Why we talk to those classed as Terrorists.

Margaret Thatcher is reknowed for called Nelson Mandela and the ANC 'terrorists' when they were fighting for the rights of black people in S. Africa.   When he died, Mandela was reveared.

In Palestine, the Jewish terrorists the Irgun, led by Menachem Begin, blew up the King David Hotel resulting in many deaths, hung two British soldiers and booby trapped their bodies.  Begin went on to be the Prime Minister of Israel in 1964.

Jugantar in India fought for independence from Britain and had members that formed the first Congress

Northern Ireland now has people classed as terrorists in it's government.

Where would we be if we had not talked to them.

The key here is the terrorists must want peace and reconcilliation.

Mandella want peace and reconcilliation and now South Africa is a mess, with racism in reverse, his legacy sadly died when he did.

Gerry Adams is a terorist and should be tried for murder, those of us in the know, fully know he is guilty. Again though peace and reconcilliation was the key.



Hamas does not want peace. Hamas has to want peace and reconcilliation.
It wants neither, it only wants the destruction of Israel and its people.

There is your answer

Ah, but you would have shot them in the back before they talked peace. It was many, many years before Begin talked 'peace', if he ever did.

Oh dear epic fail.
You want peace talks whilst they are committing terrorist acts.
Only a fucking clueless brain dead terrorist supporter would want peace talks whilst violence was being aggresively made and continued against Israel.
Violence has to stop so talks can be started.

Simple even for a pea brain like yourself.
If terrorists continue attacks, then kill every single last one of them that commits to violence

Americans and Europeans fail to acknowledge that in order to achieve peace, the leaders must prepare their people for compromise and tolerance. If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people that the Western Wall has no religious significance to Jews and is, in fact, holy Muslim property. Palestinian Authority leaders who accuse Israel of "war crimes" and "genocide" are certainly not preparing their people for peace. Such allegations serve only to further agitate Palestinians against Israel.
If Yasser Arafat was not able to accept the generous offer made by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the 2000 Camp David summit, who is Mahmoud Abbas to make any concessions to Israel? Arafat was quoted then as saying that he rejected the offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel.
No Palestinian leader has a mandate to reach an everlasting peace agreement with Israel. No leader in Ramallah or the Gaza Strip is authorized to end the conflict with Israel. Any Palestinian who dares to talk about concessions to Israel is quickly denounced as a traitor. Those who believe that whoever succeeds Abbas will be able to make real concessions to Israel are living in an illusion.



There are two main reasons why Palestinians will not sign a real and meaningful peace agreement with Israel -- at least not in the foreseeable future. The first is a total lack of education for peace. The second is related to the absence of a leader who is authorized -- or has the guts -- to embark on such a risky mission.
Americans and Europeans who keep talking about the need to revive the stalled peace process in the Middle East continue to ignore these two factors. They continue to insist that peace is still possible and that the ball is in Israel's court. The Americans and Europeans fail to acknowledge that in order to achieve peace, the leaders must prepare their people for compromise and tolerance. In fact, it is inaccurate to say merely that Palestinian leaders have failed to prepare their people for peace with Israel. Instead, one should say that the Palestinian leadership has long been inciting its people against Israel to a point where it has become almost impossible to talk about any form of compromise between Israelis and Palestinians.

Since its inception in 1994, the Palestinian Authority (PA) has devoted most of its energies and propaganda to delegitimizing and isolating Israel. Ironically, this incitement continued even as the PA was negotiating with Israel in an attempt to reach a peace agreement. If you want to make peace with Israel, you do not tell your people every now and then that the Western Wall has no religious significance to Jews and is, in fact, holy Muslim property. You cannot make peace with Israel if you continue to deny Jewish history or links to the land. Take, for example, what the PLO's Hanan Ashrawi said in response to statements made by President Barack Obama, in which he acknowledged Jewish history. "Once again, he [Obama] has adopted the discourse of Zionist ideology," she said. "He adopted it when he came to this region, speaking about the Jews' return to their land, and that this is a Jewish state."

