............However the Syrians fortified these heights which.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Who cares.

At least Syria has a legitimate claim to their spoil.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well the Israelis do, especially those who were bombarded by their neighbour from the Heights.

But the legitimacy of the Syrians claim to this land has been considerable devalued, in that they used this land on at least two occasions to attack, and attempt to annihilate Israel.

Unfortunately they lost the Wars and the land.

In a similar manner to how most of Europe's borders became established: Denmark/Germany; Germany/France;Poland/Germany;France/Spain - possession is 9 points of the rule.

You quite obviously subscribe to the central theme of this thread - that other laws and agreements must apply to the defenders of Israel from its aggressors - certainly laws that no other country in the world would accept as part of its defence.

<snip>Well the Israelis do,<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, with control of a good percentage of the world's media.

But of course Mt Merton, you live in the unmoderated section of this forum, pushing your opinions where they are wanted or not. Maybe you should try posting in the main forum.....

Most active in Bedlam

( 839 posts / 37% of this member's active posts )

Or maybe you like to "Cruise" in the shadows

<snip>Well the Israelis do,<snip>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Of course, with control of a good percentage of the world's media.

But of course Mt Merton, you live in the unmoderated section of this forum, pushing your opinions where they are wanted or not. Maybe you should try posting in the main forum.....

Most active in Bedlam

( 839 posts / 37% of this member's active posts )

Or maybe you like to "Cruise" in the shadows

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Try going for the ball.

Or are you afraid you may reveal more of your prejudices.

<snip>Try going for the ball.

Or are you afraid you may reveal more of your prejudices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I don't understand your terminology, please explain what that means....

I am more than happy to be in a moderated forum.

<snip>Try going for the ball.

Or are you afraid you may reveal more of your prejudices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry, I don't understand your terminology, please explain what that means....

I am more than happy to be in a moderated forum.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ever played a sport where it was illegal to go after the man instead of the ball?

The Laws of Soccer springs to mind.

You know, a bit like Forum Rules.

Whatever the twists and turns of fanatical Zionism and equally, Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness, if those 3 issues were solved - they are the only issues upon which the State of Israel has gone to war - there would be no significant conflict remaining.

Isn't it Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness and fanatical Zionism that prevents these 3 issues to be solved?

In a way, seen from outside Israel, it would be easy to conclude as you do.

But there are fundamental differences

Israel is a democracy. The consensus politics of the two major parties is that the solution to the conflict has its basis in the three points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Just look at the agreements made with the two former enemies of the State – Egypt and Jordan – they have their basis in these three points.

Israel’s opponents, on the other hand, are long from being democracies. They are tribal enclaves, often dependant on personal whim and family gain when addressing the issues of the “tribe”.

Despite Israel’s regular reaching out with the hand of peace based on the three points, they have been constantly spat on, by the rejection of diplomatic solutions, the continuing wars and the obscene terrorism.

I don't know the details of the agreements made between Israel and Egypt/Jordan.

As far as I understand it they have recognized the State of Israel, it's borders and have agreed not to wage war with Israel.

I don't know if these agreements have some small print somewhere that involves the Palestinians. I believe the Palestinians at the time somehow felt they were sold out by Egypt/Jordan.

Regarding Israel's regular reaching out with the hand of peace etc. I agree they have been constantly spat on, rightly or wrongly, and I think one of the problems at the moment is the fact that there is no way the PA can control their own people.

In that respect I believe Israel's demands on the PA are sometimes not reasonable. If you know already behorehand that demands will be broken why waste time with it in the first place?

Well, once again you are at it.

It is a convention here that Bedlam is unmoderated, so there are not many rules.

I have no interest in playing the man, but the ball, but can you please answer the question, rather than having subversive attacks at me.

Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question - are you active or passive ?

Well, once again you are at it.

It is a convention here that Bedlam is unmoderated, so there are not many rules.

I have no interest in playing the man, but the ball, but can you please answer the question, rather than having subversive attacks at me.

Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Go to bed, mattnich.

You know you have the power to erase all your little indiscretions when you sober up.

I do not have that luxury.

So sleep tight.

<snip>Go to bed, mattnich.

You know you have the power to erase all your little indiscretions when you sober up.

I do not have that luxury.

So sleep tight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All you want to do is attack me rather than answer the questions.......

<snip>Go to bed, mattnich.

You know you have the power to erase all your little indiscretions when you sober up.

I do not have that luxury.

So sleep tight.

All you want to do is attack me rather than answer the questions.......

That's what Meadish and cv accuse me of...

<snip>Go to bed, mattnich.

You know you have the power to erase all your little indiscretions when you sober up.

I do not have that luxury.

So sleep tight.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All you want to do is attack me rather than answer the questions.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what Meadish and cv accuse me of...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alcohol and paranoia - a dangerous cocktail.

Alcohol and paranoia - a dangerous cocktail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Admitting it is the first step to recovery.

I congratluale you.

Can you answer the questions rather than attacking those who ask ?

Alcohol and paranoia - a dangerous cocktail.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Admitting it is the first step to recovery.

I congratluale you.

Can you answer the questions rather than attacking those who ask ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have got a question on the Accord, then?

No Mr Troll, I have a question for YOU

No Mr Troll, I have a question for YOU

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The ball is the round thing - analogous with the theme of the thread.

The man is sitting at the computer - analogous with what you so politely call YOU.

EDIT// What is a Troll?

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the subject of the thread: ever been to Israel, mattnich?

Whatever the twists and turns of fanatical Zionism and equally, Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness, if those 3 issues were solved - they are the only issues upon which the State of Israel has gone to war - there would be no significant conflict remaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness and fanatical Zionism that prevents these 3 issues to be solved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way, seen from outside Israel, it would be easy to conclude as you do.

But there are fundamental differences

Israel is a democracy. The consensus politics of the two major parties is that the solution to the conflict has its basis in the three points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Just look at the agreements made with the two former enemies of the State – Egypt and Jordan – they have their basis in these three points.

Israel’s opponents, on the other hand, are long from being democracies. They are tribal enclaves, often dependant on personal whim and family gain when addressing the issues of the “tribe”.

Despite Israel’s regular reaching out with the hand of peace based on the three points, they have been constantly spat on, by the rejection of diplomatic solutions, the continuing wars and the obscene terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may reget this but....

The Jews are not clean here TM. They have done a fair amount of spitting themselves. No one involed in any Middle East conflict is clean. I think the flaw you are making here is to portray one side as the "good" guys. It just doesn't work that way.

Whatever the twists and turns of fanatical Zionism and equally, Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness, if those 3 issues were solved - they are the only issues upon which the State of Israel has gone to war - there would be no significant conflict remaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness and fanatical Zionism that prevents these 3 issues to be solved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way, seen from outside Israel, it would be easy to conclude as you do.

But there are fundamental differences

Israel is a democracy. The consensus politics of the two major parties is that the solution to the conflict has its basis in the three points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Just look at the agreements made with the two former enemies of the State – Egypt and Jordan – they have their basis in these three points.

Israel’s opponents, on the other hand, are long from being democracies. They are tribal enclaves, often dependant on personal whim and family gain when addressing the issues of the “tribe”.

Despite Israel’s regular reaching out with the hand of peace based on the three points, they have been constantly spat on, by the rejection of diplomatic solutions, the continuing wars and the obscene terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may reget this but....

The Jews are not clean here TM. They have done a fair amount of spitting themselves. No one involed in any Middle East conflict is clean. I think the flaw you are making here is to portray one side as the "good" guys. It just doesn't work that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am presenting the point of view, I believe, after studying the subject and living in the area, plus being involved in one of the wars, running five refugee camps full of Palestinians, having had put in my care the killers from Sabra and Chatilla (you don't get any dirtier than those guys), to be true.

Whatever the twists and turns of fanatical Zionism and equally, Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness, if those 3 issues were solved - they are the only issues upon which the State of Israel has gone to war - there would be no significant conflict remaining.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Isn't it Palestinian fanatical self-righteousness and fanatical Zionism that prevents these 3 issues to be solved?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

In a way, seen from outside Israel, it would be easy to conclude as you do.

But there are fundamental differences

Israel is a democracy. The consensus politics of the two major parties is that the solution to the conflict has its basis in the three points:

1. Recognition of the State

2. Recognised borders

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Just look at the agreements made with the two former enemies of the State – Egypt and Jordan – they have their basis in these three points.

Israel’s opponents, on the other hand, are long from being democracies. They are tribal enclaves, often dependant on personal whim and family gain when addressing the issues of the “tribe”.

Despite Israel’s regular reaching out with the hand of peace based on the three points, they have been constantly spat on, by the rejection of diplomatic solutions, the continuing wars and the obscene terrorism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I may reget this but....

The Jews are not clean here TM. They have done a fair amount of spitting themselves. No one involed in any Middle East conflict is clean. I think the flaw you are making here is to portray one side as the "good" guys. It just doesn't work that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am presenting the point of view, I believe, after studying the subject and living in the area, plus being involved in one of the wars, running five refugee camps full of Palestinians, having had put in my care the killers from Sabra and Chatilla (you don't get any dirtier than those guys), to be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A view that isn't going to solve anything. This good guy bad guy sh1t is what is keeping the issues alive. I do not believe that the powers that be want any deal made that will bring peace, they want what they want, and that is for both sides. These problems are now nothing more than a see-saw, one side does/says this than the other gets a turn, over and over. The people over there either have to get real serious about finding a solution, which as I said, won't happen because religion is what is important here, and they hate each way too much to give anything up, or we just need to have an all out war and the last man standing gets the spoils. This trinity of war in the name of what is the same ###### god has gone on far too long. I question America's involvement in the Middle East as well. I really wonder much Isreal or it's neighbors want us interfering with the arguments.

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On the subject of the thread: ever been to Israel, mattnich?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you going to answer my question ?

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really nice matt....maybe he thinks that questions put this way are best left unanswered.

My 2 cents worth:-

Like most intractable problems between two people(s), both have valid points.

For the Palestinians, their land was taken away from them and given to the Jews without any consultation at all by the then imperial power, Britain.

For the Jews; after millenia of persecution, they deserve a homeland of their own, especially after the events of the second world war.

The Arabs made war on Israel three times and the end result was that the borders of Israel expanded.

Fast forward to the present day.

Israel is faced by a couple of unique problems.

The first was recognized by David Ben Gurion. That is, should Israel occupy all of the holy, biblical land of Israel, or, should Israel be a country of Jewish people?

If they choose to have biblical Israel (land that is considered holy), then they will have thousands of Palestinian citizens that with their much higher birth-rate, will one day outnumber the Jewish population.

If they want to be a country of Jews, then they have to give up the idea of occupying the West Bank and Gaza. This was what was behind Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

The second problem for Israel is more difficult. Should Israel be a religious country, or, should it be strictly secular?

At the moment, both secular Jews and religious Jews are united due to the problems with the Palestinians. If peace with the Palestinians should ever become a reality, the Israeli population is going to split along this fault line. The Israeli government know this, so, there is a disincentive to find peace. The war with the Palestinians is a unifying factor. Once peace is achieved, this unifying factor will be gone.

TM is right about the three factors that will lead to peace, these are:-

1. Recognition of the State (not yet achieved. Its existence is still denied by the vast majority of its neighbours).

2. Recognised borders (there are almost as many interpretations of where these borders should be as there are postings from the ignorant Belgian butterfly).

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Regarding point one. The Palestinians have already recognized Israel's right to exist. If peace is made with the Palestinians, other Arab countries will have no reason to with-hold recognition (Iran excluded).

Regarding point two. This goes back to the point I made about wanting a country that is primarily made up of Jewish citizens. Israel will have to go back to it's borders of 1967, though they will never give up East Jerusalem or some of the large West Bank settlements that are close to Jerusalem.

Israel still proclaims that Jerusalem is it's capital city, a fact that is not recognized by any other country in the world, even the USA.

In return, the Israelis must give the Palestinians an economicly viable country. This is important. When people are busy making money, they don't go to war.

Palestine must be a "whole" not enclaves connected by Israeli controlled highways.

It must also have a Palestinian controlled seaport and airport so that imports and exports are possible.

Regarding point three. This one is tricky. The problem for the Israelis is that there really isn't anyone that they can negotiate with. The Palestinians are a politically fractured people. The PLO and by extension the PA is seen as corrupt and rife with nepotism by many Palestinians and they have no control over other militant factions, the main one being Hamas. The PLO does not speak for the whole Palestinian people anymore.

Hamas is not just a military organization, they have huge social programs too, and, are much admired by Palestinians, especially in Gaza as honest administrators.

I don't know if this is true, but, I heard that Israel actually encouraged and even bank-rolled Hamas in the early days of it's formation in a cynical attempt to break the PLO's political strangle-hold. A PLO that Israel saw as an implacable enemy that would never make peace. If this is true, then they are reaping the whirlwind.

I could go on pointing out that twice as many Palestinians have been killed during the two intifadas as Israelis. That the USA is not seen as an unbiased moderator in the dispute. That Israel has crippled the Palestinian people economicly, giving no hope to the young people, the vast majority of whom are unemployed, of some kind of future.

But there really isn't any point. These are side issues. TM's three points are the ones that have to be addressed and I don't think they will be in my life time.

There have been so many atrocities and injustices by both sides, and, like the Irish, Serbs, Croatians and Koreans, the Israelis and Palestinians are prisoners of their own histories. They never forgive, or, forget. Maybe that is the single most problematic factor in this sad state of affairs.

Oh yes, TM, the killers of Shatilla and Sabra were the SLA, a proxy army under the control of Israel.

...

Oh yes, TM, the killers of Shatilla and Sabra were the SLA, a proxy army under the control of Israel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just imagine the emotional, moral and political confusion exploding inside a Red Cross worker who has been given the responsibility of providing and caring for these killers when they declared themselves as refugees in Europe.

(I have never publicly written this before - I'm breaking Codes of Conduct that are stronger than the Official Secrets Act - Thank God for anonymity)

They once invited me to share afternoon tea with them. The sort of occasion where someone may bring out the family photographs. Someone did. Only they were their photographs of Sabra and Chatilla.

I will never forget this one, a photograph of the 23 year old sitting opposite me, standing surrounded by a group of dead bodies, in his left hand holding his Kalashnikov triumphantly high and in his right hand, held equally triumphantly, the leg of a six month old child - no body - just the severed leg.

And he was laughing as he showed me the photograph.

Horrible as all this is, these are dilemmas the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement meet every day.

Oh yes, TM, the killers of Shatilla and Sabra were the SLA, a proxy army under the control of Israel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I tried to edit my last posting - unsuccessfully - but here's the gist:

The killers at Sabra and Chatilla were not members of the SLA. They were Lebanese Christian Fascists called Falang who infiltrated the camps under the not so watchful eye of the SLA. The ultimate command for the SLA was General Sharon who was responsible to the Prime Minister Begin.

Begin eventually took responsibility for the massacre, something he never physically or emotionally recovered from until his death.

Addressing Sir Burr's posting (my comments in blue).

Like most intractable problems between two people(s), both have valid points.

For the Palestinians, their land was taken away from them and given to the Jews without any consultation at all by the then imperial power, Britain.

Not True:

1. Britain was not “the then imperial power”. It was a country mandated by the League of Nations (later the UN) to administer the territories.

2. Likewise Arab representatives were consulted about the formation of the State of Israel as they were also offered their own territory (the same territory they want for Palestine now) in the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine. The Arabs rejected the proposals.

For the Jews; after millenia of persecution, they deserve a homeland of their own, especially after the events of the second world war.

The Arabs made war on Israel three times and the end result was that the borders of Israel expanded.

I do not think you can count:

1. War of 1948

2. War of 1956

3. War of 1967

4. War of 1968-1970

5. War of 1973

6. War of 1978

7. War of 1982

8. Intifada of 1987-1993

9. Gulf War of 1990-1991

10. Intifada of 2000

Fast forward to the present day.

Israel is faced by a couple of unique problems.

The first was recognized by David Ben Gurion. That is, should Israel occupy all of the holy, biblical land of Israel, or, should Israel be a country of Jewish people?

If they choose to have biblical Israel (land that is considered holy), then they will have thousands of Palestinian citizens that with their much higher birth-rate, will one day outnumber the Jewish population.

If they want to be a country of Jews, then they have to give up the idea of occupying the West Bank and Gaza. This was what was behind Sharon's unilateral withdrawal from Gaza.

The second problem for Israel is more difficult. Should Israel be a religious country, or, should it be strictly secular?

At the moment, both secular Jews and religious Jews are united due to the problems with the Palestinians. If peace with the Palestinians should ever become a reality, the Israeli population is going to split along this fault line. The Israeli government know this, so, there is a disincentive to find peace. The war with the Palestinians is a unifying factor. Once peace is achieved, this unifying factor will be gone.

These are interesting hypotheses that are often thrown up when wishing to deflect discussion away from the 3 central issues. They are no more or less important than the corresponding issues facing any multicultural state in Europe. The difference being:

1. There are many in Israel who need to reconcile themselves to the fact that the Jewish state can be multicultural.

2. Israel has yet to experience the luxury afforded by the 3 points to e.g every European State, and therefore address these issues.

I suppose, in reality, the second point is the only relevant one. The first point above could also apply to France, the UK and many other states.

TM is right about the three factors that will lead to peace, these are:-

1. Recognition of the State (not yet achieved. Its existence is still denied by the vast majority of its neighbours).

2. Recognised borders (there are almost as many interpretations of where these borders should be as there are postings from the ignorant Belgian butterfly).

3. Security for the citizens of the State of Israel.

Regarding point one. The Palestinians have already recognized Israel's right to exist.

Wait and see. Formal recognition is meaningless unless it creates points 2, and especially, point 3.

If peace is made with the Palestinians, other Arab countries will have no reason to with-hold recognition (Iran excluded).

I can think of many reason why not, and so can they – especially Syria.

Regarding point two. This goes back to the point I made about wanting a country that is primarily made up of Jewish citizens. Israel will have to go back to it's borders of 1967, though they will never give up East Jerusalem or some of the large West Bank settlements that are close to Jerusalem.

Israel will only retreat to borders that guarantee point 3.

Israel still proclaims that Jerusalem is it's capital city, a fact that is not recognized by any other country in the world, even the USA.

That day will come.

In return, the Israelis must give the Palestinians an economicly viable country. This is important. When people are busy making money, they don't go to war.

No. Palestinians must create a viable economy. If this had been their aim from the start there never would have been half the wars.

Palestine must be a "whole" not enclaves connected by Israeli controlled highways.

West Berlin did not seem to have much trouble with similar restrictions.

It must also have a Palestinian controlled seaport and airport so that imports and exports are possible.

This is not in dispute.

Regarding point three. This one is tricky. The problem for the Israelis is that there really isn't anyone that they can negotiate with. The Palestinians are a politically fractured people. The PLO and by extension the PA is seen as corrupt and rife with nepotism by many Palestinians and they have no control over other militant factions, the main one being Hamas. The PLO does not speak for the whole Palestinian people anymore.

True.

Hamas is not just a military organization, they have huge social programs too, and, are much admired by Palestinians, especially in Gaza as honest administrators.

Acknowledged by Israel.

I don't know if this is true, but, I heard that Israel actually encouraged and even bank-rolled Hamas in the early days of it's formation in a cynical attempt to break the PLO's political strangle-hold. A PLO that Israel saw as an implacable enemy that would never make peace. If this is true, then they are reaping the whirlwind.

Conjecture.

I could go on pointing out that twice as many Palestinians have been killed during the two intifadas as Israelis.

I don’t know if this true or not. Who told you? Even if it is. The Palestinians started the Intifada – if they got hurt or killed, whose fault is that. It is the same crazy argument about land. Palestinians and four other countries attack Israel simultaneously. They loose the Wars and some land. Now they want the land back. Ever heard of the Fortunes of War?

That the USA is not seen as an unbiased moderator in the dispute.

Don’t worry, there are enough candidates for this role, if it’s ever needed.

That Israel has crippled the Palestinian people economicly, giving no hope to the young people, the vast majority of whom are unemployed, of some kind of future.

Israel’s economic responsibility for the fate of Palestinians’ employment prospects, is no more central than e.g Germany’s for Turkish guest workers or the UK’s use of Philippine women in the care services.

But there really isn't any point. These are side issues. TM's three points are the ones that have to be addressed and I don't think they will be in my life time.

There have been so many atrocities and injustices by both sides, and, like the Irish, Serbs, Croatians and Koreans, the Israelis and Palestinians are prisoners of their own histories. They never forgive, or, forget. Maybe that is the single most problematic factor in this sad state of affairs.

Too glibly written. I still have the photograph of Rabin shaking hands with Arafat on my wall.

Oh yes, TM, the killers of Shatilla and Sabra were the SLA, a proxy army under the control of Israel.

I have commented this error in another posting.

It is the same crazy argument about land. Palestinians and four other countries attack Israel simultaneously. They loose the Wars and some land. Now they want the land back. Ever heard of the Fortunes of War?[/color]

Didn't the jews also loose a war and some land long time ago when they were exiled to Iraq (babylon)?

It is the same crazy argument about land. Palestinians and four other countries attack Israel simultaneously. They loose the Wars and some land. Now they want the land back. Ever heard of the Fortunes of War?[/color]

Didn't the jews also loose a war and some land long time ago when they were exiled to Iraq (babylon)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

..and Abraham is the father of the Jews and the Arabs.

How far back do you want to go?

This

Now you are mixing apples and oranges.

An immigration problem with AQ terrorism ? you got to be kidding

You have a major logic and comprehension problem ~G~, I suggest you check your brain. Bird Flu Fever ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Different symptoms of the same problem: ignorance. European as well as American - exactly the point you denied. Do you think those racist Europeans distinguish between Palestinian uprising and Al Qaeda terrorists? They can't even accept that their own country's citizens should have the same rights as

them..

But back to the point, even if you don't understand it, Palestinian leaders do. They see the negative impact in the International Community to terror actions that come from the territories. And they do depend on that support as they seek international recognition.

Furthermore, they know that after a sequence of major terrorist attacks Israel is bound to initiate its counterstrike. And these counterstrikes usually hurt PA as well as the Hamas and the Islamic Jihad. It undermines their power and does them no good.

BTW, you were describing the events since Rabin's assasination, you forgot to mention a few important facts: The major terrorist attacks that occured in Israel during Rabin's term, and during Peres campaign contributred to the lack of trust Israelies feel towards the Palestinian authority, and did not help Peres to be reelected. Igal Amir could not stop the peace process on his own. Terrorism made a very good job helping him with that, this is a classic example of extremists in both sides sharing the same objective.

These really are my 2 direct questions that you have no desire to answer.

.Is your football analogy going back to the days that Australia and Israel played soccer ?

I want to understand you better, so, - can I ask you a direct question -  are you active or passive ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So what is your answer Mr Troll_Merton ???

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's really nice matt....maybe he thinks that questions put this way are best left unanswered.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Maybe you're on the ignore list.