Israeli Ambassador pulls out of Oireachtas meeting

[Banana Man]

I'm with Muppet, not interested in who is right or who is wrong as we all have our opinion on this and think our own is the right one, but a blind man can see that the USA let Israel do whatever they want and the UN is impotent without their backing.

Brian Cowen talking of serious consequences is like Jack Lynch and that infamous comment that was as hollow as Cowen's is now.

The USA said they went into Afghanistan to liberate them from the oppressive Taliban and Iraq to liberate the people from a tyrant but what about the 1.5 million people in the oldest refugee camp in the world, terrorised by a rogue state - it beggars belief

[Nally Stand]

Hey "gallsman" for every Israeli killed eleven Palestinians have died.

Gallsman has the mentality that no criticism should be directed at the elephant in the room because there is also a mouse in the corner of the room which seemingly deserves equal attention.

[give her dixie]

UN = United Nothing

[gallsman]

Hey "gallsman" for every Israeli killed eleven Palestinians have died.

Gallsman has the mentality that no criticism should be directed at the elephant in the room because there is also a mouse in the corner of the room which seemingly deserves equal attention.

Witty as always. Where did I say there should be no criticism should be directed at Israel? Point me to the exact post and I won't call you a liar.

Israel should be rightly condemned and sanctioned as a result of this disgraceful action.

That couldn't have been me posting that Nally, could it?

[Nally Stand]

Well you are quick on the attack against me for my criticism of the Israeli Army. Perhaps I interpreted it wrong and seen your condemnation of Israeli actions as a token comment in the face of your comments about Palestianian stone throwers/rockets. Maybe you just plain don't like me, and your crticism of Palestinian resistance is merely a cover to have a wee swipe at me is all it was.

Anyway, I'm still awaiting your reply to my post at 2:28.

[gallsman]

Well you are quick on the attack against me for my criticism of the Israeli Army. Perhaps I interpreted it wrong and seen your condemnation of Israeli actions as a token comment in the face of your comments about Palestianian stone throwers/rockets. Maybe you just plain don't like me, and your crticism of Palestinian resistance is merely a cover to have a wee swipe at me is all it was.

Anyway, I'm still awaiting your reply to my post at 2:28.

Wrong again. I criticised your bigoted attempt to portray Palestinian attacks on Israel as little more than stone throwing.

My point is that I am very much anti-Israeli, I'm just not naive or bigoted enough to believe that Palestinians haven't committed atrocities as well.

[Nally Stand]

Wrong again indeed. I asked you this as 2.28 and it seems I need to repeat myself, you stated that I suggested "no Palestinian has ever fired rockets into Israel, or bombed them or anything worse than stone throwing". So AGAIN, I ask you to show some balls and give me the quote where I stated such a thing.

Rather that provide me with evidence to me saying this, you again repeat the allegation by referring to "my bigoted attempt to portray Palestinian attacks on Israel as little more than stone throwing". WHERE DID I SUGGEST THAT THE PALESTINIANS ONLY FORM OF RESISTANCE WAS STONE THROWING???

I spoke of the Israeli Army having a history of over reactions to Palestinian stone throwers. How can you deduce from that that I believe stone throwing was the only form of Palestinian resistance?

And I assure you that I also am not bigoted. If you are not naive surely then you would accept that Palestinians would not have had reason to fight had they not been living under Israels boot for so long? And the only reason these 'atrocoties' by Palestinians occured is due to desperation and not some crazed thirst for blood or for getting a thrill from killing?

You might want to do a quick edit of your last line there by the way, you describe yourself as naive and bigoted. Just a wee tip off. You're welcome

[Arthur_Friend]

Hey "gallsman" for every Israeli killed eleven Palestinians have died.

Not sure about the inverted commas, but my point is that from an Israeli point of view, whether or not you agree with it, if you're getting rockets fired at you, you're going to be angered.

Gallsman, go back 62 years, read a bit of history from then until the present day.
Then, when you have educated yourself a bit, you will realise that comments like this are stupid

How are they stupid? I'm a nationalist, I oppose British rule. Despite all the atrocities committed during the troubles by the British/Unionist side, does this mean I'm too blindly bigoted (hypocritically so?) not to understand how they would feel outraged by events like Mountbatten, Enniskillen or Kingsmill

I'm perfectly aware of my history, I've had a great education. I respect your particular authority on this situation but will kindly ask you not to patronise me.

What if the British had decided to completely flatten West Belfast with Apache helicopters in response to some Irish Catholics, i.e. those in the IRA, committing those atrocities?  Not to mention not allowing the inhabitants to leave and stopping them from rebuilding. I think that's a fair enough analogy, how would you feel about that gallsman?

[gallsman]

You might want to do a quick edit of your last line there by the way, you describe yourself as naive and bigoted. Just a wee tip off. You're welcome

Appreciated, glad to see you've fixed that problem you had of not reading things properly.

You've just done it again - you call it Palestinian "resisitance." Bombing cafés is not "resistance," the same way Enniskillen and Kingsmill was not "resistance". Call a spade a spade for once.

[Nally Stand]

I can read perfectly. Can't you? I put two questions forward for you to answer. I put them in bold and everything to help you! Maybe if I put it in big, easy to read lettering you will answer this time.


You stated that I suggested "no Palestinian has ever fired rockets into Israel, or bombed them or anything worse than stone throwing". I ask you to show some balls and give me the quote where I stated such a thing.

Question 1: Rather that provide me with evidence to me saying this, you again repeat the allegation by referring to "my bigoted attempt to portray Palestinian attacks on Israel as little more than stone throwing". WHERE DID I SUGGEST THAT THE PALESTINIANS ONLY FORM OF RESISTANCE WAS STONE THROWING???

Question 2: I spoke of the Israeli Army having a history of over reactions to Palestinian stone throwers. How can you deduce from that, that I believe stone throwing was the only form of Palestinian resistance?

If you don't agree with the term resistance then so be it. Just answer the questions this time.

[Main Street]

If we take the recent war with Lebanon as an example.
Everyone who watched, with even a modicum of objectivity, the events that led up to this war is agreed that Hezbollah was the aggressor. Israel only responded to Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and its rockets falling daily in Northern Israel. All of that took place *before* Israel responded.
It may well be argued - as Kofi Anan did - that Israel's response was disproportionate. But even Kofi Anan admitted that Hezbollah, not Israel, was the aggressor. The entire European Union, Russia and China and the United States were all agreed on that.
Hezbollah subscribed to the dogma that Israel had no right to exist. When they take violent action on the basis of that dogma (from the cover of civilian centers in Lebanon) and Israel defends itself, we arrived at the sad situation that was witnessed. Israel was not the aggressor. Israel did not want to eliminate Lebanon nor want to conquer Lebanon. On the other hand, Hezbollah most certainly wanted to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah most certainly wanted to conquer Israel. So, on the basis of intent, it becomes very clear which party in the war was the aggressor.

[muppet]

If we take the recent war with Lebanon as an example.
Everyone who watched, with even a modicum of objectivity, the events that led up to this war is agreed that Hezbollah was the aggressor. Israel only responded to Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and its rockets falling daily in Northern Israel. All of that took place *before* Israel responded.
It may well be argued - as Kofi Anan did - that Israel's response was disproportionate. But even Kofi Anan admitted that Hezbollah, not Israel, was the aggressor. The entire European Union, Russia and China and the United States were all agreed on that.
Hezbollah subscribed to the dogma that Israel had no right to exist. When they take violent action on the basis of that dogma (from the cover of civilian centers in Lebanon) and Israel defends itself, we arrived at the sad situation that was witnessed. Israel was not the aggressor. Israel did not want to eliminate Lebanon nor want to conquer Lebanon. On the other hand, Hezbollah most certainly wanted to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah most certainly wanted to conquer Israel. So, on the basis of intent, it becomes very clear which party in the war was the aggressor.

That is all fine but what about the number of deaths on each side?

The irony in your reference to dogma is hilarious.

[Arthur_Friend]

If we take the recent war with Lebanon as an example.
Everyone who watched, with even a modicum of objectivity, the events that led up to this war is agreed that Hezbollah was the aggressor. Israel only responded to Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and its rockets falling daily in Northern Israel. All of that took place *before* Israel responded.
It may well be argued - as Kofi Anan did - that Israel's response was disproportionate. But even Kofi Anan admitted that Hezbollah, not Israel, was the aggressor. The entire European Union, Russia and China and the United States were all agreed on that.
Hezbollah subscribed to the dogma that Israel had no right to exist. When they take violent action on the basis of that dogma (from the cover of civilian centers in Lebanon) and Israel defends itself, we arrived at the sad situation that was witnessed. Israel was not the aggressor. Israel did not want to eliminate Lebanon nor want to conquer Lebanon. On the other hand, Hezbollah most certainly wanted to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah most certainly wanted to conquer Israel. So, on the basis of intent, it becomes very clear which party in the war was the aggressor.

I didn't know Hezbollah was launching daily rocket attacks into northern Israel before the July 2006 Israeli invasion. Over what period were these daily attacks occurring?

[Zapatista]

If we take the recent war with Lebanon as an example.
Everyone who watched, with even a modicum of objectivity, the events that led up to this war is agreed that Hezbollah was the aggressor. Israel only responded to Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and its rockets falling daily in Northern Israel. All of that took place *before* Israel responded.
It may well be argued - as Kofi Anan did - that Israel's response was disproportionate. But even Kofi Anan admitted that Hezbollah, not Israel, was the aggressor. The entire European Union, Russia and China and the United States were all agreed on that.
Hezbollah subscribed to the dogma that Israel had no right to exist. When they take violent action on the basis of that dogma (from the cover of civilian centers in Lebanon) and Israel defends itself, we arrived at the sad situation that was witnessed. Israel was not the aggressor. Israel did not want to eliminate Lebanon nor want to conquer Lebanon. On the other hand, Hezbollah most certainly wanted to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah most certainly wanted to conquer Israel. So, on the basis of intent, it becomes very clear which party in the war was the aggressor.

The problem is that this dates back futher than 2006.
The EU Russia, China and the USA have no moral athourity with regard to Israel or it's actions. Israel is a terror state and those who treat it as an equal democratic state are harbouring that terror state.


I remember this interview at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbyF1Mp-fHk

[mylestheslasher]

If we take the recent war with Lebanon as an example.
Everyone who watched, with even a modicum of objectivity, the events that led up to this war is agreed that Hezbollah was the aggressor. Israel only responded to Hezbollah's incursion into Israel, its kidnapping of two Israeli soldiers and its rockets falling daily in Northern Israel. All of that took place *before* Israel responded.
It may well be argued - as Kofi Anan did - that Israel's response was disproportionate. But even Kofi Anan admitted that Hezbollah, not Israel, was the aggressor. The entire European Union, Russia and China and the United States were all agreed on that.
Hezbollah subscribed to the dogma that Israel had no right to exist. When they take violent action on the basis of that dogma (from the cover of civilian centers in Lebanon) and Israel defends itself, we arrived at the sad situation that was witnessed. Israel was not the aggressor. Israel did not want to eliminate Lebanon nor want to conquer Lebanon. On the other hand, Hezbollah most certainly wanted to eliminate Israel. Hezbollah most certainly wanted to conquer Israel. So, on the basis of intent, it becomes very clear which party in the war was the aggressor.

The problem is that this dates back futher than 2006.
The EU Russia, China and the USA have no moral athourity with regard to Israel or it's actions. Israel is a terror state and those who treat it as an equal democratic state are harbouring that terror state.


I remember this interview at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbyF1Mp-fHk

Israel invaded lebanon previously, withdrew but held onto swathes of land but only after allowing their "christian" allies in Lebanon to butcher women and children in refugee camps. They also murdered Irish peace keepers and attacked UN positions. To call Hezbollah aggressors as if they started the whole thing is insane, like always it is Israel that is the root cause of all this conflict.