Israel Biggest Threat To World Peace ???

[honeybee]

And the US is joint second along with N Korea and Iran. Interesting, eh?

.

[Maven]

I think some have a gay look on things. I'm sure many countries would respond the same way if they were in Isreal's shoes. I don't think any country in the world would allow people to kill their countrymen and simply turn thier head the other way in return. But some how people expect that out of Isreal, perhaps it's due to so much hate that people have towards that race.

[run_GMoney]

Interesting, and since you know who the biggest "threats" to World Peace are, could you tell us who the biggest advocates for World Peace are?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by run_GMoney
Interesting, and since you know who the biggest "threats" to World Peace are, could you tell us who the biggest advocates for World Peace are?

Ask the EU. It's their poll, not mine

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
Ask the EU. It's their poll, not mine

.

You posted it so you must agree with it. Come on you must have some opinion on this. I for one would like to hear it

X

[mendhak]

I fail to see how Israel is a threat to world peace. Explain your views to me (since you agree with the poll).

[yrwyddfa]

But some how people expect that out of Isreal, perhaps it's due to so much hate that people have towards that race.

Israel is a country, not a race; but I'm assuming you mean anti-semitism?

I think that Israel is a threat to peace but not necessarily world peace. You never know, though. 'Minor' events in the Balkans have lead to all sorts of problems which ended up dragging the majority of the world into conflict.

I also believe that the persecution of the Jews over many centuries (appalling no matter what the race) has blinkered much of world opinion. It appears the world is afraid to speak up just in case it gets accused of anti-semitism.

Milosovic was overthrown and arrested because of his crimes against people of a specific race and religion. Sharron has been convicted of exactly the same crimes against the Palestinians, and to some observers continues to do the same. Yet he is still allowed to remain in charge of nation.

What's the justice in that?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
You posted it so you must agree with it. Come on you must have some opinion on this. I for one would like to hear it

X

What gives you the idea if I posted something about an event here, I agree with that event or its conclusions ? I wonder what length you will go to, to make your own conclusions....

.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Israel is a country, not a race; but I'm assuming you mean anti-semitism?

I think that Israel is a threat to peace but not necessarily world peace. You never know, though. 'Minor' events in the Balkans have lead to all sorts of problems which ended up dragging the majority of the world into conflict.

I also believe that the persecution of the Jews over many centuries (appalling no matter what the race) has blinkered much of world opinion. It appears the world is afraid to speak up just in case it gets accused of anti-semitism.

Milosovic was overthrown and arrested because of his crimes against people of a specific race and religion. Sharron has been convicted of exactly the same crimes against the Palestinians, and to some observers continues to do the same. Yet he is still allowed to remain in charge of nation.

What's the justice in that?

Point taken, good one.

The way I look at it, both Palestine and Israel (the obvious factors in this "peace" conflict), are potential threats then. Palestine being held up by Arab support (read: oil controllers), and Israel by some Western countries (read: power controllers).

But then, I just stated the obvious. No wonder I don't visit this forum much.

[yrwyddfa]

The way I look at it, both Palestine and Israel (the obvious factors in this "peace" conflict), are potential threats then. Palestine being held up by Arab support (read: oil controllers), and Israel by some Western countries (read: power controllers).

I think so, yes.

Where any nation (or it's constituent peoples) are prepared to bear arms to enforce a political will; then there is the potential to violate peace.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
Point taken, good one.

The way I look at it, both Palestine and Israel (the obvious factors in this "peace" conflict), are potential threats then. Palestine being held up by Arab support (read: oil controllers), and Israel by some Western countries (read: power controllers).

But then, I just stated the obvious. No wonder I don't visit this forum much.

If you were to mention Oil Controllers and Power Controllers, the Iraq invasion should prove to be an interesting point.

I don't think, barring a handful of over-enthusiastic nations, the Arab countries are extending more than political support to Palestinians. On the other hand, the US is actively contributing to Israel's growing military might. The worst part is Israel doesn't seem to back down from its aggressive stance and accept that it will have to show some toleration and some restraint. It wants the situation to be a win-win for itself, while it has to make some concessions to Palestine if the conflict has to be resolved.

.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
What gives you the idea if I posted something about an event here, I agree with that event or its conclusions ? I wonder what length you will go to, to make your own conclusions....

.

Well instead of being vague why not just tell us your opinions on the matter? That way I dont have to draw my own conclusions. You can just tell everyone yours in your own words so there are no misconceptions.

X

[venerable bede]

Bomb Mecca

[yrwyddfa]

The worst part is Israel doesn't seem to back down from its aggressive stance and accept that it will have to show some toleration and some restraint. It wants the situation to be a win-win for itself, while it has to make some concessions to Palestine if the conflict has to be resolved.

This would seem to be self-evident. It's a shame the rest of the world doesn't quite see it that way.

We live and learn.

[Shaggy Hiker]

I doubt there can be a viable solution to Isreal-Palestine until Arafat dies, and then only if he dies of natural causes. There isn't enough motion on that side with him around, but there wouldn't be any motion if Israel got rid of him in any manner.

I don't like Sharron, but I don't see how much better the Israelis can do without motion on the palestinian side.

[Xanith]

How can there be any motion when you have terrorist groups on the Palestinian side who have stated that there can be no peace until every last one of the Israelis are either dead or driven out of the region? If the Palestinians really do want a homeland and self rule they themselves have to stamp out and destroy these terrorist groups. Until that happens there can never be any peace because I do not blame Israel from striking back when suicide bombers kill innocent woman and children in cafes and on buses. The circle will continue until Palestinians decide whether they are serious about peace and begin to shut down and dismantle the terror groups.

X

[yrwyddfa]

Until that happens there can never be any peace because I do not blame Israel from striking back when suicide bombers kill innocent woman and children in cafes and on buses

I do not blame Palestinians from striking back when Israeli 'collateral' damage kills women and children.

This is not a one sided affair. There are serious issues (and their subsequent implications) on both sides of this.

I believe that the act of a suicide bomber is an atrocity. I believe that the Israeli army commits atrocities. Both are party to and are equally culpable for the situation in that arena today.

If this was not the case then fingers could be pointed with evidence to boot and a solution (militarily, or otherwise) could be construed. As it stands both sides commit appalling atrocities and will not give even the option of peace a single moment's thought.

It is after all easier to hate, than it is to love.

[Shaggy Hiker]

There are extremists on the Israeli side, as well. Both sides would have to be reigned in, but there will be no reigning in with Arafat still in power.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Spetnik
Granted, there are extremists on the Israeli side, but the last attack that I can recall by them was the Baruch Goldstein massacre in 1994. That was 6 years before the current conflict started. That, compounded with press releases that I have read detailing Israeli arrests of anti-palestinian extremists, seems to indicate that Israel has been doing a pretty decent job reigning them in.

That is my point. The Palestinians have to do something about their extremist groups before any kind of peace process can start. There is no way there is going to be a Palestinian state if Palestinian extremist groups are still blowing up woman and children on busses and in cafe's.

X

[Shaggy Hiker]

I wasn't talking about Israeli terrorist extremists. I had forgotten that they existed. Why should they bother?

The Israeli extremists want something similar to the Palestinian terrorists. Both want the other group (not just the extremists, but all of them) to be utterly eradicated. The Palestinians are using violence, but the Israelis don't need to. There will be no peace as long as these two groups are left to do as they will, but there is no incentive to reign them in under the current regimes in place.

If the Palestinians were to halt their terrorist organizations, but the Israelis don't stop expanding into the occupied territories (and the other issues pushed by those who want to annex the whole area), then the Palestinians will end up as unwelcome residents in a hostile land. As long as Israel keeps expanding, the Palestinians have to push back if they ever want to remain a people.

Of course, the Palestinian extremists want to destroy Israel completely, so if Israel does nothing, the death toll will keep rising. Both sides need to stop those actions which agravate the situation, but Sharron has no incentive to do so, and Arafat has every incentive to not do so.

Once Arafat dies of old age, it would be possible for a centrist government among the Palestinians, but even then, the violence won't stop if Israel continues to build outposts.

[yrwyddfa]

That is my point. The Palestinians have to do something about their extremist groups before any kind of peace process can start. There is no way there is going to be a Palestinian state if Palestinian extremist groups are still blowing up woman and children on busses and in cafe's.

