egafd.com

Ah, but Israel is a state now, Bob. We must forget that many of its politicians were the same people planting bombs in hotels and killing civilians when Britain occupied Palestine.

That's the depressing thing for me----today's terrorists are tomorrow's statesmen. The amount of blood on their hands is hardly worth mentioning, so long as they achiece their goal.


Here's a for instance: how would the people in the south-easten area of England react if people from around the world came to Colchester and said, "We are all Iceni, and this is our ancestral home." They wouldn't have a chance. The Americans wouldn't dare allow the Indians to take back the land stolen from them, or the Canadians. The Aussies and Kiwis would laugh in the faces of their aboriginal peoples. So why----apart from a collective sense of guilt, and perhaps an opportunistic thought of having a reliable ally in the area---did the west allow a long-exiled people to muscle out the Palestinians? Okay, there's more to the situation than just that, but it's a big question all the same.

Caractacus wrote:

Ah, but Israel is a state now, Bob. We must forget that many of its politicians were the same people planting bombs in hotels and killing civilians when Britain occupied Palestine.

SNIP




It's true that in some cases today's terrorist is tomorrow's world statesman, but in most cases they are attempting to change the regime under which they live (Mandela being a case in point).

Israel is different. While Menachim Begin was a terrorist (google King David Hotel incident for more info) before Israel became independent, other Israeli Prime Ministers have been actively involved in terrorism since independence. Mind you, we shouldn't be too surprised. The country that has broken more UN resolutions than any other is... yes, you've guessed it, Israel.

To help them out further, the US has used its UN Security Council veto over 70 times, and since the early 70s has been the most prolific user of the veto, almost all of them in favour of Israel.

The last instance was just over a week ago on 13th July. The text of the proposed resolution would have explicitly condemned Israel?s current ?military assault? in Gaza, which, it said, ?has caused the killing and injury of dozens of Palestinian civilians? and destroyed Gaza?s main power station.

In early 2003 the US even vetoed a resolution condemning Israel for the deaths of UN personel at the hands of the Israeli army, and the destruction of a UN food dump meant for Palestinian refugees whose homes had been bulldozed by the Israeli army just a few months earlier! That's the Negroponte Doctrine for you (named after a US embassador to the UN who said the US would always veto a resolution against Israel that didn't also condemn terrorist groups such as Hamas. Even though the death of the UN personel was 100% the fault of Israeli soldiers and was not the result of accidental death during a fire-fight with Palestinians, the resolution was vetoed)


Your Iceni point is well made. The west felt guilty for what had happened to the Jews during the war. In addition, the west has for many centuries had a racist attitude towards Arabs in general, so giving some Arab owned land to mainly European Jews wasn't exactly a hard decision to make.

You're on point! Tell it like it tiz!

Got to correct you Caractacus. You said " The Aussies and Kiwis would laugh in the faces of their aboriginal peoples."
Here in NZ successive governments have recognized the injustices suffered by the Maori iwi (tribes) and the Waitangi Tribunal has paid large amounts of compensation both in financial and property rights to the various iwi.
The tribunal was established in 1975 based on the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi signed by the Pakeha (Brits) and a number of iwi in 1840.
There are, of course, racist whingers on both sides, but although the situation isn't perfect its a damn sight better than in many other countries.
And to put it into a financial context the annual expenditure has been c.NZ$10 tax dollars per capita.

Mart

Israel has a right to defend its citizens, if someone launched a rocket at your house would you just sit there and do nothing.

I'm not sure what I would do but I wouldn't launch a rocket back...I don't have any.

Mart

Leaky wrote:

Israel has a right to defend its citizens, if someone launched a rocket at your house would you just sit there and do nothing.


==================================


That rather depends doesn't it?

There are many here who defend the right of the homeowner to use whatever means necessary to ward off burglars.

It could be argued that's all the Palestinians are doing... fighting to have returned to them what was stolen by others.

If I broke into your house and kicked you out, who has the greater right... you attempting to get your property back or me defending myself against your attempts?

I'm gon post anyway! Now go take you a doodoo!

I stand corrected, Mart. Cheers.