Discussion
Grumfutock said:
Concessions were made ONLY when the IRA had renounced violence and started to disarm. To me that isn't a concession it is a reward.
I would also point out that yes, Israel is grabbing more land etc but Hamas are also firing missiles and killing babies. And you really think the Israeli's are of a mind to be nice?
Grum, in the IRA example, who is who in relation to this debate?I would also point out that yes, Israel is grabbing more land etc but Hamas are also firing missiles and killing babies. And you really think the Israeli's are of a mind to be nice?
I am assuming that the IRA are effectively Hamas?
If my assumption is valid, then why don't we look where we are now re Northern Ireland? Are we in a better or worse place?
Notwithstanding the question above, genuine peace talks were held in private, deals struck and agreements bartered BEFORE the symbolic disarming etc. the show was mainly that. Did anybody really believe the weapons had all been decommissioned? Really?
But the concessions meant that face could be saved. That is possibly 90%+ of these disputes and negotiations?
Or are you looking at the IRA situation from a black and white military viewpoint as you appear to do so re Israel v Pailstinians?
Do bear in mind I was dead against most of the concessions re the murdering bastid IRA! But I am glad that progress was made. Sometimes the end does justify the means? Not always but sometimes?
Fair point?
In the end, you negotiate. See, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-h...
You negotiate because:
1. You realise that even were you to eliminate this bunch of "terrorists" within 10 years you'd be confronted by another
2. You have no local friends and lots of local enemies
3. You are massively dependent upon oil and grain imports
4. Your economy is fubar and sanctions or boycotts will make it more fubar, as will the growth of non-productive (but extremely reproductive!) ultra orthodox Jewry. ( Israel has 4th highest child poverty rate in developed world).
The point then, is what Israel has to put on the table.
You negotiate because:
1. You realise that even were you to eliminate this bunch of "terrorists" within 10 years you'd be confronted by another
2. You have no local friends and lots of local enemies
3. You are massively dependent upon oil and grain imports
4. Your economy is fubar and sanctions or boycotts will make it more fubar, as will the growth of non-productive (but extremely reproductive!) ultra orthodox Jewry. ( Israel has 4th highest child poverty rate in developed world).
The point then, is what Israel has to put on the table.
Slaav said:
Grum, in the IRA example, who is who in relation to this debate?
I am assuming that the IRA are effectively Hamas?
If my assumption is valid, then why don't we look where we are now re Northern Ireland? Are we in a better or worse place?
Notwithstanding the question above, genuine peace talks were held in private, deals struck and agreements bartered BEFORE the symbolic disarming etc. the show was mainly that. Did anybody really believe the weapons had all been decommissioned? Really?
But the concessions meant that face could be saved. That is possibly 90%+ of these disputes and negotiations?
Or are you looking at the IRA situation from a black and white military viewpoint as you appear to do so re Israel v Pailstinians?
Do bear in mind I was dead against most of the concessions re the murdering bastid IRA! But I am glad that progress was made. Sometimes the end does justify the means? Not always but sometimes?
Fair point?
You are correct, genuine peace talks were held in private, deals struck and agreements bartered BEFORE the symbolic disarming etc did take place but AFTER the IRA had been fought to a standstill and more importantly had lost the support of the people. Basically the people got sick of it and said no more!I am assuming that the IRA are effectively Hamas?
If my assumption is valid, then why don't we look where we are now re Northern Ireland? Are we in a better or worse place?
Notwithstanding the question above, genuine peace talks were held in private, deals struck and agreements bartered BEFORE the symbolic disarming etc. the show was mainly that. Did anybody really believe the weapons had all been decommissioned? Really?
But the concessions meant that face could be saved. That is possibly 90%+ of these disputes and negotiations?
Or are you looking at the IRA situation from a black and white military viewpoint as you appear to do so re Israel v Pailstinians?
Do bear in mind I was dead against most of the concessions re the murdering bastid IRA! But I am glad that progress was made. Sometimes the end does justify the means? Not always but sometimes?
Fair point?
NI is a far better place now although there is still a lot of divides and a hell of a lot of gangsterism going on, as well as some sectarianism. Believe me when I say nobody is happier than I that this is the case, I served there for a total of nearly 8 years spread over 3 decades so I saw the best and worst of it.
