User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
get real, like that's ever going to happen.
Character is like a tree and reputation like its shadow. The shadow is what we think of it; the tree is the real thing.
Video:
British MP George Galloway rips Sky News reporter:
Poor girl.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9071731896689197790&q=galloway
We all seem to have forgotten the destruction of Gaza which is still ongoing (be it at a slower pace).
I can not believe that the supporters of democracy are silent as the Palestinian democratic system is being dismantled p[erson by person. MPs are being arrested. (The charge of being a member of Hamas. Well duh! Hamas won the democratic election you were calling for!)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
seein as LilSis aint around ..... i'll take ova...
that was AGES ago omro
keep up mousey :roll:
The Lover is ever drunk with love;
He is free, he is mad,
He dances with ecstasy and delight.
Caught by our own thoughts,
We worry about every little thing,
But once we get drunk on that love,
Whatever will be, will be.
ɐɥɐɥ
Even if Russia was supplying Hezbollah weapons, why shouldn't they....the US is supplying Israel weapons.
This is a guy I rate for standing up against the US and calling Bush a "terrorist".
What has happened to the kidnapped soldiers, have they killed em?
If the palestinians done the same thing to an Israeli journalist, it would have been a very different thing.
Nothing. No change in status quo. If the soldeirs died while being captured, then they are dead. Otherwise they are still alive. Well that is what I understand.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
This may be what Israel & the US wanted, Fatah and Hamas groups killing each other.
Well it is turning to absolute chaos there now.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
It would be ideal. Then these fools who throw out cheap shots about Israel trying to wipe out the Palestinians would find that the IDF could concentrate on the terrorists to the north and leave the Palestinians alone.
[size=10]I feel I'm gonna move on back down south
you know where the water tastes like cherry wine[/size]
Oh, my.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
There's a link in the webpage if you wanna see the video of the soldiers using civilians as 'human shields'.
Important bit is in bold.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Admin,
Quick yes or no question, do you think the Palestinian government should unconditionally recognise Israel and denounce terror?
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
dunno.
:twisted:
That is an honest answer. Double edged swords cut both ways. I will elaborate. Your definition of terror and mine are different. With my definition, yes.
Will Israel negotiate with no threat of violence? why? what would their motivation be?
They would have alot to lose with nothing to gain. Status quo would be golden.
Whatever happens needs to be reciprocal in it's entirety.
For the Palestinian authority to recognise Israel and denounce violence against Israel (which is different from terror. Targetting soldiers is legitimate in any warfare.), the asme needs to be done by the other side. Recognise Palestine, and stop violence. No more raids. No crossings. No restrictions.
Or we could go the opposite way (into fantasy land - it will not happen. Both sides are too entrenched), and both sides drop their claims. Give all citizens an equal vote in a single unified country, where both Israeli and Palestinian is equal.
Two way street.
In that quote I highlighted the bit about Norway, as what Israel does is immaterial. Either it will not negotiate or it is gettign a stronger bargaining hand for when Washington asks both sides to talk.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
A campaign is written into the Hamas charter and is the principle of Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda, that Israel is an illegitimate colonial project that has to be eradicated. Israel is offering negotiations for a Palestinian state if violence is renounced. It cannot and will not renounce its right to military defence.
The responsibility Israel bears for Palestinian suffering is a large part of the campaign against Israel. But the campaign against Israel is not in any way a result of that as long as it is written into the charters and textbooks of the Palestinians. It seems pretty clear to me.
The suggestion that a unified country is the answer, you must know is the end of Israel. Did you know that 60 years ago a third of Baghdad was Jewish, but that when the Baath ideology took hold they fled for their lives? That refugees from Islamic countries were about half of the non-native Israeli population? That the Arab population in Palestine more than doubled in the years of Jewish immigration prior to 1948 as they sought to benefit from the Zionist movement, while disputing Jewish ownership? Israel has withdrawn from Gaza, whereupon short-range Palestinian rocket attacks intensified. There has long been a drive to make life as difficult as possible for Israel, and if Palestinians don't like it when Israel fights back, they have only to declare that they would accept a territory alongside Israel and live in peace.
