Thousands march for Gaza in London, clashes in Paris over Israeli onslaught

[dr_lucas]

 

The fighting and slaughter of civilians will continue because Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, who they, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a terrorist organisation.

 

Let's look at another situation from recent history; Northern Ireland.

 

The IRA was, and still is, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland as a separate entity and it's forced absorption into the Republic of Ireland.

 

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s they used, among other terror tactics, a bombing campaign against the UK and the Ulster unionists, mainly in Northern Ireland but in mainland Britain as well, which killed far more innocent civilians than Hamas have.

 

For most of that time, both Labour and Tory governments, Thatcher especially, refused to negotiate with terrorists. So the Troubles went on and on with more and more deaths. (I am fully aware, of course, that there were and still are Unionist terrorist groups as well.)

 

Then came a change of heart and the British government, first under Major, then under Blair, agreed to negotiate with the IRA, or at least it's public face Sinn Fein, without any preconditions and as a result came the Good Friday agreement in 1998.

 

Since then, despite occasional atrocities from both republican terrorists and unionist ones, there has been peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Maybe if the Israeli government agreed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions, as the British government did with the IRA, the slaughter would stop.

 

A slim chance for peace? Maybe, but better than no chance at all.

You have to negotiate with the enemy to make peace. Nothing else works.

 

True. But...

Hamas is not the IRA (except for the fact they are both terror organizations), very far from it. If it was, Israel would have been able to make peace with it long long time ago.

 

 

DUBLIN — Since my arrival in Ireland about a year ago as Israel's ambassador, it has been suggested to me in almost every conversation with Irish officials, academics, journalists and ordinary people that Israelis and Palestinians should learn from Northern Ireland's peace process and apply some of its principles if there is ever to be an end to our conflict. Since the successful implementation of peace through power sharing in Northern Ireland in May 2007, this model has been recommended to me with even stronger conviction.

In particular, I am told that Israel should talk to Hamas, as Britain and Ireland spoke to the IRA. After all, the IRA, as a terrorist organization, moderated its position, gave up arms, abandoned the use of terrorism and accepted an agreement based on compromise. Now those former political enemies share power in the same administration. But would a similar process lead Hamas to end its campaign of violence and accept the establishment of a sovereign Palestinian state living in peace with Israel?

While there are some similarities between these two complex and protracted conflicts, and indeed some lessons can be learned, it is a dangerous exercise to conclude that they are the same because of their largely different historical, geopolitical and cultural circumstances. Especially, the different importance attached to religious beliefs in the IRA's and Hamas's political platforms.

Underlying my Irish friends' advice is the expectation that should Israel start a dialogue with Hamas, the latter will change its ideology, renounce terrorism, recognize Israel, stop all acts of violence, suicide bombings and Qassam rocket attacksand relinquish its weapons.

Such expectation is rooted in the assumption that when two parties with diametrically opposing views engage in a dialogue, the dynamic created changes the chemistry of the conflict, moderates the positions of both sides and makes a compromise possible. Although this theory may be valid in some cases, unfortunately it is not in the case of Hamas.

One of the main differences between Hamas and the IRA is the role played by religion in their ideologies. While most IRA members were Catholic and religion was a factor, its political platform and vision was the unification of the island of Ireland, not defined in religious terms. The religious beliefs of its members did not block the way to a political compromise.

By contrast, the ideology of Hamas is defined in absolutist religious terms, that of a radical version of Islam, which is not open to influence or change. The political vision and religious belief of Hamas are one and the same; therefore, change is unlikely.

At the core of this belief is the desire to create an Islamist state based on Islamic law over all the land, not just the West Bank and Gaza, but Israel as well. There is no acceptance of the notion of coexistence, no support for the idea of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace, but an exclusive demand, based on fundamentalist interpretations of religious texts, for control of the entire territory.

The Hamas Charter, adopted in 1988 and still very much in effect, defines the land of Palestine as "an Islamic Waqf" (trust territory) consecrated for future Muslim generations. It adds: "Until the Day of Resurrection, no one can renounce it or part of it, or abandon it or part of it" (Article 11).

