Civilian Aid Ship Deaths

[BoneDog]

Maybe Israel learnt from its neighbours?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

Although they've still got some way to go to beat the Syrian level.

Ah, another massacre of Muslims.

Israel has committed many similar massacres to that, although they sometimes just watch from the sidelines like when they let the Christian militia into that camp and lit it all up for them with bright lights so that they could see what they were doing.

Change the record!

IHH = Terrorists = Legitimate target.

OK. Your information is false but fair do's. I think you maybe have a bit of prejudice in there somewhere

[Guest Bilo]

Saudi is nowhere near as bad. Most of the world can see that. Horrible but not on the same level. They are not helping to starve 1.5 million people for a start.

The USA leaders back the Saudi regime to the hilt. If it wasn't for the USA government along with Israel then the Saudi's would be overthrown by now by it's unlucky citizens.

The US leaders do back the regime to the hilt but that's literally the only correct thing you've written here. I've come to the conclusion that by 'most of the world' you mean Press TV and you. Israel didn't, the last time I checked, execute gay people and adulterers. They certainly didn't do it publicly using methods such as beheading and stoning. They didn't say you had to be Jewish to be a citizen and ban the representation and practice of other religions. They didn't treat women as second class citizens to the extent that many believe that Saudi Arabia practices gender apartheid, an apartheid analogy that has no doubt conveniently passed you by. They didn't outlaw public protests or political parties in order to perpetuate the royal family's power. They didn't actively censor all internet searches. They didn't practice amputations as punishments. They didn't use floggings for public drunkenness. As for your accusation about starving 1.5 million people, which is somewhat exaggerated, the Saudis only outlawed slavery in 1962. No doubt that was just generosity towards the 300,000 slaves forced to work in the country though.

Iran never shot that lady or caused any of that mess if that's what you mean. It was a similar situation to the one in Venezuala around 2000 which was all proved beyond doubt to be orchestrated by certain outsiders. Can you remember the snipers who were shooting protestors and the news and US government blamed it on Chavez before their lies backfired? Same thing. It's amazing how quiet they kept the Venezuela event though.

Ahmadinejad stole the election then his troops clamped down in a manner that was condemned around the world, including the UN. That Iranian troops caused 'that mess' is not even in question among the overwhelming majority. Unless you can provide us with a reliable source that tells us otherwise. NB: I don't mean Press TV or some scientist in a straight jacket.

I speak out against most of the regimes in that region but the ones who get away with the worst crimes are the Israeli's. It's all in the history books already.

You only speak out about the regimes that you perceive to be pro-American or pro-Israeli. I don't think I've ever seen you criticise the anti-American regimes of Syria, Iran or Sudan. This in spite of the fact that these regimes are guilty of all manner of crimes ranging from torture to genocide. If you criticise the Israelis purely for their human rights record, then that would be fair. But the fact yo so often ignore or deny the crimes of anti-American regimes tells us what your true motives are to be honest.

[Head Honcho]

Ah, another massacre of Muslims.

Israel has committed many similar massacres to that, although they sometimes just watch from the sidelines like when they let the Christian militia into that camp and lit it all up for them with bright lights so that they could see what they were doing.

OK. Your information is false but fair do's. I think you maybe have a bit of prejudice in there somewhere

You should read most of your post for prejudices

[BoneDog]

You should read most of your post for prejudices

yeah I see your point! But when I speak of other countries actions I only mean the regime and not the people of the country.

[BoneDog]

The US leaders do back the regime to the hilt but that's literally the only correct thing you've written here. I've come to the conclusion that by 'most of the world' you mean Press TV and you. Israel didn't, the last time I checked, execute gay people and adulterers. They certainly didn't do it publicly using methods such as beheading and stoning. They didn't say you had to be Jewish to be a citizen and ban the representation and practice of other religions. They didn't treat women as second class citizens to the extent that many believe that Saudi Arabia practices gender apartheid, an apartheid analogy that has no doubt conveniently passed you by. They didn't outlaw public protests or political parties in order to perpetuate the royal family's power. They didn't actively censor all internet searches. They didn't practice amputations as punishments. They didn't use floggings for public drunkenness. As for your accusation about starving 1.5 million people, which is somewhat exaggerated, the Saudis only outlawed slavery in 1962. No doubt that was just generosity towards the 300,000 slaves forced to work in the country though.

