Will this increase or decrease the likelihood of terrorist actions in America, Europe and the rest of the world?

If you were a member of a family murdered in this conflict, would you be seeking revenge?

Should Tzipi Livni and Ehud Olmert, be tried for war crimes if or when this conflict comes to an end?

What will the price of oil be in 4 weeks time?

hayseed - i think that report came independently from elsewhere .... no doubt you could find it, except you wouldn't want to

There is some confusion about IHH as it has the same name as a German charity with the same initials who were sued by the Turkish IHH. The only report I have seen about IHH came from Israel or other bodies reporting the story as an Israeli comment. Israel claims it to be a terrorist body as they support and recognise Hamas as the government of Gaza. The IHH has claimed in the past that it deals with Hamas and gives aid via Hamas as it is the best way to make sure the aid actually gets to the people in Gaza.

call me a cynic if you like, but if you are distributing "aid" through a known hostile (terrorist) organisation, rather than through the red cross or similar, then one's motives and impartiality become deeply suspect.

the simplest way for avoiding confrontation - clearly what was NOT wanted - would have been to do it through consultation with other channels, even if it meant routing via ashdod

at least noraid, a blatant front for ira, was marginally more subtle

They don't need to distribute aid thgrough the Red Cross or Red Crescent as they are an aid organisation themselves. Hamas is the lawful government of Gaza, democratically elected. The tag 'terrorist' is a subjective one. Of course the aid flotilla was meant to be a confrontation. The aim is to stop the Gaza seige as well as distributing aid. IHH is a an Islamic aid organisation in the same way that Christian Aid is a christian organisation as are huge numbers of aid groups. There are probably more religious aid organisations (mainly christian) than non-religious.

19/07/2010 - 12:42 PM
An Israeli female soldier admitted in a TV show entitled "soldiers behind the scenes" that she helped once her comrades to kill a Palestinian child in cold blood, but she did not disclose when and where the crime took place.

"I was monitoring through the camera at the command center the movements of Palestinian children throwing stones at the army and directing soldiers to move towards the kids, and under my guidance through the walkie-talkie, they killed a Palestinian kid," the soldier said.

She added that she, afterwards, received congratulations from the soldiers on the killing of the child and claimed she was shocked by this news and felt her directions were the direct cause of the death of this innocent child.

She also confessed that the slain child did not constitute any threat to the heavily-armed soldiers.

Another female soldier also told the channel that she arbitrarily detained and tortured dozens of Palestinian citizens during her shift at the Shave Shomron checkpoint located between Nablus and Jenin.

She blatantly said she detained 80 Palestinians, only for pleasure, and forced them to stay under scorching sunlight while she was yelling at them without any reason and watching them suffer from boiling heat.

oh yawn yawn yawn ..... i wouldn't expect you, as a blinkered individual, to agree with an objective view, but distributing through an overtly "destructive" and militant organisation like hamas is a very questionable decision for a charity to make ..... i am also 99% certain that CA would not do so

Tablet Mag Logo

Tablet Magazine is a project of Nextbook Inc.
About Us | Contact | Terms of Service | RSS
A New Read on Jewish Life

Fibi Netanyahu
In 2001, PM boasted of manipulating Oslo accords

By Liel Leibovitz | Jul 15, 2010 4:03 PM | Print | Email / Share
Netanyahu in 2001.

Netanyahu in 2001.

Channel 10

Meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu last week, President Obama could not have been more effusive. I believe Prime Minister Netanyahu wants peace, Obama said. I believe he is ready to take risks for peace.

A newly revealed tape of Netanyahu in 2001, being interviewed while he thinks the cameras are off, shows him in a radically different light. In it, Netanyahu dismisses American foreign policy as easy to maneuver, boasts of having derailed the Oslo accords with political trickery, and suggests that the only way to deal with the Palestinians is to beat them up, not once but repeatedly, beat them up so it hurts so badly, until its unbearable (all translations are mine).

According to Haaretzs Gideon Levy, the video should be Banned for viewing by children so as not to corrupt them, and distributed around the country and the world so that everyone will know who leads the government of Israel.

