And so israel creates a whole new generation of suicide bombers.

Xterminator

Will they never learn?

here

Picture of young palestinian boys kissing the corpse of a 11 mth old baby killed by shelling in a refugee camp.

This is exactly the kind of thing that motivates these killers, and I for 1 cant see this situation getting any better.

X

colinsky

I think you're making some strong suppositions there.

Revenge is one possible mindset, but I've also seen examples of such things leading to the opposite extreme -- the "I know how awful it is to have one close to me killed, and I don't think anyone should have to go through this. I'm going to do everything possible to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else again..."

Attitudes _respecting_ human life in this way have lead to such initiatives as suicide and sexual abuse hotlines, drink driving and gun control campaigns, and the like.

It is only one who has little respect for human life that one decides to murder to make a political statement, or purely for ones own gratification. Of course, these attitudies on value of life are set by ones cultural environment -- and Islam doesn't set an especially good example (especially in as it values the good over the religious at the expense the secular/other).

Regardless of how good a job they did at "implementing" their actions, the Israelis did act with a genunine cause -- that of self defense against terrorism. Obviously, contemporary weapons aren't exact, and there is unintended damage. But then again, the parents and community had some responsibility for the environment the child was in, considering how "publically known" the fact that terorism was rampant throughout the Jenin camp.

Saruman

Im not defending Israel but it seems to me every time they pull out of the west bank there is a whole load of suicide bombings that causes them to come back? this is pathetic... if they want peace.. let Israel pull out and then don't send suicide bombers to kill innocents.. the big difference is the Palestinians behind it are trying to kill innocents.. the Israelis kill innocents that are unfortunate to get caught in the crossfire.. they wont aim their tank at that baby and shoot! They aim at a terrorist running near where the baby is and the baby gets killed by accident!

Lemming

Saurman, the Israeli's are as bad as the Palestinians and vice versa.

If what you've stated is the way the Israeli's operate, then why-oh-why are they attempting to block a UN investigation into the Jenin refugee camp incident? What could they be possibly hiding if they don't target innocents deliberately?

Saruman

Lemming you must have missed the part where i said i am not defending Isreal! So i will say it again "im not defending isreal!" as far as im concerned they are all as bad as each other though.. they are ALL killing people! Yes of course Isreal have something to hide.. they went to far in Jenin.. that much is obvious! My point still stands though... they would not knowingly shoot and kill a baby no matter the race or background! The Paelstinian terrorists make no such distinction however and will willingly kill themselves and as many civilians as they can!! They tried to blow up a bus of school chidren not so long ago!

Lemming

No need for the exclaimation marks Saurman. I wasn't having a go at you or anything

But I am of the mind that they (the Israelis) are operating a "shoot to kill" policy similar to the British forces did in the Nort during the 70s/80s

For unintentional killings .. they've carried out an awful lot of them, which would lend itself to the suspicion of they don't care who they hit, once they get some sort of body count.

bonkey

Originally posted by Saruman
Im not defending Israel but it seems to me every time they pull out of the west bank there is a whole load of suicide bombings that causes them to come back? this is pathetic... if they want peace.. let Israel pull out and then don't send suicide bombers to kill innocents..

You seem to be forgetting a small thing called the Occupied Territories. You know - the place that Israel has never pulled out of?

I agree - let Israel pull out if they want peace - but its out of the OT they need to be pulling.

the big difference is the Palestinians behind it are trying to kill innocents.. the Israelis kill innocents that are unfortunate to get caught in the crossfire.. they wont aim their tank at that baby and shoot! They aim at a terrorist running near where the baby is and the baby gets killed by accident!

I agree with your description of the Palestinian terrorists actions, but dont forget the Israeli's are not without their own brutality. Stories abound such as the one about the youth shot for throwing rocks at tanks. Thats no "caught in the crossfire".

