I'm not going to repeat the old words again and complaint about the atrocities committed by Israel and the international silence against it. Those are already said and heard over and over and there seems to be no ear to listen to it and no heart to confess it. The situation now has completely changed. This time it is Israel+the West+The ARAB Regimes+A corrupt puppet Palestinian authority against a whole Palestinian people. It means almost all the world powers against a weakened nation. This automatically means a full-scale massacre unless there is some kind of a magic by God. The pot of violence is boiling and the consequences will definitely not be as expected by most. Those who simplistically believed that violence caused by their states in the Mid-East will remain there were taken by surprise on 9/11 and now days will come when the world will have to redefine terrorism and atrocity. I'm here just to refer to some fundamental claims in this massacre: Claim 1: It was Hamas who broke the cease-fire, so they had it coming! For a person who has been closely following the unfolding of the events, this is a blatant and angering lie. Gideon Levy and Gush Shalom support me on that and yes they are Israelis: Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050459.html http://ww4report.com/node/6572 Other: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2008/1230/1230581467173.html http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1105/breaking9.htm There is yet another fact about the cease-fire: Claim 2: Israel is waging the war in self-defense: Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1050706.html Does this seem illogical to you especially remembering that Bush had warned after 9/11:"You are either with us or against us". There is no middle line in this conflict, you are either with the oppressed or with the oppressor and when the states and media keep implying that the Palestinians in Gaza deserve what they are getting because they choose Hamas in the elections, nobody should be blaming Al-Qaeda for what it did in 9/11 and still threatens to do to the American people. After all they were the ones who voted for a terrorist government.
60 years of poking everyone in the middle east in the eye, that is what the Palestinians have done, from Jordan, to Lebanon, Egypt, and Israel, the Palestinians have attacked everyone of their friends and never stopped attacking Israel. Even their own, and now even their own, the West Bank is standing by as Hamas in ground to dust. The time has come, and the Palestinians are reaping what they have sown. They should have built a country after the defeat in 1948, and even more so after 1967, instead of buying weapons to continue a lost war.
the jews shouldn't feel too bad, if these people didn't have israel to rag on it would be some other country. squabbling over a line on a map. how low brow can you get?
I'd like to see your reaction if your neighbour decided to move your side fence to give himself an extra 5 metres or so of land at your expense.
i don't think i would break out the howitzers and bazookas. 10 to 1 muslims are at the core of it though. i can hear it now how anti muslim i am. they do however have a MO of using race and religion for starting crap.
LOL What ceasefire? There never was 100% calm. Throughout the entire term of the so-called ceasefire there wasn't a single period of 5 straight days without several Kassams falling on south Israel, with the air-raid siren being activated and whole towns running into bomb shelters, traumatized children being scared of going to school for weeks, adults missing work because of stress, etc. And that's DURING the "ceasefire". The gull of the douchebag who wrote the quoted article to claim Israel violated the ceasefire... funny stuff :m:
Claim 3: It has always been Hamas who broke the cease-fire! Another blatant lie. It was Israel who broke the previous cease-fires. The one in 2005: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/15/AR2005071500162.html The one in 2006, when Israel bombed the Gaza beach killing 7 civilians. http://electronicintifada.net/bytopic/440.shtml Claim 4: The anti-Israeli forces do their war operation from among the civilian locations. Source: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1048056.html Do you want some tragic-comic incidents as well: http://www.imemc.org/article/51238 Israel has also killed several UN workers. Now, look at the reactions by some pro-Israelis: This is another comments by another person: I am convinced that speech and talks is no longer of any avail. The world is dominated with a greedy culture of terrorism and barbarity which is ready to sacrifice thousands and millions of lives for group interests. And interestingly, they call everyone who stands in their way terrorists or supporters of terrorists. It being so, I refuse to bow to the western propaganda unless it calls the real terrorists by their names.
When nothing ever begins That depends on where we want to assign a starting point: Nothing ever begins. There is no first moment; no single word or place from which this or any other story springs. The threads can always be traced back to some earlier tale, and to the tales that preceded that; though as the narrator's voice recedes the connections will seem to grow more tenuous, for each age will want the tale told as if it were of its own making. Thus the pagan will be sanctified, the tragic become laughable; great lovers will stoop to sentiment, and demons dwindle to clockwork toys. Nothing is fixed. In and out the shuttle goes, fact and fiction, mind and matter woven into patterns that may have only this in common: that hidden among them is a filigree that will, with time, become a world. —Clive Barker Where do we wish to begin this sad tale of human failures? With the modern state of Israel? A well-intentioned land-grab by a civilization (e.g., the Western world) that regarded Arabs as subhuman? Americans, at least, should have known better. Did we learn nothing from Manifest Destiny? So a bunch of people are evicted and pitch a fit. And there are all sorts of shenanigans, including a last-minute push to secure territory before a deadline. Innocent women and children are destroyed; if the killer is a Muslim, he is reviled as a terrorist, but if he is an Israeli Jew, he is lauded as a hero and eventually raised to the presidency. This is a stark contrast to Spain under the Muslims, when Jews were treated about as well as they ever were in Europe before Israel. What has happened these last sixty years is nothing short of a disaster. You know, many of my generation were taught at some point that the establishment of Israel was intended as an apology, a gesture of kindness after what happened in Germany. This argument is swallowed easily; it makes us sound noble. But that nobility depends on ignoring the fact that people were displaced, the rules thrown out, and justice discarded. Anyone looking ahead at the time should have been able to see at least something of what would happen. So the kindness theory is bunk, but what does that leave? Was Israel a puppet spawned to create a strategic interest in the region? But at what cost? One could say that we in America have no right to be offended by what happens there because this is what we wanted. That is, it was worth the price. How many lives, how many billions of dollars, how much misery squandered, and for what? Perhaps the most distressing aspect of all this is that it plays into an American dualistic myth, one that fits perfectly with the Straussian reduction of the world to polar opposites: There is good, and there is evil. We are good. They are evil. What could possibly create that "evil", that other that our mythology so desperately requires? Certainly the displacement of so many, and the abandonment of our own sacred institutions of justice might do the trick. It is currently popular in some circles of the Western press to refer to the rise in Islamic consciousness and identity as "Militant Islam." For those Muslims engaged in the process of Islamization, Militant Islam appears to be their response to "Militant Secularism," "Militant Christianity" and "Militant Judaism." The Muslim encounter with "the West" in the 19th and 20th centuries was most intimately experienced through European conquests of Muslim lands which facilitated Western political, economic, social and cultural domination of the daily lives of the Muslims. By the end of World War I, there were only four Muslim nations—Afghanistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Yemen—which had not experienced direct or indirect European rule. European expansion, which began in the 17th century through the search for markets and natural resources, was by the 19th century enhanced through an ideological support system based on the teachings of social Darwinism: "natural selection" and the "survival of the fittest." This gave European man "scientific" proof of his being the acme of human evolution and of his civilization being the final state in human achievement and progress. Colonialism was justified on "humanitarian" grounds. Its purpose was to share the enlightenment and its achievements with those of inferior development. The colonial conquests were thus cloaked in the image of the European man’s "manifest destiny" which would lead the rest of humanity to become a replica of European man and to enjoy the benefits of the institutions he devised. Meanwhile, many religious circles viewed Christianity in a similar way as the highest form of religion, affirming that all other religions were of human origin, leading people astray from the worship of the true God as He made Himself manifest in Jesus Christ in order to save the world. Armed with Bibles, printing presses and a sense of service and mission, thousands of missionaries went into the world to Christianize it—many of them convinced that all humanity would be brought into the Christian fold within this century .... .... While World War I precipitated direct European intervention in several Arab countries, World War II brought European domination to an end. The new independent states came into being almost simultaneously with the State of Israel in 1948. Although the Western press has incessantly created an image of a tiny Israel being attacked by formidable armies from several Arab nations, a careful study will show that the army of Jordan continued to be under British leadership while the British sat astride the Suez Canal in Egypt and were able to intercept armament shipments destined for Arab countries. Furthermore, the national government of Syria was trying to remove "the mercenaries" that supported French hegemony. The defeat of 1948 and 1949 was seen to be the consequence of Arab