1. Not all Palestinians are militant. It is most regrettable that a situation has arisen where children are conditioned in this way. Having said that, the imagery you mention does not necessarily reflect the opinions of "Palestinians" as a people. Although I am not denying its existence, it is classic propagandist imagery.
I'm sure most Palestinians are tired of fighting at this point and are hoping for a negotiated compromise. Even of those who voted for Hamas, I know there were several reasons they did this and most of them weren't voting for an escalation in the fighting. I never said their entire society is radicalist, but I think there are enough radicals in their population that it severely obstructs the chances of making peace.
That is the reason why I use the term "unconditional". Let me backtrack. There are legitimate gripes from both parties, as we have shown. I suggest that to get to stage to initiate dialogue, there are no pre conditions on the table. The table is clear on both sides.
Yeah, I believe in unconditional talks as well. I don't see how it could hurt Israel at this point to sit down with Hamas and talk to them face to face. The worst thing that could happen is that no agreement is reached, and a date for further talks is not set. If this were the case, I don't see how Hamas would gain any further legitimacy for such talks. Besides, Egypt has been a crappy mediator, telling Israel and Hamas to fake their acceptance of a truce while rejecting it in secret- how does that benefit anyone other than Mubarak?
My only gripe is that I really doubt any progress will come of such talks. I want to see the international community come up with a plan to enforce some measure of progress and to punish efforts to obstruct it. That would give both Israel and Hamas a legitimate incentive to sit down for talks, even if they think the effort is futile. My other concern is that Hamas has given hints they would use a 10 year hudna to arm themselves and prepare for a full-scale clash with Israel. So I'd like to see some sort of international guarantees that if Hamas were to declare war after 10 years of arming, Israel would either have a wide leash to respond with immense force, or else the international community would step in and occupy Gaza on Israel's behalf. To be fair to the Palestinians, the international community could commit to economic and military sanctions against Israel in the event it were to re-initiate hostilities.
Reparations are normal and justified in any illegal war.
Yeah, but the Iranians were also demanding the formation of an islamic state in Iraq modelled on their own state, and they spent roughly 7 years in pursuit of this goal after having already driven Saddam back across the border with his tail between his legs. If the Iraqis wanted such a state, they would have been perfectly capable of electing it on their own, especially if Saddam Hussein were to have stepped down as Iran had demanded. Anyhow this is not a big deal to me, I'm only pointing out that Iran has shown a measure of aggressive behaviour of its own. When Saddam pounded Iranian civilians, Iran responded in kind with Iraqi civilians, and this is not the action of an enlightened pacifist state.
No. That is the tired mythical Israel line. The truth is that the Israelis feared an alliance between the Lebanese Muslims, the Palestine refugees, and Syria. This would greatly effect the balance of power. The other tired line that the trigger to the conflict was the attempted assassination of the Israeli Ambassador in Britain, Shlomo Argov, has been shown to have major flaws.
Only Israeli commanders themselves know their true motives. We can speculate until hell freezes over about various conspiracies, the point is that attacks were being staged from Lebanon on a regular basis, these attacks weren't a joke (i.e. hostage takings inside Israel), and Israel was entitled to some measure of self-defense. Perhaps they went too far and exceeded all reasonable bounds, that's a separate issue from the factors that sparked the fighting in the first place.
I thought about it a bit and one good example of the sort I was asking for, might be Israel's bombing of Saddam's nuclear reactor in the 80's. Up until that point I don't believe Saddam had been involved in any attacks on Israel (I could be wrong), but in that incident I would like to point out that Israel had tacit approval from a lot of other countries in the region, and even permission to use Jordan's airspace for the operation.
What are the STRONG grounds?
Again, the IAEA began its investigations after receiving reports from Iranian dissidents about covert nuclear activities. They cited specific locations and projects which Iran eventually admitted to after repeated prodding, and these locations are now under IAEA supervision. However, the dissidents also alleged other locations where Iran is conducting more sensitive research, on projects that would be relevant to a nuclear weapons program. In addition, Iran has already revealed designs for nuclear warheads purchased from suppliers such as A.Q. Khan, the Pakistani proliferator.
So the dissidents are 1 for 1 as far as batting average is concerned, and the IAEA has yet to look into their more sensitive allegations. Does this constitute a smoking gun? Of course not. If Iran were indeed pursuing nuclear weapons, would that justify attacking it? I don't see how, given that other countries are allowed to possess such weapons with relative impunity. I do however think that it fully legitimizes the west's pursuit of missile defenses, and that many westerners who were opposed to such a system in the past now understand its merits (thanks, Kim Jong Il!). I also think that until such time as Iran earns the west's trust, the west is fully justified in using economic pressure to deter them.
Its Mossad operating inside Iran that is worrying. That I take seriously as there is a DEFINITE track record of black ops.
Iranian black ops in Lebanon and Gaza are arguably contributing to their misery on a daily basis, by fuelling endless conflict.
The fact of the matter is that Arabs who had been living in the territory known as "Palestine" vastly outnumbered the Jews. Fact.
And it's a fact that the arabs were the ones to declare war on Israel, not the other way around. So Israel has a right to defensible borders as compensation, and that's what the UN gave them in 1948. Look at Kosovo for instance- they sought independence through relatively peaceful means, Serbia sent troops in and tried to repress them with force, and now Kosovo is recognized as a sovereign nation, even though that land once clearly belonged to Serbia and still has ethnic Serbs living there.
The insistence on the term "unconditional" and getting ALL effected parties to the table, including so called "terrorist" organizations like Hamas.
Again, I agree. I'm not enthusiastic about unconditional talks though. Unless there's some kind of charm factor from meeting face to face, whatever concessions would be made in such talks could have been made already through existing channels.
I assume only that if Hamas is recognized as a legitimate body, and included in dialogue, things may improve. One cannot achieve decisions on controlling violence without initial dialogue.
Fair enough. I'd like to see a backup plan in the event Hamas doesn't change its tune.
The potential for Jews to be victimized or targeted in Muslim nations are directly relative to the actions of Israel towards the Palestinians and other Arab states.
Arabs were oppressing jews a thousand years before the creation of modern Israel (i.e. the dhimmitude system). Maybe their treatment was better than what the Europeans were doing, but that hardly merits a commendation. I think it's a lot more complicated than simply saying that the arabs are responding to the actions of Israel. Then I can just as easily say that Israel is responding to the actions of the arabs.
Religious persecution abounds in all religions. You cannot claim that it is a Muslim specialty.
I never did claim that. All I said was that most muslim countries are well known for their persecution and discrimination against ethnic and religious minorities, and that needs to be addressed before you suggest something equivalent to reuniting Yugoslavia in the middle of its civil war.
My friend, the Arabs need all the help they can get. Recently 1300 Palestinians were slaughtered, and the world hardly raised an eyebrow. If the Jews were the victims here, I would be supporting them.
Yeah they definitely do need help, I never questioned that. So do the Tamils in Sri Lanka. But to genuinely help these people, the actions of the militants in their midst have to be taken into account. It's not acceptable for Hamas to fire at Israel from densely populated areas, knowing Israel has almost no way of preventing such things without causing civilian casualties.
Did the Zionists sign agreements with ALL BODIES concerned? Thus their claim is flawed.
If any Ottoman rulers want to take exception to Israel's 1948 declaration of independence on lands purchased under their watch, let these Ottoman rulers step forth and make their case.
Having the average peaceful civilian Palestinian do nothing but watch as 21000 homes get destroyed is unacceptable. Considering absolutely NOTHING was achieved by Israels assault, it is grossly unacceptable.
Actually, if you take a look at the daily tally of rockets fired from Gaza during the war, you'd see a steady decline from an initial barrage of 80 per day down to little more than 10 per day at the end, at which point Israel called off its offensive. I firmly believe Israel could have brought that average down to nearly 0 if they kept going, the only question is how much more devastation would Gaza have endured. The world opposes Israel's recent action because of the price Gazans paid, not because it wasn't securing Israelis.