The mindset of both sides is wrong. The actions of both sides are wrong. Discussing relative wrongness seems a bit pedantic, and trying to justify the actions of either side is pretty much impossible.

jc

Saruman

All true Bonkey! Though on the OT i would say one step at a time.. the crap thats going on there can not be resolved.. only through peaceful negotiations can any agreement be reached.. of the NI problem has show us anything its that the political process does work when given a chance.. its not perfect but its beeter than bloodshed.

btw Lemming.. sorry !!! are not intended to make a point.. i just have a habbit of using them a lot instead of full stops lol

Xterminator

Originally posted by colinsky
I think you're making some strong suppositions there.

Revenge is one possible mindset, but I've also seen examples of such things leading to the opposite extreme -- the "I know how awful it is to have one close to me killed, and I don't think anyone should have to go through this. I'm going to do everything possible to make sure this doesn't happen to anyone else again..."

......
First up, that picture moved me deeply. Perhaps its becuase my daughter is of the same age.

I think what you are forgetting, is that these children are 'trapped' living in refugee camps, and they see no other method of striking at israel than guerilla attacks.

Now that doesnt mean its right, just that i can see the desperation that living in such conditions, seeing young people mowed down indiscriminately by israeli forces, will turn out more than its fair share of extremists.

Originally posted by colinsky

Regardless of how good a job they did at "implementing" their actions, the Israelis did act with a genunine cause -- that of self defense against terrorism. Obviously, contemporary weapons aren't exact, and there is unintended damage. But then again, the parents and community had some responsibility for the environment the child was in, considering how "publically known" the fact that terorism was rampant throughout the Jenin camp.

Well i differ strongly in opinion here.
I dont think a civilised society can overrun a refugee camp, WITHOUT letting the civilians flee first and say there actions are justified!.
I think the Isreali's action actually encourage bombing of israelis civillian targets!

I'll go further, because of what happened in the past to the isreaeli people (WW2) they belive thay have the right to visit similar evils to their percieved enemies. I belive Isreal are bit by bit trying to exterminate the palistinians. The settlements on occupied land, the law forbidding the selling of Jewish homes to Palistine all combine to disenfranchise, and ethnically cleanse the area of the original inhabitants.

X

colinsky

Originally posted by Xterminator I think what you are forgetting, is that these children are 'trapped' living in refugee camps, and they see no other method of striking at israel than guerilla attacks.

But there is a better option... guerilla attacks against government and military targets. That's who they have a problem with, and who they want to influence. Attacking shoppers in supermarkets, diners in Sparro, and fathers riding the bus home from work with the aim of causing general panic and scaring citizens out of the country is not a morally acceptable act.

Bateman

True enough. Israel is using the holocaust as a stick to beat anyone who dares to criticise them, especially if the criticism is coming from Europe.

Lemming

Through all of this ... I have a question:

Why are the Israelis blocking the UN investigation into the Jenin camp incident? (I will not use the words "massacre" or "attrocity" since it is still unconfirmed).

Surely they should be jumping at the chance to be exhonorated, especially on the international stage.

Furthermore, from WHOM has this directive to block the investigation come. If it has come from Sharon himself, I'd have to say that the writing is pretty much on the wall as to what to what really did in Jenin. One massacre is an accident, Two is a coincidence, Three .... ???? All under his leadership over the years.

colinsky

While I wasn't present at any Israeli Cabinet meetings to post a detailed account of who supported their government policy challenging the UN investigations, I do think that the media has provided relatively clear accounts of why the Israelis might feel that the UN would not provide an unbiased report:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20020502/ap_wo_en_ge/israel_unpopular_un_2

Lemming

Source

Israel says it wants military experts on the team and does not want the delegation to be able to subpoena military personnel. It also wants the team to investigate the Palestinian terrorism that preceded the operation.

But in Israel, the assault on Jenin is regarded as a straightforward military operation justified by the camp's role as the source of at least 20 suicide bombers. As for endangerment of civilians, Israel lays that responsibility at the doorstep of the gunmen who sought shelter in the camp.

Reading between the lines, I'm seeing the following statement:

1st paragraph: they want to deflect from what occured in Jenin, and also to try and justify what happened in Jenin. Two wrongs make a right, so to speak.

2nd paragraph: Firstly, everyone in that camp was guilty until proven innocent since 20 suicide bombers apparently orginiated from the camp. Secondly, that they instructed their soldiers to shoot at anything that moved on two legs and wasnt' wearing an israeli army uniform.

colinsky

Originally posted by Lemming
2nd paragraph: Firstly, everyone in that camp was guilty until proven innocent since 20 suicide bombers apparently orginiated from the camp.

Well, I'd go as far as saying that they hadn't set up the most effective neighborhood watch I've ever seen.

Xterminator

Originally posted by colinsky

But there is a better option... guerilla attacks against government and military targets. That's who they have a problem with, and who they want to influence. Attacking shoppers in supermarkets, diners in Sparro, and fathers riding the bus home from work with the aim of causing general panic and scaring citizens out of the country is not a morally acceptable act.

I think you or i can understand that it might be more morally acceptable in our eyes, if this was the case.

However you are missing the point of my post. It is that to the young people in this picture, its not just the military of isreal, it all of israel who they will blame.

Unless you think that to kill civillians indiscriminately, when ostensibly attacking 'terrorists' is any less reprehnsible than killing civillians indiscriminately with a sucide bomb.
They are both murder.

Just because the murder is justified by the israeli government, glossed over, and dismissed a s regretable doesnt make the baby any less dead.

After all when Arafat called the bombings 'wrong and regretable' that didnt make them right , now did it?

X

EmilianoZapata

The Zionist's have brought the suicide bombers upon themselves. They have no right to Palestinian land. You can go on all about how it was their ancestoral land that still doesn't give them the right to invade and oppress the Palestinians. As long as Israel refuses to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

VICTORY TO THE INTIFADA

Moriarty

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
The Zionist's have brought the suicide bombers upon themselves. They have no right to Palestinian land. You can go on all about how it was their ancestoral land that still doesn't give them the right to invade and oppress the Palestinians. As long as Israel refuses to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

VICTORY TO THE INTIFADA

/me smirks

:rolleyes:

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
They have no right to Palestinian land. You can go on all about how it was their ancestoral land that still doesn't give them the right to invade and oppress the Palestinians.

Nor does their invasion give the Palestinian terrorists the right to target innocent women and children for death simply because of their nationality.

Oh - I forgot - you're a supporter of "by any means necessary" (anti-capitalism thread in Politics forum). Pity you dont seem to consider that this gives the Israeli actions complete legitimacy as well.

As long as Israel refuses to withdraw to the pre-1967 borders, there will be no peace in the Middle East.

This is, perhaps, the only sensible statement in your entire post.

jc

EmilianoZapata

Nor do the IDF have the right to murder little children with tanks and machine guns and move in and crush peoples homes.

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Nor do the IDF have the right to murder little children with tanks and machine guns and move in and crush peoples homes.

Allow me to refresh your memory of some of the things you've said recently :

We will use our right to destroy capitalism by any means necessary

followed by :

Others can use our 'any means necessary' policy if they wish

Yes now you claim that someone does not have the right to take what they see as "any means necessary" to progress their cause ?????

Maybe if you were a little more honest in unilaterally applying your soundbite propaganda , you could put together more coherent arguments. You cannot support the concept of anarchy and "no laws" while at the same time complaining that someone else's actions are wrong. They can only be wrong against some context of law.

I would agree that some of Israel's actions are wrong. I also maintain that Palestinian terrorist actions are wrong. I condemn both - you seem to think that one has the right to be a monster but the other not. You have yet to explain this - you just try to condemn one side and not the other with more carefully chosen soundbites.

jc

Johnny 5

It is in my opinion that I feel that some Palestinians exiled from the country from that Church of the Nativity seige, end up in Ireland.

It makes sense for them to come to a neutral country, one that has a background of having sympathy with the Palestinians, one that leads the field in UN peacekeeping around the world.

Anyone agree?

EmilianoZapata

Ok maybe, 'any means' was a little too strong but I will use any means to a point that doesn't involve killing little children with tanks and machine guns in order to claim land that doesn't even belong to the Israelis.

And as for your anarchy/no law theory, if you would take the time to actual look at the concept of anarchy and not accept the media's term of anarchy, you will find that anarchistic societies are not lawless. Personal freedom to the extent that it doesn't affect an other person's civil rights.

bonkey

Apologies for going offtopic in response here.....

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Ok maybe, 'any means' was a little too strong but I will use any means to a point

Funny it took so long for you to admit this....

And as for your anarchy/no law theory, if you would take the time to actual look at the concept of anarchy and not accept the media's term of anarchy, you will find that anarchistic societies are not lawless. Personal freedom to the extent that it doesn't affect an other person's civil rights.

What I was referrring to, with my "no laws" was a comment made recently :

It is to do with the fact that we should have no masters or rules and any decisions should be made by ourselves and by no one else.

Look familiar? It should - you posted it.

I italicised the important bit to make sure you understand where my "misinformation" came from - more of your soundbite propaganda. I understand and am somewhat informed about a broad range of meanings of the term anarchy, and an almost equally wide number of ways it can be implemented. I chose to use your definition - not the media's.

Would you like to retract that comment as well?

How long before I have you saying that when you said "Victory to the intifida" you weren't actually condoning the wholesale murder of innocents in the name of a cause. Oh - wait - didnt you already say :

Ok maybe, 'any means' was a little too strong but I will use any means to a point that doesn't involve killing little children with tanks and machine guns

I take it that if the Israeli's used bombs like the Palestinians - then it would be ok to kill little children? Because you are supporting the actions of one set of murderers while condemning another.

Or are you saying that such gruesome murder is "acceptable means" because you see the Palestinians as having all the rights in this land war? So its okay for them to murder children, but not the Israelils?

Nice to know that the price of land is higher than the value of innocent human life.

Or would you like to back away from your "Victory to the Intifada" statement as well, and somehow claim that this, like so much of the rest of your soundbite propaganda was "a little too strong".

jc

Johnny 5

To quote myself, seems the government took my comments on board and offered the Palestinians exile here....

Lemming

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Ok maybe, 'any means' was a little too strong but I will use any means to a point that doesn't involve killing little children with tanks and machine guns in order to claim land that doesn't even belong to the Israelis.

Well, there's the catch y'see. "Any means" means just that - "ANY". There are no preconditions inside that word, nor those two words combined.

And as for your anarchy/no law theory, if you would take the time to actual look at the concept of anarchy and not accept the media's term of anarchy, you will find that anarchistic societies are not lawless. Personal freedom to the extent that it doesn't affect an other person's civil rights.

Ah ... but since there's no laws, isn't it down to personal interpretation of what civil rights another person has?

EmilianoZapata

Can I point out firstly as you seem to be confused that there is a difference between a law/rule and a basic right.

As for my 'soundbites', can you honestly say you can explain exactly what you mean by typing a few sentences. If you answer that 'yes' you are a very foolish person.

Ah ... but since there's no laws, isn't it down to personal interpretation of what civil rights another person has?

No, civil rights are everything down to the point that it does not affect anyone esle. It's not a hard concept to understand. Civil rights include the right to safety, to eat, to live, to sleep, to be educated etc.



As for my comment 'Victory to the intifada', I will not retract that. I see the Intifada as the only way the Palestinians can free themselves from Israeli aggression. Nowhere in my posts, did I say that the Palestinians have a right to kill children as the Israelis haven't that right either. I will never condone the killing of children or agree with it but I do see war as the only way the Palestinians will liberate themselves. The Israelis are in the wrong, the Palestinians are trying to defend themselves. You can choose to make your own ideas of what I mean in this statement but you will never really understand what I mean.

Lemming

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Can I point out firstly as you seem to be confused that there is a difference between a law/rule and a basic right.

Not really, since basic rights are dependant on laws to guaruantee them. Hence without laws, its ll down to personal interpreation.

As for my 'soundbites', can you honestly say you can explain exactly what you mean by typing a few sentences. If you answer that 'yes' you are a very foolish person.

That would depend on the context of what you're trying to explain. So I'd look at myself if I were you calling people "foolish" :rolleyes:

No, civil rights are everything down to the point that it does not affect anyone esle. It's not a hard concept to understand. Civil rights include the right to safety, to eat, to live, to sleep, to be educated etc.

See my above posting about laws. What y ou're decribing is morality. The right thing, the decent thing. That people SHOULD be allowed those things. Without laws to protect rights, they're not guaruanteed, and its all down to yoru morals, of which a lot people are sadly lacking.

but I do see war as the only way the Palestinians will liberate themselves.

Well, than we can all thank our lucky stars that you aren't a political force involved in some way. There's ALWAYS another option.

You can choose to make your own ideas of what I mean in this statement but you will never really understand what I mean.

being condescending will get you nowhere except the other side of a boot

EmilianoZapata

Actually, basic rights do not need laws to protect them, the people protect them. For example, if the people want to make something a civil right but the government don't, the people of the world would greatly outweigh the government and police, army etc.

Maybe it is down to personal to interpretation but rights, laws cannot be passed without majority vote therefore, it is really not personal.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just pointing out that you cannot get into my mind and understand what I mean exactly. Are you telling me that I can enter your mind and tell you exactly what you mean when you say something?

Lemming

Atthis point, I'm going to use my signature on Emiliano. nite nite boys n'girls

Hobbes

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
I'm just pointing out that you cannot get into my mind and understand what I mean exactly

I can.

"MeowMeowMeowMeow MeowMeowMeowMeow MeowMeow MeowMeow MeowMeowMeowMeow..."

EmilianoZapata

Originally posted by Lemming
Atthis point, I'm going to use my signature on Emiliano. nite nite boys n'girls

And would you like to explain to me why I'm an idiot?

Only a fool thinks he knows everything. The wise man realises how little he knows

No person is perfect therefore we are all idiots. And to call others idiots implies that you know everything which therefore makes you the fool of that quote.

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
Can I point out firstly as you seem to be confused that there is a difference between a law/rule and a basic right.

Very good. Now explain to me ohw you can have rights without a rule or law which says that "rights shall be obeyed".

Maybe you meant "very few rules" instead of "no rules". Bit like you meant "most means" rather than "any means".

As for my 'soundbites', can you honestly say you can explain exactly what you mean by typing a few sentences. If you answer that 'yes' you are a very foolish person.

For a start, it would depend on what I am trying to explain.

Secondly, I do not claim to be able to express myself perfectly clearly, but I do not try to make sweeping statements only to back down from them once challenged.

Thirdly, I at least try to say what I mean. I know the difference between what is and isnt an absolute and dont try to pass one off as the other.

No, civil rights are everything down to the point that it does not affect anyone esle. It's not a hard concept to understand. Civil rights include the right to safety, to eat, to live, to sleep, to be educated etc.

First of all, you dont mention how these rights would be protected. As I pointed out in another thread, your ideal system must be able to handle challenges from within - from dissenters. How can you enforce rights without laws and rules? How can you punish those who infringe on rights.

Also....if the right to safety is indeed a basic civil right, could you explain how you can support a group who blatantly disregard this? I accept that you dont condone their actions, but I also notice that you conveniently forgot to condemn them as well.

I see the Intifada as the only way the Palestinians can free themselves from Israeli aggression.

Really? Attacking valid targets wouldnt be an option? Perhaps even, gasp, negotiating? No?

So let me get this straight. You dont condone killing, but support those who do it because its their best option.

I guess civil rights just dont carry all that much weight then. Oh - hand on - arent these types of rights key to the concept of an communo-anarchic society?

Nowhere in my posts, did I say that the Palestinians have a right to kill children as the Israelis haven't that right either. I will never condone the killing of children or agree with it but I do see war as the only way the Palestinians will liberate themselves.

You support the Intifada - you must - you want it to be victorious. You could not want "victory to the intifada" without supporting it. The Intifada is a movement directly responsible for the killing of innocents. In fact, acts of terrorism are pretty much central to it. So - you support these acts of terrorism, even if you havent come out and said it directly.

Maybe this is one of those cases where I cant undersand you from the few words you've written. So - just so you dont think I'm bring foolish - would you kindly explain this duality to me? You express support for a regime of terroristic murder (the Intifada), whilst at the same time saying that you do not condone it.

The Israelis are in the wrong, the Palestinians are trying to defend themselves.

It may come as a surprise to you, but both sides can be in the wrong.

Tell you what. Go back to where you talked about the limits of "any means necessary. Then go back to bit where you talked about why you support the Intifada and its terroristic regime. Look at the two things closely and tell me how you can reconcile them.

You can choose to make your own ideas of what I mean in this statement but you will never really understand what I mean.

What a great comeback. Even if you cant argue your point, you are still right, because we simply cant understand you.

I am trying to understand what you mean. Unfortunately, you started with substanceless, contradictory standpoints. When challenged on them, you have slowly backed off the extremism of all of them, whilst insisting you're still right. You cant do both - you can either tell us what you mean, or feed us extremist soundbites. I think you're learning rapidly that the latter doesnt get you very far. If not, then i'd reassess who you're calling foolish.

jc

EmilianoZapata

Firstly, as I said, it has hard to completely explain what I mean in a few sentences. My points don't contradict themselves, they are just vague.

First of all, you dont mention how these rights would be protected. As I pointed out in another thread, your ideal system must be able to handle challenges from within - from dissenters. How can you enforce rights without laws and rules? How can you punish those who infringe on rights.

It is not in human nature to kill, to hurt, to steal etc therefore the people protect the rights because they are brought into a society based on equality and harmony. You can punish people that break those laws by placing them in prison like any other society but prisons would be based more on rehabilitation than on punishment.

Also....if the right to safety is indeed a basic civil right, could you explain how you can support a group who blatantly disregard this? I accept that you dont condone their actions, but I also notice that you conveniently forgot to condemn them as well.

The people of Palestine are a lot less safe than the Israelis. I support the Intifada because I see Zionism as the greater evil. I do realise that there does need to be great change in the way the PA operates but a lot more change is needed in Israel.

You support the Intifada - you must - you want it to be victorious. You could not want "victory to the intifada" without supporting it. The Intifada is a movement directly responsible for the killing of innocents. In fact, acts of terrorism are pretty much central to it. So - you support these acts of terrorism, even if you havent come out and said it directly.

If you call many of these attacks terrorist attacks, then you must be siding with the Israelis in this situation. The suicide bombers are the young people who have lost all hope and this is their only way of freeing themselves. They are Freedom Fighters

Seeing as you're on boards.IE, I take it that you're Irish and if you'd look at your own history you would see how the IRB/A had to kill to achieve their freedom. This can be seen as terrorism aswell but they have always been called Freedom Fighters.

Ok, from now on I'll try not reply so hastily and extreme and try and explain my points carefully.

As for 'reassessing who I'm calling foolish', if you read my quote in a previous post you would see I said no one is perfect.

Lemming

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata


And would you like to explain to me why I'm an idiot?

Because of this entire post. Spot the idiotic parts in it - it snot that hard:

Actually, basic rights do not need laws to protect them, the people protect them. For example, if the people want to make something a civil right but the government don't, the people of the world would greatly outweigh the government and police, army etc.

Maybe it is down to personal to interpretation but rights, laws cannot be passed without majority vote therefore, it is really not personal.

I'm not trying to be condescending. I'm just pointing out that you cannot get into my mind and understand what I mean exactly. Are you telling me that I can enter your mind and tell you exactly what you mean when you say something?

No person is perfect therefore we are all idiots. And to call others idiots implies that you know everything which therefore makes you the fool of that quote.

Ah .. there's a BIG difference between not being perfect, since nobody is, and doiing/saying something blatantly stupid and idiotic.

So there IS a big difference. Read the quote again and think about it. I'm sure the meaning will dawn on you sooner or later.

EmilianoZapata

There is no real point arguing over who is the idiot because it will get us nowhere. It has always been the same between the left and the right.

AfroMan

The better think to do is to recognize the Palestinian estate. each country must have his army and his security system.
Israel and Palestine as 2 independents countries, they should then respect the borders and the international conventions. At this stage, bomb killers will stop.

Don't forget that when Israelian an Palestinian make a good stape, a new israelian Prime Minister comes and changes what was done. Is it a game? Do Israelian like playing with fire?

bonkey

Originally posted by EmilianoZapata
It is not in human nature to kill, to hurt, to steal etc

One would wonder how human society managed to incorporate these things so thoroughly if they were never in our nature.

I would suggest that if you do some scientific research on these issues you will find that they are indeed part of human nature - they all derive from various survival traits. While it is tempting to believe we have evolved beyond this, such a belief is simply not true - there isnt a shred of evidence to support it when talking about mankind as a whole, as opposed to a carefully selected set of individuals.

therefore the people protect the rights because they are brought into a society based on equality and harmony. You can punish people that break those laws
by placing them in prison like any other society but prisons would be based more on rehabilitation than on punishment.

But you have no laws. You yourself tried telling us recently that there was a clear difference between civil/human rights and laws. I accept that. What I dont accept is that you can operate a society without laws - without means of dealing with the individuals who chose to disregard the rights you enshrine in all people.

Now what you're really saying, is that you'll just have different laws. I have no problem with you having different laws.....as long as you admit to it.

The people of Palestine are a lot less safe than the Israelis.

I agree.

I support the Intifada because I see Zionism as the greater evil. I do realise that there does need to be great change in the way the PA operates but a lot more change is needed in Israel.

I dont see it as necessary to support either evil. This is not a case of choosing the lesser of two evils, because quite frankly there are alternatives....including choosing neither evil.

If you call many of these attacks terrorist attacks, then you must be siding with the Israelis in this situation. The suicide bombers are the young people who have lost all hope and this is their only way of freeing themselves. They are Freedom Fighters

Every single suicide bombing is a terrorist act. Why? Simple. Ask how it can achieve freedom. It can only do so by frightening the Israeli people away from their current actions. It will not defeat the Israeli military - it will frighten off the people. The aim is to put terror into the lives of the common man on the street, and to force a political solution through use of this fear. That, incidentally, pretty much fits the definition of terrorism.

I would never condemn any Palestinian for defending his home from armed invasion. Every single Palestinian who partook in the fighting in Jenin was, in my opinion, legitimately fighting an invading army. However, every single Palestinian involved in sending suicide bombers into Israel is a terrorist - they are trying to achieve a political goal through the use of fear/terror as a weapon.

Seeing as you're on boards.IE, I take it that you're Irish and if you'd look at your own history you would see how the IRB/A had to kill to achieve their freedom. This can be seen as terrorism aswell but they have always been called Freedom Fighters.

You will also see that these men attacked military and political targets. They mounted insurrections against armed forces. Once they started indiscriminate bombings in the North and elsewhere, they became terrorists. You wont hear many people calling today's IRA "freedom fighters", despite them fighting against what they see as a foreign invader.

jc