lack of preparation and Israeli acquisition of a fresh arms supply from Czechoslovakia (despite the armistice stipulation against such acquisition by either party). It signaled the end of the democratic experiment in Arab Muslim countries. The parliamentary systems were tested by this war and found inadequate. Imitation of the West had not brought parity with the West. It had become evident for some time that although the Arab countries had constitutions and elected parliaments, these institutions were not effective. Some Western observers have blamed the failure of the parliamentary systems on the alien nature of consultative democracy to the Arab mind. Clearly their failure was also hastened by the attitude of the colonial rulers towards such institutions. Whenever foreign governments or their representatives disliked what the democratically elected deputies decided, they tried to countermand their wishes by a variety of means such as seeking their dismissal or applying relentless direct pressure, blackmail or bribery. When Arab governments attempted to use European law to assure freedom and the implementation of the will of the people, it was these same colonial rulers who ridiculed them and treated them as upstarts. (Haddad) When we pause to think that Dr. Haddad wrote that article over twenty-five years ago, it is nearly staggering to think that we are, in many ways, still stuck at the crossroads she described. But we ought not be surprised if we consider the point in the context of that Straussian myth. "Imitation of the West," Haddad wrote, "had not brought parity with the West." The Straussian myth, while seemingly uniquely American, can be traced back at least to Zoroastrianism, in which the spiritual and material, the good and the evil, are locked in constant struggle. That dualism is also found deeply rooted in the Christian experience, which transformed the idea of Satan from a social concept of symbolic value into a literal character believed by many over the years to be real (cf Pagels). It was not necessarily that anyone sought to harm the Palestinians, at least not any more than I might consciously wish ill onto a steer while ordering a double cheeseburger at the Wendy's drive-through. And that's the problem: The Muslims were regarded, at least subconsciously, as subhuman. After World War II, large parts of the Muslim world were divvied up between the British, Americans, and Soviets, ostensibly to civilize and modernize the people, but it is more accurate to say that they drew boundaries between them about who got to exploit what. The Islamic world has been transformed over the last century or so. Once an infidel enemy (thus part of Satan's legions, and thus inhuman), Muslims became personae non gratae until they asserted themselves in response to the Israeli usurpation. From that point forward, they have grown in stature as a mythical political enemy, to the point that an American president is willing to start wars and torture and abuse the prisoners. Gitmo, during the Bush years, was used as a black hole, a place to deposit people where, according to the administration, no law covered them but that which the president and his men assigned. In other words, Muslims have grown in stature as an enemy to the point that they are inhuman. This hatred is part of the Western cultural heritage. Consider two passages from the twelfth-century Song of Roland: XLV "Speak, then, and tell me, Sir Ganelon, How may Roland to death be done?" "Through Cizra's pass will the Emperor wind, But his rear will linger in march behind; Roland and Olivier there shall be, With twenty thousand in company. Muster your battle against them then, A hundred thousand heathen men. Till worn and spent be the Frankish bands, Though your bravest perish beneath their hands. For another battle your powers be massed, Roland will sink, overcome at last. There were a feat of arms indeed, And your life from peril thenceforth be freed." • • • CXCIII He smote anew on the marble stair. It grated, but breach nor notch was there. When Roland found that it would not break, Thus began he his plaint to make. "Ah, Durindana, how fair and bright Thou sparklest, flaming against the light! When Karl in Maurienne valley lay, God sent his angel from heaven to say, 'This sword shall a valorous captain's be,' And he girt it, the gentle king, on me. With it I vanquished Poitou and Maine, Provence I conquered and Aquitaine; I conquered Normandy the free, Anjou, and the marches of Brittany; Romagna I won, and Lombardy, Bavaria, Flanders from side to side, And Burgundy, and Poland wide; Constantinople affiance vowed, And the Saxon soil to his bidding bowed; Scotia, and Wales, and Ireland's plain, Of England made he his own domain. What might, regions I won of old, For the hoary - headed Karl to hold! But there presses on me a grievous pain, Lest thou in heathen hands remain. O God our Father, keep France from stain!" (Halsall, "Roland") We see in the twelfth century an abiding hatred toward Muslims. They are, at best, tools to exploit, such as in the discussion 'twixt Marsil and Gan (XLV). And so wretched are they that, in his dying hour, Roland disposes of his holy relic; unable to destroy it, he casts it into poisoned waters—'tis better that no man should have it than a Muslim, and this despite his words to Olivier in XCI, "That he who wears it when I lie cold may say 'twas the sword of a vassal bold." Hatred is found throughout the epic: Muslim victory is false, and the people are of of falsehood and evil pride—apparently there is a good and Godly pride, such as Roland showed in his dying hour. And, certainly, this hatred of Islam was not new in the twelfth century. In 1095, Pope Urban II called the able-bodied to the first Crusade, and depending on which source you go by, it's ... interesting, to say