The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The 'Israeli take' > Comments

The 'Israeli take' : Comments

By Colin Andersen, published 28/7/2006

To get a more nuanced understanding of events in the Middle East, one has to turn to the Internet.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. All
ELIDA, you say Israel has been spoiling for a fight but the evidence is that Iran and Hamas are the ones who wish to see Israel removed, "swept into the sea" and Hezbollah have said they will "write their history in blood".

If I was an Israeli I would be feeling threatened.
Posted by rog, Friday, 28 July 2006 8:22:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jeff Schubert

Christianity might teach that only Christians can enter the kingdon of heaven and Islam something similar, but Judaism does not. according to Talmudic Law all good people will enter paradise and all people are made by the one and only God.

Trouble is that mediaevel Christianity tried to discredit Judaism by the deliberate misinterpretation of Judaic Law and these misinterpretations exist in Christian minds to the present. They form a basis for anti-Judaism.

Marilyn Shephard

You still seems to hold this primitive hate. The Israelis do not hate the Arabs but they fear them.

Regarding the so called illegal occupation of Syria and Lebenon these were occupied because the occupants tried to destroy Israel and at one stage came close to succeeding. The Israelis are frightened and given the excesses of some Arab based groups in the world - New York London Madrid Bali India so are most of the rest of us.

Israel no longer attacks Egypt now that Egypt has stopped attacking Israel. There is the proof of what is required for peace.

The Israelis have shown that they do not hate Arabs - the treatment of Arab minorities in Israel contrasts very favourably with the treatment of Jews and Christians in Arab countries. In fact Arabs in Israel are actually better off than most of those in Muslim lands. I wish I could say the same for Jews in Iran.
Posted by logic, Friday, 28 July 2006 8:55:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's obviously a lot more to this conflict than what's being reported in the Western media so the internet can be a valuable resource, if used cautiously.

For example, nobody in our media seemed to notice that the new Ceyhan-Tblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline opened just as the hostilities began - taking oil from the Caspian to the Mediterranean. There's a second pipe that will carry much-needed water to Israel from Turkey.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20060726&articleId=2824

This sort of information can be easily verified and is just part of a bigger picture that we aren't supposed to see.

The internet does provide a lot of false information but most of it can be verified reasonably easily if you keep an open mind and cross-check independent sources.

The alternative is to be a good citizen and believe everything our politicians and media tell us without question, something that many are more than happy to do.

If people had access to today's information resources at the time of Hitler's Reichstag fire, would WW2 still have happened?

Given the response to, and outcome of 911 so far, I regret to admit it probably would.

Knowing or suspecting something to be false isn't enough to make a difference.
Posted by wobbles, Saturday, 29 July 2006 2:13:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My goodness much work 2B be done

Firstly.... 'LOGIC' let me sort out your theology :)

You of all people should know that the means of salvation according to the pentateuch was the covenant relationship with G-D.
People OUTside the covenant, were outside of Gods Grace. If this is NOT the case.. can you please interpret correctly for me this verse (among many others)

Isaiah 46:1-6
The LORD called me before I was born,
while I was in my mother's womb he named me...

"It is too light a thing that you should be my servant
to raise up the tribes of Jacob
and to restore the survivors of Israel;
I will give you as a light to the nations,
that my SALVATION may reach to the end of the earth."

This is clearly MESSIANIC.... speaking of... a 'person'

It is also clear that without the work of 'The Servant' salvation is unknown in the ends of the earth.
Further, if you cannot see that the focus ends up on an individual in Isaiah 53...... "The Lord has laid on HIM (Jesus) ...the iniquity of us all"
etc, then I may have to take you aside for special on going counselling :)

MARILYN.. you cannot work out why people are 'one eyed supporters of Israel'?

If you call supporting a nation against those (Iran,Hamas and Hezbollah) who have delcared in their foundation documents that they intend to have a Nazi style 'final solution' (as opposed to my version which is humane) to the "Jewish_Problem" 'one_eyed' then I may have to divide my time between Logic and you for counselling.

I'm amazed you don't get the connection between 'Iranian money and proxy building, Hezbollah arming itself to the teeth, Hezbollah attacking Isael and Israel getting stuck into them AND their supporters.

NOTE. In every interview with 'INNOCENT' refugees, I have yet to find one who did NOT say "I will fight for Hezbollah or I support them" that, I'm sorry to say is NOT "innocence" that is culpable guilt of the most heinous kind and is being treated accordingly by Israel.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 29 July 2006 8:43:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think the point is the selective use of history used by both Israeli's and Islamists to support continued violence- both use incidents such as Deir Yassin as a rallying point for continuing feelings of vengeance and postponing any possibility of peace. The problem with selecting any point in history is that there is always a precedent, an historical context from which those events arose, so we have to ask when we draw the line? As one of the comments above pointed out, there was a precipitating context for the massacre at Deir Yassin and of course those provocations themselves were a response to prior events. We will never be able to say that either Israel or the Palestinians are ultimately at fault and yet that seems to be the main aim of a lot of the comments here and in the MSM. The creation of the state of Israel was a practical and moral imperative. Now the creation of a similar state of Palestine is also a similar imperative. This should be the main focus - if we cannot approach this in a forward-looking way, not bringing the centuries of pain to the negotiation table then the outlook for us all is exceptionally grim. Unfortunately the US has squandered its ability to act as a relatively impartial broker in these negotiations. This military action seems to me to be a totally unnecessary and tragic postponement of the ultimate necessity of negotiating a peace under the two-state solution.
Posted by SCR, Saturday, 29 July 2006 9:22:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This morning we read that Hezbollah terrorists not only hide among civilians, but they also fire their rockets at Israel from the cover of United Nations posts, believing that Israel will not dare to retaliate.

Perhaps Kofi Anan would like to comment on that, rather than lambasting Israel as per usual.

The question now is, did Israel accidently or knowingly strike UN observation posts, or was it responding to missiles from area X? Most of us know absolutely nothing about modern weapons, but is it actually possible to distinguish a UN observation post from any other building or redoubt?

It would be much easier to pinpoint enemy fire than it would be to distinguish a UN observation post or any other building at the ranges involved, surely?
Posted by Leigh, Saturday, 29 July 2006 10:46:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. ...
  10. 18
  11. 19
  12. 20
  13. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy