strongly deplored also Israel's continued disregard of relevant Security Council decisions. 2/17/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Condemned Israeli policies and practices in the occupied territories. 6/9/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: Deplored Israel's policies and practices in the occupied territories. 11/7/1989 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Occupied territories: NAM draft resolution to create a commission and send three security council members to Rishon Lezion, where an Israeli gunmen shot down seven Palestinian workers. 5/31/1990 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Confirms that the expropriation of land by Israel in East Jerusalem is invalid and in violation of relevant Security Council resolutions and provisions of the Fourth Geneva convention; expresses support of peace process, including the Declaration of Principles of 9/13/1993 5/17/1995 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Calls upon Israeli authorities to refrain from all actions or measures, including settlement activities. 3/7/1997 Vetoed 14-1 (US)
Middle East: Demands that Israel cease construction of the settlement in east Jerusalem (called Jabal Abu Ghneim by the Palestinians and Har Homa by Israel), as well as all the other Israeli settlement activity in the occupied territories
3/21/1997 Vetoed 13-1,1 (US)
Call for UN Observers Force in West Bank, Gaza 3/27/2001 Vetoed 9-1 (US),
with four abstentions
(Britain, France, Ireland and Norway)
Condemned acts of terror, demanded an end to violence and the establishment of a monitoring mechanism to bring in observers. 12/14/2001 Vetoed 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Britain and Norway)
On the killing by Israeli forces of several UN employees and the destruction of the World Food Programme (WFP) warehouse
12/19/2002 12-1 (US)
with two abstentions
(Bulgaria and Cameroon)

Demand that Israel halt threats to expel Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat 9/16/03 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three abstentions
(Britain, Germany and Bulgaria)
Seeks to bar Israel from extending security fence 10/14/03 Vetoed 10-1 with four absentations (Britain, Germany, Bulgaria and Cameroon)
Condemns Israel for killing Ahmed Yassin 3/25/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 10/05/04 Vetoed 11-1 (US)
with three absentations
(Britain, Germany, Romania)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 7/13/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US)
with four absentations
(Britain, Peru, Denmark and Slovakia)
Calls For Israel To Halt Gaza Operation 11/11/06 Vetoed 10-1 (US)
with four absentations
(Britain, Denmark, Japan and Slovakia


Now what were you saying about the UN? Biased to who exactly? Not that it is the UN rather the US vetoe that has stopped any action being taken.

 

[maiden22]

The USA should threaten to DUMP Israel if they refuse to behave - end of problem one way or the other.

Could you clarify what Israel's misbehaviour is? Are you referring to the recent announcements about building in Jerusalem?

If I may say so, the phrase "end of problem one way or the other" is extraordinarily callous. As I presume you know, the end under such circumstances would involve the total destruction of Israel and the slaughter of her population.

 

[maiden22]

Mr Flibble,

Kindly do as I ask and point out my "harsh words" to which you have responded with "peace". I have repeatedly stated that I am willing to withdraw anything that can be shown to unjust or inaccurate.

As for the list you have posted, it is interesting, but perhaps not for the reasons you imagine. It shows ludicrous bias. Israel is the most condemned nation on earth by the UN, against all reason. There are innumerable countries whose offences against humanity are immeasurably worse and on a far greater scale, that attract a tiny fraction of the condemnation heaped upon Israel. Why should this be?

And why should not sensible nations stand up against a campaign of vilification conducted by a body made up of many nations which are little more than gangster states with the most apalling human rights records imaginable?

 

[Mr Flibble]

Maiden it doesnt matter about gangster states as none of them hold vetoe powers. Note it was only the US who vetoed note UK just abstains.

Look this conversation will not have any good implications for anyone. Look I like trading and so do you lets just stick to what we both agree on. Cable has kept me more than busy today.

If you want the last say then so be it. I came here because the tone was quite shocking and I wanted to curtail it. Not only you but some other posters here have shown too much perhaps of their true colours. Debate and taking the mickey are 2 different things.