Until then it isn't a two-way street.
Thanks for answering.
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
But not to me. Any settlement will have to be negotiated where such issues can be discussed. charters ammended. Just demanding change gets everyone nowhere fast.
Yes, I know it will be the end of israel as we know it today, just like ending the appartide was the end of South Africa we knew then.
I did not know that history, and will leave that for someone who knows about it to make comment. but it also must be said before the state of Israel, muslims and Jews lived in relative harmony.
The blame game can be played both ways.
It is still a two way street. the withdrawal was one sided. It was not negotiated. it had no meaning for the militant groups apart from saying that if you fight hard enough for long enough you just may get what you want. They had no reason to back off. Every reason to fight harder as the violence seemed to be getting them results. results that were not achieved with the peace.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
On your first point, my point is that the Hamas charter is in violent opposition to Israel irrespective of Israeli actions. If they will not change that, but make demands for land, Israel cannot negotiate; and is foolish to think it can.
On your second point, my point is that Palestinian groups obscure the above, which to them is concrete fact, the impossibility of accepting an Israeli state, by casting themselves as victims of Israeli defence. In that sense it is they who do not acknowledge a two-way street.
On your third point, my point is that the pan-Arab movements behind the Palestinian cause have no intention of accommodating Jews as anything other than subjects in an Islamic state. You respond by comparing their cause to that of black South Africans, who had never lived in harmony with the whites or been accorded equal rights. You hardly needed to add that you don't know the history. This isn't a blame game, it is the matter that the Palestinians have no principle of peaceful coexistence and are entirely politicised by violent ideologues. I might correct you on the "relative harmony" idea, true as it was once, but that in the 1920s relations broke down badly, with the rioting for repossession of Jewish-owned land and the later emergence of Islamist, Communist and Hitler-inspired movements across the middle east and the tendency of the once ideological Muslim Brotherhood towards revolutionary politics and the rejection of the Jews' right to a state. Those movements haven't gone away and easily overshadow the humanitarian cause we might both support.
Your fourth point is that as far as Hamas are concerned because Israel withdrew without negotiating but in the context of a Hamas campaign, Hamas were correct to read it as a victory. This in itself tells me not only that you don't encourage a peaceful resolution, but that you are playing games and point-scoring. Am I correct? Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza. If the Palestinians want to negotiate in a spirit of goodwill they can unilaterally renounce "the struggle", which in fact costs them more than it has "won", but which can of course be justified if Muslim lives are but numbers.
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
Sure they can. One side demands land, the other recognition. A fertile land for negotiation.
I won't argue that they are not entrenched in their positions. I think both sides are.
But there was relative opeace until some point...
I am not point scoring. I was all ni favour of the withdrawal, even if it was unilateral. However at the same time I see the reality of how it was played on the ground, and also do personally think that if there was no violence, there would not have been a withdrawal.
Abiout negotiaion, it is a game. israel will negotiate right upto the point where words mean something, then look for escapes. first they would not deal with Abbas because they want elections first. Then after the elections they would not negotiate coz they don't like who won. Once the factions start fighting, they will negotiate with only Abbas. Once there is peace again, they refse to negotiate again. It is a game.
No country would give up something for nothing. It just does not work that way.
Since the international presure is on the Palestinians to sort themselves out (and rightly - there should be pressure.), Israel can play fast and loose. There should also be the same pressure on it to negotiate. but there is not.
Ariel Sharon once had a plan to squeeze the Palestinans to the point where they beg for what he was offering to give them. Olmert will not do too much more. He does nto have credibility even in the eyes of his own electorate. That is not negotiation. It is a game.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If the Palestinians continue to push for the destruction of Israel, no, Israel cannot negotiate. And there is no deal whereby Israel is negotiating to unify Israel and Palestine. If the Palestinians believe war is the way to achieve that, they will have war. Israel demands recognition as a precursor to negotiation because the charters expressly do not recognise Israel. Israeli soldiers do not take lives blithely, nor as a matter of principle, but as long as the Palestinians do, Israel will assert itself and aim for victory. That is what costs lives.