Correct Israel doesn't execute gays or adulterers but they execute many children and other people with sniper rifles on many occasions. They execute aid workers and reporters. And they execute far more people overall, no comparison. By most of the world I mean it in the literal sense (although I would say that many of the world are not bothered either way and get on with their lives without thinking about far off countries).

I don't know what your problem with PressTV is. They have some great reporters and commentators working there and get many good stories and views you don't hear on our news. But I watch many channels, not just them.

I don't know why Saudi are being brought up again, we both know that all their laws are only in place because of support from the US administrations. And we are agreed that they are a shitty regime.

Correct, they didn't do any of the things that you listed towards the end but they do many things just as bad and worse that you don't seem to judge as being on the same level as I do. Their propaganda machine is second to none, there's no doubt about that.

[BoneDog]

1. Ahmadinejad stole the election then his troops clamped down in a manner that was condemned around the world, including the UN. That Iranian troops caused 'that mess' is not even in question among the overwhelming majority. Unless you can provide us with a reliable source that tells us otherwise. NB: I don't mean Press TV or some scientist in a straight jacket.

2. You only speak out about the regimes that you perceive to be pro-American or pro-Israeli. I don't think I've ever seen you criticise the anti-American regimes of Syria, Iran or Sudan. This in spite of the fact that these regimes are guilty of all manner of crimes ranging from torture to genocide. If you criticise the Israelis purely for their human rights record, then that would be fair. But the fact yo so often ignore or deny the crimes of anti-American regimes tells us what your true motives are to be honest.

1. Stole the election my ass! Just because a few richer folk from the city didn't vote for him and plastered it all over the net doesn't mean he lost the election. He pissed it and that's probably because most of Iran know about the other major canditate and who he is a puppet of. His record is hardly a shining light of hope for Iranians. For western interests maybe.

The clamping down on the protests was neccesary because outside influences were stoking up the flames and setting fire to petrol stations, cars and buildings etc. and causing absolute chaos. If the same were happening in our streets most people would want it stopped.

I know that most people probably only saw the anti government protests but I saw the pro government protests in Iran and they were much bigger all over the country (except they were peaceful protests with no looting or setting fire to surroundings). Of course the BBC or Sky didn't report those marches though, they just reported the pro US side of the story and the failed coup attempt.

2. I haven't got any motives, you've probably got more motive than me on this subject. For example, you seem to start off and say that Israel is in the wrong but then always turn the blame around to others in the region and take the focus off Israel.

I always thought that I speak out about many regimes crimes and am not biased for any country when it comes to politics. I don't deny that most regimes are corrupt, but overall I would say Iran is alot less dangerous than Israel and although it does wrong it can't compare to what Israel is and has been doing.

You may think I'm anti US/Israel but it seems to me that most of the worlds woes come from those two's scheming. That's why I speak out against them more often.

[breadandcheese]

I'm talking about the whole run up to 1948, starting before the World Wars. Highly suspicious political favours between the rich and powerful. And some of these rich and powerful people who were negotiating the takeover of Palestine were also known to be selling weapons and steel to a certain Mr Hitler. All well documented.

Just because a few governments said the takeover of that country was all legal it doesn't mean that the people of the world saw it that way or that it was right.

This is where I think you're getting questionably close to the line.

You are not questioning the legitimacy of Israel's actions, but the very legitimacy of Israel's existence. You've made it clear that you do not believe Israel should exist, therefore, de facto, any action it takes to defend it's existence is illegitimate in your eyes.

