Why do i even bother. If you highlighted some words and not the hole post everybody can sound bad. Like i said: if All the wars in The middle east are the result of the State israel(because they start wars) I would rather not have that state. It has nothing to do with my feelings about any religion. How many times have you been in Europe so that you can claim that anti-semitism is still Rampant here? Ofcourse there are some idiots who are racists(like facists). but that is not the majority. IMHO in Europe there is more fear and dislike of Islamic people then of Jews. The fact that you feel that israel can't do anything wrong, doesn't mean that when somebody has criticism on Israel they are being Anti-semitic. But i bet you are also a person who calls people who are against the war in Iraq terorist lovers? Or am i mistaken?
As I've said, it's pretty difficult to dismiss this act as 'unintentional'... Report: U.N. observers' calls unheeded http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060726/ap_on_re_mi_ea/mideast_fighting_un_observers KIRYAT SHEMONA, Israel - U.N. observers in southern Lebanon called the Israeli military 10 times during a six-hour period to ask it to halt an airstrike before their observation post was hit, according to details of a preliminary U.N. report on the incident. Four U.N. observers were killed in the bombing Tuesday. During each phone call, an Israeli official promised to halt the bombing, according to a U.N. official who had seen the preliminary report, which was released to The Associated Press on Wednesday. The U.N. observers said the area within half a mile of the post was hit with precision munitions, including 17 bombs and 12 artillery shells, four of which directly hit the post Tuesday, the report said. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert expressed "deep regret" Wednesday over the killings, and dismay over U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's accusation that the airstrike was "apparently deliberate." Olmert told Annan in a phone call Wednesday that the U.N. post was hit inadvertently. "The prime minister expressed Israel's deep regret over the mistaken killing of four U.N. peacekeepers," Olmert said in a statement released by his office. "The prime minister said he has instructed the military to carry out a thorough investigation and that the results will be shared with the U.N. secretary general." White House press secretary Tony Snow said called the killing of the observers a "horrible thing," but said Israel has acted appropriately by saying it will investigate. "They'll be completely transparent in the way they conduct the investigation," Snow said. "And I think that's the appropriate way to proceed." China demanded that Israel apologize for the attack, which killed a Chinese U.N. observer along with observers from Austria, Canada and Finland. "We are deeply shocked by this incident and strongly condemn it," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said on the ministry Web site. His statement said Israel's ambassador to Beijing was summoned Wednesday morning and asked to convey a request that Israel issue an apology to China and the victims' families. "These so-called precision attacks seem to be mainly targeting everyone else except the Hezbollah," said Finnish Foreign Minister Erkki Tuomioja, who added that the attack would increase pressure for a cease-fire. Austria's foreign minister, Ursula Plassnik, told her Israeli counterpart by telephone that the bombing was unacceptable and urged Israel to stop its attack on the area, according to a ministry statement. The European Union joined China and other nations in demanding an Israeli investigation of the attack. Olmert expressed dismay over Annan's initial comments in a written statement that the airstrike was "apparently deliberate." "It's inconceivable for the U.N. to define an error as an apparently deliberate action," Olmert said. Annan said the "coordinated artillery and aerial attack on a long established and clearly marked U.N. post at Khiam occurred despite personal assurances given to me by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert that U.N. positions would be spared Israeli fire." Furthermore, he said, Gen. Alain Pelligrini, the U.N. force commander in south Lebanon, had been in repeated contact with Israeli officers Tuesday "stressing the need to protect that particular U.N. position from attack." Lt. Col. John Molloy, the senior Irish officer in the U.N. observer force in south Lebanon, reported making six telephone calls to his Israeli counterparts in the hours before the deadly strike on the border outpost, said Suzanne Coogan, spokeswoman for Irish Defense Minister Willie O'Dea. She said all six calls specifically identified the U.N. post that was ultimately destroyed. "He warned the Israelis that they were shelling in very close proximity to the post, and his warnings were very specific, explicit, detailed and stark. Obviously those warnings went unheeded," Coogan said. U.N. Deputy Secretary-General Mark Malloch Brown and Jane Lute, assistant secretary-general for peacekeeping, also made several calls to Israel's mission to the U.N. "reiterating these protests and calling for an abatement of the shelling," Lute said. Since fighting between Israel and Hezbollah militants began two weeks ago, there have been several dozen incidents of firing close to U.N. peacekeepers and observers, including direct hits on nine positions, some of them repeatedly, a U.N. official said. As a result of these attacks, 12 U.N. personnel have been killed or injured, U.N. officials said. Tuesday's bomb hit the building and shelter of the observer post in Khiam near the eastern end of the border with Israel, said Milos Struger, spokesman for the U.N. peacekeeping force in Lebanon known as UNIFIL. The four observers were in a bunker that collapsed in the bombing, a U.N. official said. Israeli forces kept firing as rescue workers tried to clear the rubble, Struger said. During an Israeli offensive against Lebanon in 1996, artillery blasted a U.N. base at Qana in southern Lebanon, killing more than 100 civilians taking refuge with the peacekeepers. The U.N. mission, which has nearly 2,000 military personnel and more than 300 civilians, is to patrol the border line, known as the Blue Line, drawn by the United Nations after Israel withdrew troops from south Lebanon in 2000, ending an 18-year occupation. On Wednesday, dovish lawmaker Ran Cohen, a colonel in the Israeli army reserves, said that from his experience in Lebanon it was quite possible to make such a mistake. "I have not even the slightest doubt that we're talking here about a mistake, technical or otherwise. The army, as long as I've known it and I'm fairly critical, never wants to hit UNIFIL forces," Cohen said.
Some points that need to be addressed: You have to understand the history of the Middle East to understand the current situation. To dismiss it as what's past is pass or "past karma" is ignorant and doomed to fail any resolution for the future. Remember "those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it." Yeah yeah, it's cliched, but it's cliched because the saying itself is self fulfilling as so many need to be reminded of it. Israel is not even that old. What? Barely 60 years old? And I'm talking about the state. We all know the Jews have been there since ancient times, but that's cultural, and the state of Israel is political. I myself am fuzzy on Israel's birth, but my very simplified understanding is that they were thrust into existence by Europe and America. The problem was that there were people already there that did not agree to it. Hence whatever penance Europe and America felt for the displaced and discriminated Jews was short sighted in creating modern day Israel. Correct me if I'm wrong on anything of course. It's pointless to debate who had it the "worst" in human history. This belief of victimization gives people a way to exploit horrors of humanity into justification of their own agendas and actions. I don't know what it was like to survive the holocaust, but I know it would have been hell. I don't know what it's to live under the constant threat of tanks and air sirens. I don't know what it's like to be a runaway slave before slavery was abolished. I don't know what it's like to be a Native American when settlers were pushing them out. But all of them suck and have their own consequences. It irrates me that Europe through the UN and sometimes NATO likes to get on its high horse and condemn this and that country, convienently ignoring their brutal history of colonialism. I've never personally heard of the British comment or try to make up for their history of Palestine and there's no doubt they had a factor in screwing the place up. I believe this is a major reason why a lot of third world countries don't give a crap about the UN or its resolutions. For those that have an economic stake to be a pariah to the power and rich countries, its important to come off as "moderate." But what does a country that has witnessed foreign invasions and sanctions have anything to gain? Screw it, let's get nukes makes more sense than to come to the negotiating tables with the countries that tried to colonize you over a century ago. Does anyone even think the govt of China gives a rat's ass about being criticized of it's human rights abuses no matter how rightfully it seems? This was a self sustaining country that was carved up by every European power and Japan before ultimately killing itself in commie takeover. No one was pointing fingers at the British for starting a war to sell opium, so why the hell would they care now? Who learns about the Rape of Nanking besides China themselves? The "good" thing now is that they're sort of rich, but damn powerful and influential so they can't get b****ed around. But the middle east is another story. There's oil to be had, yet foreign meddling of puppet states, corruptions, fanatical zealots, economic undevelopment is truly f-ing up the place and no one is really looking out for the overall welfare of the region. It's evident the people there are sick of being the monopoly game of the rich countries of the world so they have this fight to the death mentality.
That's so easy to say -- for Isrealis. Is that also the reason Isreal refuse to withdraw behind the 1967 line? It's not like there weren't peaceful resolutions on the table. However, my earlier reply merely meant to point out the existence of Isreal isn't neccessary a good thing like someone said.
It's not easy for anyone. So is it completely Israel's fault that there is war? In no way are others contributing to it? Maybe if there were no calls for the destruction of Israel a withdrawal could better happen. There is no other "solution" than never ending violence? Is it really worth it for either side? To have true peace you must truly be peace. There is no other way.
I'm being reminded every day. The clinging to the past is what is being repeated. Dismissing and clinging are both extremes that should be avoided.
I'm confused what clinging to the past is. I don't see how it would be bad. Don't we teach kids the history of the country, even some of the stuff that's bad, ie the struggles for civil rights, slavery, displacement of native americans, internment of japanese americans, etc. Don't we need reminders of the holocaust even if it didn't affect us directly? I don't think "moving on" is exclusive to "clinging on."
To have peace, you have to give and take - don't forget the give part. Is the voilence worth it? No. But they weren't given viable alternatives. So the voilence goes on. To talk about peace with "what's done is done" is ingenuine. Actually that's sort of what Isreal has been doing - establishing better negotiation position before the evetual settlement. To have peace, you need either goodwill or balance of power. Right now, there's none.
A Palestinian state with returned land would be a start. They have been at the negotiating table before.
Clinging to the past is putting more effort and thought into past events rather than present ones. You should remind yourself of the holocaust in an effort to make peace rather than revenge. What people are really clinging on to is hatred, anger and sadness etc.
So it's either that or war. There are no alternatives. That will truly create peace in the hearts and minds of all these people? I don't think it will.
I don't know what do you mean here, you mean a Palestinian state with returned land won't create peace? I don't think you understand, there isn't even a war. The balance of power is too one-sided for this to be a war. Yet, there is violence, or "terror". If what's done is done logic can go on, if your "alternatives" are just what Isreal is happlily willing to give out, I guess Isreal can grab more land before they sit down to talk "alternatives". It's actually in the best interest of Isreal is they can reach a deal that's good enough for palestinians while ensuring the security of Isreal.
Europeans have a Pavlovian response of blaming Israel first while excusing Palestinian terrorism. That's anti-semitic to me.
There's no guarantee that there will be complete peace and security. But there's every reason to believe things will get better. Because I can definitely guarantee that as long as Israel continues to occupy more and more lands and govern stateless peoples under its rule in worse than apartheid conditions, there will never be peace. Israel did give back land all the land it occupied from Egypt back. And in return it did get peace and recognition. I don't recall any suicide bombers or rocket attacks from Egypt since then so it has and can work.
I guess your positions are A. Isreal can grab whatever land they want, since "what's done is done". B. Isreal should kill all these Palestinians and some other people who are sympathic is Palestinian course, since "no amount of land will end the war in the hearts and minds of these people". Thanks for the conversation.
