does Israel have 'a right to exist"?

i think he was talkin more about how they solved the northen ireland war rather than comparing the cause of the situation. of corse a comparison of the two cant be judged on their history's as they differ imensley

The IRA wanted independence from the UK, members of the IRA believe this to be an achievable goal that can be reached through dialogue… So they will happily engage in dialogue.

Hamas want the total destruction of Israel - this cannot be reached through dialogue.

If we are to find a peaceful solution there must be a volte-face of the Palestinian mindset, Israel could have the greatest intentions in the world but if Hamas aren't willing to accept Israel’s right to exist then dialogue is but a pipe dream.

I wish people would stop comparing the situation to Northern Ireland - the two events are diametrically opposed.

That's too simplistic a description. For many years the IRA did NOT believe independence possible through negotiation despite occasional attempts both overt and covert. Similarly whilst they did not advocate the destruction of Northern Ireland they also did not recognise it's right to exist.

No teo events are the same but if lessons can be learnt they should be.

Gestures of faith on both sides created a situation in which an initial peace plan could be introduced - a similar stage needs to be reached in the Middle East.

You're overlooking the objectives of both the IRA and Hamas.

The IRA was established to drive the British out of Ireland, regardless of early aspirations (which you're misinformed on - there were early examples of dialogue) this is something that could always be achieved via dialogue.

Hamas were founded to drive the Jews out of the Middle East, there can never be peaceful solution to this - removing an occupying/governmental power is not comparable to ethnic cleansing.

What am I misinformed on?? I acknowledged there were examples of dialogue. I recognise the two situations are not the same. The point I was making is that the current (albeit fragile) peace in N.I. is a result of dialogue which itself was a result of gestures of faith on each side. Such gestures will be necessary from ALL sides of the Isreal / Palestine / Lebanon / Hizbollah / Syria / Iran conflict for any sort of peace to be achieved.

Do you believe peace can be achieved through the military defeat of Hamas and Hizbollah? And more importantly can Isreal ever militarily defeat either??

No, the military campaigns waged against Hizbullah and Hamas are defensive acts carried out to elliminate an immidiate threat.

Once the immidiate threat has been neutralised then Israel can consider dialogue.... But as Hizbullah launched an unprovoked attack on Israel and will continue with these attacks regardless of Israels actions - now is not the time to talk.

Surely Isreals current actions are so out of proportion with the threat that faces them and the provokation that started the war though?? They are creating a surge of resentment that means a time for productive dialogue is even further away than perhaps it could have been if Isreal had acted with more restraint are they not?? Will Isreal ever not be under attack from Hamas or Hizbollah long enough to consider talks??

There is a hint of Devils Advocate in some of those questions btw.

How are Israels actions out of proportion?

Hizbullah hide amongst a civilian population while firing katuysha rockets into Haifa... Israel is faced with only one option and that is retaliation.

Israel were at peace with Lebanon and had been for the last 6 years - dialogue wasn't needed... Iran have their own agenda for pushing Hizbullah into the current scenario.

As for Palestine/Hamas - there has been peace processes in the past and they'll come along again in the future.

Correct me if I'm wrong Joe, but weren't there originally three options for a Jewish homeland? One being what we now know as isreal, one in South America somewhere (Ecudor?), and one in or around Kenya? If so, do you think the wrong choice was made? Don't know much about the history or the reason's behind the choice so would be good to get your opinion

Of course ideas were kicked around, but Jews had no claim to these lands so they were quickly dismissed... whats your point?

unfortunately, due to the nature of this type of guerilla war, where exactly IS the immediate threat? they'll just move around the country, using different places as staging points for their attacks

it's like the coalition trying to stop the insurgents - a few hard air strikes on key targets won't break their will - if they want to keeping attacking - they will

None. Just trying to gauge your opinion

cool

Its completely different, Hizbullah control huge neighbour hoods - the current air strikes are aimed at taking out this Hizbullah strong holds while the ground offensive is aimed at pushing the Iranian Katyusha rockets out of range of Israeli cities.

Ive never veen to Isreal or the Middle East, don't know anyone from that part of the world on a personal level, and don't have much of a grasp of the culture, therefore I don't think I'm in a position to be all cynical. So until I do the above, I will be keeping my opnions to myself. This is why Jewish opinions are more valid, as are Arabs, and, to a lesser degree, Academics. Anyway, keep up the discussion people, its good reading

haha if only your brother were so open minded

Being a pothead, watching Sky news all day, and reading what he thinks is impartial 'literature' = cynical twat

but they won't stick to the laws of war, as they are seen as terrorists - they'll still attack, just maybe in not as greater numbers - it won't stop them.

i personally don't think israel had any other choice than to do what they are doing to protect themselves

Israel are in a lose lose situation.

If we are to survive we need to find peace with our neighbours.... But at the present it would seem that peace is the last thing they want