Palestinian "Terrorist" to come to Ireland.

mike65

Its just been announced that this state is taking in one of the Palestinians that Isreal wants shot of.

Is this madness, or a valuble humanitairian gesture?

I tend to the former, at best he'll end up in a cell of some sort dispite not having been found guilty of anything at worst he could be assasinated by Mossad.

Mike.

bonkey

I expect the Israeli's to seek extradition almost as soon as he lands in Ireland.

I also expect the Palestinians to demand that under the international principles of law, this man is innocent until found guilty, and has no case to answer to the Irish government to. They will then expand on this and claim that any curtailing of his right to re-enter his own country would be a violation of his human rights.

Its a humanitarian gesture to have taken him in, but the problem is now that each and every government who has accepted these exiles will have some very, very tough decisions to make which are gauranteed to annoy at least one of the two ME nations involved, if not both.

jc

king of fifa

we should take 'em all

Saruman

Nice and constructive there King! Thats all we need in this country.. more terrorists....

Is there a reason they are being exiled? I mean as opposed to something else that is...

ReefBreak

Considering he as part of a group that not only took hostages but stormed, desecrated and booby-trapped one of the most important Christian sites in the world, he'll get no sympathy from me. If an Israeli had done the same to a sacred Muslim site, there'd be uproar (especially among the ultra-PC media in Europe).

Saruman

You know thats probably true!

bugler

Perhaps our moderators would like to crack down on Reefbreaks lying, unless thats allowed on this board?

Considering he as part of a group that not only took hostages but stormed

They didn't take hostages. "The clergy leaving the church also discounted Israeli reports that they had been held against their will as hostages by the Palestinian gunmen". Or maybe you're referring to the peace activists who ran into the building. The article says:
"But it was past 2.30pm when 10 international peace activists stooped through the low-slung Gate of Humility that is the main entrance to the fortress like church. The activists, who ran inside the church last week, emerged glowering and clasped in the vice-like grip of Israeli riot police. They had also earned the enmity of the clergy and the Palestinian police, who had pleaded with them for hours to leave."

Read more here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,713670,00.html

Stormed? They didn't have to use any force as far as I know. It seemed quite like taking refuge, as has been done over the centuries. And let us not forget who the region's Christians identify more with. Some of the Palestinians could even have been Christian.

desecrated and booby-trapped

Desecrated? I haven't heard anything about desecration. Are you referring to having to píss and shít in the Church? Well then the monks who stayed behind are also guilty of desecrating their beloved Church. The only misbehaviour complained of by the monks was that they think some of the militants nicked some gold ornaments, which they believe were later returned. And do you have a source for the accusation that they boobytrapped the Church? If you do, I'd like to see it.

I presume you will apologise and retract your last remarks, realising that they had no basis in fact, unless of course you can come up with proof to the contrary.

Saruman and the other guy, this is a discussion for adults, or at least people who can act like them when appropriate. You don't seem to qualify.

See my other post as to where the real wanton destruction and vandalism took place.

Saruman

Actually come to think of it... Is it not Isreal blowing the fúck out of the church? They are only taking refuge in it!! hmm...

ReefBreak

I guess my statement comes from a whole day of reading www.indymedia.ie where broad, sweeping, childish allegations posted as "facts" (with little in the way of proof) are the order of the day.

- The media have been using the term "hostages" for the whole period of the siege. Up until now, I've had no reason to refer to it any other way.
- The church was desecrated - it's all over the news. Bugler, what would your reaction be if the Israelis had desecrated a sacred Muslim site?
- Isreali soldiers reported explosive devices being left in the church - if you're going to believe the palestinians, you may aswell believe the Israelis also. Unlike you, Bugler, I'm unbiased. And unlike the Guardian, I support neither the Isrealis nor the Palestinians. Do you nornally accuse people of lying when they issue statements that you're not comfortable with?

Anyway, I'd be disgusted if a foreign country offered to accept an IRA or RIRA scumbag. Why should we offer a palestinian terrorist the same hospitality?

bugler

So you have absolutely no proof do you? Isn't that what you're saying? Read over your post again. "It was all over the news". But yet you can't find me one example? You've been on this board for the last 45 minutes Reefbreak. You were looking. Did you find one of these multiple examples of the media referring to hostages? Are you more concerned with what the media says than what the truth actually is? Find me some of thes emedia examples Reefbreak. You say there are loads.

Above I have proved that those held inside the church were there of their own volition. Spitting out your dummy and crying won't help you here Reef. I've seen plenty of liars like yourself dance onto the boards, and seen them dance right off again. You say you're not biased, then use Israeli soldiers as the basis for saying the Church was booby trapped.

To round off:-

The media have been using the term "hostages" for the whole period of the siege. Up until now, I've had no reason to refer to it any other way.

Has my previous post not shown otherwise. Id the media have used it, which I'm not sure they have, then you should be able to find plenty of examples.

The church was desecrated - it's all over the news.

Well then point me to an article! All over the news? Yet you can't find any evidence can you Reefbreak?

Bugler, what would your reaction be if the Israelis had desecrated a sacred Muslim site?

The church wasn't desecrated. So the question isn't relevant. But if you must force me, I'd be appalled. As appalled as if Palestinians desecrated a Church.

if you're going to believe the palestinians, you may aswell believe the Israelis also

I didn't quote the Palestinians Reefbreak. I quoted the Guardian, the clergy inside, and the peace activists. None of those inside said they were held against their will. Are they lying? Do they want to protect these awful men who held them hostage and risked their lives? If you want I'll go get some more articles from the independent, Ha'aretz and so on.

Do you nornally accuse people of lying when they issue statements that you're not comfortable with?

I accuse people of lying when I think they are lying. And you can't back up what you've been saying. I await the moderators intervention here. You can't back up your arguments, you have no place making these allegations.

ReefBreak

But yet you can't find me one example? You've been on this board for the last 45 minutes Reefbreak. You were looking.

Yawn. No I wasn't looking, I was working. RTE and Today FM have referred to them as hostages for the last few weeks - that's my source. Although fair enough, it looks like they and I were wrong.

Well then point me to an article! All over the news? Yet you can't find any evidence can you Reefbreak?

Okay, a quick look. First search result, we'll see what comes up....
From http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/05/11/bethlehem.church.ap/

One priest complained the foreigners had desecrated the church by smoking and drinking alcohol.

A priest prays at the Grotto, the site where Jesus Christ is traditionally believed to have been born.
A Bethlehem Christian, 18-year-old Sandy Shaheen, was in tears as she looked at the interior of the basilica Friday. "This is the place where Jesus was born. I can't believe this is the house of God -- just look at it," said Shaheen, who worships at the Church of the Nativity every Sunday.

Also...

Father Nicholas said the gunmen kept their weapons with them at all times, and in the first days took candelabras, icons, candles and "anything that looked like gold." Some of the valuables were later returned, he said.

Israeli bomb experts swept the church and found 40 explosive devices. Experts neutralized 25 devices and an American bomb squad with sniffer dogs disarmed the rest, according to a military source.

I accuse people of lying when I think they are lying.

Oh you think was lying. Moderator please.

Back to the topic at hand: Bugler, do you agree with Ireland accepting Palestinian militants/terrorists?

bugler

My god! Drinking and smoking in the Church! The sacrilege! One old fogey of a priest whinging about how some men didn't stick to the oh so vital rules regarding conduct in the church does not make desecration. Instead of using lies you now just hide behind weasel words and subjective interpretation. I already pointed out the possible theft of artifacts by the militants, so I'm not sure what you thought you gained from posting that. I see no independent confirmation of the booby trap claims. To be honest if the shít hit the fan then I'd have expected the Palestinians to have defensive booby traps in place. The fact that explosive devices were "found inside" does not clear the matter up, much like the fact that this information came from 'military sources'. To recap, you said there were hostages, there were not. You said they desecrated the Church, I don't think any reasonable person would consider what happened in there 'desecration'. Maybe if the Israeli's didn't turn the water off periodically the place mightn't have got so messy. You said it was booby-trapped, remains to be seen. Open to interpretation. The military's view could hardly be unbiased, a quality you place such high worth on.

Don't worry about the moderators, I pm'ed them long ago.

To get onto topic, as I said in the PM I'm sorry for dragging it off topic, i think that if Ireland can help in this deal (which they can) then yes we should take some if needed. We've had the likes of Kissinger, not to mention numerous other leaders who have been complicit in the killing of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Especially U.S Presidents. So why should we turn our noses at someone who at least did the job himself and didn't get others to do his bidding from an office? If we implement a policy of not allowing ANY people with innocent blood on their hands into Ireland, then let's keep the Palestinian militants out too, got my support. Unfortunately, because of the need for Ireland to brown-nose powerful countries and their leaders that won't happen. That's politics.

Hobbes

The media have been using the term "hostages" for the whole period of the siege.

I checked BBC news. Did a search for "Church siege" found loads of references, no mention of hostages. Did a search for "Church hostages" and found nothing.

Tried google next, only real mentions where pro-israeli papers claimed monks told them but I could find no reference on any neutral site, nothing else (Palistine denys it).

About the closest I Could find was...

Lt. Col. Olivier Rafowicz, the Israeli army spokesman who announced the release at the checkpoint, said: "We know the [remaining] priests inside are hostages. They don't want to say it."

When told that in phone interviews, some of the clergy members have denied being held against their will, Rafowicz replied: "When you have 200 guns on your head, it is difficult to talk freely."

.. and ..

Father David Jaeger, spokesman for the Franciscan custodians of Roman Catholic sites in the Holy Land said on Friday that the Franciscans feared the Israeli army was trying to legitimize an "imminent" attack on the Church of Nativity by declaring the friars inside to be hostages.

- The church was desecrated -

Again I had a look to see if it had about Palistinians doing it. I couldn't find anything. Even CNN mentions it wasn't badly damaged. Again this was the closest I could find.

Another priest told The Associated Press that foreign peace activists who sneaked into the church later desecrated the holy site by smoking and drinking alcohol inside.

Something muslims can't do (drink that is, don't know about smoking). Also that news site seems to mention about how they weren't hostages also.

Isreali soldiers reported explosive devices being left in the church

That is true, they found 40. However none of them were set up within the church (primed for use seems to be added in some stories to imply they had boobytrapped the church). So they found boobytraps, but the church wasn't boobytrapped.

Hobbes

getting back on topic. I'd say he would probably get whacked by the Mossad. Israel see Europe as unfriendly to thier wishes so I think they would dispense with the diplomatic method.

Jpaulik

I thought he was only being exiled, not imprisoned here. Not being able to return to your motherland is a bad enough punishment.

joey D

see if he's any good at football and he could play for Kildare in the championship.

The Gopher

Greece,Ireland,Spain,Portugal,Italy.Notice anything?
All countries that relied on the EU partly,and in the case of greece still do,to build infrastructure like roads and provide employment to the masses.It would seem to be that all thjose accepting these boys are the poor countries of europe,as if we owe them.I dont see the UK or france or germany on the list.

Victor

Originally posted by The Gopher
Greece,Ireland,Spain,Portugal,Italy.Notice anything?

It could also reflect the preference of the exiled men.

dathi1

Not too keen on the current illegal immigration numbers coming into Ireland but these guys are genuine refugees who fought against one of the worst oppressive, racist, land grabbing regimes ever to exist. He deserves a medal. Will be at the airport with Palestinian flags to cheer him in. Long live Palestine.

Sand

What have they done that makes them worthy of a medal? You dont know the first thing about them or what acts they have carried out.

Chaos-Engine

Originally posted by The Gopher
Greece,Ireland,Spain,Portugal,Italy.Notice anything?
All countries that relied on the EU partly,and in the case of greece still do,to build infrastructure like roads and provide employment to the masses.It would seem to be that all thjose accepting these boys are the poor countries of europe,as if we owe them.I dont see the UK or france or germany on the list.

Well Ireland under Charlie was VERY friendly with arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern countries. Being neutral helps. Because Charlie Haughey visited Cornol Gadafe in his tent in Libya Ireland is the only Western country in the world were Irish citzens don't need a Liybian permit to enter Liybia...

Ireland has alot of Pro-Palistinian feeling within. "What with all the we have resistance movments and understand what being a suppressed ppl crap"

Both Spain and Italy house exiled governments the world over. Italy housed Arafat for a time. It still holds large numbers of exiled Palistinians(as far as i know but Oslo may have changed that)...

In A Nutshell: "Ireland is neutral"... To express our position we must act neutrally... e.g. Nazi members being invited to state dinners along with the UK etc.

ReefBreak

Not too keen on the current illegal immigration numbers coming into Ireland but these guys are genuine refugees who fought against one of the worst oppressive, racist, land grabbing regimes ever to exist. He deserves a medal. Will be at the airport with Palestinian flags to cheer him in. Long live Palestine.

Daithi1, I believe there might be a couple of IRA and RIRA men coming in on the next flight. I assume you'll be waiting at the arrival doors cheering those scumbags into Ireland also?

dathi1

Michael Collins, William Mac bride, Robert Emmet, //////// Bobby Sands, The Loughgall Martyrs, Mairead O Farrell, Gerry Kelly, Martin Ferris /////////// Al Asqua, Fattah.... Yasser,,,, yep I suppose yer right.

not too keen on the RIRA and Hizzbollah though.

Bateman

I don't think its right for Ireland to take this man in unless we can guarantee his safety. Which would be next to impossible. Apart, I think that its a strange gesture, I was quite shocked, when I heard Ireland being mentioned to have "offered" to take one.

And having watched the siege of the Nativity for the week or two on BBC World, I can honestly say I NEVER ONCE heard the monks beoing referred to as "hostages".

alastair

since this is a deal done with the israelis, I doubt that mossad will be flying in to kill anyone. They just want these people out of their hair. My worry is how long he will want to stay once he see's what a bunch of racists we are becoming.

ReefBreak

Originally posted by dathi1
Michael Collins, William Mac bride, Robert Emmet, //////// Bobby Sands, The Loughgall Martyrs, Mairead O Farrell, Gerry Kelly, Martin Ferris /////////// Al Asqua, Fattah.... Yasser,,,, yep I suppose yer right.

not too keen on the RIRA and Hizzbollah though.

Not sure if you're being sarcastic here but anyway...

Michael Collins, William Mac bride, Robert Emmet... always dragged up by apologists of the 'RA to make excuses for their atrocities - try this methodology to the families of the dead and injured and see how far you get.

Bobby Sands, The Loughgall Martyrs, Mairead O Farrell, Gerry Kelly, Martin Ferris... Former Terrorists.

Al Asqua, Fattah.... Yasser...Terrorists.

ReefBreak

Correction: Yasser... Former Terrorist

bugler

The problem here of course is that the term 'terrorist' is open to interpretation. Perhaps not with Reefbreak, I'm sure he can give us the definitive list of terrorists, but then then he doesn't place much weight on others opinions. Arafat is constantly being juggled from legitimate leader to terrorist and back again.

Michael Collins, William Mac bride, Robert Emmet... always dragged up by apologists of the 'RA to make excuses for their atrocities - try this methodology to the families of the dead and injured and see how far you get.

That's not much of an argument is it? If you're going to try and rebutt republican use of past heroes then at least try doing it properly, and don't resort to shallow sentimentalism. I don't agree with the association of past IRA figures to recent ones either, by the way. The word terrorist causes a lot of hassle, and maybe we should act like Reuters do and stop using the word, I'm not sure. I think Sharon, Putin, Reagan, Bush, Kennedy, Assad and...well you get the idea, could all be considered 'terrorists'. Such vindictive labelling does little good.

Just a point on Hezbollah, who seem to have come off quite badly in this thread

While I have yet to receive confirmation that I'm their PRO in Ireland, a couple of points should be noted. Hezbollah were fighting an occupying army in their sovereign country, not even the "Palestine isn't/was never a country" argument can be used here. Due to the geography of the area, the South Lebanon conflict was quite conventional combat. It bears no resemblance to Gaza or the West Bank. Hezbollah's suicide bombers were, as a general rule, used against military targets. The current strife involving Hezbollah revolves around the Shebaa Farms region, which they claim is Lebanese, the U.N says Syrian, yet Israel still occupies it. The habit of Hezbollah infrequently firing rockets into northern Israel shouldn't be regarded with much surprise, considering Israel also strikes against Lebanese villages in a similar manner.

I think it highlights how easily judged groups are, either harshly or justly. Ultimately, there are a lot more dangerous and threatening people in our country, and the fact that we have helped resolve in some way a very tricky international problem should remove doubts about whether we should take in militants.

NutJob

In fairness verry few of us understand the situation in israil and at the risk of getting flamed a "Terrorist" is anyone who opposes a goverment using armed methods. America has twisted the war in Israyel into two sides and is famous for changeing "occupied zones" into "Held Areas" makeing anyone who attacks them a "terrorist". It is widley agreed that two sepreate states need to be set up to end the conflict but that isnt exactly too easy.

Im not a big fan of american forigne involvmentit makes me verry cautious of what i believe


Note: Michael collins was a terrorist, Dev a terrorist, Pierce a terrorist



(Yes i know the official meaning of "terrorist" is someone who uses terror tactics but so do the SAS)

Victor

Originally posted by NutJob
In fairness verry few of us understand the situation in israil

Perhaps you are being unfair to "us"? and I thought the "situation" was in the West Bank, not Israel. We don't know who these men are exactly other than some are militants and some are policemen. Let us have some more information before we agree with labling them.

Originally posted by NutJob
at the risk of getting flamed a "Terrorist" is anyone who opposes a goverment using armed methods.

I think you are being simplistic here. Are you suggesting pro-government / government-sponsored militias and death squads, e.g. the pro-Indonesian militias in 2 years ago in East Timor, and the UDA, aren't "terrorists"? Soldiers who engage in massacres, indiscriminate bombing and mass sabotage aren't? Please see Terrorist and Terrorism

ter·ror·ism The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Are you excusing the unlawful use of violence simply because it is government sponsored or alternatively not directed at a government, but at a people?

Originally posted by NutJob
Note: Michael collins was a terrorist, Dev a terrorist, Pierce a terrorist

Assuming we are talking about Pearse in 1916. Collins in 1916-1920. DeVelera 1920-1923.

The difference between them was Pearse used violence (against the State) without a genuine mandate to create further violence and martyrdom with a distant aim of independence. Collins used directed, but extreme, violence (against the State, Protestants and the upper classes) with some mandate with direct aim of independence. DeVelera used violence (against the State) when there was a stated popular preference against it (by referendum). All engaged in terrorism, but Collins is different from the others as he (a) had a mandate from the people (b) threatened / used violence against civilians in respose to Army retribtion against civilians.

Originally posted by NutJob
(Yes i know the official meaning of "terrorist" is someone who uses terror tactics but so do the SAS)

This does not excuse the SAS, if it engages in inappropriate actions.

bonkey

Originally posted by NutJob
Note: Michael collins was a terrorist, Dev a terrorist, Pierce a terrorist

Note: No - they were not terrorists.

They limited their targets to military and government officials of what they saw as an occupying force. Yes, there were innocent casualties, but everyone keeps telling me that this is expected in war, and while tragic is accepted.

So they were freedom fighting or using guerrilla warfare. They were not employing terrorism.

Having said that, however, I would point out that our "guests" have never been tried in a court of law, and never been found guilty of any crime. I love how the very concepts of law go out the window when its expedient.

"Oh - look - we must chastise them for breaking the laws, but we dont actually need to pay much heed to them ourselves".

Victor

Originally posted by bonkey
Note: No - they were not terrorists. They limited their targets to military and government officials of what they saw as an occupying force. Yes, there were innocent casualties, but everyone keeps telling me that this is expected in war, and while tragic is accepted. So they were freedom fighting or using guerrilla warfare. They were not employing terrorism.