You will never be able to make peace with Israel if you keep telling your people and the rest of the world that Zionism was created in order to implement the Jewish project of world domination. This is what the Palestinian Authority ambassador to Chile, Imad Nabil Jadaa, said at a conference on Israeli-Palestinian peace in Santiago. It will be impossible to make peace with Israel at a time when the Palestinian Authority is telling its people that Jews use wild pigs to drive Palestinian farmers out of their fields and homes in the West Bank. This is what PA President Mahmoud Abbas told a pro-Palestinian conference in Ramallah. According to the PA, Jews have also used rats to drive Arab residents of the Old City of Jerusalem out of their homes. The official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, which reports directly to Abbas's office, claimed in a dispatch that, "Rats have become an Israeli weapon to displace and expel Arab residents" of the Old City of Jerusalem. The agency reported: "Settlers flood the Old City with rats... they release the rats to increase the suffering of the [Arab] residents and force them to evict their homes and leave the city."

These messages are being sent to Palestinians not only by Hamas, but also by the Western-funded Palestinian Authority, which happens to be Israel's "peace partner." The messages are being sent to Palestinians through the mosques, media and public statements of Palestinian leaders. This is in addition to the PA's worldwide campaign to isolate, delegitimize and demonize Israel and Israelis. PA leaders and representatives who continue to accuse Israel of "war crimes" and "genocide" are certainly not preparing their people for peace with Israel. On the contrary, such allegations serve to further agitate Palestinians against Israel. This is the type of incitement, in fact, that drives more Palestinians into the open arms of the Palestinian Authority's rivals, first and foremost Hamas. If you keep telling your people that Israel does not want peace and only seeks to destroy the lives of the Palestinians and steal their lands, there is no way that Palestinians would ever accept any form of reconciliation, let alone peace, with Israel.

Yet this is not only about the lack of education for peace or anti-Israel incitement.
It is time for the international community to acknowledge the fact that no Palestinian leader has a mandate to reach an everlasting peace agreement with Israel. That is because no leader in Ramallah or the Gaza Strip is authorized to end the conflict with Israel.If Yasser Arafat was not able to accept the generous offer made by former Prime Minister Ehud Barak at the 2000 Camp David summit, who is Mahmoud Abbas to make any form of concession to Israel? Arafat was quoted back them as saying that he rejected the offer because he did not want to end up drinking tea with assassinated Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace agreement with Israel. In many ways, Abbas can only blame himself for the situation he faces today. If you are telling your people that you will never make concessions, how can you ever sign a peace agreement with Israel?

Those who believe that whoever succeeds Abbas will be able to make real concessions to Israel are living in an illusion. It is time to admit that no present or future Palestinian leader is authorized to offer even the slightest concessions to Israel. Any Palestinian who dares to talk about concessions to Israel is quickly denounced as a traitor. These are the two reasons why the "peace process" in the Middle East will continue to revolve in a vicious cycle. In order to make peace with Israel, you need to prepare your people for peace with Israel. This is something that the Palestinian Authority has failed to do. And that is why we will not see the emergence of a more moderate Palestinian leader in the near future.


http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6142/palestinians-peace-israel

Notice the 'ALL OF IT'

The Land of Israel (Hebrew: אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל ʼÉreṣ Yiśrāʼēl, Eretz Yisrael) is one of several names for an area of indefinite geographical extension in the Southern Levant. Related biblical, religious and historical English terms include the Land of Canaan, the Promised Land, the Holy Land, and Palestine. The definitions of the limits of this territory vary between biblical passages, with these specifically in Genesis 15, Exodus 23, Numbers 34 and Ezekiel 47. Nine times elsewhere in the Bible, the settled land is referred as "from Dan to Beersheba".

That is what Begin wanted, that is what all Zionists want. Not peace, but Palestine.

MYTH

“Jews stole Arab land.”

FACT

Despite the growth in their population, the Arabs continued to assert they were being displaced. From the beginning of World War I, however, part of Palestine’s land was owned by absentee landlords who lived in Cairo, Damascus and Beirut. About 80 percent of the Palestinian Arabs were debt-ridden peasants, semi-nomads and Bedouins. 18

Jews actually went out of their way to avoid purchasing land in areas where Arabs might be displaced. They sought land that was largely uncultivated, swampy, cheap and, most important, without tenants. In 1920, Labor Zionist leader David Ben-Gurion expressed his concern about the Arab fellahin, whom he viewed as “the most important asset of the native population.” Ben-Gurion said “under no circumstances must we touch land belonging to fellahs or worked by them.” He advocated helping liberate them from their oppressors. “Only if a fellah leaves his place of settlement,” Ben-Gurion added, “should we offer to buy his land, at an appropriate price.” 19

It was only after the Jews had bought all of the available uncultivated land that they began to purchase cultivated land. Many Arabs were willing to sell because of the migration to coastal towns and because they needed money to invest in the citrus industry. 20

When John Hope Simpson arrived in Palestine in May 1930, he observed: “They [Jews] paid high prices for the land, and in addition they paid to certain of the occupants of those lands a considerable amount of money which they were not legally bound to pay.” 21

In 1931, Lewis French conducted a survey of landlessness for the British government and offered new plots to any Arabs who had been “dispossessed.” British officials received more than 3,000 applications, of which 80 percent were ruled invalid by the Government’s legal adviser because the applicants were not landless Arabs. This left only about 600 landless Arabs, 100 of whom accepted the Government land offer. 22

In April 1936, a new outbreak of Arab attacks on Jews was instigated by a Syrian guerrilla named Fawzi al--Qawukji, the commander of the Arab Liberation Army. By November, when the British finally sent a new commission headed by Lord Peel to investigate, 89 Jews had been killed and more than 300 wounded. 23

The Peel Commission’s report found that Arab complaints about Jewish land acquisition were baseless. It pointed out that “much of the land now carrying orange groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it was purchased. . . . there was at the time of the earlier sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the resources or training needed to develop the land.” 24 Moreover, the Commission found the shortage was “due less to the amount of land acquired by Jews than to the increase in the Arab population.” The report concluded that the presence of Jews in Palestine, along with the work of the British Administration, had resulted in higher wages, an improved standard of living and ample employment opportunities. 25

“It is made quite clear to all, both by the map drawn up by the Simpson Commission and by another compiled by the Peel Commission, that the Arabs are as prodigal in selling their land as they are in useless wailing and weeping” (emphasis in the original).

— Transjordan’s King Abdullah 26

Even at the height of the Arab revolt in 1938, the British High Commissioner to Palestine believed the Arab landowners were complaining about sales to Jews to drive up prices for lands they wished to sell. Many Arab landowners had been so terrorized by Arab rebels they decided to leave Palestine and sell their property to the Jews. 27

The Jews were paying exorbitant prices to wealthy landowners for small tracts of arid land. “In 1944, Jews paid between $1,000 and $1,100 per acre in Palestine, mostly for arid or semiarid land; in the same year, rich black soil in Iowa was selling for about $110 per acre.” 28

By 1947, Jewish holdings in Palestine amounted to about 463,000 acres. Approximately 45,000 of these acres were acquired from the Mandatory Government; 30,000 were bought from various churches and 387,500 were purchased from Arabs. Analyses of land purchases from 1880 to 1948 show that 73 percent of Jewish plots were purchased from large landowners, not poor fellahin. 29 Those who sold land included the mayors of Gaza, Jerusalem and Jaffa. As’ad el--Shuqeiri, a Muslim religious scholar and father of PLO chairman Ahmed Shuqeiri, took Jewish money for his land. Even King Abdullah leased land to the Jews. In fact, many leaders of the Arab nationalist movement, including members of the Muslim Supreme Council, sold land to Jews.

The map is Jewish land holdings in 1950.

Interesting so who owned the Arab parts Sassy, as I know, do you?
Were many of them so called Palestinians?
Think you will be dropping that map shortly lol
Also whatwas the population within these sub areas?
Do you know?

Fellahin.

Lets help Sassy, as she clearly took her time looking up on google lol




Who owned what land in Palestine?

The Ottoman land ownership laws and the status of land ownership in Palestine are crucially important in the history of Zionism, because of Zionist attempts to purchase land, Arab and British attempts to block them, and subsequent claims by Arabs that they had "owned" most of the land in what is now the State of Israel. It is also important in considering the claims of Palestinian refugees for restitution. Ottoman law divided land into several categories:

Mulk - Privately owned land in the Western sense. Only a tiny portion of the land was owned in this way. This was the only actual non-government private land in Palestine to which people had inalienable ownership rights.

Miri: Land owned by the government (originally the Ottoman crown) and suitable for agricultural use. Individuals could purchase a deed to cultivate this land and pay a tithe to the government. Ownership could be transferred only with the approval of the state. Miri rights could be transferred to heirs, and the land could be sub-let to tenants. If the owner died without an heir or the land was not cultivated for three years, the land would revert to the state.

Mahlul - Uncultivated Miri lands that would revert to the state, in theory after three years.

Waqf: Land belonging to the Muslim religious endowment, which supposedly could not be alienated or sold. Some categories of this type of land were in fact purchased by Zionists at one time.