the least. According to Fulcher of Chartres, Christ himself commands the crusaders to undertake a war that should have been fought long ago. Robert the Monk wrote that Urban II invoked commanded men to leave their families behind in order to defeat the very enemies of Christ; they are to cry out that their victory is the will of God. The anonymous author of the Gesta states that the footsteps of Christ led men to war. Balderic of Dol asserts that Urban II called the Muslims "pollution", and that those who die in the service of the Crusades are promised a place in Heaven. Indeed, according to Balderic, the Pope called the Crusade against the Muslims "the only warfare that is righteous". And he called for genocide: And turning to the bishops, he said, "You, brothers and fellow bishops; you, fellow priests and sharers with us in Christ, make this same announcement through the churches committed to you, and with your whole soul vigorously preach the journey to Jerusalem. When they have confessed the disgrace of their sins, do you, secure in Christ, grant them speedy pardon. Moreover, you who are to go shall have us praying for you; we shall have you fighting for God's people. It is our duty to pray, yours to fight against the Amalekites. With Moses, we shall extend unwearied hands in prayer to Heaven, while you go forth and brandish the sword, like dauntless warriors, against Amalek." (Halsall, "Urban II") And it goes on. There is not an account of Urban's speech that is not fraught with betrayal of Christ or dehumanization of Muslims. Guibert de Nogent° wrote that Urban stated, "it is true tat the Lord has left us Sabaoth as seed."° The mere presence of the Muslims in Jerusalem is pollution. One can easily construe that Guibert's account ties the Muslims to the Devil. It is extremely rare to find in the Christian heritage any respect shown the Muslims, and it is only since the latter half of the twentieth century that the Western world has begun its emergence from the veil of Christian myth. This hatred is a part of us, and ought to be defeated instead of celebrated. We might, indeed, choose an arbitrary starting point—in this case, the establishment of modern Israel seems a tempting choice. But no telling of this tale can approach truth without consideration of all that has come before; we can no more affix the advent of this tragedy at the time of Mohammed's revelation of the Qur'an. Understanding its roots means reaching back farther than the Gospels, and one can justly assert that the beginning occurred sometime in that mysterious and mythical period 'twixt creation and the burning bush. It may even go back further. But one thing is clear: We might argue about who started what, but nothing—nothing—will bring this tragedy to a close until Muslims are included among the human species, and treated accordingly. And the deeper we get, the longer this goes, the longer and more difficult will that reconciliation be. For not only must we believe it true, but also we must convince the Islamic world of that new belief. __________________ Notes: ° Gubert de Nogent — Interestingly, the abbott attributes to Urban II certain statements that are familiar even today: With the end of the world already near, even though the Gentiles fail to be converted to the Lord (since according to the apostle there must be a withdrawal from the faith), it is first necessary, according to their prophecy, that the Christian sway be renewed in those regions either through you, or others, whom it shall please God to send before the coming of Antichrist, so that the head of all evil, who is to occupy there the throne of the kingdom, shall find some support of the faith to fight against him. This idea is at the heart of what is called premillennial dispensationalism, which is a key element to contemporary American evangelicalism and Christian support for the Israeli state. ° Sabaoth as seed — A name of God: Yahweh Sabaoth is the God of War. (Pagels) Works Cited: Barker, Clive. Weaveworld. New York: Poseidon, 1987. Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage, 1996. Haddad, Yvonne Y. "The Islamic Alternative". The Link, v. 15, i. 4. September-October, 1982. http://www.ameu.org/page.asp?iid=120&aid=163&pg=1 PDF download: http://www.ameu.org/uploads/vol15_issue4_1982.pdf Halsall, Paul, ed. The Song of Roland. Trans. by John O'Hagan. Internet Medieval Source Book. 1998. Accessed January 2, 2009. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/roland-ohag.html —————. "Urban II: Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095". Internet Medieval Source Book. 1997. Accessed January 2, 2009. http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/urban2-5vers.html
Nice Tiassa. Except that describes every group of humans on the planet. How do you think the chinese and japanese felt about each other? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War
the ONLY thing that matters is "what do the people of israel want?" a person cannot answer that question until and unless they have lived in israel amongst the populace all their lives. don't bother with "opinion polls" or some other piece of propaganda because i for one will regard them for what they are, words written on paper. it seems to me that this whole mess boils down to this: it's americas fault, right? the political implications of islam is not a myth tiassa it's a reality and a very real one, several mideastern scholars have mentioned it. as far as strategic interest goes, who would you like to see in control of israel? europe? america? australia? USSR? china? india? japan? i suppose one could say israel, but then you are faced with "who exactly are the israelis?" america did a splendid job of transforming japan, why have we failed so miserably with israel? the only thing i can think of is nobody is getting the facts.