Netanyahu is speaking to a small group of terror victims in the West Bank settlement of Ofra two years after stepping down as prime minister in 1999. He appears laid-back. After claiming that the only way to deal with the Palestinian Authority was a large-scale attack, Netanyahu was asked by one of the participants whether or not the United States would let such an attack come to fruition.

I know what America is, Netanyahu replied. America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They wont get in their way. He then called former president Bill Clinton radically pro-Palestinian, and went on to belittle the Oslo peace accords as vulnerable to manipulation. Since the accords state that Israel would be allowed to hang on to pre-defined military zones in the West Bank, Netanyahu told his hosts that he could torpedo the accords by defining vast swaths of land as just that.

They asked me before the election if Id honor [the Oslo accords], Netanyahu said. I said I would, but Im going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the 67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as Im concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.

Smiling, Netanyahu then recalled how he forced former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher to agree to let Israel alone determine which parts of the West Bank were to be defined as military zones. They didnt want to give me that letter, Netanyahu said, so I didnt give them the Hebron agreement [the agreement giving Hebron back to the Palestinians]. I cut the cabinet meeting short and said, Im not signing. Only when the letter came, during that meeting, to me and to Arafat, did I ratify the Hebron agreement. Why is this important? Because from that moment on, I de facto put an end to the Oslo accords.

President Obama, and anyone else concerned about Israels commitment to the peace process, may watch the tape online here.

http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/39692/fibi-netanyahu/

Watch the video here

http://news.nana10.co.il/Article/?ArticleId=731025&sid=126

Netanyahu dos not want peace. He may lie to Obama and Obama may even pretend he belives him, but there can be no peace deals without all the parties involved and that includes Hamas.

what's that got to do with the point i raised ..... bugger all so mere evasion

Israel will get its equal share of what it has been doing to the palistinians...all in good time. It will not get away with it.

cynic. I wasn't replying to you, but to 'azhar'.

Here is the same video with English sub titles.

Half way through he asks for the camera to be stopped, but it carries on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6KLFrye9Xk

Haystacksthe paid de-ramper known as Zipless on ADVFN.beware everybody!!!

Are you saying haymaker = zipless ?

If so I guess that goes with being anally retentive...........

Please note that I am very interested if anyone knows how you get a paid dereamper's job.

LOL

How about one of you lot starting a thread about our forces in Afghanistan instead of this crap.....this has nothing to do with finance or anything else with this site...NOTHING....nothing to do with investing or betting on sports...nothing.....next thing they will be promoting the full darth vader kits to be worn in public. At least the French have the sense to put up a stand...not like our weak politiicians.....

required field
I wouldn't have thought that 'our forces in Afghanistan' has anything to do with finance either.

I would have thought that you had noticed that it is not obligatory to read this thread, but it seems to have escaped your attention.

Funny you say that about France. Syria, surprisingly, has banned face veils at Universities.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-10684359

19/07/2010 - 06:47 PM
BRUSSELS

9,000 activists and 35 media organizations to participate in Freedom Flotilla 2

The European campaign to end the Siege on Gaza announced Monday that Freedom Flotilla 2 will be delayed until late September or early October due to expansion in participation from European countries.

The campaign noted that the fleet will have extensive media coverage at an unprecedented level, given the number of vessels and the 9,000 and counting international activists from around the world who have requested to participate in the mission.

More than thirty-five media organizations have requested to participate in the Freedom Flotilla 2, the Brussels-headquartered campaign said, asserting that it intends to have the largest possible number of media on board to detect any new crimes Israel may commit against international peace activists.

personally, i totally disagree with most of the sentiments and postings on this thread (they are rants from the loonies), but it is potentially interesting whether or not it has anything whatsoever to do with shares or finance.

hijab is a thorny dilemma ..... as far as i understand it, there is nothing whatsoever in the koran that forbids women from showing their faces .... thus, it is personal choice or, very often, at the command of the husband - ah, now there's an interesting discussion point in itself.

i find it more than difficult to approve the banning of the hijab, as by and large it should be the woman's choice, just as is the wearing of a crucifix or a mogain dovid .... however, there are circumstances where it is important to be able to see a person's face and eyes - e.g. in i/d proof or in a court of law where much can be determined from facial expression and reaction