My Photo



« Can I park closer now? | Main | 'splain this, Mistah Foti »


cheap peyton manning bronco jersey

"He's finished the brainwork, but I just want him resting that thing," Reid said. "I'm not worried about him getting in circumstance or something else. Let's just see if it calms reducing merely a tiny bit."

cheap peyton manning bronco jersey

In my world of the senses, your article humorous, make people feel relaxed and happy. This is not urgent, your article also with the philosophy of life, inspired by the self is in the lost friends. Thank you for sharing.

cheap peyton manning jerseys

In my world of the senses, your article humorous, make people feel relaxed and happy. This is not urgent, your article also with the philosophy of life, inspired by the self is in the lost friends. Thank you for sharing.

Cheap NFL Denver Broncos Jerseys

This blog is wonderful. There are many nice article. Thanks!

Cheap Eagles Jerseys

Oh YES! Those fucking fuckfaced fuckers get me all fucked-up mad, too. You said it, brother.

Cheap Eagles Jerseys

Oh YES! Those fucking fuckfaced fuckers get me all fucked-up mad, too. You said it, brother.


Another part of the transcript If the Israelis thugoht Israel could live in peace and security, most of the Israeli leaders that you know, would be prepared to support a Palestinian state with some variation of the 67 borders, some respect for East Jerusalem and Jerusalem being an international city. I'm going to what Barak had on the table at Camp David.George Mitchell:But remember Barak lost the last onee28094Charlie Rose:I do remember that. But he's now the defense minister and he has a voice.George Mitchell:He has a very important voice. And he's an outstanding leader.Charlie Rose:And remember this, that the Palestinians turned it down; they turned down more than they had beene28094than they're likely to be offered today.George Mitchell:Well that's another reason for getting into negotiations right away. Of course that could just be Charlie Rose's confusion, but the offer at Camp David wasn't a good one even Shlomo Ben Ami admitted that on Democracy Now a few years ago. Mitchell let that statement stand I hope that was just Mitchell being diplomatic, but again, it's not encouraging.


proposal that clidnfentoy meets What is the meaning of that word confident in your lexicon? You toss it around like it means something important.I want them to reach a solution that Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza can welcome with pride, rather than feeling like they or their puppet leaders were forced into accepting. I want Israelis to stop being narcissistic racists who blame their victims for the violence and become people who accept responsibility for the vast suffering they've inflicted on Palestinians and others. On the Palestinian side, they also should recognize that violence aimed at civilians was and is wrong. Not that I equate the two sides Israel is far worse, but ten wrongs don't justify committing one in return.I want a real peace with some degree of justice, not some top-down farcical solution that leaves the worst attitudes entrenched on both sides. Reconciliation can't come without real self-examination.


Abunimeh described that the poaciitll wing and the military wing of Hamas are separate organizationally and separate sympathetically.They commonly hold the view that Palestinians deserve decent lives and real self-determination, but aside from that, they differ as to method and emphasis.That is EXACTLY how I described Hamas in December, 2008, that the poaciitllly and electorally oriented leadership that earned their respect through social service primarily, opposed resumption of shelling of Southern Israeli civilians, while the more militant supported and did the shelling of civilians.That separation appears to not be the case, or at least partially. Hamas spokesmen praised the murderers, asserted that it would repeat so long as any discussions with Israel were occurring.I also take issue with Abunimeh's spending the majority of his air describing that Israel gave Hamas no other choice .Adult human beings are responsible for their actions, plain and simple.


That's a fair point about Hamas. Now did the Israeli left condemn the Gaza War and the bkdolace as morally reprehensible and strategic poor judgement?Notice, btw, Richard, a fair number of us here are condemning Hamas's murders in no uncertain terms, as immoral first and stupid on top of that.It'd be nice if you and most liberal Zionists could show the same level of honesty when speaking of Israeli crimes. For me, admitting that Hamas is a rather typical liberation movement (i.e., composed in large part of ruthless killers) is simply a matter of acknowledging facts. For you, admitting the truth about Israeli brutality cuts much deeper and you can't do it. Too bad. There can't be a sensible discussion with you when you can't be honest about the crimes of your chosen side.


>> Except that Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a soouitln that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually.>> You did read the Meshal interview that Phil posted?Yes, I read the entire interview, but I don't recall Meshal saying that Hamas will not sit at a table and endeavor to find a soouitln that preserves the sovereignty and safety of Israeli civilians and Palestinian civilians mutually . Could you please post the excerpt that supports your assertion? Thank you.


You think that Hamas wasne28099t divided in December, 2008? No they weren't. You are sainyg that all supported the resumption and escalation of shelling of Israeli civilians at the end of the formal hudna? No we're not Witty, becasue the resumption and escalation had aleady been started by Israel and Hamas were responding to Israeli attacks.Have you already forgotten that Israel had broken the hudna and rejected a return to it Witty?How could you miss such an important detail like that unless you were deliberatly lying?


This has always been apenprat to anyone who will listen to Palestinians. Sadly, their western allies are frequently imbeciles trying to shoehorn reality into an, increasingly anti-Semitic, ideology of imperialism. Sadly too, Arab leadership has ignored those voices and indulged in its own rhetoric. The ultimate tragedy, is that the voice of rejection is also the only one heard by Israeli leadership. This cycle is reinforced by the violence of both sides - often brutal and arbitrary. Violent death has never been good at persuading others of one's reasonableness.The voice of the majority of the Palestinians needs to be heard and listened to.


Further to Rob and the biz of Hamas leaders algeledly hiding out in a hospital bunker - the articles I've read suggest that Hamas has a network of tunnels connecting bunkers under Gaza, including to the hospital, and they shifted their positon regularly. I'm not sure how this makes them cowards, as this is not only standard practice for any government under attack ie to protect & bunker the leadership in the safest place available it was the only practical strategy available in a place with 1.5 million people in a 10km x 40km strip. There's literally no where else to go. which would be why Hamas adopted the standard practice of irregular armies of dispersing amongst civilians. Just like the Jewish resistance did in the Warsaw ghetto. While Hamas leaders are obviously not of the same morality or ilk as such resistance fighters, their tactics of hiding and engaging in guerilla tactics against a massively superior force aren't morally any different in this instance, particularly as the practical facts of the situation dictated that other than mass suicide, there was no other tactic strategy available. It's clear that hiding in a hospital is not a deterrent for the IDF, given they shelled and hit several during the attack, bombed 4 UN schools, the UN compound, and destroyed 4,000 civilian buildings, leaving over 100,000 people homeless, with a civilian death toll of over 50% by the most cautious estimates, and have now left civilian infrastructure so damaged that the WHO fears a disease outbreak due to the lack of clean water, electricity and sanitation. Something that seems to be missing from any grandiose suggestion that any analysis needs to be carried out is that the IDF is the fourth biggest army in the world, and in this instance attacked a densely populated civilian ghetto defended by a force that probably wouldn't even rate as an army by most definitions. The only lessons on offer are that it's easy to commit war crimes when you deploy white phosphorous and mortars in situations like densely populated civilian cities that they are not designed or meant to be used in.They also destroyed key civilian infrastructure leaving the WHO


so3/ Why do Palestiniens fight th alleged inneocnt Israel has been replaced by why don't Israel as th invader NOT realize th occupied Palestiniens of course will legitmately resist , by rockets or whatever means so did th French resistanse4/ why does Israel use grosly non proportionate reprisals on inneocnt civilians in Gaza at a rate of 1000 dead Palestiniens to just 13 israeli dead5/ why does th UN itself condemn Israeli atacks on UN buildings holding inocent Palestiniens when th UN itself verifys such Israeli actons6/ Why ar th Medai excluded from Gaza , what has Israel to fear from Palestiniens's side of story being told seeing israel claims it is right 7/ crucialy , why does Israel pretend th Palestiniens living in th unoccupied area (Gaza) will not continue obviously to keep resisting th Israeli ocupation of Palestimens in th West Bank , rather than as Israli spins that Gazzan palestiniens should not worry about th West Bank area inhabited by palestinens but under Israeli occupation still after 42 yearsYou MarkL ar part of th problam not recognizing th above , you can never ever with your partisen views be part of th solution , and what I amazing is that you still believe such outdated spin that worked for 30 years , but Israwli's OWN recent over agressions has actualy forsed objective people to look at my 7 points nad others , and conclude Iserael is just not deserving of unquestoned sympathy any more, its also not deserving of our acceptanse any more of its charade of actualy wanting fair dinkum peace As for clueless MarkL , well you ar clueless not to realize your & Israeli spin past its use by date and is seen through by incresing World opinion , time is against Israel and you don't even know it