So when you rightly (in my eyes) take issue at that portion of the Israeli population who reject the notion of a Palestinian state, what you actually mean is you feel the same but a slight reversal in that you reject the notion of Israel.

[Guest Bilo]

. I haven't got any motives, you've probably got more motive than me on this subject. For example, you seem to start off and say that Israel is in the wrong but then always turn the blame around to others in the region and take the focus off Israel.

I always thought that I speak out about many regimes crimes and am not biased for any country when it comes to politics. I don't deny that most regimes are corrupt, but overall I would say Iran is alot less dangerous than Israel and although it does wrong it can't compare to what Israel is and has been doing.

You may think I'm anti US/Israel but it seems to me that most of the worlds woes come from those two's scheming. That's why I speak out against them more often.

No, what I'm trying to do is bring a bit of balance to the subject. There are some on here who will go out of their way to defend Israel and others who will go out of their way to criticise it, irrespective of circumstances or background. I've picked up on others around the region because others in the Middle East are heavily involved in the conflict, it goes way beyond Israel and Palestine themselves. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who criticise Israel for their human rights record, which is undoubtedly awful, but defend, legitimise or play down the crimes of other states to suit their own ends. The Israeli-Arab conflict has been rumbling on unabated for over 60 years precisely because of the complicated nature of it and number of third parties involved. There is an enormous amount of animosity going back hundreds of years with right and wrong on both sides, meaning that neither side trusts the other and understandably so. If, after all that, you still think it's as simple as Palestine Right/Wrong - Israel Wrong/Right then you clearly need to do a bit more reading. I don't pretend to have even begun to scratch the surface of this conflict, but that is one thing I do understand. The only simple answer is that there are no simple answers, and that's a fact that seems to be lost on many.

As for Press TV, my problem with it is the fact that it is owned and run by the Iranian government. This makes it untrustworthy not only because Iran is a human rights abuser on a massive scale and religious theocracy, but because it is massively involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict and will therefore espouse views to suit its anti-Israel stance. You wouldn't trust Fox News, a right-wing channel from a country that is ferociously pro-Israel for the same reason, it is and always will be massively biased. I think the reason you think Press TV is objective is because it fits in with your own views on the conflict of being anti-Israel and pro-Palestine which is fair enough, as I'm sure many Americans truly believe that Fox News really does live up to its billing as 'fair and balanced.' Anyone looking at the channels' respective coverage from an objective viewpoint however, can see that both are biased as hell.

[BoneDog]

This is where I think you're getting questionably close to the line.

You are not questioning the legitimacy of Israel's actions, but the very legitimacy of Israel's existence. You've made it clear that you do not believe Israel should exist, therefore, de facto, any action it takes to defend it's existence is illegitimate in your eyes.

So when you rightly (in my eyes) take issue at that portion of the Israeli population who reject the notion of a Palestinian state, what you actually mean is you feel the same but a slight reversal in that you reject the notion of Israel.

I think I have said things in the wrong way if I sound like I don't think Israel should exist. I understand that it is there to stay, but I disagree with how they are going about taking over that land. For example, they allow any Jew to move there from the USA and many other countries and they kick out people whose families have lived there for hundreds of years to accomaodate them. These settlers are then allowed by law to walk around with Uzi's and other weapons while their neighbours are not. They steal and burn precious Palestinian farmland and property to build illegal settlements and move more Palestinians every week into camps. We could go on with stories about this forever.

I do disagree with how they got much of the land in the first place (politically and physically) but that is history and cannot be changed. What can be changed is how they treat their civilian neighbours/countrymen. If the population were treated fairly then extremism would disappear and have no support. But I believe that the Israeli leaders do not want peace. They want to expand and nothing is going to get in their way of doing that.

I actually used to fully support Israel until I read a book by Alan Hart just before 9/11 and then I started to realise that something was wrong and I took an interest in it and read many books by all kinds of authors on both sides. And the conclusion I have come to is that Israel is the biggest rogue state in that region.

[BoneDog]

No, what I'm trying to do is bring a bit of balance to the subject. There are some on here who will go out of their way to defend Israel and others who will go out of their way to criticise it, irrespective of circumstances or background. I've picked up on others around the region because others in the Middle East are heavily involved in the conflict, it goes way beyond Israel and Palestine themselves. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of those who criticise Israel for their human rights record, which is undoubtedly awful, but defend, legitimise or play down the crimes of other states to suit their own ends. The Israeli-Arab conflict has been rumbling on unabated for over 60 years precisely because of the complicated nature of it and number of third parties involved. There is an enormous amount of animosity going back hundreds of years with right and wrong on both sides, meaning that neither side trusts the other and understandably so. If, after all that, you still think it's as simple as Palestine Right/Wrong - Israel Wrong/Right then you clearly need to do a bit more reading. I don't pretend to have even begun to scratch the surface of this conflict, but that is one thing I do understand. The only simple answer is that there are no simple answers, and that's a fact that seems to be lost on many.

As for Press TV, my problem with it is the fact that it is owned and run by the Iranian government. This makes it untrustworthy not only because Iran is a human rights abuser on a massive scale and religious theocracy, but because it is massively involved in the Israel-Palestine conflict and will therefore espouse views to suit its anti-Israel stance. You wouldn't trust Fox News, a right-wing channel from a country that is ferociously pro-Israel for the same reason, it is and always will be massively biased. I think the reason you think Press TV is objective is because it fits in with your own views on the conflict of being anti-Israel and pro-Palestine which is fair enough, as I'm sure many Americans truly believe that Fox News really does live up to its billing as 'fair and balanced.' Anyone looking at the channels' respective coverage from an objective viewpoint however, can see that both are biased as hell.

I know you are pretty fair and see all sides on here but when I first joined I did suspect that you were very right-wing or a zionist for some reason!

I always thought I have criticized many regimes in that region (I know I have said things about Egypt and Saudi, maybe Yemen) but I think the Israeli regime is as bad as any of them at least. They are in cahoots with most anyway so it's like they are a team. I would say that Israel has control over what the Egyptian leadership do (when it comes to Israeli interests) and that the US/Israel with maybe Britain has the Saudis under control, so any of their misdeeds are partly down to others in the west who support them. That region is bound to erupt into war again someday and I would say that governments in the west will be partly to blame for that, just like they usually are by means of covertly financially backing and arming both sides.

I think you are being a bit harsh on PressTV. They do give coverage to Ahmedinijad (or however you spell it!) and others in their regime but most of their news is just normal world stories and their reporters always seem fair to me and seem to have a bit more freedom than our major news folk who tend to have to repeat what we've all heard 800 times from the AP or wherever. Some of their panel shows and documentaries are excellent and they have many English and American journalists on there.

The leaders in Iran are no more corrupt than leaders from the US and UK is the way I see it so it doesn't bother me that PressTV is Iranian.

I wouldn't trust Fox but no-one with an IQ over 60 does anymore do they?!

[Ultra]

Absolutely, the same irony a liberal Jewish friend of mine pointed out in a speech to Essex SWSS members last year at the height of the Gaza crisis. Not that they were bothered one bit about that. They wouldn't have had the chance to flex their "I'm a radical student politician" muscle by calling for a blanket ban on Israeli goods on campus if they had actually listened to and understood what he was saying.

It really is no wonder that Leicester's present Lord Mayor graduated from this very university too...

I was going to steer clear of the debate on this topic.

But seeing as I've been dragged into it, I felt I'd better respond.

Rewind 25 years or so, substitute "South Africa" for Israel and see whether a call for a boycott of goods is really that unreasonable. That tactic (supported then by many liberal Jews) helped to bring down apartheid in South Africa, so it's no surprise it's being suggested now (and not just by Muslim or the far left).

When Bishop Desmond Tutu, a fairly credible authority on the subject, describes Israel as an "apartheid" state and former US president Jimmy Carter (hardly a friend of Iran) agrees with him, perhaps the rest of the world should take note.

And the tales to be told by the activists (some with links to Leicester) in the flotilla, once Israel has put them on planes home, will make sure it will do exactly that.

[Guest Bilo]

I was going to steer clear of the debate on this topic.

But seeing as I've been dragged into it, I felt I'd better respond.

Rewind 25 years or so, substitute "South Africa" for Israel and see whether a call for a boycott of goods is really that unreasonable. That tactic (supported then by many liberal Jews) helped to bring down apartheid in South Africa, so it's no surprise it's being suggested now (and not just by Muslim or the far left).

When Bishop Desmond Tutu, a fairly credible authority on the subject, describes Israel as an "apartheid" state and former US president Jimmy Carter (hardly a friend of Iran) agrees with him, perhaps the rest of the world should take note.

And the tales to be told by the activists (some with links to Leicester) in the flotilla, once Israel has put them on planes home, will make sure it will do exactly that.

Take your point about the South Africa analogy (though I've always found it simplistic at best and hyperbole at worst) but you haven't really addressed AFIE's point that a boycott would negatively impact upon Israeli and Palestinian working classes alike, which makes it an odd thing for a socialist to argue in favour of. The fact that the so-called 'petty apartheid' which saw blacks and whites forcibly separated in public and working life doesn't really hold true in Israel means that Israeli Arabs, typically opposed to their government's conduct would be unfairly affected by a boycott to a greater degree than black citizens would have been in apartheid South Africa.

I personally feel that a boycott is a flawed method of making a stand, as it would have very little impact on the people who actually make such decisions in the Knesset. There were many things that led to the downfall of apartheid, and the boycott was a minor part of it. The collapse of the Soviet Union meaning that South Africa was no longer able to present itself as a bulwark of anti-Communism in Africa was a bigger factor and high level withdrawals of financial investment from banks were far more effective. Low level shunning of South African goods from individuals opposed to apartheid probably wasn't that effective in ending it in an economic sense, but may have added to the political pressure on the regime. Israel though, shows it cares little for world opinion in favour of protecting what it sees as its own interests, so the impact of a boycott on Israel would be likely to be fairly limited.

[Shrenchel]

Easy enough to buy genuine Palestinian goods online though if that's your bag. Will benefit them far more than the midget shits which might drip down to them from your average Tesco business,

[l444ry]

I don't think people realise the degree to which they insult the victims of real Apartheid when they compare it to current Israeli policy, which is more progressive than any country South or East of Israel for thousands of miles.

I optimistically chalk it up to historical ignorance.

Using the Israel = Apartheid analogy cheapens the memory of the Struggle. It's like analogies with Nazi Germany. There are certain atrocities you do not draw parallels with lightly.

[Zingari]

Are Gazans actually in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, in urgent need of the 10,000 tonnes of food aid being rushed to them ?

[l444ry]

Are Gazans actually in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, in urgent need of the 10,000 tonnes of food aid being rushed to them ?

As you are partial to the odd conspiracy theory Zinger, here is another side for you to peruse......

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http://www.steffen-jensen.dk/dan/blogartikler/134--mere-mangel-pa-arbejde-end-pa-mad/&sl=da&tl=en

[breadandcheese]

I was going to steer clear of the debate on this topic.

But seeing as I've been dragged into it, I felt I'd better respond.

Rewind 25 years or so, substitute "South Africa" for Israel and see whether a call for a boycott of goods is really that unreasonable. That tactic (supported then by many liberal Jews) helped to bring down apartheid in South Africa, so it's no surprise it's being suggested now (and not just by Muslim or the far left).

When Bishop Desmond Tutu, a fairly credible authority on the subject, describes Israel as an "apartheid" state and former US president Jimmy Carter (hardly a friend of Iran) agrees with him, perhaps the rest of the world should take note.

And the tales to be told by the activists (some with links to Leicester) in the flotilla, once Israel has put them on planes home, will make sure it will do exactly that.

The only way you can classify Israel as an apartheid state is on the basis that the Palestinians are part of that country and are forced apart to be treated as second class citizens.

As the political solution is well known, with the majority of Israelis and Palestinians wanting a two state solution, I don't think you can class Palestinians as part of Israel. The issue is overcoming the barrier of mistrust and the divides in both populations. It's the chicken and egg situation, establishing trust to try and negotiate. The status quo is probably the best situation for the current leadership, less they put their trust in the other side only to see their own side suffer, either through attacks by the other or the internal divides and conflicts within their own populations.. Not forgetting that the leaders on both sides who manage to sign a peace deal are pretty much signing their own death certificate due to hardline elements on both sides (just ask Anwar Sadat, Yitzhak Rabin, or at least you would if they hadn't been gunned down).

The problem with the Middle East is that it's so intertwined and poltically complex that simple analogy of "apartheid" is the mark of a simpleton.

For example, we can all see that the Gaza blockade is self-defeating and harms innocent Palestinians, but we all agree that we do not want to see weapons in the hands of Hamas, or strengthen Hamas. So how do we remove the blockade, without doing this? Answers on a postcard, nobody knows. Admittedly, the answer some give is, who cares if Hamas gets strengthened, the greater good is far more important. However, this then weakens the palestinian authority, which affects the ability of reaching a lasting peace, which can then lead to even more bloody situations and then we're right back at the original situation again of embargoes, etc.

Add into this, that there is a lot of investment in the West Bank at the moment. The policy seems to me to be one of investing in and strengthening the Palestinian cities and economy of the West Bank, so that the symbolism is shown of the Palestinian Authority controlled west bank thriving, whilst Hamas controlled Gaza does not. The city of Rawabi is one such example. Of course, the problem with this is that the Palestinian Authority is then accused of being complicit with Israel, which creates further problems, with the question of legitimacy in and amongst hardline sections of the Palestinian population.

My point is that the apartheid tag is far too simplistic and actually, the middle east situation is far too complex.

[Guest Bilo]

Rawabi does indeed look impressive. Perhaps if surrounding Middle Eastern countries provided funding for this kind of project rather than organisations like Hamas or Hezbollah, there would be a much better chance of a viable Palestinian state. Still, that's a very encouraging project.

[Guest Mickyblueeyes]

Israel right wing celebrates deaths

[BoneDog]

I don't think people realise the degree to which they insult the victims of real Apartheid when they compare it to current Israeli policy, which is more progressive than any country South or East of Israel for thousands of miles.

I optimistically chalk it up to historical ignorance.

Using the Israel = Apartheid analogy cheapens the memory of the Struggle. It's like analogies with Nazi Germany. There are certain atrocities you do not draw parallels with lightly.

I think you insult the victims of the Israeli conflict if you are saying that it is not as bad as the situation the South Africans had to suffer until 1994 (and still are in my and many others opinion).

From what I can gather around 21,000 civilians were killed between 1948-1994 in South Africa under apartheid. Around 2 million Palestinians have lost their lives since 1948 because of Israeli aggression so I don't understand why you are saying it's not as bad. Over 5000 Palestinians have been killed in the last 10 years alone. Over 4 million of them are refugees, and over 1.3 million of those are living in camps.

I optimistically chalk up the attitude that it is not as bad to a subconcious ingrained prejudice.

I can't believe you got a thumbs up for that post.

[BoneDog]

Are Gazans actually in the middle of a humanitarian crisis, in urgent need of the 10,000 tonnes of food aid being rushed to them ?

Yes they are. I'd say that not having enough water for basic needs (because it is being stolen and cut off) or food, electricity, medicine and many other things is urgent need.

