- Joined
- May 25, 2009
- Messages
- 5,925
- Reaction score
- 3,403
- Location
- quantum paradox
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Hopefully as with everyone else on here, there is absolutely no time limit on responding to my posts, I don't consider a lack of response to indicate anything. We are all on different time zones and different schedules and... I'm just saying that your apology is completely unecessary but I appreciate the thought behind it.
We may be on opposite "sides" whatever that means but we are perhaps only in opposite cities in the same country whereas I often feel like I am on a different planet with some people but I guess that's how it is.
Just one thing to add to what you said, London was carrying out covert talks with the IRA while the official Government line was "We don't talk to terrorists". At some stage a dialogue has to be opened up that includes the extremists, otherwise the extremists on both sides will win. It was de rigeur for the IRA to talk only in terms of outright surrender of the northern Counties to a united Ireland and look at where we are now. Considering the partition of Ireland occurred in the 1920s, it took the best part of 70 years for the real process to start and it hasn't ended yet. This could have been avoided if the British had not become drowned in the dogma of the extreme Protestants during the 1950s leading into the 1970s. The IRA was nothing but a Marxist talking shop before the British decided to deal violently with genuine civil rights concerns voiced by the "Catholic" population.
Do the parallels not jump out at you?
It is unfortunate that on here you have to be extremely bullish to counteract those that are in denial about what is happening. As on many others forums I have participated in, being moderate gets you nowehere fast in the face of a revisionist machine that is preprogrammed to deny, deny and then deny some more just to be sure. Speaking for myself, I am far more moderate on this issue than my posting might suggest but I think that demonstrates how destructive dogma is to any dialogue whether it is our self indulgent ramblings on an internet forum or serious international talks that effect millions of lives.
I am not optimistic. The human condition seems to be condemned to keep repeating the mistakes of history. I will be genuinely amazed if anything comes from the current talks but everything tells me that we will still be talking about this at the end of 2030 but we will probably be disussing what happens to the diplaced West Bank Palestinians. I say this because the West has procrastinated on this issue for so long that it has taken on a life of its own. This is no longer just about a just settlement for Palestinians and Israelis, it is a point of focus for EVERY faction in the Middle East theatre, the moderate and the extreme ones alike.
Your comments are self-explanatory. Just to respond to one specific point. I do concede that to get the IRA to the table secret dialogue had to take place first to get them ti disarm. That is only logical. when I say Hamas must come to the table disarmed I think it goes without saying to get to that point, there would need to be unofficial dialogue as there is now between Israel and Hamas through intermediaries and who knows actual direct contact.
None of us knows whether Israel has direct or indirect contact with Hamas. If they did obviously both sides would never disclose it.
As well the other issue you draw parallels to I would respectfully disagree with and say is not similiar.
I believe Israel has demonstrated good will by pulling out of Gaza and Lebanon only to be burned badly. I also believe Israel was openly mocked and made a fool of by Arafat when he indicated Oslo was just a joke and he never had any intentions of engaging in any peace. I believe people are selective with their memory on how many times Israel has reached out for peace only to get it slapped.
The same people who focus on alleged IDF incursions onto the West Bank or in Gaza against Palestinians do not in my opinion fairly acknowledge the failures of the Arab world to reach out in a cohesive way to Israel and show they are willing to condone terrorism.
The IRA was not disarmed when "official" talks started but, it was a major part of the talks that the IRA should disarm as a condition for the process to continue beyond certain points. Sinn Fein which was billed as the political wing of the IRA entered talks before decommissioning had begun. The decommissioning of arms by "Protestant" and "Catholic" groups was a very gradual process.
Agreed. It did not happen over night. It happened in a series of very intense and time consuming word by word negotiations that went back and forth and from what I have read for every step forward took a couple back and so on and painstakingly moved towards where it did, a testament to the patience and perserverance of the negotiators.
Yes I concur. I do not want to mislead on that point. It was a gradual step by step process. Indeed.
I wonder if the hamas would trade gilad shalit for land...that..would work...
Which land are you proposing to give Hamas really? We already evacuated all of the strip, you want to give them Yad-Mordehay? Nahal Oz? Kerem Shalom?
Israel is not obligated to provide any unilateral concessions to the Palestinians
Netanyahu and Abbas represent the two groups.
Final results show that Hamas won the election
Don't forget those who have been elected by the Palestinians
(green = hamas)
Palestinian legislative election, 2006 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Don't forget those who have been elected by the Palestinians
So in your opinion, Obama doesn't represent the USA today because his party lost the elections to the House of Representatives?
What I find interesting is how their election of a terrorist organization to lead them does not diminish the support they receive here in the west AT ALL. In fact, the slavish devotion to their cause has only increased since the election, and this with the full knowledge that they chose terrorism of their own volition.
Bush pressed the Palestinian Authority to hold legislative elections in 2006, but when Hamas won, he simply refused to accept the results. For Bush, it seemed, democracy only made sense when the candidates that he liked won. The White House subsequently tried to foment a Fatah-led coup, a ploy that backfired and left Hamas in charge of Gaza and the Palestinians badly divided.
They use terrorism for a reason, and yes they're more isolated since then, because many countries choose not to negociate with "terrorist organizations" (under " " because what we call "terrorism" is what the others do; when we do the same it is justified) (though now we're starting to negociate with the talibans in afghanistan)
The only reason for the use of terrorism is the lack of humanity.
Or the lack of modern weapons on par with the enemy.
I doubt someone would seriously choose to blow themselves up if there was the option of using a modern weapon that does the job just as well. Just saying :shrug:
Suicide bombing is not the only form of terrorism, the Mumbai attacks for example have not involved any suicide bomb
thank you mr obvious
there are certainly other methods of terrorism, such as using women and children as human shields, and raining white phosphorus on a civilian population
surprised you were not the one to mention them seeing how the side you defend employs those terroristic methods
These were midterm elections, not legislative elections.
A more accurate comparison would be to negociate with Bush or Clinton and not with Obama.
Or the lack of modern weapons on par with the enemy.
I doubt someone would seriously choose to blow themselves up if there was the option of using a modern weapon that does the job just as well. Just saying :shrug:
The only reason for the use of terrorism is the lack of humanity.
No, its not more accurate, its less accurate.
Abbas won the elections for presidency, Fatah lost elections for the Parlament.
Obama won elections for presidency, the Democrats lost the elections to the Parlament.
Clinton and Bush are on the same status as Arafat (and I ask the fellow americans for forgivnace in advance) because Arafat is a former president as Clinton and Bush are.
If Abbas lost presidency elections to a Hamas cannidate than by all means your analogy would be "more accurate", the elections Hamas won are not for the head of state.
And having those modern weapons means that them targeting civilians is not terrorisem anymore? when you blow up a bus in Tel Aviv you do not aim to fight the Israeli army, you aim to terrorize civilian population. When you fire rockets to Sderot you aim to terrorize the civilian population in Sderot, If you use Scud missiles instead of Qassam rockets you'd still be terrorizing civilian population. Modern weaponary would just mean their terrorisem would cause more casualties.
Civilians die in wars, but for an action to be that of terrorism civilians need to be deliberately targeted and attacked, while knowing that they are civilians.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?