So to summarise, Israel should only deal as and when the people have pulled the power away from Hamas. They put them there and they can remove them. The only other way is if Hamas turn more to politics and away from terrorism, abandon their ludicrous "Israel cannot exist" claim and stop firing rockets. Then, maybe, they can do a deal.
TheRealFingers99 said:
In the end, you negotiate. See, for example: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/07/-sp-h...
You negotiate because:
1. You realise that even were you to eliminate this bunch of "terrorists" within 10 years you'd be confronted by another
2. You have no local friends and lots of local enemies
3. You are massively dependent upon oil and grain imports
4. Your economy is fubar and sanctions or boycotts will make it more fubar, as will the growth of non-productive (but extremely reproductive!) ultra orthodox Jewry. ( Israel has 4th highest child poverty rate in developed world).
The point then, is what Israel has to put on the table.
Only partially correct.You negotiate because:
1. You realise that even were you to eliminate this bunch of "terrorists" within 10 years you'd be confronted by another
2. You have no local friends and lots of local enemies
3. You are massively dependent upon oil and grain imports
4. Your economy is fubar and sanctions or boycotts will make it more fubar, as will the growth of non-productive (but extremely reproductive!) ultra orthodox Jewry. ( Israel has 4th highest child poverty rate in developed world).
The point then, is what Israel has to put on the table.
1. Why? Defeat them and then do a deal with the moderates and you remove the need for the next generation of terrorists.
2. Local enemies? Yea, because Israel was once so popular in the region!
3&4. The US will never let them go under.
The point then isn't what have Israel got to put on the table, they hold most of the cards, rather it is when does Israel even sit at the table. Destroy Hamas or at least destroy the support for them and then is the time.
Before this last round in Gaza Hamas were really suffering a drop in support, this is why they went to war. Typical nationalistic methods but they only last for so long.
Grumfutock said:
So to summarise, Israel should only deal as and when the people have pulled the power away from Hamas. They put them there and they can remove them. The only other way is if Hamas turn more to politics and away from terrorism, abandon their ludicrous "Israel cannot exist" claim and stop firing rockets. Then, maybe, they can do a deal.
Israel and Hamas are already talking. We can only guess about what. Who makes the best falafel? Your guess is as good as mine! There is a sense in which Hamas is Israel's creation: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB12327557229501184...Still, wait for "the people" to get rid of Hamas and it'll be far, far, too late.
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
So to summarise, Israel should only deal as and when the people have pulled the power away from Hamas. They put them there and they can remove them. The only other way is if Hamas turn more to politics and away from terrorism, abandon their ludicrous "Israel cannot exist" claim and stop firing rockets. Then, maybe, they can do a deal.
Israel and Hamas are already talking. We can only guess about what. Who makes the best falafel? Your guess is as good as mine! There is a sense in which Hamas is Israel's creation: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB12327557229501184...Still, wait for "the people" to get rid of Hamas and it'll be far, far, too late.
Please don't try that one.
You and your mother knows that Iran used to finance Hamas.
I'm not sure if they still do or not but Israel's creating of Hamas is only in your sub concious.
Please don't start muddying the waters.
I was enjoying this debate.
Phil
Transmitter Man said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
So to summarise, Israel should only deal as and when the people have pulled the power away from Hamas. They put them there and they can remove them. The only other way is if Hamas turn more to politics and away from terrorism, abandon their ludicrous "Israel cannot exist" claim and stop firing rockets. Then, maybe, they can do a deal.
Israel and Hamas are already talking. We can only guess about what. Who makes the best falafel? Your guess is as good as mine! There is a sense in which Hamas is Israel's creation: http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB12327557229501184...Still, wait for "the people" to get rid of Hamas and it'll be far, far, too late.
Please don't try that one.
You and your mother knows that Iran used to finance Hamas.
I'm not sure if they still do or not but Israel's creating of Hamas is only in your sub concious.
Please don't start muddying the waters.
I was enjoying this debate.
Phil
Hamas, spiritual roots, Muslim Brotherhood. Early finance, Iran (fell out over Hamas support for Syrian uprising). Current finding probably Qatar.
No need to muddy the waters! There are already Al-Q cells in Gaza and in Jordan, it has been mooted that Iran wants to set up a new Hezbollah in Syria (just in case Assad bites the dust).
Grumfutock said:
Only partially correct.