The Charter's preface states "Israel will arise and will remain existent only until Islam eliminates it as it has eliminated its predecessors." Furthermore, it defines the enemy explicitly as an ethnic-religious group - the Jewish people. Hamas officials continue in their refusal to recognize Israel's right to exist. In contrast, the IRA never questioned Britain's right to exist.

The difference also applies to the practical level. After the IRA ceasefire of 1994, U.S. Senator George Mitchell, called in as a mediator, laid down ground rules for participation in the Northern Ireland talks. All the parties to the conflict then agreed to a code of conduct. The first principle was a commitment by all sides to "democratic and exclusively peaceful means" of resolving political issues. The second was a commitment to "the total disarmament" of all paramilitary groups. Sadly such principles cannot be reconciled with the Hamas Charter, its religious ideology and the concept of the duty to wage holy war (jihad), which will inherently always take precedence.

In fact, the whole idea of a peace process and the use of mediators are ruled out by the Charter. Mediators would not be welcome, since "those conferences are no more than a means to appoint the unbelievers as arbitrators in the lands of Islam" (Article 13).

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.

Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

[simple1]

 

Alas there is a growing temptation for adopting an ideological loon stance, especially for MPs who stand In constituencies with high levels of cultural enrichment. What baroness Warsi wrote in her resignation statement amounted to a threat that government 'support' for Israel could lead to terrorist attacks within the UK, all hiding behind a veil of sophistry of course. And we haven't even mentioned Lord Ahmed yet, he would fit right in on this forum.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

 

 

Now we have someone asserting Baroness Warsi real agenda is to support Islamic extremism! I am sure proof will be provided by way of opinion,based upon complete lack of evidence.

 

Overlooked from her resignation letter; is this also a lie? Full text at URL below.

 

"confidence in Government has allowed me to take the very public international lead on religious freedom, specifically on the ever growing crisis of the persecution of Christians"

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/baroness-warsis-resignation-the-letter-to-david-cameron-in-full-as-senior-foreign-office-minister-resigns-over-gaza-policy-9648794.html

Edited August 6, 2014 by simple1

[Ulysses G.]

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.
Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

[Morch]

 

 

it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

Sure. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. A politician lie? That really is outrageous. 

 

 

If a British politician deliberately lies to Parliament, that is a very serious breach. Remember Profumo? (Probably not; look him up.)

 

The error was found and rectified.

 

But the Baroness did not make the error; surely you don't think politicians research these answers themselves!

 

I imagine that the official who did so and gave her the wrong information and caused her this embarrassment was royally kicked up the arse!

 

 

Mistakes can happen, sure. Not everything is deliberate. People who believe everything is carefully planned ahead are

way out there.

 

Then again, I would better like people making statements, especially those in office, to be more familiar with details when

they apply that extra dose of brimstone to their public announcements.

 

That would apply all around, not just specifically in this case or another. And coming to think about it, wouldn't be too bad

is this was applied to this forum as well.

[Morch]

 

The fighting and slaughter of civilians will continue because Israel refuses to negotiate with Hamas, who they, rightly or wrongly, consider to be a terrorist organisation.

 

Let's look at another situation from recent history; Northern Ireland.

 

The IRA was, and still is, a terrorist organisation dedicated to the destruction of Northern Ireland as a separate entity and it's forced absorption into the Republic of Ireland.

 

From the late 1960s to the early 1990s they used, among other terror tactics, a bombing campaign against the UK and the Ulster unionists, mainly in Northern Ireland but in mainland Britain as well, which killed far more innocent civilians than Hamas have.

 

For most of that time, both Labour and Tory governments, Thatcher especially, refused to negotiate with terrorists. So the Troubles went on and on with more and more deaths. (I am fully aware, of course, that there were and still are Unionist terrorist groups as well.)

 

Then came a change of heart and the British government, first under Major, then under Blair, agreed to negotiate with the IRA, or at least it's public face Sinn Fein, without any preconditions and as a result came the Good Friday agreement in 1998.

 

Since then, despite occasional atrocities from both republican terrorists and unionist ones, there has been peace in Northern Ireland.

 

Maybe if the Israeli government agreed to sit down and negotiate with Hamas without any preconditions, as the British government did with the IRA, the slaughter would stop.

 

A slim chance for peace? Maybe, but better than no chance at all.

You have to negotiate with the enemy to make peace. Nothing else works.

 

 

Indeed.

However, not exactly as if the Hamas itself ever agreed to sit down and negotiate with Israel without any preconditions.

As Hamas does not even recognize Israel, there's a major obstacle right there. Chalking it up to Israeli refusal, as the

tail of 7by7's post seems to do is hardly an accurate portrayal of reality, though.

[7by7]

 

 

 

it was an error by whomever provided the brief to her.

Sure. And Bill Clinton never had sexual relations with that woman. A politician lie? That really is outrageous. 

 

 
If a British politician deliberately lies to Parliament, that is a very serious breach.

 

As is lying under oath in America. Guess what? The President of the United States did it anyway.

 

 

You obviously have difficulty in understanding the difference between a deliberate lie and an error in a briefing note which was later corrected.

 

Clinton deliberately lied; Warsi did not.

[7by7]

 

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.
Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

 

 

No; he does his job and repeats the Israeli government's line.

[7by7]

Alas there is a growing temptation for adopting an ideological loon stance, especially for MPs who stand In constituencies with high levels of cultural enrichment. What baroness Warsi wrote in her resignation statement amounted to a threat that government 'support' for Israel could lead to terrorist attacks within the UK, all hiding behind a veil of sophistry of course. And we haven't even mentioned Lord Ahmed yet, he would fit right in on this forum.

You do know that members of the House of Lords are appointed, not elected; don't you?
 
Baroness Warsi does not have any constituents!

She did stand for Parliament in 2004 in her home town of Dewsbury; but lost to Labour.

TV news in the UK yesterday had street interviews with residents of Dewsbury, most of them white, most of them expressing support for her stance.

A number of government backbenchers in the Commons have come out in support of the Baroness' stance; as have, for what's worth, Clegg and Miliband..

As for what she said in her resignation letter; as already suggested; you should read all of it, not edited 'highlights.' Here it is again.
 
I can only surmise that you are basing you comment that the letter is a 'threat that government 'support' for Israel could lead to terrorist attacks within the UK' on this bit

early evidence from the Home Office and others shows that the fallout of the current conflict and the potential for the crisis in Gaza and our response to it becoming a basis for radicalisation could have consequences for us for years to come.

 

Evidence from the Home Office and others; not a threat from the Baroness!

[Ulysses G.]

Evidence from the Home Office and others; not a threat from the Baroness!

Her supposed interpretation of the evidence - which could be construed as a threat - and is her claim, not theirs.

[7by7]

Do you have difficulties comprehending English?

 

She is not going to make things up in a letter to the Prime Minister when he, of all people, is in a position to check and, if he and the Home Secretary are both doing their jobs, he already knows about anyway!

Edited August 6, 2014 by 7by7

[CBR250]

 

Most if not all members here are debating who to blame and who is at fault, who are the victims and who are the aggressors.

(My personal opinions on this are known after the 100+ posts I made on this topic)

Aren't you guys interested in peace?

I don't remember seeing any posts about:

- Constructive suggestions on how to resolve the conflict

- Realistic suggestions on how to stop the bloodshed once and for all

 

I'd really love to read your opinions. I believe many would.

 

 

I like your suggestion, but it can't work on TV. There are too many rabid ratbags on TV - primarily, although not exclusively, on the side of right wing Zionism. They do not respond to main points of other posters, but prefer to: misrepresent arguments; ignore responses to central tenets of others posts; and misinterpret arguments and history (quite a deliberately at times - or maybe they are really that thick). They lack both the ability to empathise with others and the intellectual capacity to comprehend principles and applications of human rights. They also feel that they must flood this forum, no matter how nonsensically, to ensure that space for a rationale discussion is not present.

