Should this university be closed?

manic56

A sickening article just came to my attention:

http://www.gamla.org.il/english/feature/sbarro.htm

here is a more balanced view:

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

and more about this university and the cold hearted murderers it breeds...

http://212.150.54.123/articles/articledet.cfm?articleid=445

It takes a certain breed of savage to openly celebrate the recent murder of innocent civilians. I for one would fully support Israeli bulldozers leveling this "university".

dublincitadel

manic56 wrote: »

......this university and the cold hearted murderers it breeds...

Looks sinister alright, do you think these soldiers studied there ??

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tW1-_JmXQt0

Or these ones ?? Imagine your Mother was the woman in this clip :cool:

marcsignal

dublincitadel wrote: »

Imagine your Mother was the woman in this clip :cool:

Utter Rubbish ! Anti Israeli Propaganda !

Can you not see the Alsatian attacking that poor woman in the 2nd clip is clearly a member of Hammas ?
Those nice IDF lads were just trying to help her. They more than likely treated her wounds, and made her a cup of tea.
Let's hope they bundled that nasty Palestinian terrorist dog into the jeep, and took it away for a damn good waterboarding.

Mad Finn

Pretty gruesome all right.

But here's something to think about. During the Dambusters raid in the last war, more than 1500 people were killed, the majority of them foreign prisoners of war and forced labourers who were working nearby. They were not military targets. They were not held prisoner close to properly military targets, as this would probably be contrary to the Geneva convention.


So do you think we should glorify in this incident? Bear that in mind next time the movie comes on TV. And ponder the fact that these days it has been edited to remove the name of Guy Gibson's dog, who was killed on the day of the raid and whose name was the code word transmitted when the first dam collapsed.

He was a black labrador called ******. That's a historical fact. And it was in the original film sound track but it has been edited out now.

And as for neanderthal soccer fans who hold their arms out and sing the dambuster's theme tune when their team plays German opposition.....


I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that people will always try and see their side's actions in the most heroic light possible.

Edit: Even boards won't let me print the name of the dog. Let's say it was N-word.

Dudess

It always amuses me the way self-appointed crusaders against political correctness feel the need to support EVERY right-wing agenda. They can't be, for example, in favour of free-market economics but against the thuggery of the Israeli government and militia, they can't be opposed to the IRA's campaign of violence but also appalled by Thatcher's stance on Northern Ireland (the "thing" lately is to be an apologist for that ****)... no, they have to support ALL right-wing causes because god forbid they'd be in agreement with ANY view those on the left have.

OP, if it wasn't for Israel's treatment of Palestinians, the atrocities you're drawing attention to here would not be happening.

manic56 wrote: »

It takes a certain breed of savage to openly celebrate the recent murder of innocent civilians.

It takes a certain breed of savage to crush family homes.

I for one would fully support Israeli bulldozers leveling this "university".

'Course you would - cuz that's, like, the thing you just gotta say if you're a no-nonsense anti pinko...

meditraitor

manic56 wrote: »

I for one would fully support Israeli bulldozers leveling this "university".

With all the students in it I suppose?


A few facts for you to chew on there Ariel

In the first five months of the year, the fighting in and around Gaza left six Israeli civilians and eight soldiers dead, according to the leading Israeli human rights group B'Tselem. On the Palestinian side the death toll stood at 362, of whom B'Tselem said at least 156 were not taking part in hostilities when they were killed.

Dudess

And those figures were compiled by an Israeli human rights group. LOL at people who try to defend Israel...

manic56

Dudess wrote: »

And those figures were compiled by an Israeli human rights group. LOL at people who try to defend Israel...

ROFL at people who try to defend Palestine

humanji

manic56 wrote: »

ROFL at people who try to defend Palestine

ROFL at the people who try and defend either side. Neither side are the good guys. The only difference between the two is the fact that one side has amassed a higher body count.

kmick

humanji wrote: »

ROFL at the people who try and defend either side. Neither side are the good guys. The only difference between the two is the fact that one side has amassed a higher body count.

