One of the truest statements you will find on these boards. Seems like everyone wants the Pals to have a state except their leaders.
Hey boy you should go read some history and maybe you would realize that first Jordan and Eygpt took the land that was supposed to go for a Pal state, and then Arafat refused the land to have a state. As for wanting any nation wiped off the map, only iran has made a public statement as such.
And they are not trying to do exactly that? The only problem is that the only way Israel can be hurt is by unconventional warfare such as what terrorists use. That is why many coward muslim nations support terrorism, since it is the only way they can hurt Israel.
Completly wrong. The first IRA act of terrorism was carried out in January 1976 which was when a ceasefire broke down and the IRA started what was to be called their "Long War". Before that it was attacks on military and Police installations as acts of war not terrorism. An act of Terrorism is generally determined to be an attack to cause terror and confusion on civilians. Therefore in most international relations studies it is agreed that the first general act of terrorism that changed how armies fought and changed how anarchistgroups acted was the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jeruselam carried out by people who were to form the Israeli government. It was murder against civilians and 91 people died in the attack. It was ordered by Menachem Begin who was later to become Prime Minister of Israel.
It's not about blame. It's about facts. If you can find me another act of indiscriminate bombing/murder or terror of civilians that was not carried out in a war - then please do. If you do find it, your better than most acedemics on the subject. Faces sometimes hurt, thats life. There are many horrible facts about the UK, especially during their empire in Africa and India. But they are still facts.
Val, what daisrael is pointing to, either sarcastically or not (it's difficult to tell), is that have a Palestinian territory rather than an actual country is to the benefit most Arab/ME countries. Having a Palestinian territory rather than country keeps Isreal unstable and not able to strongly focus their energies elsewhere. Imagine if Palestine were a full and stable state. Isreal would be able to focus more resources on Iran or Syria or someplace else. Due to the defensive and militaristic nature of Isreal, that could make for a very uncomfortable group of countries.
It also distracts ordinary Arab citizens from taking aim at the failures of their own Governments because the "Palestinian territories" keep their flames of hatred burning. Exactly what Arab leaders want - G-d forbid their citizens had time to think about their own reality for a second.
I would only add this: The King David Hotel was know to be the headquarters of government and military officials of Britain, hence the bombing was not directed at purely civilian targets, but more of a strategic aim to drive Britain out of Palestine. Also, you keep going back to one specific example to point out who used terrorism and while you have a strong argument of doing so, it does not in any way hide the truth of the real terrorism of radical islam.
Please point me to a post of mine that said there has been no terrorism from countries other than Israel? Obviously I know that there has been, and more so from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Islamic Jihad than almost any other organisation in the past 30 years. However I came into the thread when a post said that the IRA were terrorising people before Iran or Israel. As someone who has studied both the Middle East and Irish Terrorism extensivly (I live and was born in London so the IRA has much more of a personal meaning to me) I know full well that that statement was wrong, hence I wrote a post to correct that false statement. Just so you know, the King David Hotel also housed many civilians and junior staff. Staff who were employed to work for their country in administrative roles not military roles. This attack was unprecedented and set a precedent, one which to this day is still remembered.
I am not questioning your reason for entering this debate, more the sole example of one act, which took place even before the establishment of Israel, that has placed, a bigger than life, stain on that country in your eyes.
Oh not at all. Come on, you have been in the other thread (s) that Ive posted in re Israel. I support the right of the State of Israel to exist. Ive never deviated from that. But I also believe that Ariel Sharon should be tried for War Crimes over the massacres in 1982 in Sabra and Chatila. He wasn't and later became the Prime Minister - a position that the rest of the world outside Israel and the pro-Israeli part of the USA found completly unacceptable. So there are two acts, the latter being far more important on the World Stage, the former being more important from a Englishmans point of view. The "stain" as you put it, has been put there by cold hard facts which do not lie. Israel has over-reacted to threats against it disproportionatly to civilians time and again. It has commited more Human Rights abuses than South Africa, yet it is allowed to get away with them because of the protection of America and your media which tells a completly bias story.
I always believe the terrorism is just a tactics for a force who lacks the conventional military power and has big disadvantage for a war. So I normally don't attach "moral" argument to it. People who choose terrorism as fighting tool due to they have "bad" equipment not "bad" moral. A non-terrorism military campaign normally kill more people than terrorism.
Let's not bring Sharon into this, as Sabra and Chatila is way too controversial to discuss it in short. Everything that I read, even in its worst light does not make Sharon anything close to a War Criminal. Second, during Arafat's funeral, who IMO is the father of modern terrorism, you had heads of many states, showing respects to that scumbag. Thirdly, the double, triple standards, which Israel faces, daily, is absurd, any other nation facing what Israel is facing on a daily basis would have use much more force that what Israel has, especially after all the peace attempts, which have been used to spit in the face of Israel. Forgive me for not taking the Human Rights, UN and their like seroiously when they criticize Israel, having some of the most notorious heads of human-right-abuse-nations an the Human Right committee. What seems interesting, is that US and European citizens obviously share a much different opinion on these ME matters, each claiming that the others have media bias.