To you your way and to me mine.
Take care and have a good weekend

 

[Pat494]

Could you clarify what Israel's misbehaviour is? Are you referring to the recent announcements about building in Jerusalem?

If I may say so, the phrase "end of problem one way or the other" is extraordinarily callous. As I presume you know, the end under such circumstances would involve the total destruction of Israel and the slaughter of her population.

Yes building, incursions etc.

Iran could also help bring resolution to the conflict by threatening to dump Hisbollah etc. if they wont make a generous effort to end it.

Not much hope of a settlement in next 50 years at this rate. None of the contestants seem to want peace so force them even if a bit callous. The many are more important than the few

 

[maiden22]

Maiden it doesnt matter about gangster states as none of them hold vetoe powers. Note it was only the US who vetoed note UK just abstains.

Look this conversation will not have any good implications for anyone. Look I like trading and so do you lets just stick to what we both agree on. Cable has kept me more than busy today.

If you want the last say then so be it. I came here because the tone was quite shocking and I wanted to curtail it. Not only you but some other posters here have shown too much perhaps of their true colours. Debate and taking the mickey are 2 different things.

To you your way and to me mine.
Take care and have a good weekend

I don't want the last word - just for you to clarify what it is that I have posted that is unjustly harsh or inaccurate. You appear to be unwilling to do so.

Instead you might expand upon what my "true colours" are and what evidence you have for saying this. I don't know if I contributed to the "shocking tone", but if I did please let me know how.

I have repeatedly stated my willingness to apologise for harsh opinions and inaccurate statements, if you point them out.

 

[Atilla]

I don't want the last word - just for you to clarify what it is that I have posted that is unjustly harsh or inaccurate. You appear to be unwilling to do so.

Instead you might expand upon what my "true colours" are and what evidence you have for saying this. I don't know if I contributed to the "shocking tone", but if I did please let me know how.

I have repeatedly stated my willingness to apologise for harsh opinions and inaccurate statements, if you point them out.

Maiden - I asked you how you define terrorism - and you replied with:

Post #866
It is not straightforward certainly. As a broad definition, I would say the deliberate targetting of civilian populations, with the aim of killing or intimidating, or the use of such populations against their will.

An example might be the deliberate and calculated targetting of Israeli civilians by Hamas for their rocket attacks. Another example might be the use by Hamas of Palestinian civilians as human shields, by using civilian centers and populations to hide their fighters and munitions factories.

An example might not be the recent Israeli attacks, where they went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, as described by a high ranking British officer.

Of course, one might broaden the definition to include actions by regular armies that have a high probability of unintentionaly causing significant loss of property and human life. I would not call this terrorism, as I am not lazy or hysterical and do not wish to hasten the impoversihment of the English language. However, such things must aways be a consideration, and could cause an otherwise legitimate war or action to become an act of evil.

I then provided some statistics which was totally disproportionate and one which is indisputably the targeting of mass highly densely popullated civilian areas coupled with two thirds or more deaths of women and children yet you are quite able to justify Hamaz's firing of crude rockets with some random chance of killing as terrorism - yet the war action in Gaza by Israels army as not?

Can you not see the ratio of deaths approx 10:1000 as disproportionate act of punishment? By your very own words it is terrorism. How about use of illegal weapons. Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells You are non-thinking and extreme in your dollops of metting out punishment and view of justice imo.

Then some blurbs get branded around about 72 virgins and everybody is merry and laughing with joy... All this is very sad imo.

Not all Jews support State of Israel's actions. Just as not all muslims support terrorists.

Problem is people support these extreme sides because they happen to be Jewish or Muslim. That is sadly - non-thinking Jew or Muslim.


As for Israel and US being allies - if the word gets out as per US soldiers dying because of Petraeus recent Pentagon briefing re:Israel-Palestine dispute linking to anti-US sentiment and casualties this thing can snow-ball.