Endless pointless? :wallbang: Okay, look, here's the thing: I'm really sick and tired of that absolute bullshit response. Okay? Really, after a while, it gets to sound like a two-bit excuse some hack moron pundit makes. Can't come up with an answer? Then he must be blaming America. Too deep or broad to grasp? Then he must be making an anti-American statement. It gets predictable. It's like you're making a point of announcing that you don't want to have a discussion. So, look, whether it's just too subtle for you, or you're just lazy, or whatever the hell the problem is, a new cliché would serve you well. Ooo-ooh! Scary, scary. Or, rather, your point being? • • • And your point being?
Tiassa, you realize that Roland originates in the period of islamic invasion of France? That it's based on the defence at Roncevalles against invading islamic armies? So where do we wish to begin this sad tale of human failures? It began even far before then. And you characterize this as a sad, unprovoked Western sentiment? No one, no one bloody comprehends history. For fuck's sake.
History is too detrimental to the staid, truncated, vision of the PC world they live in, it is the despoiler of their PC mind, and the bringer of immaculate luminosity to the recesses of their dark soul.
sorry. i'm so used to dealing with sams horseshit. but you must admit that you did use the phrase "strategic importance" when mentioning america. i believe it was the league of nations that created israel, and america wasn't even a member. could it be that america became involved in israel to insure the country could get a solid foothold without undue outside influence? it wasn't an excuse tiassa, and i'll admit i might be a hack moron but i'm certainly no pundit. shortly after i registered here james posted a poll along with a political test. if i remember correctly i came the closet to the center than anybody else, a little on the left side though. to be honest i don't follow the, ahem, bullshit, that goes on there. it's plain though that america isn't wanted in the mideast. i've come across a few reasons as to why and they make perfect sense but there is that nagging notion that i'm not getting the full story. the point was made to counter your point of political islam was a myth. religion has about as much place in politics as battery acid does in baby food. note: can a moderator change the "ebar" in the title of this thread to "bear"?
The warp and woof I do not see how that changes the point. Take the contemporary "War on Terror", for instance. Yesterday, a Muslim family was kicked off a plane, apparently for discussing safety. One wonders if a white person would have been treated the same. Sure, al Qaeda attacked the United States in the name of Islam, but we're not going to resolve anything if the result is to hold Muslims as subhuman. And, yes, it is a bigoted standard if the only reason one cannot have a given conversation is that they are Muslim, or not Euro-white enough. Still, we can allow for some consideration of the superstitions and cultural psychology of the time; the point is not so much to condemn European civilization in the twelfth century as to point out that at no time does it seems the Western world has regarded Islam and Muslims as part of the human experience. This exclusion fueled Western regards for the Islamic world in the twentieth century and directly contributed to the debacle at hand in Israel and Palestine today. Indeed. As long as our arbitrary starting point ignores all prologue, solutions will evade us. It's inherent in the dominant cultural tradition in the West. Perhaps you missed the irony when I traced it in part to Persia (e.g., Zoroastrianism). Not that I was aiming for irony, but sometimes it's unavoidable. In the case of Muslims in France: other disputes saw the dehumanization of the players by the opposition. But even the French and British, or the French and Germans, can get along. They share certain cultural aspects, including—once we strip away Catholic and Protestant superficialities—Christianity. But the dispute between Christians and Muslims will continue as long as one regards the other as inhuman. And the thing is that it's not an equal rejection of one another; the Muslims face a scriptural conflict between the value of the ahl al-kitab and the instruction to fight oppression. That is, conceptually, at least, easily enough resolved. When the oppression and exploitation end, Muslims can specifically be held to account. Christians, however—their problem does not require that precondition. In the first place, the Western world (e.g., Christian-derived) is the empowered oppressor and exploiter; and, scripturally, at least, they are called on to turn the other cheek, and to love their enemies (Mt. 5.38-ff). And that from one of the most well-known episodes of Jesus' ministry. Unfortunately, that instruction seems to have fallen on many deaf ears through the centuries, and this betrayal of faith is repeated again and again. Not the whole of it. It is too large a body of information, with too many gaps in the information. Still, though, certain things can be understood. Dialectic analysis is one method for marking and identifying certain historical threads in the warp and woof of history. In reconstructing those threads, we might eventually be able to identify significant themes depicted in the tapestry. I would not accuse that you suggest abandoning history, and acknowledge that, in addition to the idea that nothing ever begins, nothing will ever be wholly resolved even if humanity endures through the whole of the Universe. But in practical terms, history still has lessons to teach, and tools to offer. We are not helpless before our heritage. ___________________ Notes: Gardner, Amy. "Airline Offers Apology Over Detained Muslim Passengers". Washington Post. January 2, 2009. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/02/AR2009010201695.html