. . . and you won't get any peace until Israel give up on their idea of apartheid; that is removing people from homes they have lived in for generations; that is ensuring that a palestinian child will be committing a capital crime (one assumes with the capital punishement that goes along with that) for crossing a road next to his own home; that is until the convicted war criminal Sharron leaves behind the policy of genocide; that is until Israeli gunships target their bullets and bombs away from Palenstinian children.

It's been said before, I will say it again. There are two parties to this; they are both equally culpable.

Incidentally, I do not believe that Arafat has been convicted of war-crimes in an international court - yet Sharron has. I hope this puts a new perspective on this for you.

[yrwyddfa]

That is my point. The Palestinians have to do something about their extremist groups before any kind of peace process can start. There is no way there is going to be a Palestinian state if Palestinian extremist groups are still blowing up woman and children on busses and in cafe's.

So Britain would have been better served if they told the Irish 'sort out your terrorists, and then we'll talk.'

I think not. The British governemnt tried that for nearly a century - and it didn't work.

You live in a dream world (America?) mate.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
. . . and you won't get any peace until Israel give up on their idea of apartheid; that is removing people from homes they have lived in for generations; that is ensuring that a palestinian child will be committing a capital crime (one assumes with the capital punishement that goes along with that) for crossing a road next to his own home; that is until the convicted war criminal Sharron leaves behind the policy of genocide; that is until Israeli gunships target their bullets and bombs away from Palenstinian children.

It's been said before, I will say it again. There are two parties to this; they are both equally culpable.

Incidentally, I do not believe that Arafat has been convicted of war-crimes in an international court - yet Sharron has. I hope this puts a new perspective on this for you.

Were not the Palestinians kicked out of Jordan? Seems like the Arabs dont even want the Palestinians around.

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
So Britain would have been better served if they told the Irish 'sort out your terrorists, and then we'll talk.'

I think not. The British governemnt tried that for nearly a century - and it didn't work.

You live in a dream world (America?) mate.

I think your the one living in a dream world if you don’t think the Palestinians bear some responsibility in stopping the violence against Israel.

X

[yrwyddfa]

I think your the one living in a dream world if you don’t think the Palestinians bear some responsibility in stopping the violence against Israel.

I believe I have stated quite clearly that I reckon the responsibility is brought to bear on both parties:

It's been said before, I will say it again. There are two parties to this; they are both equally culpable.

This is not a one sided affair. There are serious issues (and their subsequent implications) on both sides of this.

Perhaps it is now clear who is seeing some issues (which really are quite serious) through a haze of arrogant, misinformed fog.

[Xanith]

Remember this?

So Britain would have been better served if they told the Irish 'sort out your terrorists, and then we'll talk.'

Seems like you contradicted yourself just to be at odds with my opinion. So which is it? Do the Palestinians bear some responsibility for the stop of terrorism or not? This time try and pick one opinion and go with it ok

X

[yrwyddfa]

Remember this?

Well, Xanith

You clearly have missed out the conditional 'would' and I'm ever so sorry that you cannot sense any feel of irony: of which you are fatally guilty of.

Nor have you heard of rhetoric which surprises me because your full of it.

[Wally Pipp]

he seems to have missed the next line altogether ... which incidentally indicates that the preceding line was actually a question. I suppose it's one of these linguistic subtleties sadly lost on our overseas friends.

[yrwyddfa]

So Britain would have been better served if they told the Irish 'sort out your terrorists, and then we'll talk.'

I think not. The British governemnt tried that for nearly a century - and it didn't work.

This is clearly stating that there is precedence to getting one side to sort out their terrorists whilst the other side simply meanders on with blame and accusation.

A situtation that I refute. If you know your history, which I assume you do, then you will realise that the NI peace plan started whilst terrorist activities were still going on.

Your opinion states that Palenstine must clean up it's act before peace can continue. I argue that with any small amount of intellect will see this as an excuse to continue oppression (both of the Israelis by the Palenstinians and vice versa

I would have though you would have understood that.

And I would not go out of my way to refute your opinion either; that is arrogant of you to even consider.

[Xanith]

I never said that the Israelis bared no responsibility and it was all up to the Palestinians. My position is that the Palestinians have to do something in reigning in the terrorist groups that are striking against Israel. You have stated yourself that both sides are to blame so how come both sides shouldn’t do something to show that they want peace? Why do you feel it is only up to the Israeli’s?

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Well, Xanith

You clearly have missed out the conditional 'would' and I'm ever so sorry that you cannot sense any feel of irony: of which you are fatally guilty of.