These opinionated but uninformed posters are representatives - sadly - of the majority mind-set that exists within Israel. It is people such as these who make peace so difficult, if not impossible. They do not want peace, they want subjugation. They do not want a Palestinian state, they want the West Bank for the state of Israel.  The overt biases and prejudices of people such as these, along with a failure to acknowledge any fault on the side of Israel, serves to alienate more and more people across the world.

PS My personal opinions re peace and constructive solutions have in fact appeared in various posts. I like your suggested angle of opening up this space for discussion. I just don't see it working in this forum.

[Morch]

 

 

Most if not all members here are debating who to blame and who is at fault, who are the victims and who are the aggressors.

(My personal opinions on this are known after the 100+ posts I made on this topic)

Aren't you guys interested in peace?

I don't remember seeing any posts about:

- Constructive suggestions on how to resolve the conflict

- Realistic suggestions on how to stop the bloodshed once and for all

 

I'd really love to read your opinions. I believe many would.

 

 

I like your suggestion, but it can't work on TV. There are too many rabid ratbags on TV - primarily, although not exclusively, on the side of right wing Zionism. They do not respond to main points of other posters, but prefer to: misrepresent arguments; ignore responses to central tenets of others posts; and misinterpret arguments and history (quite a deliberately at times - or maybe they are really that thick). They lack both the ability to empathise with others and the intellectual capacity to comprehend principles and applications of human rights. They also feel that they must flood this forum, no matter how nonsensically, to ensure that space for a rationale discussion is not present.

These opinionated but uninformed posters are representatives - sadly - of the majority mind-set that exists within Israel. It is people such as these who make peace so difficult, if not impossible. They do not want peace, they want subjugation. They do not want a Palestinian state, they want the West Bank for the state of Israel.  The overt biases and prejudices of people such as these, along with a failure to acknowledge any fault on the side of Israel, serves to alienate more and more people across the world.

PS My personal opinions re peace and constructive solutions have in fact appeared in various posts. I like your suggested angle of opening up this space for discussion. I just don't see it working in this forum.

 

 

Are you trying to claim these biases and failings portray only (or mostly) posters supporting Israel?

And are you trying to claim yourself free of both?
 

[Ulysses G.]

There are too many rabid ratbags on TV - primarily, although not exclusively, on the side of right wing Zionism.

You have GOT to be joking. I'm not going to say who is the most "rabid" - and I definitely have an opinion - but claiming that it is primarily on the side of Israel,  negates any smidgen of credibility that you might have had. 

[dr_lucas]

 

 

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.
Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

 

 

No; he does his job and repeats the Israeli government's line.

 

 

Let's forget about lines for a moment because I don't think Israel's government has any line on them  (the IRA that you mentioned).
Does that mean you disagree with what the ambassador wrote? If so, what specifically do you disagree with in the comparison he made? Is there any part of what he wrote that you do agree with? Do you believe the IRA and Hamas are the same?
 

[tartempion]

This is all about war isn't?
Not much else humans can achieve or be proud of.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

[Scott]

An off-topic post and reply have been deleted.  

[Jingthing]

This is all about war isn't?
Not much else humans can achieve or be proud of.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Yes, it is a war.

Israel wants to live in peace, to stop having to send every generation to existential war, and to eat hummus.

Hamas wants to take over all of Israel for the Arabs, and do "God" knows what to the millions of Jews there.

And also eat hummus.

Less Hamas.

More Hummus!

Edited August 6, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

A strong rebuttal to the "Free Gaza" "From the River to the Sea" "anti-Zionist" protesters:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ugsv5u-sW0

[MJP]

A strong rebuttal to the "Free Gaza" "From the River to the Sea" "anti-Zionist" protesters:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ugsv5u-sW0

 

He does make valid points.

[Jingthing]

There was one part of it where I thought he want too far in attacking modern Arab culture in a mean spirited way. I wish he hadn't done that, because it didn't add much to his message, and that one part will be used to devalue his entire message, which is of course mostly spot on. 

Edited August 6, 2014 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Of course there are a number of other debatable flaws ... 

I kind of think the West Bank REALLY is "occupied" regardless of the history of what led to that. 

Not an expert on this, but I kind of think Arab Israelis aren't exactly in a situation of 100 percent real equality to Jewish Israelis. 

[Scott]

A post with an oversized photo and a reply have been deleted.  

[Ulysses G.]

 

A strong rebuttal to the "Free Gaza" "From the River to the Sea" "anti-Zionist" protesters:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ugsv5u-sW0

 

He does make valid points.

 

 

Condell is totally spot on - as usual. The funny thing is that he he used to be critical of Israel until he started studying up on it.

I really like Hillel Neuer too. He has a way with Hamas spokespeople and useful idiots. 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcNdwLmGNSQ&list=PL8E1BA727A0E2DFC0

[dexterm]

 

This is all about war isn't?
Not much else humans can achieve or be proud of.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Yes, it is a war.

Israel wants to live in peace, to stop having to send every generation to existential war, and to eat hummus.

Hamas wants to take over all of Israel for the Arabs, and do "God" knows what to the millions of Jews there.

And also eat hummus.

Less Hamas.

More Hummus!

 

 

Well, the Hamas is not doing a very good job of taking over all of Israel are they? Whereas Israel is doing a pretty good impression of taking over all Palestinian land.

 

Israel has been fighting for more than 66 years now..aren’t you tired of sending you sons and daughters to war, instead of allowing them to enjoy the best years of their lives? As Albert Einstein said “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

 

A mere 12 years after the end of World War 2, we had the establishment of the EU in Europe. How about a few more far sighted Israeli politicians?

 

Give peace a chance by making some realistic compromises. Ratchet down the blockade of Gaza as the rockets cease. Don’t make impossible demands that you know Hamas can’t meet like insisting they virtually  surrender. Give people room to move. Don’t back them into a corner. Otherwise this is all going to happen again and again...more Israeli parents attending their children’s funerals.

[Ulysses G.]

Well, the Hamas is not doing a very good job of taking over all of Israel are they?

Not for want of trying. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink and Hamas has made it plain over and over again that they will never recognize Israel or give up terrorism. There IS no room to "negotiate" with those obstructions. 

[Morch]

 

 

This is all about war isn't?
Not much else humans can achieve or be proud of.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Thailand

Yes, it is a war.

Israel wants to live in peace, to stop having to send every generation to existential war, and to eat hummus.

Hamas wants to take over all of Israel for the Arabs, and do "God" knows what to the millions of Jews there.

And also eat hummus.

Less Hamas.

More Hummus!

 

 

Well, the Hamas is not doing a very good job of taking over all of Israel are they? Whereas Israel is doing a pretty good impression of taking over all Palestinian land.

 

Israel has been fighting for more than 66 years now..aren’t you tired of sending you sons and daughters to war, instead of allowing them to enjoy the best years of their lives? As Albert Einstein said “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

 

A mere 12 years after the end of World War 2, we had the establishment of the EU in Europe. How about a few more far sighted Israeli politicians?

 

Give peace a chance by making some realistic compromises. Ratchet down the blockade of Gaza as the rockets cease. Don’t make impossible demands that you know Hamas can’t meet like insisting they virtually  surrender. Give people room to move. Don’t back them into a corner. Otherwise this is all going to happen again and again...more Israeli parents attending their children’s funerals.

 

 

There you go again with them arbitrary historical starting points in time. As if European history started at WW2. As if

Europe did not witness fighting for hundreds of years.

 

And once again with the ongoing charade that the Palestinians are all for peace and it is just that Israel is unwilling to.

Such one-sided views are ridiculous at best.

 

And yet another cunning plan: take off the blockade as rocket fire ease. Great thinking. Taking down the blockade,

allow Hamas to rearm itself, and the whole thing will be repeated a wee earlier. I notice that there is nothing about

monitoring, inspections or the like in your post. Israel should give something in return for a promise. Think we did

cover this bit of nonsense in another topic.

[7by7]

 

 

 

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.
Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

 

 

No; he does his job and repeats the Israeli government's line.

 

 

Let's forget about lines for a moment because I don't think Israel's government has any line on them  (the IRA that you mentioned).
Does that mean you disagree with what the ambassador wrote? If so, what specifically do you disagree with in the comparison he made? Is there any part of what he wrote that you do agree with? Do you believe the IRA and Hamas are the same?
 

 

 

If you read what I have posted about this, your questions will be answered.

[dr_lucas]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

 

 

No; he does his job and repeats the Israeli government's line.

 

 

Let's forget about lines for a moment because I don't think Israel's government has any line on them  (the IRA that you mentioned).
Does that mean you disagree with what the ambassador wrote? If so, what specifically do you disagree with in the comparison he made? Is there any part of what he wrote that you do agree with? Do you believe the IRA and Hamas are the same?
 

 

 

If you read what I have posted about this, your questions will be answered.

 

 

I read all you posted and my questions are still not answered.

Care to copy & paste your answers?

[GentlemanJim]

Of course there are a number of other debatable flaws ... 

I kind of think the West Bank REALLY is "occupied" regardless of the history of what led to that. 

Not an expert on this, but I kind of think Arab Israelis aren't exactly in a situation of 100 percent real equality to Jewish Israelis. 

 

"I kind of think the West Bank REALLY is "occupied" regardless of the history of what led to that. "

 

Well that's a start I never thought I would hear.

 

"Not an expert on this, but I kind of think Arab Israelis aren't exactly in a situation of 100 percent real equality to Jewish Israelis."

 

I don't think you need to be an expert on it to suss that one out but I am glad you are tending towards that conclusion.

 

 

Perhaps some bedtime reading from the Washington post will help some of the more right wing readers think about what the agenda is here. Hamas are the Israeli Taliban, they were the 'Mujahadeen' turned 'Taliban' equivalents used by Israel to drive a wedge through Fatah. The thing is, these guys who created this are so clever at what they do and so accurate in predicting outcomes that it is difficult to imagine that the Hamas we have today was left to chance.

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/07/30/how-israel-helped-create-hamas/

[GentlemanJim]

 

What then is a prudent policy for the international community towards Hamas, especially in the aftermath of its takeover of Gaza? The answer is a united front and a consistent policy, demanding and insisting on the acceptance of the three principles laid out by the Quartet (United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia): recognition of Israel's right to exist, renouncing and ending terrorism, and accepting all prior agreements and understandings achieved between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
These are sensible principles. If Hamas were to accept these principles, abandon its radical beliefs and, like the IRA transform itself into a partner for dialogue, it could join the peace process and put an end to the suffering of the Palestinian people. Indeed, if Hamas stops rocket attacks on Israeli towns and villages and releases the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, it can pave the way for an immediate and stable ceasefire in the Gaza region.
Unfortunately, given the intransigent ideological and religious foundations behind Hamas' violent actions, such an expectation is quite unrealistic. Instead, Middle East peace would better be served by supporting the moderate Palestinian leadership in their effort to lead their people to a reasonable compromise - a path which Israel as well is willing to take.

 

Israel's ambassador to Ireland tells it exactly like it is.   

 

 

I think more like, Ireland's Senator David Norris tells it EXACTLY like it is. Quite poignant at one point, he talks about being in Gaza and saying to people there is nothing I can do, and one person says 'yes there is - you can be a witness to this you can tell the world'. If I recall are those not the almost exact words used by the Jews during the Holocaust? Some Holocaust quotes, less we forget these women and children.

 

"“For the dead and the living, we must bear witness.” 

― Elie Wiesel"

 

 

“Monsters exist, but they are too few in number to be truly dangerous. More dangerous are the common men, the functionaries ready to believe and to act without asking questions.” 
― Primo Levi

 

“Thou shalt not be a victim, thou shalt not be a perpetrator, but, above all, thou shalt not be a bystander.” 
― Yehuda Bauer

 

“I swore never to be silent whenever and wherever human beings endure suffering and humiliation. We must take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented.” 
― Elie Wiesel

 

I could go on but the irony of where the quotes come from is simply too saddening. We have learned nothing! We have learned NOTHING from the Holocaust. I used to think that at least the 6 million who died will not have died in vain as the world will never permit its like again, yet we have...now in palestine. Shame on man kind.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL9lYxKSZ9w

Edited August 7, 2014 by GentlemanJim