1. Why? Defeat them and then do a deal with the moderates and you remove the need for the next generation of terrorists.
The only way you can defeat them military is to start up the Israeli Palestinian meat grinder again. That radicalises more Palestinians. And there are already folk out there much more radical than Hamas. 1. Why? Defeat them and then do a deal with the moderates and you remove the need for the next generation of terrorists.
Grumfutock said:
2. Local enemies? Yea, because Israel was once so popular in the region!
Well, let's see. Jordan are more pissed off with them than they have been for 20 years. Hezbollah is better equipped and battle hardened than it has been for 15 years. Iran has a presence in Syria. Then there's ISIS. Grumfutock said:
3&4. The US will never let them go under.
Israeli/US relations are at an all time low. Russian/US relations are at an all time low, which makes them more inclined to give Iran and Hezbollah the latest weapons. At some point the expense of holding the ungrateful, bad tempered, disobedient, baby's head above water becomes too much: let's see if the little brat can swim.Grumfutock said:
The point then isn't what have Israel got to put on the table, they hold most of the cards, rather it is when does Israel even sit at the table. Destroy Hamas or at least destroy the support for them and then is the time.
See above. But I doubt if they have quite as many cards as they think.Grumfutock said:
Before this last round in Gaza Hamas were really suffering a drop in support, this is why they went to war. Typical nationalistic methods but they only last for so long.
Indeed. But any fool can start a war, any time. To stop it, the Israelis have to at least placate Fatah. TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Only partially correct.
1. Why? Defeat them and then do a deal with the moderates and you remove the need for the next generation of terrorists.
The only way you can defeat them military is to start up the Israeli Palestinian meat grinder again. That radicalises more Palestinians. And there are already folk out there much more radical than Hamas. 1. Why? Defeat them and then do a deal with the moderates and you remove the need for the next generation of terrorists.
Grumfutock said:
2. Local enemies? Yea, because Israel was once so popular in the region!
Well, let's see. Jordan are more pissed off with them than they have been for 20 years. Hezbollah is better equipped and battle hardened than it has been for 15 years. Iran has a presence in Syria. Then there's ISIS. Grumfutock said:
3&4. The US will never let them go under.
Israeli/US relations are at an all time low. Russian/US relations are at an all time low, which makes them more inclined to give Iran and Hezbollah the latest weapons. At some point the expense of holding the ungrateful, bad tempered, disobedient, baby's head above water becomes too much: let's see if the little brat can swim.Grumfutock said:
The point then isn't what have Israel got to put on the table, they hold most of the cards, rather it is when does Israel even sit at the table. Destroy Hamas or at least destroy the support for them and then is the time.
See above. But I doubt if they have quite as many cards as they think.Grumfutock said:
Before this last round in Gaza Hamas were really suffering a drop in support, this is why they went to war. Typical nationalistic methods but they only last for so long.
Indeed. But any fool can start a war, any time. To stop it, the Israelis have to at least placate Fatah. 2. Jordan etc can be as pissed as they want. I said that they have never had anything other than enemies locally. That fact remains extant and hasn't changed since 1948. (All the troubles, wars, conflicts and fighting kind of proves that point).
3&4. If you honestly believe that the US is going to turn of the money tap to Israel then you are more deluded than I thought. In fact you are way past deluded and currently residing in cuckoo land.
Your residency in cuckoo land would explain why you think Israel don't have all the cards.
As for the "there is a sense in which Hamas is Israel's creation". Ding Ding, next stop La La Land! Hamas actually brings Egypt and Israel closer together. Do you honestly think that Egypt were sat watching the last round and saying "Oh those evil Israeli infidels"!!! They were laughing there balls off mate! The Arabs have a proverb, "Adu 'Aduyi Hooweh Ssadikki" My enemy's enemy is my friend.
And finally, placate Fatah? Of late Israel has been getting along very well with them. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, they have armed them. Not really the normal actions of somebody you see as an enemy.
Grumfutock said:
1. Really, I would suggest that they are doing a very good job of defeating them at the moment.
2. Jordan etc can be as pissed as they want. I said that they have never had anything other than enemies locally. That fact remains extant and hasn't changed since 1948. (All the troubles, wars, conflicts and fighting kind of proves that point).
3&4. If you honestly believe that the US is going to turn of the money tap to Israel then you are more deluded than I thought. In fact you are way past deluded and currently residing in cuckoo land.