Certainly, in some places. Every human culture holds some other in contempt; or individuals thereof do. Are we so specially evil? Of course not. Western civilization certainly hasn't regarded islam as part of the human experience...but can you really blame it? The West has been undergoing assault after assault by the East for the past 1400 years. Assyria, Mesopotamia, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, Asia Minor, the Balkans, Austria, and then France. Is the Song of Roland really any wonder to anyone? Why would it be? Moreover, why should it be? Given the historical perspective of islamic culture to my own - for I am no more an element of some supposed monolithic entity than they - why is Westernism expected to do better, really? Islamic civilization certainly hasn't - and doesn't - regard my culture (and politics) as anything more than a subversive ideology that requires flattening, prostration and forcible tribute for its "protection". Islamic doctrine doesn't regard me as having any place in the human experience, except as an object lesson in domestic subjugation, pillage and explotation. "Let them feel themselves oppressed", as the man said. I agree that we're not hostage to our heritage, but what wholesale concessions are we meant to offer when similar concessions from the "other society" are so unlikely? Since we're comparing groups, you understand. Precisely. But which group is it that does so? One group has in practice regarded the other with some distain and even hatred; the other has a scriptural obligation to do all of the above, oppression not really withstanding as its definition is left up to the mind of the beholder. I disagree strongly thereby with your implication that it's mostly the one causing the problem. In which islamic state, for instance, has anyone the right to leave islam without penalty? Which society is it then that holds the other in greater distaste? I quite agree that it's not an equal rejection of the other, but not in the direction you suggest. Further, who defines this "oppression and exploitation"? In practice, it seems to have been defined right up to Roncevalles and the "oppression" of islam in Spain and France both, neither of which were islamic nations in any way, not to mention all the rest. Surely you can't take this absurd legalistic preconception of fighting "oppression" seriously? In fact, it seems to have been primarily the other way around most of the time; all our talk, frankly, of a 'Western' notion is just that - a notion. The West was the East as well, once upon a time, but is no more. Who, then, is being oppressed here, and who the oppressor? Well, if we want to discuss the beliefs of a body of believers vis-a-vis some sense of security in their political and social goals, I submit turn the other cheek a far more hopeful premise than slay the unbelievers wherever you find them, and all this hopeful talk of ahl al-kitab be damned. Only in the last half-millenium, perhaps; and not even all of that. When the islamic world enjoyed a greater position of power, it was used without hesitation. I'm not arguing that we ought to do so ourselves, but why should we beat ourselves up about it? Are we particularly different somehow in this respect? We don't seem to be, except that we have notions of wider domestic human rights, and which are enforced.
Since agreement cannot be reached on these pages, do you think it likely agreement can be reached out there, where the stakes are much higher? Rather than etching our differences into the glass of time, why not begin with our similarities and build from there? Too much like hard work, and a fall in arms sales?
Claim 5: Israel's foreign minister claims that there is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the situation is as it should be. I wonder whether she means this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_re_mi_ea/ml_israel_palestinians What I can't bear any longer is the sheer two-facedness everybody is exerting in this situation. Expecially the Arab leaders of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Tunisia, etc.. They deserve the harshest... huh, and it will not be terrorism!! It will be just one of the biggest services to humanity. And as soon as muslims clean their power positions from these parasites, the real confrontation will begin.
Interesting analogy. It would be better fit if the fence actually cut of your bedroom from your living room.
