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?

Take the US out of the equation and that would stop arms going to Israel. There would be a resolution, but it wouldn't be to Israel's liking.

There is no will to solve this. Israel doesn't really want any agreement. They are just stalling so they can build more settlements.

The current possible talks are pointless as they would be between the Palestinian Authority led by Mahmoud Abbas , which has no legal basis, being an interim body that stopped being legitimate years ago and Israel. The other Palestinian representatives such as Hamas do not recognise these talks. Any agreements will be ignored. For a proper settlement of the issues, Israel has to move back to pre 1948 borders. The Palestinians will accept no less.

Currently the PA are working with the Israel Occupation Forces in the West Bank in rounding Hamas supporters. This is making Hamas even more popular in the West Bank. A similar thing happened in Gaza and resulted in Hamas being elected as the government. Fatah are siding with the PA and as a result they are losing support amongst the population. There were supposed to have been elections in June/July in the West Bank, but they were cancelled by the PA as they were concerned at the possible result.

Regarding NI, I think that the 'troubles' will start again in some manner. The Republicans at some stage will realise the the joint Dublin/Belfast government agreement for NI gives them nothing and does not move them closer to a united Ireland. It is a fudge and like all compromises over territory, it will fester and turn into a boil that will erupt again.

m

I do not agree that all Iran are engaged in is 'sabre rattling' such is for public consumption and yes I would agree to appease the masses. Their proxy war(s) against the West are of a much greater threat.

For once I agree with haystack, violence in NI goes through cycles, generally the populace will eventually not tolerate the terrorists and peace inevitably breaks out. The next generation (now) have not been exposed to the atrocities of the 70s/80s and will have much greater forbearance for the violence yet to come. Incidentally, its already started.

.

The majority of small babies go to sleep, when they have full stomachs, warmth and comfort.

The problem is they wake up, look around and see what others are doing and feel dissatisfied.

The Middle East and Northern Island are a bit like that.

Iran isn't a scapegoat m. I can only guess you don't want to understand their foreign policy or you really don't have any idea how Iran manages its affairs. I can only think it's the latter, you're obviously a very educated chap (chapess?) capable of meaningful research if you so wished.

Part of the probelm, is that the West regards Iran as an Arab country, which it is not. They are not members of the Arab League and do not speak Arabic. The majority of Iranians are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims.

They have a different view of the Middle East to Arabs. The Persians of Iran have more in common with Afghanistan where a version of Persian is spoken and is one of the two official langauages. The Iranians are more sympathetic to Afghanistan than other Arab countries and consequently more anti-US. They are Shiite Muslims while most Arabs are Sunni Muslims. In the seventh century Arabs conquered most of North Africa and east to Asia. Persia was also conquered, but it was the only country to keep its identity, culture and language, which is why they are not in the Arab League with Algeria, Bahrain, Comoros, Djibouti, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Mauritania, Morocco, Oman, the Palestinians, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen.

Haystack, your opening argument is fundamentally flawed; yes, the majority of Iranians are Shia and the Taliban Sunni. So why should iran be sympathetic towards the Taliban (who they help train)? It has nothing to do with language but quite simply anti-West and especially anti-US. there is no reason to search for historical precedence, the answer is very simple.

My argument was not why Iran is the way it is, but why the West and the US don't understand them.

rationalised bullshit

What amkes you think the US and the West do not understand Iran? I think both understand Iran very well. As usual when faced with facts as opposed to bullshit, your argument crumbles.

I know a couple of Iranians and they have the same opinion. I have spoken to them quite a bit about Iran and its policies. They are pre-revolution and do not live there anymore.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is largely misunderstood. He is fundamentally a Socialist. The reports that he is a holocaust denier are probably untrue. They have been variously translated by Iran media, the BBC and CNN. The BBC claims he is a holocaust denier, but another translation is that Israel uses the holocaust as a false pretext for Zionism and the existence of the sate of Israel. This is very different. Interestingly, Hamas have a similar standpoint. They say ferequently that they have nothing against Jews per se. They are opposed to Zionism and the expansion of Israel. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to be quite devout and bases a lot of his policies on Islamic beliefs. If anything, he is regarded as too liberal. He doesn't insist on the Hijab and has allowed women more freedom than was the case before he was elected.

You seem to base most of your arguments on the basis you 'know' a few Iranians or jews or whatever, which seemingly shapes your thinking, well done you. By the way I see you managed to deflect the discussion back to your favourite pet hate.

No. It is not just that I know some Iranians. And yes, I do think that Israel is the cause of almost all the problems in the ME. They also make no attempt to get along with their neighbours or even the Pelestinians in the West Bank. they take a tough line at every turn. Their settlement building is a good example.