Matruka - Land left for public use such as highways, as well as communal lands and pastures. These lands belonged to the state, and not to communities or individuals. It is not clear that this category actually existed in Palestine ( Stein, Land Question, p. 14). It is however, listed in the Hope-Simpson report.

Mawat - (or Mewat) So-called “dead”, unreclaimed land. It constituted about 50 to 60% of the land in Palestine. It belonged to the government. Private individuals could purchase and register this land as their own for its unreclaimed value, but it was just as easy to simply cultivate it.( Stein, Land Question, p. 13). If the land had been cultivated with permission, it would be registered, at least under the Mandate, free of charge. Communities and individuals often expanded their land land holdings "informally" by cultivating or using such land. According to the Hope-Simpson Report Mewat land was probably of considerable extent. It was defined as any land that was more than a mile and a half from a village, and was not owned by anyone. However, no systematic survey was ever done, so it was impossible to determine the precise extent of Mewat land.

In addition to the above official categories, the following two concepts were in in use in Palestine:

Musha' - Musha' land was Miri or Mulk land that was cultivated in common by numerous owners in common. Often this was unregistered land, or land to which Miri rights had been acquired by squatting and eventual registration. About 5 million dunams of land in Palestine were Musha' land in Palestine in 1933.( Stein, Land Question, p. 14). Musha land was gradually sold out to absentee owners who lived in town, and used tenants or hired labor to work their lands. Musha and subtenanted Miri land probably constituted the bulk of agricultural land ownership of cultivated land by Arabs.

jiftlik or Mudawara - Mudawara lands were private lands that had been bequeathed to the Sultan and were therefore government property. The largest such parcel was the Beisan area land with consisted of 302,000 dunams ( Stein, Land Question, p. 62) (Originally this land was apparently about 394,000 dunams - (Stein, Land Question, pages 107-108)). According to the Hope-Simpson Report (table on p 58) the second largest Jiftlik area was apparently in Rafa and comprised 90,000 dunams. Along with other such lands it was leased to Arabs who had been there "for many years" or so they claimed. The third largest Jiftlik area was in the Jericho area and covered about 75,000 dunams. ( Stein, Land Question, p. 14). The government could lease these lands to tenants, in such a way that they were not liable to eviction as they were on Miri or Mulk land, but after 1933, it was no longer possible to acquire such tenancy. Instead, the British government had begun to sell these lands.

(The above discussion and definitions are taken from Stein, Land Question, p. 11 ff)

Stein gives various numbers for State land ownership. He states that "Ottoman state land comprised 4 percent of the total land area of Palestine north of Beesheba" (Land Question, page 12). As there were about 14 million dunams, this would amount to about 560,000 dunams of land. However, he then tells us that "a considerable portion" of this land was alienated into private hands, but then he tells us on the same page that in 1931 the total state land exclusive of the Beersheba district amounted to 959,000 dunams, which is about 7.1% of the land north of Beersheba. It is unclear how much of this was Jiftlik land or Mahlul land. However, the 60% or so of Mewat land was also also government land, and this was never surveyed.

Not mentioned by Stein and other authorities are lands that are owned by the Greek Orthodox Church. The Greek Orthodox church is and was one of the largest private landholders in Israel/Palestine and particularly in Jerusalem. They hold the land under a Waqf-like policy. They will not sell it, but they have leased portions of it in long term leases to the Israeli government, including about half of downtown Jerusalem, the Knesset Building, the neighborhood of Rehavia and the Israel Museum. They continue to own the land and were never "dispossessed."

An exact assessment of the distribution of real ownership in the above categories is probably impossible. Land registration in Palestine can charitably be described as chaotic under both the Ottoman and British regimes. In 1925, three quarters of the land in Palestine was "held" by unregistered title. The Wadi Hawarith parcel of 30,000 dunams was registered as measuring 5,500 Turkish dunams ( Stein, Land Question, p. 21). Supposedly, this was because fellahin were unwilling to register title, because under the Ottoman law, it would obligate them for military service, as well as taxes. To an unknown extent, this also reflected encroachments and squatting on various forms of government land. Of the total of over 12 million dunams of land in the Beersheba district, only 50,000 were registered. While much of this land was unused, much of it was used in fact by nomadic or sedentary Bedouin, who never bothered to file any land claim, so that they would not need to pay taxes, and because they were, paradoxically, afraid that once registered, the land could be alienated from their ownership through marriage of daughters, owners dying intestate etc. (Stein, land question, p 22). In general, Ottoman administration was such that residents tried to avoid all contact with authorities whenever possible, fearing conscription, taxes and other eventualities.