Hamas are still there, still recruiting, still mounting attacks, still testing improved (one suspects) rockets. Where is the defeat? Start up the grinder again and there will be a reaction in the West. 2. Jordan etc can be as pissed as they want. I said that they have never had anything other than enemies locally. That fact remains extant and hasn't changed since 1948. (All the troubles, wars, conflicts and fighting kind of proves that point).
3&4. If you honestly believe that the US is going to turn of the money tap to Israel then you are more deluded than I thought. In fact you are way past deluded and currently residing in cuckoo land.
What cards, exactly, do the Israelis have?
They have a pretty little submarine or two, a largely conscript army, a decent air force. Militarily they're ahead of the competition, but Hezbollah alone gave them a hard time. Militarily they could defeat Hamas. But, they're not likely to be fighting them alone.
While NATO could once point to Israel as a useful non-aligned ally in the ME, recent conflicts have not had any useful degree of Israeli involvement. Better non-aligned neighbours are emerging: less greedy, more inclusive, non-nuclear, more secular. Israel doesn't serve a useful purpose any more.
While I don't see a complete US abandonment, I do see "you can have your sweeties if you eat your greens".
Grumfutock said:
Your residency in cuckoo land would explain why you think Israel don't have all the cards.
There's the "victim" card. Like to fill in the rest? Grumfutock said:
As for the "there is a sense in which Hamas is Israel's creation". Ding Ding, next stop La La Land! Hamas actually brings Egypt and Israel closer together. Do you honestly think that Egypt were sat watching the last round and saying "Oh those evil Israeli infidels"!!!
I'm sure the present Egyptian regime is moderately pleased. I'm equally sure that they don't want to see the Palestinians (rather than Hamas) driven into the sea. But things change rapidly in the ME. And did I mention the Egyptians? Hell, read the article!
Grumfutock said:
And finally, placate Fatah? Of late Israel has been getting along very well with them. As I have repeatedly pointed out to you, they have armed them. Not really the normal actions of somebody you see as an enemy.
I doubt if the Israelis can really buy off Fatah with a few guns. Anyway, is Abbas really doing what Israel wants? TheRealFingers99 said:
Hamas are still there, still recruiting, still mounting attacks, still testing improved (one suspects) rockets. Where is the defeat? Start up the grinder again and there will be a reaction in the West.
Oh dear, you really have lost the plot haven't you. Still firing rockets so where is the defeat? Was Hitler finished in Dec 44 and yet he launched the Ardennes offensive! Silly man.
TheRealFingers99 said:
What cards, exactly, do the Israelis have?
You really haven't worked that out yet??? Seriously???TheRealFingers99 said:
They have a pretty little submarine or two, a largely conscript army, a decent air force. Militarily they're ahead of the competition, but Hezbollah alone gave them a hard time. Militarily they could defeat Hamas. But, they're not likely to be fighting them alone.
Tried before and failed! They are easily and by far the most powerful and dominant military in the area. Unless Iran sent it's entire armed forces against them there is no local coalition that could defeat them. If it got serious, as in a proper war and not a Hezbollah insurgency, then all gloves would be off and they would care about civilian casualties. Now before you claim that they don't anyway, if Israel didn't then that last little scrap would of been a hell of a lot worse for the Palestinian's.TheRealFingers99 said:
While NATO could once point to Israel as a useful non-aligned ally in the ME, recent conflicts have not had any useful degree of Israeli involvement. Better non-aligned neighbours are emerging: less greedy, more inclusive, non-nuclear, more secular. Israel doesn't serve a useful purpose any more.
While I don't see a complete US abandonment, I do see "you can have your sweeties if you eat your greens".
While I don't see a complete US abandonment, I do see "you can have your sweeties if you eat your greens".
These "other" allies you talk of are also far more unstable, less reliable and prone to bite the hand that feeds. The US will not allow Israel to go under and still maintains a massive power base in the area. Without Israel then all the other idiot, tin pot, half arsed regimes get to focus on the "Infidel West". It is a counter to Iran being the major power base in the area. Of course Israel still serves a purpose!!! Very silly man!
TheRealFingers99 said:
There's the "victim" card. Like to fill in the rest?
