You forgot to add that said family with no home might be without a home because they lived in a building that was bombed to get rid of a terrorist, and their children died on that bombing made by israeli soldiers. That man probably has no reason to live but their hate for Israeli soldiers (he doesn't care if you were killing a terrorist and acting for teh greater good because he cannot know that and doesn't fidn that a reason for their family deaths).

On the other side integrist jews will find fertile ground for spreading hate to palestinians among the people who used to live in the settlements and are now being told to leave their homes, while their children are killed on a bus bombing on the way to school. Even if them leaving illegally occupied territories is the only way to start finishing this. People just care about being forced out of their homes and about integrist palestinians killing their families (probably, that man a while ago who was given the bomb by the real terrorist).

Meanwhile, Israel must go killing that terrorist and bombs their house so people don't give support to terrorists anymore. And we're back at point A, with a newly recruited future walking bomb. So, it's a fish that's eating it's own tail and sadly, nobody is right there.

Won't get into how america and europe aren't helping things a bit because that would be just too long.



Both sides acted wrong a long time. Europe and America helped that. Now, it seemed to be finally coming to reason, and everybody seemed to be more moderated. But until you manage to get the general population to be involved in that, and until no more hate is created on both sides, there's no way this is solved. A terrorist government doesn't help a bit, same as an ortodhox(sp) extreme government wouldn't help in Israel side. But taking sides and saying that you're right and they're the offenders just doesn't help either.


How many gipsies where killed during the holocaust? Wich % of the total gipsy population was killed? Where is their country?
How many native indians were killed during the english invasion of north america? Where is their country?
How many south and central american indians?

A perceived need doesn't validate your right to a country. It's scary a soldier using that argument, sorry. It validates automatically the right for a lot of people to have their own countries (starting with the vasque country terrorists).

okay, Avaer...
The situation of terrorists being aided by other Arab countries is a fact. It is also a fact that they have not the proper foundations to have a proper educational system. This is not being racial, this is from being there myself.
Now, Iridiel... do not state that both sides acted wrong, you have no clue as to what goes on other then looking it up over the web or any other international news programs like NBC and the like. When terorrist blockades himself within a building and sometimes holds hostages, all residents are evecuated and aye, the building is brought down. Israeli soldiers are risking their lives on a daily basis in order to enter a hostile territory, and unfamiliar buildings in order to kill the terrorist rather then bringing down the building. Sometimes, the risk is simply too great. Even when we bombed the Gazza strip after the Kassam shooting, we bombed the northern parts in which none lives- empty fields.

As for the holocust, do not compare these situations. 7 million jews, remember the number well. throughout the course of history none were hunted nor slaughtered in such a manner. We were scattered around the globe and we did not shout out for national recognition. But the holocaust was the final blow that proved that we simply did not manage to live our lives without having a country of our own. We fought to and we shed blood in order to live here, we have a right to exist just like any other country out there. The sad part of it all is, that the Palestians' too have a right to be recognized- which is exactly why this conflict is not drawing to a closure.
A terrorist group rose to power, for the Hammas always acted under the guise of a movement which helps the poor. Terror will bring forth more terror and meanwhile over here we're on the verge of civil war.

You may think what you will, but blaming everyone for whatever you -think- is the truth is most condescending. Live here, be one of us, then perhaps you will have a full view of things... but untill you do, your opinion is incoplete and your judgement unfair.



I take that back. It is vey much possible that many of you draw your information from many sources of information. But I still stand by what I've said. Untill you've lived, breathed and walked here- your view is only a portion of the truth and on half truths judgement should not be made.

Just would like to say that there is a world of difference between "X problem" and "problem in x" You should NOT be calling it the Palestian Problem, because its not a palestian problem, its a terrorism problem. Palestians living without terrorism as their main 'diplomacy' would be just fine, and they would have had thier own country back in 2000. However, as long as terrorists are the ones who have control, they will not be able to have peace. If its too much for you to write the word "in" then call it a Terrorism problem, because thats all it is.

There may be a "Problem IN Israel" .. but that is a WORLD of difference.

I'm not even sure why Israel was even brought up in the thread talking about freedom of speach in Europe.


Oh, Iridel, don't get me started on the UN... They have caused nothing but trouble for Israel since 1948. They don't even recognize the Magen David Adom (Red Cross in Israel.. meaning Red Star of David) as a valid health agency. However, if Israel decided to rename thier agency "The red circle" they would get all the funding they desire, its purely the name, not the way its run. However they have no problem accepting the Red Cresent. So Israel won't get funds from the red cross to help with terror victims, but Suicide bomer's families will get money from the Red Cross through the Red Crescent.

And thats just the tip of the iceberg.

Until you have been a palestian and lived like a palestinian you also only know half the truth. You know it by heart, though.

So are we going to turn this into an argument about social upbringing being the blame for the worlds problems? Not that I agree or disagree, but that's a tangent I don't think we can really cover very well here.

I am sure he has walked into Palestian territories many times.

You need only to visit Israel for a weak, and take a small tour of the country to understand the situation.

I know many people who have done so, Jewish and Not Jewish, and actually walking there and seeing it with your own eyes is not an experience that can not be replicated with video cameras.

I have walked Palestenian territory, I have spoke to many Israeli-Arabs who have families in those places and indeed, we have an Arab village near my home-town. I stood in the borders and oversaw the entry of Palestinians into Israeli territory and back. I drew to only one conclusion, they are human beings as any. I will also explain that others do not share my view. You see, after losing enough family members and friends, they ceased to care. I do not presume to know -everything-, but I think I have some firmer grasp of things.
Oren.

Again you read it as a world of difference. To me it reads the same way, like I said took me half an hour of just thinking about it to even see the negative connotation. Don't assume we are all out to delibrately insult you. Thats called a persecution complex. It was a mistake pure and simple.

And that makes you know that they're poor misguided guilty souls while Israel has done everything right since the beggining? Or you're implying that the truth is that no side acted wrong and is right to go around killing each other? (My opinion is taht both sides have done many wrong things since the begining)

Do palestines think the same? Those whose houses were demolished to make sure they never dared have a terrorist in their block/family again? Or those who lost their jobs because they couldn't cross the barriers and go working? There has been examples of preventive killing on Israeli side that had civil victims, just to cite an example.

As long as you're involved in a conflict, you cannot have the absolute truth because you're in the middle of things and affected by them.

I will cite from a page that defends the existence of that equivalent (http://www.redcross.org/services/intl/0,1082,0_453_,00.html):


The Red Cross (not the NU) isn't accepting it (they were debating it on their anual convention on past december) not due to the name but for the symbol, forbidden in many arabic countries (seems that the crescent isn't forbidden anywhere, nor is the cross). Changing something like the Geneva treaty (that protects from many things the already battered human rights) is not something done on a hurry I hope.
Also, as you can see from the same link, Israel organization receives fund from teh Red Cross through private alliances with Red Cross delegations.

Iridiel, talk to me when it is you walking the streets by night and being shot at.

As for the truth, I did not claim us right. But none who doesn't live here has any right what so ever to judge us.
No nation in the world is without guilt to some degree over the course of history- do not think you are better and throw accusations.
For my own calm I am pulling out of this debate. If you think that you know better then someone who is part of this conflict, then you are arrogant.

I think it's easier to be more objective about matters when you're not part of the conflict. Iridiel is clearly not being as emotional as you are. So you're on shaky footing trying to argue ad hominem like that.

"Right to judge us"? Oh? And how do you figure that? If we have a right to free speech we have a right to take a stance on something too, and all the better if we're not the ones being shot and and taking a more emotionally-driven perspective.

EDIT: Stupid doublepost.

Ouch,
Narses, you've reduced me to have opinions on Lusternia, World of Warcraft, the price of things in Barcelona, computers, Macromedia Flex, and probably a dozen more concepts I can experiment practically.
That was mean.

Truth be told, I'm not one for long posts, not reading them, not answering them, not remember what was said and what I should respond to.

I can only imagine some of the things said about Israel in this post in the obvious connection of Israel's problems and international policies and stands.

I won't respond here.

If anyone wishes to speak about anything related to Israel with an Israeli, one with obviously biased opinions, but still someone who can possibly explain at least some of the things that are perhaps a bit murky from the outside, contact me by PM, and we'll find some medium of conversation.

If you wish to make any annoying remark, or reply but not be willing to carry a calm, rational conversation, spare me.

Otherwise, be welcome.

Now how is that NOT anti-semetic?

Its not the name? its just the 2,000 year old symbol used to idenfity jews... Lets Make such symbols illegal!

I mean, its great that finally after 70 years, they are working on maybe finding a sollution... but from a historical perspective, its just redicilous. It doesn't take 50 years to hold a vote. I mean, your link was for the American red Cross, America has alwyas been the only country, with Mozambique,to support Israel in these political matters. And its still been 4 years, since they decided to make that change, and still nothing happened.

You're too quick to cry 'anti-semitism', Daganev. If a Red Crescent exists I don't see why there shouldn't be a red star of David.. but I also don't see why hold ups in the discussion of the topic automatically imply a mass conspiracy of anti-Jewish sentiment. There are bound to be -lots- of other reasons.. and an arrangement like the Geneva Convention can't just be changed at will, or it risks invalidating itself in the eyes of those who subscribe to it.

Let me clarify.
The icon isn't forbidden. It's just not in the list of icons for the Red Cross organization when they made that list. A little budha with a halo isn't in that list either. Not a red scyte. Not a nordic rune. Is that anti-viking or it's just that they didn't ask it when the treaty was put in place and now they have to modify the treaty when it has been requested for it to be a symbol of the red cross?

Now, to put it in there you need to take action and modify some treaties that are to be touched with great care. And the bureocracy, of course. I really prefer this kind of treaties that protect human rights to be changed only with great care, because otherwise you set a precedent. For being a member of a nation whose human rights are been stomped upon so many times and still are (as you claim) you really should be careful on keeping this treaty as widely respected as possible.

Of course, if we're to start with the Anti-semitism I will just retreat, because you obviously aren't here to reason anything.

Lets take a quick look at the UN's and other "international" agenies in regards to Israel.

Now, while in the past few years, specially since 9-11 many things changed... here is a brief list of facts.

Of ten emergency special sessions called by the GA, six have been about Israel. No emergency sessions have been held on the Rwandan genocide, ethnic cleaning in the former Yugoslavia, or the two decades of atrocities in Sudan.


At the U.N. Commission on Human Rights in Geneva, only Israel has its own agenda item (item 8) dealing with alleged human rights violations. All other countries are dealt with in a separate agenda item (item 9). More than one quarter of the resolutions condemning a state's human rights violations adopted by the Commission over the past 40 years have been directed at Israel.


A series of anti-Israel resolutions are passed each year by the GA.


Until recently, Israel was the only member nation consistently denied admission into a regional group. The Arab states continue to prevent Israeli membership in the Asian Regional Group, Israel's natural geopolitical grouping. As a result, Israel sought entry into the Western and Others Group (WEOG) and was granted admission in May 2000 to that regional group in New York, but not in Geneva. Israel's full participation in the U.N., therefore, is still limited and it is restricted from participating in U.N.-Geneva based activities.

With the outbreak of Palestinian violence in September 2000, the environment in the U.N. became increasingly hostile towards Israel. Over the past four years, numerous GA resolutions condemning Israel for its response to Palestinian violence and terrorism have been passed with little or no mention of Palestinian actions.


And here is the kicker.... Following Durban, efforts have been made to address the issue of anti-Semitism at the U.N. Most recently, in June 2004, at the first U.N. Department of Public Information Seminar on Anti-Semitism,
U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan described "an alarming resurgence of this phenomenon." In his speech before the conference, the Secretary General acknowledged that "the United Nations' record on anti-Semitism has at times fallen short of our ideals" and made specific reference to the GA resolution of 1975, equating Zionism with racism, as "an especially unfortunate decision." In concluding his speech, the Secretary General called on the U.N. to take up the fight against anti-Semitism and proclaimed that, "Jews everywhere must feel that the United Nations is their home, too."


So in general, unless there is a full accounting on UN resolutions, I tend to disregard them, and other "international" agencies. Far too often they are just mouth pieces for the Arab nations and the third would countries that depend on them solely for thier economy.


one last thing...
It should be noted that because Israel is currently barred from participating in U.N. Geneva-based regional groups (although Israel is now a member of the New York-based WEOG U.N. regional group) an Israeli judge cannot be elected to the court, nor can the State of Israel even participate in the voting for the makeup of the court.

That is in regards to the World Court in the Hague which declared the Israeli wall "illegal"... Note that it has now been proved without a doubt that the wall has prevented numerous terrorist attacks, and has not had a -big- affect on the palestianian economy.

Just so you don't get the wrong idea here... any human rights violations that Israel has been acussed of, pale in comparions to Darfur, Rowanda, Kosovo, China etc...

We are talking about the difference between mass genonicde, and harrasment at a checkpoint between nations.