Haystack, you're totally transparent, a very weak debating opponent and repetitive to the point of boredom. You and fred make a very good pair, you don't live togther by any chance do you? Incidentally, why not go to israel, live there for a while, experience for yourself what it is like to live in a country under threat of extinction. Alternatively, live in gaza and experience the same. Or if you feel so strongly, do something to support hamas instead of sitting on your fat arse pontificating all day long about something you have so little understanding. Sweet dreams

Israel being under threat of extinction is a self induced state. They have taken land that belongs to another group of people. Israel may try and say that there is no such people as Palestinians and that they had no right to live there, but more than a million refugees indicates otherwise. I have no sympathy at all for Israel. What do they expect to have happened. Hamas are not furing rockets at Israel and have not been doing it for some time now. This has not changed Israel's policies one bit. They might as well start firing again.

and the iranian gov't is just a bunch of old cuddlies who have been wrongly vilified by all and sundry ..... as for those torture victims? ..... well, they're just the result of a small criminal turf war between cousins of the krays and the richardsons to do with controlling sales of icecream ..... the iranian police are trying their damnedest to track them down and bring them all to justice

i wonder why one of the world's largest and oldest concentrations of jewish culture and life has now effectively disappeared from iran

i wonder why the lawyer who defended the leader of the iranian opposition felt obliged to flee the country in the middle of the night .... i wonder what has happened to his wife and family whom he left behind (which doesn't reflect well on him, it must be said)

Cynic,

How many Political prisoners are being tortured in "Israel" at the present time?

How many ex-Israelis who fled from Israel have been murdered by Mossad?

How many criminals has the the Israeli government contained over recent years?

You used the term blinkered, I would suggest purchase of a mirror.

I do not support what seems to be the entrenched view of some of the present Iranian political hierarchy and would dislike the thought of having a daughter subjected to what I would consider a primitive gender attitude by some Iranians, but would suggest that the same "cultural attitude" is present in Western Culture. Hence the need for "Women Libs." in Western countries.

The "attitude" to women in our culture, while not as extreme is present, but because it is our "culture" it is not recognised by many.

As far as the lawyer fleeing the country, I doubt that you would hang around for too long.

Haystack you often refer to the fact that Israel stole land belonging to Palestine, historical fact does not support this rather tenuous argument. Quite a long read (I don't even expect Cynic to try) but interesting:

Where did the name Palestine come from?


The name Palestine refers to a region of the eastern Mediterranean coast from the sea to the Jordan valley and from the southern Negev desert to the Galilee lake region in the north. The word itself derives from "Plesheth", a name that appears frequently in the Bible and has come into English as "Philistine". Plesheth, (root palash) was a general term meaning rolling or migratory. This referred to the Philistine's invasion and conquest of the coast from the sea. The Philistines were not Arabs nor even Semites, they were most closely related to the Greeks originating from Asia Minor and Greek localities. They did not speak Arabic. They had no connection, ethnic, linguistic or historical with Arabia or Arabs.

The Philistines reached the southern coast of Israel in several waves. One group arrived in the pre-patriarchal period and settled south of Beersheba in Gerar where they came into conflict with Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael. Another group, coming from Crete after being repulsed from an attempted invasion of Egypt by Rameses III in 1194 BCE, seized the southern coastal area, where they founded five settlements (Gaza, Ascalon, Ashdod, Ekron and Gat). In the Persian and Greek periods, foreign settlers - chiefly from the Mediterranean islands - overran the Philistine districts.

From the fifth century BC, following the historian Herodotus, Greeks called the eastern coast of the Mediterranean "the Philistine Syria" using the Greek language form of the name. In AD 135, after putting down the Bar Kochba revolt, the second major Jewish revolt against Rome, the Emperor Hadrian wanted to blot out the name of the Roman "Provincia Judaea" and so renamed it "Provincia Syria Palaestina", the Latin version of the Greek name and the first use of the name as an administrative unit. The name "Provincia Syria Palaestina" was later shortened to Palaestina, from which the modern, anglicized "Palestine" is derived.

This remained the situation until the end of the fourth century, when in the wake of a general imperial reorganization Palestine became three Palestines: First, Second, and Third. This configuration is believed to have persisted into the seventh century, the time of the Persian and Muslim conquests.

The Christian Crusaders employed the word Palestine to refer to the general region of the "three Palestines." After the fall of the crusader kingdom, Palestine was no longer an official designation. The name, however, continued to be used informally for the lands on both sides of the Jordan River. The Ottoman Turks, who were non-Arabs but religious Muslims, ruled the area for 400 years (1517-1917). Under Ottoman rule, the Palestine region was attached administratively to the province of Damascus and ruled from Istanbul. The name Palestine was revived after the fall of the Ottoman Empire in World War I and applied to the territory in this region that was placed under the British Mandate for Palestine.

The name "Falastin" that Arabs today use for "Palestine" is not an Arabic name. It is the Arab pronunciation of the Roman "Palaestina". Quoting Golda Meir:

The British chose to call the land they mandated Palestine, and the Arabs picked it up as their nation's supposed ancient name, though they couldn't even pronounce it correctly and turned it into Falastin a fictional entity. [In an article by Sarah Honig, Jerusalem Post, November 25, 1995]