If Israel over-plays the strong Jewish loby card in US elections - there can be a big negative outcry in America where no amount of lobying (even then more lobying will further re-inforce the message) that Israel is a liability and not an ally.

Some very dangerous games are played here and calculations on both sides better be right. I'm in the opinion that perhaps this is a bold move by Israel to strengthen its hand in negotiations for Jerusalem but either way I think Israel is tipping the balance and is out of bounds.

 

[maiden22]

Maiden - I asked you how you define terrorism - and you replied with:

Post #866
It is not straightforward certainly. As a broad definition, I would say the deliberate targetting of civilian populations, with the aim of killing or intimidating, or the use of such populations against their will.

An example might be the deliberate and calculated targetting of Israeli civilians by Hamas for their rocket attacks. Another example might be the use by Hamas of Palestinian civilians as human shields, by using civilian centers and populations to hide their fighters and munitions factories.

An example might not be the recent Israeli attacks, where they went to extraordinary lengths to avoid civilian casualties, as described by a high ranking British officer.

Of course, one might broaden the definition to include actions by regular armies that have a high probability of unintentionaly causing significant loss of property and human life. I would not call this terrorism, as I am not lazy or hysterical and do not wish to hasten the impoversihment of the English language. However, such things must aways be a consideration, and could cause an otherwise legitimate war or action to become an act of evil.

I then provided some statistics which was totally disproportionate and one which is indisputably the targeting of mass highly densely popullated civilian areas coupled with two thirds or more deaths of women and children yet you are quite able to justify Hamaz's firing of crude rockets with some random chance of killing as terrorism - yet the war action in Gaza by Israels army as not?

I do not "justify Hamaz's firing of crude rockets" - quite the opposite. I condemn it as a deliberate act of terror. How you can come to the conclusion that I "justify" this from what I wrote is absolutely beyond me.

Israel did not target densely populated civilian areas - it fought there because that is where the enemy had positioned himself. As is well-known, Hamas deliberately use women, children and other non-combatants as tools of war, precisely because of the propaganda benefits you and others in the West are determined to hand to them.

Israel's actions were not terrorism - it did not set out to cause civilian casualties, unlike Hamas. However, if you had bothered to read my post you would have seen that I said that otherwise legitimate acts of war could be delegitimised and turned into acts of evil if there is a good possibility that they would lead to unnecessary civilian deaths, and that this should always be a consideration when a state decides to go to war. Again, if you read my post you will not find anything supporting the Israeli incursion into Gaza - you have no idea what my opinion is on the matter. All I did was point out that it was not terrorism.

Can you not see the ratio of deaths approx 10:1000 as disproportionate act of punishment? By your very own words it is terrorism. How about use of illegal weapons. Israel rains fire on Gaza with phosphorus shells You are non-thinking and extreme in your dollops of metting out punishment and view of justice imo.

This was not an act of punishment. It was an act of defence intended to bring a halt to the constant barrage of rockets, deliberately targetted at Israeli civilians, that followed the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza. Again, I have made no statement about whether I think that the action was justified or even sensible, although contrary to your assertion my own words do not label terrorism. However, you description of the Israeli action as punishment is wrong, foolish and inflammatory.

Then some blurbs get branded around about 72 virgins and everybody is merry and laughing with joy... All this is very sad imo.

I did not bring this up, although I repeated a joke by a well-known comedian on the same subject. All religions have odd beliefs that attract jokes and criticism. Google "Life of Brian" if you don't believe me. I am not sure who was "merry and laughing with joy" - perhaps you can clarify this.

Not all Jews support State of Israel's actions. Just as not all muslims support terrorists.

I presume that this is not directed at me as I have never claimed either of these things.

Problem is people support these extreme sides because they happen to be Jewish or Muslim. That is sadly - non-thinking Jew or Muslim.

Doubtless this is true in many cases. In many other cases, people may support one or the other because they fall for propaganda. In other cases again, people may think seriously about the problems facing them reluctantly conclude that extreme action is the only option available to them. In still others, people may simply be wicked.

As for Israel and US being allies - if the word gets out as per US soldiers dying because of Petraeus recent Pentagon briefing re:Israel-Palestine dispute linking to anti-US sentiment and casualties this thing can snow-ball.

If Israel over-plays the strong Jewish loby card in US elections - there can be a big negative outcry in America where no amount of lobying (even then more lobying will further re-inforce the message) that Israel is a liability and not an ally.

A country may be both an ally and a liability - the two are not connected in any way. And as for the "Jewish lobby" - why don't you give us some blood libels while you're at it, or a quick run through the stranglehold of the Jew on the international financial system, or the truth behind 9/11, or tales of pixies at the bottom of the garden.

Some very dangerous games are played here and calculations on both sides better be right. I'm in the opinion that perhaps this is a bold move by Israel to strengthen its hand in negotiations for Jerusalem but either way I think Israel is tipping the balance and is out of bounds.

These are not dangerous games - they are desperate struggles based on very serious matters that most people in the West seem incapable of beginning to understand. The West's main contribution seems to be to fuel violence by spreading and repeating lies to keep the people of the region at each other's throats. There will be no chance of peace unless the situation can be approached honestly - this precludes flippant talk of "punishment" raids and the promotion of hatred.

I really can't be bothered with debates of this kind - people rarely read what one writes, which makes the process thoroughly tiresome. Even more tiresome is the insistence on accusing others of saying what they clearly did not say.

My only interest at the start was to point out that Israel's actions - which might or might not be justified - were not terrorism, whereas Hamas's actions were. I don't know why you have decided to call them terrorism, but I will be charitable and assume it's because you are unclear as to the correct definition. The most likely alternative is of course something rather unsavoury.

We've been here before, when I mildly pointed out that the US has comprhensively won its recent wars - something you strongly disagreed with, despite the obvious truth of my statement, and despite the fact that I clearly separated victory in war from deriving benefit from war, or an ability to create a viable peace. I believe that accuracy in language is important, although I accept that this stance makes me seem rather strange to most people. Fluid definitions for words that nonetheless have clear connotations are very useful for unscrupulous persons. Hence the modern British definition of "poverty", the term "Euro-sceptic" or "anti-Europe", and indeed the description of Israel's actions as "terrorism". People enjoy this last as it has clear connotations of malevloent intent - the deliberate desire to kill civilians. Israel might be guilty of many things, but not that.

 

[maiden22]

Yes building, incursions etc.

Iran could also help bring resolution to the conflict by threatening to dump Hisbollah etc. if they wont make a generous effort to end it.

Not much hope of a settlement in next 50 years at this rate. None of the contestants seem to want peace so force them even if a bit callous. The many are more important than the few

To be honest, I have missed most of this story and have been trying to catch up. This was basically my understanding:

Because it’s not just that Israel apologised for a diplomatic blunder. The key point is that there was actually nothing to apologise for, since it was explicitly agreed between America and Israel that, as a concession to kick-start peace negotiations, Israel would stop building in the West Bank although it would continue to build in east Jerusalem. Indeed, Hillary Clinton herself, no less, praised Israel for this agreement.

(http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniep...reat-time-to-throw-israel-under-the-bus.thtml)

Is this incorrect? I also understand that there is controversy over the Hurva synagogue, although, as it is centuries old (or was, until it was destroyed) and the rebuiling process has been going on for some years, I am unclear why it is now the cause of riots and violence.

 

[maiden22]

By the way, and without wishing to incur anyone's wrath on grounds of flippancy, nobody should want the last word on this thread. At present, it's displayed on the main page as: Terrorism????...Blame...Maiden22.

Which seems a little harsh.

 

[Pat494]

I think the Palestinians lost a lot of sympathy in the 70s when they targeted civilian aeroplanes, the Munich Olympics etc. They certainly lost mine.

 

[Atilla]

These are not dangerous games - they are desperate struggles based on very serious matters that most people in the West seem incapable of beginning to understand. The West's main contribution seems to be to fuel violence by spreading and repeating lies to keep the people of the region at each other's throats. There will be no chance of peace unless the situation can be approached honestly - this precludes flippant talk of "punishment" raids and the promotion of hatred.

I really can't be bothered with debates of this kind - people rarely read what one writes, which makes the process thoroughly tiresome. Even more tiresome is the insistence on accusing others of saying what they clearly did not say.

My only interest at the start was to point out that Israel's actions - which might or might not be justified - were not terrorism, whereas Hamas's actions were. I don't know why you have decided to call them terrorism, but I will be charitable and assume it's because you are unclear as to the correct definition. The most likely alternative is of course something rather unsavoury.

We've been here before, when I mildly pointed out that the US has comprhensively won its recent wars - something you strongly disagreed with, despite the obvious truth of my statement, and despite the fact that I clearly separated victory in war from deriving benefit from war, or an ability to create a viable peace. I believe that accuracy in language is important, although I accept that this stance makes me seem rather strange to most people. Fluid definitions for words that nonetheless have clear connotations are very useful for unscrupulous persons. Hence the modern British definition of "poverty", the term "Euro-sceptic" or "anti-Europe", and indeed the description of Israel's actions as "terrorism". People enjoy this last as it has clear connotations of malevloent intent - the deliberate desire to kill civilians. Israel might be guilty of many things, but not that.

Israel did not target densely populated civilian areas - it fought there because that is where the enemy had positioned himself?

Where are people who are kept enclosed on the Gaza strip to fight from? They have no nation, no army not much of anything?

They have absolutely nothing to negotiate with and nothing to endorse their birth and land rights to those lands that are being stolen by religious heretics.

What is your expectaction of a fair war? I wonder what Israel would do if they - the Palestinians had their own country and army and were rich enough to build Nuclear weapons?

Would that then be a fair fight as opposed to terrorising civilian popullations? Where do you propose armies fight over territorial land rights? It is all very well coming up with these justification for what is clearly terrorising of civilians by both sides but you see one side and not the other.

My point is you are quite happy to see actions of one side as justification for the actions of the other. But you do not see it as objectively that by your very own definition the act is the same. You call one side as defence and the other as offence. Period. Can you not see that what the Israelis are doing is breeding this violance and indeed it has global repurcussions. How many terrorists have they killed and how many freedom fighters have they created?

How do you propose they stop the building of walls and settlements expanding into their communities and farming lands. How can Palestinians pursue their territorial claims? Their right to self determination and existence?

I think you have seen the blog #885

Do you seriously believe Israel wants peace? Not all Jews support Israel...

Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin 1995
The assassination of Israeli Prime Minister and defense minister Yitzhak Rabin was the culmination of Israeli right-wing dissent over the Oslo Peace Process. Rabin, despite his extensive service in the Israeli military, was disparaged personally by ultra-orthodox conservatives and Likud leaders who perceived the Oslo peace process as an attempt to forfeit the occupied territories (466 Smith). Contrary to Likud’s accusations, Rabin was focused on the consolidation of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. He planned to give the Palestinian Liberation Organization control of 90% of the West Bank’s Arab population, while retaining 70% of the land in the occupied territories (464 Smith). In a speech to the Knesset, Rabin promised that Israel would continue to have “total freedom of action in order to fulfill the security aims that touch upon the permanent solution (464 Smith).”

Nonetheless, hostility continued to mount against Rabin. Ultra-orthodox conservatives and Likud party leaders believed that withdrawing from any Jewish land was heresy (466 Smith). Rallies, organized partially by Likud, became increasingly extreme in tone (466 Smith). Likud Leader (and future Prime Minister) Benjamin Netanyahu accused Rabin’s government of being “removed from Jewish tradition…and Jewish values.” Netanyahu addressed protesters of the Oslo movement at rallies where posters portrayed Rabin in a Nazi SS uniform or being target by in the crosshairs of a sniper (466 Smith). Rabin accused Netanyahu of provoking violence, a charge which Netanyahu strongly rebuffed (466 Smith).


Menachem Begin was hunted by the English as a terrorist once... He became a prime minister to lead a nation.

 

[maiden22]

Atilla,

I'm not getting into a debate about the Middle East on an internet forum - if you've got enough time to do so properly, I envy you. For what it's worth, your accusations are very unjust - I do see both sides, unlike most of the people in the West, whose blindness over this issue is shocking.

Israel does not keep people enclosed, although it must sometimes place restrictions to protect it's civilians from murder. Perhaps the Egyptians could set an example with more open borders?

The issue is complex, but I can see only two realistic solutions. One I will not bother even mentioning, as I don't want to send you into a fit, and the other is the complete destruction of Israel accompanied by a new holocaust of its people. Quite a large proportion of people in the West seem to be quite happy for this latter scenario to take place.

The Palestinian leadership and the neighbouring countries simply do not accept the right of Israel to exist. Until you understand that, you will make no progress towards peace. That is why they reject every offer that Israel makes - nothing will be good enough that leaves any kind of Jewish entity in the middle east. Don't take my word for it - you can read it directly from them.

I am sure that you mean well - unlike you, I will not insult you by suggesting otherwise. But in my opinion you are blinkered by decades of anti - Israel lies. As long as these lies are allowed to persist, the Palestinian sense of greivance will be so strong as to make peace impossible. Do you remember the Jenin "massacre", so eagerly trumpeted by the Western media? What do you think this lie accomplished? The truth has since come out, but the damage is done.

I am not going to post further on this topic - I find it a largely pointless discussion without first going a long way back, as most people have no idea of the history, which is vital to understanding the conflict and to finding a resolution.

Those that truly care about Palestinians, and finding the difficult road to peace, will approach this subject honestly. The rest can regurgitate what they see on the BBC and in the Guardian.

And you are simply wrong when you say that the Palestinians have nothing to negotiate with. They have the most precious thing of all.

 

[maiden22]

OK, one last post in response to a message from Atilla. I apologise for any comments that have caused offence - it wasn't intended. Nor did I intend to belittle anyone's opinions or make light of a horrendous situation. I fully understand that this is a very difficult problem, and understand that decent people, who hope only for the best and fairest outcome, can hold completely opposing views.

I'll go back and remove a couple of posts that add nothing but that might have caused offence.

EDIT: Can't edit them any longer. Have asked LM to remove them instead.

 

[dick_dastardly]

Define terrorism first then you may be able to blame the terrorists.

Atilla

I'll give you a definition of terrorism if you can wait until August 2012


dd

 

[Atilla]

Atilla

I'll give you a definition of terrorism if you can wait until August 2012


dd

Why wait until 2012?

Why not look at 2008 - China or
Why not look at 2004 - Athens?

How does your definition of terrorism fit in around those countries?

Why do you feel August 2012 is likely to be a target?



If you seriously believe the Bush and Blair BS-mantra about the wars keeping our streets safe from terrorists you are delusional.

Those wars are making us a target and this is your alter twisted ego thinking it justifies the wars.

Lemme guess your answer - they don't like our freedom, democracy and way of life which we have been trying to bomb down their throats...

For FS DD - there are soldiers dying for this BS and you are smug in your mighty noble ideas. You obviously have seen and learnt FA in the last 7 years.

At least the US have recognised their errors and trying to correct them. You carry on as you were...

 

[Atilla]

Interesting write ups...

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1158686.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...uncing-new-settlements-in-east-Jerusalem.html

 

[Pat494]

Interesting piece on Al Jazeera recently

One of Col. Gaddafi's sons is working towards a peaceful solution and is converting Middle East Jihaddis to the path of peace

Lets hope good sense prevails

Any fool can pull a trigger

:clap: