Israel / Palestine

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 66 of 134 < 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 >

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 14 7.05pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 3.46pm Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards. That's perfectly valid. However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected. Name and shame then... There's a couple on Hol that I suspect and I put it to them in threads......in terms of those I know.....No I won't. It would be pointless and ethically dodgy. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 14 7.05pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 3.46pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm

We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards.

That's perfectly valid.

However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected.

Name and shame then...

There's a couple on Hol that I suspect and I put it to them in threads......in terms of those I know.....No I won't.

It would be pointless and ethically dodgy.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 14 7.11pm
Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm The historian is correct re 2006.Had the newspaper allotted them more space they might have added that in early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return".... clarifying that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations. Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm) I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map. We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK. Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population. 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 14 7.11pm

Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm

The historian is correct re 2006.Had the newspaper allotted them more space they might have added that in early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return".... clarifying that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations.

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm)

I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool

You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map.

We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK.

Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population.

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset Shizzlehurst 27 Jul 14 7.25pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 7.11pm Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm The historian is correct re 2006.Had the newspaper allotted them more space they might have added that in early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return".... clarifying that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations. Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm) I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map. We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK. Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population. Did you read the entire article that I linked to? It said that Hamas and fatah had agreed to work together to help forge a peace deal, but that Netanyahu had scuppered this. The lot that have far more military superiority don't want peace either by the looks of it. You keep saying that peace will never happen as long as Hamas (who the Israeli government once supported-surely they must have known about the Hamas charter whilst doing this)exist. I don't think peace will happen as long as Netanyahu is in power. And he's the one with the missile shields and big weapons. Edited by nickgusset (27 Jul 2014 7.28pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

nickgusset

Shizzlehurst 27 Jul 14 7.25pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 7.11pm

Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm)

I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool

You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map.

We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK.

Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population.

Did you read the entire article that I linked to? It said that Hamas and fatah had agreed to work together to help forge a peace deal, but that Netanyahu had scuppered this. The lot that have far more military superiority don't want peace either by the looks of it.
You keep saying that peace will never happen as long as Hamas (who the Israeli government once supported-surely they must have known about the Hamas charter whilst doing this)exist. I don't think peace will happen as long as Netanyahu is in power. And he's the one with the missile shields and big weapons.

Edited by nickgusset (27 Jul 2014 7.28pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande bedford 27 Jul 14 7.31pm
As I have said before on this thread,I am not taking sides. But watching the news,and the sheer difference between the pictures of Gazza,Bleak abandoned,and almost destroyed. Then they cut to Te Aviv and its all lit up from neon signs and normal life. The advantages of having superior weapons I suppose. always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.
Alert a moderator to this post

elgrande

bedford 27 Jul 14 7.31pm

As I have said before on this thread,I am not taking sides.
But watching the news,and the sheer difference between the pictures of Gazza,Bleak abandoned,and almost destroyed.
Then they cut to Te Aviv and its all lit up from neon signs and normal life.

The advantages of having superior weapons I suppose.

always a Norwood boy, where ever I live.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 27 Jul 14 7.32pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 4.39pm Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 4.32pm Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 3.58pm An interesting piece on the background of current situation, written by a Jewish historian in the independent. Israel claims its most recent incursion into Gaza was a response to Hamas rocket attacks. Here are some facts that do not fit comfortably into the narrative of a peace-loving nation that is up against a fanatical, murderous terrorist organisation. In 2006, Hamas won a fair and free Palestinian election and formed a government, seeking a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel refused to negotiate. In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government with the same agenda. Israel resorted to economic warfare to undermine this government and encouraged Fatah to stage a coup to drive Hamas from power. Hamas pre-empted the coup with a violent seizure of power in Gaza. In flagrant violation of international law, Israel then imposed a blockade (still in force today) on the 1.8 million inhabitants of Gaza. Four months ago, Hamas reached an accord with Fatah, and another national unity government was formed, this time without a single Hamas-affiliated member but with the old agenda of negotiating an end to the conflict with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hysterically attacked it as a vote for terror, not for peace. He used the abduction of three young Jewish settlers on the West Bank as an excuse for a violent crackdown on Hamas supporters there, although Hamas had nothing to do with it. The Hamas rocket attacks were a response to this provocation. The last thing Netanyahu and his right-wing colleagues want is a united and moderate Palestinian national leadership. Undermining the unity government is one of the undeclared objectives of the current assault. Israel's spin doctors trumpeted its acceptance and Hamas's rejection of an Egyptian ceasefire proposal. Hamas, however, could not accept this proposal because it left the savage siege in place. It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Israel's real objective in unleashing this offensive is to bomb Hamas into a humiliating surrender. Israel's ultimate aim seems to be not a just peace but the reimposition of the status quo with a fragmented Palestine and with itself as an imperial overlord. [Link] You don't think that Hamas might have been, erm, fibbing in 2006 when it said its objective was a 'ceasefire' with Israel, or wanting a ceasefire when it wanted to re-stock its arms and then unleash rockets upon Israel when it suited it? It is amazing how so many politicans are 'cunds' in your eyes and you question them regularly, yet don't question those who suit your views. I don't know Matt. Do you know that they are fibbing? I'm just posting what I thought was an interesting article. What I do know is that many innocents are being killed and would rather a peaceful solution to the problem be sought. It is an interesting article. Its not fibbing in 2006, just disingenuous,"jostling for political advantage" and "spin", just like happens all over the place including in Israel, and in the UK. But it perhaps illustrates how spin can become perceived wisdom even in academic circles and how many (certainly me, and perhaps also including all of us here) tend (with no dishonourable intent) to use those facts that best suit our overall argument...or perhaps, there is no such thing as objectivity (whether in analysing "history" or current affairs) since we are all influenced by what we consider to be the most relevant facts about something that happened as opposed to the less relevant ones, which is subjective.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

27 Jul 14 7.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 4.39pm

Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 4.32pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 3.58pm

An interesting piece on the background of current situation, written by a Jewish historian in the independent.

Israel claims its most recent incursion into Gaza was a response to Hamas rocket attacks. Here are some facts that do not fit comfortably into the narrative of a peace-loving nation that is up against a fanatical, murderous terrorist organisation. In 2006, Hamas won a fair and free Palestinian election and formed a government, seeking a long-term ceasefire with Israel. Israel refused to negotiate. In 2007, Hamas and Fatah formed a national unity government with the same agenda. Israel resorted to economic warfare to undermine this government and encouraged Fatah to stage a coup to drive Hamas from power. Hamas pre-empted the coup with a violent seizure of power in Gaza.

In flagrant violation of international law, Israel then imposed a blockade (still in force today) on the 1.8 million inhabitants of Gaza. Four months ago, Hamas reached an accord with Fatah, and another national unity government was formed, this time without a single Hamas-affiliated member but with the old agenda of negotiating an end to the conflict with Israel. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hysterically attacked it as a vote for terror, not for peace. He used the abduction of three young Jewish settlers on the West Bank as an excuse for a violent crackdown on Hamas supporters there, although Hamas had nothing to do with it. The Hamas rocket attacks were a response to this provocation.

The last thing Netanyahu and his right-wing colleagues want is a united and moderate Palestinian national leadership. Undermining the unity government is one of the undeclared objectives of the current assault. Israel's spin doctors trumpeted its acceptance and Hamas's rejection of an Egyptian ceasefire proposal. Hamas, however, could not accept this proposal because it left the savage siege in place.

It is difficult to resist the conclusion that Israel's real objective in unleashing this offensive is to bomb Hamas into a humiliating surrender. Israel's ultimate aim seems to be not a just peace but the reimposition of the status quo with a fragmented Palestine and with itself as an imperial overlord.

[Link]

You don't think that Hamas might have been, erm, fibbing in 2006 when it said its objective was a 'ceasefire' with Israel, or wanting a ceasefire when it wanted to re-stock its arms and then unleash rockets upon Israel when it suited it?

It is amazing how so many politicans are 'cunds' in your eyes and you question them regularly, yet don't question those who suit your views.

I don't know Matt. Do you know that they are fibbing?
I'm just posting what I thought was an interesting article.
What I do know is that many innocents are being killed and would rather a peaceful solution to the problem be sought.

It is an interesting article. Its not fibbing in 2006, just disingenuous,"jostling for political advantage" and "spin", just like happens all over the place including in Israel, and in the UK. But it perhaps illustrates how spin can become perceived wisdom even in academic circles and how many (certainly me, and perhaps also including all of us here) tend (with no dishonourable intent) to use those facts that best suit our overall argument...or perhaps, there is no such thing as objectivity (whether in analysing "history" or current affairs) since we are all influenced by what we consider to be the most relevant facts about something that happened as opposed to the less relevant ones, which is subjective.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 27 Jul 14 7.38pm
Quote elgrande at 27 Jul 2014 7.31pm As I have said before on this thread,I am not taking sides. But watching the news,and the sheer difference between the pictures of Gazza,Bleak abandoned,and almost destroyed. Then they cut to Te Aviv and its all lit up from neon signs and normal life. The advantages of having superior weapons I suppose. Precisely true. The difference isn't in intent or desire. Its the difference between high tech, big money defence and attack systems, and lack thereof, making for David v Goliath, and the fact that Israel is very much to blame in the round since 1967 for the cycle of violence,though it is not the only party/parties with some responsibility and not the only bad guy in the room Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 7.40pm) Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 7.44pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

27 Jul 14 7.38pm

Quote elgrande at 27 Jul 2014 7.31pm

The advantages of having superior weapons I suppose.

Precisely true. The difference isn't in intent or desire. Its the difference between high tech, big money defence and attack systems, and lack thereof, making for David v Goliath, and the fact that Israel is very much to blame in the round since 1967 for the cycle of violence,though it is not the only party/parties with some responsibility and not the only bad guy in the room

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 7.40pm)

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 7.44pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 27 Jul 14 7.47pm
Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 7.11pm Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm The historian is correct re 2006.Had the newspaper allotted them more space they might have added that in early February 2006, Hamas offered Israel a 10-year truce "in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem," and recognition of Palestinian rights including the "right of return".... clarifying that Hamas was not calling for a final end to armed operations against Israel, and it would not impede other Palestinian groups from carrying out such operations. Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm) I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map. We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK. Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population. It just shows the difficulty in seeking to show balance or to nuance the argument, however well-intentioned the author and the attraction or merit of much of the general analysis.
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

27 Jul 14 7.47pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 7.11pm

Quote legaleagle at 27 Jul 2014 4.09pm

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 4.12pm)

I doubt he would have put that in because it suggests making peace with Hamas would be the action of a fool

You don't make peace with those who ultimately wish to wipe you off the map.

We made peace with the IRA but they were never interested in destroying the UK.

Until Hamas recognises Israel's right to exist then I don't blame Israel for attacking them......But not the wider population.

It just shows the difficulty in seeking to show balance or to nuance the argument, however well-intentioned the author and the attraction or merit of much of the general analysis.

Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle 27 Jul 14 8.03pm
Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.09pm Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Jul 2014 8.47pm Quote pefwin at 26 Jul 2014 8.10pm Until there is a return to the 1948 border sand a nation state of Palestine, I don't believe there will be any true negotiation or discussion, purely apologists for each sides atrocities; which takes up most of this thread. Israel are never going back to 47.....They won land in wars that they won't give up....Only force of arms would see that occur. They will potentially go back to 67.....With pressure though......Like I've said before.....The incentives for Israel would have to be significant......And with Hamas and enemies like Iran and Saud around them....It just isn't going to happen. Many in Israel have accepted permanent war against a weak opponent as preferable to risking the creation of a state that can become powerful and with help attack you and destroy you. A two state solution is the eventual prize but you have to convince Israelis that their state is secured no matter what......There are ways to do that but none that I suspect Hamas would accept....Also the right of return just wouldn't work now....Even though that is a genuine injustice. We can't have peace with Hamas involved in Palestinian policy. So on we go. This is just the stuff I am talking about. At it's worse Israel is losing allies: at it's worst Zionists are prolonging unwinnable war rather like Northern Ireland. The problem being is while the illegal settlers don't like Hamas, a larger part of the world does not like the illegal settlers. it makes me quite depressed that you can see Zionists on this thread hiding behind the atrocity that is the holocaust; while excusing the death of innocents by Jews because there are from another religion. An unsustainable Israeli expansion backed by unilateral US support has for too long existed, and rather than an armed peace, it has fuelled war and as a result has ended into an ultraorthodox against ultra-fundamentalist spiral. Unfortunately, with the unhelpful catalyst of Christian fundamentalism,at least since Reagan and the 80s, trying to hasten Revelations (s******). The unpalatable solution for some, would be to withdraw Western support for what in other areas of the globe would be considered a local "bush fire", and just let it play out; after all were is the "fracking" oil? Perhaps the best chance for negotiated peace has gone; ignored either due to ignorance or intransigence as it will soon be, due to force of arms, Zionists against ISIS in Palestine/ Israel, war nobody wins. Edited by pefwin (27 Jul 2014 5.37pm) Fair point, though just one thing: the extreme Zionists are in many cases not religious and much of the ultra orthodox oppose Zionism and the existence of the present state of Israel) on the basis that it is blasphemy to proclaim a state of Israel again (ie after the biblical one) until the messiah has come ...So, its more ideological fundamentalism on one side v religious fundamentalism on the other (and yes I know that's simplistic since many will say any religion is ideology) Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 8.04pm)
Alert a moderator to this post

legaleagle

27 Jul 14 8.03pm

Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.09pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 26 Jul 2014 8.47pm

Quote pefwin at 26 Jul 2014 8.10pm

Until there is a return to the 1948 border sand a nation state of Palestine, I don't believe there will be any true negotiation or discussion, purely apologists for each sides atrocities; which takes up most of this thread.

Israel are never going back to 47.....They won land in wars that they won't give up....Only force of arms would see that occur.

They will potentially go back to 67.....With pressure though......Like I've said before.....The incentives for Israel would have to be significant......And with Hamas and enemies like Iran and Saud around them....It just isn't going to happen.

Many in Israel have accepted permanent war against a weak opponent as preferable to risking the creation of a state that can become powerful and with help attack you and destroy you.

A two state solution is the eventual prize but you have to convince Israelis that their state is secured no matter what......There are ways to do that but none that I suspect Hamas would accept....Also the right of return just wouldn't work now....Even though that is a genuine injustice.

We can't have peace with Hamas involved in Palestinian policy.

So on we go.

This is just the stuff I am talking about. At it's worse Israel is losing allies: at it's worst Zionists are prolonging unwinnable war rather like Northern Ireland. The problem being is while the illegal settlers don't like Hamas, a larger part of the world does not like the illegal settlers. it makes me quite depressed that you can see Zionists on this thread hiding behind the atrocity that is the holocaust; while excusing the death of innocents by Jews because there are from another religion.

An unsustainable Israeli expansion backed by unilateral US support has for too long existed, and rather than an armed peace, it has fuelled war and as a result has ended into an ultraorthodox against ultra-fundamentalist spiral. Unfortunately, with the unhelpful catalyst of Christian fundamentalism,at least since Reagan and the 80s, trying to hasten Revelations (s******).

The unpalatable solution for some, would be to withdraw Western support for what in other areas of the globe would be considered a local "bush fire", and just let it play out; after all were is the "fracking" oil?

Perhaps the best chance for negotiated peace has gone; ignored either due to ignorance or intransigence as it will soon be, due to force of arms, Zionists against ISIS in Palestine/ Israel, war nobody wins.

Edited by pefwin (27 Jul 2014 5.37pm)

Fair point, though just one thing: the extreme Zionists are in many cases not religious and much of the ultra orthodox oppose Zionism and the existence of the present state of Israel) on the basis that it is blasphemy to proclaim a state of Israel again (ie after the biblical one) until the messiah has come ...So, its more ideological fundamentalism on one side v religious fundamentalism on the other (and yes I know that's simplistic since many will say any religion is ideology)

Edited by legaleagle (27 Jul 2014 8.04pm)

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 14 8.04pm
Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 7.25pm Did you read the entire article that I linked to? It said that Hamas and fatah had agreed to work together to help forge a peace deal, but that Netanyahu had scuppered this. The lot that have far more military superiority don't want peace either by the looks of it. You keep saying that peace will never happen as long as Hamas (who the Israeli government once supported-surely they must have known about the Hamas charter whilst doing this)exist. I don't think peace will happen as long as Netanyahu is in power. And he's the one with the missile shields and big weapons. Edited by nickgusset (27 Jul 2014 7.28pm) Israel can't make peace with Hamas...They haven't recognized Israel because they seek to wipe them out. Their constitution forbids a 'peace'. They only accept timed truces and ceasefire. No 'peace' agreement with a Hamas official in it should be signed as it is a falsehood. Would you ask Jews to make peace with Nazis? It is practically the same thing with Hamas. There will be no 'peace' while Hamas have power. In fact the fact that Hamas could later on gain power makes the whole process very risky as it is. Western governments accept this and know this....It's only the 'usual suspects' who continue to make excuses for and minimize the reality so that they can paint easy black and white scenarios. Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2014 8.06pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 14 8.04pm

Quote nickgusset at 27 Jul 2014 7.25pm

Edited by nickgusset (27 Jul 2014 7.28pm)

Israel can't make peace with Hamas...They haven't recognized Israel because they seek to wipe them out. Their constitution forbids a 'peace'. They only accept timed truces and ceasefire. No 'peace' agreement with a Hamas official in it should be signed as it is a falsehood.

Would you ask Jews to make peace with Nazis? It is practically the same thing with Hamas.

There will be no 'peace' while Hamas have power. In fact the fact that Hamas could later on gain power makes the whole process very risky as it is.

Western governments accept this and know this....It's only the 'usual suspects' who continue to make excuses for and minimize the reality so that they can paint easy black and white scenarios.

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2014 8.06pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 27 Jul 14 8.10pm
Quote Kermit8 at 27 Jul 2014 7.01pm Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.22pm Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 3.42pm Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards. That's perfectly valid. However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected. Spot on. And on the opposite, it appears that if you support Israel's right to defend itself, you are worse than Hitler. And the Nazi analogies are then forthcoming, which is very different from the truth. I find it interesting that most people on here with an opinion have never seen Hebron with their own eyes, let alone explore it and understand its complicated history. Is Hebron just outside Mumbai airport? Just wondering as you imply you have been there? Gawd. I was hoping we would be spared his Israeli travelogue and the 'expert' opinions that no doubt will be attached to it but now that you have mentioned Hebron back............ Well done, Pef. Do you have a buzzer that goes off when I post? "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 27 Jul 14 8.10pm

Quote Kermit8 at 27 Jul 2014 7.01pm

Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.22pm

Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 3.42pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm

We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards.

That's perfectly valid.

However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected.

Spot on.

And on the opposite, it appears that if you support Israel's right to defend itself, you are worse than Hitler.

And the Nazi analogies are then forthcoming, which is very different from the truth.

I find it interesting that most people on here with an opinion have never seen Hebron with their own eyes, let alone explore it and understand its complicated history.

Is Hebron just outside Mumbai airport?

Just wondering as you imply you have been there?

Gawd. I was hoping we would be spared his Israeli travelogue and the 'expert' opinions that no doubt will be attached to it but now that you have mentioned Hebron back............

Well done, Pef.

Do you have a buzzer that goes off when I post?

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays 27 Jul 14 8.10pm
Oh as for the 'Israel created Hamas' thing.....It's not the full truth by any means....In fact as it stands it is misinformation. Israel did not want to create something dedicated to its destruction at all.....So I wish this misinformation would stop being spread. [Link] Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2014 8.11pm) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays

27 Jul 14 8.10pm

Oh as for the 'Israel created Hamas' thing.....It's not the full truth by any means....In fact as it stands it is misinformation.

Israel did not want to create something dedicated to its destruction at all.....So I wish this misinformation would stop being spread.

[Link]

Edited by Stirlingsays (27 Jul 2014 8.11pm)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself Matataland 27 Jul 14 8.12pm
Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.22pm Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 3.42pm Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards. That's perfectly valid. However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected. Spot on. And on the opposite, it appears that if you support Israel's right to defend itself, you are worse than Hitler. And the Nazi analogies are then forthcoming, which is very different from the truth. I find it interesting that most people on here with an opinion have never seen Hebron with their own eyes, let alone explore it and understand its complicated history. Is Hebron just outside Mumbai airport? Just wondering as you imply you have been there? Interesting post. Very childish from one who claims to abhor childish aspects of posts on here. "That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02
Alert a moderator to this post

matt_himself

Matataland 27 Jul 14 8.12pm

Quote pefwin at 27 Jul 2014 5.22pm

Quote matt_himself at 27 Jul 2014 3.42pm

Quote Stirlingsays at 27 Jul 2014 3.06pm

We all know people who aren't anti semitic but are against Israel's actions in different regards.

That's perfectly valid.

However some of us also know of people for whom the anti semitic brush is rightly applied or suspected.

Spot on.

And on the opposite, it appears that if you support Israel's right to defend itself, you are worse than Hitler.

And the Nazi analogies are then forthcoming, which is very different from the truth.

I find it interesting that most people on here with an opinion have never seen Hebron with their own eyes, let alone explore it and understand its complicated history.

Is Hebron just outside Mumbai airport?

Just wondering as you imply you have been there?

Interesting post. Very childish from one who claims to abhor childish aspects of posts on here.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 66 of 134 < 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Israel / Palestine

Site Map

Sponsors