You just love the victim card bit don't you. Nobody is playing it here. If anything it is you that has repeatedly played the "poor, down trodden and attacked when we didn't do anything wrong" Palestinian victim card, played it over and over again!!! TheRealFingers99 said:
I'm sure the present Egyptian regime is moderately pleased. I'm equally sure that they don't want to see the Palestinians (rather than Hamas) driven into the sea. But things change rapidly in the ME. And did I mention the Egyptians? Hell, read the article!
You have just proved the entire "Other allies" point with that argument. Thank you!TheRealFingers99 said:
I doubt if the Israelis can really buy off Fatah with a few guns. Anyway, is Abbas really doing what Israel wants?
Is he attacking them with suicide bombers? Is he firing rockets and mortars at them? Is he driving vehicles into prams? Or is he maintaining a peace in his area? So yes, he is doing exactly what Israel wants!I am really starting to come to the conclusion that you are not serious in any of this. I suspect you are just keeping this going as you like a good argument as nobody could be this brain washed and still managed to tie their own shoe laces!
Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
Hamas are still there, still recruiting, still mounting attacks, still testing improved (one suspects) rockets. Where is the defeat? Start up the grinder again and there will be a reaction in the West.
Oh dear, you really have lost the plot haven't you. Still firing rockets so where is the defeat? Was Hitler finished in Dec 44 and yet he launched the Ardennes offensive! Silly man.
Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
What cards, exactly, do the Israelis have?
You really haven't worked that out yet??? Seriously???TheRealFingers99 said:
They have a pretty little submarine or two, a largely conscript army, a decent air force. Militarily they're ahead of the competition, but Hezbollah alone gave them a hard time. Militarily they could defeat Hamas. But, they're not likely to be fighting them alone.
Tried before and failed! They are easily and by far the most powerful and dominant military in the area. Unless Iran sent it's entire armed forces against them there is no local coalition that could defeat them. If it got serious, as in a proper war and not a Hezbollah insurgency, then all gloves would be off and they would care about civilian casualties. Now before you claim that they don't anyway, if Israel didn't then that last little scrap would of been a hell of a lot worse for the Palestinian's.Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
While NATO could once point to Israel as a useful non-aligned ally in the ME, recent conflicts have not had any useful degree of Israeli involvement. Better non-aligned neighbours are emerging: less greedy, more inclusive, non-nuclear, more secular. Israel doesn't serve a useful purpose any more.
While I don't see a complete US abandonment, I do see "you can have your sweeties if you eat your greens".
While I don't see a complete US abandonment, I do see "you can have your sweeties if you eat your greens".
These "other" allies you talk of are also far more unstable, less reliable and prone to bite the hand that feeds. The US will not allow Israel to go under and still maintains a massive power base in the area. Without Israel then all the other idiot, tin pot, half arsed regimes get to focus on the "Infidel West". It is a counter to Iran being the major power base in the area. Of course Israel still serves a purpose!!! Very silly man!
Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
I'm sure the present Egyptian regime is moderately pleased. I'm equally sure that they don't want to see the Palestinians (rather than Hamas) driven into the sea. But things change rapidly in the ME. And did I mention the Egyptians? Hell, read the article!
You have just proved the entire "Other allies" point with that argument. Thank you!Grumfutock said:
TheRealFingers99 said:
I doubt if the Israelis can really buy off Fatah with a few guns. Anyway, is Abbas really doing what Israel wants?
Is he attacking them with suicide bombers? Is he firing rockets and mortars at them? Is he driving vehicles into prams? Or is he maintaining a peace in his area? So yes, he is doing exactly what Israel wants!I'm wondering if you've kept up with events over the last 5 years or so.
Here's one for your files:
Jalal Talaban (Iraqi president and head of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan) shakes hands with Ehud Barak (Israeli Minister of Defence) while Mahmoud Abbas (head of Fatah) looks on bemused. Talaban later explained that he took Barak's hand as head of the PUK, rather than as President of Iraq.
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 8th November 22:57
Edited by TheRealFingers99 on Saturday 8th November 22:58
Grumfutock said:
They should go to Syria and Egypt instead
.You can't rationalise with irrational people - this thread if anything has proven it. Becoming so emotive when a child of your own "tribe" gets killed but then making excuses/denying for the killings hundreds of children from "the other tribe" is all quite sad IMO. Downright evil I would go as far to say.