is it wants th World's sympathy for its sruecity , BUT also for its right to occupy th West Bank until th very people it is occupying (th Palestiniens) cease rresisting Israel's occupation ! AND then refuse to table peace term sspecifics to withdraw from that vey land it occupies !!How anyone can accept this Israeli charade is rediculous this Israeli charade has only continued due to US World military & econamic dominanse.Chris , hav you ever heard an Israeli public peace plan that includes full withdrawal from West Bank and if not how much , OR that new Palestinien State has th normative'rights of any other sovereign country ie free control of its air spaca and sea lanes into its country OR that it can hav its own military national sruecity forses , OR that Arab east Jurilesm will be fully returned to th sovereign control of th new paelstienin State and if not how much , OR that th existing Israeli settlements will be withdrawn and if not which OR if ilegal settlers can reamin in West Bank , why not right of return for dispossed Palestiniens back to Israel won't get any peace till these issues ar publy declared by Israel , EVEN IF Israel's answers ar all negative (seeing that wuld forse US via public opinion to forse Israel to be reasonable


I have always felt that a Fianna Fail-Sinn Fein cooaitiln was a possibility, though I would very much doubt that we'll see one come about following this year's election. The Shinners have no problem sharing power (if they ever get round to it) with Paisley and the DUP in the north, so cooaitiln with Bertie or any other soldier of destiny would I am sure be sold to their gullible grassroots as just 'another phase in the struggle'. As for FF, what do you honestly think they would do if it came down to a choice between spending five years in opposition and sharing power with a few ex-gunrunners? Answers on a postcard


For the serious minds here:On the new US Executive Administration, the major chlleanges for them do not lie in Gaza. They know that the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not one a U.S. president intervenes in unless he wants to experience all pain, no gain. It has long been known in high policy circles that this is an intractable conflict with no solution. The reasons for this are well understood, and have relatively little to do with Israel.So the new administration will deliberately avoid being drawn into mediating the conflict. What they will do during the first hundred days in office is to do what every other new administration has done. They'll send the obligatory Middle East envoy. He/She will spend time with all the parties. He/she will make the suitable speeches. He/she will and extract the usual meaningless concessions from all sides. He/she will establish a the usual meaningless process to which everyone will cynically agree, knowing it is worthless. This is not involvement, but the alternative to involvement. It fools the pro-pallies and the anti-semites every time.This is the very reason presidents appoint Middle East envoys.The new administration can and will avoid the Gaza crisis while mollifying the unthinking but noisy shriekers who understand nothing.MarkLCanberra


As bad as Sinn Fein are, at least they haven't put up 1000 posters for one caddinate in a small town.Maragaret Connell is gonna get an anti-vote from me for her relentless poster campaign for a council place.


Citizen and Shingo,If you read the timeline that Citizen pestod above, the timeline EXACTLY conforms to my description of the sequence of events.Read about the restoration of the cease-fire by mutual consent, for the duration of its term, on November 17th.The question isn't really who violated the cease-fire. When Hamas resumed shelling Israel, the cease-fire had formally stopped.But, the important question that I raised was was it necessary, was it good judgement, was it courageous for Hamas to resume shelling.And, was it courageous for them to escalate shelling UNTIL Israel responded militarily, and then hide, leaving Gazan civilians to bear the brunt of the Israeli attacks?In the article you pestod, Citizen, it did NOT describe the cease-fire agreement as formally including the removal of blockade or full normalization of cross-border traffic, but instead used the terms that Hamas expected .They are DIFFERENT terms.I get that you believe what you want to believe, that you don't bother to question your own assumptions, but in fact, Hamas was a primary party to the instigation of the Israeli response.If Hamas had not resumed shelling, Israel would not have had the political cover to undertake a planned military operation. (Israel has probably 100 s of plans, unused). They blew it. They let their frustration guide their decisions, rather than there benevolent reasoning. (Do you think they apply benevolent reasoning to Israeli civilians?)