Your argument is flawed in that on the one hand you acknowledge Hamas views Israeli concessions as victory and a reason to pursue violence, and on the other you claim that Israel should pursue a negotiating strategy of land for peace. If you are saying the difference is in the negotiation, you will have to find me statements by Haniyeh suggesting the charter can be changed in negotiation. Since these possibilities are not beyond contemplation now it is odd to suggest that positions will change when politicians are in the same room.
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
Two things:
As far as Israel is concerned it is already recognized as a State - by the international community and by the Palestinians themselves. A new government came to power that reversed that position, and the Israelis are rightfully not interested in using leverage to gain their recognition back, they [b]expect[/b] Hamas to continue the policies of the predecessor government in this regard.
Thing two - the Arab (not "Muslim") world has two positions with regard to Israel's "Colonialism" - one legitimate the other not. Arabs screech about the existance of Israel being nothing more than a Jewish colony and therefore not a legal entity - which is nonsense. However the argument that the Israelis are colonizing areas outside their pre-67 borders is undebateable - it was Israeli policy for the last 50 years. You do not send "settlers" to land that is your own. So you cannot paint the Israeli colonialism argument with one brush, it's more complicated than that - throwing out the argument and barring it completely is intellectually irresponsible.
Peace without conquest by one side or the other will never happen - I'm convinced of it. That kind of peace would require Arab countries to take an active role in the defense of an Israeli nation, carved from the Holy Land, that they could never lay claim to. They would never do this, it flies against their religious beliefs and nationalist leanings. Meanwhile that kind of peace would require the Israelis to forever abandon ownership of Jerusalem let go of their desire for revenge over the last 50 years and above all ghettoize themselves internationally - accept that the people around them will not harm them.
That's never going to happen. Especially with the added religious significance of the location - it is virtually a given that at some point under such a peace neighboring Muslim Arabs would have to assist Israelis against fellow Muslims. Likewise Israelis would have to deal with Western religious pressure. Would such a promise be honored in these cases? Of course not.
Not that it matters, that level of speculation is moot since neither party is interested in making those kinds of concessions (or moving toward a serious permanent peace).
It's ridiculous, the world is held hostage to this absurd little ethnic conflict.
That seems like a mostly fair analysis.
I do not believe that Israel is loathe to make concessions or that it would have difficulty "letting go of their desire for revenge over the last 50 years". To me that is an invention. Nor do I consider it impossible that Arab states could live at peace with Israel, which Jordan and Egypt more-or-less have, so long as other Arab states do not use the issue as a distraction or scapegoat Israel.
[size=10]The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.[/size]
[size=9]Bertrand Russell (1872 - 1970)[/size]
Apart from no longer seeking the destruction of Israel at every press conference there is not much further Haniyeh will go. It is a concession they have gioven, albeit to Fatah rather than Israel.
I do have to agree with Most of Don's assessment.
Both sides have too much to lose. Not a good place for negotiations.
Ofcourse they can. How do you think they got to the initial peace? Did the PLO recognise Israel before 199x (can;t expectme to ermember the year!
93? 94?)
Not that it would ever be final, but I am willing to settle for 6 relatively good years over none.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
lol Jordan and Egypt don't "officially" attack Israel - instead they look the other way when their countries become staging grounds for terrorist attacks on Israel. Only when their regimes are challenged in the process do they act.
Lasting peace with Israel obviously means Arab nations have to clamp down on that activity. Jordan I could see complying if the United States pressured them - as for Egypt I find the idea laughable the regime stays in power on a delicate balance of placating the antisemitic mob and not instigating serious conflict with Israel - a far less stringent demand than committing to the actual defense of Israel, and going forward with the other essentials like Syria? Never. Not possible - they are all but genetically opposed to the idea.
As for Israel making serious concessions or letting go of 50 years of violence - it smacks in the face of everything Israel is meant to be. This was meant to be the Jewish haven, the one place on the planet they are safe from pogroms and racism. Living in a world where they do not have the strategic upper hand or have to trust their enemies from last week for security means Israel is nothing more than a slightly larger Ghetto - they know that. They'd never let it happen. Not in ten thousand years.
Pages