h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Yep, very true.

But on the other hand, what more do the Palestinians expect to get? Somehow, I don't see Israel dissolving itself, handing all territory back to the Palestinians and all European-descended Israelis moving elsewhere. Nor do I see the Palestinians ejecting the Israelis by force of arms.

Meanwhile those Palestinians who refused to live in Israel are still classed as refugees 50 years later because almost none of the surrounding countries acknowledge Israel, so their offical stance is 'go back to Palestine'.

So yes, it's easy to see that the Palestinians are going to be offended by being 'generously allowed' by the Israelis to own a small part of (as they see it) their own country. But, perhaps ironically, they need to take this offer, even if it means recognising Israel, to get their best deal.

"Realpolitik: politics based on practical factors rather than on moral or ethical objectives." - the Israelis are realpolitiking, and will beat the Palestinians every time while the Palestinians simply insist they are in the right. It ain't fair, but it is true. (My opinions, of course.)

Gif

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2222551.stm

Talks have been cancelled by Israel

this from the article

"Mohammed Barakeh, aged 25, was shot dead near the Gush Katif Jewish settlements. The Israeli army said he was throwing stones at a military post."

Throwing rocks is a stooting offence?

World attention is drawn to Iraq and few are noticing what Israel is doing. Iraq is like a magicians slight of hand for for any action Israel wants to take.

Throwing stones? Simply living in the same housing block as a suspected militant (or in extreme cases, in the same town) seems to be enough. On both sides. (Not that Israelis have to resort to throwing stones that often.)

If the US does attack Iraq, there is a danger that they might unite the Arab world against themselves and Israel and trigger an all-out war in the region. In that case, Israel being wiped out could be a very real possibility. The US refusal to even acknowledge the possibility that other countries might not support them seems little short of surreal.

Gif

Britan needs a revolution followed by a more democratic government that will tell bush where to go

so so true.

Lets start a coup, to remove 'ol Tone', Bush's personal arsewipe

so so true.

Lets start a coup, to remove 'ol Tone', Bush's personal arsewipe

>Britan needs a revolution followed by a more democratic government that will tell bush where to go<

Apparition you just cannot go and change a nations leadership just because you disagree with them.

Might I suggest a dictionary and the looking up of democracy.

Unlike you, I've lived through the Brit system. The last time we used it was 1993.

"Apparition you just cannot go and change a nations leadership just because you disagree with them." Why don't you say that on the Iraq thread (personally I'm still on the fence)

>Might I suggest a dictionary and the looking up of democracy.<

>Unlike you, I've lived through the Brit system. The last time we used it was 1993.<

"Apparition you just cannot go and change a nations leadership just because you disagree with them." >Why don't you say that on the Iraq thread (personally I'm still on the fence)<



Democracy: A political system governed by the people or their represenatives.

1993 a little partisan

I was using a little sarcastic humer. I bad.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/2228522.stm

And on it goes while most look elsewhere

I particularly (dis)liked this comment from Raanan Gissin, justifying the missile attack that killed several children: "The only reason there is not more bloodshed is that we are always pre-empting, day and night."

Gif

Hello Varla, I see you are new here. I take it must be related T'Mershi who is a regular around here {don't tell anyone but he secretly agrees with everthing I post } Welcome

I agree Gif, pre-empting is a very dangerous word, if not sinister.

>I agree Gif, pre-empting is a very dangerous word, if not sinister.<

I agree today the pre-empted one of my soap operas right when Bif was having a anziety attack. Can you believe it!!!!

Israel could have their attention taken up by attacking Iraq, but they could also decide to move into the west bank some more under the guise of war.

Or the palistinians could decide to step up their suicide bombing campain. Neither would acomplish more then killing more people .

The topic starter is back. I've viewed the on going topic responses with great interest. The past two days, especially today being September 21st, have REALLY angered me. President Bush is clearly INSANE! He's more dangerous than his father. It is very clear that he wants a war no matter what. He hasn't listened to any other allied government on the planet! He clearly represents those Americans who view themselves as the rulers of the planet. Would some of this insanity have anything to do with the fact that America is in an economic slump (everyone knows that war is generally good for the economy) or are his actions and leadership purely that of a Republican War Monger? On another note, he advises Israel to restrain it's actions against the Palestinians. Hence, the other most insane government on the planet! Israel's actions against Arafat's Compound in the past 24 hours are only going to strengthen the resolve of the Palestinian people "We have a right to exist" It is becoming increasingly clear that both the American and Israeli governments will be the starters of a third world war, and the rest of the world will be dragged under because of their ideologic sense of supremecy. For those who were born in the fifties- Do you remember the traiing films about "Duck and Cover"? I certainly remember practicing this in my classroom as a child. When I became a part of the movement against the Vietnam War, the phrase then was "Duck and cover and kiss your ass goodbye!"

I have this problem that everytime I hear Bush cracking on about a country ruled by a mass murderer, that terrorises its neighbours, ignores UN resolutions, and is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, I keep thinking of Israel.
So here's the crunch question. If one of the world's other major powers, such as Russia or China, proposed to invade Israel unless the situation was rectified, would they get Bush's support? OK, I know the situations in Chechnya and Tibet would certainly be mentioned, and rightly so, but the idea is laughable. Principles have nothing to do with it. Bush will invade Iraq to make a point in exactly the same way that Truman nuked Hiroshima to make a point to the Russians; namely that the USA will crush any opposition to it's own cultural and economic hegemony.

Noggin