Agreed - there will never be resolution here while the stated aim of the whole middle east is to drive the Israelis into the sea while on the Israeli side they keep pinching land they have agreed not to.

manic56

Dudess wrote: »

the "thing" lately is to be an apologist for that ****

Bing such a staunch feminist Dudess I would have thought you'd have loved Thatcher. Also I seem to remember someone destroying your simple minded view on this issue. Thatcher is the main reason the British economy is not being suffocated by trade unions like the French. She was one of the top 3 prime ministers of the 20th century.

Dudess wrote: »

'Course you would - cuz that's, like, the thing you just gotta say if you're a no-nonsense anti pinko...

Where did you get that chip on your liberal shoulder? Also please don't try and talk down to me or infer stupidity.

wes

kmick wrote: »

Agreed - there will never be resolution here while the stated aim of the whole middle east is to drive the Israelis into the sea while on the Israeli side they keep pinching land they have agreed not to.

That may have been true a decade or 2 ago, but its not the case any more.

Peace has been made with Egypt and Jordan and there are no hostilities there.

Also, the Arab league has offered recognition and peace to Israel in exchange for them returning to the 1967 borders and setting up a proper Palestinians state.

Now groups like Hamas and Hizbollah are excluded from this, but they don't have the capability to actually push anyone into the sea.

So, while there are groups who wish to "drive Israel into the sea", they are not the whole Middle East and simply don't have the capability to do so.

Peace can be achieved, the eventual 2 state solution (assuming that the colonies don't grow to large to make such a solution impossible) will probably largely resemble the 1967 borders. There are certainly huge problems to over come, but the entire ME trying to drive the Israeli's into the sea is not one of them anymore.

marcsignal

manic56 wrote: »

ROFL at people who try to defend Palestine

Hold the front page, I'm not trying to defend Palestine, and have no issue whatsoever with the existance of the state of Israel, none whatsoever.
Israel has as much right as any other country in the world to exist, and live in peace with its neighbours.

What it doesn't have the right to do, as a 'Democracy' is:

1) Commit war crimes
2) Commit crimes against humanity
3) Ignore the Geneva Convention
4) Ignore UN Directives

And before you try to justify these facts with Palestinian missile attacks, consider this:

In 1984 and 1990 the IRA almost killed the entire British Government. The first time with the Brighton Bomb (Maggie Thatcher was very very very very lucky to get away that time) and the second time, by launching a Mortar attack on the British War Cabinet, the shell landed in the garden of the Cabinet Rooms in during a meeting.

Just supposing MI5 had discovered one, or all of the IRA bombers, were from Keady in Co. Armagh, or Gortin in Co. Tyrone. Would that have given the British Army, and RAF justification for flattening Keady or Gortin with Helicoptor Gunships, Tanks and Bulldozers the next day ?

Of course it wouldn't.....

Again, I'm not trying to justify what Hammas do, but when you've nothing to live for, you'll find something to die for.
The saddest parallell between the Mid East conflict and what happened in Northern Ireland is simple. Until both sides make a real effort for fair and concise dialog, that conflict will go on and on and on and on and on and on, and eventually both sides will still have to come back to the table anyway, or wipe each other out.

There is a new ceasefire now, Thank God. Let's hope both sides are brave enough an honest enough to work on it.

manic56

wes wrote: »

So, while there are groups who wish to "drive Israel into the sea", they are not the whole Middle East and simply don't have the capability to do so.

I think it has less to do with the capabilities of the other states and more to do with the vast amount of support for Israel in the west, primarily the United States.

manic56

marcsignal wrote: »

Just supposing MI5 had discovered one, or all of the bombers, were from Keady in Co. Armagh, or Gortin in Co. Tyrone Would that have given the British Army, and RAF Justification for flattening Keady or Gortin with Helicoptor Gunships, Tanks and Bulldozers the next day ?

Of course it wouldn't.....

No it wouldn’t. However that comparison is akin to comparing a lada with a hummer, they are both vehicles but also different in possibly every other conceivable way.
Israel is surrounded by enemies. If they don't strike out with excessive force they feel that they will eventually be suffocated by sea of palesteinians.What they are doing is using is the best means of defense available to them: attack.They believe if they use hugely excessive force they will discourage potential attacks. Is this view justified? Is it a valid strategy? I’m not qualified to answer this question and I doubt anyone on this board is but what I will say is if I was living in Israel I would expect my government to do everything in their power to maximize the safety of my family and those I love.

In the IRA/British conflict you have mentioned is completely different. You are comparing a war between two countries with a government taking action on a terrorist organization.The Irish government never supported the IRA or took part in terrorist activities as the terrorist government Hamas does. Nor was the IRA ever funded by by another countries goverment. What’s more the IRA’s aim was never to wipe Britain of the face off the earth.

wes

manic56 wrote: »

Israel is surrounded by enemies.

This is simply untrue, both Egypt and Jordan have made peace with Israel. They are presently talk with Syria for peace as well. The Arab league have as I mentioned earlier offered peace and recognition to Israel. So to say they are surrounded by enemies is inaccurate and is an excuse Israel uses to get away to brutalizing the Palestinians.

Also, Israel actions are not solely in self defense, they are actively colonizing East Jerusalem and the West bank. One of the main aims of Zionism was to take as much land as possible and some of Israel violence stems from this desire as well.

marcsignal

manic56 wrote: »

I think it has less to do with the capabilities of the other states and more to do with the vast amount of support for Israel in the west, primarily the United States.

What vast amount of support is this exactly ? Because every time the UN General Assembly vote on the 'Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian Conflict' situation, every November, with regard to the 2 State Settlement, the vote is always the same (and I mean always literally)

Most recently it has been:

'The Whole World' on one side (for the 2 State Settlement), and the same 7 countries against, and they are:

The US
Israel
Nauru
Palau
Tuvalu
The Federated States of Micronesia
and the Marshall Islands

and you could walk across 3 of those countries, drunk, in a half hour, they are so tiny. The vote has gone almost exactly this way since 1989.
The only difference being, the Geopolitical changes that occurred with the fall of Communism, which brought more countries into the UN.

Prior to this event the count was:

'The Whole World' on one side (for the 2 State Settlement), and 3 countries against, and they were:

The US
Israel
and Dominica

manic56 wrote: »

Nor was the IRA ever funded by by another countries goverment.

Lybia ??

manic56 wrote: »

No it wouldn’t. However that comparison is akin to comparing a lada with a hummer, they are both vehicles but also different in possibly every other conceivable way.

You see this is what gets me every time about the Israel/Palestine conflict. As far as I can make out,[Edit](From reading Norman Finkelstein)[/Edit] the Israelis, and Pro-Israel Lobby would like the world to believe, that this is a conflict which is 'unique', and that measures and solutions that have worked pretty well in resolving conflicts the world over, wont work in this case. They try to use, what I can only call, 'cosmic uphamisms' to try to explain this, and that a person would need to have an understanding of these complicated issues, akin to that of 'Rocket Science' to try to fully comprehend it.

They even say that the conflict is routed in things like 'Ancient Hatreds going back to Biblical times'. Well sorry manic56, I don't buy that one, I'm fine with whatever the UN decides myself, thanks. The rules and guidelines they draw up for such cases, work for every other country in the world, so why not Israel ?

The Saint

I see you're familiar with Norman Finkelstein. Might want to credit him there.

marcsignal wrote: »

What vast amount of support is this exactly ? Because every time the UN General Assembly vote on the 'Peaceful Settlement of the Palestinian Conflict' situation, every November, with regard to the 2 State Settlement, the vote is always the same (and I mean always literally)

Most recently it has been:

'The Whole World' on one side (for the 2 State Settlement), and the same 7 countries against, and they are:

The US
Israel
Nauru
Palau
Tuvalu
The Federated States of Micronesia
and the Marshall Islands

and you could walk across 3 of those countries, drunk, in a half hour, they are so tiny. The vote has gone almost exactly this way since 1989.
The only difference being, the Geopolitical changes that occurred with the fall of Communism, which brought more countries into the UN.

Prior to this event the count was:

'The Whole World' on one side (for the 2 State Settlement), and 3 countries against, and they were:

The US
Israel
and Dominica



Lybia ??



You see this is what gets me every time about the Israel/Palestine conflict. As far as I can make out, the Israelis, and Pro-Israel Lobby would like the world to believe that this is a conflict which is 'unique' and that measures that solutions that have worked pretty well in resolving conflicts the world over, wont work in this case. They try to use, what I can only call 'cosmic uphamisms' to try to explain this, and that a person would have to have an understanding of these complicated issues akin to that of 'Rocket Science' to try to fully understand it. They even say that the conflict is routed in things like 'Ancient Hatreds going back to Biblical times'. Well sorry manic56, I don't buy that one, I'm fine with whatever the UN decides, the rules and guidelines they draw up in such cases work for every other country, so why not Israel ?

marcsignal

The Saint wrote: »

I see you're familiar with Norman Finkelstein. Might want to credit him there.

I don't deny reading Norman Finkelstein for a minute, and you're right, that's exactly where I sourced that information. He's a very interesting Professor, and raises some very important points, and if I'm honest, he's not the only one. 'Peter Novick', 'Gulie Ne'eman Arad', and 'Noam Chompsky' all have a thing or two to say about these issues, not to mention 'Jimmy Carter', although I think he's an Anti-Semite, so maybe he dosen't count.

But just as regards Norman Finkelstein, I'd recommend everyone reads this, it's enlightening to say the very least.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=GvERAgAACAAJ&dq=inauthor:Norman+inauthor:G+inauthor:Finkelstein

Dudess

manic56 wrote: »

ROFL at people who try to defend Palestine

ROFL at people who know damn well Palestine is the underdog yet ignore that fact for the sake of an argument.

manic56 wrote: »

Bing such a staunch feminist Dudess I would have thought you'd have loved Thatcher.

LOL - your join date is... um... this month. I don't think I've said anything feminist so far in June. I'm thinkin' re-reg myself... Not that I am a staunch feminist.
As for Thatcher - so what if she was a powerful woman. She had no time for feminism. She may as well have had a penis.

Also I seem to remember someone destroying your simple minded view on this issue. Thatcher is the main reason the British economy is not being suffocated by trade unions like the French. She was one of the top 3 prime ministers of the 20th century.

Fair enough. However... how come so many people DESPISE the woman so? How come so many feel wronged and cheated and fuked over by her? I know great leaders can't always do the "nice" thing but she was an out and out bully.

Where did you get that chip on your liberal shoulder? Also please don't try and talk down to me or infer stupidity.

Ooh... you're bringing out the big guns - calling me "liberal"! :eek:
Yeah I am liberal - sorry but "liberal" isn't an insult.
Anyhoo, as I said in my first post, there seems to be a pathological need among certain conservatives to support EVERY right-wing agenda - even when it's just not the sensible option. It's not sensible to sympathise with Israel. I've nothing against moderate conservatives - hell I've some conservative leanings myself. I'm not a total bleeding heart hippy or anything. And I've plenty of time for conservatives who are flexible in their views - i.e. they don't have to take a right-wing stance on EVERYTHING.

I think support for Israel by an enlightened person is just an attempt at being "no-nonsense" because it'd be hippy-ish to support Palestine.

ejmaztec

manic56 wrote: »

Thatcher is the main reason the British economy is not being suffocated by trade unions like the French. She was one of the top 3 prime ministers of the 20th century.

It might be off-topic but it's ironic that Thatcher destroyed the Unions in the UK, yet showed great support for Solidarity, mainly because that union was in Poland.


Re the Universities.

There must be hundreds of universities in the West that some governments wouldn't have minded closing down at the time. From the 60s onwards, anti-government (and anti-everything else) student protests have been met with violence in the extreme in the UK, France and the US, to name but 3.

Sand

I think support for Israel by an enlightened person is just an attempt at being "no-nonsense" because it'd be hippy-ish to support Palestine.

Theyre not football teams.

Palestine deserves statehood. No more, no less. They certaintly do not deserve the right to commit terrorism and then get upset when there is a response from the IDF or blockades of their territory, which their supporters seem to be accept as their god given and unique right amongst all the peoples of the world.

The Palestinians bear a large degree of the responsibility for the situation that has befallen them and until they and their international supporters stop justifying terrorism and violence as a reasonable option, then they will continue to remain in a terrible situation.

Always going for the violent, non-compromise, total victory over the Israelis has brought them to this current point. Perhaps they need to try something new and give a peaceful, less than total victory, compromise option a go.

As for that University - fairly typical of the fanaticism, but still disgusting to think they built a ****ing tourist attraction around the massacre of 7 children. And this is supposed to be the educated, free thinking uni crowd...

ircoha

manic56 wrote: »

No it wouldn’t. However that comparison is akin to comparing a lada with a hummer, they are both vehicles but also different in possibly every other conceivable way.
Israel is surrounded by enemies. If they don't strike out with excessive force they feel that they will eventually be suffocated by sea of palesteinians.What they are doing is using is the best means of defense available to them: attack.They believe if they use hugely excessive force they will discourage potential attacks. Is this view justified? Is it a valid strategy? I’m not qualified to answer this question and I doubt anyone on this board is but what I will say is if I was living in Israel I would expect my government to do everything in their power to maximize the safety of my family and those I love.

In the IRA/British conflict you have mentioned is completely different. You are comparing a war between two countries with a government taking action on a terrorist organization.The Irish government never supported the IRA or took part in terrorist activities as the terrorist government Hamas does. Nor was the IRA ever funded by by another countries goverment. What’s more the IRA’s aim was never to wipe Britain of the face off the earth.

Of course not

Moriarty

Dudess, lay off the personal and hostile edge to your posts please.

Everyone else: consider this a general warning that this isn't after hours and certain levels of civil discussion are expected. Anything further will earn that poster a ban.

marcsignal

Sand wrote: »

Palestine deserves statehood. No more, no less.

Palestine, and the Palestinian People desreve, nothing more, and nothing less, than the full, unreserved and un-biast protection of the Geneva Convention, the Nuremberg Declaration (1945) and the international charter for human rights.

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/350?OpenDocument

wes

Sand wrote: »

Palestine deserves statehood. No more, no less. They certaintly do not deserve the right to commit terrorism and then get upset when there is a response from the IDF or blockades of their territory, which their supporters seem to be accept as their god given and unique right amongst all the peoples of the world.

So Israel has no right to complain about anything (they do of course have the right to complain and deserve security and peace just like the Palestinians, but I am just turning this around), seeing as they started the mess by tossing the Palestinians out of there country and all the other violence, racist laws etc over the years. Using violence to get there way has back fired, when the other guy decided to do the exact same thing, it isn't a one sided thing, the Israeli's have engaged in as much aggression as the Palestinians and they need to stop the violence as well, if they expect peace. Of course Israels terrorism is often excused by it supporters. You excuse the blockade, which effect every Palestinian, including people who have nothing to do with terrorism. Of course the blockade is ok, as its Israel doing it, right? If Israel wants peace, they need to stop there terrorism as well as the Palestinians.

Also, why does Israel have the unique right to violate international law and aren't put under sanctions? This seems to be something that Israel supporters, think Israel uniquely deserve.

Sand wrote: »

The Palestinians bear a large degree of the responsibility for the situation that has befallen them and until they and their international supporters stop justifying terrorism and violence as a reasonable option, then they will continue to remain in a terrible situation.

Is going to another country with the express purpose to set up your own country and drive out the people living there the fault of the people living there? Wouldn't the people there get violent, when someone decides to kick then out of there own country? Israel is responsible for the current situation of the Palestinians. The Palestinians, haven't done anything to make this situation better to be fair, but there hardly to blame for there own ethnic cleansing and current situation, when that situations was part of a deliberate policy by Israel.

Sand wrote: »

Always going for the violent, non-compromise, total victory over the Israelis has brought them to this current point. Perhaps they need to try something new and give a peaceful, less than total victory, compromise option a go.

This is the same policy the Israeli engage in incidently. Perhaps they should give that up too?

Sand wrote: »

As for that University - fairly typical of the fanaticism, but still disgusting to think they built a ****ing tourist attraction around the massacre of 7 children. And this is supposed to be the educated, free thinking uni crowd...

The University I agree is simply horrible.

marcsignal

wes wrote: »

The University I agree is simply horrible.

I have to agree too, involving children in something as graphic as this is certainly bordering on 'warped' to say the very least, but, having said that, look at the Middle East, generally, and show me the places of sanity.

Sand wrote: »

Always going for the violent, non-compromise, total victory over the Israelis has brought them to this current point. Perhaps they need to try something new and give a peaceful, less than total victory, compromise option a go.

That is a valid point Sand, but in fairness, we need compromise on both sides for anything to really have a chance of working.
I was very surprised the other day to hear 'Condaliza Rice', of all people, say, that she felt Israel was causing problems by adopting what she considered to be, an inflexible stance, with regard to the Mid East peace process generally.

Sand

So Israel has no right to complain about anything (they do of course have the right to complain and deserve security and peace just like the Palestinians, but I am just turning this around), seeing as they started the mess by tossing the Palestinians out of there country and all the other violence, racist laws etc over the years.

They have no cause to complain if they participate in a war that the other side fights back. Thats the problem with wars, they start whenever you wish but they do not end when you please. The Israelis found that out when they launched their campaign to reform Israel in the British Mandate, and the Palestinians and other Arabs discovered it when they launched their wars to wipe Israel out.

But either participant has the right to complain if the other commits some atrocity outside the rules of warfare - usually a direct, premeditated attack on civillians. The IDF has been found guilty of such breaches previously, which have been complained about across the globe and the Palestinians long ago stopped even pretending to heed the rules of warfare with a terrorist campaign directly targeting civillians - support for which is so broad that its an election winning gimmick for Hamas.

You excuse the blockade, which effect every Palestinian, including people who have nothing to do with terrorism.

I dont excuse the blockade - its blatantly obvious that if the elected government of a people or region launches attacks on a neighbour, the very least they can expect in return is an economic blockade. The concept that Israel should supply the people firing rockets at them daily is an example of an incredible sense of entitlement. Theres a state of war and conflict between them and Israel - there are consequences to that. A blockade is the least of them.

why does Israel have the unique right to violate international law and aren't put under sanctions? This seems to be something that Israel supporters, think Israel uniquely deserve.

Because Palestine has a large Arab/muslim backing in the General Assembly and Israel has an ally on the Security Council which has underlined the survival of Israel and the prevention of a second Holocaust as one of its main foreign policy goals. So Israel gets cited for a lot of UN condemnations from the GA which are vetoed in the SC for not being balanced in their criticism of atrocties in the conflict.

Is going to another country with the express purpose to set up your own country and drive out the people living there the fault of the people living there? Wouldn't the people there get violent, when someone decides to kick then out of there own country? Israel is responsible for the current situation of the Palestinians. The Palestinians, haven't done anything to make this situation better to be fair, but there hardly to blame for there own ethnic cleansing and current situation, when that situations was part of a deliberate policy by Israel.

Youre not disagreeing with me so I have nothing to add.

That is a valid point Sand, but in fairness, we need compromise on both sides for anything to really have a chance of working.

True. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any scope for peace in the near future - Hamas is wildly popular with a programme that consists of a promise of unending war with only total victory acceptable, whereas while there is some pragmatism developing in Israel they still refuse to freeze settlements and the government that evacuated Gaza Strip and used soldiers to remove the hard cases is a lame duck thats going to be replaced by more hardcore leadership that will point to the Gaza policy as a failure.

wes

Sand wrote: »

They have no cause to complain if they participate in a war that the other side fights back. Thats the problem with wars, they start whenever you wish but they do not end when you please. The Israelis found that out when they launched their campaign to reform Israel in the British Mandate, and the Palestinians and other Arabs discovered it when they launched their wars to wipe Israel out.

The Palestinians and Arabs launched war to make sure the Palestinians weren't driven out, which was what the Zionist were trying to do in 1948. It was a spectacular failure however, but a war was inevitable, considering what the Zionist were doing to the Palestinians.

Sand wrote: »

But either participant has the right to complain if the other commits some atrocity outside the rules of warfare - usually a direct, premeditated attack on civillians. The IDF has been found guilty of such breaches previously, which have been complained about across the globe and the Palestinians long ago stopped even pretending to heed the rules of warfare with a terrorist campaign directly targeting civillians - support for which is so broad that its an election winning gimmick for Hamas.

I agree both side have a right to complain and both side have some horrible leaders, see Ariel Sharon being elected Prime Minister in Israel for instance.

Sand wrote: »

I dont excuse the blockade - its blatantly obvious that if the elected government of a people or region launches attacks on a neighbour, the very least they can expect in return is an economic blockade. The concept that Israel should supply the people firing rockets at them daily is an example of an incredible sense of entitlement. Theres a state of war and conflict between them and Israel - there are consequences to that. A blockade is the least of them.

Palestine is hardly a country firstly, its occupied territory, which put the occupier Israel in a position where the occupied are there responsibility. Blockading an entire people and imprisoning them is the same kind indiscriminate tactics used by the other side and has the same effect only on a larger scale.

Again, this can be turned around. If Israel didn't drive out the Palestinians from Israel (a huge chunk of the Gaza populace are refugee's) in the first place and not allow them to return solely based on there race, there would be no rockets. Its an endless cycle sadly.

While, you correct that Hamas firing rockets is inviting Israel actions, but Israel hardly has to respond in the way they are doing. It makes them look far worse than Hamas (especially when claiming to be a Western style democracy), when 1.5 million people (mostly refugee's there due to Israel) are paying for the people firing the rockets and even before that they lived in a virtual prison in refugee camps.

Then there is the West Bank, where no rockets are being fired and Israel regularly engages in operations there, still building there wall and settlements, despite the PLO there trying to work with Israel. It doesn't really seem to matter what the Palestinians do, Israel will react in the same manner regardless. If I remember correctly part of the reasoning of the blockade was to show Gaza, the errors of there way, by showing how good the West Bank, has it by playing by Israel and the US's rule, but the West Bank don't have it that good at all and there has been no changes for them despite cooperation.

Sand wrote: »

Because Palestine has a large Arab/muslim backing in the General Assembly and Israel has an ally on the Security Council which has underlined the survival of Israel and the prevention of a second Holocaust as one of its main foreign policy goals. So Israel gets cited for a lot of UN condemnations from the GA which are vetoed in the SC for not being balanced in their criticism of atrocties in the conflict.

There is no balance when the US cover them. They violate international law and get away with it. The Palestinians a suffer under a boycott from the EU and US (not the mention the occupation even before that), when they break it for instance or there agreements. I will also point out that Israels goal presently is to drive them into tiny Bantustans in Gaza and smaller ones in the West Bank, is hardly something that the West should support or defend by providing cover in the UN for these policies.

I think a position can be take than ensures the safety of Israel, but at the same time punish them for breaking international law. This shouldn't be too hard, as the Arab states have said they are willing to accept Israel in exchange for peace and 2 of her neighbors have already done so.

Israel condemnation is well deserved, as they are actively breaking international law and they should be hit by sanctions, like everyone else, what the US does is give them special treatment. However, if the worst there being hit by is criticism, then they can hardly complain, as they are more than capable of ignoring it.

I will also point out that several Arab/Muslim nations (the EU and US have engaged in a boycott due to Hamas of the Palestinians for instance) have been hit by UN sanctions in the past, so I see no reason why Israel should be accorded special rights to violate international law (and not to mention there own agreements). The Arab/Muslim contingent of the UN aren't that powerful, and the worst they have done is have some harsh criticisms aimed at Israel in the UN. Thats not that powerful at all. Also, we are talking about the same UN that created Israel, so hardly see the power from the Arab/Muslim states you speak of, as I don't think they have any at all.

Sand wrote: »

True. Unfortunately, I do not believe there is any scope for peace in the near future - Hamas is wildly popular with a programme that consists of a promise of unending war with only total victory acceptable, whereas while there is some pragmatism developing in Israel they still refuse to freeze settlements and the government that evacuated Gaza Strip and used soldiers to remove the hard cases is a lame duck thats going to be replaced by more hardcore leadership that will point to the Gaza policy as a failure.

In agreement here, the situation is sadly going no where fast.