Throughout Palestine, even the land that was "registered" was mostly unsurveyed:

In addition to the lack of registration and underregistration of property, no map or cadastral survey accompanied the description of the lands registered. Boundaries in many instances were identified by roads, buildings or referenced to a local piece of history such as the "land of the great fight' or "land of the big rock." During the 1920s, the director of lands stated with complete frankness and accuracy that he was unable from registered information and the isolated plan that sometimes accompanied it, to locate the piece of land that a registered transaction purported to concern. (Stein, land question, p 22).

The British never managed to overcome this chaos. They considered that land was "owned" for tax purposes if someone could be found to pay the taxes, and the figure of 45 % Arab "ownership" is based on this calculation, including village commons and other areas that were used for cultivation as well as unregistered holdings of different type, Mawat land that was "acquired" by squatting etc. Most of it, except for the tiny portion of Mulk holdings, was not owned in the conventional sense even if it was registered. The proliferation of abandoned land in Palestine had long been noted by travelers. Miri Land that was abandoned reverted to the state.

The only exact records of ownership and transfer of ownership that existed, insofar was this was possible without accurate information, were the Land Books of Jewish settlements, which were legally recognized by the Mandate government in 1926, in the framework of their attempts to regularize land registration. (Stein, Land Question, pp 32-33).

Article 6 of the League of Nations British Mandate for Palestine had stated:

ART. 6. The Administration of Palestine, while ensuring that the rights and position of other sections of the population are not prejudiced, shall facilitate Jewish immigration under suitable conditions and shall encourage, in co-operation with the Jewish agency referred to in Article 4, close settlement by Jews on the land, including State lands and waste lands not required for public purposes.

This provision was never really carried out. In fact, the mandate government did the opposite, in most cases, making available Mawat and Jiftlik and other state lands to Arabs and encourage Arabs to register claims on state lands as well. The Beisan Jiftlik lands were registered to various Arab tenants for fairly nominal fees (one seventh to one fourteenth of actual value, and Jews were excluded from the agreements. The Arab tenants illegally sold their land to the Jews at full market prices, and eventually, the British relented and legalized the sales (Stein, Land Question pp 62-63), but they never allowed the Jewish Agency to purchase the lands directly. In all, according to Stein, the mandate estimated that there were about 959,000 metric dunams of State land, including all the Jiftlik lands. Manifestly, this did not include all the lands south of Beersheba, and may have been intended to represent cultivable land. Only 98,000 of these were allocated or about to be allocated to Jews in 1930. About 394,000 dunam were to be allocated to Arabs from the Beisan lands (eventually reduced to 302,000), 300,000 were leased to Arabs, on an annual basis, 52,000 were part of the Huleh Ottoman concession that eventually came under Jewish control. (Stein, Land Question, pages 107-108). The 800,000 or so dunams purchased by Jews during the early mandate years were therefore balanced out in part by transfer or leasing of government land to Arabs, land that should have been transferred to Jews if article 6 of the mandate had been followed.

As from 1940, the British land regulations officially forbade or severely limited land purchases by the Jewish Agency. In fact, however, the British could limit only the registration of land, and the Jewish agency continued to purchase land. In 1940, the Jewish Agency had purchased about 22,000 dunam. In 1941, despite the land regulations, it still purchased over 14,000 dunams, and during each of the subsequent war years it purchased 8-18,000 dunam (Stein, Land Question, Appendix 2 p 226).

From the point of view of the Arabs, all these lands "belonged" to Arabs, since all of the land of Palestine "belonged" to the Arabs, inasmuch as they considered themselves the rightful owners. It is a circular definition of ownership and not very meaningful. The Arabs of Palestine had never exercised sovereignty and did not own most of the land by private purchase. It was government land that had belonged to the Ottoman empire and before that to the various Turkish and Arab empires. If there had been "actual" owners in history, they were probably Jews of 2,000 or more years ago.

A map that is often presented in pro-Palestinian accounts enhances the impression that Palestine had belonged to the Arabs and had been "stolen" by the Jews. The map was prepared by a subcommittee of the UN and shows "Jewish" and "non-Jewish" land ownership in different areas. The "catch" is that all of the land that was not purchased and registered to Jews or the Jewish agency, including government lands, is categorized as "non-Jewish." The Beersheba district, which was 99% government land, is shown as being 99% "Non-Jewish" (see Palestine Land Ownership Map 1944) It was also "99% non-Arab."