Surely people don't believe the Israeli spokespeople who say that they are allowing loads of aid in to Palestine do they? They might show a few trucks going in or something now and again but it's just for show, to make some people think that things are ok and that those pesky brown people in Palestine are over-reacting. It's propaganda at it's best....or maybe not actually, because most of the world can see through it.

I trust the European and American people in Palestine whose blogs I read and whose videos I watch about the situation. And the few journalists who venture there and release stories/documentaries. They are very brave and honest people, you can sense it by their actions and words.

[breadandcheese]

I think you insult the victims of the Israeli conflict if you are saying that it is not as bad as the situation the South Africans had to suffer until 1994 (and still are in my and many others opinion).

From what I can gather around 21,000 civilians were killed between 1948-1994 in South Africa under apartheid. Around 2 million Palestinians have lost their lives since 1948 because of Israeli aggression so I don't understand why you are saying it's not as bad. Over 5000 Palestinians have been killed in the last 10 years alone. Over 4 million of them are refugees, and over 1.3 million of those are living in camps.

I optimistically chalk up the attitude that it is not as bad to a subconcious ingrained prejudice.

I can't believe you got a thumbs up for that post.

Please explain your figure of 2 million Palestinians killed since 1948. It's one thing to debate an issue like this but you're now making things up.

Your claim of 2 million deaths in 62 years = approx 32,258 palestinians killed per year. To put the ridiculousness of your figure into context, the Gaza War in 2008 led to death of 1,417 Palestinians.

Mind you, let's not let fact get in the way of a good slander.

[l444ry]

Lumping Israel together with South Africa and Nazis steps way over the rhetorical line.

Hamas, ruling Gaza since a coup in which Fatah fighters were thrown from rooftops, has a charter blaming Jews for starting both World Wars. Moreover, to them, renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion. No two-state solution here then!! Peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.

Their long-term plan cites a Hadith: The time of Resurrection will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him! (or something like that) This is hardly the stuff of....... I have a dream.

No country fully lives up to its ideals; Israel, like America, is a work in progress. As a small democracy beset from day one by neighbours calling for its destruction, Israel has always had to put an emphasis on security. But as soon as the leader of one of those neighbours, Egypts Anwar Sadat, offered peace in 1977, he got the Sinai, something he failed to achieve with his war in 1973.

If the Palestinians had a Gandhi instead of an Arafat or his ilk, they would have had their state years ago.

[Webbo]

Hamas, ruling Gaza since a coup in which Fatah fighters were thrown from rooftops, has a charter blaming Jews for starting both World Wars. Moreover, “renouncing any part of Palestine means renouncing part of the religion.” No two-state solution here. “Peaceful solutions and international conferences, are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement…There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad.”

Their long-term plan cites a Hadith: “The time of Resurrection will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews; until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!” This is hardly the stuff of....... “I have a dream.”

No country fully lives up to its ideals; Israel, like America, is a work in progress. As a small democracy beset from day one by neighbours calling for its destruction, Israel has always had to put an emphasis on security. But as soon as the leader of one of those neighbours, Egypt’s Anwar Sadat, offered peace in 1977, he got the Sinai, something he failed to achieve with his war in 1973.

If the Palestinians had a Gandhi instead of an Arafat or his ilk, they would have had their state years ago.

[BoneDog]

Please explain your figure of 2 million Palestinians killed since 1948. It's one thing to debate an issue like this but you're now making things up.

Your claim of 2 million deaths in 62 years = approx 32,258 palestinians killed per year. To put the ridiculousness of your figure into context, the Gaza War in 2008 led to death of 1,417 Palestinians.

Mind you, let's not let fact get in the way of a good slander.

OK shall we just say 1 million since 1948 (even though I think it's more)? I don't mean just the people who have been shot or bombed, I'm talking about the people who have died from preventable illness/injuries and other reasons.

From what I can gather UN data says that since 1967 avoidable mortality in the Occupied Palestinian Territories totals 300,000 and the under 5 infant mortality is around 183,000 (of which 90% has been avoidable).

I'm not trying to slander anyone.