Michael#59 ron1 I’ve got mixed feelings on the sittouian. Subsequent to my post #57 I also gone through same process as you , changing my mind since & thinking Obama's call to Abbas th deemed sole' US/israeli group to talk to (and a deemed soft colaborator') may be again a wrong signal to Palestinien people who've just seen Gaza read elected Govt Hamas so brutaly attackedYour later more optimistic view , well I'm not there at moment and your comments in your very last sentence ar my current reason , ie indications of US meddling pro Fatah and anti Hamas to sabatage a unity Palestinien Govt AND a histary of such counter producive meddling that assists spliting there Leadership 7 allowing Israel an excuse' (being we hav no one to negotiate with) Hope your later view is correct as that may force israel (if US chooses) to start producing some terms'PeterC#60 When do the war crimes get prosecuted? ONLY when you ar not on USA's side , so Israeli's hav nothing to fear , ever


what? So what if Israel is bigger and betetr equipped than Hamas? Terrorism is asymmetrical warfare. That's the point. Terrorism punches above its weight and garners both press, policy and military reactions that do not reflect the actual economies of scale. That's the point.The real issue is that Israel reacted militarily because it felt that other options were a waste of time. No one has yet tabled any other solution for Israel that would be acceptable. Until there is another policy solution that can guarantee Hamas will stop sticking its finger in Israel's eye, then Israel will occasionally react with might. If Hamas didn't want the IDF to smash it, it shouldn't have provoked them. If Hamas didn't want children to die they shouldn't have launched attacks using civilians as cover, or cached their weapons in mosques. Hamas only has itself to blame.Quibbling over who is and isn't a terrorist is just noise.AC


it won't talk to Hamas because it wants to lqodiuate all of israel (and some Hamas do share that view) but ALSO Israel concurently will not withdraw .meaning Israel is guaranteeing a peace deel can never occur on other hand from Hamas view Israel does a Gaza' atrcoity proving to Hamas that Israel is just as much a barbarien on innocent civiliansds and proving self fulfiling to Hamas that Israel regards Palestinien civilianns as no humansSo we actualy hav th self fulfiling guarantees necessary to keep th hatred and th conflict violense going another 42 years don't weCircut breaker seems to me acceptance of th 'cause' of this , Israel must at moin say it will withdraw AND Israel must say what terms/issues re West bank, East Jurulesm , and New Palestinien State's powers & rights she requires as a condition of withdrawal (apart from its rightful but reasonable future security' needs)


Terangeree: I know. I was just teasing.Ron1: I think in an ideal world the Palestinians would dsesit from resistance for a period that satisfies everyone that it's not merely a ruse. Israel forcibly removed its people from Gaza and I think might have been encouraged to remove the settlements from the West Bank if Hamas had shown some good will and good grace. Maybe too late now, since Israel has perhaps discovered it cannot trust its neighbours under any circumstances no matter how many concessions it makes.Most non partisen (for either side) people desire 2 independent States living in peace , but may disagree with th precise details of ultimate final peace termsthemselves that achieve that That expresses my view, even if I've been accused here of being a spokesman of the IDF for asking for balance. But as to how ? I don't have any answers beyond the obvious ones that get aired.


The argument' that you don't prcousete the Israeli government for war crimes because it might prevent a peace deal is a fallacious one because:1. The possibilty of a peace deal that means anything is remote at best, while the US supports Israel. I doubt if this will change with Obama in power.2. If you extend this argument to other juristictions you'd be giving up on prosecuting half the criminal acts committed on the basis that prosecution may have negative consequences. Why should international criminal law be any different?BTW, did anyone see the ABC screening of a drama imagining Tony Blair's prosecution for war crimes? Not the best production, but can you imagine any network in Australia screening a similar program about John Howard? No, they are all too piss weak over here.

The comments to this entry are closed.