From the point of view of the Arabs, likewise, the Mandate provisions for "close settlement" of Jews on the land, and the entire mandate, were illegal creations of the Western imperialists. But the League of Nations British Mandate was international law. For some reason, the Arab concern for "international legitimacy" evaporates when such laws favor the Zionists. Moreover, the land of Palestine was for the most part virtually worthless prior to the mandate. Land prices soared because of the mandate, and this was due almost entirely to Jewish settlement and Zionist investment. The land of the Sursocks was sold in 1921 for 3 to 6 Egyptian piasters per dunam, which was 40 to 80 times what they had paid for the land. (Stein, Land Question, page 65). In effect, the British policy and the Arab "land claims" amounted to saying "we will take the money of the Jews, but we will not give them their rights).

In total, approximately 6 million dunams of land were registered as taxable by Jews and Arabs in 1936, excluding the Beersheba district, according to the Peel commission (Stein, Land Question, page 107). Taxable and registered land area in the Beersheba district was negligible, as noted. If we accept Stein's estimate of Jewish land ownership as two million dunams in 1948, and assume that all of that area was taxable, then the Jews owned roughly a third of the usable land exclusive of the Waqf land in all of Palestine, and probably about half of the usable, taxable land in the area that would be allotted to Israel. This makes sense in view of the fact that the Jewish sector of the Palestinian mandate economy produced twice as much tax revenues as the Arab sector. Given the population differences, it means that each Jew paid about four times as much taxes as each Arab. If the Jews did not own a significant proportion of the land, it would probably have been difficult for them to achieve that level of productivity.

I was making a cup of coffee and talking to my Dad, some of us do that.

You don't know what Fellahin is do you.

Yes dear, how aboutyou digest the facts I preseted to you and then let me know when they sink in.

Good luck

Why don't you tell me why Fellahin is absolutely crucial to the question of land ownership.

And then perhaps you could get back to the OP and tell me if you would have shot the people listed in the back?

Ah well you see in the eyes of Didge, Israeli terrorists are good and the rest are all bad.

Well according to him the Irgun terrorists and the ANC would all be shot in the back because they are scum.

What a hypocrite

Irn Bru wrote:Ah well you see in the eyes of Didge, Israeli terrorists are good and the rest are all bad.

Well according to him the Irgun terrorists and the ANC would all be shot in the back because they are scum.

What a hypocrite

I see you are poor at history again.
There was Zionist terrorists that committed appalling terrorist attacks against the British of which I condemn and would also back the view they should have been shot out of hand as murderers.
Israel did not exist at the time.
I also completely condem the violence and murder by the ANC.

So no hypocricy, as terrorism committing murder is wrong, though you seem to think it is acceptable.

Though in South Africa for example Mandela chose peace and reconcilliation which means also having no reprecussions against the apartheid regeme. He more than anyone showed a better way forward. Though those using violence at the time if they had been shot carrying out their attroicties would have been justifiable, as they took innocent lives, no matter whether they were ANC or groups like Lehi.
Are you saying that we should not try to take out a terrrorist while they are shooting people or about to blow themselves up? For peace talks to begin violence has to stop, as how can you even start to negotiate peace when terrorists are still committing violence?


I see Sassy has ignored allthe facts and how little any Palestinians owned any of the land. The point has gone straight over her head, I suggest she reads again

Cuchulain wrote:

Irn Bru wrote:Ah well you see in the eyes of Didge, Israeli terrorists are good and the rest are all bad.

Well according to him the Irgun terrorists and the ANC would all be shot in the back because they are scum.

What a hypocrite

I see you are poor at history again.
There was Zionist terrorists that committed appalling terrorist attacks against the British of which I condemn and would also back the view they should have been shot out of hand as murderers.
Israel did not exist at the time.
I also completely condem the violence and murder by the ANC.

So no hypocricy, as terrorism committing murder is wrong, though you seem to think it is acceptable.

Though in South Africa for example Mandela chose peace and reconcilliation which means also having no reprecussions against the apartheid regeme. He more than anyone showed a better way forward. Though those using violence at the time if they had been shot carrying out their attroicties would have been justifiable, as they took innocent lives, no matter whether they were ANC or groups like Lehi.
Are you saying that we should not try to take out a terrrorist while they are shooting people or about to blow themselves up? For peace talks to begin violence has to stop, as how can you even start to negotiate peace when terrorists are still committing violence?


I see Sassy has ignored allthe facts and how little any Palestinians owned any of the land. The point has gone straight over her head, I suggest she reads again

The Irgun continued after the founding of Israel, they actually had two confrontations with the newly formed IDF. And yet Begin went on to be PM.

Mandela only chose peace and reconcilation when it became possible to speak to the enemy. When the enemy were refusing to speak he advocated violence. After the massacre of unarmed black South Africans by police forces at Sharpeville in 1960 and the subsequent banning of the ANC, Mandela abandoned his nonviolent stance and began advocating acts of sabotage against the South African regime. He went underground (during which time he became known as the Black Pimpernel for his ability to evade capture) and was one of the founders of Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), the military wing of the ANC. In 1962 he went to Algeria for training in guerrilla warfare and sabotage, returning to South Africa later that year.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/05/nelson-mandela-flawed-saint/

sassy wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:


I see you are poor at history again.
There was Zionist terrorists that committed appalling terrorist attacks against the British of which I condemn and would also back the view they should have been shot out of hand as murderers.
Israel did not exist at the time.
I also completely condem the violence and murder by the ANC.

So no hypocricy, as terrorism committing murder is wrong, though you seem to think it is acceptable.

Though in South Africa for example Mandela chose peace and reconcilliation which means also having no reprecussions against the apartheid regeme. He more than anyone showed a better way forward. Though those using violence at the time if they had been shot carrying out their attroicties would have been justifiable, as they took innocent lives, no matter whether they were ANC or groups like Lehi.
Are you saying that we should not try to take out a terrrorist while they are shooting people or about to blow themselves up? For peace talks to begin violence has to stop, as how can you even start to negotiate peace when terrorists are still committing violence?


I see Sassy has ignored allthe facts and how little any Palestinians owned any of the land. The point has gone straight over her head, I suggest she reads again

The Irgun continued after the founding of Israel, they actually had two confrontations with the newly formed IDF.  And yet Begin went on to be PM.

Mandela only chose peace and reconcilation when it became possible to speak to the enemy.  When the enemy were refusing to speak he advocated violence.   After the massacre of unarmed black South Africans by police forces at Sharpeville in 1960 and the subsequent banning of the ANC, Mandela abandoned his nonviolent stance and began advocating acts of sabotage against the South African regime. He went underground (during which time he became known as the Black Pimpernel for his ability to evade capture) and was one of the founders of Umkhonto we Sizwe (“Spear of the Nation”), the military wing of the ANC. In 1962 he went to Algeria for training in guerrilla warfare and sabotage, returning to South Africa later that year.
http://blogs.britannica.com/2011/05/nelson-mandela-flawed-saint/

There you go, only when it was possible to speak,
Continued violence does not allow for peace talks, as how can even begin to discuss peace with continued violence?
You cannot which at every turn you miss
I know about Mandela and he never actually killed anyone though did he sassy and sabotage is different from murdering people.
Or do you not know the difference?

Also confrontations is not terrorism, so again no israeli but Zionists

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Irgun_attacks


Israel did not gain independence until May

Stop telling porkies

In October 1963 the imprisoned Mandela and several other men were tried for sabotage, treason, and violent conspiracy in the infamous Rivonia Trial, named after a fashionable suburb of Johannesburg where raiding police had discovered quantities of arms and equipment at the headquarters of the underground Umkhonto we Sizwe. Mandela’s speech from the dock, in which he admitted the truth of some of the charges made against him, was a classic defense of liberty and defiance of tyranny.

All I can presume didge, is that you are a coward, and if Hitler had managed to get into this country you would have called for peace talks and refused to fight. You talk about 'troops having their hands tied' etc, but if it was you, you would roll over and surrender. Yellow streak right through the middle.

Yeah he admitted to sabotage.
Not any murders.

DOH

This is a new low from Sassy, she is trying to justify murder through terrorism based off mandela admitting to sabotage.
Unbelievable.
You disgust me that you defend terrorists you have no justification for their actions.
There is no apartheid and Israel from the start defended itself against the Agreesive palestinians and other Arabs that never accepted their right to self determination.
We are seeing the true sassy here trying to justify violence based off no just cause either.
They lost wars as an agressor just like Germany did, but Germany accepted it did wrong and lost lands.