Channel 4's news on the Leb/Israeli conflict compared to Sky (1 Viewer)

It should be noted here that the greater number of the Lebanese people appear to be extremely pissed off at Hezbollah's actions.. unlike Israel which has almost complete support for its policies. It's easy to make sweeping judgements about a country's motives and policies without knowing squat about what the people in that country believe.

I'd imagine being on the border with Israel is somewhat akin to living with a very large man who is extremely paranoid.
 
xrockridgex said:


hamas have 'implicilty' recognised israel. their very participation in the election implies a recognition, for it required them to accept the terms of the oslo accords. their spokesman has also 'implicitly' recognised israel ....

but its not that simple,
hamas have not changed their charter and there are in effect, two different parts of hamas to consider...
there is so much conflict within hamas between a moderate faction looking for political negotiation, and a more militant, uncompromising faction led by Meshal based in damasus.
 
"Not recognising" Israel is always held up as some sort of gross and inhuman position that automatically demonises those who adhere to it. If you "don't recognise" Israel than that is equated to wanting to "destroy" Israel which is then usually equated to wanting to "drive the Israelis into the sea" or something. In fact, it's a perfectly reasonable position. The PLO didn't recognise Israel for years and years, meaning that they did not accept the existence of the Israeli state, and instead wanted a secular state comprising of the whole of Palestine in which Palestinian Arabs and Jews could live. It's only because it became clear that this was never going to happen that many Palestinians came to accept the two-state solution. But that solution just seems ridiculous now, as the political geography would make any Palestinian state based on Gaza, and whatever bits of the West Bank they will be left with, a complete joke.
 
erin said:
hamas have 'implicilty' recognised israel. their very participation in the election implies a recognition, for it required them to accept the terms of the oslo accords. their spokesman has also 'implicitly' recognised israel ....

but its not that simple,
hamas have not changed their charter and there are in effect, two different parts of hamas to consider...
there is so much conflict within hamas between a moderate faction looking for political negotiation, and a more militant, uncompromising faction led by Meshal based in damasus.
That was the prisoners, Hamas outside denied that they had recognised Israel........
 
Hamas offered a full truce in 2004 and 2005 if Israel recognises Palestine on the '67 borders, withdraws ALL settlements, and allows the right to return.

Israel will not comply to any of those, so there will never be any truce.
 
100% wrong if your going by active free members :p

Having said that the prisoners do play an important role as previously seen in the North but this time Hamas outside appears to have not agreed with the prisoners.
 
hugh said:
It's only because it became clear that this was never going to happen that many Palestinians came to accept the two-state solution. But that solution just seems ridiculous now, as the political geography would make any Palestinian state based on Gaza, and whatever bits of the West Bank they will be left with, a complete joke.
Currently the Palestinians are hemmed in like dogs with the west bank cut off from east Jerusalem. A negotiated settlement along the 1967 lines with a capital in East Jerusalem would be a hell of a lot better than the current situation. The Palestinians have been ruled by a combination of the PA and the Israelis for a long time. A state led by the political wing of Hamas or a reformed PA , even if it is propped up by aid, would be hard pressed to be anything but an improvement in the everyday lives of the Palestinians.

hugh said:
wanted a secular state comprising of the whole of Palestine in which Palestinian Arabs and Jews could live.
A two state solution is the solution to the current situation, its not binding from now until the end of time. There is an Arab community living in isreal who are regarded with such suspicion and paranoia trhat they are considered foreginers. Peace might change that. Relations might improve and Jews and Arabs could live together peacefully, and maybe one day they could do so in the whole of geographic palestine.
 
xrockridgex said:
Currently the Palestinians are hemmed in like dogs with the west bank cut off from east Jerusalem. A negotiated settlement along the 1967 lines with a capital in East Jerusalem would be a hell of a lot better than the current situation. The Palestinians have been ruled by a combination of the PA and the Israelis for a long time. A state led by the political wing of Hamas or a reformed PA , even if it is propped up by aid, would be hard pressed to be anything but an improvement in the everyday lives of the Palestinians.

A two state solution is the solution to the current situation, its not binding from now until the end of time. There is an Arab community living in isreal who are regarded with such suspicion and paranoia trhat they are considered foreginers. Peace might change that. Relations might improve and Jews and Arabs could live together peacefully, and maybe one day they could do so in the whole of geographic palestine.
Are you going out of your way to disagree with people or something? The two of you are pretty much saying the same thing, so no need for the 'tude.
 
Well thats why I keep on posting to clarify what im saying. This is a text based interaction after all so people will infer certain things in their own heads that you never thought about. I thought we were having a very civil discussion. Maybe I should invent a smiley for that :)
 
xrockridgex said:
Well thats why I keep on posting to clarify what im saying. This is a text based interaction after all so people will infer certain things in their own heads that you never thought about. I thought we were having a very civil discussion. Maybe I should invent a smiley for that :)

Yeah I don't think we are disagreeing all that much anyway .... I think I am just a lot more pessimistic.
 
crusticide said:
Hey Janer, did I hear you say before that you work in fast food delivery? Thought you'd be interested in hearing how the lads chow down after a hard day's Arab-slaughtering.

http://pizzaidf.org/Haaretz/

Dig real deep, folks. Maybe we could do some benefits, sponsor a whole company or something. Sometimes you can feel so helpless over here, ya know.

that means you can fuel your very own murderous israeli rampage for less than 200,000 dollars, killing 400 lebanese, every two to three weeks.
where's christopher walken when we need him?

dogs.jpg


dogs of war for those who aint seen it.
 
Perfect strategy for Hizbollah. Just send as many snacks as possible, and then the isreali soldiers will be fat and easy to kill.
 
I HAD TO GET UP AND GO FOR A SERIOUS WALK LAST NIGHT. THE GODDAMN NEWS. WAY TO MAKE A MAN ANGRY. NEITHER OF THEM ARE RIGHT BUT THE ISRAELITES ARE LESS RIGHT. FUCKIN' CRAZY.

AND I KNOW THAT THERE'S HUGE CHUNKS OF INFO BEING LEFT OUT BY BOTH SIDES. AND BY ALL STATIONS. MAKES ME FURIOUS.

THIS IS HOW I SEE IT. "AFTER A LONG RUNNING FEUD THIS SCUZZBAG MUGGS A DOUCHEBAG FOR HIS WALLET PHONE AND I-POD. THE DOUCHE BAG THEN GOES AND ROBS EVERYTHING THE SCUZZBAG OWNS, EVERYTHING HIS FAMILY OWNS AND ENSURES THAT THE SCUZZBAG OR HIS FAMILY WILL HAVE EVERYTHING THEY MIGHT OWN IN THE FUTRUE ROBBED FOR THE NEXT FIFTY YEARS"

FUCKIN' PEOPLE AND THEIR FUCKIN' LAND.
NO QUANDO FOR THE WHOLE MIDDLE EAST.
 
Anyone see Hardtalk last night on BBC?

Nouhad Mahmoud, Lebanon's special envoy to the United Nations was on it. It was like watching Gerry Adams or Martin McGuiness. The BBC presenter kept asking him to condemn Hezbollah' 's kidnapping of Israeli soldiers and the rocket attacks on civilians. He just skipped about the question and repeated that Israel will never defeat the ideology of Hezbollah. I know condemnations aren't worth the paper they're written on but it still seems to show that the Lebanese government is not prepared to make a stand against a gorilla group.

He also wouldn't take a stand to say whether Lebanon would force Hezbollah to give up their weapons. He sees them as freedom fighters. Fighting for the Shaba farms and occupied land.

From my point of view If the Lebanese government are not willing to take a stand against Hezbollah and they seem to feel Hezbollah have a right to fight for farms, that are not even Lebanese but rather Syrian, then there is no way Israel will be able to know their own border is safe.

In Ireland we get upset when the UK are talking about building nuclear power plants on their West coast. How would we feel if the BNP started amassing a load of rockets all pointed at our cities and the UK government didn't take any action? Even in Israel people are really surprised at how much weaponry Hezbollah seem to have amassed. What if they have more hidden that no-one knows about. Could it be that Iran may provide them with a "dirty" bomb? (maybe that's going a bit far but he does seem a lunatic!)

The first step to getting a ceasefire will only happen when Hezbollah's armed wing is seen as a terrorist group and dealt with as such.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Activity
So far there's no one here
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.

Support thumped.com

Support thumped.com and upgrade your account

Upgrade your account now to disable all ads...

Upgrade now

Latest threads

Latest Activity

Loading…
Back
Top