(Yes Grum - Hamas are also evil just in case you use your one-trick pony argument)
Grumfutock said:
I am really starting to come to the conclusion that you are not serious in any of this. I suspect you are just keeping this going as you like a good argument as nobody could be this brain washed and still managed to tie their own shoe laces!
Pot meet Kettle...Grum - you have shown absolutely no independent thought process in the 300+ pages of this thread nor any remnant of a higher thought process. You arguments and analogies are quite laughable at times as if they've been made by a computer that scientists are working on to "make Human." All you have done is regurgitate Israeli propaganda and downright discount ANY evidence that goes against your pre-set beliefs.
Of course we all bring up evidence that supports our own beliefs, but I am afraid that you don't even have any insight that this is what you do. People like you are dangerous and it's shown over the last few decades. I really hope that you're just trolling, but I fear not.
In your Utopian view; what should the Middle East (focusing on Palestine/Israel) look like in 50 years.
1 - Where would the descendants of current Palestinians be living?
2 - How much more land should the Israeli's control?
3 - What would be the population of Israel?
4 - Would Israel still be a Jewish state or would there be a 2 state solution with Palestinians and Jews living in complete harmony?
Remember this is your Utopian view so you can imagine that Hamas/allied organisations whom you don't like are no more. What is your end goal? What is it that you and your ilk really want? (over and above "peace") I don't want to know how we get there, I don't want to know what needs to happen before we get there - I just want to know that if you could close your eyes and make a wish - what is it that you would want? Specifics please.
zuby84 said:
Grumfutock said:
They should go to Syria and Egypt instead
.You can't rationalise with irrational people - this thread if anything has proven it. Becoming so emotive when a child of your own "tribe" gets killed but then making excuses/denying for the killings hundreds of children from "the other tribe" is all quite sad IMO. Downright evil I would go as far to say.
(Yes Grum - Hamas are also evil just in case you use your one-trick pony argument)
Hamas are evil?? And yet you take every opportunity to condemn any and all Israeli actions without barely a whimper when Hamas a baby. I think you position is bloody obvious mate!
But thank you for your input!
Grumfutock said:
Hamas are evil?? And yet you take every opportunity to condemn any and all Israeli actions without barely a whimper when Hamas a baby. I think you position is bloody obvious mate!
Can't Hamas and Israel both be evil? I note that while Zuby -- and myself -- have called Hamas evil on a number of occasions, you've yet to admit any of the wrongs of Israel (at least, post '48, and then it was like getting blood from a stone).
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Hamas are evil?? And yet you take every opportunity to condemn any and all Israeli actions without barely a whimper when Hamas a baby. I think you position is bloody obvious mate!
Can't Hamas and Israel both be evil? I note that while Zuby -- and myself -- have called Hamas evil on a number of occasions, you've yet to admit any of the wrongs of Israel (at least, post '48, and then it was like getting blood from a stone).
"But Burchill’s most egregious fault is her insistence that her enemies are all pals together. Time and again in this threadbare text she equates any criticism of the Israeli state with support for Hamas, Hezbollah and other organisations that commit terrorist acts in the name of Palestine – this is wrong, deeply unhelpful, and an attitude that, in my view, could lead ultimately to the destruction of Israel."
Hope that helps
TheRealFingers99 said:
Grumfutock said:
Hamas are evil?? And yet you take every opportunity to condemn any and all Israeli actions without barely a whimper when Hamas a baby. I think you position is bloody obvious mate!
Can't Hamas and Israel both be evil? I note that while Zuby -- and myself -- have called Hamas evil on a number of occasions, you've yet to admit any of the wrongs of Israel (at least, post '48, and then it was like getting blood from a stone).
Israel, since 1948 has been a sovereign state and as such has been forced to fight numerous wars to defend itself. Israel has fought the wars well and defeated many coalitions arrayed against it and as a result these coalitions have resorted to terrorism, which Israel has been forced to defend itself against.
Whilst Israel has made mistakes, show a country, organisation or individual who hasn't, they have been done in the quest to secure it's integral security. It has not consistently and at every turn carried out evil acts.
Should I call a nation evil for trying to defend it's right to exist? Is a nation evil for defending itself successfully against many aggressive war attacks? Is a nation evil for opposing terrorism?
I can give you two answers, the long one and the short one. The short answer is simple, NO!
The long answer is NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff