Demonstrators burn Israeli flags at Embassy Protest in Bangkok

[Morch]

To my chagrin, I have only recently paid any attention to Al Jazeera's news. What an eye opener. Very admirable organisation that reveals little or no bias in the most sensitive stories. I was flicking through my new True system and found that Channel 119 is actually Al Jazeera English news.

I agree that Al Jazeera English language broadcasts are often top knotch and thanks to my Mr. ROKU I can watch Al Jazeera here in the US on a regular basis. But like most of what comes out of the Arab world in the form of media broadcasts, the voice in English is very different from the voice broadcast in Arabic. For translations one needs to visit this website. Whereas Israel as HaAretz to voice opposition to the government, the Arab world has no such indigenous voice.

Yes, you are at least partly correct as I am not aware of any strong voice of opposition in Palestinian media. Not that there is the extensive media presence that allows such diversity, for obvious reasons. But if not media, there are certainly people in Palestine who oppose the pro-war views of Hamas, and argue vehemently for non violence. I have just now finished listening to Mustapha Baghouti and Alin ---- ( an Israeli opposition MP, so not very influential) debating on - you guessed it - Al Jazeera.

Mr Baghouti is a Palestinian MP, and condemns all forms of violence. Even though he is clearly upset and angry because of the killings of the protesters on the West Bank yesterday, he still does not agree with any violence - or the use of rockets by Hamas for that matter. He stated that quite clearly. He is an MP because of the votes he received, so we can assume that his views are reasonably popular in the West Bank. Unfortunately, Netanyahu and his allies will never talk to people such as him, because, I believe, it may help lead to peace and prevent the grand project of a Zionist land grab continuing, which Netanyahu supports.

Al Jazeera (in its English version) is not really an opposition voice, I agree. It is more of an objective analyst. I can't comment on the Arabic versions, as I do not speak the language. Haaretz is a bit wishy washy, not a good example of an opposition voice. I once read them occassionally, but find they are often selective and limited in their analysis. I doubt that Netanyahu loses much sleep over Haaretz. But your point is still valid - there do seem to be more oppostion organisations in Israel, such as B'tselem and Gisha and Rabbis for Human Rights. This does reflect positively on Israeli society. I hope that these voices of peace are listened to and respected by many Israelis, even if the government ignores them.

Barghouti's party won two seats out of 132 (under 3% of the votes). Furthermore, it was actually a few independent parties

running as a united list. Assuming that his views are "reasonably popular" would be wrong.

Netanyahu is indeed not interested in going anywhere as far as negotiations or peace process go. But either way, can only

talk to agreed representative of the Palestinians, Abbas (well, the Hamas/PA split makes even this somewhat problematic).

The illusion that the pro-peace forces on either side are dominant or popular, is just that. If there were election tomorrow in

Israel, most probably a right wing led party would be the result. If there were free elections amongst the Palestinians, then

Hamas will most likely be on top. Not exactly as if either side is totally up for it.

[Morch]

European jews invade Palstine and by Terror, crave out the locals from there land. What would be a the difference, if say, Germans decided to invade Israel and took your purported land and by terror Craved you up. I dont see a difference. Same if china decided enoughs enough and we,re going to Australia, like it or not.

Apart from Jews not invading Palestine, rather immigrating peacefully, and apart from there not being a Palestine as a country

and a nation at the time....The PRC makes a fine example, as they actually took over Tibet, while by and large, the world does

naught.

You have drawn our attention to the tragic injustice inflicted on Tibet. OK, it does seem you are concerned about the world, and not merely an apologist for a fascist Israeli government. I look forward to you opening a new thread telling us how you are trying to influence this terrible situation.

Well, that was sort of the point.

People choose which conflicts they care about, involve with, follow up, whatever.

Countries do the same, however their motives and interests are usually not quite as those of private persons.

It does seem that the world dedicates an ungodly amount of time to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in comparison

with interest, coverage and UN actions regarding other conflicts worldwide.

As I do not see myself as an apologist, but rather as having a different opinion than some, not all of which are that

informed about the conflict and realities concerned with it. In the same way, I do not support most actions and views

attributed to Netanyahu and his government. That does not mean that I would tag the Israeli government as fascist,

although some of the coalition parties make good candidates for that.

[dr_lucas]

To my chagrin, I have only recently paid any attention to Al Jazeera's news. What an eye opener. Very admirable organisation that reveals little or no bias in the most sensitive stories. I was flicking through my new True system and found that Channel 119 is actually Al Jazeera English news.

I agree that Al Jazeera English language broadcasts are often top knotch and thanks to my Mr. ROKU I can watch Al Jazeera here in the US on a regular basis. But like most of what comes out of the Arab world in the form of media broadcasts, the voice in English is very different from the voice broadcast in Arabic. For translations one needs to visit this website. Whereas Israel as HaAretz to voice opposition to the government, the Arab world has no such indigenous voice.

Yes, you are at least partly correct as I am not aware of any strong voice of opposition in Palestinian media. Not that there is the extensive media presence that allows such diversity, for obvious reasons. But if not media, there are certainly people in Palestine who oppose the pro-war views of Hamas, and argue vehemently for non violence. I have just now finished listening to Mustapha Baghouti and Alin ---- ( an Israeli opposition MP, so not very influential) debating on - you guessed it - Al Jazeera.

Mr Baghouti is a Palestinian MP, and condemns all forms of violence. Even though he is clearly upset and angry because of the killings of the protesters on the West Bank yesterday, he still does not agree with any violence - or the use of rockets by Hamas for that matter. He stated that quite clearly. He is an MP because of the votes he received, so we can assume that his views are reasonably popular in the West Bank. Unfortunately, Netanyahu and his allies will never talk to people such as him, because, I believe, it may help lead to peace and prevent the grand project of a Zionist land grab continuing, which Netanyahu supports.

Al Jazeera (in its English version) is not really an opposition voice, I agree. It is more of an objective analyst. I can't comment on the Arabic versions, as I do not speak the language. Haaretz is a bit wishy washy, not a good example of an opposition voice. I once read them occassionally, but find they are often selective and limited in their analysis. I doubt that Netanyahu loses much sleep over Haaretz. But your point is still valid - there do seem to be more oppostion organisations in Israel, such as B'tselem and Gisha and Rabbis for Human Rights. This does reflect positively on Israeli society. I hope that these voices of peace are listened to and respected by many Israelis, even if the government ignores them.

Barghouti's party won two seats out of 132 (under 3% of the votes). Furthermore, it was actually a few independent parties

running as a united list. Assuming that his views are "reasonably popular" would be wrong.

Netanyahu is indeed not interested in going anywhere as far as negotiations or peace process go. But either way, can only

talk to agreed representative of the Palestinians, Abbas (well, the Hamas/PA split makes even this somewhat problematic).

The illusion that the pro-peace forces on either side are dominant or popular, is just that. If there were election tomorrow in

Israel, most probably a right wing led party would be the result. If there were free elections amongst the Palestinians, then

Hamas will most likely be on top. Not exactly as if either side is totally up for it.

I am really curios to know how you reached this conclusion about Netanyahu?

Also, what is your opinion in this regard about his predecessors? (Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Itzhak Rabin)

[Morch]

Yes, you are at least partly correct as I am not aware of any strong voice of opposition in Palestinian media. Not that there is the extensive media presence that allows such diversity, for obvious reasons. But if not media, there are certainly people in Palestine who oppose the pro-war views of Hamas, and argue vehemently for non violence. I have just now finished listening to Mustapha Baghouti and Alin ---- ( an Israeli opposition MP, so not very influential) debating on - you guessed it - Al Jazeera.

Mr Baghouti is a Palestinian MP, and condemns all forms of violence. Even though he is clearly upset and angry because of the killings of the protesters on the West Bank yesterday, he still does not agree with any violence - or the use of rockets by Hamas for that matter. He stated that quite clearly. He is an MP because of the votes he received, so we can assume that his views are reasonably popular in the West Bank. Unfortunately, Netanyahu and his allies will never talk to people such as him, because, I believe, it may help lead to peace and prevent the grand project of a Zionist land grab continuing, which Netanyahu supports.

Al Jazeera (in its English version) is not really an opposition voice, I agree. It is more of an objective analyst. I can't comment on the Arabic versions, as I do not speak the language. Haaretz is a bit wishy washy, not a good example of an opposition voice. I once read them occassionally, but find they are often selective and limited in their analysis. I doubt that Netanyahu loses much sleep over Haaretz. But your point is still valid - there do seem to be more oppostion organisations in Israel, such as B'tselem and Gisha and Rabbis for Human Rights. This does reflect positively on Israeli society. I hope that these voices of peace are listened to and respected by many Israelis, even if the government ignores them.

Barghouti's party won two seats out of 132 (under 3% of the votes). Furthermore, it was actually a few independent parties

running as a united list. Assuming that his views are "reasonably popular" would be wrong.

Netanyahu is indeed not interested in going anywhere as far as negotiations or peace process go. But either way, can only

talk to agreed representative of the Palestinians, Abbas (well, the Hamas/PA split makes even this somewhat problematic).

The illusion that the pro-peace forces on either side are dominant or popular, is just that. If there were election tomorrow in

Israel, most probably a right wing led party would be the result. If there were free elections amongst the Palestinians, then

Hamas will most likely be on top. Not exactly as if either side is totally up for it.

I am really curios to know how you reached this conclusion about Netanyahu?

Also, what is your opinion in this regard about his predecessors? (Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Itzhak Rabin)

Netanyahu does everything in his power to delay, obstruct and derail negotiations and talks. He is also not known for making

or taking bold decisions (guess he watched that Yes, Prime Minister episode), both on domestic and international fronts. He

is certainly good at wasting time, and on some occasions can get away with it, but overall, it is pretty clear from everything he

does that actually making that leap of faith and attempting to solve the issues is just not in him.

Having to form a coalition government, often including right wing and orthodox religious parties is an added weight when it

comes to political maneuvering both vs. the Palestinians and with that constant eye checking out the latest polls. It was once

said of Israel that it does not have a foreign policy, just a domestic one...

The above does not mean that he does not get a lot of help from the feeble Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian militants,

and the general regional situation. Not placing all the responsibility for the deadlock on him (or rather, Israel) or on the

Palestinians shoulders. This is actually one effort where both sides seem to work very nicely together - sadly it is against the

best interests of both.

Not going to give a full review of each Israeli prime minister, as it would be a both long and somewhat off topic.

In short there are few dimensions that can be discerned - right wing vs. center, public popularity, composition of coalition,

and current security conditions. In general, most were either unwilling to go the extra mile, or could not actually deliver if

they did. The same comments regarding domestic politics and the Palestinian side stand.

[dr_lucas]

Yes, you are at least partly correct as I am not aware of any strong voice of opposition in Palestinian media. Not that there is the extensive media presence that allows such diversity, for obvious reasons. But if not media, there are certainly people in Palestine who oppose the pro-war views of Hamas, and argue vehemently for non violence. I have just now finished listening to Mustapha Baghouti and Alin ---- ( an Israeli opposition MP, so not very influential) debating on - you guessed it - Al Jazeera.

Mr Baghouti is a Palestinian MP, and condemns all forms of violence. Even though he is clearly upset and angry because of the killings of the protesters on the West Bank yesterday, he still does not agree with any violence - or the use of rockets by Hamas for that matter. He stated that quite clearly. He is an MP because of the votes he received, so we can assume that his views are reasonably popular in the West Bank. Unfortunately, Netanyahu and his allies will never talk to people such as him, because, I believe, it may help lead to peace and prevent the grand project of a Zionist land grab continuing, which Netanyahu supports.

Al Jazeera (in its English version) is not really an opposition voice, I agree. It is more of an objective analyst. I can't comment on the Arabic versions, as I do not speak the language. Haaretz is a bit wishy washy, not a good example of an opposition voice. I once read them occassionally, but find they are often selective and limited in their analysis. I doubt that Netanyahu loses much sleep over Haaretz. But your point is still valid - there do seem to be more oppostion organisations in Israel, such as B'tselem and Gisha and Rabbis for Human Rights. This does reflect positively on Israeli society. I hope that these voices of peace are listened to and respected by many Israelis, even if the government ignores them.

Barghouti's party won two seats out of 132 (under 3% of the votes). Furthermore, it was actually a few independent parties

running as a united list. Assuming that his views are "reasonably popular" would be wrong.

Netanyahu is indeed not interested in going anywhere as far as negotiations or peace process go. But either way, can only

talk to agreed representative of the Palestinians, Abbas (well, the Hamas/PA split makes even this somewhat problematic).

The illusion that the pro-peace forces on either side are dominant or popular, is just that. If there were election tomorrow in

Israel, most probably a right wing led party would be the result. If there were free elections amongst the Palestinians, then

Hamas will most likely be on top. Not exactly as if either side is totally up for it.

I am really curios to know how you reached this conclusion about Netanyahu?

Also, what is your opinion in this regard about his predecessors? (Ehud Olmert, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Itzhak Rabin)

Netanyahu does everything in his power to delay, obstruct and derail negotiations and talks. He is also not known for making

or taking bold decisions (guess he watched that Yes, Prime Minister episode), both on domestic and international fronts. He

is certainly good at wasting time, and on some occasions can get away with it, but overall, it is pretty clear from everything he

does that actually making that leap of faith and attempting to solve the issues is just not in him.

Having to form a coalition government, often including right wing and orthodox religious parties is an added weight when it

comes to political maneuvering both vs. the Palestinians and with that constant eye checking out the latest polls. It was once

said of Israel that it does not have a foreign policy, just a domestic one...

The above does not mean that he does not get a lot of help from the feeble Palestinian leadership, the Palestinian militants,

and the general regional situation. Not placing all the responsibility for the deadlock on him (or rather, Israel) or on the

Palestinians shoulders. This is actually one effort where both sides seem to work very nicely together - sadly it is against the

best interests of both.

Not going to give a full review of each Israeli prime minister, as it would be a both long and somewhat off topic.

In short there are few dimensions that can be discerned - right wing vs. center, public popularity, composition of coalition,

and current security conditions. In general, most were either unwilling to go the extra mile, or could not actually deliver if

they did. The same comments regarding domestic politics and the Palestinian side stand.

Thanks.

Without going into full detailed reviews, who were the ones (in either the Palestinian and/or the Israeli side) that were willing to go the extra mile? what is that extra mile definition? and why that person who was willing could not deliver?

[theslime]

European jews invade Palstine and by Terror, crave out the locals from there land. What would be a the difference, if say, Germans decided to invade Israel and took your purported land and by terror Craved you up. I dont see a difference. Same if china decided enoughs enough and we,re going to Australia, like it or not.

Wouldn't even argue.

Theslime is the slime.

Can't talk, can't write, can't spell, but can have original ideas.

Not too bad for a German.

Nice typing skills. So sorry that my a and r were arse about face. What about spelling China with a small c?. Im not German,I can speak,and it wasn,t my Original Idea. Remember, there is nothing new under the Sun.

[OMGImInPattaya]

They've got the right idea. The United Nations has declared that Zionism is racism. Since Israel is a Zionist state, then logic tells us that Israel is a racist state, on a par with the former Apartheid South Africa.

Please understand that Jewish nationalism or the wish for a Jewish homeland/state is not in and of itself racism, just the theories and tenets of Theodore Herzl and Zionism are racist.

If the UN said so, it must be true.

Surely, there are no political interests effecting the way members vote.

You forgot to mention that there is an automatic biased majority against Israel in the UN since its establishment in 1948, the Arab lobby, and every resolution against and/or related to Israel has always been and probably always will be automatically approved in the general assembly.

If anyone wants to condemn Israel for the 2004 Indian Ocean's tsunami, just bring it for voting in the UN general assembly and it will issue a resolution against Israel on this. This is no joking matter, I am darn serious.

It also has quite an impartial majority in the security council, with Russia and China usually automatically voting against Israel, to satisfy and preserve their close relationships with their allies, the Arab league and other Muslim countries.

Luckily for Israel, they at least have its ally, the USA, with its veto right to balance this a bit and block most security council unbalanced resolutions.

P.S. The UN declaration of "Zionism = racism" (resolution 3379, which was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign) was made on 1975 and revoked by the UN on 1991 (Resolution 46/86) when Israel had made the revocation a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.

When a country is in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions and occupies foreign territory for 60 years in violation of UN resolutions and wantonly goes about sowing death and destruction throughout its surrounding region, it tends to earn an "automatic" bias.

The same UN did not have that many issues when Egypt and Jordan held on to Palestinian territories.

The same UN does not have much objections to the PRC holding on to Tibet, or to Russia's actions in the Caucasus.

Same UN that does not seem all too bothered about events in Syria.

List goes on. The UN is many things, impartial isn't one of them.

None of those nations you cited claims to be a democracy nor see themselves as members of the western family of "civilized" nations. Israel self-proclaims that it is; but I guess the argument you're making is that Israel is an outlaw State like these others and as such shouldn't be held to the standards and norms of the civilized world. I think many would agree with you.

[Morch]

They've got the right idea. The United Nations has declared that Zionism is racism. Since Israel is a Zionist state, then logic tells us that Israel is a racist state, on a par with the former Apartheid South Africa.

Please understand that Jewish nationalism or the wish for a Jewish homeland/state is not in and of itself racism, just the theories and tenets of Theodore Herzl and Zionism are racist.

If the UN said so, it must be true.

Surely, there are no political interests effecting the way members vote.

You forgot to mention that there is an automatic biased majority against Israel in the UN since its establishment in 1948, the Arab lobby, and every resolution against and/or related to Israel has always been and probably always will be automatically approved in the general assembly.

If anyone wants to condemn Israel for the 2004 Indian Ocean's tsunami, just bring it for voting in the UN general assembly and it will issue a resolution against Israel on this. This is no joking matter, I am darn serious.

It also has quite an impartial majority in the security council, with Russia and China usually automatically voting against Israel, to satisfy and preserve their close relationships with their allies, the Arab league and other Muslim countries.

Luckily for Israel, they at least have its ally, the USA, with its veto right to balance this a bit and block most security council unbalanced resolutions.

P.S. The UN declaration of "Zionism = racism" (resolution 3379, which was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign) was made on 1975 and revoked by the UN on 1991 (Resolution 46/86) when Israel had made the revocation a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.

When a country is in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions and occupies foreign territory for 60 years in violation of UN resolutions and wantonly goes about sowing death and destruction throughout its surrounding region, it tends to earn an "automatic" bias.

The same UN did not have that many issues when Egypt and Jordan held on to Palestinian territories.

The same UN does not have much objections to the PRC holding on to Tibet, or to Russia's actions in the Caucasus.

Same UN that does not seem all too bothered about events in Syria.

List goes on. The UN is many things, impartial isn't one of them.

None of those nations you cited claims to be a democracy nor see themselves as members of the western family of "civilized" nations. Israel self-proclaims that it is; but I guess the argument you're making is that Israel is an outlaw State like these others and as such shouldn't be held to the standards and norms of the civilized world. I think many would agree with you.

Really? Could have sworn Egypt had an election not long ago, in fact, it had a couple. The Palestinians run a parliamentary

system with elections as well, although things kinda went wrong there. Next elections were supposed to be coming up in a

bit as well, though. Russia got elections as well, even if Putin or his clone wins each time.

Not sure about the "civilized" bit, sounds a tad too close to bigotry for my taste.

Israel's bench mark ought not to be Syria or any of those mentioned above, of course. People and countries should aim

higher than that. Then again, Israel is also not in quite the same geo-political conditions as most Western countries. To

hold Israel to the standards and norms of, say, Switzerland, would be disingenuous. The challenges and trials Israel's

democratic system need to pass while assuring its survival do not resemble the situation in most of the Western world.

The UN does a great job of treating most members evenhandedly, regardless of various transgressions and violations.

Checking out the lists of countries involved in condemning Israel for human rights violations and the like is nothing short

of absurd. If this condemnation was handed out by a more relevant composition of members, or if this condemnations

would not be regularly so one-sided, it would go down much better and be harder for Israel to ignore.

[ABCer]

Tragic events with the 3 Israeli boys but as usual the Israeli response it out of all proportion and is indeed murderous and hateful. I'm glad people are protesting this.

Did you forget about the ROCKETS?

Yeah I agree nothing wrong with protesting Israeli government policies, and yes, they are happening in many places in the world today.

But so many of these protests are downright racist.

Here -- the Jew hate posters.

In Seattle, more Jew hate posters and a picture of a Jew eating a small child.

In Frankfurt, Islamists and Neo-Nazis gathering together, shouting Jew hate slogans, assisted by the local POLICE (who provided a loudspeaker)

In Morocco, a rabbi on a walk brutally attacked, asking for help, nobody helped.

Jingthing, do not waste your time. There are people here who only see what they want to see.

Prbkk for example has noticed 3 Israeli boys. He didn't see the rockets... maybe because they were not falling onto his head? Or maybe because he has no head at all?

In fact, his position is limited to " I'm glad people are protesting".

You may see others here, like 7by7 who 'abhor all deaths no matter who kills whom'. Such a noble and venerable position makes no distinction between a perpetrator murderer and self defense.

Most people forget that you need two sides to make peace and only one to start the war.

[metisdead]

Remember, this topic is about Israeli flags being burned at the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok, there are topics in the World News forum to discuss the actions taking place in Gaza.

Edit to add again: There are topics in the World News forum to discuss the actions taking place in Gaza. Posts not relevant to Israel flags being burned at the Israeli Embassy in Bangkok have been removed.

Edited August 2, 2014 by metisdead

[dirtycash]

army should wipe this sh*t off the streets of bkk

[SteveFong]

Yeah! These juice are really baaaad. In fact, I'll drinks to that.

by far, the one post that caused an immediate burst of laughter.

[dirtycash]

I just don't understand what the thrill is that people find in hating and killing other people because of their faith or religious beliefs..all that time and energy placed into such actions that do nothing to better you as an individual..its mind boggling.. Whats the point?...

It's very simple, Palestinians are under occupation and they resist to it, that makes them terrorists. When the Americans fought against the British and killed many of them, when the Thai fought the Burmese at bang rajan, when the Frenchmen resisted (la resistance) against the Germans and killed many of them, they were all called heroes. Everybody has the right to fight for freedom, but Palestinians and Huygurs are called terrorists.

terrorists ? no words in me can describe these shower of shit who use their own children as human shields, they are the lowest form of sub human filth !!!

freedom fighters

[behonset]

I thought these kind of things were banned?

yeah these things should be banned. killing of Palestinians should by now be lawful and any protest against it should be banned

[Seastallion]

Disgusting to see this racist protest in Thailand.

Is "Israeli" a race? Or "Jewish"?

It's actually very heartening to see people in Thailand take an interest in global matters, especially in such a just cause.

[Jingthing]

Disgusting to see this racist protest in Thailand.

Is "Israeli" a race? Or "Jewish"?

It's actually very heartening to see people in Thailand take an interest in global matters, especially in such a just cause.

No, Jews are not a race. Rather Jewish people are an ethno-religious group. But people who hate Jews hate them in a racist way so that the hatred of Jews is racist. Israeli of course also not a race. Race is a tricky subject because it is complex; there are the objective biological/anthropological aspects to it but there are also the sometime even more important social constructs that human societies consider as race.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Jingthing

[Seastallion]

If the UN said so, it must be true.

Surely, there are no political interests effecting the way members vote.

You forgot to mention that there is an automatic biased majority against Israel in the UN since its establishment in 1948, the Arab lobby, and every resolution against and/or related to Israel has always been and probably always will be automatically approved in the general assembly.

If anyone wants to condemn Israel for the 2004 Indian Ocean's tsunami, just bring it for voting in the UN general assembly and it will issue a resolution against Israel on this. This is no joking matter, I am darn serious.

It also has quite an impartial majority in the security council, with Russia and China usually automatically voting against Israel, to satisfy and preserve their close relationships with their allies, the Arab league and other Muslim countries.

Luckily for Israel, they at least have its ally, the USA, with its veto right to balance this a bit and block most security council unbalanced resolutions.

P.S. The UN declaration of "Zionism = racism" (resolution 3379, which was part of the Soviet-Arab Cold War anti-Israel campaign) was made on 1975 and revoked by the UN on 1991 (Resolution 46/86) when Israel had made the revocation a condition of its participation in the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.

When a country is in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions and occupies foreign territory for 60 years in violation of UN resolutions and wantonly goes about sowing death and destruction throughout its surrounding region, it tends to earn an "automatic" bias.

The same UN did not have that many issues when Egypt and Jordan held on to Palestinian territories.

The same UN does not have much objections to the PRC holding on to Tibet, or to Russia's actions in the Caucasus.

Same UN that does not seem all too bothered about events in Syria.

List goes on. The UN is many things, impartial isn't one of them.

The UN's faults do not justify Israel in in way. Just because RTP Colonel Somchai is corrupt, does not make the murderer he let off less of a criminal.

[dr_lucas]

Disgusting to see this racist protest in Thailand.

Is "Israeli" a race? Or "Jewish"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_antisemitism

[dr_lucas]

When a country is in violation of hundreds of UN resolutions and occupies foreign territory for 60 years in violation of UN resolutions and wantonly goes about sowing death and destruction throughout its surrounding region, it tends to earn an "automatic" bias.

The same UN did not have that many issues when Egypt and Jordan held on to Palestinian territories.

The same UN does not have much objections to the PRC holding on to Tibet, or to Russia's actions in the Caucasus.

Same UN that does not seem all too bothered about events in Syria.

List goes on. The UN is many things, impartial isn't one of them.

The UN's faults do not justify Israel in in way. Just because RTP Colonel Somchai is corrupt, does not make the murderer he let off less of a criminal.

You do realize metisdead is probably gonna delete these kind of posts as OT in a few moments, don't you?

Come to world news, we are discussing it there.

[behonset]

I just don't understand what the thrill is that people find in hating and killing other people because of their faith or religious beliefs..all that time and energy placed into such actions that do nothing to better you as an individual..its mind boggling.. Whats the point?...

It's very simple, Palestinians are under occupation and they resist to it, that makes them terrorists. When the Americans fought against the British and killed many of them, when the Thai fought the Burmese at bang rajan, when the Frenchmen resisted (la resistance) against the Germans and killed many of them, they were all called heroes. Everybody has the right to fight for freedom, but Palestinians and Huygurs are called terrorists.

terrorists ? no words in me can describe these shower of shit who use their own children as human shields, they are the lowest form of sub human filth !!!

freedom fighters

do you ever watch aljazeera news? It will show you the truth about what is happening. The Palestinian fighters use the schools that have already been abandoned. Yet the terrorist from Israel bomb the schools that are being used for shelter despite being told so. The agenda here is to completely destroy the Palestinian spirit. Teach them a lesson so be it. Who are the real nazis now?

Edited August 4, 2014 by behonset

[Travelman868]

Tragic events with the 3 Israeli boys but as usual the Israeli response it out of all proportion and is indeed murderous and hateful. I'm glad people are protesting this.

Hang on a minute 1) there were 3 Israeli boys killed and Hamas did NOTHING 2) An idiot Jewish settler killed 1 Palestinian boy and they go mad.

I feel sad for the kids that were killed but Israel has a right to defend itself. Hamas sent nearly 2000 rockets into Israel and although most were shot

down the intention was to kill and maim.

You say Israelis are murderous and hateful but look at the mess Bush and Blair have made by killing a strong leader. Saddam was not nice but he

kept the lid on the pot.