QuoteOriginally posted by: SiberianWhat do you call quotes by Iranians - strong supporters of Hez - we will wipe israel, bla-bla-bla.Very imaginative of the puppy dog mainstream western media, i would say.linkQuoteDoes Iran's President Want Israel Wiped Off The Map - Does He Deny The Holocaust?An analysis of media rhetoric on its way to war against Iran - Commenting on the alleged statements of Iran's President Ahmadinejad .By Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann Translation to English: Erik Appleby04/19/06 "Kein Krieg!" -- -- - "But now that I'm on Iran, the threat to Iran, of course -- (applause) -- the threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel. That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally, Israel, and -- (applause.)" George W. Bush, US-President, 2006-03-20 in Cleveland (Ohio) in an off-the-cuff speech (source: www.whitehouse.gov) But why does Bush speak of Iran's objective to destroy Israel?Does Iran's President wants Israel wiped off the map?To raze Israel to the ground, to batter down, to destroy, to annihilate, to liquidate, to erase Israel, to wipe it off the map - this is what Iran's President demanded - at least this is what we read about or heard of at the end of October 2005. Spreading the news was very effective. This is a declaration of war they said. Obviously government and media were at one with their indignation. It goes around the world.But let's take a closer look at what Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said. It is a merit of the 'New York Times' that they placed the complete speech at our disposal. Here's an excerpt from the publication dated 2005-10-30:"They say it is not possible to have a world without the United States and Zionism. But you know that this is a possible goal and slogan. Let's take a step back. [[[We had a hostile regime in this country which was undemocratic, armed to the teeth and, with SAVAK, its security apparatus of SAVAK [the intelligence bureau of the Shah of Iran's government] watched everyone. An environment of terror existed.]]] When our dear Imam [Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, the founder of the Iranian revolution] said that the regime must be removed, many of those who claimed to be politically well-informed said it was not possible. All the corrupt governments were in support of the regime when Imam Khomeini started his movement. [[[All the Western and Eastern countries supported the regime even after the massacre of September 7 [1978] ]]] and said the removal of the regime was not possible. But our people resisted and it is 27 years now that we have survived without a regime dependent on the United States. The tyranny of the East and the West over the world should have to end, but weak people who can see only what lies in front of them cannot believe this. Who would believe that one day we could witness the collapse of the Eastern Empire? But we could watch its fall in our lifetime. And it collapsed in a way that we have to refer to libraries because no trace of it is left. Imam [Khomeini] said Saddam must go and he said he would grow weaker than anyone could imagine. Now you see the man who spoke with such arrogance ten years ago that one would have thought he was immortal, is being tried in his own country in handcuffs and shackles [[[by those who he believed supported him and with whose backing he committed his crimes]]]. Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map and this was a very wise statement. We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."(source: www.nytimes.com, based on a publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by the New York Times in squared brackets -- passages in triple squared brackets will be left blank in the MEMRI version printed below)It's becoming clear. The statements of the Iranian President have been reflected by the media in a manipulated way. Iran's President betokens the removal of the regimes, that are in power in Israel and in the USA, to be possible aim for the future. This is correct. But he never demands the elimination or annihilation of Israel. He reveals that changes are potential. The Shah-Regime being supported by the USA in its own country has been vanquished. The eastern governance of the Soviet Union collapsed. Saddam Hussein's dominion drew to a close. Referring to this he voices his aspiration that changes will also be feasible in Israel respectively in Palestine. He adduces Ayatollah Khomeini referring to the Shah-Regime who in this context said that the regime (meaning the Shah-Regime) should be removed.Certainly, Ahmadinejad translates this quotation about a change of regime into the occupied Palestine. This has to be legitimate. To long for modified political conditions in a country is a world-wide day-to-day business by all means. But to commute a demand for removal of a 'regime' into a demand for removal of a state is serious deception and dangerous demagogy.This is one chapter of the war against Iran that has already begun with the words of Georg Meggle, professor of philosophy at the university of Leipzig - namely with the probably most important phase, the phase of propaganda.Marginally we want to mention that it was the former US Vice-Minister of Defence and current President of the World Bank, Paul D. Wolfowitz, who in Sept. 2001 talked about ending states in public and without any kind of awe. And it was the father of George W. Bush who started the discussion about a winnable nuclear war if only the survival of an elite is assured.Let's pick an example: the German online-news-magazine tagesschau.de writes the following about Iran's president on 2005-10-27: "There is no doubt: the new wave of assaults in Palestine will erase the stigma in countenance of the Islamic world." Instead of using the original word 'wave' they write 'wave of assaults'. This replacement of the original text is what we call disinformation. E.g. it would be correct to say: "The new movement in Palestine will erase the stain of disgrace from the Islamic world." Additionally this statement refers to the occupation regime mentioned in the previous sentence.As a precaution we will examine a different translation of the speech - a version prepared by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), located in Washington:"They [ask]: 'Is it possible for us to witness a world without America and Zionism?' But you had best know that this slogan and this goal are attainable, and surely can be achieved. [[[...]]] "'When the dear Imam [Khomeini] said that [the Shah's] regime must go, and that we demand a world without dependent governments, many people who claimed to have political and other knowledge [asked], 'Is it possible [that the Shah's regime can be toppled]?' That day, when Imam [Khomeini] began his movement, all the powers supported [the Shah's] corrupt regime [[[...]]] and said it was not possible. However, our nation stood firm, and by now we have, for 27 years, been living without a government dependent on America. Imam [Khomeni] said: 'The rule of the East [U.S.S.R.] and of the West [U.S.] should be ended.' But the weak people who saw only the tiny world near them did not believe it. Nobody believed that we would one day witness the collapse of the Eastern Imperialism [i.e. the U.S.S.R], and said it was an iron regime. But in our short lifetime we have witnessed how this regime collapsed in such a way that we must look for it in libraries, and we can find no literature about it. Imam [Khomeini] said that Saddam [Hussein] must go, and that he would be humiliated in a way that was unprecedented. And what do you see today? A man who, 10 years ago, spoke as proudly as if he would live for eternity is today chained by the feet, and is now being tried in his own country [[[...]]] Imam [Khomeini] said: 'This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history.' This sentence is very wise. The issue of Palestine is not an issue on which we can compromise. Is it possible that an [Islamic] front allows another front [i.e. country] to arise in its [own] heart? This means defeat, and he who accepts the existence of this regime [i.e. Israel] in fact signs the defeat of the Islamic world. In his battle against the World of Arrogance, our dear Imam [Khomeini] set the regime occupying Qods [Jerusalem] as the target of his fight. I do not doubt that the new wave which has begun in our dear Palestine and which today we are also witnessing in the Islamic world is a wave of morality which has spread all over the Islamic world. Very soon, this stain of disgrace [i.e. Israel] will vanish from the center of the Islamic world - and this is attainable."(source: http://memri.org, based on the publication of 'Iranian Students News Agency' (ISNA) -- insertions by MEMRI in squared brackets -- missing passages compared to the 'New York Times' in triple squared brackets)The term 'map' to which the media refer at length does not even appear. Whereas the 'New York Times' said: "Our dear Imam said that the occupying regime must be wiped off the map" the version by MEMRI is: "Imam [Khomeini] said: This regime that is occupying Qods [Jerusalem] must be eliminated from the pages of history."MEMRI added the following prefixed formulation to their translation as a kind of title: "Very Soon, This Stain of Disgrace [i.e. Israel] Will Be Purged From the Center of the Islamic World - and This is Attainable". Thereby they take it out of context by using the insertion 'i.e. Israel' they distort the meaning on purpose. The temporal tapering 'very soon' does not appear in the NY-Times-translation either. Besides it is striking that MEMRI deleted all passages in their translation which characterize the US-supported Shah-Regime as a regime of terror and at the same time show the true character of US-American policy.An independent translation of the original (like the version published by ISNA) yields that Ahmadinejad does not use the term 'map'. He quotes Ayatollah Khomeini's assertion that the occupation regime must vanish from this world - literally translated: from the arena of times. Correspondingly: there is no space for an occupation regime in this world respectively in this time. The formulation 'wipe off the map' used by the 'New York Times' is a very free and aggravating interpretation which is equivalent to 'razing something to the ground' or 'annihilating something'. The downwelling translation, first into English ('wipe off the map'), then from English to German - and all literally ('von der Landkarte löschen') - makes us stride away from the original more and more. The perfidious thing about this translation is that the expression 'map' can only be used in one (intentional) way: a state can be removed from a map but not a regime, about which Ahmadinejad is actually speaking.Again following the independent translation: "I have no doubt that the new movement taking place in our dear Palestine is a spiritual movement which is spanning the entire Islamic world and which will soon remove this stain of disgrace from the Islamic world".It must be allowed to ask how it is possible that 'spirtual movement' resp. 'wave of morality' (as translated by MEMRI) and 'wave of assaults' can be equated and translated (like e.g tagesschau.de published it).Does Iran's President deny the Holocaust?"The German government condemned the repetitive offending anti-Israel statements by Ahmadinejad to be shocking. Such behaviour is not tolerable, Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated. [...] Federal Chancellor Angela Merkel proclaimed Ahmadinejad's statements to be 'inconceivable'" (published by tagesschau.de 2005-12-14.But not only the German Foreign Minister Steinmeier and the Federal Chancellor Merkel allege this, but the Bild-Zeitung, tagesschau.de, parts of the peace movement, US-President George W. Bush, the 'Papers for German and international politics', CNN, the Heinrich-Böll-Foundation, almost the entire world does so, too: Iran's President Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust.What is this assertion based on? In substance it is based on dispatches of 2 days - 2005-12-14 and 2006-02-11."The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and the Western states and has denied the Holocaust. Instead of making Israel's attacks against Palestine a subject of discussion 'the Western states devote their energy to the fairy-tale of the massacre against the Jews', Ahmadinejad said on Wednesday in a speech at Zahedan in the south-east of Iran which was broadcasted directly by the news-channel Khabar. That day he stated that if the Western states really believe in the assassination of six million Jews in W.W. II they should put a piece of land in Europe, in the USA, Canada or Alaska at Israel's disposal." - dispatch of the German press agency DPA, 2005-12-14.The German TV-station n24 spreads the following on 2006-12-14 using the title 'Iran's President calls the Holocaust a myth': "The Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has stepped up his verbal attacks against Israel and called the Holocaust a 'myth' used as a pretext by the Europeans to found a Jewish state in the center of the Islamic world . 'In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets' the Iranian head of state said."The Iranian press agency IRNA renders Ahmadinejad on 2005-12-14 as follows: "'If the Europeans are telling the truth in their claim that they have killed six million Jews in the Holocaust during the World War II - which seems they are right in their claim because they insist on it and arrest and imprison those who oppose it, why the Palestinian nation should pay for the crime. Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions.' [...] 'If you have committed the crimes so give a piece of your land somewhere in Europe or America and Canada or Alaska to them to set up their own state there.' [...] Ahmadinejad said some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets [...] The president further said, 'If your civilization consists of aggression, displacing the oppressed nations, suppressing justice-seeking voices and spreading injustice and poverty for the majority of people on the earth, then we say it out loud that we despise your hollow civilization.'"There again we find the quotation already rendered by n24: "In the name of the Holocaust they created a myth." We can see that this is completely different from what is published by e.g. the DPA - the massacre against the Jews is a fairy-tale. What Ahmadinejad does is not denying the Holocaust. No! It is dealing out criticism against the mendacity of the imperialistic powers who use the Holocaust to muzzle critical voices and to achieve advantages concerning the legitimization of a planned war. This is criticism against the exploitation of the Holocaust.CNN (2005-12-15) renders as follows: "If you have burned the Jews why don't you give a piece of Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to Israel. Our question is, if you have committed this huge crime, why should the innocent nation of Palestine pay for this crime?"The Washingtonian ''Middle East Media Research Institute' (MEMRI) renders Ahmadinejad's statements from 2005-12-14 as follows: "...we ask you: if you indeed committed this great crime, why should the oppressed people of Palestine be punished for it? * [...] If you committed a crime, you yourselves should pay for it. Our offer was and remains as follows: If you committed a crime, it is only appropriate that you place a piece of your land at their disposal - a piece of Europe, of America, of Canada, or of Alaska - so they can establish their own state. Rest assured that if you do so, the Iranian people will voice no objection."The MEMRI-rendering uses the relieving translation 'great crime' and misappropriates the following sentence at the * marked passage: "Why have they come to the very heart of the Islamic world and are committing crimes against the dear Palestine using their bombs, rockets, missiles and sanctions." This sentence has obviously been left out deliberately because it would intimate why the Israeli state could have forfeited the right to establish itself in Palestine - videlicet because of its aggressive expansionist policy against the people of Palestine, ignoring any law of nations and disobeying all UN-resolutions.In spite of the variability referring to the rendering of the statements of Iran's President we should nevertheless note down: the reproach of denying the Holocaust cannot be sustained if Ahmadinejad speaks of a great and huge crime that has been done to the Jews.In another IRNA-dispatch (2005-12-14) the Arabian author Ghazi Abu Daqa writes about Ahmadinejad: "The Iranian president has nothing against the followers of Judaism [...] Ahmadinejad is against Zionism as well as its expansionist and occupying policy. That is why he managed to declare to the world with courage that there is no place for the Zionist regime in the world civilized community."It's no wonder that such opinions do not go down particularly well with the ideas of the centers of power in the Western world. But for this reason they are not wrong right away. Dealing out criticism against the aggressive policy of the Western world, to which Israel belongs as well, is not yet anti-Semitism. We should at least to give audience to this kind of criticism - even if it is a problematic field for us.2006-02-11 Ahmadinejad said according to IRNA: "[...] the real holocaust should be sought in Palestine, where the blood of the oppressed nation is shed every day and Iraq, where the defenceless Muslim people are killed daily. [...] 'Some western governments, in particular the US, approve of the sacrilege on the Prophet Mohammad (PBUH), while denial of the >Myth of Holocaust<, based on which the Zionists have been exerting pressure upon other countries for the past 60 years and kill the innocent Palestinians, is considered as a crime' [...]"The assertion that Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust thus is wrong in more than one aspect. He does not deny the Holocaust, but speaks of denial itself. And he does not speak of denial of the Holocaust, but of denial of the Myth of Holocaust. This is something totally different. All in all he speaks of the exploitation of the Holocaust. The Myth of Holocaust, like it is made a subject of discussion by Ahmadinejad, is a myth that has been built up in conjunction with the Holocaust to - as he says - put pressure onto somebody. We might follow this train of thoughts or we might not. But we cannot equalize his thoughts with denial of the Holocaust.If Ahmadinejad according to this 2006-02-11 condemns the fact that it is forbidden and treated as a crime to do research into the Myth of Holocaust, as we find it quoted in the MEMRI translation, this acquires a meaning much different from the common and wide-spread one. If the myth related to the Holocaust is commuted to a 'Fairy Tale of the Massacre' - like the DPA did - this can only be understood as a malicious misinterpretation.By the use of misrepresentation and adulteration it apparently succeeded to constitute the statements of the Iranian President to be part and parcel of the currently fought propaganda battle.

Hizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonBy Anders Strindberg 08/01/06 "Christian Science Monitor" -- -- NEW YORK – As pundits and policymakers scramble to explain events in Lebanon, their conclusions are virtually unanimous: Hizbullah created this crisis. Israel is defending itself. The underlying problem is Arab extremism. Sadly, this is pure analytical nonsense. Hizbullah's capture of two Israeli soldiers on July 12 was a direct result of Israel's silent but unrelenting aggression against Lebanon, which in turn is part of a six-decades long Arab-Israeli conflict. Since its withdrawal of occupation forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Israel has violated the United Nations-monitored "blue line" on an almost daily basis, according to UN reports. Hizbullah's military doctrine, articulated in the early 1990s, states that it will fire Katyusha rockets into Israel only in response to Israeli attacks on Lebanese civilians or Hizbullah's leadership; this indeed has been the pattern. In the process of its violations, Israel has terrorized the general population, destroyed private property, and killed numerous civilians. This past February, for instance, 15-year-old shepherd Yusuf Rahil was killed by unprovoked Israeli cross-border fire as he tended his flock in southern Lebanon. Israel has assassinated its enemies in the streets of Lebanese cities and continues to occupy Lebanon's Shebaa Farms area, while refusing to hand over the maps of mine fields that continue to kill and cripple civilians in southern Lebanon more than six years after the war supposedly ended. What peace did Hizbullah shatter?Hizbullah's capture of the soldiers took place in the context of this ongoing conflict, which in turn is fundamentally shaped by realities in the Palestinian territories. To the vexation of Israel and its allies, Hizbullah - easily the most popular political movement in the Middle East - unflinchingly stands with the Palestinians.Since June 25, when Palestinian fighters captured one Israeli soldier and demanded a prisoner exchange, Israel has killed more than 140 Palestinians. Like the Lebanese situation, that flare-up was detached from its wider context and was said to be "manufactured" by the enemies of Israel; more nonsense proffered in order to distract from the apparently unthinkable reality that it is the manner in which Israel was created, and the ideological premises that have sustained it for almost 60 years, that are the core of the entire Arab-Israeli conflict.Once the Arabs had rejected the UN's right to give away their land and to force them to pay the price for European pogroms and the Holocaust, the creation of Israel in 1948 was made possible only by ethnic cleansing and annexation. This is historical fact and has been documented by Israeli historians, such as Benny Morris. Yet Israel continues to contend that it had nothing to do with the Palestinian exodus, and consequently has no moral duty to offer redress.For six decades the Palestinian refugees have been refused their right to return home because they are of the wrong race. "Israel must remain a Jewish state," is an almost sacral mantra across the Western political spectrum. It means, in practice, that Israel is accorded the right to be an ethnocracy at the expense of the refugees and their descendants, now close to 5 million.Is it not understandable that Israel's ethnic preoccupation profoundly offends not only Palestinians, but many of their Arab brethren? Yet rather than demanding that Israel acknowledge its foundational wrongs as a first step toward equality and coexistence, the Western world blithely insists that each and all must recognize Israel's right to exist at the Palestinians' expense.Western discourse seems unable to accommodate a serious, as opposed to cosmetic concern for Palestinians' rights and liberties: The Palestinians are the Indians who refuse to live on the reservation; the Negroes who refuse to sit in the back of the bus.By what moral right does anyone tell them to be realistic and get over themselves? That it is too much of a hassle to right the wrongs committed against them? That the front of the bus must remain ethnically pure? When they refuse to recognize their occupier and embrace their racial inferiority, when desperation and frustration causes them to turn to violence, and when neighbors and allies come to their aid - some for reasons of power politics, others out of idealism - we are astonished that they are all such fanatics and extremists.The fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." Yet reality is that Israel is a profoundly racist state, the existence of which is buttressed by a seemingly endless succession of punitive measures, assassinations, and wars against its victims and their allies.A realistic understanding of the conflict, therefore, is one that recognizes that the crux is not in this or that incident or policy, but in Israel's foundational and per- sistent refusal to recognize the humanity of its Palestinian victims. Neither Hizbullah nor Hamas are driven by a desire to "wipe out Jews," as is so often claimed, but by a fundamental sense of injustice that they will not allow to be forgotten.These groups will continue to enjoy popular legitimacy because they fulfill the need for someone - anyone - to stand up for Arab rights. Israel cannot destroy this need by bombing power grids or rocket ramps. If Israel, like its former political ally South Africa, has the capacity to come to terms with principles of democracy and human rights and accept egalitarian multiracial coexistence within a single state for Jews and Arabs, then the foundation for resentment and resistance will have been removed. If Israel cannot bring itself to do so, then it will continue to be the vortex of regional violence.Anders Strindberg, formerly a visiting professor at Damascus University, Syria, is a consultant on Middle East politics working with European government and law-enforcement agencies. He has also covered Syria, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories as a journalist since the late 1990s, primarily for European publications. Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

Ah, MEMRI ... it seems as though every word they write is a lie, including "and" and "the." I find it a general rule in life that when people are lying, it is because they know they're doing something wrong.

QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.

QuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.

QuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?

QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiQuoteOriginally posted by: SiberianWhat do you call quotes by Iranians - strong supporters of Hez - we will wipe israel, bla-bla-bla.Very imaginative of the puppy dog mainstream western media, i would say.linkQuotefunny enough the webpage of your link is called informationclearinghouse.com , since when information has to be cleared?,... back in the days of General Franco in spain we use to call that Censura (Censorship), basically they tell you what you are able to hear and how it should be interpretated.Please avoid any intent of telling me that the real freedom of speech and freedom of press is in the middle East media and propaganda instead of in the western media,...... RFOL

QuoteOriginally posted by: menceyQuoteOriginally posted by: balajiQuoteOriginally posted by: SiberianWhat do you call quotes by Iranians - strong supporters of Hez - we will wipe israel, bla-bla-bla.Very imaginative of the puppy dog mainstream western media, i would say.linkQuotefunny enough the webpage of your link is called informationclearinghouse.com , since when information has to be cleared?,... back in the days of General Franco in spain we use to call that Censura (Censorship), basically they tell you what you are able to hear and how it should be interpretated.Please avoid any intent of telling me that the real freedom of speech and freedom of press is in the middle East media and propaganda instead of in the western media,...... RFOLAnd do not tell the contrary either. Press is entirely free in some parts of the Middle East (Lebanon and Qatar for sure). In the US, I have heard of journalists jailed for not revealing their sources who spoke to them on condition of not being named...

Maybe we jail them if the have commited any illegal thing and a jury find them guilty according to law,....... in the middle east you avoid all this troubles, you directly shoot them,....LOL

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?You've got a coastline, so you can push them in the sea. A simple solution to a simple problem.

QuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?You've got a coastline, so you can push them in the sea. A simple solution to a simple problem.On the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: migalleyQuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFQuoteOriginally posted by: gardener3QuoteOriginally posted by: balajiHizbullah's attacks stem from Israeli incursions into LebanonThe fundamental obstacle to understanding the Arab-Israeli conflict is that we have given up on asking what is right and wrong, instead asking what is "practical" and "realistic." I am not sure if I agree with this. Understanding international law and people's legal and moral rights is part of the solution, but at the end of the day what you need is to create political consensus, otherwise as a former Israeli foreign minister said you end up just writing poetry instead of peace deals. Right of return, for instance, is a legal, moral right, but some compromise is required on this issue, otherwise there will just be more misery for the palestinians.Right of return is a necessity. This exodus of Palestinian refugees has created abnormal situations not in Palestine but in fully sovereign, recognized and established countries. Jordanians have been stolen their country by Palestinians (who are today more than 50% of the population in Jordan). Lebanon has to support 400 000 Palestinian refugees (it's just enormous in a country of 3.5 millions people) that constitue a menace to the mere existance of Lebanon as it has been constitutionnally founded.Those sovereign countries do not have to endure for eternity the consequences of Israel's displacement of the Palestinians...If you don't like the Palestinians, and don't want to put up with them for ever, then kick them out of your country.Which one of our neighbour will let the border open to allow us kick them out ? Israel or Syria ?You've got a coastline, so you can push them in the sea. A simple solution to a simple problem.On the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...Well, then you'll be stuck with this Palestinian problem. You only have yourself to blame if you are presented with a solution and you refuse to implement it.

QuoteOriginally posted by: DavidFOn the contrary to our neighbours, we do not resolve problems by killing people...No? really? ............. There was never a civil war in Lebanon who cost the lifes of more than 100.000 people, it was all an invention of the western pupy dog press isn't it? Man, You are really funny !!!! ........................... RFOL

QuoteOriginally posted by: Marsden I don't want Israel wiped off of the map, thanksMars I would wager you are a descendant of a nation called Amalek.