Nor have you heard of rhetoric which surprises me because your full of it.

No just clearly state your opinion on things and I will accept it.

X

[yrwyddfa]

Why do you feel it is only up to the Israeli’s?

Err - I don't. My position (I will say it once more) is that both parties are to blame, and they do not have to wait until terrorist activities cease before they start to talk sensibly about peace.

No just clearly state your opinion on things and I will accept it.

I believe I have. You may have difficulty seeing it, but I would suspect everyone else has read it quite fine (even though they might not agree)

I don't know how many more ways I can say the same thing

[Xanith]

Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Err - I don't. My position (I will say it once more) is that both parties are to blame, and they do not have to wait until terrorist activities cease before they start to talk sensibly about peace.

So what exactly do you feel the Palestinians have to do in order for both sides to talk sensibly about peace? If both are responsible then both should be actively trying to live together and get along. My point was they should actively seek to reign in these terrorist groups because as long as they are still around there can never be peace. Doing something about them would actively show the Isreali's that they are serious about getting along.

I believe I have. You may have difficulty seeing it, but I would suspect everyone else has read it quite fine (even though they might not agree)

I understand what you said about both sides being responsible. That part is understood. What is not understood is why you feel that if the Palestinians are equally to blame for the mess then why are they not equally accountable to do something to foster the peace process.

Don’t get me wrong I understand what you are saying, however your conclusions are the things that don’t make any sense to me.

X

[yrwyddfa]

My point was they should actively seek to reign in these terrorist groups because as long as they are still around there can never be peace.

The IRA, and more specifically the Real IRA are active in Britain, yet we have a peace process. So clearly not true

show the Isreali's that they are serious about getting along

Don't you think that this Israelis stopping segragetion would also be a step in the right direction? As you have strongly implied it works both ways

What is not understood is why you feel that if the Palestinians are equally to blame for the mess then why are they not equally accountable to do something to foster the peace process.

I have already said (more than once) so I will requote myself for the last time:

(i)There are two parties to this; they are both equally culpable.
(ii)There are serious issues (and their subsequent implications) on both sides of this.
(iii)Both are party to and are equally culpable for the situation in that arena today.
(iv)As it stands both sides commit appalling atrocities and will not give even the option of peace a single moment's thought.

I think that this clearly implies and shows that I believe the responsibility, and accountability lay on the shoulders of both parties.

your conclusions are the things that don’t make any sense to me.

Err- I haven't made any conclusions - and I challenge you to show me where I have come to any conclusion in this post.

I have simply stopped the anti-palestine rot that pervades the mind of a fool.

[yrwyddfa]

A rosy view - but unfortunately glossing over the horrendous activities that the Israel army has participated in.

Not to say that the Palestinians are any better.

This is my point I am not suggesting one is better or worse than the other. I believe that all humans are equal, and deserve to be treated as such.

How can you hold a child repsonsible for the actions of it's grandparents in 1947?

Incidentally, Iraq was a secular country under Saddam too; so I hardly believe that secularism is a necessarily by itself a desired trait, do you?

Just because a country claims to have religous tolerance it does not mean that the country is modern in outlook, or respectful of human rights.

You make some good point, though. I wonder how many could be verified by independant sources. From an outsiders point of view it appears as if people are just killing people; which is indeed exactly what is going on.

The fact that you introduce some political, and national pretext for violence which is heading towards a justification for horrendous acts to me is very worrying

(if I said I was blowing up your home, and then did it - is this acceptable? Is blowing up your home acceptable regardless of who is inside?)

You make good points, but raise bigger issues.

[Xanith]

The IRA, and more specifically the Real IRA are active in Britain, yet we have a peace process. So clearly not true

This is assuming both situations are the same. So you cant “clearly” say it is true or false now can you? You can make assumptions which you have “clearly” done. However another person can “clearly” claim these situations are not the same.

Don't you think that this Israelis stopping segragetion would also be a step in the right direction? As you have strongly implied it works both ways

Israel has already said it would follow the roadmap to peace if the Palestinians do their part and reign in the terrorists. So far the Palestinians have been unwilling to do so. If you remember it was Hamas that decided to break the peace and blow up woman and children on a bus. You can’t have a peace process with only 1 side making concessions and doing something to foster it.

I have already said (more than once) so I will requote myself for the last time:

(i)There are two parties to this; they are both equally culpable.
(ii)There are serious issues (and their subsequent implications) on both sides of this.
(iii)Both are party to and are equally culpable for the situation in that arena today.
(iv)As it stands both sides commit appalling atrocities and will not give even the option of peace a single moment's thought.

I think that this clearly implies and shows that I believe the responsibility, and accountability lay on the shoulders of both parties.

Ahhh except for one thing. You haven’t said what you believe the Palestinians should do to show they are serious about peace with Israel. You have made a suggestion for what Israel should do but said nothing about the Palestinians. So I will say (for the last time) what do you feel the Palestinians should do to foster the peace process?

Err- I haven't made any conclusions - and I challenge you to show me where I have come to any conclusion in this post.

I have simply stopped the anti-palestine rot that pervades the mind of a fool.

Now now don’t descend into name calling. You don’t here me labeling you a fool or an anti-Semite do you? I merely wish to hear what you think the Palestinians should do. I believe they should attempt to reign in the terror groups which have to be dealt with because they have already stated they want the death of every Israeli or their removal from the area which is clearly not an option.

Also I think for the most part we are in agreement. It’s just a matter of how the peace process should progress and what both sides should do. I think you confused me a bit when you said both sides are responsible then made it sound as if it is only Israel that should do something, and it was hard to get past the whole Sharon is a war criminal/genocide thing. I just want to hear what you think the Palestinians should do to further the peace process other than stopping the terrorist attacks which I know you think wouldn’t work.

X

[yrwyddfa]

Xanith first.

This is assuming both situations are the same. So you cant “clearly” say it is true or false now can you? You can make assumptions which you have “clearly” done. However another person can “clearly” claim these situations are not the same.

In an effort to introduce peace I thought that modern history of a similar albeit different situation would be worthwile. It is in my opinion that this is a valid comparison. These are circumstances that should not be taken lightly; any solution to reduce the deaths surely would be worthwhile - hence the analogy to the IRA/British Govt.

Israel has already said it would follow the roadmap to peace if the Palestinians do their part and reign in the terrorists

Well that is indeed a start. However, terrorists, generally are individuals within a small organisation. I would entirely agree if the terrorists were proven to be sponsored by the Palenstinian govt; which it never has been proven.

You can’t have a peace process with only 1 side making concessions and doing something to foster it.

I agree entirely. If both sides could simply agree to talk without condition life would be a hell of lot simpler.

. You haven’t said what you believe the Palestinians should do to show they are serious about peace with Israel.

You are correct. I inferrred it, but never stated it. I believe that both sides should come together regardless of the ongoing atrocities.

. I just want to hear what you think the Palestinians should do to further the peace process other than stopping the terrorist attacks which I know you think wouldn’t work.

I think I have now clarified my position

[yrwyddfa]

Spetnik next.

Alot of things you here are later disproved

A generous stament, methinks.

What are you refering to?

The creation of the state of Israel (of was it 1948? - I can't remember) I would have though you could have corrected me knowing the history of Israel. But clearly you cannot

The US is a secular country. Iraq's problems had nothing to do with the fact that it was a secular country.

You based arguments on the validity of:

(i) freedom of speech
(ii) freedom of religion
(iii) secularism

I've simply pointed out that the excuse of secularism is utter rubbish.

There are even Arab legislators.

There were even Irish parliamentatians during the IRA bombings. I don't see your point, I have to admit.

What horrendous acts? The buildings that are destroyed are almost always illegal buildings (that were built without building permits),

You believe that any illegal building deserves to be bombed with it's inhabitants inside? Interesting!

I forgot about the documentation which proves that Arafat has been funding arms for terrorist organizations.

What a coincidence: I forgot about Sharron's list of war-crimes that are proven and convicted.

[yrwyddfa]

Also, not that I am justifying Sharon's past, but there is a difference between one who did something in his past and what one currently does.

Good point. So why bring up the creation of the Israeli state.

I suspect that it suited your argument at the time. So I would guess you wouldn't mind me doing the same.

Which, unless you disagree with, does sincerely not validate your post.

[yrwyddfa]

How about the Al-Aqsa brigades???

Do you really want to go into the roots of the current Israeli military, or are you saying this to wind me up?