No, there are specific incidents where civilians were targeted, especially in West Cork as counter-reprisals, e.g. the IRA shoot a soldier, the British Army burns 3 houses of 'sympathisers', the IRA burns 10 houses of local Protestants / landlords / big farmers. (sorry for going OT)

bugler

I think if you're going to use specific incidents in order to label whole movements/campaigns/armies then there has never been an army/movement/campaign in existence that could not be described as "terrorist".

dathi1

try this methodology to the families of the dead and injured and see how far you get.

You mean you would ask Palestinian "accidentally killed on purpose" relatives the same question??

Wheres Jihad?? I want to give him a medal. For bravery, Standing up for his countrymen, Fighting the land grabbers, Doing a runner and saving his own skin and surviving the largest American backed land grabbing, occuping military machine in the world. A real politcal Refugee for a change. Ps: No extradition

PHB

I'm sorry but I'm incredibly pro-palestine and I think that this terrorist should be brought to justice but I think that it was a nessacary solution to the seige for them to come here. He is exiled, i.e he can't return to his own country, and I don't think he enjoys full rights of a citazin

mike65

dathi1,

Are you the same dathi1/daithi on the boards at
www.dannymorrison.com by any chance?

Mike.

dathi1

geez ..he even set up his own site.....I think he's a bit weird but interesting to read / listen. No not me there are loads of Daithis around except I misspell mine without the first i

Bateman

Its easy for state terrorism to be confused with state defence when you have the propaganda machine that is Israel constantly coming out with the crap that they do. I think it says it all when you see Israeli soldiers killing young Palestinian girls out feeding sheep, and then the 14 yo sister of the dead girl says "I'm next in the queue to be a suicide bomber". Thats powerful, but far from defending it, we have to try to understand WHY people are willing to do this.

bonkey

Originally posted by Bateman
I think it says it all when you see Israeli soldiers killing young Palestinian girls out feeding sheep, and then the 14 yo sister of the dead girl says "I'm next in the queue to be a suicide bomber". Thats powerful, but far from defending it, we have to try to understand WHY people are willing to do this.

Actually - I dont really think it is defensible.

The 14yo sister you refer to is not seeking revenge, nor justice. She is not going after her sister's killers. She is turning herself into a worse form of the individuals she is striking back at. They killed some innocent people, so she will kill some innocent people.

I never believed in taking "an eye for an eye" that far.

I could understand her joining armed resistance which fought against the Israeli military. I cannot understand her wanting to be the same type of killer that took her sister from her.

There's a deeper reason. Unless we assert that the Palestinians are unique in how they seek to avenge the deaths of their loved ones, there must be other factors.

These factors are what we need to discover.

jc

Getting back to the subject of the thread, Palestinian "Terrorist" to come to Ireland....

Why is he being brought here? I mean, like, why should we expend resources on protecting him from the Israeli's? give him to Israel... let them deal with him. What right have we to jump in on the problem between palestine and israel? Seems to me that the rest of the world is making a big enough hash of things without Ireland joining in....

Regardless of which explanation of terrorism, this person is a crinimal and should be treated as such. If a member of the Sept 11th came to ireland, they'd be a huge hurry to pass him, to the americans for "justice".


One other point. You mentioned Michael Collins and such earlier on. That was not Terrorism. That was Guerilla Warfare. There is a difference. Terrorism exists when there is no state of war. Collins and the old IRB declared the war, fought the british army (& its informers), and won our freedom. Personally i find myself sickened when an irishman will compare Collins & such to the present day terrorists, especially when you owe your freedom to their efforts.

But then thats just me.

dathi1

One other point. You mentioned Michael Collins and such earlier on. That was not Terrorism. That was Guerilla Warfare. There is a difference. Terrorism exists when there is no state of war. Collins and the old IRB declared the war, fought the british army (& its informers), and won our freedom. Personally i find myself sickened when an irishman will compare Collins & such to the present day terrorists, especially when you owe your freedom to their efforts.

To be honest I think Collins done a good job of instigating our intifada back then. Although I don’t think Jihad (our man in Ireland) would have a patch on him.........Collins was no nice guy guerilla warfare leader...remember he planed and shot many of his victims whilst still in bed. Also many of them were ordinary Dubliners working on behalf of the British civil service...and most people at the time totally repudiated his actions. I’m not one for using the word terrorist but Collins wasn’t far off the mark.

---I’m not one for using the word terrorist but Collins wasn’t far off the mark.---


Just a mark of the times. I don't disagree with you abt what collins did. Thats documentated. However i Do believe that there is an unbelieveable gap in comparing collins to a modern day terrorist.

---Wheres Jihad?? I want to give him a medal. For bravery, Standing up for his countrymen, Fighting the land grabbers, Doing a runner and saving his own skin and surviving the largest American backed land grabbing, occuping military machine in the world----

By rights i should be supporting Jihad, right? Well no.

1) Palestine didn't exist 50 years ago. Its a combination of many arab beliefs, and cultural entities. Palestine is a modern term created by accident when israel invaded arab occupied areas.

2) Its funny when people look at this area of conflict, and totally forget that the Arab Nations attacked Israel first. Think bck to when Israel stunned the world with a military counter-attack that amazed military specialists in their ability to crush a larger, better equiped army. Palestine was born at the moment that Israel refused to draw bck from Arab territories. My Respect is for Israel in this instance. (Remember Israel was not backed by America at this stage, and the Arab nations were partially bcked by Russia. Also there was no ban on importing weapons to the Arabs, when it was frowned by America/Europe for weapons to be allowed into Israel)

3) Suicide Bombing is the worst case of slaughter of the last 40 years. Fine... if they want to limit their attacks to military targets then they'll receive some sympathy from me, but the methods they use only give Israel, the right to deal with them in any way possoble (at least in my eyes).

The arabs and the Israeli's have been having this War of theirs ever since the British withdrew from their colonies after WW2. From the books i have read, and the documentaries on TV that i have seen, it has been countries such as Jordan, Egypt, and Syria that have hounded Israel for the last 60 years. The people living in the area called Palestine are a by-product of that madness.

Give this Terrorist to the israeli's. Let them have justice for the crimes that he has performed. Extradite the slime.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
Why is he being brought here? I mean, like, why should we expend resources on protecting him from the Israeli's? give him to Israel... let them deal with him. What right have we to jump in on the problem between palestine and israel? Seems to me that the rest of the world is making a big enough hash of things without Ireland joining in....

Perhaps we have a duty to accpet him?

---Perhaps we have a duty to accpet him?---

why?

This man is a crinimal. Let him be brought to justice.

Fine. If we are to accept him. Then let him be tried for his crimes and sentenced.

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
This man is a crinimal. Let him be brought to justice. Fine. If we are to accept him. Then let him be tried for his crimes and sentenced.

Who says they are criminals? Who's definition are we to use? What crime do you say they have committed (when you don't even know their names)?

Accepting them here gives breathing space for some conflict resolution. Conflict resolution usually involves the necessity to be creative while ensuring fairness.

--- Who says they are criminals? Who's definition are we to use? What crime do you say they have committed (when you don't even know their names)?

Accepting them here gives breathing space for some conflict resolution. Conflict resolution usually involves the necessity to be creative while ensuring fairness ----


I must admit that i don't know their names. Do you? And i fail to see why, i don't know their names, excludes them from the premise that they committed a crime.

Also i have said earlier that i think that they should be tried by a court either by Israel or by us. The courts would decide whether they are crinimals. I've assumed that they are terrorists, maybe incorrectly by the simple fact that nearly everything that is linked to palestine is corncerned with their suicide bombers.

Have you a specific link to any news article online, that gives an unbiased view of their circumstances & the reasons why they are coming to Ireland?

--- breathing space for some conflict resolution.---

As for this, i seem to remember that before israel sent in their tanks, a plea was made by israel for peace. And what happened? More suicide attacks by Palestinians.

Xterminator

Originally posted by klaz
---
Also i have said earlier that i think that they should be tried by a court either by Israel or by us. The courts would decide whether they are crinimals. I've assumed that they are terrorists, maybe incorrectly by the simple fact that nearly everything that is linked to palestine is corncerned with their suicide bombers.

As for this, i seem to remember that before israel sent in their tanks, a plea was made by israel for peace. And what happened? More suicide attacks by Palestinians.

Perhaps if they were going to get a fair trial, then that might be appropriate, providing we had an extradition treaty with Israel.

But seeing as Israel has vowed to assasinate these people, and has no intention of giving them a trial (surely you believe in the right to a fair trial?) then the correct thing to do is to protect there human rights. (Surely you believe they have basic human rights?)

X

Victor

Originally posted by klaz
I must admit that i don't know their names. Do you? And i fail to see why, i don't know their names, excludes them from the premise that they committed a crime.

No, I don't know their names. So in an attempt to be reasonable, I am not accusing someone (who's identity I do not know) of a crime (have specific charges been made?). I argue that you are making either an unfair or unreasonable presumption.

Originally posted by klaz
Also i have said earlier that i think that they should be tried by a court either by Israel or by us.

But there is no accusation generally or specifically of these men committing a crime in either Israel or Ireland.

Originally posted by klaz
I've assumed that they are terrorists, maybe incorrectly by the simple fact that nearly everything that is linked to palestine is corncerned with their suicide bombers.

Which I think unfairly judges both side in the conflict.

Originally posted by klaz
Have you a specific link to any news article online, that gives an unbiased view of their circumstances & the reasons why they are coming to Ireland?

I'm not sure if one exists. It is nigh impossible to be not taken by one, other or both (or all?) sides.

Originally posted by klaz
--- breathing space for some conflict resolution.---
As for this, i seem to remember that before israel sent in their tanks, a plea was made by israel for peace. And what happened? More suicide attacks by Palestinians.

I don't remember any specific plea, but it would seem difficult to accept a plea when it is made by the party that has the upper hand.

dathi1

Palestine didn't exist 50 years ago. Its a combination of many arab beliefs, and cultural entities. Palestine is a modern term created by accident when israel invaded arab occupied areas.

Wrong again the Land Of Palestine and trans Jordan has always existed...well before the settlement of European Jews in 1942-1948. The Biblical Kingdom of Israel existed also. Hashimites, Yemenites, Jordanians, Assyrians made up the bulk of the population until 1948. The then 2% Jewish population exploded which resulted in Palestinians being thrown out of their houses and land from Haifa in the North to Eliat in the south. The Israeli State was then set up by the UN at the behest of the British and the Jewish paramilitary stern gang and other Zionists won the Day with a Jewish State for Jewish people. Weather you like it or not the day will come when the Palestinian people will get the state they deserve...just like the Kuwaitis, Iraqis, Lebanese and of course us the Irish.

bonkey

Originally posted by klaz
Also i have said earlier that i think that they should be tried by a court either by Israel or by us.

Technically, I dont think Ireland can try them. They are not Irish citizens, nor are they alleged to have comitted any crimes in Ireland.

Israel has a better claim to try them, except that its jurisdiction in the particular region has long been contested by Palestine. For an international court, or any individual nation to grant the Israeli's jurisdiction would involve that nation making a definitive statement on who's jurisdiction it recognises - Palestine's or Israel's.

I cant think of any nation bold enough to make that step, nor can I imagine the Israelis and Palestinians agreeing to such arbitration.

Personally, I am now of the opinion that the deal was brokered with both sides firmly intending to screw the other, and leaving the door open for them to do so.

Israel wanted the men extradited, and stated as much pretty much as soon as they landed in Cyprus. They only wanted them banished from Palestine - not Israel - leaving the door open for them to claim jurisdiction (because the Palestinians cannot try and punish them without allowing them back into the country, which would be in breach of the agreement).

Palestine, on the other hand, is playing the human rights card, pointing out that while these men remain unconvicted of a crime by a court who has jurisdiction over them, it is a breach of their human rights to restrict their movement and to deny them re-entry to their home nation.

End result - yet another stalemate which will ultimately have a bad ending one way or the other. Why did it end up this way? As I said - its my belief that it ended this way because both sides brokered a deal they intend to stick to the letter of, but which they made sure left them enough grounds to screw the other side with.

When the two governments deal with each other in this way, is it any wonder that they talk about not trusting each other. Neither is dealing in good faith - so one casting aspersions on the other is just another pot and kettle affair really.....

jc